RESUMO
Peanuts are Leguminosae, commonly known as the legume or pea family, and peanut allergy is among the most common food allergies and the most common cause of fatal food reactions and anaphylaxis. The prevalence of peanut allergy increased 3.5-fold over the past two decades reaching 1.4-2% in Europe and the United States. The reasons for this increase in prevalence are likely multifaceted. Sensitization via the skin appears to be associated with the development of peanut allergy and atopic eczema in infancy is associated with a high risk of developing peanut allergy. Until recently, the only possible management strategy for peanut allergy was strict allergen avoidance and emergency treatment including adrenaline auto-injector in cases of accidental exposure and reaction. This paper discusses the various factors that impact the risks of peanut allergy and the burden of self-management on peanut-allergic children and their caregivers.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The vaccines against the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) approved in the European Union represent a decisive step in the fight against the pandemic. The application of these available vaccines to patients with pre-existing immunological conditions leads to a multitude of questions regarding efficacy, side effects and the necessary patient information. RESULTS: This review article provides insight into mechanisms of action of the currently available severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines and summarises the current state of science as well as expert recommendations regarding tolerability of the vaccines. In addition, the potential to develop protective immune responses is determined. A special focus is given on patients under immunosuppression or in treatment with immunomodulatory drugs. Special groups of the population such as children, pregnant women and the elderly are also considered. CONCLUSION: Despite the need for a patient-specific risk-benefit assessment, the consensus among experts is that patients with immunological diseases in particular benefit from the induced immune protection after COVID-19 vaccination and do not have an increased risk of side effects.
RESUMO
Two employees of the National Health Service (NHS) in England developed severe allergic reactions following administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). The British SmPC for the BNT162b2 vaccine already includes reference to a contraindication for use in individuals who have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine or any of its components. As a precautionary measure, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued interim guidance to the NHS not to vaccinate in principle in "patients with severe allergies". Allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, but vaccine components are known to cause allergic reactions. BNT162b2 is a vaccine based on an mRNA embedded in lipid nanoparticles and blended with other substances to enable its transport into the cells. In the pivotal phase III clinical trial, the BNT162b2 vaccine was generally well tolerated, but this large clinical trial, used to support vaccine approval by the MHRA and US Food and Drug Administration, excluded individuals with a "history of a severe adverse reaction related to the vaccine and/or a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a component of the study medication". Vaccines are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. This repeated administration of a foreign protein (antigen) necessitates a careful allergological history before each application and diagnostic clarification and a risk-benefit assessment before each injection. Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are rare but can be life-threatening, and it is prudent to raise awareness of this hazard among vaccination teams and to take adequate precautions while more experience is gained with this new vaccine.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases has faced major challenges. Recommendations for "social distancing" and the fear of patients becoming infected during a visit to a medical facility have led to a drastic decrease in personal doctor-patient contacts. This affects both acute care and treatment of the chronically ill. The immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection is so far only insufficiently understood and could be altered in a favorable or unfavorable way by therapy with monoclonal antibodies. There is currently no evidence for an increased risk of a severe COVID-19 course in allergic patients. Many patients are under ongoing therapy with biologicals that inhibit type 2 immune responses via various mechanisms. There is uncertainty about possible immunological interactions and potential risks of these biologicals in the case of an infection with SARS-CoV-2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed, Livivo, and the internet to cover the past 10 years (May 2010 - April 2020). Additionally, the current German-language publications were analyzed. Based on these data, the present position paper provides recommendations for the biological treatment of patients with allergic and atopy-associated diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In order to maintain in-office consultation services, a safe treatment environment must be created that is adapted to the pandemic situation. To date, there is a lack of reliable study data on the care for patients with complex respiratory, atopic, and allergic diseases in times of an imminent infection risk from SARS-CoV-2. Type-2-dominant immune reactions, as they are frequently seen in allergic patients, could influence various phases of COVID-19, e.g., by slowing down the immune reactions. Theoretically, this could have an unfavorable effect in the early phase of a SARS-Cov-2 infection, but also a positive effect during a cytokine storm in the later phase of severe courses. However, since there is currently no evidence for this, all data from patients treated with a biological directed against type 2 immune reactions who develop COVID-19 should be collected in registries, and their disease courses documented in order to be able to provide experience-based instructions in the future. CONCLUSION: The use of biologicals for the treatment of bronchial asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and spontaneous urticaria should be continued as usual in patients without suspected infection or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. If available, it is recommended to prefer a formulation for self-application and to offer telemedical monitoring. Treatment should aim at the best possible control of difficult-to-control allergic and atopic diseases using adequate rescue and add-on therapy and should avoid the need for systemic glucocorticosteroids. If SARS-CoV-2 infection is proven or reasonably suspected, the therapy should be determined by weighing the benefits and risks individually for the patient in question, and the patient should be involved in the decision-making. It should be kept in mind that the potential effects of biologicals on the immune response in COVID-19 are currently not known. Telemedical offers are particularly desirable for the acute consultation needs of suitable patients.
RESUMO
No abstract available.
RESUMO
Alternaria alternata spores are important allergens causing "hayfever". Outdoor fungal exposure is primarily associated with increased asthma symptoms and increased risk of asthma exacerbations. In our outpatient-clinic, we investigated patients who presented with symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and respiratory symptoms in the summertime. We found a sensitisation to Alternaria alternata in about 6â% of the investigated patients. Especially in children and teenagers, the sensitisation is clinically important. The spores of Alternaria alternata are responsible for the development and persistence of nonspecific airway hyperresponsiveness and in a group of patients also for a difficult-to-treat asthma in the summer. We should always bear in mind that prolonged symptoms (after end of June) in grass pollen allergic patients might be caused by additional sensitisation to Alternaria alternata spores or mugwort pollen. In our patients, we were able to show a sensitisation to Alternaria alternata in grass pollen allergic patients rather frequently. In the summertime, high counts of Alternaria spores and pollen often appear simultaneously. Our findings show a considerable effect of Alternaria sensitisation on the asthma morbidity and exacerbations. In this article we refer to the necessity of keeping a patient diary of allergic symptoms and the importance of information from regional pollen traps about the counts of pollen and Alternaria spores. Only then we will be able to differentiate, which allergen is responsible for the severe "hay fever", especially in patients with severe asthma episodes. Before the start of a specific immunotherapy with Alternaria alternata it is recommended to perform a mucosal provocation test, to prove the clinical significance of the sensitisation. It has been shown that also in Germany, there are high counts of Alternaria spores in the summer. The results of the pollen and alternaria count in the year 2009, measured in the regional pollen trap (Treuenbrietzen), are shown in Abb.â1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We have also found broken Alternaria spores. They are associated with increased asthma exacerbations and appear often during thunderstorms and harvesting. An allergen-specific immunotherapy with Alternaria alternata is a safe treatment and it is effective in improving respiratory function. The safety and efficacy is comparable to the one found in the allergen-specific immunotherapy with pollen.
Assuntos
Asma , Rinite Alérgica Sazonal , Adolescente , Alérgenos , Asma/terapia , Criança , Alemanha , Humanos , Esporos Fúngicos/imunologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients with a history of anaphylaxis are at risk of future anaphylactic reactions. Thus, secondary prevention measures are recommended for these patients to prevent or attenuate the next reaction. METHODS: Data from the Anaphylaxis Registry were analyzed to identify secondary prevention measures offered to patients who experienced anaphylaxis. Our analysis included 7788 cases from 10 European countries and Brazil. RESULTS: The secondary prevention measures offered varied across the elicitors. A remarkable discrepancy was observed between prevention measures offered in specialized allergy centers (84% of patients were prescribed adrenaline autoinjectors following EAACI guidelines) and outside the centers: Here, EAACI guideline adherence was only 37%. In the multivariate analysis, the elicitor of the reaction, age of the patient, mastocytosis as comorbidity, severity of the reaction, and reimbursement/availability of the autoinjector influence physician's decision to prescribe one. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the low implementation of guidelines concerning secondary prevention measures outside of specialized allergy centers, our findings highlight the importance of these specialized centers and the requirement of better education for primary healthcare and emergency physicians.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia , Prevenção Secundária , Anafilaxia/epidemiologia , Anafilaxia/etiologia , Anafilaxia/prevenção & controle , Brasil , Epinefrina , Europa (Continente)/epidemiologia , Humanos , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The number of patients affected by allergies is increasing worldwide. The resulting allergic diseases are leading to significant costs for health care and social systems. Integrated care pathways are needed to enable comprehensive care within the national health systems. The ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) initiative develops internationally applicable guidelines for allergic respiratory diseases. METHODS: ARIA serves to improve the care of patients with allergies and chronic respiratory diseases. In collaboration with other international initiatives, national associations and patient organizations in the field of allergies and respiratory diseases, real-life integrated care pathways have been developed for a digitally assisted, integrative, individualized treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) with comorbid asthma. In the present work, these integrated care pathways have been adapted to the German situation and health system. RESULTS: The present ICP (integrated care pathway) guideline covers key areas of the care of AR patients with and without asthma. It includes the views of patients and other healthcare providers. DISCUSSION: A comprehensive ICP guideline can reflect real-life care better than traditional guideline models.
RESUMO
This article is an abridged version of the AWMF mould guideline "Medical clinical diagnostics of indoor mould exposure" presented in April 2016 by the German Society of Hygiene, Environmental Medicine and Preventive Medicine (Gesellschaft für Hygiene, Umweltmedizin und Präventivmedizin, GHUP), in collaboration with the above-mentioned scientific medical societies, German and Austrian societies, medical associations and experts. Indoor mould growth is a potential health risk, even if a quantitative and/or causal relationship between the occurrence of individual mould species and health problems has yet to be established. Apart from allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) and mould-caused mycoses, only sufficient evidence for an association between moisture/mould damage and the following health effects has been established: allergic respiratory disease, asthma (manifestation, progression and exacerbation), allergic rhinitis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (extrinsic allergic alveolitis), and increased likelihood of respiratory infections/bronchitis. In this context the sensitizing potential of moulds is obviously low compared to other environmental allergens. Recent studies show a comparatively low sensitizing prevalence of 3-10% in the general population across Europe. Limited or suspected evidence for an association exist with respect to mucous membrane irritation and atopic eczema (manifestation, progression and exacerbation). Inadequate or insufficient evidence for an association exist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage in children, rheumatism/arthritis, sarcoidosis and cancer. The risk of infection posed by moulds regularly occurring indoors is low for healthy persons; most species are in risk group 1 and a few in risk group 2 (Aspergillus fumigatus, A. flavus) of the German Biological Agents Act (Biostoffverordnung). Only moulds that are potentially able to form toxins can be triggers of toxic reactions. Whether or not toxin formation occurs in individual cases is determined by environmental and growth conditions, above all the substrate. In the case of indoor moisture/mould damage, everyone can be affected by odour effects and/or mood disorders. However, this is not a health hazard. Predisposing factors for odour effects can include genetic and hormonal influences, imprinting, context and adaptation effects. Predisposing factors for mood disorders may include environmental concerns, anxiety, condition, and attribution, as well as various diseases. Risk groups to be protected particularly with regard to an infection risk are persons on immunosuppression according to the classification of the German Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention, KRINKO) at the Robert Koch- Institute (RKI) and persons with cystic fibrosis (mucoviscidosis); with regard to an allergic risk, persons with cystic fibrosis (mucoviscidosis) and patients with bronchial asthma should be protected. The rational diagnostics include the medical history, physical examination, and conventional allergy diagnostics including provocation tests if necessary; sometimes cellular test systems are indicated. In the case of mould infections the reader is referred to the AWMF guideline "Diagnosis and Therapy of Invasive Aspergillus Infections". With regard to mycotoxins, there are currently no useful and validated test procedures for clinical diagnostics. From a preventive medicine standpoint it is important that indoor mould infestation in relevant dimension cannot be tolerated for precautionary reasons. With regard to evaluating the extent of damage and selecting a remedial procedure, the reader is referred to the revised version of the mould guideline issued by the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA).
RESUMO
In April 2016, the German Society of Hygiene, Environmental Medicine and Preventative Medicine (Gesellschaft für Hygiene, Umweltmedizin und Präventivmedizin (GHUP)) together with other scientific medical societies, German and Austrian medical societies, physician unions and experts has provided an AWMF (Association of the Scientific Medical Societies) guideline 'Medical diagnostics for indoor mold exposure'. This guideline shall help physicians to advise and treat patients exposed indoors to mold. Indoor mold growth is a potential health risk, even without a quantitative and/or causal association between the occurrence of individual mold species and health effects. Apart from the allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) and the mycoses caused by mold, there is only sufficient evidence for the following associations between moisture/mold damages and different health effects: Allergic respiratory diseases, asthma (manifestation, progression, exacerbation), allergic rhinitis, exogenous allergic alveolitis and respiratory tract infections/bronchitis. In comparison to other environmental allergens, the sensitizing potential of molds is estimated to be low. Recent studies show a prevalence of sensitization of 3-10% in the total population of Europe. The evidence for associations to mucous membrane irritation and atopic eczema (manifestation, progression, exacerbation) is classified as limited or suspected. Inadequate or insufficient evidence for an association is given for COPD, acute idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage in children, rheumatism/arthritis, sarcoidosis, and cancer. The risk of infections from indoor molds is low for healthy individuals. Only molds that are capable to form toxins can cause intoxications. The environmental and growth conditions and especially the substrate determine whether toxin formation occurs, but indoor air concentrations are always very low. In the case of indoor moisture/mold damages, everyone can be affected by odor effects and/or impairment of well-being. Predisposing factors for odor effects can be given by genetic and hormonal influences, imprinting, context and adaptation effects. Predisposing factors for impairment of well-being are environmental concerns, anxieties, conditioning and attributions as well as a variety of diseases. Risk groups that must be protected are patients with immunosuppression and with mucoviscidosis (cystic fibrosis) with regard to infections and individuals with mucoviscidosis and asthma with regard to allergies. If an association between mold exposure and health effects is suspected, the medical diagnosis includes medical history, physical examination, conventional allergy diagnosis, and if indicated, provocation tests. For the treatment of mold infections, it is referred to the AWMF guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of invasive Aspergillus infections. Regarding mycotoxins, there are currently no validated test methods that could be used in clinical diagnostics. From the perspective of preventive medicine, it is important that mold damages cannot be tolerated in indoor environments.
Assuntos
Poluição do Ar em Ambientes Fechados , Exposição Ambiental/análise , Fungos , Poluição do Ar em Ambientes Fechados/análise , Animais , Fungos/crescimento & desenvolvimento , Fungos/metabolismo , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Micoses/diagnóstico , Micoses/tratamento farmacológico , Micoses/terapiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is the most severe manifestation of a mast cell-dependent immediate reaction and may be fatal. According to data from the Berlin region, its incidence is 2-3 cases per 100 000 persons per year. METHOD: We evaluated data from the anaphylaxis registry of the German-speaking countries for 2006-2013 and data from the protocols of the ADAC air rescue service for 2010-2011 to study the triggers, clinical manifestations, and treatment of anaphylaxis. RESULTS: The registry contained data on 4141 patients, and the ADAC air rescue protocols concerned 1123 patients. In the registry, the most common triggers for anaphylaxis were insect venom (n = 2074; 50.1%), foods (n = 1039; 25.1%), and drugs (n = 627; 15.1%). Within these groups, the most common triggers were wasp (n = 1460) and bee stings (n = 412), legumes (n = 241), animal proteins (n = 225), and analgesic drugs (n = 277). Food anaphylaxis was most frequently induced by peanuts, cow milk, and hen's egg in children and by wheat and shellfish in adults. An analysis of the medical emergency cases revealed that epinephrine was given for grade 3 or 4 anaphylaxis to 14.5% and 43.9% (respectively) of the patients in the anaphylaxis registry and to 19% and 78% of the patients in the air rescue protocols. CONCLUSION: Wasp and bee venom, legumes, animal proteins, and analgesic drugs were the commonest triggers of anaphylaxis. Their relative frequency was age-dependent. Epinephrine was given too rarely, as it is recommended in the guidelines for all cases of grade 2 and above.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia/tratamento farmacológico , Anafilaxia/mortalidade , Mordeduras e Picadas/mortalidade , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/mortalidade , Epinefrina/uso terapêutico , Hipersensibilidade Alimentar/mortalidade , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Áustria/epidemiologia , Mordeduras e Picadas/tratamento farmacológico , Causalidade , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Comorbidade , Hipersensibilidade a Drogas/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Hipersensibilidade Alimentar/tratamento farmacológico , Alemanha/epidemiologia , Humanos , Lactente , Recém-Nascido , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prevalência , Fatores de Risco , Suíça/epidemiologia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already beinginvestigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.
RESUMO
The aim of the European Farmers' Project was to determine prevalence and risk factors of respiratory diseases in farmers across Europe. A cross-sectional study in 7 centres was carried out. In the first stage of the study, nearly 8,000 farmers in Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, the UK, and Spain answered a standardised questionnaire on farming characteristics and respiratory symptoms. The second stage of the study included exposure assessment and lung function measurements in 4 of the centres. Within the group of farmers, pig farmers were at high risk of asthma-like syndrome as compared to farmers keeping other kinds of animals. Among plant farmers, greenhouse workers were at higher risk for symptoms of asthma. The prevalence of symptoms of allergies were significantly lower among animal farmers as compared to the population of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. In contrast, animal farmers had a significantly higher prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis. The major risk factor for respiratory symptoms was shown to be ventilation of the animal houses and greenhouses. Intervention studies are now warranted to test the effectiveness of improved ventilation on respiratory health. The reasons for the low prevalence of allergic diseases among farmers are currently under study.