SummaryBackground In the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) classification, intermittent and persistent rhinitis were proposed to replace seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (AR). Aim To better understand the ARIA classification of rhinitis. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in 591 patients consulting ENT or allergy specialists for AR and 502 control subjects. The diagnosis of AR was based on a score for allergic rhinitis (SFAR) X7. Patients were classified according to the four ARIA classes (mild intermittent, mild persistent, moderate/severe intermittent and moderate/severe persistent). Allergen sensitization (skin prick tests (SPTs) or specific IgE) and co-morbidities were examined according to the ARIA classes. Results Ten percent of patients had mild intermittent rhinitis, 14% mild persistent rhinitis, 17% moderate/severe intermittent rhinitis and 59% moderate/severe persistent rhinitis. Most patients with intermittent rhinitis had a pollen sensitivity, but 5% had a single house dust mite (HDM) sensitization. Over 50% of patients with persistent rhinitis were allergic to pollens or HDM. Asthma was present in 24% of rhinitis patients and in only 2% of the control population (Po0.0001). Patients with moderate/severe persistent rhinitis had the highest asthma prevalence (33%). Discussion Intermittent and persistent rhinitis are not synonymous of seasonal and perennial rhinitis. Most patients consulting specialists have severe rhinitis. Asthma prevalence increases with duration and severity of rhinitis supporting the ARIA major recommendation that patients with persistent rhinitis should be evaluated for asthma.

The present study provides valuable and reliable information on NP epidemiology in France; the collected information are in accordance with most published international data.

BackgroundCurrent asthma management guidelines are based on the level of asthma control. The impact of asthma control on health care resources and quality of life (QoL) is insufficiently studied. EUCOAST study was designed to describe costs and QoL in adult patients according to level of asthma control in France and Spain.MethodsAn observational cost of illness study was conducted simultaneously in both countries among patients age greater or equal to 18 with a diagnosis of asthma for at least 12 months. Patients were recruited prospectively by GPs in 2010 in four waves to avoid a seasonal bias. Health care resources utilization of the three months before the inclusion was collected through physician questionnaires. Asthma control was evaluated using 2009 GINA criteria over a 3-month period. QoL was assessed using EQ-5D-3L®.Results2,671 patients (France: 1,154; Spain: 1,517) were enrolled. Asthma was controlled in 40.6% [95% CI: 37.7% - 43.4%] and 29.9% [95% CI: 27.6% - 32.3%] of French and Spanish patients respectively.For all types of costs, the percentage of patients using health care resources varied significantly according to the level of asthma control. The average cost (euros/3-months/patient) of controlled asthma was €85.4 (SD: 153.5) in France compared with €314.0 (SD: 2,160.4) for partially controlled asthma and €537.9 (SD: 2,355.7) for uncontrolled asthma (p<0.0001). In Spain, the corresponding figures were €152.6 (SD: 162.1), €241.2 (SD: 266.8), and €556.8 (SD: 762.4). EQ-5D-3L® score was higher (p<0.0001) in patients with controlled asthma compared to partially controlled and uncontrolled asthma in both countries (respectively 0.88; 0.78; 0.63 in France and 0.89; 0.82; 0.69 in Spain).ConclusionsIn both countries, patients presenting with uncontrolled asthma had a significantly higher asthma costs and lower scores of Qol compared to the others.

No abstract

BackgroundMepolizumab was available in France as part of an early access programme for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma (nominative autorisation temporaire d'utilisation [temporary use authorisation] (nATU)) before its commercialisation. This study aimed to characterise patients who received mepolizumab in the nATU.MethodsThis retrospective, observational study analysed data from the hospital medical records of patients up to 24 months after treatment initiation. Study objectives were to describe patient baseline characteristics, the evolution of disease severity and treatment modifications during follow-up; safety was also investigated.FindingsOverall, 146 patients who received ≥1 dose of mepolizumab were included. At inclusion, patients had a mean age of 58.2 years with a mean severe asthma duration of 13.4 years, and 37.0% had respiratory allergies. Patients experienced, on average, 5.8 exacerbations per patient per year at baseline, 0.6 and 0.5 of which required hospitalisation and emergency department visits, respectively. These values improved to 0.6, 0.1 and 0.1 exacerbations per patient per year, respectively, at 24 months of follow-up. Most patients (92.8%) were using oral corticosteroids at baseline, compared with 34.7% by 24 months of follow-up. Moreover, mean blood eosinophil counts improved from 722 cells·µL−1 at baseline to 92 cells·µL−1 at 24 months of follow-up; lung function and asthma control followed a similar trend.InterpretationResults confirm findings from clinical trials, demonstrating that mepolizumab is associated with important improvements in several clinically meaningful outcomes and has a favourable safety profile in a population with severe eosinophilic asthma, outside of the controlled environment of a clinical trial.