Google Trends and pollen concentrations in allergy and airway diseases in France.

BACKGROUND: Google Trends (GTs) is a web-based surveillance tool that explores the searching trends of specific queries via Google. This tool proposes to reflect the real-life epidemiology of allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, the validation of GTs against pollen concentrations is missing at the country level. OBJECTIVES: In the present study, we used GTs (a) to compare the terms related to allergy in France, (b) to assess seasonal variations across the country for 5 years and (c) to compare GTs and pollen concentrations for 2016. METHODS: Google Trends queries were initially searched to investigate the terms reflecting pollen and allergic diseases. 13- and 5-year GTs were used in France. Then, 5-year GTs were assessed in all metropolitan French regions to assess the seasonality of GTs. Finally, GTs were compared with pollen concentrations (Réseau National de Surveillance en Aerobiology) for 2016 in seven regions (GTs) and corresponding cities (pollen concentrations). RESULTS: The combination of searches for "allergy" as a disease, "pollen" as a disease cause and "ragweed" as a plant was needed to fully assess the pollen season in France. "Asthma" did not show any seasonality. Using the 5-year GTs, an annual and clear seasonality of queries was found in all regions depending on the predicted pollen exposure for spring and a summer peak but not for winter peaks. The agreement between GT queries and pollen concentrations is usually poor except for spring trees and grasses. Moreover, cypress pollens are insufficiently reported by GTs. CONCLUSIONS: Google Trends cannot predict the pollen season in France.

Differences in Reporting the Ragweed Pollen Season Using Google Trends across 15 Countries.

BACKGROUND: Google Trends (GT) searches trends of specific queries in Google, which potentially reflect the real-life epidemiology of allergic rhinitis. We compared GT terms related to ragweed pollen allergy in American and European Union countries with a known ragweed pollen season. Our aim was to assess seasonality and the terms needed to perform the GT searches and to compare these during the spring and summer pollen seasons. METHODS: We examined GT queries from January 1, 2011, to January 4, 2017. We included 15 countries with a known ragweed pollen season and used the standard 5-year GT graphs. We used the GT translation for all countries and the untranslated native terms for each country. RESULTS: The results of "pollen," "ragweed," and "allergy" searches differed between countries, but "ragweed" was clearly identified in 12 of the 15 countries. There was considerable heterogeneity of findings when the GT translation was used. For Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia, the GT translation was inappropriate. The country patterns of "pollen," "hay fever," and "allergy" differed in 8 of the 11 countries with identified "ragweed" queries during the spring and the summer, indicating that the perception of tree and grass pollen allergy differs from that of ragweed pollen. CONCLUSIONS: To investigate ragweed pollen allergy using GT, the term "ragweed" as a plant is required and the translation of "ragweed" in the native language needed.

Comparison of two methods to report potentially avoidable hospitalizations in France in 2012: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Potentially avoidable hospitalizations represent an indirect measure of access to effective primary care. However many approaches have been proposed to measure them and results may differ considerably. This work aimed at examining the agreement between the Weissman and Ansari approaches in order to measure potentially avoidable hospitalizations in France. METHODS: Based on the 2012 French national hospital discharge database (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information), potentially avoidable hospitalizations were measured using two approaches proposed by Weissman et al. and by Ansari et al. Age- and sex-standardised rates were calculated in each department. The two approaches were compared for diagnosis groups, type of stay, severity, age, sex, and length of stay. RESULTS: The number and age-standardised rate of potentially avoidable hospitalizations estimated by the Weissman et al. and Ansari et al. approaches were 742,474 (13.3 cases per 1,000 inhabitants) and 510,206 (9.0 cases per 1,000 inhabitants), respectively. There are significant differences by conditions groups, age, length of stay, severity level, and proportion of medical stays between the Weissman and Ansari methods. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding potentially avoidable hospitalizations in France in 2012, the agreement between the Weissman and Ansari approaches is poor. The method used to measure potentially avoidable hospitalizations is critical, and might influence the assessment of accessibility and performance of primary care.

How representative are clinical study patients with allergic rhinitis in primary care?

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are the cornerstone of health care decision making and are based on the best available evidence, ideally large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although guidelines target typical patients, RCTs are often based on narrow inclusion and exclusion criteria. OBJECTIVES: We explored to what extent typical patients, such as those consulting general practitioners for allergic rhinitis, differ from patients enrolled in RCTs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study including all the consecutive patients with allergic rhinitis cared for by general practitioners in the Languedoc-Roussillon region of France within 2 weeks during the grass pollen season. We evaluated how the characteristics of these patients differed from those of patients included in the 4 largest placebo-controlled RCTs of persistent and intermittent allergic rhinitis. RESULTS: Three hundred eleven patients seen by 48 general practitioners were enrolled in this study. Only 7.4% (95% CI, 4.5% to 10.3%) of the patients would have been enrolled in the RCTs. The primary reasons for this difference were as follows: diagnosis of allergy based on skin test results, serum specific IgE levels, or both (20.4%); severity of allergic rhinitis (11.5%); other chronic diseases (11.4%); history of sinusitis (10.4%); and asthma comorbidity (10.1%). A sensitivity analysis excluding contraception and the diagnosis of allergy showed that the percentage of representative patients increased to 20.2% (95% CI, 15.8% to 24.7%). CONCLUSION: Only a small proportion of patients with allergic rhinitis seen in the primary care setting for allergic rhinitis would be eligible for RCTs. Thus guideline developers and health decision makers need to make careful judgments about the directness of the evidence from RCTs conducted in highly controlled settings.

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement applied to allergen-specific immunotherapy with inhalant allergens: a Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN) article.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials provide evidence to inform treatment decisions. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement is a set of recommendations for the reporting of trials. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the quality of reporting allergen-specific immunotherapy trials according to CONSORT criteria. METHODS: The reporting of the procedure, randomization, dropouts, strict conduct of intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, and sample size calculation according to CONSORT were assessed in the 46 subcutaneous and 48 sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials published between 1996 and 2009 in English. RESULTS: One subcutaneous immunotherapy (2.2%) and 3 SLIT (6.6%) trials met CONSORT Statement criteria. These were used for the registration of sublingual tablets to the European Medicines Agency. In subcutaneous immunotherapy, 16 (35%) studies reported a CONSORT flow chart, and 12 (26%) provided a description of dropouts. Adequate randomization was reported in 9 (35%) studies, and incomplete randomization was reported in 15 (33%). Power analysis was reported in 15 (33%) studies. In SLIT, 20 (42%) studies reported a CONSORT flow chart, and 16 (32%) a description of dropouts. ITT analysis was carried out in 1 (2.2%) SLIT study, and a modified ITT analysis was used in 1 (2.2%) subcutaneous immunotherapy study and 2 (4.4%) SLIT studies. Adequate randomization was reported in 6 (12%) studies, and incomplete randomization was reported in 16 (32%). Power analysis was reported in 15 (27%) studies. CONCLUSION: As in other areas of medicine, the quality of reporting of most immunotherapy trials is low, and only 4.2% of SLIT randomized controlled trials met all of the criteria of the CONSORT Statement. Use of the CONSORT criteria should be encouraged.

Effect of smoking on symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is common in patients with allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of smoking on allergic rhinitis. METHODS: Two cross-sectional studies (performed between March 1, 2002, and February 28, 2003) assessed the impact of tobacco smoking on the symptoms and quality of life of untreated patients with diagnosed allergic rhinitis who had consulted with primary care physicians (472 patients) and specialists (672 patients). Both studies used the same methods and were combined. Rhinitis was classified according to the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma initiative. The European Community Respiratory Health Survey questionnaire on smoking and the disease-specific Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) were used. RESULTS: A total of 20.8% of the patients were smokers and 10.9% were ex-smokers. More than 78% of the patients had moderate to severe symptoms of rhinitis. Fewer patients had moderate to severe nasal pruritus or loss of smell. There appeared to be no significant difference in the severity of nasal symptoms, depending on the smoking status. Moderate to severe nasal obstruction was observed in 78.8% of the nonsmokers, 79.0% of the smokers, and 77.4% of the ex-smokers. Overall and individual domain scores in the RQLQ were not altered by the smoking status. The overall median (25th-75th percentiles) RQLQ score was 2.8 (2.1-3.5) in nonsmokers, 2.7 (2.0-3.5) in smokers, and 2.7 (1.9-3.5) in ex-smokers. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, which was performed with a large number of untreated patients with a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, smoking was found not to alter nasal symptoms or nasal-specific quality of life.

Guidelines for allergic rhinitis need to be used in primary care.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for allergic rhinitis have been developed over the past 15 years and have been found to improve the care for patients with allergic rhinitis. The ARIA (allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma) guideline was the first of these evidenced-based guidelines, developed with primary care physicians. Subsequent guidelines include those by the IPCRG, BSACI, the AAAAI/ACAAI Practice Parameters for the diagnosis and management of rhinitis, and the ARIA 2008 Update. These guidelines were based on various evidencebased models, but the first to use GRADE methodology (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is the ARIA 2009 Revision. Since primary care physicians treat the majority of patients with allergic rhinitis it is essential that they are involved in the development and implementation of guidelines for allergic rhinitis. Prior to their implementation, guidelines should be evaluated for their accuracy and user friendliness - specifically for primary care physicians - but such validation is rarely performed. This is of great importance, in particular as regards evaluating the applicability of evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which are often based on highly selected patients not representing the population of patients seen in day-to-day practice.

ARIA update: I--Systematic review of complementary and alternative medicine for rhinitis and asthma.

Complementary-alternative medicines are extensively used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, but evidence-based recommendations are lacking. To provide evidence-based recommendations, the literature was searched by using MedLine and the Cochrane Library to March 2005 (Key words: Asthma [OR] Rhinitis, [AND] Complementary [OR] Alternative Medicine, [OR] Herbal, [OR] Acupuncture, [OR] Homeopathy, [OR] Alternative Treatment). Randomized trials, preferably double-blind and published in English, were selected. The articles were evaluated by a panel of experts. Quality of reporting was assessed by using the scale validated by Jadad. The methodology of clinical trials with complementary-alternative medicine was frequently inadequate. Meta-analyses provided no clear evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture in rhinitis and asthma. Some positive results were described with homeopathy in good-quality trials in rhinitis, but a number of negative studies were also found. Therefore it is not possible to provide evidence-based recommendations for homeopathy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, and further trials are needed. A limited number of studies of herbal remedies showed some efficacy in rhinitis and asthma, but the studies were too few to make recommendations. There are also unresolved safety concerns. Therapeutic efficacy of complementary-alternative treatments for rhinitis and asthma is not supported by currently available evidence.

Severity and impairment of allergic rhinitis in patients consulting in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a disease impairing quality of life, sleep, and work. A new classification for allergic rhinitis, Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), has recently been proposed. OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of allergic rhinitis using ARIA definitions to determine severity and duration. METHODS: A total of 3052 patients consulting general practitioners for allergic rhinitis were studied. Patients were classified according to the 4 classes of ARIA. In all patients, quality of life (Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire), sleep (Jenkins questionnaire), and work performance (Allergy-Specific Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire) were assessed. RESULTS: Mild intermittent rhinitis was diagnosed in 11% of the patients, mild persistent rhinitis in 8%, moderate/severe intermittent rhinitis in 35%, and moderate/severe persistent rhinitis in 46%. The severity of rhinitis has more of an effect on quality of life, sleep, daily activities, and work performance than the duration of rhinitis. In moderate/severe rhinitis, more than 80% of patients report impaired activities, as opposed to only 40% with mild rhinitis. CONCLUSION: It seems that the term moderate/severe should be replaced by severe. A study in the general population is necessary, however, to assess the prevalence of the 4 ARIA classes of allergic rhinitis, especially in patients who are not consulting physicians for their symptoms.

The public health implications of asthma.

Asthma is a very common chronic disease that occurs in all age groups and is the focus of various clinical and public health interventions. Both morbidity and mortality from asthma are significant. The number of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to asthma worldwide is similar to that for diabetes, liver cirrhosis and schizophrenia. Asthma management plans have, however, reduced mortality and severity in countries where they have been applied. Several barriers reduce the availability, affordability, dissemination and efficacy of optimal asthma management plans in both developed and developing countries. The workplace environment contributes significantly to the general burden of asthma. Patients with occupational asthma have higher rates of hospitalization and mortality than healthy workers. The surveillance of asthma as part of a global WHO programme is essential. The economic cost of asthma is considerable both in terms of direct medical costs (such as hospital admissions and the cost of pharmaceuticals) and indirect medical costs (such as time lost from work and premature death). Direct costs are significant in most countries. In order to reduce costs and improve quality of care, employers and health plans are exploring more precisely targeted ways of controlling rapidly rising health costs. Poor control of asthma symptoms is a major issue that can result in adverse clinical and economic outcomes. A model of asthma costs is needed to aid attempts to reduce them while permitting optimal management of the disease. This paper presents a discussion of the burden of asthma and its socioeconomic implications and proposes a model to predict the costs incurred by the disease.