GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

[What not to do in the therapeutic management of bronchial asthma. Delphi consensus recommendations for physicians who treat asthma]

Asthma is one of the most prevalent diseases in Spain, yet despite the great diagnostic and therapeutic advances made in this field, health outcomes suggest that up to 80% of patients do not have their asthma well controlled. Although the causes of this situation are diverse, there are some practices among the professionals who treat asthma that are not conducive to improving health outcomes in this disease. Our working group has prepared this document in order to remind clinicians of a series of basic guidelines, aligned with current guidelines and recent literature, and agreed by a multidisciplinary expert panel using Delphi methodology. These recommendations about what not to do in the management of asthma in the adult patient are structured into four areas: diagnosis, monitoring, treatment and prevention of exacerbations.

Characteristics of patients with allergic rhinitis in an outpatient clinic: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis affects a significant proportion of the European population. Few surveys have investigated this disorder in Greek adults. Our objective was to describe the characteristics of patients with allergic rhinitis in an adult outpatient clinic in Thessaloniki, Greece.

METHODS

We studied the medical records of adult patients referred to a Clinical Immunology outpatient clinic from 2001 to 2007. The diagnostic procedure was not changed during the whole study period, including the same questionnaire used at the time of diagnosis, skin prick tests, and serum specific IgE.

RESULTS

A total of 1851 patient files with diagnosed allergies were analysed and allergic rhinitis was confirmed in 711 subjects (38.4%). According to ARIA classification, persistent allergic rhinitis was more prevalent than intermittent (54.9% vs. 45.1%), while 60.8% of subjects suffered from moderate/severe disease. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with allergic rhinitis were age (for every 10 years increase, OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.77-0.91; p<0.001); working in school environment (teachers or students) (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.05-2.02; p=0.023); parental history of respiratory allergy (OR: 2.41, 95% CI: 1.69-3.43; p<0.001); smoking (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.55-0.91; p=0.007); presence of allergic conjunctivitis (OR: 6.16, 95% CI: 4.71-8.06; p<0.001); and asthma (OR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.57-3.01; p<0.001). Analysis after multiple imputation corroborated the complete case analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergic rhinitis was documented in 38.4% of studied patients and was frequently characterised by significant morbidity. Factors associated with allergic rhinitis provide insight into the epidemiology of this disorder in our region. Further studies on the general population would contribute to evaluating allergic rhinitis more comprehensively.

DIRAE study: seasonal allergic rhinitis distribution in Spain

BACKGROUND

National epidemiological study to observe if among patients with pollinic seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR), there are differences between those visited by primary care physicians (GPs) or allergists (ALs).

METHODS

758 and 739 adults were recruited respectively by GPs and ALs. The physicians filled in a questionnaire: ARIA classification, prescribed treatment, and asthma incidence. The patient completed a visual analogical scale (VAS) to evaluate the severity of the rhinitis. Rhinitis control (controlled, partially controlled, and not controlled) was assessed by physician and patient.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found among patients visited by GPs or ALs concerning the ARIA classification and rhinitis severity. Treatment with oral antihistamines was 92.3% and 89.3% for GPs and ALs, respectively. The use of nasal corticosteroids was 76.7% and 60.4% for GP and AL patients, respectively. 31.9% of the patients visited by the ALs were treated with immunotherapy. The use of alternative medicine was 10.9% and 7.6% in GP and AL patients, respectively. The perception of "controlled" rhinitis was similar among patients (40.0%) and doctors (40.1%), although patients referred differences depending if they were visited by GP (44.8%) or AL (34.9%). Asthma prevalence was higher in those who suffered persistent as compared to intermittent rhinitis (OR=1.81, 95% CI: 1.39-2.36, p<0.001), and moderate/severe vs. mild rhinitis (OR=1.68, 95% CI: 1.05-2.68, p=0.029).

CONCLUSION

The patients with pollinic SAR visited by GPs or ALs show no differences in severity. Less than half of the patients can be considered as "controlled".

Skin prick test reactivity to common aeroallergens and ARIA classification of allergic rhinitis in patients of Central Greece

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is prevalent in Mediterranean countries, but there are no epidemiological studies in the Hellenic milieu in accordance with the recent ARIA guidelines. We investigated aetiological aeroallergens in AR patients of Central Greece using the ARIA classification. Between 2002 and 2006, 911 patients with rhinitis symptomatology were interviewed and underwent Skin prick testing and 623 completed the study. Seasonal rhinitis (SAR) represented 37.6%, Perennial rhinitis (PAR) 46.4% and SAR + PAR 16%. Intermittent mild and moderate/severe AR was evident in 9.3 and 24.5%, persistent mild and moderate/severe in 23.2 and 43.0%. Persistent AR appeared in overall 66.2% of patients and was prevalent in PAR and SAR + PAR (p < 0.0001). Severity of AR symptoms did not correlate more with ARIA than with the traditional subgroups. Marked statistical (p < 0.05) differences were evident for seven aeroallergens between the four geographic areas of the study. Pollen allergy was found in 77.8% but all pollens were significantly lower in coastal areas (p < 0.001), besides Parietaria (p < 0.003). Mite sensitivity manifested in 43.2%. Alternaria affected mostly the paediatric population (p < 0.0001). 12.4% (N = 77) was monosensitive, 58.7% (N = 366) oligosensitive, and 28.9% (N = 180) polysensitive. Rhinitis and asthma comorbidity was high (45.3%) and occurrence of asthma was related with PAR (p < 0.007) and SAR + PAR (p < 0.023) but not with the ARIA classification subgroups. This study provides compelling evidence of a typical Mediterranean allergic profile of patients of Central Greece with significant regional variability. Both classifications had approximately equal diagnostic value in our study besides the fact that ARIA subdivision is considered superior in determining treatment.

[Relationship between comorbidity and asthma control]

INTRODUCTION

The coexistence of potentially aggravating processes is common in asthmatics, particularly in patients with difficult control. The primary aim of this study is to ascertain whether comorbidity id more common in uncontrolled patients. As a secondary aim, we propose to evaluate the correlation between the asthma control test (ACT) and the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO).

PATIENT AND METHODS

A prospective, observational study comparing the function and clinical picture of two groups of asthmatics: controlled (ACT≥20) and uncontrolled (ACT<20). They were all assessed for, smoking, rhinosinusitis, obesity, anxiety, depression, vocal cord dysfunction, gastro-oesophageal reflux (GORD), allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), COPD and nasal polyps.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients with controlled asthma and 102 with suboptimal control were included. The patients with an ACT≥20 had better lung function, less variation in PEF, less bronchial hyper-reactivity and lower FENO values. Comorbidities were found in 95% of the controlled asthmatics and in 97% of the uncontrolled. Only the presence of nasal polyps, GORD and ABPA was more frequent in the uncontrolled group. However, the simultaneous presence of 3 or more comorbidity factors was significantly more frequent in patients with sub-optimal control (P=0.01). There was no significant correlation between the FENO and the ACT values (rho=-0.08; P=0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Aggravating comorbidities are more common in patients with sub-optimal control. There was no correlation between the FENO and the ACT values.