Shared Decision-Making in Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) Options Using a Questionnaire for Respiratory Allergic Patients: A Delphi Consensus Study.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire, through a Delphi consensus, to be used by allergists in their routine clinical practice to assess the preferences of patients starting allergen immunotherapy (AIT) treatment using an objective approach. Patients and Methods: A Delphi consensus-driven process was used. The scientific committee, composed of 15 allergists, led the study and participated in the preparation of the questionnaire. Two-hundred panelists from different Spanish regions were invited to complete a 16-item questionnaire on a nine-point Likert scale covering six topic blocks. Consensus was achieved if ≥66.6% of panelists reached agreement or disagreement. Results: Of the 200 experts invited to participate in the Delphi process, a total of 195 (97.5%) answered the questionnaire. The panel experts reached a consensus on "agreement" on a total of 12 of the 16 (75.0%) items, covering a total of six categories: (a) patient knowledge (2 questions), (b) barriers to patient adherence (3 questions), (c) patient behavior (4 questions), (d) future actions (3 questions), (e) treatment costs (2 questions), and (f) final patient preferences (2 questions). Conclusion: This Delphi consensus study validated a set of twelve recommended questions for patients objectively assessing their preferences and suitability for the most common AIT options available. The questionnaire intends to assist allergists in making an objective, unconditioned decision regarding the best AIT option for each patient, after informing them about the different routes.

Occupational rhinoconjunctivitis induced by unusual allergens of carrot

No disponible

In vivo diagnosis with purified tropomyosin in mite and shellfish allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Tropomyosin is the most studied shellfish allergen and has been involved in cross-reactivity among different invertebrates (crustacean, mollusks, mites, insects, and nematodes). OBJECTIVE: To determine the relevance of tropomyosin in mite- and shellfish-sensitized patients using tropomyosin skin testing. METHODS: Patients were divided into 3 groups: group M included mite allergic patients (ie, individuals with respiratory symptoms and a positive result on skin prick testing [SPT] to house dust mites), group S included shellfish allergic patients (ie, individuals who reported symptoms with shellfish), and group MS included mite- and shellfish allergic patients (ie, individuals who simultaneously fulfilled the inclusion criteria for groups M and S). Tropomyosin was purified from shrimp, characterized, and used in SPT for diagnosis in the patient population. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty patients were included in the study: 790 (92.9%) in group M, 21 (2.5%) in group S, and 39 (4.6%) in group MS. Tropomyosin was purified from shrimp with a purity higher than 95%. Forty-two individuals tested positive to tropomyosin: the prevalence was 2.7% in group M, 28.6% in group S, and 38.5% in patients of group MS. Twenty-one (50%) of the tropomyosin-positive individuals had symptoms with shellfish, and 3 (14.3%) reported anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of tropomyosin was low in mite-sensitized patients (2.7 %) and high in shellfish allergic patients (28.6%). The higher prevalence of tropomyosin was found in patients sensitized to both mite and shellfish (38.5%). The selection of tropomyosin-sensitized patients by SPT might help in the choice of appropriate treatments or management for these patients.