PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Year of Publication
1.  The burden of allergic rhinitis (AR) in Canada: perspectives of physicians and patients 
Background
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common problem and we sought to examine the burden of disease and its management in Canada from the perspectives of patients and physicians.
Methods
Two parallel, Canadawide structured telephone interviews surveyed 1,001 AR patients and 160 physicians in July 2006.
Results
44% of patients had experienced nasal symptoms unrelated to a cold and 20% had a physician diagnosis of AR. At screening 27% reported asthma, 15% chronic or recurrent sinusitis and 5% nasal polyps. With attacks nasal congestion and runny nose were the most bothersome symptoms. Other problems experienced were fatigue (46%), poor concentration (32%), and reduced productivity (23%). Most (77%) had not seen a physician in the past year. Physicians estimated they prescribed intranasal cortico steroids (INCS) to most AR patients (77%) consistent with guidelines but only 19% of patients had used one in the last month. Only 48% of patients were very satisfied with their current INCS. 41% of AR patients reported discontinuing their INCS with the most common reason being a perceived lack of long-lasting symptom relief (44%). 52% of patients felt that their current INCS lost effectiveness over 24 h. The most common INCS side effects included dripping down the throat, bad taste, and dryness. Most AR patients reported lifestyle limitations despite treatment (66%). 61% of patients felt that their symptoms were only somewhat controlled or poorly/not controlled during their worst month in the past year.
Conclusions
AR symptoms are common and many patients experience inadequate control. Physicians report they commonly prescribe intranasal corticosteroids, but patient’s perceived loss of efficacy and side effects lead to their discontinuation. Persistent relief of allergic rhinitis symptoms remains a major unmet need. Better treatments and education are required.
doi:10.1186/1710-1492-8-7
PMCID: PMC3490734  PMID: 22656186
Rhinitis, Allergic; Anti-allergic agents; Administration, Intranasal; Quality of life
4.  Canadian clinical practice guidelines for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis 
This document provides healthcare practitioners with information regarding the management of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) to enable them to better meet the needs of this patient population. These guidelines describe controversies in the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) and include recommendations that take into account changes in the bacteriologic landscape. Recent guidelines in ABRS have been released by American and European groups as recently as 2007, but these are either limited in their coverage of the subject of CRS, do not follow an evidence-based strategy, or omit relevant stakeholders in guidelines development, and do not address the particulars of the Canadian healthcare environment.
Advances in understanding the pathophysiology of CRS, along with the development of appropriate therapeutic strategies, have improved outcomes for patients with CRS. CRS now affects large numbers of patients globally and primary care practitioners are confronted by this disease on a daily basis. Although initially considered a chronic bacterial infection, CRS is now recognized as having multiple distinct components (eg, infection, inflammation), which have led to changes in therapeutic approaches (eg, increased use of corticosteroids). The role of bacteria in the persistence of chronic infections, and the roles of surgical and medical management are evolving. Although evidence is limited, guidance for managing patients with CRS would help practitioners less experienced in this area offer rational care. It is no longer reasonable to manage CRS as a prolonged version of ARS, but rather, specific therapeutic strategies adapted to pathogenesis must be developed and diffused.
Guidelines must take into account all available evidence and incorporate these in an unbiased fashion into management recommendations based on the quality of evidence, therapeutic benefit, and risks incurred. This document is focused on readability rather than completeness, yet covers relevant information, offers summaries of areas where considerable evidence exists, and provides recommendations with an assessment of strength of the evidence base and degree of endorsement by the multidisciplinary expert group preparing the document.
These guidelines have been copublished in both Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
doi:10.1186/1710-1492-7-2
PMCID: PMC3055847  PMID: 21310056
5.  2010 International consensus algorithm for the diagnosis, therapy and management of hereditary angioedema 
Background
We published the Canadian 2003 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema (HAE; C1 inhibitor [C1-INH] deficiency) and updated this as Hereditary angioedema: a current state-of-the-art review: Canadian Hungarian 2007 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema.
Objective
To update the International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy and Management of Hereditary Angioedema (circa 2010).
Methods
The Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Network (CHAEN)/Réseau Canadien d'angioédème héréditaire (RCAH) http://www.haecanada.com and cosponsors University of Calgary and the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (with an unrestricted educational grant from CSL Behring) held our third Conference May 15th to 16th, 2010 in Toronto Canada to update our consensus approach. The Consensus document was reviewed at the meeting and then circulated for review.
Results
This manuscript is the 2010 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy and Management of Hereditary Angioedema that resulted from that conference.
Conclusions
Consensus approach is only an interim guide to a complex disorder such as HAE and should be replaced as soon as possible with large phase III and IV clinical trials, meta analyses, and using data base registry validation of approaches including quality of life and cost benefit analyses, followed by large head-to-head clinical trials and then evidence-based guidelines and standards for HAE disease management.
doi:10.1186/1710-1492-6-24
PMCID: PMC2921362  PMID: 20667127

Results 1-5 (5)