20 research outputs found

    Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: a consensus report

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. OBJECTIVE: To systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. METHODS: We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: 1) Population Science, 2) Basic & Translational Sciences, 3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and 4) Long-Term Management Strategies & Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0-100 scale. RESULTS: The panel generated 98 statements across the four anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic & Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies & Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0-95.0 and from 40.0-90.0. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize post-anaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis

    Therapeutic concepts in adult and paediatric eosinophilic oesophagitis.

    No full text
    Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) was first described in the early 1990s. Although initially reported to be a rare entity, EoE has rapidly become a regularly diagnosed disease with a prevalence of approximately 1 in 2,000 individuals in the USA and Europe. The disease is characterized by a combination of oesophageal dysfunction and predominant eosinophilic infiltration of the oesophageal tissue. At diagnosis, other diseases that can be associated with oesophageal eosinophilic infiltration must be ruled out. Children with EoE present with a wide variety of symptoms, whereas adults mostly present with dysphagia for solid food and chest pain. Histologic features of EoE resemble those of T-helper type 2 inflammation. Endoscopy should be carried out to establish the diagnosis, but endoscopic abnormalities are not pathognomonic for EoE and the examination might not show histologic abnormality. Treatment modalities for EoE include drugs (corticosteroids, PPIs, antiallergic and biologic agents), hypoallergenic diets and oesophageal dilatation for strictures that are unresponsive to medical therapy. Unresolved eosinophilic inflammation leads to the formation of oesophageal strictures, which probably increase the risk of food bolus impactions. To date, long-term strategies for the therapeutic management of this chronic inflammatory disease remain poorly defined
    corecore