Clinical practice guideline: Allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common diseases affecting adults. It is the most common chronic disease in children in the United States today and the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States overall. AR is estimated to affect nearly 1 in every 6 Americans and generates $2 to $5 billion in direct health expenditures annually. It can impair quality of life and, through loss of work and school attendance, is responsible for as much as $2 to $4 billion in lost productivity annually. Not surprisingly, myriad diagnostic tests and treatments are used in managing this disorder, yet there is considerable variation in their use. This clinical practice guideline was undertaken to optimize the care of patients with AR by addressing quality improvement opportunities through an evaluation of the available evidence and an assessment of the harm-benefit balance of various diagnostic and management options. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this guideline is to address quality improvement opportunities for all clinicians, in any setting, who are likely to manage patients with AR as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The guideline is intended to be applicable for both pediatric and adult patients with AR. Children under the age of 2 years were excluded from the clinical practice guideline because rhinitis in this population may be different than in older patients and is not informed by the same evidence base. The guideline is intended to focus on a limited number of quality improvement opportunities deemed most important by the working group and is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for diagnosing and managing AR. The recommendations outlined in the guideline are not intended to represent the standard of care for patient management, nor are the recommendations intended to limit treatment or care provided to individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The development group made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend intranasal steroids for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR whose symptoms affect their quality of life. The development group also made a strong recommendation that clinicians recommend oral second-generation/less sedating antihistamines for patients with AR and primary complaints of sneezing and itching. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should make the clinical diagnosis of AR when patients present with a history and physical examination consistent with an allergic cause and 1 or more of the following symptoms: nasal congestion, runny nose, itchy nose, or sneezing. Findings of AR consistent with an allergic cause include, but are not limited to, clear rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, pale discoloration of the nasal mucosa, and red and watery eyes. (2) Clinicians should perform and interpret, or refer to a clinician who can perform and interpret, specific IgE (skin or blood) allergy testing for patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR who do not respond to empiric treatment, or when the diagnosis is uncertain, or when knowledge of the specific causative allergen is needed to target therapy. (3) Clinicians should assess patients with a clinical diagnosis of AR for, and document in the medical record, the presence of associated conditions such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, sleep-disordered breathing, conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, and otitis media. (4) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, immunotherapy (sublingual or subcutaneous) for patients with AR who have inadequate response to symptoms with pharmacologic therapy with or without environmental controls. The panel recommended against (1) clinicians routinely performing sinonasal imaging in patients presenting with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of AR and (2) clinicians offering oral leukotriene receptor antagonists as primary therapy for patients with AR. The panel group made the following options: (1) Clinicians may advise avoidance of known allergens or may advise environmental controls (ie, removal of pets; the use of air filtration systems, bed covers, and acaricides [chemical agents formulated to kill dust mites]) in patients with AR who have identified allergens that correlate with clinical symptoms. (2) Clinicians may offer intranasal antihistamines for patients with seasonal, perennial, or episodic AR. (3) Clinicians may offer combination pharmacologic therapy in patients with AR who have inadequate response to pharmacologic monotherapy. (4) Clinicians may offer, or refer to a surgeon who can offer, inferior turbinate reduction in patients with AR with nasal airway obstruction and enlarged inferior turbinates who have failed medical management. (5) Clinicians may offer acupuncture, or refer to a clinician who can offer acupuncture, for patients with AR who are interested in nonpharmacologic therapy. The development group provided no recommendation regarding the use of herbal therapy for patients with AR.

Cost comparison of surgery vs organ preservation for laryngeal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost minimization analysis of total laryngectomy with postoperative radiotherapy vs induction chemotherapy with subsequent radiotherapy in patients with advanced (stage III or IV) squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. DESIGN: Decision-analysis model using data from peer-reviewed trials, case series, meta-analyses, and Medicare diagnosis related group reimbursement rates. SETTING AND PATIENTS: A hypothetical cohort of patients with stage III or IV laryngeal cancer. The perspective is that of a health care payer. INTERVENTIONS: The hypothetical patient cohort could receive (1) surgery (total laryngectomy) with postoperative radiotherapy or (2) induction chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) with radiotherapy followed by salvage surgery for patients failing to respond to chemotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Overall difference in direct medical costs in 2003 US dollars between the 2 treatment arms from initiation to completion of treatment. RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, the direct medical costs for the surgical arm were 30,138 US dollars per patient. For the organ preservation arm, the direct medical costs were 33,052 US dollars per patient. The finding that the surgical arm costs were lower was robust to all sensitivity analyses except for the extreme low estimate for the cost of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that total laryngectomy with postoperative radiotherapy costs nearly 3000 US dollars less than organ preservation treatment for advanced laryngeal cancer. Given that survival appears equivalent between the 2 modalities, cost consideration and patient preference may be important factors in decision making for the treatment of advanced laryngeal cancer.

Numeracy and the shortcomings of utility assessment in head and neck cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Because survival differences between surgical and nonsurgical treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) are hard to detect, increasing focus has been placed on quality of life (QOL) differences after treatment. Utility assessment provides insight into QOL. Evidence suggests that a patient's comfort with numerical concepts ("numeracy") may influence utility measures. We hypothesize that patients who are nonnumerate provide inconsistent utility data in QOL studies. METHODS: New HNC (n = 18) patients were recruited to participate. Patients completed a numeracy questionnaire, a utility assessment, and a global QOL questionnaire. Higher scores reflect better function. Interviewers rated the functional level of each patient. For both numerate and nonnumerate patients, utility scores were compared with global QOL (good vs poor) and observer-rated function. RESULTS: Half of the patients were numerate. Numerate patients who rated their QOL as good had significantly higher utility scores than did patients with poor global QOL (0.95 vs 0.43, p =.03). In contrast, nonnumerate patients with good QOL had lower utility scores than did patients with poor QOL (0.45 vs 0.77, NS). Utility scores for numerate patients correlated well with observer-rated function (r = 0.41 to r = 0.57), whereas those of nonnumerate patients did not (r = -0.16 to r = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: QOL evaluation through utility assessment may provide inaccurate and contradictory data about patient functioning for nonnumerate patients. This may confound QOL assessment when interpreting utility data.