Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several unmet needs have been identified in allergic rhinitis: identification of the time of onset of the pollen season, optimal control of rhinitis and comorbidities, patient stratification, multidisciplinary team for integrated care pathways, innovation in clinical trials and, above all, patient empowerment. MASK-rhinitis ( MACVIA- ARIA Sentinel NetworK for allergic rhinitis) is a simple system centred around the patient which was devised to fill many of these gaps using Information and Communications Technology ( ICT) tools and a clinical decision support system ( CDSS) based on the most widely used guideline in allergic rhinitis and its asthma comorbidity ( ARIA 2015 revision). It is one of the implementation systems of Action Plan B3 of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing ( EIP on AHA). Three tools are used for the electronic monitoring of allergic diseases: a cell phone-based daily visual analogue scale ( VAS) assessment of disease control, CARAT (Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test) and e-Allergy screening (premedical system of early diagnosis of allergy and asthma based on online tools). These tools are combined with a clinical decision support system ( CDSS) and are available in many languages. An e- CRF and an e-learning tool complete MASK. MASK is flexible and other tools can be added. It appears to be an advanced, global and integrated ICT answer for many unmet needs in allergic diseases which will improve policies and standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a highly prevalent disease that affects the quality of life, especially in the 'severe chronic upper airway disease' (SCUAD) group of patients who still have severe symptoms after adequate treatment. This study investigated the prevalence of uncontrolled AR and SCUAD consulting in the Allergy Department of Tongji Hospital, Wuhan, China. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, all patients consulting for AR were prospectively assessed using visual analog scale (VAS) and Allergic Rhinitis Control Test (ARCT) and put on standardized treatment based on the Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines. After 15 days, they were reevaluated by a telephone interview using a numerical scale (NS) and ARCT. A score of ARCT of <20 defined uncontrolled AR and a score of NS of ≥5 at day 15 defined SCUAD patients. Results: A total of 252 patients were included. Moderate/severe AR (VAS ≥ 5) was diagnosed in 82.9% of the patients which had an impact on sleep (86.9%), work life (84.9%), social activities (81%), and physical activities (90.1%). Patients with uncontrolled AR (27.7%) at day 15 more frequently presented a higher weight (p = 0.042), history of ear, nose, and throat (ENT) infection or antibiotics intake for respiratory infection in the last 12 months (62.3% versus 45.6%; p = 0.018), smoking (15.9% versus 6.7%; p = 0.024), and smell disturbance (26.1% versus 11.7%; p = 0.005). Patients with SCUAD (24.5%) more frequently presented a history of ENT infection or antibiotics intake for respiratory infection in the last 12 months (63.9% versus 45.7%; p = 0.014) and smell disturbance (27.9% versus 11.7%; p = 0.003), and less commonly had atopic dermatitis (13.1% versus 28.2%; p = 0.017). Conclusion: Uncontrolled AR and SCUAD patients are numerous. VAS and ARCT are simple and quantitative methods and self-completion questionnaires that can be used for a global evaluation of the severity and control of AR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé: Contexte: La rhinite allergique (RA) est une maladie fréquente, en augmentation, pouvant altérer la qualité de vie. Objectif: Cette étude avait pour objectif principal d’évaluer la prévalence des RA sévères non contrôlées en médecine générale. Méthodes: Elle a été réalisée auprès de médecins généralistes entre mai 2011 et avril 2012. Chaque patient consultant pour RA était évalué initialement par un questionnaire et une échelle visuelle analogique (EVA), puis était réévalué par téléphone après 15jours de traitement à l’aide d’une échelle numérique. Une valeur supérieure ou égale à 5 définissait le non-contrôle de la RA. Résultats: Quatre-vingt-treize patients ont été inclus par 188 médecins. Ces patients étaient âgés de 38,4±15,3ans avec un ratio homme/femme de 0,79. Une RA modérée à sévère (EVA≥5) concernait 90 % des patients et 83 % d’entre eux disaient être gênés dans la vie quotidienne. La prévalence des RA sévères non contrôlées était de 20 %. Ces patients présentaient plus fréquemment des infections des voies aériennes supérieures (12 % vs 0 % avaient eu au moins trois infections au cours des 12 mois précédents), une malformation nasale (38 % vs 9 %, p <0,005) et un trouble de l’olfaction (81 % vs 55 %, p =0,05) que les patients peu sévères (EVA<5). Conclusion: En médecine générale, la majorité des patients atteints de RA (80 %) sont contrôlés par le traitement de première intention. L’EVA pourrait être utilisée dans l’évaluation de la sévérité et de la réponse au traitement de la RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Allergic rhinitis ( AR) severity is evaluated using scores such as Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire ( RQLQ) and total symptom score ( TSS). However, a simple assessment is needed to enable physicians to evaluate the severity of the AR and the efficacy of the treatment. Objective The main objective was to validate visual analogue scale ( VAS) as a simple quantitative tool to assess the burden of AR in primary care. Methods The study was multi-centre prospective observational conducted in patients consulting general practitioners for symptomatic rhinitis. VAS, RQLQ and TSS6 were assessed at the consultation day and 14 days later, and changes were analysed using paired test. Correlations between VAS, RQLQ and TSS6 were assessed. Cut-off levels for VAS, which discriminate significant from insignificant changes, were established using Receiver Operating Characteristic curves. Results A total of 990 patients were included in the study. According to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma classification, mild intermittent rhinitis was diagnosed in 20% patients, mild persistent in 17%, moderate/severe intermittent in 15% and moderate/severe persistent in 48%, at the consultation day. At day-14, rhinitis symptoms and QoL improved significantly in almost all patients. Impairment incurred by AR and assessed with VAS improved also. The established cut-off variation of 23 mm for VAS was associated with a cut-off variation of 0.5 for RQLQ. Sensitivity analysis with RQLQ and TSS6 scales confirmed the aptitude of the cut-off value (23 mm) to discriminate changes in symptoms and QoL. Conclusion and Clinical Relevance The VAS can detect with high sensitivity the variations of symptoms and QoL in patients with AR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To cite this article: Bousquet J, Schünemann HJ, Zuberbier T, Bachert C, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bousquet PJ, Brozek J, Canonica GW, Casale TB, Demoly P, Gerth van Wijk R, Ohta K, Bateman ED, Calderon M, Cruz AA, Dolen WK, Haughney J, Lockey RF, Lötvall J, O’Byrne P, Spranger O, Togias A, Bonini S, Boulet LP, Camargos P, Carlsen KH, Chavannes NH, Delgado L, Durham SR, Fokkens WJ, Fonseca J, Haahtela T, Kalayci O, Kowalski ML, Larenas-Linnemann D, Li J, Mohammad Y, Mullol J, Naclerio R, O’Hehir RE, Papadopoulos N, Passalacqua G, Rabe KF, Pawankar R, Ryan D, Samolinski B, Simons FER, Valovirta E, Yorgancioglu A, Yusuf OM, Agache I, Aït-Khaled N, Annesi-Maesano I, Beghe B, Ben Kheder A, Blaiss MS, Boakye DA, Bouchard J, Burney PG, Busse WW, Chan-Yeung M, Chen Y, Chuchalin AG, Costa DJ, Custovic A, Dahl R, Denburg J, Douagui H, Emuzyte R, Grouse L, Humbert M, Jackson C, Johnston SL, Kaliner MA, Keith PK, Kim YY, Klossek JM, Kuna P, Le LT, Lemiere C, Lipworth B, Mahboub B, Malo JL, Marshall GD, Mavale-Manuel S, Meltzer EO, Morais-Almeida M, Motala C, Naspitz C, Nekam K, Niggemann B, Nizankowska-Mogilnicka E, Okamoto Y, Orru MP, Ouedraogo S, Palkonen S, Popov TA, Price D, Rosado-Pinto J, Scadding GK, Sooronbaev TM, Stoloff SW, Toskala E, van Cauwenberge P, Vandenplas O, van Weel C, Viegi G, Virchow JC, Wang DY, Wickman M, Williams D, Yawn BP, Zar HJ, Zernotti M, Zhong N, In collaboration with the WHO Collaborating Center of Asthma and Rhinitis (Montpellier). Development and implementation of guidelines in allergic rhinitis – an ARIA-GA2LEN paper. Allergy 2010; 65: 1212–1221. The links between asthma and rhinitis are well characterized. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines stress the importance of these links and provide guidance for their prevention and treatment. Despite effective treatments being available, too few patients receive appropriate medical care for both diseases. Most patients with rhinitis and asthma consult primary care physicians and therefore these physicians are encouraged to understand and use ARIA guidelines. Patients should also be informed about these guidelines to raise their awareness of optimal care and increase control of the two related diseases. To apply these guidelines, clinicians and patients need to understand how and why the recommendations were made. The goal of the ARIA guidelines is to provide recommendations about the best management options for most patients in most situations. These recommendations should be based on the best available evidence. Making recommendations requires the assessment of the quality of available evidence, deciding on the balance between benefits and downsides, consideration of patients' values and preferences, and, if applicable, resource implications. Guidelines must be updated as new management options become available or important new evidence emerges. Transparent reporting of guidelines facilitates understanding and acceptance, but implementation strategies need to be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine the spreading level of the WHO-ARIA (World Health Organization's Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) guidelines among the medical community and their influence on medical practices. Methods A cross-sectional study based on a questionnaire was performed between April and July 2005 on randomly chosen general practitioners (GPs) (943) and ear, nose and throat (ENT) physicians (277). Results About 54.4% of the physicians claimed to know the WHO-ARIA guidelines and 49.7% said they followed them. These results vary significantly, mainly according to medical specialty (ENT vs. GP). In comparison to those who did not know the guidelines, their patients benefited more frequently ( P<0.0001) from allergen search (42.2% vs. 31.7%), a nasal endoscopy (38.3% vs. 26.0%), a follow-up consultation (64.9% vs. 52.6%) and written information on rhinitis (30.7% vs. 14.1%). Paradoxically, they do not search more frequently for asthma and do not provide different first-line treatment strategy and duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergic rhinitis is a major chronic respiratory disease because of its prevalence, impacts on quality of life and work/school performance, economic burden, and links with asthma. Family doctors (also known as ‘primary care physicians’ or ‘general practitioners’) play a major role in the management of allergic rhinitis as they make the diagnosis, start the treatment, give the relevant information, and monitor most of the patients. Disease management that follows evidence-based practice guidelines yields better patient results, but such guidelines are often complicated and may recommend the use of resources not available in the family practice setting. A joint expert panel of the World Organization of Family Doctors (Wonca), the International Primary Care Airways Group (IPAG) and the International Primary Care Respiratory Group (IPCRG), offers support to family doctors worldwide by distilling the globally accepted, evidence-based recommendations from the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative into this brief reference guide. This guide provides tools intended to supplement a thorough history taking and the clinician’s professional judgment in order to provide the best possible care for patients with allergic rhinitis. A diagnostic Questionnaire specifically focuses the physician’s attention on key symptoms and markers of the disease. When questionnaire responses suggest a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, a Diagnosis Guide and a simple flowchart then lead the clinician through a series of investigations commonly available in primary care to support the diagnosis. In addition, key aspects of differential diagnosis are illuminated. According to ARIA, allergic rhinitis may be classified as Intermittent or Persistent, and as Mild or Moderate/Severe. The classification of rhinitis determines the treatment necessary, as set out in an ARIA flowchart included in this guide. The guide also includes information about the strength of evidence for efficacy of certain rhinitis treatments, a brief discussion of pediatric aspects, and a glossary of allergic rhinitis medications to assist the clinician in making medication choices for each individual patient. Finally, many patients with allergic rhinitis also have concomitant asthma, and this must be checked. The World Organization of Family Doctors has been delegated by WHO as the group that will be taking primary responsibility for education about chronic respiratory diseases among primary care physicians globally. This document will be a major resource in this educational program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: The WHO–ARIA allergic rhinitis recommendations are evidence-based. Objectives: To determine the percentage of doctors who know and follow the WHO-ARIA guidelines and to evaluate their influence on medical practices. Methods: A cross sectional analysis based on a questionnaire was performed between April and July 2005 on randomly chosen general practitioners (943) and ENT doctors (277). Results: 54.4% of the doctors claimed to know the WHO-ARIA guidelines. 4.7% knew but did not follow them. Patients whom doctors knew the guidelines benefitted more frequently (p<0.0001) from an allergen search (42.2 vs 31.7%), a nasal endoscopy (38.3 vs 26.0%), a follow-up consultation (64.9 vs 52.6%) and written informations on rhinitis (30.7 vs 14.1%). There was no difference in terms of asthma search, first line treatment and duration of treatment. Conclusions: When the WHO–ARIA guidelines are known by doctors (half), they seem to be followed. They favor: allergy testing, nose examination, repeat visit, written information but paradoxically do not influence search for asthma and first line treatment strategy and duration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Allergic rhinitis is commonly divided into seasonal and perennial rhinitis. The recent Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) workshop proposes to replace these terms by intermittent vs persistent rhinitis. Methods: In order to test the new ARIA classification against the classical one used in medical practice in France, we designed two cross-sectional surveys: (i) a spring survey, where 1321 general practitioners enrolled 3026 patients consulting for seasonal allergic rhinitis and (ii) an autumn–winter survey, where 1346 doctors enrolled 3507 patients for perennial allergic rhinitis. Both doctors and patients filled out a specific questionnaire on allergic rhinitis. Results: Focusing on the number of days per week and consecutive weeks per year, the patients described the duration of their symptoms (based on an auto-questionnaire). About 43.7% of the patients, classified by their doctor as seasonal, did in fact have persistent rhinitis, whereas 44.6% classified as perennial had intermittent rhinitis. Conclusions: The proposal of the ARIA expert panel defining the chronology of allergic rhinitis as number of days per week and consecutive weeks per year is likely to change daily physician practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidemiological and pathophysiologic studies have shown that allergic rhinitis and asthma often occur in combination. The internationally developed ARIA position paper (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) recently offered recommendations on allergic rhinitis. As part of this new report and prior to its diffusion, we investigated the management of rhinopathies in asthma patients by pulmonologists in their everyday practice. Methods: From March to June 2000, 477 (48%) French pulmonologists in office-based practice participated in the survey. They were asked to include their first five asthmatic adult patients. In addition to descriptive statistics, univariate and multivariate analyzes were performed. Results: We studied 1623 patients with varying severity of asthma (sex ratio 0.9; median age 35 years). The pulmonologists reported rhinopathy in 76.6% of these, with a chronic course in 91%. Among the patients, 67.1% reported rhinopathy. The diagnosis was allergic rhinitis in 66.2% of participants and nasal polyposis in 10.1%. Examination of the nasal cavities was performed by the pulmonologists themselves in 56.2% of patients. Imaging of the sinuses was performed radiographically in 55.3% of enrolled patients and/or by computed tomography in 17.2%. Referral to an ENT specialist occurred for 21.6% of patients, being more common for patients with rhinitis that failed to respond to medical therapy (although some pulmonologists referred their patients routinely). Conclusions: The high prevalence of rhinopathies in asthma patients requires that these conditions are recognized and managed by pulmonologists. Thus, our findings support one of the central messages contained in the new ARIA guidelines—asthma patients should be investigated routinely for rhinitis and other rhinopathies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]