Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing the "Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP), representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the JTFPP, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The JTFPP understands that the cost of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents is an important concern that might appropriately influence the work-up and treatment chosen for a given patient. The JTFPP recognizes that the emphasis of our primary recommendations regarding a medication might vary, for example, depending on third-party payer issues and product patent expiration dates. However, because a given test or agent's cost is so widely variable and there is a paucity of pharmacoeconomic data, the JTFPP generally does not consider cost when formulating practice parameter recommendations. In extraordinary circumstances, when the cost/benefit ratio of an intervention is prohibitive, as supported by pharmacoeconomic data, commentary might be provided. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The JTFPP is committed to ensuring that the practice parameters are based on the best scientific evidence that is free of commercial bias. To this end, the parameter development process includes multiple layers of rigorous review. These layers include the workgroup convened to draft the parameter, the task force reviewers, and peer review by members of each sponsoring society. Although the task force has the final responsibility for the content of the documents submitted for publication, each reviewer comment will be discussed, and reviewers will receive written responses to comments, when appropriate. To preserve the greatest transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest, all members of the JTFPP and the practice parameter workgroups will complete a standard potential conflict of interest disclosure form, which will be available for external review by the sponsoring organization and any other interested individual. In addition, before confirming the selection of a Work Group chairperson, the Joint Task Force will discuss and resolve all relevant potential conflicts of interest associated with this selection. Finally, all members of parameter workgroups will be provided a written statement regarding the importance of ensuring that the parameter development process is free of commercial bias. Practice parameters are available online at www.jcaai.org and www.allergyparameters.org.

A focused parameter update: hereditary angioedema, acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated angioedema.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP), representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "A focused parameter update: Hereditary angioedema, acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated angioedema." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the JTFPP, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters understands that the cost of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents is an important concern that might appropriately influence the work-up and treatment chosen for a given patient. The JTFPP recognizes that the emphasis of our primary recommendations regarding a medication might vary, for example, depending on third-party payer issues and product patent expiration dates. However, because the cost of a given test or agent is so widely variable and there is a paucity of pharmacoeconomic data, the JTFPP generally does not consider cost when formulating practice parameter recommendations. In some instances the cost benefit of an intervention is considered relevant, and commentary might be provided. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The Joint Task Force is committed to ensuring that the practice parameters are based on the best scientific evidence that is free of commercial bias. To this end, the parameter development process includes multiple layers of rigorous review. These layers include the Workgroup convened to draft the parameter, the Task Force Reviewers, and peer review by members of each sponsoring society. Although the Task Force has the final responsibility for the content of the documents submitted for publication, each reviewer comment will be discussed, and reviewers will receive written responses to comments when appropriate. To preserve the greatest transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest, all members of the Joint Task Force and the Practice Parameters Workgroups will complete a standard potential conflict of interest disclosure form, which will be available for external review by the sponsoring organization and any other interested individual. In addition, before confirming the selection of a Workgroup chairperson, the Joint Task Force will discuss and resolve all relevant potential conflicts of interest associated with this selection. Finally, all members of parameter workgroups will be provided a written statement regarding the importance of ensuring that the parameter development process is free of commercial bias.

Budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus budesonide: a randomized controlled trial in black patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Concerns exist that responses to long-acting ß(2)-adrenergic agonists in black patients may differ from the general population. The efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FM) pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) versus budesonide dry powder inhaler (BUD DPI) were evaluated in adolescent and adult black asthma patients. METHODS: This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase IV US study was conducted in 311 self-reported black patients aged ≥12 years with moderate to severe persistent asthma, previously receiving medium- to high-dose inhaled corticosteroid. After 2 weeks on BUD 90 µg × 2 inhalations twice daily (bid), symptomatic patients were randomized to BUD/FM 160/4.5 µg × 2 inhalations bid or BUD 180 µg × 2 inhalations bid. RESULTS: Improvement in predose forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline to the treatment mean (primary variable) was greater with BUD/FM versus BUD (0.16 vs. 0.07 L; p = .008); this effect was also observed at weeks 2, 6, and end of treatment (p ≤ .032). Greater improvements (p < .001) in peak expiratory flow with BUD/FM versus BUD were seen at first measurement and maintained during 12 weeks (morning: 25.34 vs. 7.53 L/minute, respectively; evening: 21.61 vs. 7.67 L/minute, respectively); greater improvements in daily asthma symptom score and rescue medication use were also observed (p ≤ .039). Both treatments were well tolerated, with similar safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of black asthma patients, BUD/FM pMDI resulted in greater improvements in pulmonary function and asthma control versus BUD DPI, with similar safety profiles.

Stinging insect hypersensitivity: a practice parameter update 2011.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Stinging insect hypersensitivity: a practice parameter update II." Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or the ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The Joint Task Force understands that the cost of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents is an important concern that may appropriately influence the work-up and treatment chosen for a given patient. The Joint Task Force recognizes that the emphasis of our primary recommendations regarding a medication may vary, for example, depending on third party payer issues and product patent expiration dates. However, since a given test or agent's cost is so widely variable, and there is a paucity of pharmacoeconomic data, the Joint Task Force generally does not consider cost when formulating Practice Parameter recommendations. In extraordinary circumstances, when the cost benefit of an intervention is prohibitive as supported by pharmacoeconomic data, commentary may be provided.

The diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis practice parameter: 2010 update.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The Diagnosis and Management of Anaphylaxis Practice Parameter: 2010 Update." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, or the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

Acute cough: a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge.

BACKGROUND: Acute cough is one of the most common complaints prompting patient visits to healthcare professionals. Despite the broad repercussions of acute cough on patient quality of life, school and work productivity, and public health resources, research on this condition is minimal, as are the available treatment options. Many patients use over-the-counter medicines, which are often ineffective for symptom relief. Some therapies may achieve antitussive activity, but at the expense of unpleasant or intolerable side effects. UNMET NEEDS: When considering the treatments currently available for the management of acute cough, the multiple limitations of such treatments are quite apparent. Most of these treatments lack clinically proven efficacy and reliability to support their use. This reinforces the need for the generation of quality scientific data from well-performed clinical trials. Hopefully, the result will be the development of safer, more effective and more reliable therapeutic options in the management of acute cough. COUGH ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT: Acute cough can be due to a variety of causes, and it is worthwhile to consider these pathogenic factors in some detail. It is also important to be familiar with the effects that acute cough has on patients' quality of life, work productivity, and the healthcare system; proper awareness of these effects may contribute to better understanding of the social impact of cough. In reference to the available treatments for the management of acute cough, adequate knowledge of the type of over-the-counter and prescription products in the market, as well as their mode of action and advantages/disadvantages, may provide expanded pharmacotherapeutic opportunities and facilitate better clinical decisions. However, due to the drawbacks of current treatment options, ideas for future cough management and newer products need to be considered and tested. CONCLUSION: In view of the socio-economic impact of acute cough and the limitations of available treatments, a renewed interest in the management of acute cough needs to be encouraged. The current strategies for acute cough management need to be reassessed, with a focus on developing new, reliable products and formulations with proven efficacy and safety.

Patients' and primary care physicians' beliefs about asthma control and risk.

Patients' and physicians' knowledge of asthma control and risks can affect long-term outcomes. The Asthma General Awareness and Perceptions II (Asthma GAP II) survey sought to assess the beliefs and behaviors of asthma patients and their physicians. In the United States, a telephone survey was conducted among 1885 adults with asthma (representative population sample [n = 1001] plus additional black [n = 436] and Hispanic samples [n = 448]) who took asthma medication in the previous year. An online survey included 300 primary care physicians. Most patients (66, 84, and 78% of national, black, and Hispanic samples, respectively) and physicians (80%) considered asthma a very or extremely serious condition. In contrast to current guidelines, most patients (69, 72, and 70%) believed that quick-relief medications could be taken daily. Many patients (42, 52, and 60%) and some physicians (22%) stated controller medications could be taken less regularly when symptoms decrease, although most patients (92, 92, and 89%) and physicians (95%) indicated that controller medications are most effective when taken daily. Of patients who discontinued controller medications (21%), 71% discontinued when symptoms abated. Most physicians (87%) believed that patients discontinued controller medications without their advice. After controller medication cessation, more black (22%) and Hispanic patients (22%) than patients in the national sample (15%) experienced serious health consequences after an asthma attack. Gaps exist between patients' understanding of asthma control and their use of controller and quick-relief medications. Many patients and physicians fail to recognize that, even with symptom abatement, serious asthma risks remain.

Comparison of mannitol and methacholine to predict exercise-induced bronchoconstriction and a clinical diagnosis of asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma can be difficult to diagnose, but bronchial provocation with methacholine, exercise or mannitol is helpful when used to identify bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR), a key feature of the disease. The utility of these tests in subjects with signs and symptoms of asthma but without a clear diagnosis has not been investigated. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol to identify exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) as a manifestation of BHR; compared this with methacholine; and compared the sensitivity and specificity of mannitol and methacholine for a clinician diagnosis of asthma. METHODS: 509 people (6-50 yr) were enrolled, 78% were atopic, median FEV1 92.5% predicted, and a low NAEPPII asthma score of 1.2. Subjects with symptoms of seasonal allergy were excluded. BHR to exercise was defined as a > or = 10% fall in FEV1 on at least one of two tests, to methacholine a PC20 < or = 16 mg/ml and to mannitol a 15% fall in FEV1 at < or = 635 mg or a 10% fall between doses. The clinician diagnosis of asthma was made on examination, history, skin tests, questionnaire and response to exercise but they were blind to the mannitol and methacholine results. RESULTS: Mannitol and methacholine were therapeutically equivalent to identify EIB, a clinician diagnosis of asthma, and prevalence of BHR. The sensitivity/specificity of mannitol to identify EIB was 59%/65% and for methacholine it was 56%/69%. The BHR was mild. Mean EIB % fall in FEV1 in subjects positive to exercise was 19%, (SD 9.2), mannitol PD15 158 (CI:129,193) mg, and methacholine PC20 2.1(CI:1.7, 2.6) mg/ml. The prevalence of BHR was the same: for exercise (43.5%), mannitol (44.8%), and methacholine (41.6%) with a test agreement between 62 & 69%. The sensitivity and specificity for a clinician diagnosis of asthma was 56%/73% for mannitol and 51%/75% for methacholine. The sensitivity increased to 73% and 72% for mannitol and methacholine when two exercise tests were positive. CONCLUSION: In this group with normal FEV1, mild symptoms, and mild BHR, the sensitivity and specificity for both mannitol and methacholine to identify EIB and a clinician diagnosis of asthma were equivalent, but lower than previously documented in well-defined populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This was a multi-center trial comprising 25 sites across the United States of America.