RESUMO
Background: Newborn screening (NBS) for the early detection of inborn errors of immunity (IEI) has been implemented in a few countries. The objective of this study was to verify the situation and define obstacles to the implementation of NBS worldwide. Methods: A questionnaire was developed by the Inborn Errors of Immunity Committee of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) with 17 questions regarding NBS for IEI in the physician's workplace, NBS test type, problems hindering NBS implementation, reimbursement for IEI therapy, presence of a national IEI registry, referral centers, molecular diagnosis, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation centers, gene therapy, and immunoglobulin replacement therapy. The survey was sent by email once a week to doctors and others associated with WAO and the main immunology societies worldwide as a Google Form™ to be completed during September and October 2021. Results: Two hundred twenty-nine questionnaires were completed, of which 216 (94.3%) were completed by physicians. One hundred seventy-six (76.8%) physicians were both allergists and immunologists. The agreement between allergists/immunologists and non-allergists/non-immunologists for the question "Is there NBS for IEI in the country you work in?" was good (κ = 0,64: 95% CI 0.55-0.69). Ninety-eight (42.8%) participants were from Latin America, 35 (15.3%) from North America, 29 (12.6%) from Europe, 18 (7.9%) from Africa, 44 (19.2%) from Asia, and 5 (2.2%) from Oceania. More than half the participants (n = 124, 54.2%) regularly treated patients with IEI, followed by occasional treatment (n = 77, 33.6%), or never (n = 28, 12.2%). Of the respondents, 14.8% reported that their countries performed NBS for IEI, whereas 42.2% reported their countries did not. T-cell receptor excision circles was the most widely used technique in some countries, with 75 (59.9%) for the diagnosis of NBS for IEI, followed by combined use with kappa deleting-recombination excision circles. Only 13 participants (10.3%) underwent neonatal exon screening in their respective countries. Financial and technical issues were among the major obstacles to the implementation of NBS for IEI. Conclusions: This pilot study showed that few countries have implemented NBS for IEI, despite the presence of immunology referral centers and the availability of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and intravenous immunoglobulin replacement therapy. The findings highlight the difficulties, mainly financial and technical, hindering wide application of NBS. Sharing experiences, technologies, and resources at the international level can help overcome these difficulties.
RESUMO
There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice.
RESUMO
Background: Anaphylaxis is the most severe clinical presentation of acute systemic allergic reactions and can cause death. Given the prevalence of anaphylaxis within healthcare systems, it is a high priority public health issue. However, management of anaphylaxis - both acute and preventative - varies by region. Methods: The World Allergy Organization (WAO) Anaphylaxis Committee and the WAO Junior Members Steering Group undertook a global online survey to evaluate local practice in the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis across regions. Results: Responses were received from WAO members in 66 countries. While intramuscular epinephrine (adrenaline) is first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, some countries continue to recommend alternative routes in contrast to guidelines. Epinephrine auto-injector (EAI) devices, prescribed to individuals at ongoing risk of anaphylaxis in the community setting, are only available in 60% of countries surveyed, mainly in high-income countries. Many countries in South America, Africa/Middle-East and Asian-Pacific regions do not have EAI available, or depend on individual importation. In countries where EAIs are commercially available, national policies regarding the availability of EAIs in public settings are limited to few countries (16%). There is no consensus regarding the time patients should be observed following emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. Conclusion: This survey provides a global snapshot view of the current management of anaphylaxis, and highlights key unmet needs including the global availability of epinephrine for self-injection as a key component of anaphylaxis management.
RESUMO
The treatment of food allergy involves completely removing the allergenic food from the diet, careful label reading, and ingredient awareness. Family education is crucial, understanding alternative names for the allergen. An emergency action plan provided by the doctor, with clear instructions for epinephrine application and when to seek medical attention, is essential. For mild to moderate symptoms, oral antihistamines may be prescribed. Psychological support is necessary due to emotional repercussions. Collaboration with an allergy specialist is crucial for personalized treatment. Natural tolerance to the food may be achieved, especially in non-IgE-mediated allergies. However, some allergic manifestations persist, requiring treatment alternatives. Avoidance of the allergen and epinephrine application are key measures. Immunotherapy aims to desensitize immune cells, but its effectiveness varies. Bioterapeutic agents, such as monoclonal antibodies, are under investigation, although their clinical use still requires more studies.
El tratamiento de la alergia alimentaria implica la completa eliminación del alimento alergénico de la dieta, lectura minuciosa de etiquetas y conciencia sobre ingredientes. La educación familiar es crucial, comprendiendo los nombres alternativos del alérgeno. Se debe contar con un plan de acción de urgencia proporcionado por el médico, con instrucciones claras para la aplicación de epinefrina y cuándo buscar atención médica. Para síntomas leves a moderados, se pueden recetar antihistamínicos. El apoyo psicológico es esencial debido a las repercusiones emocionales. La colaboración con un especialista en alergias es crucial para un tratamiento personalizado. La tolerancia natural al alimento puede lograrse, especialmente en alergias no mediadas por IgE. Sin embargo, algunas manifestaciones alérgicas persisten, requiriendo alternativas de tratamiento. La evitación del alergeno y la aplicación de epinefrina son medidas clave. La inmunoterapia busca desensibilizar las células inmunológicas, pero su efectividad varía. Los agentes bioterapéuticos, como anticuerpos monoclonales, se investigan, aunque su uso clínico aún requiere más estudios.
Assuntos
Hipersensibilidade Alimentar , Humanos , Hipersensibilidade Alimentar/terapia , Imunoterapia , Alimentos , Epinefrina/uso terapêutico , AlérgenosRESUMO
Respiratory tract infections (RTI) are mainly viral in origin and among the leading cause of childhood morbidity globally. Associated wheezing illness and asthma are still a clear unmet medical need. Despite the continuous progress in understanding the processes involved in their pathogenesis, preventive measures and treatments failed to demonstrate any significant disease-modifying effect. However, in the last decades it was understood that early-life exposure to microbes, may reduce the risk of infectious and allergic disorders, increasing the immune response efficacy. These results suggested that treatment with bacterial lysates (BLs) acting on gut microbiota, could promote a heterologous immunomodulation useful in the prevention of recurrent RTIs and of wheezing inception and persistence. This hypothesis has been supported by clinical and experimental studies showing the reduction of RTI frequency and severity in childhood after oral BL prophylaxis and elucidating the involved mechanisms. OM-85 is the product whose anti-viral effects have been most extensively studied in vitro, animal, and human cell studies and in translational animal infection/disease models. The results of the latter studies, describing the potential immune training-based activities of such BL, leading to the protection against respiratory viruses, will be reported. In response to human rhinovirus, influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus and severe acute respiratory coronavirus-2, OM-85 was effective in modulating the structure and the functions of a large numbers of airways epithelial and immune cells, when administered both orally and intranasally.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite the high number of vaccines administered against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide, the information on the psychological/psychiatric adverse events following immunization (AEFI) with these newly developed vaccines remains scarce. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of psychological/psychiatric symptoms among recipients of five different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and to explore the factors associated with their development reported in the nationwide Mexican registry of AEFI against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Descriptive study of all the psychological/psychiatric symptoms, including anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, and agitation reported to the Mexican Epidemiological Surveillance System from 21 December 2020 to 27 April 2021, among adult (≥18 years old) recipients of 7,812,845 doses of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCov-19, rAd26-rAd5, Ad5-nCoV, or CoronaVac. The factors associated with their development are determined by multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: There were 19,163 AEFI reports during the study period; amongst them, 191 (1%) patients had psychological/psychiatric symptoms (median age of 41 years, interquartile range of 32-54; 149 [78%] women) for an observed incidence of 2.44 cases per 100,000 administered doses (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.12-2.82), 72.8% of psychiatric AEFIs were reported among recipients of BNT162b2. The median time from vaccination to symptom onset was 35 min (interquartile range: 10-720). Overall, the most common psychological/psychiatric symptoms were anxiety in 129 (67.5%) patients, panic attacks in 30 (15.7%), insomnia in 25 (13%), and agitation in 11 (5.7%). After adjusting for the confounding factors, the odds for developing psychological/psychiatric symptoms were higher for those concurrently reporting syncope (odds ratio [OR]: 4.73, 95% CI: 1.68-13.33); palpitations (OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.65-3.70), and dizziness (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.10-2.28). CONCLUSION: In our population, psychological/psychiatric symptoms were extremely infrequent AEFIs. No severe psychiatric AEFIs were reported. Immunization stress-related responses might explain most of the detected cases.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Information on anaphylaxis among recipients of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains scarce. OBJECTIVE: To identify the observed incidence of anaphylaxis in recipients of different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. METHODS: A nationwide observational study among recipients of 61,414,803 doses of seven different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, describing the incidence and characteristics of adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) who developed anaphylaxis as an adverse event following immunization (AEFI) against SARS-CoV-2 vaccines between December 24, 2020, and October 15, 2021, in Mexico. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients developed anaphylaxis as an AEFI, for an overall observed incidence of 1.07 cases per 1,000,000 (95% CI 0.84-1.37) administered doses. Eighty-six percent of the patients were female, consistent with previous reports of AEFI to COVID-19 vaccines. mRNA-based vaccine recipients had the highest frequency of anaphylaxis, followed by adenovirus-vectored vaccines and inactivated virus recipients, with an observed incidence of 2.5, 0.7, and 0.2 cases per 1,000,000 doses administered, respectively. Only 46% of the patients received correct treatment with epinephrine as the first-line treatment through the appropriate route and dose. We detected one case of anaphylactic reaction-related death occurring 5 min following immunization with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 for a mortality rate of 1.5% among those who developed this AEFI. CONCLUSIONS: In our population, anaphylactic reactions were infrequent. Our study provides further evidence supporting the security of these newly developed vaccines.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Adolescente , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Anafilaxia/induzido quimicamente , Anafilaxia/epidemiologia , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/efeitos adversos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19/efeitos adversos , SARS-CoV-2 , México/epidemiologiaRESUMO
The Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA) strategy included major changes for the treatment of mild asthma in the 2020 version that are even taken to the next level in 2021, leaving a preferred track with only rescue therapy with inhaled corticosteroid and formoterol (ICS-FORM) for steps 1-2 in 12+ years old. It has been questioned how solid the evidence behind these recommendations is. We decided to independently conduct an in-depth analysis of published evidence based on a comprehensive evaluation of original articles and related appendices and publications, including quality of evidence and risk of bias per article. We first defined the major asthma treatment goals and proceeded to review how these were met in publications referenced in the main asthma guidelines. For patients with GINA (2021) Step 1 characteristics, the analysis supports GINA's decision to avoid SABA monotherapy and to prefer ICS-FORM rescue with an alternative ICS rescue every time a SABA is used for ≥12 years, even though evidence is extrapolated from step 2 patients. For 6- to 11-year-olds, we propose to consider ICS-FORM rescue as an alternative, as its use has been approved in this age group, be it not as rescue medication. For patients with GINA 2021 Step 2 characteristics, our proposal slightly differs from GINA 2021. We propose to continue avoiding the separate use of SABA, using ICS rescue whenever a fast-acting bronchodilator is taken (even with ICS maintenance). Also, the superiority of ICS-FORM rescue over classical step 2 treatment is not uniform and year-long experience is lacking. Consequently, for now, both treatment options seem equal: ICS-FORM rescue or ICS maintenance with SABA (+ICS) rescue. For 6- to 11-year-olds, ICS rescue every time a SABA is used has the advantage of lower total ICS dose; as alternative we suggest ICS-FORM rescue. The best treatment option depends on patient characteristics and treatment goals. Recommendations should be reviewed as soon as new evidence becomes available.
Assuntos
Antiasmáticos , Asma , Administração por Inalação , Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Antiasmáticos/uso terapêutico , Asma/diagnóstico , Asma/tratamento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores , Criança , Quimioterapia Combinada , Fumarato de Formoterol/uso terapêutico , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cough features a complex peripheral and central neuronal network. The function of the chemosensitive and stretch (afferent) cough receptors is well described but partly understood. It is speculated that chronic cough reflects a neurogenic inflammation of the cough reflex, which becomes hypersensitive. This is mediated by neuromediators, cytokines, inflammatory cells, and a differential expression of neuronal (chemo/stretch) receptors, such as transient receptor potential (TRP) and purinergic P2X ion channels; yet the overall interaction of these mediators in neurogenic inflammation of cough pathways remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The World Allergy Organization/Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (WAO/ARIA) Joint Committee on Chronic Cough reviewed the current literature on neuroanatomy and pathophysiology of chronic cough. The role of TRP ion channels in pathogenic mechanisms of the hypersensitive cough reflex was also examined. OUTCOMES: Chemoreceptors are better studied in cough neuronal pathways compared to stretch receptors, likely due to their anatomical overabundance in the respiratory tract, but also their distinctive functional properties. Central pathways are important in suppressive mechanisms and behavioral/affective aspects of chronic cough. Current evidence strongly suggests neurogenic inflammation induces a hypersensitive cough reflex marked by increased expression of neuromediators, mast cells, and eosinophils, among others. TRP ion channels, mainly TRP V1/A1, are important in the pathogenesis of chronic cough due to their role in mediating chemosensitivity to various endogenous and exogenous triggers, as well as a crosstalk between neurogenic and inflammatory pathways in cough-associated airways diseases.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chronic cough can be triggered by respiratory and non-respiratory tract illnesses originating mainly from the upper and lower airways, and the GI tract (ie, reflux). Recent findings suggest it can also be a prominent feature in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), laryngeal hyperresponsiveness, and COVID-19. The classification of chronic cough is constantly updated but lacks clear definition. Epidemiological data on the prevalence of chronic cough are informative but highly variable. The underlying mechanism of chronic cough is a neurogenic inflammation of the cough reflex which becomes hypersensitive, thus the term hypersensitive cough reflex (HCR). A current challenge is to decipher how various infectious and inflammatory airway diseases and esophageal reflux, among others, modulate HCR. OBJECTIVES: The World Allergy Organization/Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (WAO/ARIA) Joint Committee on Chronic Cough reviewed the current literature on classification, epidemiology, presenting features, and mechanistic pathways of chronic cough in airway- and reflux-related cough phenotypes, OSA, and COVID-19. The interplay of cough reflex sensitivity with other pathogenic mechanisms inherent to airway and reflux-related inflammatory conditions was also analyzed. OUTCOMES: Currently, it is difficult to clearly ascertain true prevalence rates in epidemiological studies of chronic cough phenotypes. This is likely due to lack of standardized objective measures needed for cough classification and frequent coexistence of multi-organ cough origins. Notwithstanding, we emphasize the important role of HCR as a mechanistic trigger in airway- and reflux-related cough phenotypes. Other concomitant mechanisms can also modulate HCR, including type2/Th1/Th2 inflammation, presence or absence of deep inspiration-bronchoprotective reflex (lower airways), tissue remodeling, and likely cough plasticity, among others.
RESUMO
There is a wide time gap between the publication of evidence and the application of new knowledge into routine clinical practice. The consequence is sub-optimal outcomes, particularly concerning for long-term relapsing/remitting conditions such as allergic diseases. In response, there has been a proliferation of published guidelines which systematically review evidence for the gold-standard management of most allergic disorders. However, this has not necessarily been followed by improved outcomes, partly due to a lack of coordination across the patient pathway. This has become known as the "second translational gap". A proposed solution is the development and implementation of integrated care pathways (ICPs) to optimize patient outcomes, with the notion that evidence-based medicine requires evidence-based implementation. ICP implementation is shown to improve short-term outcomes for acute conditions and routine surgery, including reduced length of hospital stay, improved documentation and improved patient safety. However, this improvement is not reflected in patient experience or patient-centered functional outcomes. The implementation of life-long, cost-effective interventions within comprehensive pathways requires a deep appreciation for complexity within allergy care. We promote an evidence-based methodology for the implementation of ICPs for allergic disorders in which all stakeholders in allergy care are positioned equally and encouraged to contribute, particularly patients and their caregivers. This evidence-based process commences with scoping the unmet needs, followed by stakeholder mapping. All stakeholders are invited to meetings to develop a common vision and mission through the generation of action/effect diagrams which helps build concordance across the agencies. Dividing the interventions into achievable steps and reviewing with plan/do/study/act cycles will gradually modify the pathway to achieve the best outcomes. While the management guidelines provide the core knowledge, the key component of implementation involves education, training, and support of all healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients and their caregivers. The pathways should define the level of competence required for each clinical task. It may be useful to leave the setting of care delivery or the specific HCP involved undefined to account for variable patterns of health service delivery as well as local socioeconomic, ethnic, environmental, and political imperatives. In all cases, where competence is exceeded, it is necessary to refer to the next stage in the pathway. The success and sustainability of ICPs would ideally be judged by patient experience, health outcomes, and health economics. We provide examples of successful programs, most notably from Finland, but recommend that further research is required in diverse settings to optimize outcomes worldwide.
RESUMO
The increasing prevalence of allergic diseases has placed a significant burden on global healthcare and society as whole. This has necessitated a rapid development of "allergy" as a specialist area. However, as allergy is so common and, for most, relatively easy to diagnose and control, all clinicians need to have basic knowledge and competence to manage mild disease and recognize when referral is required. The allergology specialty has not yet been recognized in many countries and even where allergy is fully recognized as a specialty, the approach to training in allergy differs significantly. In the light of recent developments in allergy diagnosis and management, there is an urgent need to harmonize core competences for physicians, as well as the standardization of core principles for medical education and post-graduate training in allergy. All physicians and allied health professionals must appreciate the multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to allergy, which is key to achieving the highest standards in holistic care. Due to worldwide variation in resources and personnel, some MDT roles will need to be absorbed by the treating physician or other healthcare professionals. We draw particular attention to the role of psychological input for all allergy patients, dietetic input in the case of food allergy and patient education to support all patients in the supported self-management of their condition on a daily basis. A strong appreciation of these multidisciplinary aspects will help physicians provide quality patient-centered care. We consider that harmonization of allergy components within undergraduate curricula is crucial to ensure all physicians develop the appropriate allergy-related knowledge and skills, particularly in light of inconsistencies seen in the primary care management of allergy. This review from the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Education and Training Committee also outlines allergy-related competences required of physicians working with allergic patients and provides recommendations to promote harmonization of allergy training and practice worldwide.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To describe the most frequent dermatological conditions observed in COVID-19 patients and to determine whether their presence could be used to establish an early diagnosis or to predict the progression of the infection. METHODS: There was a review in PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE of all the articles that had been published between January 1st and November 1st, 2020, with the search terms focused on "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19" and "Skin diseases". RESULTS: Eighty three studies met the inclusion criteria. Skin lesions have been reported in 0.2 % of the patients. The most frequently reported dermatoses were: maculopapular/ morbilliform rashes, urticaria and angioedema, chilblain-like acral pattern, and vesicular lesions. Among researchers, there are differences of opinion about a possible diagnostic or prognostic value of the skin diseases that are associated to the infection. CONCLUSIONS: It is advisable to consider the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients who call the doctor for skin lesions, urticaria, or angioedema, with or without other symptoms of the infection, especially if there is a previous history of recent exposure to other infected subjects.
Objetivos: Describir las afecciones dermatológicas más frecuentes en los pacientes con la COVID-19 y precisar si su presencia puede ser utilizada para establecer un diagnóstico temprano o para predecir la evolución de la infección. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión en PubMed/MEDLINE y EMBASE de todos los artículos publicados entre enero 1 y noviembre 1 de 2020, con los términos de la búsqueda centrados en "SARS-CoV-2", "COVID-19" y "Enfermedades cutáneas". Resultados: Cumplieron los criterios de inclusión 83 estudios. Lesiones de la piel han sido reportadas en 0.2 % de los pacientes. Las erupciones maculopapulares/morbiliformes, la urticaria y el angioedema, el patrón acral parecido a sabañones y las lesiones vesiculares fueron las dermatosis más frecuentemente informadas. Existen diferencias de opinión entre los investigadores, acerca de un posible valor diagnóstico o pronóstico de las afecciones cutáneas asociadas con la infección. Conclusiones: Es recomendable considerar el diagnóstico de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes que consultan por presentar lesiones cutáneas, urticaria o angioedema con o sin otros síntomas de la infección y en especial si existe algún antecedente de exposición reciente a otros sujetos infectados.
Assuntos
COVID-19/complicações , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Dermatopatias/etiologia , Angioedema/etiologia , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Progressão da Doença , Diagnóstico Precoce , Feminino , Humanos , Imunossupressores/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Omalizumab/uso terapêutico , Urticária/diagnóstico , Urticária/tratamento farmacológico , Urticária/etiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Asthma continues to be one of the most frequent chronic respiratory diseases in our country. New methods for diagnosis and treatment have been described; accordingly, the international guidelines were renewed. OBJECTIVE: To create a national platform for the development of updated guidelines, solidly based on evidence: Comprehensive Asthma Management (Spanish acronym: MIA). METHODS: MIA uses the ADAPTE method. The MIA development group consists of experts in pulmonology-allergology-methodology and representatives of 13 institutions and societies of specialties that manage asthma. The international reference guidelines (selected with AGREE-II): GINA 2020, GEMA 5.0, BTS/SIGN 2019 and ATS/ERS consensus document 2014-2019 on severe asthma. MIA covers suspected asthma, diagnosis, treatment, and special groups. Key clinical questions were formulated on treatment steps 1-3, biomarkers and severe asthma. RESULTS: Based on evidence, safety, cost and local reality, the core group developed responses. Through a Delphi process the broad MIA development group suggested adjustments until consensus was reached. CONCLUSION: A document was generated with multiple figures and algorithms, solidly based on evidence about asthma management, adjusted for Mexico with a broad base among different societies that participated in its development. It does not include guidelines for acute asthma.
Antecedentes: El asma sigue siendo una patología respiratoria crónica frecuente en México. Se han descrito nuevos métodos para el diagnóstico y tratamiento conforme se renuevan las guías internacionales. Objetivo: Crear la plataforma nacional Manejo Integral del Asma (MIA), para el desarrollo de lineamientos actualizados con base en evidencia. Métodos: Se utilizó el método ADAPTE. El grupo de desarrollo de MIA estuvo integrado por expertos en neumología, alergología y metodología y representantes de 13 instituciones y sociedades de especialidades que manejan asma. Las guías internacionales de referencia (seleccionadas con AGREE-II) fueron GINA 2020, GEMA 5.0, BTS/SIGN 2019 y consenso ATS/ERS 2014-2019. En MIA se aborda sospecha de asma, diagnóstico, tratamiento y grupos especiales. Se formularon preguntas clínicas clave sobre tratamiento en los pasos 1 a 3, biomarcadores y asma grave. Resultados: Con base en evidencia, seguridad, costo y realidad local, el grupo nuclear desarrolló respuestas. Mediante proceso Delphi, el grupo amplio de desarrollo sugirió ajustes hasta que se logró el consenso. Conclusión: El documento generado contiene múltiples figuras y algoritmos, está sólidamente basado en evidencia acerca del manejo del asma y fue ajustado para México con participación de diferentes sociedades para su desarrollo; no se incluyeron lineamientos para la crisis asmática.
Assuntos
Asma , Asma/diagnóstico , Asma/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , MéxicoRESUMO
This is Part 1 of an updated follow-up review of a World Allergy Organization (WAO) position paper published in 2012 on the diagnosis and treatment of urticaria and angioedema. Since 2012, there have been advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of chronic urticaria, and greater experience with the use of biologics, such as omalizumab, in patients with severe refractory disease. For these reasons, the WAO decided to initiate an update targeted to general practitioners around the world, incorporating the most recent information on epidemiology, immunopathogenesis, comorbidities, quality of life, clinical case presentations, and the management of chronic spontaneous and chronic inducible urticaria, including urticaria in special situations such as childhood and pregnancy. A special task force of WAO experts was invited to write the different sections of the manuscript, and the final document was approved by the WAO Board of Directors. This paper is not intended to be a substitute for current national and international guidelines on the management of urticaria and angioedema but to provide an updated, simplified guidance for physicians around the world who manage patients with this common ailment.
RESUMO
This is Part 2 of an updated follow-up review of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) position paper on the diagnosis and treatment of urticaria and angioedema. Since that document was published, new advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of chronic urticaria, and greater experience with the use of biologics in patients with severe refractory disease, mainly omalizumab, have been gained. For these reasons, WAO decided to initiate an update targeted to general practitioners around the world, incorporating the most recent information on epidemiology, immunopathogenesis, comorbidities, quality of life, clinical case presentations, and the management of chronic spontaneous and chronic inducible urticaria, and urticaria in special situations such as childhood and pregnancy. A special task force of WAO experts was invited to write the different sections of the manuscript, and the final document was approved by the WAO Board of Directors. This paper is not intended to be a substitute for current national and international guidelines on the management of urticaria and angioedema, but to provide an updated simplified guidance for physicians around the world who have to manage patients with this common ailment.
RESUMO
Allergic diseases are one of the most frequent chronic diseases in the world. It has been established that there is a worldwide epidemic of allergic diseases; therefore, the treatment of allergies should be acknowledged as a worldwide priority and the specialty of allergy should be considered an important field in medicine. Due to the fact that allergic diseases involve many organs, and Allergy and Clinical Immunology is one of the specialties in which physicians may be trained to treat patients of all ages, the subject in medical schools is not always taught as an individual specialty but often as part of another subject such as internal medicine or pediatrics. Certified allergists are an important contribution to health systems, providing the necessary care for patients who have allergic diseases. Undergraduate programs in many universities do not include allergy as a subject, contributing to a lack of knowledge regarding the correct management of allergic diseases. World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 1 allergist per 50,000 people; however, there is an uneven distribution of allergy and clinical immunology specialists. Most practitioners are localized mainly in larger cities and state capitals, while in other regions, specialists are still greatly needed. Support and training systems are required for allergy and clinical immunology specialists to promote continuing education and keep their clinical competence up to date, which will lead to better care for their patients. Increased exposure to the concepts of allergy and clinical immunology diagnosis and treatment in undergraduate education may also potentially lead to an increase in interest in the field of allergy and clinical immunology among physicians in training. This review will approach allergy education in Mexico and other parts of Latin America.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak brought an unprecedented challenge to the world. Knowledge in the field has been increasing exponentially and the main allergy societies have produced guidance documents for better management of allergic patients during this period. However, few publications so far have provided real-life data from the allergy community concerning allergy practice during the COVID-19 outbreak. Therefore, we proposed an international survey on the management of allergic patients during the current pandemic. METHODS: We performed an online survey undertaken to reach out the worldwide allergy community by e-mail and social media. The web-based questionnaire contained 24 questions covering demographic data from the participants, clinical practice during this period, and questions related to the new international classification and coding tools addressed for COVID-19. It was circulated for 8 weeks and had anonymous and volunteer context. RESULTS: Data are presented for 635 participants from 78 countries of all continents. Allergists with long-term professional experience were the main audience. As expected, we received many responses as "I have no data" or "I don't know" to the questions of the survey. However, most with more experience on managing allergic patients during the pandemic agreed that patients suffering from allergic or hypersensitivity conditions have no increased risk of contracting COVID-19 or developing SARS CoV-2. Also, participants mentioned that none of the allergy treatments (inhaled corticosteroids, allergen immunotherapy, biological agents) increased the risk of contracting COVID-19 infection including severe presentations. CONCLUSION: The data presented are a starting point in the process of getting feedback on all the recommendations provided by the allergy societies; it could also be the basis of new strategies to support health professionals while new COVID-19 specific treatments and vaccines are being explored. The information here presented intends to be helpful to the community but represents a course of action in a highly specific situation due to the state of emergency, and it should be helpful to health systems.
RESUMO
This article reviews biologic treatments that are currently applied for the treatment of severe chronic urticaria. Monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E (omalizumab) is effective and safe in many patients, but accessibility and cost constitute barriers to its wider use. Questions on the optimal duration of the treatment and possible symptom recurrences after discontinuing the drug are still raised. A discussion is presented about several other biologics currently under investigation with potential to be incorporated in the near future in patients with severe chronic urticaria.
Assuntos
Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Urticária Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Imunoglobulina E/metabolismo , Mastócitos/imunologia , Autoimunidade/efeitos dos fármacos , Produtos Biológicos/farmacologia , Urticária Crônica/diagnóstico , Urticária Crônica/imunologia , Resistência a Medicamentos , Humanos , Mastócitos/efeitos dos fármacos , Mastócitos/metabolismo , Prognóstico , Recidiva , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Transdução de Sinais/efeitos dos fármacos , Transdução de Sinais/imunologia , Pele/citologia , Pele/efeitos dos fármacos , Pele/imunologia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has a longstanding history and still remains the only disease-changing treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Over the years 2 different schools have developed their strategies: the United States (US) and the European. Allergen extracts available in these regions are adapted to local practice. In other parts of the world, extracts from both regions and local ones are commercialized, as in Mexico. Here, local experts developed a national AIT guideline (GUIMIT 2019) searching for compromises between both schools. METHODS: Using ADAPTE methodology for transculturizing guidelines and AGREE-II for evaluating guideline quality, GUIMIT selected 3 high-quality Main Reference Guidelines (MRGs): the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (EAACI) guideines, the S2k guideline of various German-speaking medical societies (2014), and the US Practice Parameters on Allergen Immunotherapy 2011. We formulated clinical questions and based responses on the fused evidence available in the MRGs, combined with local possibilities, patient's preference, and costs. We came across several issues on which the MRGs disagreed. These are presented here along with arguments of GUIMIT members to resolve them. GUIMIT (for a complete English version, Supplementary data) concluded the following. RESULTS: Related to the diagnosis of IgE-mediated respiratory allergy, apart from skin prick testing complementary tests (challenges, in vitro testing and molecular such as species-specific allergens) might be useful in selected cases to inform AIT composition. AIT is indicated in allergic rhinitis and suggested in allergic asthma (once controlled) and IgE-mediated atopic dermatitis. Concerning the correct subcutaneous AIT dose for compounding vials according to the US school: dosing tables and formula are given; up to 4 non-related allergens can be mixed, refraining from mixing high with low protease extracts. When using European extracts: the manufacturer's indications should be followed; in multi-allergic patients 2 simultaneous injections can be given (100% consensus); mixing is discouraged. In Mexico only allergoid tablets are available; based on doses used in all sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) publications referenced in MRGs, GUIMIT suggests a probable effective dose related to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) might be: 50-200% of the monthly SCIT dose given daily, maximum mixing 4 allergens. Also, a table with practical suggestions on non-evidence-existing issues, developed with a simplified Delphi method, is added. Finally, dissemination and implementation of guidelines is briefly discussed, explaining how we used online tools for this in Mexico. CONCLUSIONS: Countries where European and American AIT extracts are available should adjust AIT according to which school is followed.