Mark S. Dykewicz

Diagnosis and Management of Rhinitis: Complete Guidelines of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology

This document contains complete guidelines for diagnosis and management of rhinitis developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The guidelines are comprehensive and begin with statements on clinical characteristics and diagnosis of different forms of rhinitis (allergic, non-allergic, occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis [pregnancy and hypothyroidism], drug-induced rhinitis, rhinitis from food ingestion), and other conditions that may be confused with rhinitis. Recommendations on patient evaluation discuss appropriate use of history, physical examination, and diagnostic testing, as well as unproven or inappropriate techniques that should not be used. Parameters on management include use of environmental control measures, pharmacologic therapy including recently introduced therapies and allergen immunotherapy. Because of the risks to patients and society from sedation and performance impairment caused by first generation antihistamines, second generation antihistamines that reduce or eliminate these side effects should usually be considered before first generation antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The document emphasizes the importance of rhinitis management for comorbid conditions (asthma, sinusitis, otitis media). Guidelines are also presented on special considerations in patients subsets (children, the elderly, pregnancy, athletes and patients with rhinitis medicamentosa); and when consultation with an allergist-immunologist should be considered.

Executive Summary of Joint Task Force Practice Parameters on Diagnosis and Management of Rhinitis

Rhinitis is a significant cause of widespread morbidity, medical treatment costs, reduced work productivity and lost school days. Although sometimes mistakenly viewed as a trivial disease, symptoms of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis may significantly impact a patients quality of life, by causing fatigue, headache, cognitive impairment and other systemic symptoms. In addition, many antihistamines commonly used for treatment can themselves cause performance impairment that may contribute to fatal automobile accidents, work place accidents, decreased work productivity and in children, impaired school performance. Appropriate management of rhinitis may be an important component in effective management of coexisting or complicating respiratory conditions, such as asthma, sinusitis, or chronic otitis media. Rhinitis may be caused by allergic, non-allergic, infectious, hormonal, occupational, and other factors. Defining the causes of rhinitis in an individual is important because different rhinitis syndromes may require different therapeutic approaches for optimal management, an important consideration as more treatment options become available. This Executive Summary reviews key points about diagnosis and management of rhinitis contained in the comprehensive document, Diagnosis and Management of Rhinitis: Complete Guidelines of Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, and Joint Task Force Algorithm and Annotations for Diagnosis and Management of Rhinitis. These documents represent a consensus opinion of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, a national panel co-sponsored by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, and the Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

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

Occupational asthma : Current concepts in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management

2 to

Symptom severity assessment of allergic rhinitis: part 1

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

Fresh frozen plasma in the treatment of resistant angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor angioedema

2 to

Cough and angioedema from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: new insights into mechanisms and management.

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.

When is prophylaxis for hereditary angioedema necessary

Occupational asthma (OA) may account for 25% or more of de novo adult asthma. The nomenclature has now better defined categories of OA caused by sensitizing agents and irritants, the latter best typified by the reactive airways dysfunction syndrome. Selecting the most appropriate diagnostic testing and management is driven by assessing whether a sensitizer is involved, and if so, identifying whether the sensitizing agent is a high-molecular-weight agent such as a protein or a low-molecular-weight reactive chemical such as an isocyanate. Increased understanding of the pathogenesis of OA from reactive chemical sensitizers is leading to development of better diagnostic testing and also an understanding of why testing for sensitization to such agents can be problematic. Risk factors for OA including possible genetic factors are being delineated better. Recently published guidelines for the diagnosis and management of occupational asthma are summarized; these reflect an increasingly robust evidence basis for recommendations. The utility of diagnostic tests for OA is being better defined by evidence, including sputum analysis performed in relation to work exposure with suspected sensitizers. Preventive and management approaches are reviewed. Longitudinal studies of patients with OA continue to show that timely removal from exposure leads to the best prognosis.

Occupational asthma in a latex doll manufacturing plant

Sheldon L. Spector, MD; Richard A. Nicklas, MD; Jean A. Chapman, MD; I. Leonard Bernstein, MD;William E. Berger, MD; Joann Blessing-Moore, MD; Mark S. Dykewicz, MD;Stanley M. Fineman, MD; Rufus E. Lee, MD; James T. Li, MD, PhD; Jay M. Portnoy, MD;Diane E. Schuller, MD; David Lang, MD; and Stephen A. Tilles, MD

Idiopathic anaphylaxis: classification, evaluation, and treatment of 123 patients.

BACKGROUND Angioedema, particularly of the head and neck, is a well-recognized adverse effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Most cases respond to conventional therapy, including antihistamines and corticosteroids. Severe episodes may require epinephrine and intubation. OBJECTIVE To report the case of a patient with ACE inhibitor-induced angioedema treated with fresh frozen plasma (FFP). METHODS The patient is a 43-year-old, white woman who first received the ACE inhibitor ramipril in March 2002. After 3 weeks, she developed angioedema of her lips and fingers, which resolved with antihistamines, corticosteroids, and one dose of epinephrine. A low dose of ramipril was restarted 4 days later, which was increased throughout 4 days. In late August 2002, she developed severe upper lip and tongue edema recalcitrant to conventional therapy. Her C1 esterase inhibitor level was normal. RESULTS After 4 days of treatment with antihistamines, corticosteroids, epinephrine, antileukotrienes, cyclosporine, and intravenous immunoglobulins, the patients tongue swelling continued to recur and became more severe. Two units of intravenous FFP was given, with rapid improvement and no further recurrence of tongue swelling. CONCLUSIONS In our patient, FFP was highly successful in the treatment of resistant, life-threatening angioedema due to an ACE inhibitor. The benefit of FFP in this setting might be due to the effect of kininase II in breaking down accumulated bradykinin.