Search

The Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI) guidelines for the use of allergen immunotherapy were first published in 1995; since then, updated guidelines have been published [1-3]. The CSACI has reviewed this topic at its annual meetings and in its official publication [4]. We hope that this "Consensus Guidelines on Practical Issues of Immunotherapy" will promote excellence in the practice of immunotherapy in Canada. ("Allergen immunotherapy" or "specific immunotherapy" has also been termed "allergen vaccine" by the World Health Organization and others [5,6]).

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a disease which is associated with random and often unpredictable attacks of painful swelling typically affecting the extremities, bowel mucosa, genitals, face and upper airway. Attacks are associated with significant functional impairment, decreased Health Related Quality of Life, and mortality in the case of laryngeal attacks. Caring for patients with HAE can be challenging due to the complexity of this disease. The care of patients with HAE in Canada is neither optimal nor uniform across the country. It lags behind other countries where there are more organized models for HAE management, and where additional therapeutic options are licensed and available for use. The objective of this guideline is to provide graded recommendations for the management of patients in Canada with HAE. This includes the treatment of attacks, short-term prophylaxis, long-term prophylaxis, and recommendations for self-administration, individualized therapy, quality of life, and comprehensive care. It is anticipated that by providing this guideline to caregivers, policy makers, patients and their advocates, that there will be an improved understanding of the current recommendations regarding management of HAE and the factors that need to be considered when choosing therapies and treatment plans for individual patients. The primary target users of this guideline are healthcare providers who are managing patients with HAE. Other healthcare providers who may use this guideline are emergency physicians, gastroenterologists, dentists and otolaryngologists, who will encounter patients with HAE and need to be aware of this condition. Hospital administrators, insurers and policy makers may also find this guideline helpful. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1710-1492-10-50) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This document provides healthcare practitioners with information regarding the management of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) to enable them to better meet the needs of this patient population. These guidelines describe controversies in the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) and include recommendations that take into account changes in the bacteriologic landscape. Recent guidelines in ABRS have been released by American and European groups as recently as 2007, but these are either limited in their coverage of the subject of CRS, do not follow an evidence-based strategy, or omit relevant stakeholders in guidelines development, and do not address the particulars of the Canadian healthcare environment. Advances in understanding the pathophysiology of CRS, along with the development of appropriate therapeutic strategies, have improved outcomes for patients with CRS. CRS now affects large numbers of patients globally and primary care practitioners are confronted by this disease on a daily basis. Although initially considered a chronic bacterial infection, CRS is now recognized as having multiple distinct components (eg, infection, inflammation), which have led to changes in therapeutic approaches (eg, increased use of corticosteroids). The role of bacteria in the persistence of chronic infections, and the roles of surgical and medical management are evolving. Although evidence is limited, guidance for managing patients with CRS would help practitioners less experienced in this area offer rational care. It is no longer reasonable to manage CRS as a prolonged version of ARS, but rather, specific therapeutic strategies adapted to pathogenesis must be developed and diffused. Guidelines must take into account all available evidence and incorporate these in an unbiased fashion into management recommendations based on the quality of evidence, therapeutic benefit, and risks incurred. This document is focused on readability rather than completeness, yet covers relevant information, offers summaries of areas where considerable evidence exists, and provides recommendations with an assessment of strength of the evidence base and degree of endorsement by the multidisciplinary expert group preparing the document. These guidelines have been copublished in both Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

Background We published the Canadian 2003 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema (HAE; C1 inhibitor [C1-INH] deficiency) in 2004. Objective To ensure that this consensus remains current. Methods In collaboration with the Canadian Network of Rare Blood Disorder Organizations, we held the second Canadian Consensus discussion with our international colleagues in Toronto, Ontario, on February 3, 2006, and reviewed its content at the Fifth C1 Inhibitor Deficiency Workshop in Budapest on June 2, 2007. Papers were presented by international investigators, and this consensus algorithm approach resulted. Results This consensus algorithm outlines the approach recommended for the diagnosis, therapy, and management of HAE, which was agreed on by the authors of this report. This document is only a consensus algorithm approach and continues to require validation. As such, participants agreed to make this a living 2007 algorithm, a work in progress, and to review its content at future international HAE meetings. Conclusions There is a paucity of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on the treatment of HAE, making levels of evidence to support the algorithm less than optimal. Controlled trials currently under way will provide further insight into the management of HAE. As with our Canadian 2003 Consensus, this 2007 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of HAE was formed through the meeting and agreement of patient care professionals along with patient group representatives and individual patients.

OBJECTIVES: To establish national baseline information on asthma management practices of physicians, to compare the reported practices with the Canadian Consensus recommendations and to identify results potentially useful for interventions that improve physician asthma management practices.DESIGN: National, stratified cross-sectional survey.SETTINGS: The 10 provinces and two territories of Canada, from 1996 to 1997.PARTICIPANTS: Questionnaires were sent to 4489 physicians stratified by province/territory and specialty group (family/general practice, respirology, internal medicine, pediatrics and allergy/immunology); 2605 responses were received.OUTCOME MEASURES: Methods for the diagnosis, treatment, education and follow-up of patients with asthma ('asthma management practices').RESULTS: Significant variations existed among the five specialty groups in asthma management practices. A low use of objective measures of airflow limitation to assist with diagnosis was found among some respondents (mostly family physicians). Up to 40% of physicians regarded the daily fixed dosing (three or four times a day) of inhaled, short acting beta2-agonist as 'first-line therapy' for moderate to severe asthma. A minority of physicians reported using written action plans for patients or referring them to other health professionals for asthma education. Insufficient time during appointments and a perceived lack of appropriate educational materials were frequently cited as reasons for not providing asthma education. The perceived knowledge of the Canadian Consensus recommendations varied among physicians but was lowest among nonspecialists.CONCLUSIONS: The survey showed variations in certain aspects of the management of asthma by physicians. The findings will help to target specific areas for future physician education programs and other behavioural change strategies.