scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Ruby Pawankar

Bio: Ruby Pawankar is an academic researcher from Nippon Medical School. The author has contributed to research in topics: Asthma & Allergy. The author has an hindex of 65, co-authored 286 publications receiving 20002 citations. Previous affiliations of Ruby Pawankar include World Allergy Organization & Juntendo University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Jean Bousquet, N. Khaltaev, Alvaro A. Cruz1, Judah A. Denburg2, W. J. Fokkens3, Alkis Togias4, T. Zuberbier5, Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani6, Giorgio Walter Canonica7, C. van Weel8, Ioana Agache9, Nadia Aït-Khaled, Claus Bachert10, Michael S. Blaiss11, Sergio Bonini12, L.-P. Boulet13, Philippe-Jean Bousquet, Paulo Augusto Moreira Camargos14, K-H. Carlsen15, Y. Z. Chen, Adnan Custovic16, Ronald Dahl17, Pascal Demoly, H. Douagui, Stephen R. Durham18, R. Gerth van Wijk19, O. Kalayci19, Michael A. Kaliner20, You Young Kim21, Marek L. Kowalski, Piotr Kuna22, L. T. T. Le23, Catherine Lemière24, Jing Li25, Richard F. Lockey26, S. Mavale-Manuel26, Eli O. Meltzer27, Y. Mohammad28, J Mullol, Robert M. Naclerio29, Robyn E O'Hehir30, K. Ohta31, S. Ouedraogo31, S. Palkonen, Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos32, Gianni Passalacqua7, Ruby Pawankar33, Todor A. Popov34, Klaus F. Rabe35, J Rosado-Pinto36, G. K. Scadding37, F. E. R. Simons38, Elina Toskala39, E. Valovirta40, P. Van Cauwenberge10, De Yun Wang41, Magnus Wickman42, Barbara P. Yawn43, Arzu Yorgancioglu44, Osman M. Yusuf, H. J. Zar45, Isabella Annesi-Maesano46, E.D. Bateman45, A. Ben Kheder47, Daniel A. Boakye48, J. Bouchard, Peter Burney18, William W. Busse49, Moira Chan-Yeung50, Niels H. Chavannes35, A.G. Chuchalin, William K. Dolen51, R. Emuzyte52, Lawrence Grouse53, Marc Humbert, C. M. Jackson54, Sebastian L. Johnston18, Paul K. Keith2, James P. Kemp27, J. M. Klossek55, Désirée Larenas-Linnemann55, Brian J. Lipworth54, Jean-Luc Malo24, Gailen D. Marshall56, Charles K. Naspitz57, K. Nekam, Bodo Niggemann58, Ewa Nizankowska-Mogilnicka59, Yoshitaka Okamoto60, M. P. Orru61, Paul Potter45, David Price62, Stuart W. Stoloff63, Olivier Vandenplas, Giovanni Viegi, Dennis M. Williams64 
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
01 Apr 2008-Allergy
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 ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An expert panel from multiple disciplines developed definitions for rhinosinusitis and outlined strategies for design of clinical trials and reached consensus on definitions and strategies for clinical research on acute presumed bacterial rhinosineitis, chronic rhinosinitis with polyposis, and classic allergic fungal rhinusitis.
Abstract: Background There is a need for more research on all forms of rhinosinusitis. Progress in this area has been hampered by a lack of consensus definitions and the limited number of published clinical trials. Objectives To develop consensus definitions for rhinosinusitis and outline strategies useful in clinical trials. Methods Five national societies, The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy; The American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery; The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the American Rhinologic Society formed an expert panel from multiple disciplines. Over two days, the panel developed definitions for rhinosinusitis and outlined strategies for design of clinical trials. Results Committee members agreed to adopt the term "rhinosinusitis" and reached consensus on definitions and strategies for clinical research on acute presumed bacterial rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis without polyposis, chronic rhinosinusitis with polyposis, and classic allergic fungal rhinosinusitis. Symptom and objective criteria, measures for monitoring research progress, and use of symptom scoring tools, quality-of-life instruments, radiologic studies, and rhinoscopic assessment were outlined for each condition. Conclusion The recommendations from this conference should improve accuracy of clinical diagnosis and serve as a starting point for design of rhinosinusitis clinical trials.

820 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: An expert panel from multiple disciplines developed definitions for rhinosinusitis and outlined strategies for design of clinical trials and reached consensus on definitions and strategies for clinical research on acute presumed bacterial rhinosineitis, chronic rhinosinitis with polyposis, and classic allergic fungal rhinosinesitis.
Abstract: Objectives: to develop consensus definitions for rhinosinusitis and outline strategies useful in clinical trials

559 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The burden of allergic diseases worldwide, the risk factors, impact on quality of life of patients, morbidity, mortality, their socio-economic consequences, recommended treatment strategies, future therapies, and the cost-benefit analyses of care services are summarized.

520 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Despite an early loss of glycemic differences, a continued reduction in microvascular risk and emergent risk reductions for myocardial infarction and death from any cause were observed during 10 years of post-trial follow-up.
Abstract: From the Diabetes Trials Unit (R.R.H., S.K.P., M.A.B.), the Division of Public Health and Primary Health Care (H.A.W.N.), and the National Institute of Health Re- search (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (H.A.W.N.), Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabo- lism (R.R.H., S.K.P., M.A.B., D.R.M., H.A.W.N.); and the NIHR Oxford Bio- medical Research Centre (R.R.H., D.R.M., H.A.W.N.) — both in Oxford, United Kingdom. Address reprint requests to Dr. Holman at the Diabetes Trials Unit, Ox- ford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Churchill Hospital, Head- ington, Oxford OX3 7LJ, United Kingdom, or at rury.holman@dtu.ox.ac.uk. Background During the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who received intensive glucose therapy had a lower risk of microvascular complications than did those receiving conventional dietary therapy. We conducted post-trial monitoring to determine whether this improved glucose con- trol persisted and whether such therapy had a long-term effect on macrovascular outcomes. Methods Of 5102 patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, 4209 were randomly assigned to receive either conventional therapy (dietary restriction) or intensive therapy (either sulfonylurea or insulin or, in overweight patients, metformin) for glucose control. In post-trial monitoring, 3277 patients were asked to attend annual UKPDS clinics for 5 years, but no attempts were made to maintain their previously assigned thera- pies. Annual questionnaires were used to follow patients who were unable to attend the clinics, and all patients in years 6 to 10 were assessed through questionnaires. We examined seven prespecified aggregate clinical outcomes from the UKPDS on an intention-to-treat basis, according to previous randomization categories. Results Between-group differences in glycated hemoglobin levels were lost after the first year. In the sulfonylurea-insulin group, relative reductions in risk persisted at 10 years for any diabetes-related end point (9%, P = 0.04) and microvascular disease (24%, P = 0.001), and risk reductions for myocardial infarction (15%, P = 0.01) and death from any cause (13%, P = 0.007) emerged over time, as more events occurred. In the metformin group, significant risk reductions persisted for any diabetes-relat- ed end point (21%, P = 0.01), myocardial infarction (33%, P = 0.005), and death from any cause (27%, P = 0.002). Conclusions Despite an early loss of glycemic differences, a continued reduction in microvascu- lar risk and emergent risk reductions for myocardial infarction and death from any cause were observed during 10 years of post-trial follow-up. A continued benefit after metformin therapy was evident among overweight patients. (UKPDS 80; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN75451837.)

6,565 citations

01 Jan 2020
TL;DR: Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future.
Abstract: Summary Background Since December, 2019, Wuhan, China, has experienced an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of patients with COVID-19 have been reported but risk factors for mortality and a detailed clinical course of illness, including viral shedding, have not been well described. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included all adult inpatients (≥18 years old) with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital (Wuhan, China) who had been discharged or had died by Jan 31, 2020. Demographic, clinical, treatment, and laboratory data, including serial samples for viral RNA detection, were extracted from electronic medical records and compared between survivors and non-survivors. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression methods to explore the risk factors associated with in-hospital death. Findings 191 patients (135 from Jinyintan Hospital and 56 from Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital) were included in this study, of whom 137 were discharged and 54 died in hospital. 91 (48%) patients had a comorbidity, with hypertension being the most common (58 [30%] patients), followed by diabetes (36 [19%] patients) and coronary heart disease (15 [8%] patients). Multivariable regression showed increasing odds of in-hospital death associated with older age (odds ratio 1·10, 95% CI 1·03–1·17, per year increase; p=0·0043), higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (5·65, 2·61–12·23; p Interpretation The potential risk factors of older age, high SOFA score, and d-dimer greater than 1 μg/mL could help clinicians to identify patients with poor prognosis at an early stage. Prolonged viral shedding provides the rationale for a strategy of isolation of infected patients and optimal antiviral interventions in the future. Funding Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences; National Science Grant for Distinguished Young Scholars; National Key Research and Development Program of China; The Beijing Science and Technology Project; and Major Projects of National Science and Technology on New Drug Creation and Development.

4,408 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jean Bousquet, N. Khaltaev, Alvaro A. Cruz1, Judah A. Denburg2, W. J. Fokkens3, Alkis Togias4, T. Zuberbier5, Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani6, Giorgio Walter Canonica7, C. van Weel8, Ioana Agache9, Nadia Aït-Khaled, Claus Bachert10, Michael S. Blaiss11, Sergio Bonini12, L.-P. Boulet13, Philippe-Jean Bousquet, Paulo Augusto Moreira Camargos14, K-H. Carlsen15, Y. Z. Chen, Adnan Custovic16, Ronald Dahl17, Pascal Demoly, H. Douagui, Stephen R. Durham18, R. Gerth van Wijk19, O. Kalayci19, Michael A. Kaliner20, You Young Kim21, Marek L. Kowalski, Piotr Kuna22, L. T. T. Le23, Catherine Lemière24, Jing Li25, Richard F. Lockey26, S. Mavale-Manuel26, Eli O. Meltzer27, Y. Mohammad28, J Mullol, Robert M. Naclerio29, Robyn E O'Hehir30, K. Ohta31, S. Ouedraogo31, S. Palkonen, Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos32, Gianni Passalacqua7, Ruby Pawankar33, Todor A. Popov34, Klaus F. Rabe35, J Rosado-Pinto36, G. K. Scadding37, F. E. R. Simons38, Elina Toskala39, E. Valovirta40, P. Van Cauwenberge10, De Yun Wang41, Magnus Wickman42, Barbara P. Yawn43, Arzu Yorgancioglu44, Osman M. Yusuf, H. J. Zar45, Isabella Annesi-Maesano46, E.D. Bateman45, A. Ben Kheder47, Daniel A. Boakye48, J. Bouchard, Peter Burney18, William W. Busse49, Moira Chan-Yeung50, Niels H. Chavannes35, A.G. Chuchalin, William K. Dolen51, R. Emuzyte52, Lawrence Grouse53, Marc Humbert, C. M. Jackson54, Sebastian L. Johnston18, Paul K. Keith2, James P. Kemp27, J. M. Klossek55, Désirée Larenas-Linnemann55, Brian J. Lipworth54, Jean-Luc Malo24, Gailen D. Marshall56, Charles K. Naspitz57, K. Nekam, Bodo Niggemann58, Ewa Nizankowska-Mogilnicka59, Yoshitaka Okamoto60, M. P. Orru61, Paul Potter45, David Price62, Stuart W. Stoloff63, Olivier Vandenplas, Giovanni Viegi, Dennis M. Williams64 
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
01 Apr 2008-Allergy
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 ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This systematic review and meta-analyses confirmed the findings of a previous study published in “Rhinitis and Asthma: Causes and Prevention, 2nd Ed.” (2015) as well as new findings of “Mechanisms of Respiratory Disease and Allergology,” which confirmed the role of EMTs in the development of these diseases.
Abstract: Authors Jan L. Brozek, MD, PhD – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Jean Bousquet, MD, PhD – Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France, INSERM, CESP U1018, Respiratory and Environmental Epidemiology Team, France, and WHO Collaborating Center for Rhinitis and Asthma Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani, MD – Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina Sergio Bonini, MD – Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine – CNR, Rome, Italy and Department of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy G. Walter Canonica, MD – Allergy & Respiratory Diseases, DIMI, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Thomas B. Casale, MD – Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA Roy Gerth van Wijk, MD, PhD – Section of Allergology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Ken Ohta, MD, PhD – Division of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Torsten Zuberbier, MD – Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Holger J. Schunemann, MD, PhD, MSc – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

3,368 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Studies with well-defined silkworm silk fibers and films suggest that the core silk fibroin fibers exhibit comparable biocompatibility in vitro and in vivo with other commonly used biomaterials such as polylactic acid and collagen.

3,067 citations