Author
Rebecca S. Gruchalla
Other affiliations: University of Texas at Dallas
Bio: Rebecca S. Gruchalla is an academic researcher from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Asthma & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 43, co-authored 89 publications receiving 9564 citations. Previous affiliations of Rebecca S. Gruchalla include University of Texas at Dallas.
Topics: Asthma, Medicine, Population, Omalizumab, Allergy
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai1, Mayo Clinic2, Johns Hopkins University3, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention4, Fremantle Hospital5, Harvard University6, Case Western Reserve University7, Stanford University8, University of Texas at Dallas9, American Academy of Pediatrics10, American Society of Anesthesiologists11, The American College of Financial Services12, National Institutes of Health13, University of Padua14, American College of Emergency Physicians15
TL;DR: There is no universal agreement on the definition of anaphylaxis or the criteria for diagnosis, so representatives from 16 different organizations or government bodies, including representatives from North America, Europe, and Australia, to continue working toward a universally accepted definition.
Abstract: There is no universal agreement on the definition of anaphylaxis or the criteria for diagnosis. In July 2005, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network convened a second meeting on anaphylaxis, which included representatives from 16 different organizations or government bodies, including representatives from North America, Europe, and Australia, to continue working toward a universally accepted definition of anaphylaxis, establish clinical criteria that would accurately identify cases of anaphylaxis with high precision, further review the evidence on the most appropriate management of anaphylaxis, and outline the research needs in this area.
1,572 citations
TL;DR: Among inner-city children with atopic asthma, an individualized, home-based, comprehensive environmental intervention decreases exposure to indoor allergens, including cockroach and dust-mite allergen, resulting in reduced asthma-associated morbidity.
Abstract: background Children with asthma who live in the inner city are exposed to multiple indoor allergens and environmental tobacco smoke in their homes. Reductions in these triggers of asthma have been difficult to achieve and have seldom been associated with decreased morbidity from asthma. The objective of this study was to determine whether an environmental intervention tailored to each child’s allergic sensitization and environmental risk factors could improve asthma-related outcomes. methods We enrolled 937 children with atopic asthma (age, 5 to 11 years) in seven major U.S. cities in a randomized, controlled trial of an environmental intervention that lasted one year (intervention year) and included education and remediation for exposure to both allergens and environmental tobacco smoke. Home environmental exposures were assessed every six months, and asthma-related complications were assessed every two months during the intervention and for one year after the intervention. results For every 2-week period, the intervention group had fewer days with symptoms than did the control group both during the intervention year (3.39 vs. 4.20 days, P<0.001) and the year afterward (2.62 vs. 3.21 days, P<0.001), as well as greater declines in the levels of allergens at home, such as Dermatophagoides farinae (Der f1) allergen in the bed (P<0.001) and on the bedroom floor (P=0.004), D. pteronyssinus in the bed (P=0.007), and cockroach allergen on the bedroom floor (P<0.001). Reductions in the levels of cockroach allergen and dust-mite allergen (Der f1) on the bedroom floor were significantly correlated with reduced complications of asthma (P<0.001). conclusions Among inner-city children with atopic asthma, an individualized, home-based, comprehensive environmental intervention decreases exposure to indoor allergens, including cockroach and dust-mite allergens, resulting in reduced asthma-associated morbidity.
1,012 citations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai1, Mayo Clinic2, Johns Hopkins University3, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention4, Fremantle Hospital5, Harvard University6, Case Western Reserve University7, Stanford University8, University of Texas at Dallas9, American Academy of Pediatrics10, American Society of Anesthesiologists11, National Institutes of Health12, University of Padua13, American College of Emergency Physicians14
TL;DR: There is no universal agreement on the definition of anaphylaxis or the criteria for diagnosis, so representatives from 16 different organizations or government bodies, including representatives from North America, Europe, and Australia, to continue working toward a universally accepted definition.
962 citations
TL;DR: When added to a regimen of guidelines-based therapy for inner-city children, adolescents, and young adults, omalizumab further improved asthma control, nearly eliminated seasonal peaks in exacerbations, and reduced the need for other medications to control asthma.
Abstract: Among 419 participants who underwent randomization (at which point 73% had moderate or severe disease), omalizumab as compared with placebo significantly reduced the number of days with asthma symptoms, from 1.96 to 1.48 days per 2-week interval, a 24.5% decrease (P<0.001). Similarly, omalizumab significantly reduced the proportion of participants who had one or more exacerbations from 48.8 to 30.3% (P<0.001). Improvements occurred with omalizumab despite reductions in the use of inhaled glucocorticoids and long-acting beta-agonists. Conclusions When added to a regimen of guidelines-based therapy for inner-city children, adolescents, and young adults, omalizumab further improved asthma control, nearly eliminated seasonal peaks in exacerbations, and reduced the need for other medications to control asthma. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Novartis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00377572.)
729 citations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai1, Food and Drug Administration2, American College of Emergency Physicians3, Stanford University4, Johns Hopkins University5, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center6, American Academy of Pediatrics7, Harvard University8, University of Pennsylvania9, Medical University of South Carolina10, National Institutes of Health11, University of Virginia12, National Health Service13, University of Manitoba14
TL;DR: This dissertation aims to provide a history of medical marijuana use in the United States and Canada over a 40-year period from 1989 to 2002, with a focus on the period up to and including the year ending in 2002.
Abstract: Hugh A. Sampson, MD, Anne Munoz-Furlong, BA, S. Allan Bock, MD, Cara Schmitt, MS, Robert Bass, MD, Badrul A. Chowdhury, MD, Wyatt W. Decker, MD, Terence J. Furlong, MS, Stephen J. Galli, MD, David B. Golden, MD, Rebecca S. Gruchalla, MD, Allen D. Harlor, Jr, MD, David L. Hepner, MD, Marilyn Howarth, MD, Allen P. Kaplan, MD, Jerrold H. Levy, MD, Lawrence M. Lewis, MD, Phillip L. Lieberman, MD, Dean D. Metcalfe, MD, Ramon Murphy, MD, Susan M. Pollart, MD, Richard S. Pumphrey, MD, Lanny J. Rosenwasser, MD, F. Estelle Simons, MD, Joseph P. Wood, MD, and Carlos A. Camargo, Jr, MD New York, NY, Fairfax and Charlottesville, Va, Boulder and Denver, Colo, Baltimore, Rockville, and Bethesda, Md, Rochester, Minn, Stanford, Calif, Dallas, Tex, Eugene, Ore, Boston, Mass, Philadelphia, Pa, Charleston, SC, Atlanta, Ga, St Louis, Mo, Cordova, Tenn, Scottsdale, Ariz, Manchester, United Kingdom, and Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
641 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
01 Aug 2007
3,099 citations
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
National Institutes of Health1, University of Pittsburgh2, McMaster University3, University of Washington4, University of Cape Town5, Wake Forest University6, University of Leicester7, Karolinska Institutet8, University of Southampton9, Boston Children's Hospital10, John Hunter Hospital11, McGill University12, University of Wisconsin-Madison13, University of Virginia14
TL;DR: Recommendations and guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of severe asthma in children and adults and coordinated research efforts for improved phenotyping will provide safe and effective biomarker-driven approaches to severe asthma therapy are provided.
Abstract: Severe or therapy-resistant asthma is increasingly recognised as a major unmet need. A Task Force, supported by the European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society, reviewed the definition and provided recommendations and guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of severe asthma in children and adults. A literature review was performed, followed by discussion by an expert committee according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for development of specific clinical recommendations. When the diagnosis of asthma is confirmed and comorbidities addressed, severe asthma is defined as asthma that requires treatment with high dose inhaled corticosteroids plus a second controller and/or systemic corticosteroids to prevent it from becoming “uncontrolled” or that remains “uncontrolled” despite this therapy. Severe asthma is a heterogeneous condition consisting of phenotypes such as eosinophilic asthma. Specific recommendations on the use of sputum eosinophil count and exhaled nitric oxide to guide therapy, as well as treatment with anti-IgE antibody, methotrexate, macrolide antibiotics, antifungal agents and bronchial thermoplasty are provided. Coordinated research efforts for improved phenotyping will provide safe and effective biomarker-driven approaches to severe asthma therapy.
2,795 citations
Harvard University1, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center2, Duke University3, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences4, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai5, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine6, National Institutes of Health7, University of Southampton8, St Mary's Hospital9, LSU Health Sciences Center Shreveport10, University of Rochester Medical Center11, Rutgers University12, University of California, San Diego13, Boston Children's Hospital14, University of Colorado Denver15, Oregon Health & Science University16, University of Tennessee Health Science Center17, Food and Drug Administration18, University of California, Irvine19, Scripps Health20, University of Manitoba21, Children's National Medical Center22, University of Rochester23, University of Minnesota24
TL;DR: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with 34 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, led the development of clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy, which include a consensus definition for food allergy.
Abstract: Food allergy is an important public health problem that affects children and adults and may be increasing in prevalence. Despite the risk of severe allergic reactions and even death, there is no current treatment for food allergy: the disease can only be managed by allergen avoidance or treatment of symptoms. The diagnosis and management of food allergy also may vary from one clinical practice setting to another. Finally, because patients frequently confuse nonallergic food reactions, such as food intolerance, with food allergies, there is an unfounded belief among the public that food allergy prevalence is higher than it truly is. In response to these concerns, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with 34 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, led the development of clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. These Guidelines are intended for use by a wide variety of health care professionals, including family practice physicians, clinical specialists, and nurse practitioners. The Guidelines include a consensus definition for food allergy, discuss comorbid conditions often associated with food allergy, and focus on both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated reactions to food. Topics addressed include the epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis, and management of food allergy, as well as the management of severe symptoms and anaphylaxis. These Guidelines provide 43 concise clinical recommendations and additional guidance on points of current controversy in patient management. They also identify gaps in the current scientific knowledge to be addressed through future research.
2,014 citations