[Influence of nut and peanut allergy on the quality of life of adults]. / Einfluss der Nuss- und Erdnussallergie auf die Lebensqualität bei Erwachsenen.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life is negatively affected in patients with food allergies. AIM: Analysis of health-related quality of life of adults allergic to tree nuts or peanuts. METHODS: Health-related quality of life was analysed via the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire - Adult Form (FAQLQ-AF) and the Short Form 12 (SF12) questionnaire. In addition, a diagnostic workup including a detailed patient history, skin prick test and analysis of specific IgE was performed. An oral food challenge was offered to all patients. RESULTS: Food allergic patients (n = 63) reported an average burden of 3.91 ± 1.41 points on the FAQLQ-AF and 3.31 ± 1.03 points on the Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM), a measure for the perceived disease severity. A higher mean FAIM score was the most important predictor of higher results (worse quality of life) in the FAQLQ-AF. The SF12 questionnaire was not able to discriminate between food allergic patients and healthy controls (n = 16). CONCLUSION: A tree nut and/or peanut allergy was perceived as an impairment of health-related quality of life, which is directly associated with the perceived severity of disease. Disease-specific quality of life questionnaires can capture the burden associated with peanuts or tree nuts allergies.

Review of health economic analyses in atopic dermatitis: how diverse is the literature?

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic, pruritic inflammatory skin disease. It is associated with a high personal burden of illness and economic consequences. Since AD can occur at any age, and many treatments and prevention options exist, a high diversity of health economic findings can be expected. AREAS COVERED: A literature search was performed in January 2018 with the objective to report on previously published health economic analyses in AD. In total, 89 analyses were identified. Most analyses focused on the cost-of-illness (n = 34; 38%) followed by cost-utility and/or cost-effectiveness evaluations (n = 26; 29%) and cost analyses (n = 12; 13%) of treatments in AD. Further evaluations dealt with the prevention of AD (n = 13; 15%). Besides the different methods of health economic analyses, high variety was identified concerning the target population, comprised costs, effectiveness measures, comparators, and the modeling method. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Given the different health-care environments and methodologies chosen, health economic analyses in AD cannot be compared with each other and cannot be related to other landscapes of care. Nevertheless, the analyses identified give hint for a high socioeconomic impact of AD on the one hand and unmet needs from the patient perspective on the other.