Search

Severe or therapy-resistant asthma is increasingly recognised as a major unmet need. A Task Force, supported by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, reviewed the definition and provided recommendations and guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of severe asthma in children and adults. A literature review was performed, followed by discussion by an expert committee according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for development of specific clinical recommendations. When the diagnosis of asthma is confirmed and comorbidities addressed, severe asthma is defined as asthma that requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller and/or systemic corticosteroids to prevent it from becoming "uncontrolled" or that remains "uncontrolled" despite this therapy. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition consisting of phenotypes such as eosinophilic asthma. Specific recommendations on the use of sputum eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide to guide therapy, as well as treatment with anti-IgE antibody, methotrexate, macrolide antibiotics, antifungal agents and bronchial thermoplasty are provided. Coordinated research efforts for improved phenotyping will provide safe and effective biomarker-driven approaches to severe asthma therapy.

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation is recognized as a core component of the management of individuals with chronic respiratory disease. Since the 2006 American Thoracic Society (ATS)/European Respiratory Society (ERS) Statement on Pulmonary Rehabilitation, there has been considerable growth in our knowledge of its efficacy and scope., Purpose: The purpose of this Statement is to update the 2006 document, including a new definition of pulmonary rehabilitation and highlighting key concepts and major advances in the field., Methods: A multidisciplinary committee of experts representing the ATS Pulmonary Rehabilitation Assembly and the ERS Scientific Group 01.02, "Rehabilitation and Chronic Care," determined the overall scope of this update through group consensus. Focused literature reviews in key topic areas were conducted by committee members with relevant clinical and scientific expertise. The final content of this Statement was agreed on by all members., Results: An updated definition of pulmonary rehabilitation is proposed. New data are presented on the science and application of pulmonary rehabilitation, including its effectiveness in acutely ill individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and in individuals with other chronic respiratory diseases. The important role of pulmonary rehabilitation in chronic disease management is highlighted. In addition, the role of health behavior change in optimizing and maintaining benefits is discussed., Conclusions: The considerable growth in the science and application of pulmonary rehabilitation since 2006 adds further support for its efficacy in a wide range of individuals with chronic respiratory disease.

Introduction: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that healthcare recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the 11th of a series of 14 articles that methodologists and researchers from around the world prepared to advise guideline developers for respiratory and other diseases on how to achieve this goal. For this article, we developed five key questions and updated a review of the literature on moving from evidence to recommendations., Methods: We addressed the following specific questions.What is the strength of a recommendation and what determines the strength? What are the implications of strong and weak recommendations for patients, clinicians, and policy makers? Should guideline panels make recommendations in the face of very low-quality evidence? Under which circumstances should guideline panels make research recommendations? How should recommendations be formulated and presented? We searched PubMed and other databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, consideration of what guideline developers are doing, and pre- and postworkshop discussions., Results and Discussion: The strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which guideline developers can, across the range of patients for whom the recommendations are intended, be confident that the desirable effects of following the recommendation outweigh the undesirable effects. Four factors influence the strength of a recommendation: the quality of evidence supporting the recommendation, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, the uncertainty or variability of patient values and preferences, and costs. Strong and weak (also called "conditional") recommendations have distinct implications for patients, clinicians, and policy makers. Adherence to strong recommendations or, in the case of weak (conditional) recommendations, documentation of discussion or shared decision making with a patient, might be used as quality measures or performance indicators. Clinicians desire guidance regardless of the quality of the underlying evidence. Very low-quality evidence should ideally result in either appropriately labeled recommendations (i.e., as based on very low-quality evidence) or a statement that the guideline panel did not reach consensus on the recommendation due to the lack of confidence in the effect estimates. However, guideline panels often have more resources, time, and information than practicing clinicians. Therefore, they may be in a position to use their best judgments to make recommendations even when there is very low-quality evidence, although some guideline developers disagree with this approach and prefer a general approach of not making recommendations in the face of very low-quality evidence. Guideline panels should consider making research recommendations when there is important uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of an intervention, further research could reduce that uncertainty, and the potential benefits and savings of reducing the uncertainty outweigh the potential harms of not making the research recommendation. Recommendations for additional research should be as precise and specific as possible.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma represent global health problems for all age groups. Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in the same subjects. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) was initiated during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999 (published in 2001). ARIA has reclassified AR as mild/moderate-severe and intermittent/persistent. This classification closely reflects patients' needs and underlines the close relationship between rhinitis and asthma. Patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are confronted with various treatment choices for the management of AR. This contributes to considerable variation in clinical practice, and worldwide, patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are faced with uncertainty about the relative merits and downsides of the various treatment options. In its 2010 Revision, ARIA developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR and asthma comorbidities based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ARIA is disseminated and implemented in more than 50 countries of the world. Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children., (Copyright © 2012 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and initial management of suspected acute bacterial rhinosinusitis in adults and children were prepared by a multidisciplinary expert panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America comprising clinicians and investigators representing internal medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, otolaryngology, public health, epidemiology, and adult and pediatric infectious disease specialties. Recommendations for diagnosis, laboratory investigation, and empiric antimicrobial and adjunctive therapy were developed.

Concepts of disease severity, activity, control and responsiveness to treatment are linked but different. Severity refers to the loss of function of the organs induced by the disease process or to the occurrence of severe acute exacerbations. Severity may vary over time and needs regular follow-up. Control is the degree to which therapy goals are currently met. These concepts have evolved over time for asthma in guidelines, task forces or consensus meetings. The aim of this paper is to generalize the approach of the uniform definition of severe asthma presented to WHO for chronic allergic and associated diseases (rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis) in order to have a uniform definition of severity, control and risk, usable in most situations. It is based on the appropriate diagnosis, availability and accessibility of treatments, treatment responsiveness and associated factors such as comorbidities and risk factors. This uniform definition will allow a better definition of the phenotypes of severe allergic (and related) diseases for clinical practice, research (including epidemiology), public health purposes, education and the discovery of novel therapies., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: The GRADE working group has recently suggested a rigorous framework for clinical practice guidelines (CPG) addressing diagnostic tests and test strategies based on the impact of alternative approaches on patient-important outcomes. The framework mandates explicit evidence summaries, ratings of the quality of evidence, and specifying recommendations as strong or weak., Objectives: To test the feasibility and performance of the GRADE approach, we applied this framework to well-researched issues in the diagnoses of deep venous thrombosis (DVT)., Methods: A 16-member panel with interest in thromboembolism and CPG development identified pertinent clinical questions. Our search for relevant studies included existing CPG and systematic reviews. We summarized the data in form of evidence tables and developed recommendations including, when needed, a formal consensus process., Results and Conclusions: We provide three groups of recommendations for clinicians practicing in settings with access to different types of D-dimer tests -- highly sensitive, moderately sensitive, and no availability of D-dimer. We consider the use of clinical prediction rules in guiding the diagnostic process, the potential for negative D-dimer or venous ultrasound (US) to rule out disease, and the role of follow-up testing (US following positive D-dimer result, D-dimer following negative US, and serial US) depending on the probability of DVT at the start of diagnostic process. We recommend the following: that clinicians without access to a highly or moderately sensitive D-dimer test rely on US to guide DVT diagnosis; that those with access use the highly sensitive D-dimer to determine, in patients with low or moderate probability of DVT (by the Wells rule) whether US is needed; that in patients with low pre-test probability (pre-TP) and a negative D-dimer (either highly or moderately sensitive) they follow patients without further testing; that in patients with high pre-test probability they perform a compression ultrasound without D-dimer testing.

The GRADE approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations provides a comprehensive and transparent approach for developing clinical recommendations about using diagnostic tests or diagnostic strategies. Although grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations about using tests shares the logic of grading recommendations for treatment, it presents unique challenges. Guideline panels and clinicians should be alert to these special challenges when using the evidence about the accuracy of tests as the basis for clinical decisions. In the GRADE system, valid diagnostic accuracy studies can provide high quality evidence of test accuracy. However, such studies often provide only low quality evidence for the development of recommendations about diagnostic testing, as test accuracy is a surrogate for patient-important outcomes at best. Inferring from data on accuracy that using a test improves outcomes that are important to patients requires availability of an effective treatment, improved patients' wellbeing through prognostic information, or - by excluding an ominous diagnosis - reduction of anxiety and the opportunity for earlier search for an alternative diagnosis for which beneficial treatment can be available. Assessing the directness of evidence supporting the use of a diagnostic test requires judgments about the relationship between test results and patient-important consequences. Well-designed and conducted studies of allergy tests in parallel with efforts to evaluate allergy treatments critically will encourage improved guideline development for allergic diseases.

The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach provides guidance to grading the quality of underlying evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. The GRADE system's conceptual underpinnings allow for a detailed stepwise process that defines what role the quality of the available evidence plays in the development of health care recommendations. The merit of GRADE is not that it eliminates judgments or disagreements about evidence and recommendations, but rather that it makes them transparent. This first article in a three-part series describes the GRADE framework in relation to grading the quality of evidence about interventions based on examples from the field of allergy and asthma. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence reflects the extent to which a guideline panel's confidence in an estimate of the effect is adequate to support a particular recommendation. The system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, consistency and precision of the results, and directness of the evidence.

Objective: To determine relative responsiveness of disease-specific and generic preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)., Study Design and Setting: We compared standardized response means (SRM) of disease-specific and preference-based instruments in 217 outpatients with GERD., Results: Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia and symptom scores were responsive across all domains, whereas global rating of change and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-GERD only in single domains. The most responsive were Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia food/drink problems (SRM: 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.76-2.03) and vitality (SRM: 1.68, 95% CI 1.55-1.82) domains, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-GERD workdays with reflux symptoms (SRM: 2.02, 95% CI 1.84-2.19), symptoms of heartburn (SRM: 1.83, 95% CI 1.69-1.96) and acid reflux (SRM: 1.48, 95% CI 1.35-1.62), and global rating of change in stomach problems (SRM: 2.19, 95% CI 2.05-2.32). The least responsive were Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-GERD domains related to hours absent at work (SRM: 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.38), reduced productivity at work (SRM: 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.83) and during other activities (SRM: 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.92), as well as emotional global rating of change (SRM: 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.85), and the standard gamble (SRM: 0.35, 95% CI 0.21-0.48), which was less responsive than the feeling thermometer (SRM: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78-1.05)., Conclusions: In patients with GERD, disease-specific health-related quality of life instruments and symptom scores showed greater responsiveness than preference-based generic instruments. The feeling thermometer proved more responsive than the standard gamble.

Nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) can be defined as a chronic nasal inflammation which is not caused by systemic IgE-dependent mechanisms. It is common and probably affects far more than 200 million people worldwide. Both children and adults are affected. However, its exact prevalence is unknown and its phenotypes need to be evaluated using appropriate methods to better understand its pathophysiology, diagnosis and management. It is important to differentiate between infectious rhinitis, allergic/NAR and chronic rhinosinusitis, as management differs for each of these cases. Characterization of the phenotype, mechanisms and management of NAR represents one of the major unmet needs in allergic and nonallergic diseases. Studies on children and adults are required in order to appreciate the prevalence, phenotype, severity and co-morbidities of NAR. These studies should compare allergic and NAR and consider different age group populations including elderly subjects. Mechanistic studies should be carried out to better understand the disease(s) and risk factors and to guide towards an improved diagnosis and therapy. These studies need to take the heterogeneity of NAR into account. It is likely that neuronal mechanisms, T cells, innate immunity and possibly auto-immune responses all play a role in NAR and may also contribute to the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

Background: We describe the methodology for the 2008 update of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines. The methodology differs from the 2001 edition in several respects. The most prominent change is the application of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to compiling evidence, assessing the quality of evidence and grading of recommendations., Methods and Results: Representatives of the GRADE working group joined the ARIA guideline panel to achieve these tasks. While most recommendations result from existing systematic reviews, systematic reviews were not always available and the panel compiled the best available evidence in evidence profiles without conducting actual reviews. The panel conducted two meetings and used the GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence (four categories of high, moderate, low and very low) and the strength of recommendation (strong and weak) based on weighing up the desirable and undesirable effects of management strategies, considering values and preferences influencing recommendations, and resource implications. The guideline panel has chosen the words 'we recommend'--for strong recommendations and 'we suggest'--for weak recommendations. Both categories indicate the best course of action for a given patient population, but their implementation, requires different considerations as we describe subsequently in this article., Conclusions: The 2008 update of the ARIA guidelines has become more evidence-based. Future iterations of the guidelines will further be improved by following the described processes even closer, such as ensuring availability of updated high quality systematic reviews for each question.