BACKGROUND: Asthma and Allergic Rhinitis (AR) are two chronic inflammatory diseases that are often concomitant. The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT) was developed to evaluate the control of these diseases from the patients' perspective. Its performance in asthma patients without AR has not been previously studied. AIM: To test the hypothesis that CARAT can be used to assess asthma control in patients with asthma and without AR. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 3 primary healthcare centres in Northern Portugal. Adult patients identified in the Electronic Patient Record with a diagnosis of asthma were invited to participate. CARAT was used to assess asthma control and Asthma Control Test (ACT) as a comparator. The associations between asthma patients without AR (AsAR) and with AR (AwAR) were analyzed with Spearman correlation. Additionally, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, summarized by Area Under the Curve (AUC), was used to assess performance of CARAT for screening asthma that was not well-controlled. RESULTS: A total of 103 asthma patients completed the study, 64 (62%) had AwAR and in 87 (85%) asthma was not well-controlled. We observed a strong correlation between CARAT and ACT scores (r=0.734) in all asthma patients and in both groups: AsAR (r=0.737) and AwAR (r=0.843). ROC curve demonstrated CARAT as having a good discriminative power for both AsAR and AwAR groups (AUC=0.894 and 0.946, respectively). CONCLUSION: These initial results suggest that CARAT has a good discriminative performance, similar to other asthma control assessment tools, for asthma patients with and without AR.

Abstract

Objective. To quantify the effectiveness of nasal expiratory positive airway pressure (nasal EPAP) devices or Provent as treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods. PubMed and six other databases were searched through November 15, 2015, without language limitations. Results. Eighteen studies (920 patients) were included. Pre- and post-nasal EPAP means ± standard deviations (M ± SD) for apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) in 345 patients decreased from 27.32 ± 22.24 to 12.78 ± 16.89 events/hr (relative reduction = 53.2%). Random effects modeling mean difference (MD) was -14.78 events/hr [95% CI -19.12, -10.45], p value < 0.00001. Oxygen desaturation index (ODI) in 247 patients decreased from 21.2 ± 19.3 to 12.4 ± 14.1 events/hr (relative reduction = 41.5%, p value < 0.00001). Lowest oxygen saturation (LSAT) M ± SD improved in 146 patients from 83.2 ± 6.8% to 86.2 ± 11.1%, MD 3 oxygen saturation points [95% CI 0.57, 5.63]. Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) M ± SD improved (359 patients) from 9.9 ± 5.3 to 7.4 ± 5.0, MD -2.5 [95% CI -3.2, -1.8], p value < 0.0001. Conclusion. Nasal EPAP (Provent) reduced AHI by 53.2%, ODI by 41.5% and improved LSAT by 3 oxygen saturation points. Generally, there were no clear characteristics (demographic factors, medical history, and/or physical exam finding) that predicted favorable response to these devices. However, limited evidence suggests that high nasal resistance could be associated with treatment failure. Additional studies are needed to identify demographic and polysomnographic characteristics that would predict therapeutic success with nasal EPAP (Provent).