Author
J. Bouchard
Bio: J. Bouchard is an academic researcher from Université de Sherbrooke. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cellulose & Health care. The author has an hindex of 10, co-authored 13 publications receiving 4142 citations.
Papers
More filters
Federal University of Bahia1, McMaster University2, University of Amsterdam3, National Institutes of Health4, Charité5, Catholic University of Cordoba6, University of Genoa7, Radboud University Nijmegen8, Transilvania University of Brașov9, Ghent University10, University of Tennessee Health Science Center11, University of Naples Federico II12, Laval University13, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais14, University of Oslo15, University of Manchester16, Aarhus University17, Imperial College London18, Erasmus University Rotterdam19, George Washington University20, Seoul National University21, Medical University of Łódź22, Hai phong University Of Medicine and Pharmacy23, Université de Montréal24, Guangzhou Medical University25, University of South Florida26, University of California, San Diego27, University of California28, University of Chicago29, Monash University30, Teikyo University31, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens32, Nippon Medical School33, Sofia Medical University34, Leiden University35, Leiden University Medical Center36, University College London37, University of Manitoba38, University of Helsinki39, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health40, National University of Singapore41, Karolinska Institutet42, University of Minnesota43, Celal Bayar University44, University of Cape Town45, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University46, Tunis University47, University of Ghana48, University of Wisconsin-Madison49, University of British Columbia50, Georgia Regents University51, Vilnius University52, University of Washington53, University of Dundee54, University of Poitiers55, University of Mississippi56, Federal University of São Paulo57, German Red Cross58, Jagiellonian University Medical College59, Chiba University60, American Pharmacists Association61, University of Aberdeen62, University of Nevada, Reno63, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill64
TL;DR: The ARIA guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis and asthma are similar in both the 1999 ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update as discussed by the authors, but the GRADE approach is not yet available.
Abstract: Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.
In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease.
This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work.
The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available.
Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed.
The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.
3,769 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: These guidelines describe controversies in the management of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS) and include recommendations that take into account changes in the bacteriologic landscape.
Abstract: This document provides health care 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 the development of guidelines and do not address the particulars of the Canadian health care 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 the strength of the evidence base and the degree of endorsement by the multidisciplinary expert group preparing the document.These guidelines have been copublished in both Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology and the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
244 citations
TL;DR: The aim of the novel ARIA approach is to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers, whatever their age, sex or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequalities incurred by the disease.
Abstract: The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) initiative commenced during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999. The initial goals were (1) to propose a new allergic rhinitis classification, (2) to promote the concept of multi-morbidity in asthma and rhinitis and (3) to develop guidelines with all stakeholders that could be used globally for all countries and populations. ARIA-disseminated and implemented in over 70 countries globally-is now focusing on the implementation of emerging technologies for individualized and predictive medicine. MASK [MACVIA (Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif)-ARIA Sentinel NetworK] uses mobile technology to develop care pathways for the management of rhinitis and asthma by a multi-disciplinary group and by patients themselves. An app (Android and iOS) is available in 20 countries and 15 languages. It uses a visual analogue scale to assess symptom control and work productivity as well as a clinical decision support system. It is associated with an inter-operable tablet for physicians and other health care professionals. The scaling up strategy uses the recommendations of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. The aim of the novel ARIA approach is to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers, whatever their age, sex or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequalities incurred by the disease.
127 citations
University of Porto1, University of Beira Interior2, University of Coimbra3, Humanitas University4, University of Turin5, University of Bari6, University of Salerno7, University of Amsterdam8, Leiden University Medical Center9, Federal University of Bahia10, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina11, Mexican Social Security Institute12, European Union of Medical Specialists13, Vilnius University14, University of Paris15, University of Montpellier16, French Institute of Health and Medical Research17, Université Paris-Saclay18, University of Grenoble19, Pasteur Institute20, University of Zurich21, Medical University of Łódź22, Medical University of Warsaw23, University of Barcelona24, University of Edinburgh25, University of Mainz26, Charité27, University of Cologne28, Medical University of Graz29, University of Helsinki30, University of Turku31, Istanbul University32, Celal Bayar University33, University of Manchester34, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens35, University of Crete36, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research37, Monash University38, Catholic University of Cordoba39, Karolinska Institutet40, Uppsala University41, Ghent University Hospital42, Université catholique de Louvain43, Odense University Hospital44, McMaster University45, Laval University46, Transylvania University47, Buck Consultants48, University of South Florida49, Saint Louis University50, Johns Hopkins University51, Chiba University52, Nova Southeastern University53
TL;DR: Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK aims to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers and to those with asthma multimorbidity across the life cycle in order to reduce health and social inequities incurred by the disease and to improve the digital transformation of health and care.
Abstract: Mobile Airways Sentinel NetworK (MASK) belongs to the Fondation Partenariale MACVIA-LR of Montpellier, France and aims to provide an active and healthy life to rhinitis sufferers and to those with asthma multimorbidity across the life cycle, whatever their gender or socio-economic status, in order to reduce health and social inequities incurred by the disease and to improve the digital transformation of health and care. The ultimate goal is to change the management strategy in chronic diseases. MASK implements ICT technologies for individualized and predictive medicine to develop novel care pathways by a multi-disciplinary group centred around the patients. Include patients, health care professionals (pharmacists and physicians), authorities, patient’s associations, private and public sectors. MASK is deployed in 23 countries and 17 languages. 26,000 users have registered. MASK is participating in EU projects (POLLAR: impact of air POLLution in Asthma and Rhinitis, EIT Health, DigitalHealthEurope, Euriphi and Vigour). (i) Adherence to treatment is the major problem of allergic disease, (ii) Self-management strategies should be considerably expanded (behavioural), (iii) Change management is essential in allergic diseases, (iv) Education strategies should be reconsidered using a patient-centred approach and (v) Lessons learnt for allergic diseases can be expanded to chronic diseases.
91 citations
French Institute of Health and Medical Research1, Buck Consultants2, University of Montpellier3, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University4, Université catholique de Louvain5, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven6, Ghent University Hospital7, Pompeu Fabra University8, Charité9, Odense University Hospital10, Woolcock Institute of Medical Research11, Humanitas University12, Leiden University Medical Center13, Federal University of Bahia14, University of Porto15, Erasmus University Rotterdam16, University of Helsinki17, University of Paris18, University of Würzburg19, Houston Advanced Research Center20, Medical University of Łódź21, Vilnius University22, University of Barcelona23, Nova Southeastern University24, Karolinska Institutet25, Monash University26, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens27, University of Manchester28, University of Aberdeen29, University of Edinburgh30, Medical University of Warsaw31, University of Manitoba32, University of Coimbra33, Medical University of Graz34, University of Salerno35, University of Turku36, European Union of Medical Specialists37, Queen's University Belfast38
TL;DR: Data from a mobile phone app that collects data from daily visual analogue scales for overall allergic symptoms and the distribution of responses for the VAS supports the interpretation that persons with rhinitis report both the presence and the absence of symptoms.
Abstract: Allergic rhinitis often impairs social life and performance. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to use cell phone data to assess the impact on work productivity of uncontrolled rhinitis assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). A mobile phone app (Allergy Diary, Google Play Store and Apple App Store) collects data from daily visual analogue scales (VAS) for overall allergic symptoms (VAS-global measured), nasal (VAS-nasal), ocular (VAS-ocular) and asthma symptoms (VAS-asthma) as well as work (VAS-work). A combined nasal-ocular score is calculated. The Allergy Diary is available in 21 countries. The app includes the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Allergic Specific Questionnaire (WPAI:AS) in six EU countries. All consecutive users who completed the VAS-work from 1 June to 31 October 2016 were included in the study. A total of 1136 users filled in 5818 days of VAS-work. Symptoms of allergic rhinitis were controlled (VAS-global 50). There was a significant correlation between VAS-global calculated and VAS-work (Rho=0.83, P<0.00001, Spearman's rank test). In 144 users, there was a significant correlation between VAS-work and WPAI:AS (Rho=0.53, P<0.0001). This pilot study provides not only proof-of-concept data on the work impairment collected with the app but also data on the app itself, especially the distribution of responses for the VAS. This supports the interpretation that persons with rhinitis report both the presence and the absence of symptoms.
77 citations
Cited by
More filters
University of Amsterdam1, Ghent University2, University of Chicago3, University of Pennsylvania4, Lund University5, Auckland City Hospital6, University of Antwerp7, University of New South Wales8, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven9, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust10, Queen's University11, University of Zagreb12, Northwestern University13, Medical University of Łódź14, University of Aberdeen15, Medical University of South Carolina16, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill17, University of Southampton18, University of São Paulo19, National University of Singapore20, Flinders University21
TL;DR: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012 and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery.
Abstract: The European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 is the update of similar evidence based position papers published in 2005 and 2007 and 2012. The core objective of the EPOS2020 guideline is to provide revised, up-to-date and clear evidence-based recommendations and integrated care pathways in ARS and CRS. EPOS2020 provides an update on the literature published and studies undertaken in the eight years since the EPOS2012 position paper was published and addresses areas not extensively covered in EPOS2012 such as paediatric CRS and sinus surgery. EPOS2020 also involves new stakeholders, including pharmacists and patients, and addresses new target users who have become more involved in the management and treatment of rhinosinusitis since the publication of the last EPOS document, including pharmacists, nurses, specialised care givers and indeed patients themselves, who employ increasing self-management of their condition using over the counter treatments. The document provides suggestions for future research in this area and offers updated guidance for definitions and outcome measurements in research in different settings. EPOS2020 contains chapters on definitions and classification where we have defined a large number of terms and indicated preferred terms. A new classification of CRS into primary and secondary CRS and further division into localized and diffuse disease, based on anatomic distribution is proposed. There are extensive chapters on epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, (differential) diagnosis of facial pain, allergic rhinitis, genetics, cystic fibrosis, aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease, immunodeficiencies, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis and the relationship between upper and lower airways. The chapters on paediatric acute and chronic rhinosinusitis are totally rewritten. All available evidence for the management of acute rhinosinusitis and chronic rhinosinusitis with or without nasal polyps in adults and children is systematically reviewed and integrated care pathways based on the evidence are proposed. Despite considerable increases in the amount of quality publications in recent years, a large number of practical clinical questions remain. It was agreed that the best way to address these was to conduct a Delphi exercise . The results have been integrated into the respective sections. Last but not least, advice for patients and pharmacists and a new list of research needs are included. The full document can be downloaded for free on the website of this journal: http://www.rhinologyjournal.com.
2,853 citations
TL;DR: A number of different pretreatments involving biological, chemical, physical, and thermal approaches have been investigated over the years, but only those that employ chemicals currently offer the high yields and low costs vital to economic success.
Abstract: New transportation fuels are badly needed to reduce our heavy dependence on imported oil and to reduce the release of greenhouse gases that cause global climate change; cellulosic biomass is the only inexpensive resource that can be used for sustainable production of the large volumes of liquid fuels that our transportation sector has historically favored. Furthermore, biological conversion of cellulosic biomass can take advantage of the power of biotechnology to take huge strides toward making biofuels cost competitive. Ethanol production is particularly well suited to marrying this combination of need, resource, and technology. In fact, major advances have already been realized to competitively position cellulosic ethanol with corn ethanol. However, although biotechnology presents important opportunities to achieve very low costs, pretreatment of naturally resistant cellulosic materials is essential if we are to achieve high yields from biological operations; this operation is projected to be the single, most expensive processing step, representing about 20% of the total cost. In addition, pretreatment has pervasive impacts on all other major operations in the overall conversion scheme from choice of feedstock through to size reduction, hydrolysis, and fermentation, and on to product recovery, residue processing, and co-product potential. A number of different pretreatments involving biological, chemical, physical, and thermal approaches have been investigated over the years, but only those that employ chemicals currently offer the high yields and low costs vital to economic success. Among the most promising are pretreatments using dilute acid, sulfur dioxide, near-neutral pH control, ammonia expansion, aqueous ammonia, and lime, with significant differences among the sugar-release patterns. Although projected costs for these options are similar when applied to corn stover, a key need now is to dramatically improve our knowledge of these systems with the goal of advancing pretreatment to substantially reduce costs and to accelerate commercial applications. © 2007 Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
1,671 citations
TL;DR: These are the most recent and currently the most systematically and transparently developed recommendations about the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children and patients are encouraged to use these recommendations in their daily practice and to support their decisions.
Abstract: Background: Allergic rhinitis represents a global health problem affecting 10% to 20% of the population. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines have been widely used to treat the approximately 500 million affected patients globally. Objective: To develop explicit, unambiguous, and transparent clinical recommendations systematically for treatment of allergic rhinitis on the basis of current best evidence. Methods: The authors updated ARIA clinical recommendations in collaboration with Global Allergy and Asthma European Network following the approach suggested by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Results: This article presents recommendations about the prevention of allergic diseases, the use of oral and topical medications, allergen specific immunotherapy, and complementary treatments in patients with allergic rhinitis as well as patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma. The guideline panel developed evidence profiles for each recommendation and considered health benefits and harms, burden, patient preferences, and resource use, when appropriate, to formulate recommendations for patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals. Conclusion: These are the most recent and currently the most systematically and transparently developed recommendations about the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children. Patients, clinicians, and policy makers are encouraged to use these recommendations in their daily practice and to support their decisions.
1,398 citations
Charité1, Medical University of Graz2, University of Southern Denmark3, Medical University of Silesia4, University of Genoa5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Autonomous University of Barcelona7, University of Coimbra8, St. John's University9, Hiroshima University10, Medical University of South Carolina11, Hannover Medical School12, Hospital Kuala Lumpur13, Johns Hopkins University14, University of Zurich15, University of Manitoba16, University of Mainz17, University of Toronto18, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology19, University of Bari20, Peking University21
TL;DR: This guideline covers the definition and classification of urticaria, taking into account the recent progress in identifying its causes, eliciting factors and pathomechanisms, and outlines evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes ofUrticaria.
Abstract: This guideline is the result of a systematic literature review using the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) methodology and a structured consensus conference held on 28 and 29 November 2012, in Berlin. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2) LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), and the World Allergy Organization (WAO) with the participation of delegates of 21 national and international societies. Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease, presenting with wheals, angioedema, or both. The life-time prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous urticaria and other chronic forms of urticaria do not only cause a decrease in quality of life, but also affect performance at work and school and, as such, are members of the group of severe allergic diseases. This guideline covers the definition and classification of urticaria, taking into account the recent progress in identifying its causes, eliciting factors and pathomechanisms. In addition, it outlines evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).
1,150 citations
McMaster University1, University of Montpellier2, Transylvania University3, Ghent University Hospital4, University of Sydney5, Humanitas University6, University of South Florida7, Leiden University Medical Center8, RMIT University9, Federal University of Bahia10, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University11, Saint Louis University12, University of Porto13, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven14, Medical University of Łódź15, University of Tartu16, Oslo University Hospital17, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland18, University of California, San Diego19, University of Barcelona20, University of Padua21, Monash University22, Charles University in Prague23, University of Manchester24, Ajou University25, University of Genoa26, Nippon Medical School27, University of Aberdeen28, University of Edinburgh29, Kerman Medical University30, Medical University of Warsaw31, National Institutes of Health32, Vilnius University33, University of Turku34, Nova Southeastern University35, Boston Children's Hospital36, Beijing Tongren Hospital37, Charité38
TL;DR: The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR, addressing the relative merits of using oral H1‐antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistsamines, IntranasAL corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination.
Abstract: Background Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10% to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life and school and work performance and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. Medical costs are large, but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines in 2010, prompting its update. Objective We sought to provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. Methods The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patients' values and preferences and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. Results The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides both updated and new recommendations about the pharmacologic treatment of AR. Specifically, it addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or in combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment and the rationale for the choice and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients might want to review to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. Conclusions Appropriate treatment of AR might improve patients' quality of life and school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.
1,098 citations