Burden of allergic rhinitis and impact of MP-AzeFlu from the patient perspective : pan European patient survey

Funding for this research was provided by Mylan Inc. Acknowledgements We thank Dr Ruth B Murray (Medscript NZ Ltd) for assistance in drafting and editing this manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Canadian guidelines for rhinosinusitis: practical tools for the busy clinician

Acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) frequently present in clinical practice. Guidelines for management of these conditions have been published extensively in the past. However, a set of guidelines that addressed issues specific to the Canadian environment while offering clear guidance for first-line clinicians was needed, and resulted in the recent publication of Canadian clinical practice guidelines for ABRS and CRS. In addition to addressing issues specific to Canadian physicians, the presented guidelines are applicable internationally, and offer single algorithms for the diagnosis and management of ABRS and CRS, as well as expert opinion in areas that do not have an extensive evidence base. This commentary presents major points from the guidelines, as well as the intended impact of the guidelines on clinical practice

Pre-asthma : a useful concept for prevention and disease-modification? A EUFOREA paper. Part 1—allergic asthma

Funding The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Burden of allergic rhinitis and impact of MP-AzeFlu from the patient perspective: pan European patient survey

ObjectiveThe aims of this survey were to (1) assess the burden of allergic rhinitis (AR) from the patient perspective, (2) investigate MP-AzeFlu use in real life and its impact on patients' lives and (3) explore factors associated with treatment satisfaction.MethodsA cross-sectional, quantitative, online, questionnaire-based survey was conducted in seven European countries (March-June 2019). Questions explored AR burden and treatment satisfaction. Satisfaction was assessed using the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication 9-item (TSQM-9; max score = 100). Participants (aged >= 18 years) had a doctor/healthcare provider confirmed AR diagnosis and used MP-AzeFlu within the last year.ResultsPre-MP-AzeFlu treatment, participants (n = 1004) reported an average of 3.3 (SD:3.5) doctor visits/year, 8.1 (SD:11.0) days/year absenteeism and 15.8 (SD:18.9) days/year presenteeism due to AR. Only 48% of participants used MP-AzeFlu twice/day as recommended. Post-MP-AzeFlu 57% of participants reported better QoL, 47% reported fewer doctor visits and 52% discontinued polypharmacy. Absenteeism and presenteeism were reduced by 2.5 (SD 10.0) and 7.3 (SD:16.0) days/year, respectively. 70% of participants were more/much more satisfied with MP-AzeFlu versus previous AR treatment(s), and >= 70% were satisfied/extremely satisfied with its ability to prevent/treat AR, relieve symptoms and with its onset of action. Mean global, effectiveness and convenience TSQM-9 scores were 70.0 (SD:19.8), 68.3 (SD:21.6) and 72.7 (SD:20.4), respectively. Treatment satisfaction and effectiveness were significantly improved when MP-AzeFlu was taken as recommended.ConclusionsThe impact of AR on patients' lives remains high. Real-life use of MP-AzeFlu reduces that impact and is associated with a high level of effectiveness, convenience and global satisfaction.</p

Setting a national consensus for managing mild and blast traumatic brain injury: post-meeting consensus report

A meeting was held on Wednesday 15 January 2020 to examine the current evidence for non-routine imaging and for neuroendocrine screening in the management of military personnel with brain injury and overlapping symptom domains. The Summit aimed to specifically address the relative utility of magnetoencephalography (MEG), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and susceptibility weighted imaging (SWI) in the UK context. This Consensus Report discusses points of consensus, points for further discussion/points of equipoise and recommendations that arose during, and following, the meeting

Diagnostic thinking and information used in clinical decision-making: a qualitative study of expert and student dental clinicians

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is uncertain whether the range and frequency of Diagnostic Thinking Processes (DTP) and pieces of information (concepts) involved in dental restorative treatment planning are different between students and expert clinicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We video-recorded dental visits with one standardized patient. Clinicians were subsequently interviewed and their cognitive strategies explored using guide questions; interviews were also recorded. Both visit and interview were content-analyzed, following the Gale and Marsden model for clinical decision-making. Limited tests used to contrast data were t, χ², and Fisher's. Scott's π was used to determine inter-coder reliability.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifteen dentists and 17 senior dental students participated in visits lasting 32.0 minutes (± 12.9) among experts, and 29.9 ± 7.1 among students; contact time with patient was 26.4 ± 13.9 minutes (experts), and 22.2 ± 7.5 (students). The time elapsed between the first and the last instances of the clinician looking in the mouth was similar between experts and students. Ninety eight types of pieces of information were used in combinations with 12 DTPs. The main differences found in DTP utilization had dentists conducting diagnostic interpretations of findings with sufficient certainty to be considered definitive twice as often as students. Students resorted more often to more general or clarifying enquiry in their search for information than dentists.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Differences in diagnostic strategies and concepts existed within clearly delimited types of cognitive processes; such processes were largely compatible with the analytic and (in particular) non-analytic approaches to clinical decision-making identified in the medical field. Because we were focused on a clinical presentation primarily made up of non-emergency treatment needs, use of other DTPs and concepts might occur when clinicians evaluate emergency treatment needs, complex rehabilitative cases, and/or medically compromised patients.</p

Testing for allergic disease: Parameters considered and test value

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Test results for allergic disease are especially valuable to allergists and family physicians for clinical evaluation, decisions to treat, and to determine needs for referral.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study used a repeated measures design (conjoint analysis) to examine trade offs among clinical parameters that influence the decision of family physicians to use specific IgE blood testing as a diagnostic aid for patients suspected of having allergic rhinitis. Data were extracted from a random sample of 50 family physicians in the Southeastern United States. Physicians evaluated 11 patient profiles containing four clinical parameters: symptom severity (low, medium, high), symptom length (5, 10, 20 years), family history (both parents, mother, neither), and medication use (prescribed antihistamines, nasal spray, over-the-counter medications). Decision to recommend specific IgE testing was elicited as a "yes" or "no" response. Perceived value of specific IgE blood testing was evaluated according to usefulness as a diagnostic tool compared to skin testing, and not testing.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The highest odds ratios (OR) associated with decisions to test for allergic rhinitis were obtained for symptom severity (OR, 12.11; 95%CI, 7.1–20.7) and length of symptoms (OR, 1.46; 95%CI, 0.96–2.2) with family history having significant influence in the decision. A moderately positive association between testing issues and testing value was revealed (β = 0.624, <it>t </it>= 5.296, <it>p </it>≤ 0.001) with 39% of the variance explained by the regression model.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The most important parameters considered when testing for allergic rhinitis relate to symptom severity, length of symptoms, and family history. Family physicians recognize that specific IgE blood testing is valuable to their practice.</p

The EUFOREA pocket guide for chronic rhinosinusitis

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is known to affect around 5 % of the total population, with major impact on the quality of life of those severely affected (1). Despite a substantial burden on individuals, society and health economies, CRS often remains underdiagnosed, under-estimated and under-treated (2). International guidelines like the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) (3) and the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis 2021 (ICAR) (4) offer physicians insight into the recommended treatment options for CRS, with an overview of effective strategies and guidance of diagnosis and care throughout the disease journey of CRS

Homeopathic treatment of patients with chronic sinusitis: A prospective observational study with 8 years follow-up

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An evaluation of homeopathic treatment and the outcomes in patients suffering from sinusitis for ≥12 weeks in a usual care situation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Subgroup analysis including all patients with chronic sinusitis (ICD-9: 473.9; ≥12 weeks duration) of a large prospective multicentre observational study population. Consecutive patients presenting for homeopathic treatment were followed-up for 2 years, and complaint severity, health-related quality of life (QoL), and medication use were regularly recorded. We also present here patient-reported health status 8 years post initial treatment.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The study included 134 adults (mean age 39.8 ± 10.4 years, 76.1% women), treated by 62 physicians. Patients had suffered from chronic sinusitis for 10.7 ± 9.8 years. Almost all patients (97.0%) had previously been treated with conventional medicine. For sinusitis, effect size (effect divided by standard deviation at baseline) of complaint severity was 1.58 (95% CI 1.77; 1.40), 2.15 (2.38; 1.92), and 2.43 (2.68; 2.18) at 3, 12, and 24 months respectively. QoL improved accordingly, with SF-36 changes in physical component score 0.27 (0.15; 0.39), 0.35 (0.19; 0.52), 0.44 (0.23; 0.65) and mental component score 0.66 (0.49; 0.84), 0.71 (0.50; 0.92), 0.65 (0.39; 0.92), 0.74 (0.49; 1.00) at these points. The effects were still present after 8 years with SF-36 physical component score 0.38 (0.10; 0.65) and mental component score 0.74 (0.49; 1.00).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This observational study showed relevant improvements that persisted for 8 years in patients seeking homeopathic treatment because of sinusitis. The extent to which the observed effects are due to the life-style regulation and placebo or context effects associated with the treatment needs clarification in future explanatory studies.</p