27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      EAACI Position paper on the standardization of nasal allergen challenges

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is an important tool to diagnose allergic rhinitis. In daily clinical routine, experimentally, or when measuring therapeutic success clinically, nasal allergen challenge is fundamental. It is further one of the key diagnostic tools when initiating specific allergen immunotherapy. So far, national recommendations offered guidance on its execution; however, international divergence left many questions unanswered. These differences in the literature caused EAACI to initiate a task force to answer unmet needs and find a consensus in executing nasal allergen challenge. On the basis of a systematic review containing nasal allergen challenges of the past years, task force members reviewed evidence, discussed open issues, and studied variations of several subjective and objective assessment parameters to propose a standardized way of a nasal allergen challenge procedure in clinical practice. Besides an update on indications, contraindications, and preparations for the test procedure, main recommendations are a bilaterally challenge with standardized allergens, with a spray device offering 0.1 mL per nostril. A systematic catalogue for positivity criteria is given for the variety of established subjective and objective assessment methods as well as a schedule for the challenge procedure. The task force recommends a unified protocol for NAC for daily clinical practice, aiming at eliminating the previous difficulty of comparing NAC results due to unmet needs.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Biomarkers for monitoring clinical efficacy of allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma: an EAACI Position Paper

          Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) with or without asthma. It is important to note that due to the complex interaction between patient, allergy triggers, symptomatology and vaccines used for AIT, some patients do not respond optimally to the treatment. Furthermore, there are no validated or generally accepted candidate biomarkers that are predictive of the clinical response to AIT. Clinical management of patients receiving AIT and efficacy in randomised controlled trials for drug development could be enhanced by predictive biomarkers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            International consensus on (ICON) anaphylaxis

            ICON: Anaphylaxis provides a unique perspective on the principal evidence-based anaphylaxis guidelines developed and published independently from 2010 through 2014 by four allergy/immunology organizations. These guidelines concur with regard to the clinical features that indicate a likely diagnosis of anaphylaxis -- a life-threatening generalized or systemic allergic or hypersensitivity reaction. They also concur about prompt initial treatment with intramuscular injection of epinephrine (adrenaline) in the mid-outer thigh, positioning the patient supine (semi-reclining if dyspneic or vomiting), calling for help, and when indicated, providing supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, along with concomitant monitoring of vital signs and oxygenation. Additionally, they concur that H1-antihistamines, H2-antihistamines, and glucocorticoids are not initial medications of choice. For self-management of patients at risk of anaphylaxis in community settings, they recommend carrying epinephrine auto-injectors and personalized emergency action plans, as well as follow-up with a physician (ideally an allergy/immunology specialist) to help prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. ICON: Anaphylaxis describes unmet needs in anaphylaxis, noting that although epinephrine in 1 mg/mL ampules is available worldwide, other essentials, including supplemental oxygen, intravenous fluid resuscitation, and epinephrine auto-injectors are not universally available. ICON: Anaphylaxis proposes a comprehensive international research agenda that calls for additional prospective studies of anaphylaxis epidemiology, patient risk factors and co-factors, triggers, clinical criteria for diagnosis, randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions, and measures to prevent anaphylaxis recurrences. It also calls for facilitation of global collaborations in anaphylaxis research. In addition to confirming the alignment of major anaphylaxis guidelines, ICON: Anaphylaxis adds value by including summary tables and citing 130 key references. It is published as an information resource about anaphylaxis for worldwide use by healthcare professionals, academics, policy-makers, patients, caregivers, and the public.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Visual analog scales can assess the severity of rhinitis graded according to ARIA guidelines.

              The allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) guidelines provide a new classification of allergic rhinitis, but a quantitative analysis for severity assessment is lacking. To study whether a visual analog scale (VAS) for global rhinitis symptoms could be used to assess the disease severity according to ARIA. Three thousand fifty-two allergic rhinitis patients seen in primary care were tested. Fifty three per cent had an objective diagnosis of allergy and 58% of the patients were treated. Patients were categorized according to ARIA guidelines. The severity of nasal symptoms was assessed using a VAS. Quality of life was measured using the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ). Severity had more impact on VAS levels than duration: mild intermittent rhinitis (3.5, 2.4-5.0 cm), mild persistent rhinitis (4.5, 3.2-5.6 cm), moderate/severe intermittent rhinitis (6.7, 5.3-7.7 cm) and moderate/severe persistent rhinitis (7.2, 6.1-8.2 cm). The receiver operating characteristic curve results showed that patients with a VAS of under 5 cm could be classified as 'mild' rhinitis (negative predictive value: 93.5%) and those with a VAS of over 6 cm as 'moderate/severe' rhinitis (positive predictive value: 73.6%). Receiver operating characteristic curves and a logistic regression showed that current treatment and allergy diagnosis have no effect on the assessment of rhinitis severity using VAS. Visual analog scale and the RQLQ global score were significantly correlated (rho = 0.46; P < 0.0001). A simple and quantitative method (VAS) can be used for the quantitative evaluation of severity of allergic rhinitis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Allergy
                Allergy
                Wiley
                01054538
                August 2018
                August 2018
                March 27 2018
                : 73
                : 8
                : 1597-1608
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery; University of Cologne Medical Center; Cologne Germany
                [2 ]Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology; Faculty of Medicine; University of Cologne; Cologne Germany
                [3 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery; Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim; Heidelberg University; Mannheim Germany
                [4 ]Transylvania University Brasov; Faculty of Medicine; Department of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; Brasov Romania
                [5 ]Health and Work Ability; Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; Helsinki Finland
                [6 ]Allergy Unit; IBIMA-Regional University Hospital of Málaga, ARADyAL; Málaga Spain
                [7 ]Department of Otolaryngology; Center of Allergy and Environment (ZAUM); Klinikum rechts der Isar; Technical University Munich; Munich Germany
                [8 ]ENT Department; Faculty of Medicine; Eskisehir Osmangazi University; Eskisehir Turkey
                [9 ]Allergy and Clinical Immunology; Imperial College; NHLI; London UK
                [10 ]Otorhinolaryngology; Academic Medical Centre; Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [11 ]Otorhinolaryngology; Ghent University; Ghent Belgium
                [12 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery; Medical University of Innsbruck; Medizinische Universitat Innsbruck; Innsbruck Austria
                [13 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology; Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc; Brussels Belgium
                [14 ]Alergologie a klinická imunologie; Nemocnice na Homolce; Prague Czech Republic
                [15 ]Center for Rhinology and Allergology; Wiesbaden Germany
                [16 ]Department of ENT; Azienda Ausl di Imola; Imola Italy
                [17 ]Clinical and Experimental Immunoallergy; Institut d'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS); Barcelona Spain
                [18 ]Department of ORL; Hospital Clínic de Barcelona; Universitat de Barcelona; Barcelona Spain
                [19 ]Centro de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES); Barcelona Spain
                [20 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology; Medical Faculty; Kirikkale University; Kirikkale Turkey
                [21 ]Department of Pediatrics; Referral Centre for Food Allergy; Padua General University Hospital; Padua Italy
                [22 ]Fujita Health University, Otolaryngology; 1-98 Denngakugakubo, Kutukake-cho; Toyoake city Aichi Prefecture Japan
                [23 ]London Allergy and Immunology Centre; London UK
                [24 ]Department of Prevention of Envinronmental Hazards and Allergology; Medical University of Warsaw; Poland
                [25 ]Department of General Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery; Medical University of Graz; Graz Austria
                [26 ]Faculty of Medicine; University of Latvia; Riga Latvia
                [27 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology; Düsseldorf University Hospital (UKD); Düsseldorf Germany
                [28 ]Kharkiv National Medical University; Kharkiv Ukraine
                [29 ]Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery; Beijing TongRen Hospital; Capital Medical University; Beijing China
                Article
                10.1111/all.13416
                29377177
                d797e2e2-5ebd-444c-9821-b733b7cc1131
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article