Background Aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) comprises the triad of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), asthma, and intolerance to inhibitors of the cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) enzyme. The prevalence of AERD remains unclear and few studies have compared the clinical characteristics of patients with AERD to those with CRSwNP alone, asthma alone, or both CRSwNP and asthma. Objective To determine the prevalence of AERD within a tertiary care setting, and to identify unique clinical features that could distinguish these patients from those with CRSwNP+Asthma or CRSwNP. Methods Electronic medical records of patients at Northwestern in Chicago, Illinois were searched by computer algorithm and then manual chart review to identify 459 patients with CRSwNP alone, 412 with CRSwNP+Asthma, 171 with AERD, and 300 with asthma only. Demographic and clinical features including sex, atopy, and sinus disease severity were characterized. Results The prevalence of AERD among CRSwNP patients was 16%. AERD patients had undergone two-fold more sinus surgeries (p<0.001) and were significantly younger at the time of their first surgery (40±13 years) than CRSwNP patients (43±14 years, p<0.05). Atopy was significantly more prevalent in patients with AERD (84%) or asthma (85%) than in CRSwNP (66%, p<0.05). More patients with AERD (13%) had corticosteroid-dependent disease than CRSwNP+Asthma (4%, p<0.01) or asthma (1%, p<0.001). Conclusions AERD is common among CRSwNP patients; even though AERD patients have CRSwNP and asthma, the clinical course of their disease is not the same as of patients who have CRSwNP and asthma but are tolerant to COX-1 inhibitors.
Allergy. 2020;75:911-920.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/all | 911 Abstract Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) epidemiology has been largely studied using symptom-based case definitions, without assessment of objective sinus findings.Objective: To describe radiologic sinus opacification and the prevalence of CRS, defined by the co-occurrence of symptoms and sinus opacification, in a general population-based sample. Methods:We collected questionnaires and sinus CT scans from 646 participants selected from a source population of 200 769 primary care patients. Symptom status (CRS S ) was based on guideline criteria, and objective radiologic inflammation (CRS O ) was based on the Lund-Mackay (L-M) score using multiple L-M thresholds for positivity. Participants with symptoms and radiologic inflammation were classified as CRS S+O . We performed negative binomial regression to assess factors associated with L-M score and logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with CRS S+O .Using weighted analysis, we calculated estimates for the source population. Results:The proportion of women with L-M scores ≥ 3, 4, or 6 (CRS O ) was 11.1%, 9.9%, and 5.7%, respectively, and 16.1%, 14.6%, and 8.7% among men. The respective proportion with CRS S+O was 1.7%, 1.6%, and 0.45% among women and 8.8%, 7.5%, and 3.6% among men. Men had higher odds of CRS S+O compared to women. A greater proportion of men (vs women) had any opacification in the frontal, anterior ethmoid, and sphenoid sinuses. Conclusion:In a general population-based sample in Pennsylvania, sinus opacification was more common among men than in women and opacification occurred in different locations by sex. Male sex, migraine headache, and prior sinus surgery were associated with higher odds of CRS S+O . K E Y W O R D S chronic rhinosinusitis, CT scan, epidemiology, sex, sinus S U PP O RTI N G I N FO R M ATI O N Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section. How to cite this article: Hirsch AG, Nordberg C, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Radiologic sinus inflammation and symptoms of chronic rhinosinusitis in a population-based sample.Allergy. 2020;75:911-920. https ://doi.
Background: Longer time between symptom onset and treatment of Lyme disease has been associated with poor outcomes. Reducing time-to-treatment requires knowledge of risks for treatment delays. We conducted a population-based study to evaluate factors associated with delayed treatment of Lyme disease and the relation between delayed treatment and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS).Methods: We mailed questionnaires to 5,314 individuals with a Lyme disease diagnosis or blood test followed by an antibiotic order in the medical record of a Pennsylvania health system from 2015 to 2017. Analyses were confined to 778 respondents who reported that they were treated for Lyme disease within the past 5 years and reported a rash and/or a positive blood test for Lyme disease. Time-to-treatment was calculated as the sum of two windows before and after seeking care for Lyme disease symptoms: time to first medical contact and time under care. We used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with delayed time-to-treatment in each time window (>14 days vs. ≤14 days) and the association between total time-to-treatment (>30 days vs. ≤30 days) and PTLDS. We used inverse probability weighting to calculate estimates for the study's source population (5,314 individuals sent questionnaires).Results: In the source population, 25% had time to first contact >14 days, 21% had time under care >14 days, and 31% had a total time-to-treatment >30 days. Being uninsured and attributing initial symptoms to something other than Lyme disease were positively associated with delayed time to first medical contact, while seeking care at an urgent care or emergency setting (vs. primary care) was negatively associated. Diagnoses between November and April, and the absence of rash were positively associated with delays. Individuals whose treatment was delayed, defined as time-to treatment >30 days had 2.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.25, 4.05) times the odds of PTLDS as those who were treated within 30 days of symptom onset.Conclusions: In a population-based study in Pennsylvania, one-third of Lyme disease patients reported delayed treatment, which was associated with PTLDS. To improve Lyme disease outcomes, prevention efforts should aim to reduce the time before and after seeking care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.