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.

ERS/EAACI statement on severe exacerbations in asthma in adults: facts, priorities and key research questions.

Despite the use of effective medications to control asthma, severe exacerbations in asthma are still a major health risk and require urgent action on the part of the patient and physician to prevent serious outcomes such as hospitalisation or death. Moreover, severe exacerbations are associated with substantial healthcare costs and psychological burden, including anxiety and fear for patients and their families. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) set up a task force to search for a clear definition of severe exacerbations, and to also define research questions and priorities. The statement includes comments from patients who were members of the task force.

Quality standards in respiratory real-life effectiveness research: the REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): report from the Respiratory Effectiveness Group-European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force.

INTRODUCTION: A Task Force was commissioned jointly by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) to develop a quality assessment tool for real-life observational research to identify high-quality real-life asthma studies that could be considered within future guideline development. METHODS: The resulting REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was achieved through an extensive analysis of existing initiatives in this area. The first version was piloted among 9 raters across 6 articles; the revised, interim, version underwent extensive testing by 22 reviewers from the EAACI membership and REG collaborator group, leading to further revisions and tool finalisation. RELEVANT was validated through an analysis of real-life effectiveness studies identified via systematic review of Medline and Embase databases and relating to topics for which real-life studies may offer valuable evidence complementary to that from randomised controlled trials. The topics were selected through a vote among Task Force members and related to the influence of adherence, smoking, inhaler device and particle size on asthma treatment effectiveness. RESULTS: Although highlighting a general lack of high-quality real-life effectiveness observational research on these clinically important topics, the analysis provided insights into how identified observational studies might inform asthma guidelines developers and clinicians. Overall, RELEVANT appeared reliable and easy to use by expert reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Using such quality appraisal tools is mandatory to assess whether specific observational real-life effectiveness studies can be used to inform guideline development and/or decision-making in clinical practice.

The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT): development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational comparative effectiveness research (CER) is ranked below that from randomized controlled trials in traditional evidence hierarchies. However, asthma observational CER studies represent an important complementary evidence source answering different research questions and are particularly valuable in guiding clinical decision making in real-life patient and practice settings. Tools are required to assist in quality appraisal of observational CER to enable identification of and confidence in high-quality CER evidence to inform guideline development. METHODS: The REal Life EVidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was developed through a step-wise approach. We conducted an iterative refinement of the tool based on Task Force member expertise and feedback from pilot testing the tool until reaching adequate inter-rater agreement percentages. Two distinct pilots were conducted-the first involving six members of the Respiratory Effectiveness Group (REG) and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) joint Task Force for quality appraisal of observational asthma CER; the second involving 22 members of REG and EAACI membership. The final tool consists of 21 quality sub-items distributed across seven methodology domains: Background, Design, Measures, Analysis, Results, Discussion/Interpretation, and Conflict of Interest. Eleven of these sub-items are considered critical and named "primary sub-items". RESULTS: Following the second pilot, RELEVANT showed inter-rater agreement ≥ 70% for 94% of all primary and 93% for all secondary sub-items tested across three rater groups. For observational CER to be classified as sufficiently high quality for future guideline consideration, all RELEVANT primary sub-items must be fulfilled. The ten secondary sub-items further qualify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the published CER evidence. RELEVANT could also be applicable to general quality appraisal of observational CER across other medical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: RELEVANT is the first quality checklist to assist in the appraisal of published observational CER developed through iterative feedback derived from pilot implementation and inter-rater agreement evaluation. Developed for a REG-EAACI Task Force quality appraisal of recent asthma CER, RELEVANT also has wider utility to support appraisal of CER literature in general (including pre-publication). It may also assist in manuscript development and in educating relevant stakeholders about key quality markers in observational CER.

Screening for pulmonary arterial hypertension in an unselected prospective systemic sclerosis cohort.

Screening for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in systemic sclerosis (SSc) improves outcomes. The DETECT screening algorithm is recommended in a high-risk SSc subgroup. This study aims to compare prospectively the positive predictive value of screening using the DETECT algorithm and the 2009 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS) guidelines, and to compare their cost-effectiveness in an unselected, day-to-day SSc population. Post hoc, screening according to the 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines using echocardiographic parameters alone ("2015 echo screening") or combined with the DETECT algorithm ("2015 combined screening") in high-risk subjects was analysed.195 consecutive SSc patients included in the Ghent University Hospital SSc cohort were screened using different algorithms.The referral rate for right heart catheterisation was 32% (63 out of 195 patients) (46/4/13/34/40 patients using the DETECT algorithm/2009 guidelines/both/2015 echo screening/2015 combined screening). Right heart catheterisation was performed in 53 patients (84%) (36 (78%)/four (100%)/13 (100%)/28 (82%)/32 (80%) patients recommended by the DETECT algorithm/2009 guidelines/both/2015 echo screening/2015 combined screening). PAH was diagnosed in three patients (incidence 1.5%·year-1, 95% CI 0.5-4.4), in whom all algorithms recommended a right heart catheterisation. The positive predictive value was 6% (95% CI 2-17%; three out of 49 patients) for the DETECT algorithm, 18% (95% CI 6-41%; three out of 17 patients) for the 2009 guidelines, 23% (95% CI 8-50%; three out of 13 patients) for both, 11% (95% CI 4-27%; three out of 28 patients) for the 2015 echo screening and 9% (95% CI 3-24%; three out of 32 patients) for the 2015 combined screening. The cost was EUR224/80/90/112 per patient using the DETECT algorithm/2009 guidelines/2015 echo screening/2015 combined screening.Echocardiography may remain a candidate first step for PAH screening in SSc.

Assessment of sensitivity to change of the European Scleroderma Study Group activity index.

OBJECTIVES: The European Scleroderma Study Group (EScSG) activity index meets nearly all the OMERACT-standards of truth, discrimination and feasibility. The sensitivity to change remains to be attested. This study assesses sensitivity to change of the EScSG activity index in patients with early and severe diffuse cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis (dcSSc) treated with rituximab. METHODS: 12-month follow-up (open-label study) of 14 consecutive patients with early dcSSc. Patients received an infusion of two times 1000 mg rituximab at month 0 and 6, together with 100 mg methylprednisolone. Clinical read outs (modified Rodnan skin score [mRSS], lung function and echocardiography) and EScSG activity index were performed at month 0, 3, 6 and 12. Mixed models analyses (MMA) were used to evaluate changes in parameters over time. RESULTS: There was a clinically significant change in skin score with a mean (SD) mRSS of 24.8 (4.44) at baseline and 10.4 (3.12) at month 12 (MMA p<0.001). Also the EScSG activity index decreased significantly, with a mean (SD) of 4.3 (1.79) at baseline and 0.7 (0.83) at month 12 (MMA p<0.001). The estimated mean change of the EScSG activity index was -3.6 (95%CI -4.9; -2.4) over 12 months. Indices of internal organ involvement remained stable throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement of the EScSG activity index was observed, in line with the significant improvement of the mRSS and the stabilisation of internal organ involvement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to attest sensitivity to change of the EScSG activity index in the subset of 'early' dcSSc. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration, http://clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00379431.

Determinants and impact of suboptimal asthma control in Europe: The INTERNATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL ASSESSMENT ON ASTHMA CONTROL (LIAISON) study.

BACKGROUND: According to the Global Initiative of Asthma, the aim of asthma treatment is to gain and maintain control. In the INTERNATIONAL CROSS-SECTIONAL AND LONGITUDINAL ASSESSMENT ON ASTHMA CONTROL (LIAISON) study, we evaluated the level of asthma control and quality of life (QoL), as well as their determinants and impact in a population consulting specialist settings. METHODS: LIAISON is a prospective, multicentre, observational study with a cross-sectional and a 12-month longitudinal phase. Adults with an asthma diagnosis since at least 6 months, receiving the same asthma treatment in the 4 weeks before enrolment were included. Asthma control was assessed with the 6-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and QoL with the MiniAsthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ). RESULTS: Overall, 8111 asthmatic patients were enrolled in 12 European countries. Asthma control was suboptimal in 56.5 % of patients and it was associated with poorer asthma-related QoL, higher risk of exacerbations and greater consumption of healthcare resources. Variables associated with suboptimal control were age, gender, obesity, smoking and comorbidities. Major determinants of poor asthma control were seasonal worsening and persisting exposure to allergens/irritants/triggers, followed by treatment-related issues. CONCLUSIONS: The cross-sectional phase results confirm that suboptimal control is frequent and has a high individual and economic impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT01567280 .

Management of COPD in the UK primary-care setting: an analysis of real-life prescribing patterns.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of national and international guidelines, evidence suggests that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment is not always prescribed according to recommendations. This study evaluated the current management of patients with COPD using a large UK primary-care database. METHODS: This analysis used electronic patient records and patient-completed questionnaires from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database. Data on current management were analyzed by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) group and presence or absence of a concomitant asthma diagnosis, in patients with a COPD diagnosis at ≥35 years of age and with spirometry results supportive of the COPD diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 24,957 patients were analyzed, of whom 13,557 (54.3%) had moderate airflow limitation (GOLD Stage 2 COPD). The proportion of patients not receiving pharmacologic treatment for COPD was 17.0% in the total COPD population and 17.7% in the GOLD Stage 2 subset. Approximately 50% of patients in both cohorts were receiving inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), either in combination with a long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA; 26.7% for both cohorts) or a LABA and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA; 23.2% and 19.9%, respectively). ICS + LABA and ICS + LABA + LAMA were the most frequently used treatments in GOLD Groups A and B. Of patients without concomitant asthma, 53.7% of the total COPD population and 50.2% of the GOLD Stage 2 subset were receiving ICS. Of patients with GOLD Stage 2 COPD and no exacerbations in the previous year, 49% were prescribed ICS. A high proportion of GOLD Stage 2 COPD patients were symptomatic on their current management (36.6% with modified Medical Research Council score ≥2; 76.4% with COPD Assessment Test score ≥10). CONCLUSION: COPD is not treated according to GOLD and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations in the UK primary-care setting. Some patients receive no treatment despite experiencing symptoms. Among those on treatment, most receive ICS irrespective of severity of airflow limitation, asthma diagnosis, and exacerbation history. Many patients on treatment continue to have symptoms.

Improving inhaler adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The PHARMACOP-intervention significantly improved medication adherence and inhalation technique for patients with COPD compared with usual care. This study aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: An economic analysis was performed from the Belgian healthcare payer's perspective. A Markov model was constructed in which a representative group of patients with COPD (mean age of 70 years, 66% male, 43% current smokers and mean Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second of % predicted of 50), was followed for either receiving the 3-month PHARMACOP-intervention or usual care. Three types of costs were calculated: intervention costs, medication costs and exacerbation costs. Outcome measures included the number of hospital-treated exacerbations, cost per prevented hospital-treated exacerbation and cost per Quality Adjusted Life-Year. Follow-up was 1 year in the basecase analysis. Sensitivity and scenario analyses (including long-term follow-up) were performed to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: In the basecase analysis, the average overall costs per patient for the PHARMACOP-intervention and usual care were €2,221 and €2,448, respectively within the 1-year time horizon. This reflects cost savings of €227 for the PHARMACOP-intervention. The PHARMACOP-intervention resulted in the prevention of 0.07 hospital-treated exacerbations per patient (0.177 for PHARMACOP versus 0.244 for usual care). Results showed robust cost-savings in various sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Optimization of current pharmacotherapy (e.g. close monitoring of inhalation technique and medication adherence) has been shown to be cost-saving and should be considered before adding new therapies.

Usage of inhalation devices in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Delphi consensus statement.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess usage of inhalation devices in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: In this two-round Delphi survey, 50 experts in asthma and COPD completed a 13-item, Internet-based, self-administered questionnaire about choice of inhalation device, training and monitoring of inhalation techniques, the interchangeability and the role of costs in the selection of inhalation devices. For each item, the median (central tendency) and interquartile ranges (degree of consensus) were calculated. RESULTS: Experts considered that the choice of inhalation device was as important as that of active substance (very good consensus) and should be driven by ease of use (good to very good consensus) and teaching (very good consensus). Experts recommended giving oral and visual instructions (good consensus) and systematic monitoring inhalation techniques. Pulmonologists and paramedics have predominantly educational roles (very good consensus). Experts discouraged inhalation device interchangeability (good consensus) and switching for cost reasons (good to very good consensus) without medical consultation (good consensus). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey thus suggested that inhalation devices are as important as active substances and training and monitoring are essential in ensuring effective treatment of asthma and COPD. Inhalation device switching without medical consultation should be avoided.

InternationaL cross-sectIonAl and longItudinal assessment on aSthma cONtrol in European adult patients--the LIAISON study protocol.

BACKGROUND: According to international guidelines, the goal of asthma management is to achieve and maintain control of the disease, which can be assessed using composite measures. Prospective studies are required to determine how these measures are associated with asthma outcomes and/or future risk. The 'InternationaL cross-sectIonAl and longItudinal assessment on aSthma cONtrol (LIAISON)' observational study has been designed to evaluate asthma control and its determinants, including components of asthma management. METHODS/DESIGN: The LIAISON study will be conducted in 12 European countries and comprises a cross-sectional phase and a 12-month prospective phase. Both phases will aim at assessing asthma control (six-item Asthma Control Questionnaire, ACQ), asthma-related quality of life (Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Mini-AQLQ), risk of non-adherence to treatment (four-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, MMAS-4), potential reasons for poor control, treatment strategies and associated healthcare costs.The cross-sectional phase will recruit > 8,000 adult patients diagnosed with asthma for at least 6 months and receiving the same asthma treatment in the 4 weeks before enrolment.The prospective phase will include all patients with uncontrolled/poorly controlled asthma at the initial visit to assess the proportion reaching control during follow-up and to examine predictors of future risk. Visits will take place after 3, 6 and 12 months. DISCUSSION: The LIAISON study will provide important information on the prevalence of asthma control and on the quality of life in a broad spectrum of real-life patient populations from different European countries and will also contribute to evaluate differences in management strategies and their impact on healthcare costs over 12 months of observation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01567280.

Patient-centred assessment of COPD in primary care: experience from a cross-sectional study of health-related quality of life in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Europe are treated in primary care, but perceptions on what guides primary care physicians (PCPs) in managing patients are lacking. AIMS: To describe factors associated with the assessment by PCPs of COPD severity and those associated with impaired health status, as assessed by patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQL) in 2,294 COPD patients from five European countries. The severity of COPD was clinically judged by the PCPs and GOLD stage severity was calculated using spirometry data. RESULTS: PCPs' categories of severity reflected a wider range of HRQL scores (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score: mild 30.3; moderate 41.7; severe 55.0; very severe 66.1) than GOLD severity grading (Stage I 38.2; Stage II 41.1; Stage III 49.9; Stage IV 58.5). Multiple ordinal logistic regression models showed that factors most closely related to PCP-rated COPD severity were Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea grade, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) percent predicted, HRQL score (either SGRQ or COPD Assessment Test (CAT)), and previous hospitalisations (model generalised R²=0.45 or 0.44 (SQRQ or CAT in model, respectively); all factors p<0.0001). Factors with the highest association with HRQL scores (SGRQ or CAT) were MRC dyspnoea grade, COPD severity (PCP-rated), sputum production, and number of co-morbidities (model R²=0.46 or 0.37 (SQRQ or CAT in multiple linear regression model, respectively); all factors p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs successfully graded COPD severity clinically and appeared to have greater discriminative power for assessing severity in COPD than FEV1-based staging. Their more holistic approach appeared to reflect the patients' HRQL rating and was consistent across five European countries.