International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: allergic rhinitis-executive summary.

BACKGROUND: The available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature continues to grow. Critical evaluation and understanding of this literature is important to appropriately utilize this knowledge in the care of AR patients. The International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has been produced as a multidisciplinary international effort. This Executive Summary highlights and summarizes the findings of the comprehensive ICAR:AR document. METHODS: The ICAR:AR document was produced using previously described methodology. Specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. RESULTS: Over 100 individual topics related to AR diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR were addressed in the comprehensive ICAR:AR document. Herein, the Executive Summary provides a synopsis of these findings. CONCLUSION: In the ICAR:AR critical review of the literature, several strengths were identified. In addition, significant knowledge gaps exist in the AR literature where current practice is not based on the best quality evidence; these should be seen as opportunities for additional research. The ICAR:AR document evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature. This Executive Summary condenses these findings into a short summary. The reader is also encouraged to consult the comprehensive ICAR:AR document for a thorough description of this work.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR). METHODS: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. RESULTS: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR. CONCLUSION: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Improvement and prevention of asthma with concomitant treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergen-specific therapy.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and allergic rhinitis are 2 of the most prevalent chronic medical diseases. Asthma is estimated to affect 8% of adults and 9% of children, with nearly 300 million people affected worldwide. Poorly controlled allergic rhinitis may be associated with worsening asthma symptoms over time. Various treatments have been proposed in the improvement and prevention of asthma in children and adults with allergic symptoms, which have included pharmacotherapy with antihistamines and topical intranasal corticosteroids, as well as allergen-specific immunotherapy. METHODS: Articles were selected through PubMed and personal knowledge of the authors based on a comprehensive literature review examining whether treatment of allergic rhinitis improves and/or prevents concomitant symptoms of asthma. The largest and highest-quality studies were included in the literature review. The search selection was not standardized. Articles written in a language other than English were excluded. RESULTS: Clinical trials have showed improvement in asthma symptoms with concomitant treatment of allergic rhinitis with antihistamines and topical intranasal corticosteroids, though improvement in objective pulmonary function parameters has not been uniformly demonstrated with antihistamine use alone. There is very strong evidence to suggest that subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy may in addition prevent the progression of asthma in high-risk atopic patients by inducing immunological tolerance. CONCLUSION: Traditional pharmacotherapy with antihistamines and topical intranasal steroids has been shown to improve allergic rhinitis symptoms with concomitant allergic asthma; however, only allergen-specific immunotherapy offers long-term control in improving asthma symptoms, exacerbations, and likely ultimate prevention in developing asthma.

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.

Current practice patterns in tonsillectomy and perioperative care.

OBJECTIVES: Tonsillectomy is one of the most commonly performed otolaryngologic procedures in the United States. Many options and controversies exist regarding techniques and peri-operative management. The purpose of the study was to examine current practice patterns among otolaryngologists regarding tonsillectomy. METHODS: A 13 question survey regarding tonsillectomy techniques and peri-operative management was mailed to 10% of randomly selected board certified otolaryngologists of the AAO-HNS in the spring of 2002. Four hundred and eighteen anonymously completed questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 58.5%. Statistical analysis of survey data was performed by means of cross tabulation and Pearson Chi-Square Calculation. RESULTS: Monopolar electrocautery was the most common technique used among those surveyed (53.5%). There was a significant correlation between choice of monopolar electrocautery and the cited reason for choice of technique being decreased blood loss (P < 0.001). There was no relationship between pediatric fellowship training and choice of technique. 97.7% routinely admitted sleep apnea patients for post-operative observation. There was no significant correlation between practice setting (tertiary versus community) and type of post-operative monitoring for sleep apnea patients, with patients most commonly admitted to an intermediate care setting. CONCLUSION: In our survey, the most common surgical technique for tonsillectomy was monopolar electrocautery, chosen for the reason of decreased blood loss.