Search

Abstract Recommendations for or against the use of interventions need to consider both desirable and undesirable effects as well as patients' values and preferences (V&P). In the decision‐making context, patients' V&P represent the relative importance people place on the outcomes resulting from a decision. Therefore, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects from an intervention should depend not only on the difference between benefits and harms but also on the value that patients place on them. V&P are therefore one of the criteria to be considered when formulating guideline recommendations in the Evidence‐to‐Decision framework developed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group. Patients' V&P may be quantified through utilities, which can be elicited using direct methods (e.g., standard gamble or time trade‐off) or indirect methods (using validated instruments to measure health‐related quality of life, such as EQ‐5D). The GRADE approach recommends conducting systematic reviews to summarise all the available evidence and assess the degree of certainty on V&P. In this article, we discuss the importance of considering patients' V&P and provide examples of how they are considered in the 2024 person‐centred Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines.

Background: The Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Management Pathway (AR-CMaP) was developed to overcome the challenge of implementing current AR guidelines in the Australian community pharmacy practice and support pharmacists in optimally managing patients' AR. Objective(s): To evaluate the impact of AR-CMaP on patients' behaviour and pharmacists' needs in managing AR in the pharmacy. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional, pre-post study design in which the primary outcome was the appropriateness of medications purchased from community pharmacies in Australia. Patient data were collected before and after the implementation of AR-CMaP. Pharmacist needs were recorded before and after AR-CMaP training. Data were analysed descriptively. Results: Six pharmacies, 19 pharmacists and a total of 416 patients were included in the study; 206 pre-AR-CMaP implementation and 210 post-AR-CMaP implementation. Pre-AR-CMaP, 22.4% of patients purchased appropriate AR medication compared with 29.0% post-AR-CMaP implementation. Over half the patient cohort (52%) consulted a pharmacist pre-AR-CMaP and 37% consulted a pharmacist post-AR-CMaP implementation. Post-AR-CMaP, pharmacists reported increased awareness of barriers such as patients' lack of time, patients' perceptions about the pharmacist's role and patient choice to self-manage. Pharmacists also rated an increased desire to interact with other health care providers (HCPs) in caring for patients with AR. Conclusions: While there was a non-statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients purchasing optimal AR medication, AR-CMaP did empower patients to self-select their own medication without further detriment. Moreover, following the implementation of AR-CMaP, pharmacists developed a greater awareness of their role in AR management, exemplified by their increased desire to be actively involved in AR management and increased interaction with other HCPs. Future research needs to explore more effective tools to support pharmacists' clinical decision-making and target patients' self-selection of AR medications. This study highlights that there is an ingrained self-reliance of AR decision-making that has become a habit for people living with AR.

Abstract Background Allergic diseases—rhinitis and asthma—are the most common chronic conditions affecting adults. Traditional approaches to allergy diagnosis and treatment do not meet the health needs of all patients. Treatment adherence remains a challenge for physicians. The ubiquity of Internet access paired with limited in‐person contact with medical personnel in the course of the COVID‐19 pandemic demonstrated the potential of mHealth in communicating health information. Body The abundance of new applications dedicated to various medical specialties encourages reflection on the informed use of such tools. The paper takes a closer look at the potential of mHealth and presents conclusions of selected studies focusing on the use of good apps. The strength weakness opportunities threats analysis was used to illustrate the strengths of the mHealth strategy, as well as its advantages, limitations and areas in need of further development. Conclusion The strength of mHealth depends on the quality and quantity of the collected patient data, its reliable processing, as well as publication of outcomes and conclusions from analyses. Therefore, it is necessary to promote the use of validated applications among patients, physicians and medical staff.

BackgroundAzelastine hydrochloride (AZE) is a selective, non-sedating H1 antagonist with anti-inflammatory and mast cell stabilizing properties, which can be used as an alternative to intranasal corticosteroids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the new formulation of 0.15% AZE compared to that of the placebo at a dosage of two sprays per nostril twice daily for 4 weeks in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR).Materials and methodsA total of 581 subjects were randomized in this double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled trial (NCT00712920) that compared 0.10% (1,096 μg daily) and 0.15% AZE (1,644 μg daily) to the placebo in PAR patients. The study consisted of a 7-day single-blind placebo lead-in period and a 28-day DB treatment period. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in the 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS) for the entire 28-day study period of 0.15% AZE, two sprays per nostril BID compared to the placebo. The efficacy and safety of 0.15% AZE were compared to the placebo.ResultsLeast square (LS) mean improvement from baseline in the morning (AM) and evening (PM) combined rTNSS was statistically significant for the 0.15% AZE group (p = 0.04) compared to the placebo group. LS mean improvement from baseline in the AM and PM combined rTNSS was 4.10 (4.26) units for 0.15% AZE and 3.81 (3.99) for 0.10% AZE. For individual symptoms, there was a statistically significant change in the LS mean (p = 0.04) improvement from baseline on the 12-h reflective assessment for the 0.15% AZE group for runny nose. Further numerical improvements were shown for itchy nose, nasal congestion, runny nose, and sneezing compared to the placebo. No deaths or serious adverse events related to the study medication were reported.ConclusionThe present formulation of 0.15% AZE is safe and effective in relieving PAR symptoms. It effectively relieves nasal and non-nasal symptoms. Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00712920.

Abstract Digital health is an umbrella term which encompasses eHealth and benefits from areas such as advanced computer sciences. eHealth includes mHealth apps, which offer the potential to redesign aspects of healthcare delivery. The capacity of apps to collect large amounts of longitudinal, real‐time, real‐world data enables the progression of biomedical knowledge. Apps for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis were searched for in the Google Play and Apple App stores, via an automatic market research tool recently developed using JavaScript. Over 1500 apps for allergic rhinitis and rhinosinusitis were identified, some dealing with multimorbidity. However, only six apps for rhinitis (AirRater, AllergyMonitor, AllerSearch, Husteblume, MASK‐air and Pollen App) and one for rhinosinusitis (Galenus Health) have so far published results in the scientific literature. These apps were reviewed for their validation, discovery of novel allergy phenotypes, optimisation of identifying the pollen season, novel approaches in diagnosis and management (pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy) as well as adherence to treatment. Published evidence demonstrates the potential of mobile health apps to advance in the characterisation, diagnosis and management of rhinitis and rhinosinusitis patients.

Abstract Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) management requires a coordinated effort from healthcare providers and patients. Pharmacists are key members of these integrated care pathways resolving medication‐related problems, optimizing regimens, improving adherence and recommending therapies while establishing liaisons between patients and physicians. Methods Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) first published a reference document on the pharmacist's role in allergic rhinitis management in 2004. Several guidelines were developed over the past 20 years improving the care of allergic rhinitis patients through an evidence‐based, integrated care approach. Results This ARIA/EAACI/FIP Position Paper is based on the latest ARIA in the Pharmacy guidelines and provides: (a) a structured approach to pharmacists identifying people with AR and/or allergic conjunctivitis as well as those at risk of poor disease control; (b) an evidence‐based clinical decision support tool for optimising the management of allergic rhinitis in the community pharmacy; and (c) a framework of referral to the physician. Conclusion This document is not intended to be a mandatory standard of care but is provided as a basis for pharmacists and their staff to develop relevant local standards of care for their patients, within their local practice environment. Pharmacy care varies between countries, and the guide should be adapted to the local situation.

Abstract The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) is a patient‐reported outcome measurement (PROM) assessing the control of asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) at a 4 week interval. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the measurement properties of CARAT. Following PRISMA and COSMIN guidelines, we searched five bibliographic databases and retrieved studies concerning the development, assessment of properties, validation, and/or cultural adaption of CARAT. The studies' methodological quality, the quality of measurement properties, and the overall quality of evidence were assessed. We performed meta‐analysis of CARAT measurement properties. We included 16 studies. Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test displayed sufficient content validity and very good consistency (meta‐analytical Cronbach alpha = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.80–0.86;I2 = 62.6%). Control of allergic rhinitis and Asthma Test meta‐analytical intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.64–0.98;I2 = 93.7%). It presented good construct validity, especially for correlations with Patient‐reported outcome measures assessing asthma (absolute Spearman correlation coefficients range = 0.67–0.73; moderate quality of evidence), and good responsiveness. Its minimal important difference is 3.5. Overall, CARAT has good internal consistency, reliability, construct validity and responsiveness, despite the heterogeneous quality of evidence. Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test can be used to assess the control of asthma and AR. As first of its kind, this meta‐analysis of CARAT measurement properties sets a stronger level of evidence for asthma and/or AR control questionnaires.

Real-world data represent an increasingly important source of knowledge in health care. However, assessing their representativeness can be challenging. We compared (i) real-world data from a mobile app for allergic rhinitis (MASK-air®) on the usage of oral H1-antihistamines from 2016 to 2020 in 10 European countries with (ii) Google Trends data on the relative volume of searches for such antihistamines. For each country, we sorted 5 different oral H1-antihistamines by their frequency of use and volume of searches. We found perfect agreement on the order of antihistamine use in MASK-air® and in Google Trends searches in 4 countries (France, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). Different levels of agreement were observed in the remaining countries (kappa coefficient from −0.50 to 0.75). Oral H1-antihistamine data from Google Trends and MASK-air® were consistent with nationwide medication sales data from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. These results suggest that MASK-air® data may be consistent with other sources of real-world data, although assessing the representativeness of their users may require further studies.

There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR). We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR. The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses. Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Evidence regarding the effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) on allergic rhinitis has been provided mostly by randomised controlled trials, with little data from real‐life studies. Objective To compare the reported control of allergic rhinitis symptoms in three groups of users of the MASK‐air® app: those receiving sublingual AIT (SLIT), those receiving subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), and those receiving no AIT. Methods We assessed the MASK‐air® data of European users with self‐reported grass pollen allergy, comparing the data reported by patients receiving SLIT, SCIT and no AIT. Outcome variables included the daily impact of allergy symptoms globally and on work (measured by visual analogue scales—VASs), and a combined symptom‐medication score (CSMS). We applied Bayesian mixed‐effects models, with clustering by patient, country and pollen season. Results We analysed a total of 42,756 days from 1,093 grass allergy patients, including 18,479 days of users under AIT. Compared to no AIT, SCIT was associated with similar VAS levels and CSMS. Compared to no AIT, SLIT‐tablet was associated with lower values of VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 7.5 units out of 100; 95% credible interval [95%CrI] = −12.1;−2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 5.0; 95%CrI = −8.5;−1.5), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 3.7; 95%CrI = −9.3;2.2). When compared to SCIT, SLIT‐tablet was associated with lower VAS global allergy symptoms (average difference = 10.2; 95%CrI = −17.2;−2.8), lower VAS Work (average difference = 7.8; 95%CrI = −15.1;0.2), and a lower CSMS (average difference = 9.3; 95%CrI = −18.5;0.2). Conclusion In patients with grass pollen allergy, SLIT‐tablet, when compared to no AIT and to SCIT, is associated with lower reported symptom severity. Future longitudinal studies following internationally‐harmonised standards for performing and reporting real‐world data in AIT are needed to better understand its ‘real‐world’ effectiveness.

Abstract Background Despite availability of clinical guidelines, underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and poor adherence are still significant concerns in allergic rhinitis (AR) therapeutic management. We investigated clinical practice patterns and prescribing behavior of Italian healthcare professionals (HCPs) specialized in AR. Methods One-hundred allergologists, 100 ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialists, and 150 general practitioners (GPs) were recruited. The survey assessed: socio-demographic, work experience, monthly caseload, prescription drivers. Next, HCPs were invited to retrospectively recover patients’ clinical data to investigate: AR clinical characteristics, therapy management, prescription patterns, patient adherence. Descriptive statistics, Chi square, One-Way analysis of variance, and Two-Way Analysis of Variance were performed. Results Allergologists visited more AR patients (31% of monthly caseload) than ENTs (21%, p 7). Conclusions This survey describes the therapeutic approach adopted by Italian physicians to cope with AR and shows that HCPs underestimated AR severity and had a non-realistic perception of patients’ adherence. These findings suggest that further efforts are required to improve AR clinical management in Italy.

Abstract Genome wide association studies (GWASs) have revealed several airway disease-associated risk loci. Their role in the onset of asthma, allergic rhinitis (AR) or chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), however, is not yet fully understood. The aim of this review is to evaluate the airway relevance of loci and genes identified in GWAS studies. GWASs were searched from databases, and a list of loci associating significantly (p

Abstract Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only treatment option available for allergic patients with disease-modifying intention. Both efficacy and safety has been demonstrated for multiple trials in children, adolescents and adults. Though regulatory requirements for marketing authorization have been clearly outlined and an increasing number of high quality trials has been initiated, multiple concepts and details in study design may be further elaborated, harmonized and improved. An international group of experts in the field of AIT has thoroughly reviewed and discussed current concepts and provided an outlook on further improvement especially in the age group of children and adolescents. Emphasis of the group’s discussion as a basis for this article was put on (i) the regulatory background of marketing authorization of AIT products including the ‘Pediatric Investigational Plan’, (ii) patient reported outcomes and endpoints in AIT trials, (iii) considerations regarding the ‘minimal clinically important difference’, (iv) the role of placebo effects in AIT clinical trials and clinical routine and (v) the potential of mobile Health for future development of AIT. Current concepts in AIT have been optimized throughout the recent decades, but there remains room for improvement e.g., in the topics outlined in this article.

Abstract Background Nasal irrigations (NI) are increasingly used as an over-the-counter adjunctive treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR), but clinical studies on their effectiveness are limited. Methods An open-label, controlled, non-randomized, real-life study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of NI with a new hypertonic solution as add-on treatment for AR. Children and adolescents with AR were prescribed symptomatic treatment. The active group also received an additional sea-water NI solution supplemented with algae extracts. The primary endpoint was symptom control, assessed by the control of allergic rhinitis and asthma test (CARAT) questionnaires. Moreover, the MASK/Allergy Diary was used to track symptoms and daily medication use that were combined in a novel total symptom/medication score (TSMS). Results We assessed 76 patients. Overall, there was a significant improvement of CARAT results (median Z-score change of 1.1 in the active/NI group vs. 0.4 in the control group; p = 0.035). Among patients > 12 years old (n = 51), there was a significant improvement in CARAT10 results among participants receiving NI (21.0 to 25.5; p

Abstract Background MASK‐air® is an app that supports allergic rhinitis patients in disease control. Users register daily allergy symptoms and their impact on activities using visual analog scales (VASs). We aimed to assess the concurrent validity, reliability, and responsiveness of these daily VASs. Methods Daily monitoring VAS data were assessed in MASK‐air® users with allergic rhinitis. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating daily VAS values with those of the EuroQol‐5 Dimensions (EQ‐5D) VAS, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) score, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Allergic Specific (WPAI‐AS) Questionnaire (work and activity impairment scores). Intra‐rater reliability was assessed in users providing multiple daily VASs within the same day. Test–retest reliability was tested in clinically stable users, as defined by the EQ‐5D VAS, CARAT, or “VAS Work” (i.e., VAS assessing the impact of allergy on work). Responsiveness was determined in users with two consecutive measurements of EQ‐5D‐VAS or “VAS Work” indicating clinical change. Results A total of 17,780 MASK‐air® users, with 317,176 VAS days, were assessed. Concurrent validity was moderate–high (Spearman correlation coefficient range: 0.437–0.716). Intra‐rater reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged between 0.870 (VAS assessing global allergy symptoms) and 0.937 (VAS assessing allergy symptoms on sleep). Test–retest reliability ICCs ranged between 0.604 and 0.878—“VAS Work” and “VAS asthma” presented the highest ICCs. Moderate/large responsiveness effect sizes were observed—the sleep VAS was associated with lower responsiveness, while the global allergy symptoms VAS demonstrated higher responsiveness. Conclusion In MASK‐air®, daily monitoring VASs have high intra‐rater reliability and moderate–high validity, reliability, and responsiveness, pointing to a reliable measure of symptom loads.

Abstract Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 23–30% of the European population with equal prevalence reported in Belgium. Despite guidelines on the correct use of effective treatment, up to 40% of AR patients remain uncontrolled. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been shown to improve the level of control up to 84% of patients being controlled by AIT. Recently, new guidelines for AIT have been published, supporting the clinical evidence for effectiveness of various subcutaneous and sublingual products for AIT in patients who are allergic to airborne allergens. AIT in AR patients not only reduces nasal and/or ocular symptoms but also induces tolerance and has preventive potential. Adoption of AIT into daily clinical practice in Belgium and other European countries is hampered primarily by reimbursement issues of each of the single products but also by several patient- and physician-related factors. Patients need to be better informed about the effectiveness of AIT and the different routes of administration of AIT. Physicians dealing with AR patients should inform patients on tolerance-inducing effects of AIT and are in the need of a harmonized and practical guide that supports them in selecting eligible patients for AIT, in choosing evidence-based AIT products and in following treatment protocols with proven efficacy. Therefore, a stepwise and holistic approach is needed for better adoption of AIT in the real-life setting in Belgium.

Abstract Background This article summarizes a EUFOREA symposium, presented during the European Rhinology Research Forum in Brussels (9–10 November 2017; https://www.rhinologyresearch.eu/) which focused on novel pathways and therapeutic approaches in allergic rhinitis (AR). Main body AR remains under-diagnosed, under-estimated and under-treated. A key component in understanding the AR landscape has been the realization of a significant mismatch between how physicians instruct AR patients to manage their disease and what AR patients actually do in real life. Data from the Allergy Diary (developed by MACVIA ARIA) showed that AR patients take their medication prn, rapidly switch treatments, often experience poor control, use multiple therapies and stop treatment when symptoms are controlled. Better control of AR may be achievable by using an AR treatment which has a rapid onset of action and which effectively targets breakthrough symptoms. Indeed, AR patients report complete symptom relief, lack of breakthrough symptoms, rapid onset of action, safety and use on an ‘as needed’ basis as key targets for new nasal sprays. MP-AzeFlu comprises intranasal azelastine and fluticasone propionate (FP) in a novel formulation delivered in a single device. It is the first AR treatment to break the 5 min onset of action threshold and provides clinically relevant symptom relief in 15 min, much faster than that noted for FP + oral loratadine. MP-AzeFlu also significantly reduces nasal hyperresponsiveness (NHR) which may be responsible for the breakthrough symptoms frequently reported by AR patients. Mechanisms underlying MP-AzeFlu’s effect include inhibition of mast cell degranulation, stabilization of the mucosal barrier, synergistic inhibition of inflammatory cell recruitment and a unique desensitization of sensory neurons expressing the transient receptor potential A1 and V1 channels. Conclusion With the most rapid onset of action and onset of clinically-relevant effect of any AR medication currently available, and proven efficacy in the treatment of NHR, MP-AzeFlu is an AR treatment which provides what patients want, and fits how patients manage their AR in real life.

Abstract Background Allergic rhinitis and asthma as single entities affect more boys than girls in childhood but more females in adulthood. However, it is unclear if this prevalence sex-shift also occurs in allergic rhinitis and concurrent asthma. Thus, our aim was to compare sex-specific differences in the prevalence of coexisting allergic rhinitis and asthma in childhood, adolescence and adulthood. Methods Post-hoc analysis of systematic review with meta-analysis concerning sex-specific prevalence of allergic rhinitis. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we assessed male–female ratios for coexisting allergic rhinitis and asthma in children (0–10 years), adolescents (11–17) and adults (> 17). Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE for the time period 2000–2014. We included population-based observational studies, reporting coexisting allergic rhinitis and asthma as outcome stratified by sex. We excluded non-original or non-population-based studies, studies with only male or female participants or selective patient collectives. Results From a total of 6539 citations, 10 studies with a total of 93,483 participants met the inclusion criteria. The male–female ratios (95% CI) for coexisting allergic rhinitis and asthma were 1.65 (1.52; 1.78) in children (N = 6 studies), 0.61 (0.51; 0.72) in adolescents (N = 2) and 1.03 (0.79; 1.35) in adults (N = 2). Male–female ratios for allergic rhinitis only were 1.25 (1.19; 1.32, N = 5) in children, 0.80 (0.71; 0.89, N = 2) in adolescents and 0.98 (0.74; 1.30, N = 2) in adults, respectively. Conclusions The prevalence of coexisting allergic rhinitis and asthma shows a clear male predominance in childhood and seems to switch to a female predominance in adolescents. This switch was less pronounced for allergic rhinitis only.

Abstract Evidence that enables us to identify, assess, and access the small airways in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has led INTERASMA (Global Asthma Association) and WAO to take a position on the role of the small airways in these diseases. Starting from an extensive literature review, both organizations developed, discussed, and approved the manifesto, which was subsequently approved and endorsed by the chairs of ARIA and GA2LEN. The manifesto describes the evidence gathered to date and defines and proposes issues on small airway involvement and management in asthma and COPD with the aim of challenging assumptions, fostering commitment, and bringing about change. The small airways (defined as those with an internal diameter

Allergic Rhinitis (AR) is both a common and high burden disease, with the majority of AR sufferers purchasing suboptimal/inappropriate AR medication from community pharmacies. Unfortunately, it is still a challenge to translate the AR management guidelines that are available at both a global and national level into practice. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of community pharmacists with regards to the implementation of AR management guidelines in real-life everyday practice. This exploration took the form of a qualitative research study in which pharmacists were interviewed following the implementation of a guideline-driven AR management pathway in their pharmacies. Fifteen pharmacists from six pharmacies agreed to participate in a telephone interview. Five themes were identified that encompassed the sentiment of the pharmacists during the interviews: (1) impact of training on pharmacists’ approach to patients and AR management recommendations; (2) patient engagement and the importance of appropriate tools; (3) patient barriers to change in practice; (4) physical, logistical, and inter-professional barriers to change within the pharmacy environment; and (5) recommendations for improvement. The results of this study indicate that, following the implementation of an AR management pathway, pharmacists believe that their interactions with patients around their AR were enhanced through the use of appropriate tools and education. However, if optimal AR management is to be delivered within the community pharmacy setting, the undertaking needs to be collaborative with both pharmacy assistants and general practitioners.

The paradigm of how we manage allergic rhinitis is shifting with a growing understanding that it is a complex process, requiring a coordinated effort from healthcare providers and patients. Pharmacists are key members of these integrated care pathways resolving medication-related problems, optimizing regimens, improving adherence and recommending therapies while establishing liaisons between patients and physicians. Community pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare professionals to the public and allergic rhinitis is one of the most common diseases managed by pharmacists. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines developed over the past 20 years have improved the care of allergic rhinitis patients through an evidence-based, integrated care approach. In this paper, we propose an integrated approach to allergic rhinitis management in community pharmacy following the 2019 ARIA in the pharmacy guidelines.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE) is central to the development of allergic diseases. Cross-linking of cell-bound IgE by the allergen leads to the initiation of the inflammatory cascade. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, forms complexes with free IgE, thereby inhibiting the allergic reaction before its commencement. A survey of the clinical trials performed on omalizumab indicated that this anti-IgE antibody is efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of separate and concomitant asthma and rhinitis. In patients with poorly controlled asthma, omalizumab reduced the asthma exacerbation and emergency visit rate, along with improving the quality of life. The improvement in asthma control was associated with a reduction of inhaled and oral corticosteroids. Improved nasal symptom scores and a reduced need for antihistamines were observed in patients with allergic rhinitis. Omalizumab was also proven to be effective as an add-on therapy for concomitant asthma and rhinitis. In conclusion, omalizumab provides an integrated approach for the treatment and management of allergic respiratory diseases.

Abstract Background The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT10) has been proposed as the first tool to implement the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiative guidelines in clinical practice. To serve this purpose, it must have adequate properties to assess the control of an individual over time. This study aimed to prospectively assess the test-retest reliability, responsiveness and longitudinal validity of CARAT10. Methods Adults with asthma and allergic rhinitis were enrolled at 4 outpatient clinics of Portuguese central hospitals. At each of the two visits, 4 to 6 weeks apart, patients filled out CARAT10 and additional questionnaires, followed by a medical evaluation blinded to the questionnaires’ answers. Results From the 62 patients included, 51 patients completely filled out CARAT10 at both visits. The test-retest reliability, computed as an intra-class correlation coefficient, was 0.82. Regarding responsiveness, a significant change (p = 0.002) of CARAT10 score in clinically unstable patients was observed (95%CI -5.08; -1.31) and the Guyatt’s responsiveness index was 1.54. As for the longitudinal validity assessment, the correlation coefficients of the changes of CARAT10 scores with those of ACQ5 and symptoms VAS ranged from 0.49 to 0.65, while with the physician assessment of control they ranged from 0.31 to 0.41. Conclusion CARAT10 has good test-retest reliability, responsiveness and longitudinal validity. It can be used to assess control of allergic rhinitis and asthma, both to compare groups in clinical studies and to evaluate individual patients in clinical practice.

Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. Objective We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. Methods The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. Results The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H 1 -antihistamines, intranasal H 1 -antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. Conclusions Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guidelines on the treatment of asthma, allergic rhinitis (AR), and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) lack recommendations for house dust mite (HDM) allergy. An expert panel reviewed current guidelines in the light of new data to assess whether guidelines could be improved. Most guidelines and key position papers did not provide specific recommendations on treatment of allergic asthma (AA) caused by HDM allergy, although some included AIT as a treatment option for AA in general. Around half of the guidelines stated that AIT with HDM extract was an effective treatment for AR, with several indicating sublingual immunotherapy as an option. This heterogeneity is caused by quality issues affecting studies of AIT with perennial allergens in patients with AA and AR, including use of different diagnosis and severity criteria, lack of consistent scoring or grading systems for primary and safety outcomes, and lack of consensus on treatment parameters. There is a need for well-designed clinical trials to serve as a basis for guideline recommendations. Although results from recent studies strengthen the evidence base for the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy in patients with HDM-induced AA and AR, their effect on subsequent guideline updates will depend on the methodology and evidence model used by each guideline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé: Contexte: La rhinite allergique (RA) est une maladie fréquente, en augmentation, pouvant altérer la qualité de vie. Objectif: Cette étude avait pour objectif principal d’évaluer la prévalence des RA sévères non contrôlées en médecine générale. Méthodes: Elle a été réalisée auprès de médecins généralistes entre mai 2011 et avril 2012. Chaque patient consultant pour RA était évalué initialement par un questionnaire et une échelle visuelle analogique (EVA), puis était réévalué par téléphone après 15jours de traitement à l’aide d’une échelle numérique. Une valeur supérieure ou égale à 5 définissait le non-contrôle de la RA. Résultats: Quatre-vingt-treize patients ont été inclus par 188 médecins. Ces patients étaient âgés de 38,4±15,3ans avec un ratio homme/femme de 0,79. Une RA modérée à sévère (EVA≥5) concernait 90 % des patients et 83 % d’entre eux disaient être gênés dans la vie quotidienne. La prévalence des RA sévères non contrôlées était de 20 %. Ces patients présentaient plus fréquemment des infections des voies aériennes supérieures (12 % vs 0 % avaient eu au moins trois infections au cours des 12 mois précédents), une malformation nasale (38 % vs 9 %, p <0,005) et un trouble de l’olfaction (81 % vs 55 %, p =0,05) que les patients peu sévères (EVA<5). Conclusion: En médecine générale, la majorité des patients atteints de RA (80 %) sont contrôlés par le traitement de première intention. L’EVA pourrait être utilisée dans l’évaluation de la sévérité et de la réponse au traitement de la RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma represent global health problems for all age groups. Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in the same subjects. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) was initiated during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999 (published in 2001). ARIA has reclassified AR as mild/moderate-severe and intermittent/persistent. This classification closely reflects patients'' needs and underlines the close relationship between rhinitis and asthma. Patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are confronted with various treatment choices for the management of AR. This contributes to considerable variation in clinical practice, and worldwide, patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are faced with uncertainty about the relative merits and downsides of the various treatment options. In its 2010 Revision, ARIA developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR and asthma comorbidities based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ARIA is disseminated and implemented in more than 50 countries of the world. Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Most patients with allergic rhinitis consult in primary care. A simple test is needed to evaluate globally the severity of allergic rhinitis to assess the efficacy of treatment. Objective: This study compared the responsiveness of visual analog scale (VAS) scores between baseline and treatment with the 2 gold-standard outcomes (symptom score and quality of life). Five hundred eighty-six subjects were included, all with allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollens and all seen in primary care. Methods: A randomized, multicenter, open-label parallel study was designed to compare 2 therapeutic strategies in patients with allergic rhinitis. The disease-specific Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire total score, the symptom score, and the VAS score (0-10 cm) were all self-assessed by the patient before and after 2 weeks of treatment. Receiver operating characteristic curves and cost function were used to assess VAS cutoff scores and to distinguish between patients with no clinical improvement and patients with improvement in symptoms, quality of life, or both. Results: The optimal cutoff in VAS score change separating the patients without improvement from those with improvement is 0.30 cm. By using the cost of false-positive and false-negative results, a difference of more than 1 cm is significant. However, when patients show an improvement in both symptoms and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores, the median improvement on the VAS is 7 cm. Conclusions: A VAS, when used for a global evaluation of rhinitis, is highly responsive to change during the treatment of a large number of patients in a cluster randomized pragmatic trial. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Allergic rhinitis is a disease impairing quality of life, sleep, and work. A new classification for allergic rhinitis, Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), has recently been proposed. Objective: To study the effect of allergic rhinitis using ARIA definitions to determine severity and duration. Methods: A total of 3052 patients consulting general practitioners for allergic rhinitis were studied. Patients were classified according to the 4 classes of ARIA. In all patients, quality of life (Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire), sleep (Jenkins questionnaire), and work performance (Allergy-Specific Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire) were assessed. Results: Mild intermittent rhinitis was diagnosed in 11% of the patients, mild persistent rhinitis in 8%, moderate/severe intermittent rhinitis in 35%, and moderate/severe persistent rhinitis in 46%. The severity of rhinitis has more of an effect on quality of life, sleep, daily activities, and work performance than the duration of rhinitis. In moderate/severe rhinitis, more than 80% of patients report impaired activities, as opposed to only 40% with mild rhinitis. Conclusion: It seems that the term moderate/severe should be replaced by severe. A study in the general population is necessary, however, to assess the prevalence of the 4 ARIA classes of allergic rhinitis, especially in patients who are not consulting physicians for their symptoms. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Résumé Plus de 9 patients sur 10 consultant en médecine de ville pour rhinite allergique souffrent d’une rhinite modérée à sévère. Leurs symptômes sont souvent insuffisamment soulagés par les traitements et de nouvelles options thérapeutiques sont nécessaires. Dymista ® (Meda, Solna, Suède) est une nouvelle formulation associant du chlorhydrate d’azélastine et du propionate de fluticasone, administrée par voie nasale. Cette association est indiquée dans le traitement de la rhinite allergique saisonnière et perannuelle modérée à sévère quand une monothérapie par un antihistaminique ou un corticoïde intranasal est jugée insuffisante. Cette association fixe a montré une efficacité supérieure aux spécialités commercialisées de chlorhydrate d’azélastine et de propionate de fluticasone en monothérapie dans le soulagement des symptômes nasaux et oculaires de la rhinite allergique, évalués séparément ou à l’aide d’un score global. Le soulagement des symptômes a été plus rapide qu’avec chacun des principes actifs délivré sous la même formulation et avec le même pulvérisateur. Cependant, la différence d’efficacité clinique entre l’association fixe et ses composants était alors inférieure à celle observée avec les spécialités commercialisées d’azélastine et de propionate de fluticasone, suggérant qu’une partie de l’efficacité de Dymista ® est liée à la formulation des principes actifs et/ou aux propriétés du pulvérisateur. Cette première association fixe représente une alternative thérapeutique pour la prise en charge de la rhinite allergique insuffisamment soulagée par les antihistaminiques et les corticoïdes intranasaux en monothérapie. More than 9 out of 10 patients with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis seek consultation. Their symptoms are often inadequately relieved by the usual treatment, making new therapeutic options desirable. Dymista ® (Meda, Solna, Sweden) is a nasal spray containing a mixture of the ingredients of two currently marketed nasal sprays, azelastine hydrochloride (an antihistamine) and fluticasone propionate (an intranasal corticoid). This new combination is indicated in the treatment of moderate-to-severe seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis when previous monotherapy with an antihistamine or with an intranasal corticosteroid was not satisfactory. In the present study, the effect of treatment with Dymista ® was compared with treatment with either one or the other commercialized products, plus a placebo group, in patients with typical allergic rhinitis. The degree of reduction of typical nose and typical eyes symptoms in patients with these diseases during treatment with Dymista ® , azelastine hydrochloride or fluticasone propionate nasal sprays was evaluated separately; two pharmacokinetic studies were also done. Dymista ® was found to have higher clinical efficacy than either of the other two commercialized nasal sprays, and substantial symptom improvement was achieved significantly earlier with Dymista ® . However, according to the results of the pharmacokinetic study, the relative improvement in efficacy was less with Dymista ® than that observed in patients treated with either of the marketed nasal sprays, suggesting the possibility of the impact of formulation and of the nasal spray device on clinical efficacy. In conclusion, this first study of the association of an antihistamine and corticoid nasal spray represents a therapeutic alternative for the management of patients with allergic rhinitis insufficiently relieved by monotherapy with either antihistamines or intranasal corticosteroids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) are common allergic comorbidities with a strong genetic component in which epigenetic mechanisms might be involved. Objective We aimed to identify novel risk loci for asthma and AR while accounting for parent-of-origin effect. Methods We performed a series of genetic analyses, taking into account the parent-of-origin effect in families ascertained through asthma: (1) genome-wide linkage scan of asthma and AR in 615 European families, (2) association analysis with 1233 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) covering the significant linkage region in 162 French Epidemiological Study on the Genetics and Environment of Asthma families with replication in 154 Canadian Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean asthma study families, and (3) association analysis of disease and significant SNPs with DNA methylation (DNAm) at CpG sites in 40 Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean asthma study families. Results We detected a significant paternal linkage of the 4q35 region to asthma and allergic rhinitis comorbidity (AAR; P = 7.2 × 10 −5 ). Association analysis in this region showed strong evidence for the effect of the paternally inherited G allele of rs10009104 on AAR ( P = 1.1 × 10 −5 , reaching the multiple-testing corrected threshold). This paternally inherited allele was also significantly associated with DNAm levels at the cg02303933 site ( P = 1.7 × 10 −4 ). Differential DNAm at this site was found to mediate the identified SNP-AAR association. Conclusion By integrating genetic and epigenetic data, we identified that a differentially methylated CpG site within the melatonin receptor 1A (MTNR1A) gene mediates the effect of a paternally transmitted genetic variant on the comorbidity of asthma and AR. This study provides a novel insight into the role of epigenetic mechanisms in patients with allergic respiratory diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé Afin d’analyser la perception de la rhinite allergique (RA) par les patients, l’observatoire OPERA reposant sur la réponse à un questionnaire « médecin » et un « auto-questionnaire patient » a été réalisé sur un échantillon de 372 médecins généralistes tirés au sort ayant inclus 1817 patients (âge médian : 41 ans, 53,2 % de femmes, ancienneté moyenne de la RA : 7,9 ± 8,1 ans). Il s’agissait d’identifier les attentes de ces patients et leur niveau de satisfaction en matière de prise en charge thérapeutique. D’après la classification ARIA, 62,6 % présentaient une RA persistante et 37,4 % une RA intermittente. Une RA modérée/sévère était diagnostiquée chez 85,7 % des patients. Les symptômes les plus gênants étaient par ordre de fréquence la rhinorrhée (94,8 %), l’obstruction nasale (93,4 %) et les éternuements (92,9 %). Les traitements les plus fréquemment prescrits étaient les anti-histaminiques H1 oraux (87,7 %), suivis des corticoïdes par voie nasale (56,7 %) et dans une moindre mesure les anti-histaminiques H1 (20,8 %) et les décongestionnants nasaux (20,2 %). Les anti-histaminiques H1 oraux et corticoïdes oraux étaient plus fréquemment prescrits chez les patients présentant une RA modérée à sévère (respectivement, 88,6 % et 14,2 % versus 82,2 % et 5,8 % chez ceux présentant une RA légère, p = 0,004 et p < 0,001). La majorité des patients ont déclaré être satisfaits de leur traitement avec un soulagement rapide (66,3 %) et une bonne tolérance (84,2 %). La relation médecin–patient était jugée globalement satisfaisante, même si certains patients ont déclaré souhaiter davantage d’information sur la gestion de leurs symptômes, les traitements et les effets indésirables. Cette enquête a permis de montrer que la RA persistante associée à des symptômes modérés à sévères était la plus fréquente des RA observées en médecine de ville. To analyze how French patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and their physicians perceive this disease, the OPERA Observatory carried out a study based on the response to a “physician questionnaire” and a self-administered “patient questionnaire”. The study included a sample of 372 randomly selected General Practitioners (GPs) and 1817 patients, with a median age 41 years, 53.2% women, and the mean duration of the AR 7.9 ± 8.1 years. The aim of the study was to identify the patients’ expectations and their level of satisfaction with the therapeutic care they received. According to the ARIA classification, 62.6% had persistent AR and 37.4% had intermittent AR. Moderate to severe AR was diagnosed in 85.7% of the patients. The most troublesome symptoms in order of frequency were rhinorrhea (94.8%), nasal obstruction (93.4%) and sneezing (92.9%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were oral H1 antihistamines (87.7%), followed by intranasal corticosteroids (56.7%) and to a lesser extent the nasal H1 anti-histamines (20.8%) and decongestants (20.2%). Oral H1anti-histamines and corticosteroids were more frequently prescribed in patients with moderate to severe AR, respectively, 88.6% and 14.2% compared to 82.2% and 5.8% in patients suffering from mild AR ( P = 0.004 for the antihistamines and P < 0.001 for the corticosteroids). The majority of patients reported being satisfied with their treatment, with rapid relief of symptoms (66.3%) and good tolerance to the drugs (84.2%). The physician/patient relationship was considered satisfactory, although some patients said they would like more information on the management of their symptoms, their treatments and the potential side effects. This survey showed that the AR associated with persistent moderate to severe symptoms was the most commonly AR observed in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy of MP29-02 (a novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate in an advanced delivery system) has been well established in controlled clinical trials. This study was designed to assess the use of MP29-02 and its effectiveness in routine clinical practice. This was a German multicenter, prospective, noninterventional study, including 1781 allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. Eligible patients (i.e., acute AR symptoms and visual analog scale [VAS] score >50 mm) were included, assigned MP29-02 at baseline, and reassessed after ∼14 days. Patients assessed symptom control using a VAS from 0 (not at all bothersome) to 100 mm (very bothersome) in the morning before MP29-02 use, on days 0, 1, 3, and 7 and after ∼ 14 days. Patients' perceived levels of disease control were assessed on day 3. The Youden index determined patient-reported VAS score cutoffs on day 3 for 'well controlled' and 'partly controlled.' MP29-02 reduced the VAS score from 75.4 mm (SD = 17.2) at baseline to 21.3 mm (SD = 18.3) by the last visit, a shift of 54.1 mm (SD = 24.6). One in every two patients felt their symptoms were well controlled at day 3. This perception of well-controlled symptoms at day 3 corresponded to an optimal VAS cutoff of 36 mm. On average, patients treated with MP29-02 crossed this well-controlled VAS cutoff by last visit. Similar results were found in adolescents, adults, and older adults, in those with perennial AR (PAR), seasonal AR (SAR), or PAR + SAR and in those with more and less severe disease. MP29-02 provides effective and rapid symptom control across all age groups in a real-life setting with responder rates higher than those observed in controlled clinical trials, supporting MP29-02's position as the drug of choice for the treatment for AR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Allergic rhinitis ( AR) severity is evaluated using scores such as Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire ( RQLQ) and total symptom score ( TSS). However, a simple assessment is needed to enable physicians to evaluate the severity of the AR and the efficacy of the treatment. Objective The main objective was to validate visual analogue scale ( VAS) as a simple quantitative tool to assess the burden of AR in primary care. Methods The study was multi-centre prospective observational conducted in patients consulting general practitioners for symptomatic rhinitis. VAS, RQLQ and TSS6 were assessed at the consultation day and 14 days later, and changes were analysed using paired test. Correlations between VAS, RQLQ and TSS6 were assessed. Cut-off levels for VAS, which discriminate significant from insignificant changes, were established using Receiver Operating Characteristic curves. Results A total of 990 patients were included in the study. According to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma classification, mild intermittent rhinitis was diagnosed in 20% patients, mild persistent in 17%, moderate/severe intermittent in 15% and moderate/severe persistent in 48%, at the consultation day. At day-14, rhinitis symptoms and QoL improved significantly in almost all patients. Impairment incurred by AR and assessed with VAS improved also. The established cut-off variation of 23 mm for VAS was associated with a cut-off variation of 0.5 for RQLQ. Sensitivity analysis with RQLQ and TSS6 scales confirmed the aptitude of the cut-off value (23 mm) to discriminate changes in symptoms and QoL. Conclusion and Clinical Relevance The VAS can detect with high sensitivity the variations of symptoms and QoL in patients with AR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To cite this article: Bousquet J, Heinzerling L, Bachert C, Papadopoulos NG, Bousquet PJ, Burney PG, Canonica GW, Carlsen KH, Cox L, Haahtela T, Lodrup Carlsen KC, Price D, Samolinski B, Simons FER, Wickman M, Annesi-Maesano I, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bergmann KC, Bindslev-Jensen C, Casale TB, Chiriac A, Cruz AA, Dubakiene R, Durham SR, Fokkens WJ, Gerth-van-Wijk R, Kalayci O, Kowalski ML, Mari A, Mullol J, Nazamova-Baranova L, O'Hehir RE, Ohta K, Panzner P, Passalacqua G, Ring J, Rogala B, Romano A, Ryan D, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Todo-Bom A, Valenta R, Woehrl S, Yusuf OM, Zuberbier T, Demoly P. Practical guide to skin prick tests in allergy to aeroallergens. Allergy 2012; 67: 18-24. Abstract This pocket guide is the result of a consensus reached between members of the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN) and Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA). The aim of the current pocket guide is to offer a comprehensive set of recommendations on the use of skin prick tests in allergic rhinitis-conjunctivitis and asthma in daily practice. This pocket guide is meant to give simple answers to the most frequent questions raised by practitioners in Europe, including 'practicing allergists', general practitioners and any other physicians with special interest in the management of allergic diseases. It is not a long or detailed scientific review of the topic. However, the recommendations in this pocket guide were compiled following an in-depth review of existing guidelines and publications, including the 1993 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology position paper, the 2001 ARIA document and the ARIA update 2008 (prepared in collaboration with GA2LEN). The recommendations cover skin test methodology and interpretation, allergen extracts to be used, as well as indications in a variety of settings including paediatrics and developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common health problem, with significant medical costs and impact on general health. Even so, prevalence figures for Europe are unavailable. In this study, conducted by the GA2LEN network of excellence, the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and nasal Polyps (EP3OS) diagnostic criteria are applied to estimate variation in the prevalence of Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) for Europe. Method: A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of adults aged 15-75 years in 19 centres in Europe. Participants reported symptoms of CRS, and doctor diagnosed CRS, allergic rhinitis, age, gender and smoking history. Definition of CRS was based on the EP3OS diagnostic criteria: the presence of more than two of the symptoms: (i) nasal blockage, (ii) nasal discharge, (iii) facial pain/pressure or (iv) reduction in sense of smell, for >12 weeks in the past year - with at least one symptom being nasal blockage or discharge. Results: Information was obtained from 57 128 responders living in 19 centres in 12 countries. The overall prevalence of CRS by EP3OS criteria was 10.9% (range 6.9-27.1). CRS was more common in smokers than in nonsmokers (OR 1.7: 95% CI 1.6-1.9). The prevalence of self-reported physician-diagnosed CRS within centres was highly correlated with the prevalence of EP3OS-diagnosed CRS. Conclusion: This is the first European international multicentre prevalence study of CRS. In this multicentre survey of adults in Europe, about one in ten participants had CRS with marked geographical variation. Smoking was associated with having CRS in all parts of Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To cite this article: Bousquet J, Schünemann HJ, Zuberbier T, Bachert C, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bousquet PJ, Brozek J, Canonica GW, Casale TB, Demoly P, Gerth van Wijk R, Ohta K, Bateman ED, Calderon M, Cruz AA, Dolen WK, Haughney J, Lockey RF, Lötvall J, O’Byrne P, Spranger O, Togias A, Bonini S, Boulet LP, Camargos P, Carlsen KH, Chavannes NH, Delgado L, Durham SR, Fokkens WJ, Fonseca J, Haahtela T, Kalayci O, Kowalski ML, Larenas-Linnemann D, Li J, Mohammad Y, Mullol J, Naclerio R, O’Hehir RE, Papadopoulos N, Passalacqua G, Rabe KF, Pawankar R, Ryan D, Samolinski B, Simons FER, Valovirta E, Yorgancioglu A, Yusuf OM, Agache I, Aït-Khaled N, Annesi-Maesano I, Beghe B, Ben Kheder A, Blaiss MS, Boakye DA, Bouchard J, Burney PG, Busse WW, Chan-Yeung M, Chen Y, Chuchalin AG, Costa DJ, Custovic A, Dahl R, Denburg J, Douagui H, Emuzyte R, Grouse L, Humbert M, Jackson C, Johnston SL, Kaliner MA, Keith PK, Kim YY, Klossek JM, Kuna P, Le LT, Lemiere C, Lipworth B, Mahboub B, Malo JL, Marshall GD, Mavale-Manuel S, Meltzer EO, Morais-Almeida M, Motala C, Naspitz C, Nekam K, Niggemann B, Nizankowska-Mogilnicka E, Okamoto Y, Orru MP, Ouedraogo S, Palkonen S, Popov TA, Price D, Rosado-Pinto J, Scadding GK, Sooronbaev TM, Stoloff SW, Toskala E, van Cauwenberge P, Vandenplas O, van Weel C, Viegi G, Virchow JC, Wang DY, Wickman M, Williams D, Yawn BP, Zar HJ, Zernotti M, Zhong N, In collaboration with the WHO Collaborating Center of Asthma and Rhinitis (Montpellier). Development and implementation of guidelines in allergic rhinitis – an ARIA-GA2LEN paper. Allergy 2010; 65: 1212–1221. The links between asthma and rhinitis are well characterized. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines stress the importance of these links and provide guidance for their prevention and treatment. Despite effective treatments being available, too few patients receive appropriate medical care for both diseases. Most patients with rhinitis and asthma consult primary care physicians and therefore these physicians are encouraged to understand and use ARIA guidelines. Patients should also be informed about these guidelines to raise their awareness of optimal care and increase control of the two related diseases. To apply these guidelines, clinicians and patients need to understand how and why the recommendations were made. The goal of the ARIA guidelines is to provide recommendations about the best management options for most patients in most situations. These recommendations should be based on the best available evidence. Making recommendations requires the assessment of the quality of available evidence, deciding on the balance between benefits and downsides, consideration of patients' values and preferences, and, if applicable, resource implications. Guidelines must be updated as new management options become available or important new evidence emerges. Transparent reporting of guidelines facilitates understanding and acceptance, but implementation strategies need to be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To cite this article: Braido F, Bousquet PJ, Brzoza Z, Canonica GW, Compalati E, Fiocchi A, Fokkens W, Gerth van Wijk R, La Grutta S, Lombardi C, Maurer M, Pinto AM, Ridolo E, Senna GE, Terreehorst I, Todo Bom A, Bousquet J, Zuberbier T, Baiardini I. Specific recommendations for PROs and HRQoL assessment in allergic rhinitis and/or asthma: a GA2LEN taskforce position paper. Allergy 2010; 65: 959–968. The GA2LEN taskforce on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) published in 2009 a position paper concerning PROS and HRQoL assessment in clinical trials on allergy. Because of the specificity of this topic in asthma and rhinitis, specific recommendations are needed. The aim of this position paper is to define PROs and their meaning in asthma and rhinitis research, explore the available tools to provide criteria for a proper choice, identify patient-related factor which could influence PROs assessment, define specific recommendations for assessment, analysis and results spreading, underline the unexplored areas and unmet needs. PROs assessment is gaining increasing importance, and it must be performed with a rigorous methodological procedure and using validated tools. This approach enables to better understand patient-related factors influencing clinical trials and real-life management outcomes, identify patients subgroups that can benefit from specific treatment and management plan and tailor treatment to address PROs (not only physician-defined targets) to improve asthma and rhinitis management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sublingual immunotherapy is gaining widespread attention as a viable alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. In addition, sublingual immunotherapy has been studied in other allergic disorders including asthma. However, a review of published studies indicates that there are deficiencies and considerable heterogeneity in both design and data interpretation of sublingual immunotherapy studies. These deficiencies have made it somewhat difficult to assess the appropriate place of sublingual immunotherapy in guidelines for the therapy of allergic diseases. Moreover, several unpublished oral and sublingual immunotherapy studies in the United States failed to meet primary endpoints. This article reviews data from sublingual immunotherapy trials and makes recommendations about appropriate designs of future sublingual immunotherapy studies. It is hoped that these recommendations will result in more adequately designed sublingual immunotherapy trials to facilitate the appropriate placement of this therapy to treat patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and other allergic diseases. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]