Expert consensus study establishes a multidisciplinary Global Airways Unit model for patients with inflammatory airway diseases, highlighting its potential to streamline diagnostics and care.
Background Chronic respiratory diseases impose a large global burden of morbidity, mortality, and cost. The concept of a global airway has become increasingly supported by epidemiologic, mechanistic, and clinical evidence. However, clinical care often remains fragmented between ear, nose, and throat (ENT), allergy, and pulmonology. Methods A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of allergists, pulmonologists, and otolaryngologists from multiple tertiary care centres was convened. Experts were selected using predefined criteria encompassing clinical experience, academic output, geographic and institutional diversity, and gender balance. The panel performed a structured synthesis of current international guidelines and high‐impact literature, using a modified Delphi consensus process over 3 rounds, with a predefined agreement threshold of ≥ 80% to define the scope of diseases, diagnostic approach, and interdisciplinary care model. Results The Global Airways Unit (GAU) framework prioritizes multidisciplinary teamwork, early detection of comorbidities, phenotype‑directed investigations, streamlined imaging, and assignment of a lead specialty with scheduled follow‑up. Expected benefits include earlier diagnosis, improved disease control and quality of life (QoL), reduced duplication of testing, and potential cost‑savings for patients and health systems. Conclusions The GAU operationalises the unified airway hypothesis into a reproducible clinical model. We propose the formation of a GAU to coordinate the management of patients with inflammatory airway diseases. Prospective real‑world evaluation of GAU implementation is the next critical step to validate clinical and economic outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Conti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: