Search

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is the most common chronic inflammatory disease, affecting an estimated 100 million Europeans (1). Despite a substantial burden on individuals, society and health economies (2), AR remains under-diagnosed, under-estimated (in terms of severity), and under-treated (3). Although effective and safe treatments exist, patients wait too long to seek medical advice, often preferring to self-manage at drug stores and at the pharmacy (4).

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is increasingly acknowledged as having a substantial socioeconomic impact associated with impaired work productivity, although available information remains fragmented. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review summarizes recently available information to provide a quantitative estimate of the burden of AR on work productivity including lost work time (ie, absenteeism) and reduced performance while working (ie, presenteeism). METHODS: A Medline search retrieved original studies from 2005 to 2015 pertaining to the impact of AR on work productivity. A pooled analysis of results was carried out with studies reporting data collected through the validated Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. RESULTS: The search identified 19 observational surveys and 9 interventional studies. Six studies reported economic evaluations. Pooled analysis of WPAI-based studies found an estimated 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4; 4.8%) missed work time and 35.9% (95% CI, 29.7; 42.1%) had impairment in at-work performance due to AR. Economic evaluations indicated that indirect costs associated with lost work productivity are the principal contributor to the total AR costs and result mainly from impaired presenteeism. The severity of AR symptoms was the most consistent disease-related factor associated with a greater impact of AR on work productivity, although ocular symptoms and sleep disturbances may independently affect work productivity. Overall, the pharmacologic treatment of AR showed a beneficial effect on work productivity. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides summary estimates of the magnitude of work productivity impairment due to AR and identifies its main determinant factors. This information may help guide both clinicians and health policy makers. (C) 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EP3OS) incorporates symptomatic, endoscopic, and radiologic criteria in the clinical diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), while in epidemiological studies, the definition is based on symptoms only. We aimed to assess the reliability and validity of a symptom-based definition of CRS using data from the GA(2) LEN European survey. On two separate occasions, 1700 subjects from 11 centers provided information on symptoms of CRS, allergic rhinitis, and asthma. CRS was defined by the epidemiological EP3OS symptom criteria. The difference in prevalence of CRS between two study points, the standardized absolute repeatability, and the chance-corrected repeatability (kappa) were determined. In two centers, 342 participants underwent nasal endoscopy. The association of symptom-based CRS with endoscopy and self-reported doctor-diagnosed CRS was assessed. There was a decrease in prevalence of CRS between the two study phases, and this was consistent across all centers (-3.0%, 95% CI: -5.0 to -1.0%, I(2) = 0). There was fair to moderate agreement between the two occasions (kappa = 39.6). Symptom-based CRS was significantly associated with positive endoscopy in nonallergic subjects, and with self-reported doctor-diagnosed CRS in all subjects, irrespective of the presence of allergic rhinitis. Our findings suggest that a symptom-based definition of CRS, according to the epidemiological part of the EP3OS criteria, has a moderate reliability over time, is stable between study centers, is not influenced by the presence of allergic rhinitis, and is suitable for the assessment of geographic variation in prevalence of CRS