Author
K. Nekam
Bio: K. Nekam is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & European union. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 21 publications receiving 5207 citations.
Topics: Health care, European union, Asthma, Action plan, Integrated care
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
TL;DR: Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children.
Abstract: Allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma represent global health problems for all age groups. Asthma and rhinitis frequently coexist in the same subjects. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) was initiated during a World Health Organization workshop in 1999 (published in 2001). ARIA has reclassified AR as mild/moderate-severe and intermittent/persistent. This classification closely reflects patients' needs and underlines the close relationship between rhinitis and asthma. Patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are confronted with various treatment choices for the management of AR. This contributes to considerable variation in clinical practice, and worldwide, patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals are faced with uncertainty about the relative merits and downsides of the various treatment options. In its 2010 Revision, ARIA developed clinical practice guidelines for the management of AR and asthma comorbidities based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ARIA is disseminated and implemented in more than 50 countries of the world. Ten years after the publication of the ARIA World Health Organization workshop report, it is important to make a summary of its achievements and identify the still unmet clinical, research, and implementation needs to strengthen the 2011 European Union Priority on allergy and asthma in children.
453 citations
TL;DR: Co-Authors: Wahiduzzaman Akhanda, Raul Castro Almarales, Ignacio Ansotegui, Floriano Bonifazi, Jan Ceuppens, Tomás Chivato, Darina Dimova, Diana Dumitrascu, Luigi Fontana, Constance HKatelaris, Ranbir Kaulsay, Piotr Kuna, and Dèsirée Larenas-Linnemann.
Abstract: Co-Authors: Wahiduzzaman Akhanda, Raul Castro Almarales, Ignacio Ansotegui, Floriano Bonifazi, Jan Ceuppens, Tomás Chivato, Darina Dimova, Diana Dumitrascu, Luigi Fontana, Constance HKatelaris, Ranbir Kaulsay, Piotr Kuna, Dèsirée Larenas-Linnemann, Manolis Manoussakis, Kristof Nekam, Carlos Nunes, Robyn O’Hehir, José M Olaguibel, Nerin Bahceciler Onder, JungWon Park, Alfred Priftanji, Robert Puy, Luis Sarmiento, Glenis Scadding, Peter Schmid-Grendelmeier, Ester Seberova, Revaz Sepiashvili, Dirceu Solé, Alkis Togias, Carlo Tomino, Elina Toskala, Hugo Van Beever, Stefan Vieths*
434 citations
TL;DR: The AIRWAYS-ICP (Integrated Care Pathways for Airway Diseases) as mentioned in this paper is a collaboration to develop multi-sectoral care pathways for chronic respiratory diseases in European countries and regions.
Abstract: The objective of Integrated Care Pathways for Airway Diseases (AIRWAYS-ICPs) is to launch a collaboration to develop multi-sectoral care pathways for chronic respiratory diseases in European countries and regions. AIRWAYS-ICPs has strategic relevance to the European Union Health Strategy and will add value to existing public health knowledge by: 1) proposing a common framework of care pathways for chronic respiratory diseases, which will facilitate comparability and trans-national initiatives; 2) informing cost-effective policy development, strengthening in particular those on smoking and environmental exposure; 3) aiding risk stratification in chronic disease patients, using a common strategy; 4) having a significant impact on the health of citizens in the short term (reduction of morbidity, improvement of education in children and of work in adults) and in the long-term (healthy ageing); 5) proposing a common simulation tool to assist physicians; and 6) ultimately reducing the healthcare burden (emergency visits, avoidable hospitalisations, disability and costs) while improving quality of life. In the longer term, the incidence of disease may be reduced by innovative prevention strategies. AIRWAYS-ICPs was initiated by Area 5 of the Action Plan B3 of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing. All stakeholders are involved (health and social care, patients, and policy makers).
162 citations
TL;DR: MASK appears to be an advanced, global and integrated ICT answer for many unmet needs in allergic diseases which will improve policies and standards.
Abstract: Several unmet needs have been identified in allergic rhinitis: identification of the time of onset of the pollen season, optimal control of rhinitis and comorbidities, patient stratification, multidisciplinary team for integrated care pathways, innovation in clinical trials and, above all, patient empowerment. MASK-rhinitis (MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel NetworK for allergic rhinitis) is a simple system centred around the patient which was devised to fill many of these gaps using Information and Communications Technology (ICT) tools and a clinical decision support system (CDSS) based on the most widely used guideline in allergic rhinitis and its asthma comorbidity (ARIA 2015 revision). It is one of the implementation systems of Action Plan B3 of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP on AHA). Three tools are used for the electronic monitoring of allergic diseases: a cell phone-based daily visual analogue scale (VAS) assessment of disease control, CARAT (Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test) and e-Allergy screening (premedical system of early diagnosis of allergy and asthma based on online tools). These tools are combined with a clinical decision support system (CDSS) and are available in many languages. An e-CRF and an e-learning tool complete MASK. MASK is flexible and other tools can be added. It appears to be an advanced, global and integrated ICT answer for many unmet needs in allergic diseases which will improve policies and standards.
142 citations
Cited by
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
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
TL;DR: The role of the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) Dry Eye Workshop (DEWS) II Diagnostic Methodology Subcommittee was to identify tests used to diagnose and monitor dry eye disease (DED) to identify those most appropriate to fulfil the definition of DED and its sub-classifications.
Abstract: The role of the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) Dry Eye Workshop (DEWS) II Diagnostic Methodology Subcommittee was 1) to identify tests used to diagnose and monitor dry eye disease (DED), 2) to identify those most appropriate to fulfil the definition of DED and its sub-classifications, 3) to propose the most appropriate order and technique to conduct these tests in a clinical setting, and 4) to provide a differential diagnosis for DED and distinguish conditions where DED is a comorbidity. Prior to diagnosis, it is important to exclude conditions that can mimic DED with the aid of triaging questions. Symptom screening with the DEQ-5 or OSDI confirms that a patient might have DED and triggers the conduct of diagnostic tests of (ideally non-invasive) breakup time, osmolarity and ocular surface staining with fluorescein and lissamine green (observing the cornea, conjunctiva and eyelid margin). Meibomian gland dysfunction, lipid thickness/dynamics and tear volume assessment and their severity allow sub-classification of DED (as predominantly evaporative or aqueous deficient) which informs the management of DED. Videos of these diagnostic and sub-classification techniques are available on the TFOS website. It is envisaged that the identification of the key tests to diagnose and monitor DED and its sub-classifications will inform future epidemiological studies and management clinical trials, improving comparability, and enabling identification of the sub-classification of DED in which different management strategies are most efficacious.
1,152 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