Intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient systematized evidence on the effectiveness of individual intranasal medications in allergic rhinitis (AR). OBJECTIVES: We sought to perform a systematic review to compare the efficacy of individual intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines against placebo in improving the nasal and ocular symptoms and the rhinoconjunctivitis-related quality of life of patients with perennial or seasonal AR. METHODS: The investigators searched 4 electronic bibliographic databases and 3 clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials (1) assessing adult patients with seasonal or perennial AR and (2) comparing the use of intranasal corticosteroids or antihistamines versus placebo. Assessed outcomes included the Total Nasal Symptom Score, the Total Ocular Symptom Score, and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. The investigators performed random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences for each medication and outcome. The investigators assessed evidence certainty using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: This review included 151 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR and displayed unclear or high risk of bias. Both in perennial and seasonal AR, most assessed treatments were more effective than placebo. In seasonal AR, azelastine-fluticasone, fluticasone furoate, and fluticasone propionate were the medications with the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements in the Total Nasal Symptom Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Azelastine-fluticasone displayed the highest probability of resulting in moderate or large improvements of Total Ocular Symptom Score. Overall, evidence certainty was considered "high" in 6 of 46 analyses, "moderate" in 23 of 46 analyses, and "low"/"very low" in 17 of 46 analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Most intranasal medications are effective in improving rhinitis symptoms and quality of life. However, there are relevant differences in the associated evidence certainty.

Patients' values and preferences for health states in allergic rhinitis-An artificial intelligence supported systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) impacts patients' physical and emotional well-being. Assessing patients' values and preferences (V&P) related to AR is an essential part of patient-centered care and of the guideline development process. We aimed to systematically summarize the information about patients' V&P on AR and its symptoms and impact on daily life. METHODS: We conducted systematic review in a MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases. We included studies which quantitatively assessed patients' V&P for specific outcomes in AR by assessing utilities, applying discrete choice approaches, or rating and ranking outcomes. We grouped outcomes as AR symptoms, functional status, and care-related patient experience. Study selection and data extraction were supported by the Laser AI tool. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (41 records) were included: nine utility studies, seven direct-choice studies and 21 studies of rating or ranking outcomes. Utilities were lower with increased AR severity and with the concomitant presence of asthma, but not with whether AR was seasonal or perennial (CoE = low-high). Patients rated AR symptom-related outcomes as more important than those related to care-related patient experience and functional status (CoE = very low-moderate). Nasal symptoms (mainly nasal congestion) followed by breathing disorders, general and ocular symptoms were rated as the symptoms with the highest impact. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of V&P of patients with AR. Patients generally considered nasal symptoms as the most important. Future studies with standardized methods are needed to provide more information on V&P in AR.

Comparison of rhinitis treatments using MASK-air® data and considering the minimal important difference.

BACKGROUND: Different treatments exist for allergic rhinitis (AR), including pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy (AIT), but they have not been compared using direct patient data (i.e., "real-world data"). We aimed to compare AR pharmacological treatments on (i) daily symptoms, (ii) frequency of use in co-medication, (iii) visual analogue scales (VASs) on allergy symptom control considering the minimal important difference (MID) and (iv) the effect of AIT. METHODS: We assessed the MASK-air® app data (May 2015-December 2020) by users self-reporting AR (16-90 years). We compared eight AR medication schemes on reported VAS of allergy symptoms, clustering data by the patient and controlling for confounding factors. We compared (i) allergy symptoms between patients with and without AIT and (ii) different drug classes used in co-medication. RESULTS: We analysed 269,837 days from 10,860 users. Most days (52.7%) involved medication use. Median VAS levels were significantly higher in co-medication than in monotherapy (including the fixed combination azelastine-fluticasone) schemes. In adjusted models, azelastine-fluticasone was associated with lower average VAS global allergy symptoms than all other medication schemes, while the contrary was observed for oral corticosteroids. AIT was associated with a decrease in allergy symptoms in some medication schemes. A difference larger than the MID compared to no treatment was observed for oral steroids. Azelastine-fluticasone was the drug class with the lowest chance of being used in co-medication (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.71-0.80). CONCLUSION: Median VAS levels were higher in co-medication than in monotherapy. Patients with more severe symptoms report a higher treatment, which is currently not reflected in guidelines.

Prevention and management of allergic reactions to food in child care centers and schools: Practice guidelines.

Food allergy management in child care centers and schools is a controversial topic, for which evidence-based guidance is needed. Following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, we conducted systematic literature reviews of the anticipated health effects of selected interventions for managing food allergy in child care centers and schools; we compiled data about the costs, feasibility, acceptability, and effects on health equity of the selected interventions; and we developed the following conditional recommendations: we suggest that child care centers and schools implement allergy training and action plans; we suggest that they use epinephrine (adrenaline) to treat suspected anaphylaxis; we suggest that they stock unassigned epinephrine autoinjectors, instead of requiring students to supply their own personal autoinjectors to be stored on site for designated at-school use; and we suggest that they do not implement site-wide food prohibitions (eg, "nut-free" schools) or allergen-restricted zones (eg, "milk-free" tables), except in the special circumstances identified in this document. The recommendations are labeled "conditional" due to the low quality of available evidence. More research is needed to determine with greater certainty which interventions are likely to be the most beneficial. Policymakers might need to adapt the recommendations to fit local circumstances.

Control of Severe, Life-Threatening External Bleeding in the Out-of-Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Trauma, with resultant bleeding, is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world; however, the best possible method of bleeding control by immediate responders is unknown. We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of treatment modalities for severe, life-threatening external bleeding in the out-of-hospital first aid setting. Methods: We followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions methodology and report results according to PRISMA guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized comparative studies and case series investigating adults and children with severe, life-threatening external bleeding who were treated with therapies potentially suitable for first aid providers. We assessed the certainty of the evidence and risk of bias. Outcomes were prioritized by first aid specialists based on importance for patients and decision-makers and included mortality due to bleeding, all-cause mortality, cessation of bleeding, time to cessation of bleeding, a decrease in bleeding, and complications/adverse effects. Results were reported in Evidence Profiles. Results: Of the 1,051 full-text articles screened, 107 were included for analysis including 22,798 patients. The primary methods of bleeding control were tourniquets (n = 49), hemostatic dressings (n = 34), hemostatic devices (n = 14), pressure dressings/bandages/devices (n = 8), pressure points (n = 4), including 2 studies that reported multiple hemorrhage control methods. Overall, certainty of evidence was very low and often relied on indirect evidence and poorly controlled studies. Tourniquets were associated with a decrease in mortality when compared with direct manual pressure. Hemostatic dressings resulted in a shorter time to hemostasis than direct manual pressure using standard dressings. Direct manual compression resulted in a shorter time to hemostasis than pressure dressings/devices. Conclusion: Overall, data regarding the control of life-threatening bleeding is of very low certainty, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions for treatment by immediate responders. While more robust data is needed on first aid treatments of life-threatening bleeding, this systematic review aggregates the most comprehensive to date to help guide recommendations. Key words: bleeding; hemorrhage; tourniquet; hemostatic dressing; direct pressure.

Bringing two worlds closer together: a critical analysis of an integrated approach to guideline development and quality assurance schemes.

BACKGROUND: Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives. METHODS: We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants. RESULTS: Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations. DISCUSSION: We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Next-generation Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines for allergic rhinitis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and real-world evidence.

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis aims to control the disease and depends on many factors. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines have considerably improved the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is an increasing trend toward use of real-world evidence to inform clinical practice, especially because randomized controlled trials are often limited with regard to the applicability of results. The Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif (MACVIA) algorithm has proposed an allergic rhinitis treatment by a consensus group. This simple algorithm can be used to step up or step down allergic rhinitis treatment. Next-generation guidelines for the pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis were developed by using existing GRADE-based guidelines for the disease, real-world evidence provided by mobile technology, and additive studies (allergen chamber studies) to refine the MACVIA algorithm.

Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease: An Official ATS/ERS/ESCMID/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) represent over 190 species and subspecies, some of which can produce disease in humans of all ages and can affect both pulmonary and extrapulmonary sites. This guideline focuses on pulmonary disease in adults (without cystic fibrosis or human immunodeficiency virus infection) caused by the most common NTM pathogens such as Mycobacterium avium complex, Mycobacterium kansasii, and Mycobacterium xenopi among the slowly growing NTM and Mycobacterium abscessus among the rapidly growing NTM. A panel of experts was carefully selected by leading international respiratory medicine and infectious diseases societies (ATS, ERS, ESCMID, IDSA) and included specialists in pulmonary medicine, infectious diseases and clinical microbiology, laboratory medicine, and patient advocacy. Systematic reviews were conducted around each of 22 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions and the recommendations were formulated, written, and graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Thirty-one evidence-based recommendations about treatment of NTM pulmonary disease are provided. This guideline is intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients with NTM pulmonary disease, including specialists in infectious diseases and pulmonary diseases.

Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease: An Official ATS/ERS/ESCMID/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) represent over 190 species and subspecies, some of which can produce disease in humans of all ages and can affect both pulmonary and extrapulmonary sites. This guideline focuses on pulmonary disease in adults (without cystic fibrosis or human immunodeficiency virus infection) caused by the most common NTM pathogens such as Mycobacterium avium complex, Mycobacterium kansasii, and Mycobacterium xenopi among the slowly growing NTM and Mycobacterium abscessus among the rapidly growing NTM. A panel of experts was carefully selected by leading international respiratory medicine and infectious diseases societies (ATS, ERS, ESCMID, IDSA) and included specialists in pulmonary medicine, infectious diseases and clinical microbiology, laboratory medicine, and patient advocacy. Systematic reviews were conducted around each of 22 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions and the recommendations were formulated, written, and graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Thirty-one evidence-based recommendations about treatment of NTM pulmonary disease are provided. This guideline is intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients with NTM pulmonary disease, including specialists in infectious diseases and pulmonary diseases.

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy. METHODS: In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930. RESULTS: 12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I2=0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I2=0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I2=0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (pinteraction=0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I2=0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I2=0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I2=0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I2=0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I2=28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I2=0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I2=0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed. FUNDING: None.

Treatment of nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease: an official ATS/ERS/ESCMID/IDSA clinical practice guideline.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) represent over 190 species and subspecies, some of which can produce disease in humans of all ages and can affect both pulmonary and extrapulmonary sites. This guideline focuses on pulmonary disease in adults (without cystic fibrosis or human immunodeficiency virus infection) caused by the most common NTM pathogens such as Mycobacterium avium complex, Mycobacterium kansasii, and Mycobacterium xenopi among the slowly growing NTM and Mycobacterium abscessus among the rapidly growing NTM. A panel of experts was carefully selected by leading international respiratory medicine and infectious diseases societies (ATS, ERS, ESCMID, IDSA) and included specialists in pulmonary medicine, infectious diseases and clinical microbiology, laboratory medicine, and patient advocacy. Systematic reviews were conducted around each of 22 PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions and the recommendations were formulated, written, and graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Thirty-one evidence-based recommendations about treatment of NTM pulmonary disease are provided. This guideline is intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients with NTM pulmonary disease, including specialists in infectious diseases and pulmonary diseases.

Assessing the process and outcome of the development of practice guidelines and recommendations: PANELVIEW instrument development.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations may be affected by flaws in the process, inappropriate panel member selection or conduct, conflicts of interest and other factors. To our knowledge, no validated tool exists to evaluate guideline development from the perspective of those directly involved in the process. Our objective was to develop and validate a universal tool, the PANELVIEW instrument, to assess guideline processes, methods and outcomes from the perspective of the participating guideline panellists and group members. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and surveys of guideline groups (identified through contacting international organizations and convenience sampling of working panels) to inform item generation. Subsequent groups of guideline methodologists and panellists reviewed items for face validity and missing items. We used surveys, interviews and expert review for item reduction and phrasing. For reliability assessment and feedback, we tested the PANELVIEW tool in 8 international guideline groups. RESULTS: We surveyed 62 members from 13 guideline panels, contacted 19 organizations and reviewed 20 source documents to generate items. Fifty-three additional key informants provided feedback about phrasing of the items and response options. We reduced the number of items from 95 to 34 across domains that included administration, training, conflict of interest, group dynamics, chairing, evidence synthesis, formulating recommendations and publication. The tool takes about 10 minutes to complete and showed acceptable measurement properties. INTERPRETATION: The PANELVIEW instrument fills a gap by enabling guideline organizations to involve clinicians, patients and other participants in evaluating their guideline processes. The tool can inform quality improvement of existing or new guideline programs, focusing on insight into and transparency of the guideline development process, methods and outcomes.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Adults with Community-acquired Pneumonia. An Official Clinical Practice Guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Background: This document provides evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on the management of adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.Results: The panel addressed 16 specific areas for recommendations spanning questions of diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Although some recommendations remain unchanged from the 2007 guideline, the availability of results from new therapeutic trials and epidemiological investigations led to revised recommendations for empiric treatment strategies and additional management decisions.Conclusions: The panel formulated and provided the rationale for recommendations on selected diagnostic and treatment strategies for adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia.

Evaluation and Management of Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: The purpose of this guideline is to optimize evaluation and management of patients with obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS).Methods: A multidisciplinary panel identified and prioritized five clinical questions. The panel performed systematic reviews of available studies (up to July 2018) and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evidence-to-decision framework to develop recommendations. All panel members discussed and approved the recommendations.Recommendations: After considering the overall very low quality of the evidence, the panel made five conditional recommendations. We suggest that: 1) clinicians use a serum bicarbonate level <27 mmol/L to exclude the diagnosis of OHS in obese patients with sleep-disordered breathing when suspicion for OHS is not very high (<20%) but to measure arterial blood gases in patients strongly suspected of having OHS, 2) stable ambulatory patients with OHS receive positive airway pressure (PAP), 3) continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) rather than noninvasive ventilation be offered as the first-line treatment to stable ambulatory patients with OHS and coexistent severe obstructive sleep apnea, 4) patients hospitalized with respiratory failure and suspected of having OHS be discharged with noninvasive ventilation until they undergo outpatient diagnostic procedures and PAP titration in the sleep laboratory (ideally within 2-3 mo), and 5) patients with OHS use weight-loss interventions that produce sustained weight loss of 25% to 30% of body weight to achieve resolution of OHS (which is more likely to be obtained with bariatric surgery).Conclusions: Clinicians may use these recommendations, on the basis of the best available evidence, to guide management and improve outcomes among patients with OHS.

Treatment of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis. An Official ATS/CDC/ERS/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: The American Thoracic Society, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, European Respiratory Society, and Infectious Diseases Society of America jointly sponsored this new practice guideline on the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). The document includes recommendations on the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) as well as isoniazid-resistant but rifampin-susceptible TB.Methods: Published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and a new individual patient data meta-analysis from 12,030 patients, in 50 studies, across 25 countries with confirmed pulmonary rifampin-resistant TB were used for this guideline. Meta-analytic approaches included propensity score matching to reduce confounding. Each recommendation was discussed by an expert committee, screened for conflicts of interest, according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.Results: Twenty-one Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes questions were addressed, generating 25 GRADE-based recommendations. Certainty in the evidence was judged to be very low, because the data came from observational studies with significant loss to follow-up and imbalance in background regimens between comparator groups. Good practices in the management of MDR-TB are described. On the basis of the evidence review, a clinical strategy tool for building a treatment regimen for MDR-TB is also provided.Conclusions: New recommendations are made for the choice and number of drugs in a regimen, the duration of intensive and continuation phases, and the role of injectable drugs for MDR-TB. On the basis of these recommendations, an effective all-oral regimen for MDR-TB can be assembled. Recommendations are also provided on the role of surgery in treatment of MDR-TB and for treatment of contacts exposed to MDR-TB and treatment of isoniazid-resistant TB.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) Phase 4 (2018): Change management in allergic rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity using mobile technology.

Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) has evolved from a guideline by using the best approach to integrated care pathways using mobile technology in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma multimorbidity. The proposed next phase of ARIA is change management, with the aim of providing an active and healthy life to patients with rhinitis and to those with asthma multimorbidity across the lifecycle irrespective of their sex or socioeconomic status to reduce health and social inequities incurred by the disease. ARIA has followed the 8-step model of Kotter to assess and implement the effect of rhinitis on asthma multimorbidity and to propose multimorbid guidelines. A second change management strategy is proposed by ARIA Phase 4 to increase self-medication and shared decision making in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity. An innovation of ARIA has been the development and validation of information technology evidence-based tools (Mobile Airways Sentinel Network [MASK]) that can inform patient decisions on the basis of a self-care plan proposed by the health care professional.

2019 ARIA Care pathways for allergen immunotherapy.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a proven therapeutic option for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. Many guidelines or national practice guidelines have been produced but the evidence-based method varies, many are complex and none propose care pathways. This paper reviews care pathways for AIT using strict criteria and provides simple recommendations that can be used by all stakeholders including healthcare professionals. The decision to prescribe AIT for the patient should be individualized and based on the relevance of the allergens, the persistence of symptoms despite appropriate medications according to guidelines as well as the availability of good-quality and efficacious extracts. Allergen extracts cannot be regarded as generics. Immunotherapy is selected by specialists for stratified patients. There are no currently available validated biomarkers that can predict AIT success. In adolescents and adults, AIT should be reserved for patients with moderate/severe rhinitis or for those with moderate asthma who, despite appropriate pharmacotherapy and adherence, continue to exhibit exacerbations that appear to be related to allergen exposure, except in some specific cases. Immunotherapy may be even more advantageous in patients with multimorbidity. In children, AIT may prevent asthma onset in patients with rhinitis. mHealth tools are promising for the stratification and follow-up of patients.

ARIA pharmacy 2018 "Allergic rhinitis care pathways for community pharmacy": AIRWAYS ICPs initiative (European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, DG CONNECT and DG Santé) POLLAR (Impact of Air POLLution on Asthma and Rhinitis) GARD Demonstration project.

Pharmacists are trusted health care professionals. Many patients use over-the-counter (OTC) medications and are seen by pharmacists who are the initial point of contact for allergic rhinitis management in most countries. The role of pharmacists in integrated care pathways (ICPs) for allergic diseases is important. This paper builds on existing studies and provides tools intended to help pharmacists provide optimal advice/interventions/strategies to patients with rhinitis. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)-pharmacy ICP includes a diagnostic questionnaire specifically focusing attention on key symptoms and markers of the disease, a systematic Diagnosis Guide (including differential diagnoses), and a simple flowchart with proposed treatment for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity. Key prompts for referral within the ICP are included. The use of technology is critical to enhance the management of allergic rhinitis. However, the ARIA-pharmacy ICP should be adapted to local healthcare environments/situations as regional (national) differences exist in pharmacy care.

Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for allergic rhinitis management: MASK e-CDSS.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) management has changed in recent years following the switch from the concept of disease severity to the concept of disease control, publication of the AR clinical decision support system (CDSS) and development of mobile health (m-health) tools for patients (eg Allergy Diary). The Allergy Diary Companion app for healthcare providers is currently being developed and will be launched in 2018. It incorporates the AR CDSS to provide evidence-based treatment recommendations, linking all key stakeholders in AR management. OBJECTIVE: To produce an electronic version of the AR CDSS (e-CDSS) for incorporation into the Allergy Diary Companion, to describe the app interfaces used to collect information necessary to inform the e-CDSS and to summarize some key features of the Allergy Diary Companion. METHODS: The steps involved in producing the e-CDSS and incorporating it into the Allergy Diary Companion were (a) generation of treatment management scenarios; (b) expert consensus on treatment recommendations; (c) generation of electronic decisional algorithms to describe all AR CDSS scenarios; (d) digitization of these algorithms to form the e-CDSS; and (e) embedding the e-CDSS into the app to permit easy user e-CDSS interfacing. RESULTS: Key experts in the AR field agreed on the AR CDSS approach to AR management and on specific treatment recommendations provided by Allergy Diary Companion. Based on this consensus, decision processes were developed and programmed into the Allergy Diary Companion using Titanium Appcelerator (JavaScript) for IOS tablets. To our knowledge, this is the first time the development of any m-health tool has been described in this transparent and detailed way, providing confidence, not only in the app, but also in the provided management recommendations. CONCLUSION: The Allergy Diary Companion for providers provides guideline and expert-endorsed AR management recommendations. [MASK paper No 32].