Implementation gaps for asthma prevention and control

Asthma and allergic diseases can start in childhood and persist throughout life, but could also be manifested later, at any time for still misunderstood reasons. They are major chronic multifactorial respiratory diseases, for which prevention, early diagnosis and treatment is recognized as a priority for the Europe's public health policy and the United Nations. Given that allergy triggers (including infections, rapid urbanization leading to loss in biodiversity, pollution and climate changes) are not expected to change in a foreseeable future, it is imperative that steps are taken to develop, strengthen and optimize preventive and treatment strategies. Currently there are good treatments for asthma, several risk factors are known (e.g., allergies, rhinitis, tobacco smoke) and tools to control the disease have been developed. However, we are still uncertain how to prevent patients from developing asthma and allergic diseases. In this paper, we list the positive and negative experiences in this field as well as analyze the missing links in the process. This critical analysis will be the basis of setting-up an effective program for prevention and making, a process labeled as "implementation gaps". (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Patients' perceptions of the potential of breathing training for asthma: a qualitative study.

Poor symptom control is common in asthma. Breathing training exercises may be an effective adjunct to medication; it is therefore important to understand facilitators and barriers to uptake of breathing training exercises

Pollen season is reflected on symptom load for grass and birch pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in different geographic areas—An EAACI Task Force Report

Background: The effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR) depends on the definition of pollen exposure intensity or time period. We recently evaluated pollen and symptom data from Germany to examine the new definitions of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) on pollen season and peak pollen period start and end. Now, we aim to confirm the feasibility of these definitions to properly mirror symptom loads for grass and birch pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in other European geographical areas such as Austria, Finland and France, and therefore their suitability for AIT and clinical practice support. Methods: Data from twenty-three pollen monitoring stations from three countries in Europe and for 3 years (2014-2016) were used to investigate the correlation between birch and grass pollen concentrations during the birch and grass pollen season defined via the EAACI criteria, and total nasal symptom and medication scores as reported with the aid of the patient's hay-fever diary (PHD). In addition, we conducted a statistical analysis, together with a graphical investigation, to reveal correlations and dependencies between the studied parameters. Results: The analysis demonstrated that the definitions of pollen season as well as peak pollen period start and end as proposed by the EAACI are correlated to pollen-induced symptom loads reported by PHD users during birch and grass pollen season. A statistically significant correlation (slightly higher for birch) has been found between the Total Nasal Symptom and Medication Score (TNSMS) and the pollen concentration levels. Moreover, the maximum symptom levels occurred mostly within the peak pollen periods (PPP) following the EAACI criteria. Conclusions: Based on our analyses, we confirm the validity of the EAACI definitions on pollen season for both birch and grass and for a variety of geographical locations for the four European countrie

Skin testing in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media - a European multicenter study

BACKGROUND: Iodinated contrast media cause both immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this prospective study was to determine the specificity and sensitivity of skin tests in patients who have experienced such reactions. METHODS: Skin prick, intradermal and patch tests with a series of contrast media were conducted in 220 patients with either immediate or nonimmediate reaction. Positive skin tests were defined according to internationally accepted guidelines. Seventy-one never-exposed subjects and 11 subjects who had tolerated contrast medium exposure, served as negative controls. RESULTS: Skin test specificity was 96-100%. For tests conducted within the time period from 2 to 6 months after the reaction, up to 50% of immediate reactors and up to 47% of nonimmediate reactors were skin test positive. For immediate reactors, the intradermal tests were the most sensitive, whereas delayed intradermal tests in combination with patch tests were needed for optimal sensitivity in nonimmediate reactors. Contrast medium cross-reactivity was more common in the nonimmediate than in the immediate group. Interestingly, 49% of immediate and 52% of nonimmediate symptoms occurred in previously unexposed patients. Many of these patients were skin test positive, indicating that they were already sensitized at the time of first contrast medium exposure. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that at least 50% of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media are caused by an immunological mechanism. Skin testing appears to be a useful tool for diagnosis of contrast medium allergy and may play an important role in selection of a safe product in previous reactors

Skin testing in patients with hypersensitivity reactions to iodinated contrast media - a European multicenter study

BACKGROUND: Iodinated contrast media cause both immediate and nonimmediate hypersensitivity reactions. The aim of this prospective study was to determine the specificity and sensitivity of skin tests in patients who have experienced such reactions. METHODS: Skin prick, intradermal and patch tests with a series of contrast media were conducted in 220 patients with either immediate or nonimmediate reaction. Positive skin tests were defined according to internationally accepted guidelines. Seventy-one never-exposed subjects and 11 subjects who had tolerated contrast medium exposure, served as negative controls. RESULTS: Skin test specificity was 96-100%. For tests conducted within the time period from 2 to 6 months after the reaction, up to 50% of immediate reactors and up to 47% of nonimmediate reactors were skin test positive. For immediate reactors, the intradermal tests were the most sensitive, whereas delayed intradermal tests in combination with patch tests were needed for optimal sensitivity in nonimmediate reactors. Contrast medium cross-reactivity was more common in the nonimmediate than in the immediate group. Interestingly, 49% of immediate and 52% of nonimmediate symptoms occurred in previously unexposed patients. Many of these patients were skin test positive, indicating that they were already sensitized at the time of first contrast medium exposure. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that at least 50% of hypersensitivity reactions to contrast media are caused by an immunological mechanism. Skin testing appears to be a useful tool for diagnosis of contrast medium allergy and may play an important role in selection of a safe product in previous reactors

Beta-lactam-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions: A genome-wide association study of a deeply phenotyped cohort

Background β-lactam antibiotics are associated with a variety of immune-mediated or hypersensitivity reactions, including immediate (Type I) reactions mediated by antigen-specific IgE. Objective To identify genetic predisposing factors for immediate reactions to β-lactam antibiotics. Methods Patients with a clinical history of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to either penicillins or cephalosporins, which were immunologically confirmed, were recruited from allergy clinics. A genome-wide association study (GWAS) was conducted on 662 patients (the discovery cohort) with a diagnosis of immediate hypersensitivity and the main finding was replicated in a cohort of 98 Spanish cases, recruited using the same diagnostic criteria as the discovery cohort. Results GWAS identified rs71542416 within the Class II HLA region as the top hit (P = 2x10-14); this was in linkage disequilibrium with HLA-DRB1*10:01 (OR = 2.93 P = 5.4x10-7) and HLA-DQA1*01:05 (OR=2.93, P=5.4x10-7). Haplotype analysis identified that HLA-DRB1*10:01 was a risk factor even without the HLA-DQA1*01:05 allele. The association with HLA-DRB1*10:01 was replicated in another cohort, with the meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts showing that HLA-DRB1*10:01 increased the risk of immediate hypersensitivity at a genome-wide level (OR = 2.96 P=4.1x10-9). No association with HLA-DRB1*10:01 was identified in 268 patients with delayed hypersensitivity reactions to β-lactams. Conclusion HLA-DRB1*10:01 predisposed to immediate hypersensitivity reactions to penicillins. Further work to identify other predisposing HLA and non-HLA loci is required. Clinical implications This novel insight into the mechanisms of immediate reactions associated with penicillins may be of use in risk stratifying patients where penicillin cannot be excluded as an etiological agent

Fluticasone/formoterol combination therapy is as effective as fluticasone/salmeterol in the treatment of asthma, but has a more rapid onset of action: an open-label, randomized study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) and the long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) formoterol fumarate (formoterol) are being made available as a combination product (fluticasone/formoterol, <b><it>flutiform</it></b>^®) in a single aerosol inhaler. This 12-week, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre, phase 3 study compared the efficacy and safety of fluticasone/formoterol with the commercially available combination product fluticasone/salmeterol.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients aged ≥ 18 years (N = 202) with mild-to-moderate–severe, persistent asthma for ≥ 6 months prior to screening were included in the study. After a screening phase (4–10 days), eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive fluticasone/formoterol or fluticasone/salmeterol during the 12-week treatment period. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of fluticasone/formoterol versus fluticasone/salmeterol, measured by pre-dose forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁), at week 12.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fluticasone/formoterol was comparable to fluticasone/salmeterol for the primary efficacy endpoint, mean pre-dose FEV₁at week 12. The new combination was also comparable to fluticasone/salmeterol for change from baseline to week 12 in pre-dose FEV₁, change from pre-dose FEV₁at baseline to 2-hour post-dose FEV₁at week 12 and discontinuations due to lack of efficacy. Importantly, fluticasone/formoterol was superior to fluticasone/salmeterol in time to onset of action throughout the duration of the study. The two treatments demonstrated similar results for various other secondary efficacy parameters, including other lung function tests, patient-reported outcomes, rescue medication use, asthma exacerbations and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. Fluticasone/formoterol was well tolerated and had a good safety profile that was similar to fluticasone/salmeterol.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results of this study indicate that fluticasone/formoterol is as effective as fluticasone/salmeterol, and has a more rapid onset of action, reflecting the faster bronchodilatory effects of formoterol compared with those of salmeterol. If patients perceive the benefits of therapy with fluticasone/formoterol more rapidly than with fluticasone/salmeterol, this could have a positive impact on preference and adherence.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00476073">NCT00476073</a></p

ARIA 2016: Care pathways implementing emerging technologies for predictive medicine in rhinitis and asthma across the life cycle

Abstract The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative commenced during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999. The initial goals were (1) to propose a new allergic rhinitis classification, (2) to promote the concept of multi-morbidity in asthma and rhinitis and (3) to develop guidelines with all stakeholders that could be used globally for all countries and populations. ARIA—disseminated and implemented in over 70 countries globally—is now focusing on the implementation of emerging technologies for individualized and predictive medicine. MASK [MACVIA (Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif)-ARIA Sentinel NetworK] uses mobile technology to develop care pathways for the management of rhinitis and asthma by a multi-disciplinary group and by patients themselves. An app (Android and iOS) is available in 20 countries and 15 languages. It uses a visual analogue scale to assess symptom control and work productivity as well as a clinical decision support system. It is associated with an inter-operable tablet for physicians and other health care professionals. The scaling up strategy uses the recommendations of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The aim of the novel ARIA approach is to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers, whatever their age, sex or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequalities incurred by the disease