RESUMO
Purpose: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire, through a Delphi consensus, to be used by allergists in their routine clinical practice to assess the preferences of patients starting allergen immunotherapy (AIT) treatment using an objective approach. Patients and Methods: A Delphi consensus-driven process was used. The scientific committee, composed of 15 allergists, led the study and participated in the preparation of the questionnaire. Two-hundred panelists from different Spanish regions were invited to complete a 16-item questionnaire on a nine-point Likert scale covering six topic blocks. Consensus was achieved if ≥66.6% of panelists reached agreement or disagreement. Results: Of the 200 experts invited to participate in the Delphi process, a total of 195 (97.5%) answered the questionnaire. The panel experts reached a consensus on "agreement" on a total of 12 of the 16 (75.0%) items, covering a total of six categories: (a) patient knowledge (2 questions), (b) barriers to patient adherence (3 questions), (c) patient behavior (4 questions), (d) future actions (3 questions), (e) treatment costs (2 questions), and (f) final patient preferences (2 questions). Conclusion: This Delphi consensus study validated a set of twelve recommended questions for patients objectively assessing their preferences and suitability for the most common AIT options available. The questionnaire intends to assist allergists in making an objective, unconditioned decision regarding the best AIT option for each patient, after informing them about the different routes.
RESUMO
Temozolomide is an oral alkylating agent indicated for the treatment of patients with glioblastoma multiforme concomitantly with radiotherapy and subsequently as monotherapy treatment. We report the case of a patient who developed toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) while she was being treated with chemoradiotherapy and several drugs. Cutaneous tests were performed with the drugs involved with negative result. Although the occurrence of TEN contraindicates suspected drug readministration, we based the decision to perform the controlled administration of temozolomide on the following reasons: (1) the poor prognosis of the underlying disease, (2) the lack of therapeutic alternatives, (3) the suspicion that other drugs taken by the patient simultaneously may be responsible (as anticonvulsants and trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole [TMP-SMX]), and (4) temozolomide was the first choice for treating the patient's disease. The administration of a cumulative dose of 60 mg of temozolomide caused a slight skin reaction. Given this result, we conducted controlled administration of other drugs involved. Dexamethasone, codeine, omeprazole and levetiracetam were well tolerated. However, TMP-SMX produced a similar reaction to that caused by temozolomide. In conclusion, we present the first case of TEN induced by temozolomide and TMP-SMX associated with cranial radiotherapy confirmed by controlled administration. Radiotherapy in combination with these drugs could have favored TEN, as some authors have postulated, but we cannot prove this.