Estimate of the total costs of allergic rhinitis in specialized care based on real-world data: the FERIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the socioeconomic importance of allergic rhinitis (AR), very few prospective studies have been performed under conditions of clinical practice and with a sufficiently long observation period outside the clinical trial scenario. We prospectively estimated the direct and indirect costs of AR in patients attending specialized clinics in Spain. METHODS: Patients were recruited at random from allergy outpatient clinics in 101 health centers throughout Spain over 12 months. We performed a multicenter, observational, prospective study under conditions of clinical practice. We analyzed direct costs from a funder perspective (healthcare costs) and from a societal perspective (healthcare and non-healthcare costs). Indirect costs (absenteeism and presenteeism [productivity lost in the workplace]) were also calculated. The cost of treating conjunctivitis was evaluated alongside that of AR. RESULTS: The total mean cost of AR per patient-year (n = 498) was €2326.70 (direct, €553.80; indirect, €1772.90). Direct costs were significantly higher in women (€600.34 vs €484.46, P = 0.02). Total costs for intermittent AR were significantly lower than for persistent AR (€1484.98 vs €2655.86, P < 0.001). Total indirect costs reached €1772.90 (presenteeism, €1682.71; absenteeism, €90.19). The direct costs of AR in patients with intermittent asthma (€507.35) were lower than in patients with mild-persistent asthma (€719.07) and moderate-persistent asthma (€798.71) (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The total cost of AR for society is considerable. Greater frequency of symptoms and more severe AR are associated with higher costs. Indirect costs are almost threefold direct costs, especially in presenteeism. A reduction in presenteeism would generate considerable savings for society.

[Consensus-based approach for severe paediatric asthma in routine clinical practice]. / Consenso para el abordaje del asma grave pediátrica en la práctica clínica habitual.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate identification of paediatric patients with severe asthma is essential for an adequate management of the disease. However, criteria for defining severe asthma and recommendations for control vary among different guidelines. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An online survey was conducted to explore expert opinions about the definition and management of severe paediatric asthma. To reach a consensus agreement, a modified Delphi technique was used, and practice guidelines were prepared after the analysis of the results. RESULTS: Eleven paediatric chest disease physicians and allergy specialists with wide expertise in severe asthma responded to the survey. Consensus was reached in 50 out of 65 questions (76.92%). It was considered that a patient has severe asthma if during the previous year they have required 2 or more cycles of oral steroids, required daily treatment with medium doses of inhaled corticosteroids (with other controller medication) or high doses (with or without other controller medication), did not respond to optimised conventional treatment, or if the disease threatened the life of the patient or seriously impairs their quality of life. The definition of severe asthma may also include patients who justifiably use health resources on a regular basis, or have psychosocial or environmental factors impeding control. For monitoring, the use of questionnaires designed specifically for paediatric population, such as CAN or ACT, is recommended. As regards treatment, the use of omalizumab should be considered prior to the use of oral corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides consensus recommendations that may be useful in the management of severe paediatric asthma.