Atopic dermatitis yardstick: Practical recommendations for an evolving therapeutic landscape.

The implementation of treatment guidelines for atopic dermatitis is challenging, in part because of different guidance documents being used by different groups of specialists and in part because the language of guidelines often reflects the evidence base rather than the practical "how to." The Atopic Dermatitis Yardstick is part of a series developed in response to the need to proactively address the loss of disease control for atopic illnesses at all levels of severity. It presents a comprehensive update on how to conduct a sustained step-up in therapy for the patient with inadequately controlled or poorly controlled atopic dermatitis. Patient profiles, based on current guidelines and the authors' combined clinical experience, provide a practical and clinically meaningful guide to aid physicians in helping their patients achieve the goal of clear to almost clear. The intent is not to replace guidelines but to complement their recommendations incorporating the latest research and therapies.

Findings from an Online Survey Assessing the Burden and Management of Seasonal Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis in US Patients.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC) affects ≥16% of the US population annually. Telephone and in-office surveys have demonstrated negative effects of allergic rhinitis (AR) symptoms on sleep, daily activities, productivity, concentration, and emotions. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the patient-perceived burden of SARC in relation to newer treatments, increased access to treatments, and changing management protocols. METHODS: An online survey of symptom experience, impact on daily life, and management was conducted in US respondents who suffer (or whose child suffers) from SARC symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 1001 surveys were completed: 500 adults (≥18 years old) and 501 children (12-17 years old, documented by their parents). Similar to earlier AR surveys, SARC symptoms negatively affected the patient's (and family's) quality of life, and were most severe in the spring. Before being treated, >50% of respondents reported daily symptoms during their season; 75% to 80% considered their symptoms moderate to severe. Patients saw a variety of health care professionals (including pharmacists) and used over-the-counter and prescription medications for symptoms. Those using prescription medications were generally more satisfied with treatment and less likely to switch or discontinue treatment. Nasal and/or ocular symptoms drove adherence, seeing a health care professional, and reviewing and/or changing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with SARC report moderate-to-severe symptoms that significantly impair their quality of life. However, patients appear to be taking more responsibility for their (child's) condition, and patient expectations for therapy are increasingly being met. Continued efforts will be needed to examine the contribution of better information and/or increased access to and availability of medications to control the disease.

Are you comfortable with over-the-counter intranasal steroids for children? A call to action.

The early expression of allergic rhinitis in children is a potential red flag for lifelong problems and comorbid conditions. However, treating pediatric allergic rhinitis in the United States is trending toward a self-management or parental management model with little clinical supervision, which reflects changes in the delivery of health care. Of particular concern are the recent approval of an over-the-counter intranasal steroid to treat nasal allergy symptoms in adults and children as young as age 2 years and the push for a retail model of health care as exists in some other countries. For children with allergic rhinitis, treating nasal symptoms alone with over-the-counter products may further delay a diagnosis that is often already ignored due to its "annoyance factor" as opposed to being considered a serious health issue. How to ensure an appropriate diagnosis and management for these children remains a challenge, regardless of who is doing the treating. The call to action is for allergists and allergy medical organizations to drive the effort to ensure awareness of the why and how for appropriately diagnosing and treating allergic rhinitis in children. Starting points for the discussion are provided.

Customizing anaphylaxis guidelines for emergency medicine.

BACKGROUND: Most episodes of anaphylaxis are managed in emergency medical settings, where the cardinal signs and symptoms often differ from those observed in the allergy clinic. Data suggest that low recognition of anaphylaxis in the emergency setting may relate to inaccurate coding and lack of a standard, practical definition. OBJECTIVE: Develop a simple, consistent definition of anaphylaxis for emergency medicine providers, supported by clinically relevant consensus statements. DISCUSSION: Definitions of anaphylaxis and criteria for diagnosis from current anaphylaxis guidelines were reviewed with regard to their utilization in emergency medical settings. The agreed-upon working definition is: Anaphylaxis is a serious reaction causing a combination of characteristic findings, and which is rapid in onset and may cause death. It is usually due to an allergic reaction but can be non-allergic. The definition is supported by Consensus Statements, each with referenced discussion. For a positive outcome, quick diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis are critical. However, even in the emergency setting, the patient may not present with life-threatening symptoms. Because mild initial symptoms can quickly progress to a severe, even fatal, reaction, the first-line treatment for any anaphylaxis episode--regardless of severity--is intramuscular injection of epinephrine into the anterolateral thigh; delaying its administration increases the potential for morbidity and mortality. When a reaction appears as "possible anaphylaxis," it is generally better to err on the side of caution and administer epinephrine. CONCLUSION: We believe that this working definition and the supporting Consensus Statements are a first step to better management of anaphylaxis in the emergency medical setting.

A control model to evaluate pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis in children.

IMPORTANCE: Although the question of whether early diagnosis and treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) improve disease control is important, a more crucial question is whether we can evaluate the effect of treatment on disease control using an impairment-risk model. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review evaluating application of a control model based on domains of impairment and risk (similar to that used for asthma) in pharmacotherapy for children with AR. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (January 1, 1996, through May 31, 2012) for controlled studies lasting 2 weeks or longer in children with confirmed diagnoses of AR, including measures assessing impairment and/or risk of comorbid conditions. RESULTS: Sixteen controlled clinical trials, including more than 3000 children (aged 2-18 years) with AR (seasonal, n = 2290; perennial, n = 800), met the study criteria. All medication classes improved impairment related to AR, but between-treatment comparisons were limited because of different assessments. Intranasal steroids improved risk outcomes associated with asthma and obstructive sleep apnea. Small single studies suggested possible effects of oral antihistamines on asthma and sleep-disordered breathing. No risk data were available for nasal antihistamines or montelukast sodium. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of AR, particularly with intranasal steroids, improves disease control in children by reducing disease-associated impairment and risk. All AR medications with proved efficacy probably improve impairment, paralleling symptom reduction. Intranasal steroids may reduce the likelihood of comorbidities that increase health care use. These observations, although limited by different protocols and outcomes measures among studies, support current practice recommendations. Studies that use standardized measures of impairment to permit better comparison and appropriate protocols for risk evaluation are needed.

Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations. METHODS: This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs. RESULTS: Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9% reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide "real-world" data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended.

The role of nebulized therapy in the management of COPD: evidence and recommendations.

Current guidelines recommend inhalation therapy as the preferred route of drug administration for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Previous systematic reviews in COPD patients found similar clinical outcomes for drugs delivered by handheld inhalers - pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs) - and nebulizers, provided the devices were used correctly. However, in routine clinical practice critical errors in using handheld inhalers are highly prevalent and frequently result in inadequate symptom relief. In comparison with pMDIs and DPIs, effective drug delivery with conventional pneumatic nebulizers requires less intensive patient training. Moreover, by design, newer nebulizers are more portable and more efficient than traditional jet nebulizers. The current body of evidence regarding nebulizer use for maintenance therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, including use during exacerbations, suggests that the efficacy of long-term nebulizer therapy is similar, and in some respects superior, to that with pMDI/DPIs. Therefore, despite several known drawbacks associated with nebulized therapy, we recommend that maintenance therapy with nebulizers should be employed in elderly patients, those with severe disease and frequent exacerbations, and those with physical and/or cognitive limitations. Likewise, financial concerns and individual preferences that lead to better compliance may favor nebulized therapy over other inhalers. For some patients, using both nebulizers and pMDI/DPI may provide the best combination of efficacy and convenience. The impact of maintenance nebulizer treatment on other relevant clinical outcomes in patients with COPD, especially the progressive decline in lung function and frequency of exacerbations, needs further investigation.

The reality of adherence to rhinitis treatment: identifying and overcoming the barriers.

Medical advances have allowed many patients with chronic diseases to lead relatively normal lives, but disparity between patient perceptions of "normal" and therapeutically defined disease control contributes to lowered adherence to treatment. This disconnect is greatest in diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR) in which patients experience varying symptom severity over time-from asymptomatic periods to episodes of severe illness. This study was designed to evaluate the concept of adherence as applied to patients with AR. We reviewed the published literature. Adherence (or nonadherence) is an active process involving decision making on the part of the patient. Poor adherence with therapy can be the major barrier to achieving disease control, and the "on again, off again" approach to AR treatment embraced purposely by some patients may contribute to symptom lability, disease exacerbations, and higher costs. Evidence from surveys suggests that although specific educational interventions can temporarily improve adherence, in the long term most patients eventually revert to their former behavior. The available data suggest a need to reappraise how we address adherence with therapy in patients with chronic diseases with variable symptoms such as AR. The question is not just whether patient behavior can conform to recommended treatment plans, but whether it should. Experience suggests that successful strategies will be brief, easy to use, and capable of being tailored to individual patients in diverse clinical settings. Increased flexibility with medications is a corollary, particularly when patients are relatively asymptomatic (i.e., considered in control).