Author
Stuart W. Stoloff
Bio: Stuart W. Stoloff is an academic researcher from University of Nevada, Reno. The author has contributed to research in topics: Asthma & Population. The author has an hindex of 22, co-authored 52 publications receiving 7145 citations.
Topics: Asthma, Population, Salmeterol, Fluticasone propionate, Spirometry
Papers published on a yearly basis
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
Woolcock Institute of Medical Research1, University of Otago2, University of Cape Town3, Creighton University4, University of Arizona5, University of Groningen6, University of Edinburgh7, McMaster University8, Imperial College London9, University of Leicester10, University of Amsterdam11, University of Washington12, University of Aberdeen13, University of Pittsburgh14
TL;DR: New definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations are developed, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance, to provide a basis for a multicomponent assessment of asthma by clinicians, researchers, and other relevant groups in the design, conduct, and evaluation of clinical trials, and in clinical practice.
Abstract: Background: The assessment of asthma control is pivotal to the evaluation of treatment response in individuals and in clinical trials. Previously, asthma control, severity, and exacerbations were defined and assessed in many different ways.Purpose: The Task Force was established to provide recommendations about standardization of outcomes relating to asthma control, severity, and exacerbations in clinical trials and clinical practice, for adults and children aged 6 years or older.Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted to evaluate the measurement properties and strengths/weaknesses of outcome measures relevant to asthma control and exacerbations. The review focused on diary variables, physiologic measurements, composite scores, biomarkers, quality of life questionnaires, and indirect measures.Results: The Task Force developed new definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance. In view of current knowledge ...
1,642 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
University of Otago1, University of Cape Town2, Laval University3, University of California, San Francisco4, University of Wisconsin-Madison5, Creighton University6, University of Arizona7, Newcastle University8, Erasmus University Rotterdam9, University of Edinburgh10, Imperial College London11, University of Leicester12, University of Amsterdam13, University of Nevada, Reno14, University of Colorado Denver15, University of Washington16, University of Aberdeen17, University of Pittsburgh18, University of Sydney19
TL;DR: The need for separate concepts of control and severity is identified, their evolution in asthma guidelines is described and a framework for understanding the relationship between current concepts of asthma phenotype, severity and control is provided.
Abstract: Concepts of asthma severity and control are important in the evaluation of patients and their response to treatment but the terminology is not standardised and the terms are often used interchangeably. This review, arising from the work of an American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Task Force, identifies the need for separate concepts of control and severity, describes their evolution in asthma guidelines and provides a framework for understanding the relationship between current concepts of asthma phenotype, severity and control. "Asthma control" refers to the extent to which the manifestations of asthma have been reduced or removed by treatment. Its assessment should incorporate the dual components of current clinical control (e.g. symptoms, reliever use and lung function) and future risk (e.g. exacerbations and lung function decline). The most clinically useful concept of asthma severity is based on the intensity of treatment required to achieve good asthma control, i.e. severity is assessed during treatment. Severe asthma is defined as the requirement for (not necessarily just prescription or use of) high-intensity treatment. Asthma severity may be influenced by the underlying disease activity and by the patient's phenotype, both of which may be further described using pathological and physiological markers. These markers can also act as surrogate measures for future risk.
424 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors evaluated patient medication refill persistence with fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol combination in a single inhaler (FSC), FP and salmol in combination from 2 separate inhalers, FP and montelukast in combination, FP as monotherapy, and montelsukast as monotherapy.
Abstract: Background Improved adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) has also been associated with decreased asthma-associated morbidity and mortality. Objective The purpose of this study was to assess patient medication refill persistence with fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol combination in a single inhaler (FSC), FP and salmeterol in combination from 2 separate inhalers, FP and montelukast in combination, FP as monotherapy, and montelukast as monotherapy. Methods We performed a retrospective, observational, 24-month (12-month baseline and 12-month follow-up) database study using medical and pharmacy claims from a large managed care organization. We identified 2511 subjects 12 years of age or older with a claim for asthma (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision: 493.XX): 563 patients receiving FSC, 224 receiving FP plus salmeterol, 75 receiving FP plus montelukast, 798 receiving FP only, and 776 receiving montelukast only. Refill rates of FP, as a measure of adherence, were compared for each FP-containing cohort during the 12-month follow-up period. In addition, refill rates were compared between FSC, an inhaler, and montelukast, an oral medication. Results Twelve-month baseline asthma medication use and patient demographics were comparable among cohorts. Patients in the FSC cohort obtained significantly more refills compared with the number of FP refills in the other FP-containing cohorts (4.06 for FSC vs 2.35 for FP plus salmeterol, 1.83 for FP plus montelukast, and 2.27 for FP alone) over the 12-month follow-up period. In addition, patients taking FSC had similar refill persistence compared with patients taking the oral leukotriene modifier montelukast (4.51). Conclusion FSC might increase ICS refill persistence compared with FP alone in a single inhaler, FP in combination with salmeterol from 2 separate inhalers, and FP in combination with montelukast. In addition, FSC in a dry powdered inhaler had similar refill rates compared with an oral asthma agent, montelukast. Use of a single inhaler containing both an ICS (FP) and a long-acting bronchodilator (salmeterol) might increase the likelihood that patients are getting more optimal ICS therapy, as well as the benefits from the long-acting bronchodilator, with patient adherence comparable to an oral agent.
239 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
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
TL;DR: Recommendations to develop evidence-based guidelines for the interpretation of Fe(NO) measurements that incorporate evidence that has accumulated over the past decade are provided.
Abstract: Background: Measurement of fractional nitric oxide (NO) concentration in exhaled breath (FeNO) is a quantitative, noninvasive, simple, and safe method of measuring airway inflammation that provides a complementary tool to other ways of assessing airways disease, including asthma. While FeNO measurement has been standardized, there is currently no reference guideline for practicing health care providers to guide them in the appropriate use and interpretation of FeNO in clinical practice.Purpose: To develop evidence-based guidelines for the interpretation of FeNO measurements that incorporate evidence that has accumulated over the past decade.Methods: We created a multidisciplinary committee with expertise in the clinical care, clinical science, or basic science of airway disease and/or NO. The committee identified important clinical questions, synthesized the evidence, and formulated recommendations. Recommendations were developed using pragmatic systematic reviews of the literature and the GRADE approach....
2,012 citations
TL;DR: Mepolizumab administered either intravenously or subcutaneously significantly reduced asthma exacerbations and was associated with improvements in markers of asthma control and the safety profile of mepolIZumab was similar to that of placebo.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Some patients with severe asthma have frequent exacerbations associated with persistent eosinophilic inflammation despite continuous treatment with high-dose inhaled glucocorticoids with or without oral glucocorticoids. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study, we assigned 576 patients with recurrent asthma exacerbations and evidence of eosinophilic inflammation despite high doses of inhaled glucocorticoids to one of three study groups. Patients were assigned to receive mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5, which was administered as either a 75-mg intravenous dose or a 100-mg subcutaneous dose, or placebo every 4 weeks for 32 weeks. The primary outcome was the rate of exacerbations. Other outcomes included the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and scores on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the 5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The rate of exacerbations was reduced by 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 61) among patients receiving intravenous mepolizumab and by 53% (95% CI, 37 to 65) among those receiving subcutaneous mepolizumab, as compared with those receiving placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Exacerbations necessitating an emergency department visit or hospitalization were reduced by 32% in the group receiving intravenous mepolizumab and by 61% in the group receiving subcutaneous mepolizumab. At week 32, the mean increase from baseline in FEV1 was 100 ml greater in patients receiving intravenous mepolizumab than in those receiving placebo (P=0.02) and 98 ml greater in patients receiving subcutaneous mepolizumab than in those receiving placebo (P=0.03). The improvement from baseline in the SGRQ score was 6.4 points and 7.0 points greater in the intravenous and subcutaneous mepolizumab groups, respectively, than in the placebo group (minimal clinically important change, 4 points), and the improvement in the ACQ-5 score was 0.42 points and 0.44 points greater in the two mepolizumab groups, respectively, than in the placebo group (minimal clinically important change, 0.5 points) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). The safety profile of mepolizumab was similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab administered either intravenously or subcutaneously significantly reduced asthma exacerbations and was associated with improvements in markers of asthma control. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; MENSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01691521.).
1,680 citations
Woolcock Institute of Medical Research1, University of Otago2, University of Cape Town3, Creighton University4, University of Arizona5, University of Groningen6, University of Edinburgh7, McMaster University8, Imperial College London9, University of Leicester10, University of Amsterdam11, University of Washington12, University of Aberdeen13, University of Pittsburgh14
TL;DR: New definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations are developed, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance, to provide a basis for a multicomponent assessment of asthma by clinicians, researchers, and other relevant groups in the design, conduct, and evaluation of clinical trials, and in clinical practice.
Abstract: Background: The assessment of asthma control is pivotal to the evaluation of treatment response in individuals and in clinical trials. Previously, asthma control, severity, and exacerbations were defined and assessed in many different ways.Purpose: The Task Force was established to provide recommendations about standardization of outcomes relating to asthma control, severity, and exacerbations in clinical trials and clinical practice, for adults and children aged 6 years or older.Methods: A narrative literature review was conducted to evaluate the measurement properties and strengths/weaknesses of outcome measures relevant to asthma control and exacerbations. The review focused on diary variables, physiologic measurements, composite scores, biomarkers, quality of life questionnaires, and indirect measures.Results: The Task Force developed new definitions for asthma control, severity, and exacerbations, based on current treatment principles and clinical and research relevance. In view of current knowledge ...
1,642 citations