RESUMEN
Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We published the Canadian 2003 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema (HAE; C1 inhibitor [C1-INH] deficiency) and updated this as Hereditary angioedema: a current state-of-the-art review: Canadian Hungarian 2007 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema. OBJECTIVE: To update the International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy and Management of Hereditary Angioedema (circa 2010). METHODS: The Canadian Hereditary Angioedema Network (CHAEN)/Réseau Canadien d'angioédème héréditaire (RCAH) http://www.haecanada.com and cosponsors University of Calgary and the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (with an unrestricted educational grant from CSL Behring) held our third Conference May 15th to 16th, 2010 in Toronto Canada to update our consensus approach. The Consensus document was reviewed at the meeting and then circulated for review. RESULTS: This manuscript is the 2010 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy and Management of Hereditary Angioedema that resulted from that conference. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus approach is only an interim guide to a complex disorder such as HAE and should be replaced as soon as possible with large phase III and IV clinical trials, meta analyses, and using data base registry validation of approaches including quality of life and cost benefit analyses, followed by large head-to-head clinical trials and then evidence-based guidelines and standards for HAE disease management.
RESUMEN
: Food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis (FDEIA) is recognized as a distinct category of exercise-induced anaphylaxis (EIA) but is very likely underdiagnosed. This report describes a 41-year-old Indian woman who experienced two separate episodes of anaphylaxis while dancing after she had eaten chickpea-containing foods. The chickpea, a small legume, is a staple ingredient in culinary traditions from around the world, especially in India, the Middle East, and North Africa. Chickpea-containing dishes are also becoming more widespread in the Western world with the growing popularity of South Asian, Middle Eastern, and African cuisines. It is important to consider FDEIA in cases of unexplained anaphylaxis as reactions can occur several hours after ingesting the culprit food(s). Furthermore, no reaction occurs if a sensitized individual eats the culprit food(s) without exercising afterward; therefore, triggering foods can easily be overlooked. Current ideas on the pathophysiology, predisposing factors, workup, and treatment of FDEIA are also summarized here.
RESUMEN
Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a disease which is associated with random and often unpredictable attacks of painful swelling typically affecting the extremities, bowel mucosa, genitals, face and upper airway. Attacks are associated with significant functional impairment, decreased Health Related Quality of Life, and mortality in the case of laryngeal attacks. Caring for patients with HAE can be challenging due to the complexity of this disease. The care of patients with HAE in Canada is neither optimal nor uniform across the country. It lags behind other countries where there are more organized models for HAE management, and where additional therapeutic options are licensed and available for use. The objective of this guideline is to provide graded recommendations for the management of patients in Canada with HAE. This includes the treatment of attacks, short-term prophylaxis, long-term prophylaxis, and recommendations for self-administration, individualized therapy, quality of life, and comprehensive care. It is anticipated that by providing this guideline to caregivers, policy makers, patients and their advocates, that there will be an improved understanding of the current recommendations regarding management of HAE and the factors that need to be considered when choosing therapies and treatment plans for individual patients. The primary target users of this guideline are healthcare providers who are managing patients with HAE. Other healthcare providers who may use this guideline are emergency physicians, gastroenterologists, dentists and otolaryngologists, who will encounter patients with HAE and need to be aware of this condition. Hospital administrators, insurers and policy makers may also find this guideline helpful.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We published the Canadian 2003 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema (HAE; C1 inhibitor [C1-INH] deficiency) in 2004. OBJECTIVE: To ensure that this consensus remains current. METHODS: In collaboration with the Canadian Network of Rare Blood Disorder Organizations, we held the second Canadian Consensus discussion with our international colleagues in Toronto, Ontario, on February 3, 2006, and reviewed its content at the Fifth C1 Inhibitor Deficiency Workshop in Budapest on June 2, 2007. Papers were presented by international investigators, and this consensus algorithm approach resulted. RESULTS: This consensus algorithm outlines the approach recommended for the diagnosis, therapy, and management of HAE, which was agreed on by the authors of this report. This document is only a consensus algorithm approach and continues to require validation. As such, participants agreed to make this a living 2007 algorithm, a work in progress, and to review its content at future international HAE meetings. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on the treatment of HAE, making levels of evidence to support the algorithm less than optimal. Controlled trials currently under way will provide further insight into the management of HAE. As with our Canadian 2003 Consensus, this 2007 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of HAE was formed through the meeting and agreement of patient care professionals along with patient group representatives and individual patients.