Impact of comorbid conditions on asthmatic adults and children

Comorbid conditions (comorbidities) can complicate the diagnosis and management of asthma. In different age groups, comorbid conditions can present varying challenges, including diagnostic confusion due to mimicking asthma symptoms, exacerbation of asthma symptoms, therapy for comorbid conditions affecting asthma or therapy for asthma affecting these conditions. This review aims to summarise some common comorbid conditions with asthma, such as rhinitis, vocal cord dysfunction, gastro-oesophageal reflux, psychiatric disorders, obesity and obstructive sleep apnoea, and discuss their prevalence, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment, highlighting any differences in how they impact children and adults. Overall, there is a lack of data on the impact of treating comorbid conditions on asthma outcomes and further studies are needed to guide age-appropriate asthma management in the presence of these conditions.This article is freely available via Open Access. Click on the Publisher URL to access it via the publisher's site.A.K. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Griffols, Teva, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Paladdin, Pfizer, Purdue, Sanofi and Trudel, outside the submitted work. D.M.G.H. reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Chiesi and Pfizer and grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, outside the submitted work. S.J.S. reports fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Propeller Health, Regeneron and Sanofi, outside the submitted work all paid to the University of Colorado School of Medicinepublished version, accepted version, submitted versio

Patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores

Purpose: To investigate patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for different graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Methods: We recruited cancer patients (any treatment and diagnosis) in four European countries and health professionals in the Netherlands. Using a questionnaire, we assessed objective and self-rated understanding of QLQ-C30 scores and preferences for five presentation styles (bar and line charts, with or without color coding, and a heat map). Results: In total, 548 patients and 227 health professionals participated. Eighty-three percent of patients and 85 % of professionals self-rated the graphs as very or quite easy to understand; this did not differ between graphical presentation styles. The mean percentage of correct answers to questions objectively assessing understanding was 59 % in patients, 78 % in medical specialists, and 74 % in other health professionals. Objective understanding did not differ between graphical formats in patients. For non-colored charts, 49.8 % of patients did not have a preference. Colored bar charts (39 %) were preferred over heat maps (20 %) and colored line charts (12 %). Medical specialists preferred heat maps (46 %) followed by non-colored bar charts (19 %), whereas these charts were equally valued by other health professionals (both 32 %). Conclusion: The substantial discrepancy between participants’ high self-rated and relatively low objective understanding of graphical presentation of PRO results highlights the need to provide sufficient guidance when presenting such results. It may be appropriate to adapt the presentation of PRO results to individual preferences. This could be facilitated when PROs are administered and presented to patients and health professionals electronically