Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol ; 33(2): 376-383, 2019 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30198582

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A 6-week personalized integrative multidisciplinary treatment programme (PIM) was developed for children with difficult to treat AD who appeared unresponsive to treatment according to current guidelines. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to identify clinical and psychosocial characteristics that predict long-term treatment success after PIM. METHODS: Treatment was considered successful when there was a 75% reduction on the Self-Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index and/or little impact of AD on daily life, measured with the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (score ≤ 6), 6 months after the end of PIM. PIM is a personalized, integrative, multidisciplinary treatment programme with clearly defined goals and strategies, addressing atopic, paediatric, mental health comorbidities and general well-being, for children and adolescents aged 8- to 18 years. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed using a backward selection procedure. Questionnaires were used to assess psychosocial characteristics; clinical data was extracted from medical records. RESULTS: In total, 79 children/adolescents with difficult to treat AD completed PIM and long-term treatment results were available for 74 children/adolescents. The majority (77%) of children/adolescents demonstrated long-term treatment success with PIM. Predictors of long-term treatment success (adjusted ORs) included maternal disease acceptance OR (95% CI) 1.84 (1.15-2.94). A group (23%) of mostly females OR (95% CI) 0.10 (0.02-0.54) with multiple somatic complaints OR (95% CI) 0.88(0.80-0.97), from families where the mother has anxiety for the use of topical corticosteroids OR (95% CI) 0.62(0.40-0.94), is less likely to obtain long-term treatment success. CONCLUSION: Most children and adolescents with difficult to treat AD, seemingly unresponsive to conventional treatment according to current guidelines, are able to improve with PIM. Psychosocial and family but not clinical variables, predicted long-term treatment success after participating in PIM.


Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Atópica/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Atópica/tratamiento farmacológico , Fármacos Dermatológicos/administración & dosificación , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Medicina de Precisión/métodos , Centros Médicos Académicos , Adolescente , Niño , Dermatitis Atópica/psicología , Femenino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Análisis Multivariante , Selección de Paciente , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Perfil de Impacto de Enfermedad , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
Clin Exp Allergy ; 48(2): 186-195, 2018 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29121432

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Alpine climate treatment has historically been used in Europe to treat atopic dermatitis (AD), but no randomized trials have been conducted to provide evidence for its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the long-term effectiveness of alpine climate treatment for children with difficult to treat AD. MATERIALS & METHODS: A pragmatic, open, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Children diagnosed with AD that was considered difficult to treat, aged between 8 and 18 years and willing to be treated in Switzerland were randomized to a six-week personalized integrative multidisciplinary treatment period in a clinical setting in the alpine climate (Switzerland) or an outpatient setting in moderate maritime climate (Netherlands). Study assessments were conducted at the Wilhelmina Children's Hospital; an electronic portal was used for the collection of questionnaire data. Primary outcomes were disease activity (SAEASI), quality of life (CDLQI) and catastrophizing thoughts (JUCKKI/JU) 6 months after intervention. Other assessments were immediately and 6 weeks after intervention. Subgroup analyses concerned asthma-related outcomes. Children were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group using a covariate adaptive randomization method, taking age and asthma diagnosis into account. Children, parents and healthcare professionals involved in treatment were not blinded to group assignment. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat with linear mixed-effects models for continuous outcomes. The trial is registered at Current Controlled Trials ISCRTN88136485. RESULTS: Between 14 September 2010 and 30 September 2014, 88 children were enrolled in the trial, 84 children were randomized (41 assigned to intervention, 43 to control) of whom 77 completed the intervention (38 of 41 (93%) intervention, 39 of 43 (91%) control) and 74 completed follow-up (38 of 41 (93%) intervention, 36 of 43 (84%) control). Six months after intervention there were no significant differences between the groups on disease activity (SAEASI mean difference -3.4 (95%CI -8.5 to 1.7)), quality of life (CDLQI mean difference -0.3 (95%CI -2.0 to 1.4)) and catastrophizing thoughts (JUCCKI/JU subscale mean difference -0.7 (95%CI -1.4 to -0.0)). Immediately and 6 weeks after intervention, disease activity and quality of life were significantly different in favour of alpine climate treatment. Mean differences on SAEASI were -10.1 (95%CI -14.5 to -5.8) and -8.4 (95%CI -12.2 to -4.6) and on CDLQI -1.9 (95%CI -3.3 to -0.5) and -1.5 (95%CI -2.8 to -0.3) immediately and 6 weeks after the intervention, respectively. There were no long-term differences on asthma-related outcomes. Five serious adverse events occurred during the study period, which were not thought to be related to the treatment. CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For children with difficult to treat AD, there was no additional long-term benefit of alpine climate treatment, in contrast to the short-term, compared to an outpatient treatment programme in moderate maritime climate, using a personalized integrative multidisciplinary treatment approach.


Asunto(s)
Clima , Climatoterapia , Dermatitis Atópica/terapia , Adolescente , Altitud , Antiasmáticos/farmacología , Antiasmáticos/uso terapéutico , Niño , Dermatitis Atópica/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Atópica/epidemiología , Resistencia a Medicamentos , Humanos , Calidad de Vida , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Suiza , Resultado del Tratamiento
3.
Allergy ; 70(3): 265-74, 2015 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25476979

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hazelnut and peanut are botanically unrelated foods, but patients are often sensitized and allergic to both, for reasons that are not well understood. METHODS: To investigate molecular cosensitization and cross-reactivity to peanut in hazelnut-sensitized individuals, children (n = 81) and adults (n = 80) were retrospectively selected based on sensitization to hazelnut. IgE to hazelnut extract, Cor a 1, 8, 9 and 14, to peanut extract, Ara h 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9, and to Bet v 1 was determined by ImmunoCAP. Allergy to hazelnut and peanut was established by DBPCFC and/or detailed clinical history. Patients were either tolerant or displayed subjective or objective symptoms to either food. IgE cross-reactivity between hazelnut and peanut storage proteins was assessed by reciprocal ImmunoCAP inhibition experiments. RESULTS: Of the 161 hazelnut-sensitized subjects, 109 (68%) were also sensitized to peanut, and 73 (45%) had clinical expression of allergy to peanut that was not associated with the presence or severity of hazelnut allergy. Instead, it was associated with IgE reactivity to peanut storage proteins, in particular Ara h 2. No cross-reactivity could be detected between Ara h 2 and Cor a 14, and 2 of 13 subjects displayed extensive cross-reactivity between 11S globulins; in plasma of both individuals, Ara h 3 almost completely inhibited IgE binding to Cor a 9. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut allergy is not primarily the result of IgE cross-reactivity to hazelnut storage proteins. IgE to Cor a 14 and Ara h 2 may serve as useful markers of primary sensitization to hazelnut and peanut, respectively.


Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Antígenos de Plantas/inmunología , Arachis/efectos adversos , Corylus/efectos adversos , Reacciones Cruzadas/inmunología , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/inmunología , Adolescente , Adulto , Betula/efectos adversos , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Masculino , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/diagnóstico , Fenotipo , Polen/inmunología , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Adulto Joven
4.
Allergy ; 70(1): 12-25, 2015 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25130620

RESUMEN

Climate therapy has been used for decades in the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), but evidence of its effectiveness has not yet been assessed systematically. A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library was performed to identify all original studies concerning alpine climate treatment. The risk of bias of individual studies was assessed following the Cochrane Handbook, and level of evidence was rated using GRADE guidelines. Fifteen observational studies were included concerning 40 148 patients. Four studies concerning 2670 patients presented follow-up data over a period of 1 year. Disease activity decreased in the majority of patients during treatment (96% of n = 39 006) and 12-month follow-up (64% of n = 2670). Topical corticosteroid use could often be reduced or stopped during treatment (82% of n = 1178) and during 12-month follow-up (72% of n = 3008). Quality assessment showed serious study limitations, therefore resulting in a very low level of evidence for the described outcomes. Randomized controlled trials designed with a follow-up period including well-defined patient populations, detailed description and measurement of applied interventions during climate therapy and using validated outcomes including cost-effectiveness parameters, are required to improve the evidence for alpine climate therapy as an effective treatment for patients with AD.


Asunto(s)
Clima , Climatoterapia , Dermatitis Atópica/terapia , Antialérgicos/uso terapéutico , Terapia Combinada , Dermatitis Atópica/diagnóstico , Humanos , Resultado del Tratamiento
5.
Allergy ; 68(8): 983-93, 2013 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23889537

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Allergenicity of foods can be influenced by processing. Tree nuts are an important source of nutrition and increasingly consumed; however, processing methods are quite variable and data are currently lacking on the effects of processing on allergenicity. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic literature review on the effects of food processing on the allergenicity of tree nuts. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed, with screening of references, related articles and citations. Studies were included if they assessed the allergenicity or immunogenicity of processed nuts. RESULTS: The search resulted in 32 articles suitable for analysis. Clinical studies indicate that roasting reduces the allergenicity of hazelnut in individuals with a birch pollen allergy and reactivity to raw hazelnut. Thermal processing may reduce the allergenicity of the PR-10 protein in hazelnut and almond in vitro. The majority of the in vitro studies investigating the allergenicity of nonspecific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) and seed storage proteins in hazelnut, almond, cashew nut, Brazil nut, walnut, pecan nut and pistachio nut show heat stability towards different thermal processing methods. CONCLUSION: Thermal processing may reduce allergenicity of PR-10 proteins in hazelnut and almond, in contrast to nsLTPs and seed storage proteins. This has important implications for source materials used for IgE testing and food challenges and diet advice.


Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Manipulación de Alimentos/métodos , Calor , Hipersensibilidad a la Nuez/inmunología , Árboles/inmunología , Proteínas Portadoras/inmunología , Humanos , Polen/inmunología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA