RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Mordeduras y Picaduras de Insectos , Mastocitosis , Adulto , Humanos , Niño , Adolescente , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Anafilaxia/prevención & control , Mordeduras y Picaduras de Insectos/tratamiento farmacológico , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Mastocitosis/diagnóstico , AlérgenosRESUMEN
Knowledge gaps in the diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis impede the clinician's ability to effectively manage patients with anaphylaxis. This review will emphasize the lack of a global consensus on defining and determining the severity of anaphylaxis; the need for validating biomarkers used for diagnosing anaphylaxis; and data collection deficiencies. Perioperative anaphylaxis has a wide differential diagnosis, often requires treatment beyond epinephrine, and poses a challenge for the clinician in identifying the responsible trigger(s) and in preventing future reactions. Consensus-derived definitions and determination of risk factors for biphasic, refractory, and persistent anaphylaxis are needed, recognizing that these often affect the emergency department observation time after recovery from initial anaphylaxis. Knowledge gaps exist in the use of epinephrine, including route of administration, dosage, needle length, and ideal timing for administration. Consensus is needed on when and how many epinephrine autoinjectors to prescribe and how to prevent patient underuse and accidental injury. The role of antihistamines and corticosteroids in the prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis requires consensus and additional research. A consensus-derived algorithm for management of idiopathic anaphylaxis is needed. The role of beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the incidence, severity, and treatment of anaphylaxis remains unanswered. Rapid recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis in the community needs improvement. The article will conclude with exploring the recommended components of both a patient-specific and generic anaphylaxis emergency plan, including when to activate emergency medical services, all of which are paramount to improving patient outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia , Humanos , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Background: Chronic cough (CC), a cough that lasts > 8 weeks, has an overall prevalence of 5-11% in adults, peaking between 60 and 80 years of age. Of the 15% of patients who remain undiagnosed or refractory to treatment, two thirds are women. Objective: The objective was to present an updated evidence-based algorithmic approach for evaluating and managing CC, with emphasis on treatment modalities for refractory CC. Methods: A literature search was conducted of medical literature data bases for guidelines, position papers, systematic reviews, and clinical trials from January 2022 to June 2023, on the evaluation and management of CC. Results: The initial assessment should be limited to a detailed history, physical examination, chest radiograph, spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide, blood eosinophil count, and measurement of cough severity and quality of life by using validated instruments. The top diagnoses to consider are asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and upper airway cough syndrome. Additional studies are only obtained when red flags are present or the patient fails to respond after avoidance of high-risk factors, e.g., smoking and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and 4-6 weeks of empiric treatment for the most likely respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases. When diagnostic tests and/or specific directed treatments fail to control CC, low-dose morphine (preferred), gabapentin, pregabalin, and/or cough control therapy are recommended. Non-narcotic purinergic 2×3 (P2×3) receptor antagonists, gafapixant and campilixant, are currently being studied for CC. Conclusion: For the evaluation and management of patients with CC, clinicians should use an algorithmic approach and identify "red flags," reduce high-risk factors, and use empiric treatment for the five top diagnoses before extensive diagnostic testing. Current treatment for refractory cough is limited to symptomatic management.
Asunto(s)
Asma , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica , Humanos , Adulto , Femenino , Masculino , Tos/diagnóstico , Tos/tratamiento farmacológico , Tos/etiología , Calidad de Vida , Enfermedad Crónica , Asma/diagnósticoRESUMEN
Background: The treatment of chronic refractory moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has traditionally relied on broad-spectrum systemic anti-inflammatory agents. With the introduction of biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors (Jakinib), the step management of moderate-to-severe AD is rapidly changing; however, guidelines have yet to provide formal recommendations for how to best incorporate these agents into the treatment plan. Objective: To summarize the updated evidence-based medical treatment for AD, including a proposed position for biologics and Jakinibs in the treatment algorithm. Methods: A literature search of several medical literature data bases for guidelines, position papers, systematic reviews, and clinical trials from 2012 to 2022 on the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD was conducted to prepare this narrative review. Results: Emollients and topical corticosteroids are the mainstay for treating acute flares and for maintaining chronic control. Second-line topical agents include calcineurin inhibitors, e.g., tacrolimus and pimecrolimus; crisaborole; and ruxolitinib. For acute flares, cyclosporine is preferred over systemic corticosteroids. For chronic treatment, phototherapy should be considered before systemic anti-inflammatory agents. Of the traditional anti-inflammatory agents, cyclosporine is the first-line choice, with methotrexate and azathioprine equal secondary choices. Although abrocitinib may have better efficacy then dupilumab based on indirect comparisons, abrocitinib requires closer monitoring for adverse events. Based on package labeling, Jakinibs, e.g., abrocitinib and upadacitinib, should be used only after failure with other systemic agents, including biologics (e.g., dupilumab and tralokinumab). Biologics and Jakinibs should be considered before the traditional systemic anti-inflammatory agents. Conclusion: Clinicians should consider a modified step management for AD as they await the development of national and international guideline recommendations for how best to position the biologics and Jakinibs into the AD treatment algorithm.
Asunto(s)
Productos Biológicos , Dermatitis Atópica , Humanos , Dermatitis Atópica/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Atópica/tratamiento farmacológico , Ciclosporina/uso terapéutico , Antiinflamatorios/uso terapéutico , Productos Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review the pathophysiologic mechanisms, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of the various manifestations of ocular allergy, with an especial focus on immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated disease. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search was performed to include articles, using the search terms ocular allergy and allergic conjunctivitis. STUDY SELECTIONS: Recent and relevant human studies in the English language pertaining to our topic of study were selected. Animal studies pertaining to pathophysiology of ocular allergy were also reviewed. We focused on clinical trials, practice guidelines, reviews, and systematic reviews. In addition, case reports were reviewed if they described rare clinical presentations, disease mechanisms, or novel therapies. RESULTS: Ocular allergy encompasses both IgE- and non-IgE-mediated disease, and the clinical severity may range from mild to sight-threatening inflammation. A comprehensive treatment regimen including education, lifestyle measures, topical therapies, and even systemic interventions may be necessary for the effective management of ocular allergies, tailored according to symptom severity. CONCLUSION: Ocular allergy is frequently encountered by allergists and eye-care specialists, and despite progressively increasing incidence, it often remains underdiagnosed and, hence, untreated.
Asunto(s)
Conjuntivitis Alérgica/inmunología , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/fisiopatología , Queratoconjuntivitis/inmunología , Queratoconjuntivitis/fisiopatología , Animales , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/diagnóstico , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/terapia , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Queratoconjuntivitis/diagnóstico , Queratoconjuntivitis/terapiaRESUMEN
Background: The management of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is evolving, with an emphasis on treating the underlying type 2 inflammation. Objective: The objective was to summarize the updated evidence-based medical and surgical treatment recommendations for CRSwNP, including the position of biologics in the treatment algorithm. Methods: This review compared and contrasted the therapeutic recommendations presented by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps 2020 and the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis 2021. Results: The long-term use of intranasal corticosteroids and the short-term use of oral corticosteroids are strongly recommended, whereas corticosteroid-eluting implants are considered an option. Although the use of saline solution rinses is recommended, there is uncertainty as to whether irrigation is more effective than sprays. Oral aspirin (ASA) desensitization, followed by ASA ≥ 300 mg daily for patients with ASA-exacerbated respiratory disease may be considered. In general, the use of antifungal agents offers no benefit and potential harm. Although the use of oral antibiotics for an acute exacerbation is still debated, oral and topical antibiotics are discouraged for subacute or chronic use. Antileukotrienes are inferior to intranasal corticosteroids and are unlikely to provide added benefit when used concomitantly. It is unlikely that the benefit of oral antihistamines and decongestants outweigh the potential harm. Dupilumab is recommended for severe CRSwNP when consensus-determined criteria are met. Omalizumab may be an option with concomitant poorly controlled asthma. Mepolizumab and reslizumab may be used, particularly in patients with concomitant uncontrolled asthma. In allergic fungal rhinosinusitis, oral and topical antifungals, antileukotrienes, allergen immunotherapy, and omalizumab are therapeutic options. Although surgical intervention is recognized to be of benefit for CRSwNP, there are no evidence-based criteria to indicate when maximum medical treatment has failed. Conclusion: An evidence-based CRSwNP treatment algorithm for when to recommend surgery and/or initiate or discontinue biologics to maximize quality of life and cost-effectiveness is still lacking.
Asunto(s)
Asma , Productos Biológicos , Pólipos Nasales , Rinitis , Sinusitis , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Aspirina/uso terapéutico , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Productos Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Enfermedad Crónica , Humanos , Pólipos Nasales/tratamiento farmacológico , Omalizumab/uso terapéutico , Calidad de Vida , Rinitis/tratamiento farmacológico , Sinusitis/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/prevención & control , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Glucocorticoides/uso terapéutico , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapéutico , Hipersensibilidad/diagnóstico , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad/terapia , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Rinitis/diagnóstico , Rinitis/terapia , Terapia Combinada , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Susceptibilidad a Enfermedades , Humanos , Fenotipo , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Prevalencia , Pronóstico , Calidad de Vida , Rinitis/epidemiología , Rinitis/etiología , Factores de Riesgo , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Evaluación de Síntomas , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/terapia , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Anafilaxia/etiología , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Humanos , Medicina de Precisión/métodos , Sesgo de PublicaciónRESUMEN
DESCRIPTION: The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which comprises representatives of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI), formed a workgroup to review evidence and provide guidance to health care providers on the initial pharmacologic treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in patients aged 12 years or older. METHODS: To update a prior systematic review, the workgroup searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 18 July 2012 to 29 July 2016 to identify studies that addressed efficacy and adverse effects of single or combination pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. In conjunction with the Joint Task Force, the workgroup reviewed the evidence and developed recommendations about initial treatment approaches by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Members of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the general public provided feedback on the draft document, which the Joint Task Force reviewed before finalizing the guideline. RECOMMENDATION 1: For initial treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 12 years or older, routinely prescribe monotherapy with an intranasal corticosteroid rather than an intranasal corticosteroid in combination with an oral antihistamine. (Strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 2: For initial treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 15 years or older, recommend an intranasal corticosteroid over a leukotriene receptor antagonist. (Strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 3: For treatment of moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis in persons aged 12 years or older, the clinician may recommend the combination of an intranasal corticosteroid and an intranasal antihistamine for initial treatment. (Weak recommendation).
Asunto(s)
Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/tratamiento farmacológico , Administración Intranasal , Administración Oral , Adolescente , Corticoesteroides/administración & dosificación , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Factores de Edad , Quimioterapia Combinada , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/administración & dosificación , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Antagonistas de Leucotrieno/administración & dosificación , Antagonistas de Leucotrieno/uso terapéutico , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/diagnóstico , Índice de Severidad de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Food allergy and anaphylaxis appear to be increasing in the United States, especially in young children, and preparedness is paramount to successful emergency management in the community. Although the treatment of choice for anaphylaxis is epinephrine delivered by autoinjection, some devices are challenged by less user-friendly designs or pose the risk of injury, especially in young patients. Human factors engineering has played a larger role in the development of more recent epinephrine autoinjector technologies and will continue to play a role in the evolution and future design of epinephrine autoinjectors. OBJECTIVE: To discuss contemporary issues related to the identification and management of anaphylaxis, current and future epinephrine autoinjector design, and unmet needs for the treatment of special populations, namely, young children weighing less than 15 kg. METHODS: The literature was reviewed and select articles retrieved to support expert clinical opinions on the need for improved recognition of anaphylaxis, epinephrine autoinjector design, and unmet needs in special populations. RESULTS: Anaphylaxis may be underrecognized and poorly defined in infant- and toddler-aged children, current devices may not be adequate to safely treat these patients (ie, inappropriate needle length), and health care professionals may not be aware of these issues. CONCLUSION: As epinephrine autoinjector technology continues to evolve, device characteristics that promote safe, user-friendly experiences and give clinicians and their patients confidence to successfully treat anaphylaxis during an emergency, without injury, will be favored.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/tratamiento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores/uso terapéutico , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Inyecciones/instrumentación , Adulto , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/fisiopatología , Niño , Preescolar , Femenino , Humanos , Lactante , Inyecciones Intramusculares/instrumentación , Masculino , AgujasAsunto(s)
Alergia e Inmunología , Asma , Hipersensibilidad , Escolaridad , Humanos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
This review summarizes new research developments and clinical practice recommendations for the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis presented in the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters 2023 Anaphylaxis practice parameter Update. It is intended to serve as a high-level summary of the 2023 practice parameter, which makes clinically impactful recommendations based on evidence that has emerged since the 2015 practice parameter. We invite clinicians to explore the full 2023 practice parameter to understand the research methods and underlying evidence that have informed the recommendations summarized here. There are new and evolving diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis, rules for defining elevated tryptase levels, and recognition of signs and symptoms particular to infants and toddlers. The administration of epinephrine should not be used as a surrogate to diagnose anaphylaxis. Risk factors for anaphylaxis should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Patient counseling and shared decision-making are essential to support patients' treatment decisions and capacity to manage the risk of anaphylaxis at home and in other community settings. Activation of emergency medical services after home epinephrine administration may not be required in all cases, and patients should be engaged in shared decision-making to determine when home management may be appropriate.
RESUMEN
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are valuable in the assessment and management of rhinitis and chronic rhinosinusitis [CRS]. They measure outcomes which may include symptoms, disease control, well-being, and health-related quality of life (QOL). PROMS for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis are often used before and after an intervention, e.g., medication, therapeutic procedure or, in allergic rhinitis (AR), allergen immunotherapy. Although widely used in clinical trials for AR and conjunctivitis, symptom score PROMs are less validated than disease control or QOL measures. The best validated PROM for AR is the RQLQ (Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire), but there is no universally accepted criterion standard for symptom and disease control PROMs. For CRS, at least 15 different criteria have been used to assess disease control in clinical studies, but what CRS disease control means and how it should be measured are concepts in evolution. The most used QOL measure for CRS is the SNOT-22 Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22). The use of PROMs to support clinical decisions and for shared decision making for rhinitis and rhinosinusitis still has many challenges, including selection of the preferred instrument, when and how to administer, the impact of co-morbidities, and questionnaire fatigue for both patient and provider.
RESUMEN
There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice.
RESUMEN
All allergists who administer subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) experience anaphylaxis in their offices and must devote proper planning, preparation, and practice to ensure that all staff members recognize the early signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis and can respond appropriately. Educating staff and patients, preparing an anaphylaxis emergency cart, developing and following selection criteria for SCIT and high-risk procedures, and customizing an "Action Plan for Anaphylaxis Management" create the foundation for mounting an adequate response to anaphylaxis. Strategies to prevent near-fatal and fatal reactions include (1) avoiding, when possible, the administration of SCIT to patients on beta-blockers; (2) using a preinjection questionnaire to review changes in the patient's medical condition, e.g., episodes of asthma since the previous injection; (3) using standardized forms and procedures for SCIT; (4) one might also consider an objective measure of airway function (e.g., peak flow measurement) for the asthmatic patient before allergy injections; (5) insisting on a 30-minute waiting time after SCIT; and (6) giving consideration to prescribing a dual-pack epinephrine autoinjector to all SCIT patients. Treatment of anaphylaxis should start with epinephrine administered intramuscularly at the first sign of anaphylaxis. Oxygen and i.v. fluids may be needed for moderate-to-severe anaphylaxis or anaphylaxis that is quickly developing or unresponsive to the first injection of epinephrine. Emergency medical services should be called for all patients who are experiencing moderate-to-severe (grade 2 or higher) anaphylaxis, if they require more than 1 dose of epinephrine and/or i.v. fluids, or if they do not immediately respond to treatment.
Asunto(s)
Alergia e Inmunología , Anafilaxia/diagnóstico , Anafilaxia/terapia , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Alergia e Inmunología/instrumentación , Anafilaxia/etiología , Anafilaxia/prevención & control , Protocolos Clínicos , Urgencias Médicas , Humanos , Inyecciones Subcutáneas/efectos adversos , Cuerpo Médico/educación , Consultorios Médicos/organización & administraciónRESUMEN
An updated edition of the International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR) has recently been published. This consensus document, which included the participation of 87 primary authors and 40 additional consultant authors, who critically appraised evidence on 144 individual topics concerning allergic rhinitis, provides guidance for health care providers using the evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) methodology. This synopsis highlights topical areas including pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk and protective factors, evaluation and diagnosis, aeroallergen avoidance and environmental controls, single and combination pharmacotherapy options, allergen immunotherapy (subcutaneous, sublingual, rush, cluster), pediatric considerations, alternative and emerging therapies, and unmet needs. Based on the EBRR methodology, ICAR:AR includes strong recommendations for the treatment of allergic rhinitis: (1) for the use of newer generation antihistamines compared with first-generation alternatives, intranasal corticosteroid, intranasal saline, combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine for patients not responding to monotherapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual tablet immunotherapy in properly selected patients; (2) against the use of oral decongestant monotherapy and routine use of oral corticosteroids.
Asunto(s)
Complejo Hierro-Dextran , Rinitis Alérgica , Humanos , Niño , Complejo Hierro-Dextran/uso terapéutico , Rinitis Alérgica/diagnóstico , Rinitis Alérgica/terapia , Rinitis Alérgica/epidemiología , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapéutico , Alérgenos/uso terapéutico , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéuticoAsunto(s)
Obstrucción Nasal/terapia , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/terapia , Sesgo , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Humanos , Obstrucción Nasal/diagnóstico , Obstrucción Nasal/epidemiología , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/diagnóstico , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/epidemiología , Riesgo , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Pet allergy may now be the most common perennial allergen in the United States based on recent skin-prick testing data. This trend corresponds with the rise (from 56 to 63%) in U.S. households having indoor pets over the past 10 years. Furthermore small, suspended, particulate animal allergens may be found in 90% of all homes and most public indoor areas. Although the most important cat and dog allergens are Fel d 1 and Can f 1, respectively, there are five well-described allergens for both cats and dogs. The effects of early life domestic pet and endotoxin exposure and subsequent clinical sensitivity remain controversial. Given that only the rare pet-allergic patient is willing to give away his/her pet, it is important to take an evidence-based approach to environmental control. Unfortunately, the benefits from changes in the environment that have been shown in research studies relate more to a reduction of allergens than symptoms. The pharmacotherapy for pet allergy will vary based on whether this is episodic or perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and on the severity of the symptoms. A stepwise approach for management, using both mono- and combination therapy, is proposed. Allergen immunotherapy, the only disease-modifying treatment available, may be the best therapeutic recommendation for patients with moderate to severe pet-induced PAR.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Animales Domésticos , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Glicoproteínas/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Perenne/terapia , Albúmina Sérica/inmunología , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Alérgenos/metabolismo , Animales , Antígenos de Plantas , Gatos , Perros , Ambiente Controlado , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Glicoproteínas/metabolismo , Antagonistas de los Receptores Histamínicos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Antagonistas de Leucotrieno/uso terapéutico , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Rinitis Alérgica Perenne/diagnóstico , Rinitis Alérgica Perenne/epidemiología , Rinitis Alérgica Perenne/inmunología , Albúmina Sérica/metabolismo , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Executive Committees formed the Omalizumab Joint Task Force with the purpose of reviewing the Genentech Xolair (omalizumab) clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance data on anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions. Using the definition of anaphylaxis proposed at a 2005 multidisciplinary symposia, the Omalizumab Joint Task Force concluded that 35 patients had 41 episodes of anaphylaxis associated with Xolair (omalizumab) administration between June 1, 2003, and December 31, 2005. With 39,510 patients receiving Xolair (omalizumab) during the same period of time, this would correspond to an anaphylaxis-reporting rate of 0.09% of patients. Of those 36 events for which the time of reaction was known, 22 (61%) reactions occurred in the first 2 hours after one of the first 3 doses. Five (14%) of the events after the fourth or later doses occurred within 30 minutes. Considering the timing of these 36 events, an observation period of 2 hours for the first 3 injections and 30 minutes for subsequent injections would have captured 75% of the anaphylactic reactions. The OJTF report provides recommendations for physicians who prescribe Xolair (omalizumab) on (1) the suggested wait periods after administration and (2) patient education regarding anaphylaxis.