RESUMO
This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia , Mordeduras e Picadas de Insetos , Mastocitose , Adulto , Humanos , Criança , Adolescente , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/tratamento farmacológico , Anafilaxia/prevenção & controle , Mordeduras e Picadas de Insetos/tratamento farmacológico , Epinefrina/uso terapêutico , Mastocitose/diagnóstico , AlérgenosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.
Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados , Vacinas , Humanos , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Asma/tratamento farmacológico , Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Dermatite Atópica/tratamento farmacológico , Vacinação/efeitos adversos , Vacinas/efeitos adversos , Vacinas/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
These evidence-based guidelines support patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders in decisions about the use of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), biologics, and aspirin therapy after desensitization (ATAD) for the management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). It is important to note that the current evidence on surgery for CRSwNP was not assessed for this guideline nor were management options other than INCS, biologics, and ATAD. The Allergy-Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to include the views of multiple stakeholders and to minimize potential biases. Systematic reviews for each management option informed the guideline. The guideline panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to inform and develop recommendations. The guideline panel reached consensus on the following statements: (1) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests INCS rather than no INCS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). (2) In people with CRSwNP, the guideline panel suggests biologics rather than no biologics (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). (3) In people with aspirin (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug)-exacerbated respiratory disease, the guideline panel suggests ATAD rather than no ATAD (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence). The conditions for each recommendation are discussed in the guideline.
Assuntos
Produtos Biológicos , Pólipos Nasais , Rinite , Sinusite , Humanos , Sinusite/tratamento farmacológico , Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Administração Intranasal , Pólipos Nasais/tratamento farmacológico , Doença Crônica , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Aspirina/uso terapêutico , Rinite/tratamento farmacológicoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) is associated with a significant disease burden. The optimal use of and administration route for intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) when managing CRSwNP are unclear. OBJECTIVE: We systematically synthesized the evidence addressing INCS for CRSwNP. METHODS: We searched studies archived in Medline, Embase, and Central from database inception until September 1, 2021, for randomized controlled trials comparing INCS using any delivery method to placebo or other INCS administration types. Paired reviewers screened records, abstracted data, and rated risk of bias (CLARITY revision of Cochrane Risk of Bias version 1 tool) independently and in duplicate. We synthesized the evidence for each outcome using random effects network meta-analyses. We critically appraised the evidence following the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. RESULTS: We analyzed 61 randomized controlled trials (7176 participants, 8 interventions). Sinusitis-related quality of life might improve with INCS rinse (mean difference [MD] -6.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.94 to -1.71) and exhalation delivery system (EDS) (MD -7.86, 95% CI -14.64 to -1.08) compared to placebo (both low certainty evidence). Nasal obstruction symptoms are likely improved when receiving INCS via stent/dressing (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.08), spray (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.41), and EDS (MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.18) (all moderate to high certainty) compared to placebo. We found no important differences in adverse effects among interventions (moderate certainty for INCS spray, very low to low certainty for others). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple delivery forms of INCS are viable therapeutic options for CRSwNP, resulting in improvement of patient-important outcomes. INCS via stent, spray, and EDS appear to be beneficial across the widest range of considered outcomes.
Assuntos
Qualidade de Vida , Humanos , Metanálise em RedeRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Social media has fundamentally changed how the world shares and receives information. This review offers a perspective for the practicing clinician regarding how patients are being influenced by their online interactions and considerations for proactively discussing medical decision making with patients. DATA SOURCES: Literature search of PubMed database and online published market research data surrounding social media use. STUDY SELECTIONS: Peer-reviewed studies, Pew research data, and editorials in the English language were selected and reviewed. RESULTS: There has been a substantial increase in the breadth and depth of literature surrounding the use of social media by patients and medical professionals. Increased focus on how it contributes to medical decision making and patient-clinician interactions has occurred in recent years. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has highlighted the various sources of misinformation and disinformation and how they impact care on many levels. Best practices have been established to assist medical professionals in developing an online presence to combat misinformation or address individual patients. CONCLUSION: There is growing understanding and recognition of the myriad of ways in which social media is impacting health care. Health care professionals from all backgrounds need to increase their understanding of these complex interactions to best assist patients with their medical decision making.
Assuntos
Atenção à Saúde , Desinformação , Mídias Sociais , Comunicação , Humanos , Relações Profissional-PacienteRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide clinicians with an understanding of risk factors associated with fatal anaphylaxis, and to promote individualized management plans with patients based upon key aspects of their clinical history. RECENT FINDINGS: While anaphylaxis can affect a significant percentage of the general population, death from anaphylaxis remains a rare outcome. The presence of asthma and peanut or tree nut allergy is associated with higher risk for severe or fatal anaphylaxis from foods. Specific triggers (medications, venom), underlying comorbid conditions, age, and use of some medications can also impact risk and warrant different counseling and management strategies. Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive systemic reaction with multiple different causes and encompasses a wide degree of severity in clinical presentation and risk for future episodes. Individualized management, discussion of risk, and shared decision making should occur with each patient and in consideration of their personal risk factors.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia , Hipersensibilidade , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/epidemiologia , Anafilaxia/etiologia , Anafilaxia/mortalidade , Humanos , Hipersensibilidade/etiologia , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.
Assuntos
Rinite/diagnóstico , Rinite/terapia , Terapia Combinada , Gerenciamento Clínico , Suscetibilidade a Doenças , Humanos , Fenótipo , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Prevalência , Prognóstico , Qualidade de Vida , Rinite/epidemiologia , Rinite/etiologia , Fatores de Risco , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Avaliação de Sintomas , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia/prevenção & controle , Dessensibilização Imunológica/métodos , Epinefrina/uso terapêutico , Glucocorticoides/uso terapêutico , Antagonistas dos Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapêutico , Hipersensibilidade/diagnóstico , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Hipersensibilidade/complicações , Hipersensibilidade/terapia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is the process through which patients and their medical provider mutually explore therapy goals, risk/benefit, and treatment options regarding medical care. Decision aids are tools that aid in the process of values clarification and help assess decisional needs and potential decisional conflicts. OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess acceptability of a decision aid for commercial peanut allergy therapies. METHODS: The creation of this decision aid occurred in 3 stages, including a qualitative study to assess decisional needs, development of a draft decision aid through multiple iterations in accordance with international guidelines and decision aid experts, and assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy related to using the decision aid. RESULTS: The decision aid went through 9 iterations, resulting in a 4-page aid with 7 parts, explaining the therapies, key risks and benefits of therapy choices, relative importance of key attributes of the therapies, and a self-check assessment regarding informational adequacy and how to take the next steps. A total of 24 subjects assessed the decision aid, noting it had good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 91.9/100), and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.2/100). Respondents rated the information content as adequate and sufficient and the information regarding the therapy choices as fair and balanced without a clear bias or presenting a "best choice." CONCLUSION: We have developed this decision aid as a tool to help caregivers navigate the complexity of decision making for peanut allergy treatment options. The decision aid was noted to have good acceptability, with scores reflective of the instrument enhancing decisional self-efficacy and reducing decisional conflict.
Assuntos
Tomada de Decisão Compartilhada , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Dessensibilização Imunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidade a Amendoim/prevenção & controle , Cuidadores , HumanosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To review GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methods and discuss the clinical application of conditional recommendations in clinical guidelines, specifically in the context of anaphylaxis. DATA SOURCES: Articles that described GRADE, evidence synthesis, evidence to recommendation frameworks, and shared decision making were used to discuss conditional recommendations of the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline. STUDY SELECTIONS: A narrative review detailing concepts of GRADE and approaches to translate conditional recommendations to individualized and contextualized patient care. RESULTS: GRADE methods encourage a nuanced relationship between certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Strength of recommendation must incorporate key factors, including the balance between benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource allocation (costs), with equity, feasibility, and acceptability also often included as considerations. GRADE guidelines provide recommendations that are characterized by directionality (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional). A conditional recommendation is tailored to context and primarily applied through a lens of patient preferences related to the likelihood of outcomes of importance and a shared decision-making approach. Although the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline better informs the practice of anaphylaxis prevention through (1) identification and mitigation of risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis and (2) evaluation of the use of glucocorticoid and/or antihistamine pretreatment, all GRADE recommendations, although directional, are conditional and as such should not be universally applied to every circumstance. CONCLUSION: Clinical guidelines provide an important opportunity to critically appraise evidence and translate evidence to practice. Patients, practitioners, and policy makers should appreciate the strength of recommendation and certainty of evidence and understand how this affects guideline applicability and implementation.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/terapia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Anafilaxia/etiologia , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Gerenciamento Clínico , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Humanos , Medicina de Precisão/métodos , Viés de PublicaçãoRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review summarizes the evidence leading towards the development of new guidelines that recommend early introduction of peanut to prevent the development of peanut allergy. It also reviews the current understanding of challenges faced with implementation of these recommendations on a widespread basis. RECENT FINDINGS: Prior recommendations to avoid feeding allergenic foods to infants have been updated and reversed. This paradigm shift in advice has created an opportunity on a population level to try and halt the recent increase in prevalence of peanut allergy. However, challenges with implementation of these new guidelines exist in many areas. While evidence supports the early introduction of peanut to prevent allergy development, the application and challenges faced with these recommendations are not fully understood. Persistent efforts from pediatricians and allergists, as well as acceptance from parents, will be necessary in order to make a significant impact on the prevalence of peanut allergy.