Barriers and Facilitators to eHealth Use in Daily Practice: Perspectives of Patients and Professionals in Dermatology.

BACKGROUND: The number of eHealth interventions in the management of chronic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) is growing. Despite promising results, the implementation and use of these interventions is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess opinions of the most important stakeholders influencing the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily dermatology practice. METHODS: The perspectives of health care professionals and patients towards the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily practice were assessed by using a mixed method design. A cross-sectional survey based on the eHealth implementation toolkit (eHit) was conducted to explore factors influencing the adoption of eHealth interventions offering the possibility of e-consultations, Web-based monitoring, and Web-based self-management training among dermatologists and dermatology nurses. The perspectives of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) regarding the use of eHealth services were discussed in an online focus group. RESULTS: Health care professionals (n=99) and patients (n=9) acknowledged the value of eHealth services and were willing to use these digital tools in daily dermatology practice. Key identified barriers (statements with <50% of the participants scoring totally agree or agree) in the implementation and adoption of eHealth interventions included concerns about the availability (12/99, 12%) and allocation (14/99, 14%) of resources, financial aspects (26/99, 26%), reliability, security, and confidentially of the intervention itself (29/99, 29%), and the lack of education and training (6/99, 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals and patients acknowledge the benefits arising from the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily dermatology practice. However, some important barriers were identified that might be useful in addressing the implementation strategy in order to enhance the implementation success of eHealth interventions in dermatology.

Food allergy in the Netherlands: differences in clinical severity, causative foods, sensitization and DBPCFC between community and outpatients.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether food allergy (FA) in an unselected population is comparable to those from an outpatient clinic population. OBJECTIVE: To discover if FA in a random sample from the Dutch community is comparable to that of outpatients. METHODS: This study was part of the Europrevall-project. A random sample of 6600 adults received a questionnaire. Those with symptoms to one of 24 defined priority foods were tested for sIgE. Participants with a positive case history and elevated sIgE were evaluated by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Outpatients with a suspicion of FA were evaluated by questionnaire, sIgE and DBPCFC. RESULTS: In the community, severe symptoms were reported less often than in outpatients (39.3% vs. 54.3%). Participants in the community were less commonly sensitized to any of the foods. When selecting only those with a probable FA (i.e. symptoms of priority food and elevation of sIgE to the respective food), no major differences were observed with respect to severity, causative foods, sensitization and DBPCFC between the groups. CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, there are large differences in self-reported FA between community and outpatients. However, Dutch community and outpatients with a probable FA do not differ with respect to severity, causative foods, sensitization and DBPCFC-outcome.

Food allergen sensitization pattern in adults in relation to severity of atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the frequency of IgE mediated food sensitization and food allergy (FA) in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: We investigated the pattern of food sensitization in adults with AD in relation to AD severity using multiplexed allergen microarray. METHODS: 211 adult patients referred between January 2010-July 2011 for evaluation of AD were unselectively included. Severity of AD was determined by therapy intensity, SASSAD-skin-score and sTARC levels. Allergen specific sIgE levels were measured by ImmunoCAP ISAC® microarray. FA was defined as convincing history taken by physician and sensitization to the corresponding allergen. RESULTS: Sensitization to food was found in 74.4% of the AD patients, 54% had a positive history of FA and 20.4% asymptomatic sensitization. There was no association between severity of AD and frequency of food sensitization or history of FA.Sensitization to PR-10 related food allergens occurred most frequently (63.5%) and was independent from AD severity. Correspondingly, pollen-food syndrome accounted for most of the FA, being also independent from AD severity. Of all plant food allergens only sensitization to nAra h 1 was significantly more frequent in patients with severe AD. In the total group 75 (35.5%) patients with AD showed sensitization to any animal food allergen. The percentage was significantly higher in patients with severe AD (51.4%) compared to patients with mild/moderate AD (27.7%). Sensitization to cow's milk allergens, in particular to nBos d lactoferrin, was more frequent in severe AD patients. CONCLUSION: AD was frequently associated with food sensitization. The percentage of sensitization to animal food allergens was significantly higher in severe AD patients.

Specific IgE to fish extracts does not predict allergy to specific species within an adult fish allergic population.

BACKGROUND: Fish is an important cause of food allergy. Studies on fish allergy are scarce and in most cases limited to serological evaluation. Our objective was to study patterns of self-reported allergy and tolerance to different commonly consumed fish species and its correlation to IgE sensitization to the same species. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult fish allergic patients completed a questionnaire regarding atopy, age of onset and symptoms to 13 commonly consumed fish species in the Netherlands (pangasius, cod, herring, eel, hake, pollock, mackerel, tilapia, salmon, sardine, tuna, plaice and swordfish). Specific IgE to these fish extracts were analyzed by ImmunoCAP. RESULTS: Median age of onset of fish allergy was 8.5 years. Severe reactions were reported by the majority of patients (n = 20 (53%) respiratory and of these 20 patients, 6 also had cardiovascular symptoms). After diagnosis, 66% of the patients had eliminated all fish from their diet. Allergy to all species ever tried was reported by 59%. In relation to species ever tried, cod (84%) and herring (79%) were the most frequently reported culprit species while hake (57%) and swordfish (55%) were the least frequent. A positive sIgE (value ≥ 0.35 kUA/L) to the culprit species ranged between 50% (swordfish) and 100% (hake). In tolerant patients, a negative sIgE (value < 0.35 kUA/L) ranged from 0% (hake, pollock and swordfish) to 75% (sardine). For cod, the agreement between sIgE test results and reported allergy or tolerance was 82% and 25%, respectively. Sensitization to cod parvalbumin (Gad c 1) was present in 77% of all patients. CONCLUSION: Serological cross-reactivity between fish species is frequent, but in a significant proportion of patients, clinical relevance appears to be limited to only certain species. A well-taken history or food challenge is required for discrimination between allergy to the different fish species.

Tolerance to alternative cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug hypersensitive patients.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) frequently cause adverse drug reactions. Many studies have shown that drugs which selectively inhibit the cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme (COX-2) are safe alternatives in the majority of patients. However, hypersensitivity reactions to COX-2 inhibitors have been published. Hardly any data are available regarding the safety of alternatives in case of COX-2 inhibitor hypersensitivity. We aimed to investigate the tolerance to COX-2 inhibitors in patients with non-selective NSAID hypersensitivity. Furthermore, in COX-2 hypersensitive patients tolerance of a second COX-2 inhibitor was investigated. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 91 patients with proven non-selective NSAID hypersensitivity that underwent oral challenges with a COX-2 inhibitor. Patients with intolerance to the first challenged COX-2 inhibitor received a second challenge with a different COX-2 inhibitor. RESULTS: 19 out of 91 (21%) patients had a positive reaction to the first oral challenge with a COX-2 inhibitor. 14 of them underwent a second challenge with a different COX-2 inhibitor and 12 (86%) did not react. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively high percentage (21%) of the non-selective NSAID hypersensitive patients did not tolerate a COX-2 inhibitor and oral challenge is advised prior to prescription of a COX-2 inhibitor. For the majority of patients reacting to a COX-2 inhibitor an alternative can be found.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge in adults in everyday clinical practice: a reappraisal of their limitations and real indications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) is widely considered as the 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of food allergy. However, in adult patients, this procedure is rather rarely performed outside the academic context. This review article aims to reappraise the pros and cons of DBPCFC and to elicit some critical thoughts and discussions about the real indications of this diagnostic procedure in adult patients in everyday practice. RECENT FINDINGS: There are many data showing that the DBPCFC poses a number of critical problems that are difficult to overcome in normal outpatient clinics and hospitals, and that are generally not addressed in most articles dealing with this issue. SUMMARY: Performing DBPCFC poses a number of practical problems and has several pitfalls, which make its routine use in normal clinical settings generally impossible. This review article shows that the need for this procedure in adult patients seems in effect very little and specifies new, more limited indications to its use in everyday practice. Further, it suggests a role for the open challenge, which lacks several of the disadvantages of DBPCFC.