Etiology of chronic urticaria: the Ecuadorian experience

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify chronic urticaria (CU) etiologies and treatment modalities in Ecuador. We propose that the sample distribution fits the expected one, and that there is an association between the etiology and its treatment. Methods: We performed a retrospective study involving 112 patients diagnosed with CU using a Checklist for a complete chronic urticaria medical history. Demographic and clinical variables were collected. The etiology of CU was classified using the EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF/WAO guideline. Descriptive analyses were performed for demographical and clinical variables. Chi square tests were applied to analyze the fit of distribution and the independence of variables. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Among all the patients, 76.8% were diagnosed with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), of which 22.3% had a known etiology or possible exacerbating condition. Food allergy was identified as the most common accompanying condition in patients with CSU (10.7%) (p < 0.01).. On the other hand, 23.2% inducible urticarias (CIndU) were indentified; dermographism was the most common (10.7%) (p < 0.01). Regarding treatment regimens, sg-H1-antihistamines alone represented the highest proportion (44.6%). The combination of any H1-antihistamine plus other drug was a close second (42.0%) (p < 0.01). Almost 48% of CSUs of unknown etiology were treated with any antihistamine plus another drug. In patients with known etiology, sg-antihistamines alone (44.0%) was the most common management. In addition, 53.8% of CIndUs were treated with sg-antihistamines alone. Though, these associations were not statistically significant. Conclusion: CSU is the most frequent subtype of CU. Modern non-sedating antihistamines in licensed doses are the drug of choice. Nevertheless, a great proportion of patients require the addition of another type of medication

Spanish validation of the revised depression attitude questionnaire (R-daq)

Purpose: The aim of the study was to develop and validate a Spanish version of the Revised Depression Attitude Questionnaire (R-DAQ). Methods: The R-DAQ was used as a baseline for the study. It was translated and tested to ensure the instrument was appropriate for the target population. 537 Ecuadorian healthcare professionals completed the revised Spanish version of the R-DAQ (SR-DAQ). Statistical and exploratory factor analyses were performed to examine construct validity, internal consistency, readability and floor and ceiling effects. Results: Three factors were obtained: “Professional confidence in depression care”; “Therapeutic optimism about depression”; and “Generalist perspective about depression occurrence, recognition, and management”. The internal consistency of the SR-DAQ was determined by means of Cronbach’s α coefficient, with values ranging between 0.61–0.8. The correlations with the English version reflected adequate validity. The model explained 39% of the variance. Subsequent analysis with a sample restricted to those who had received training in depression produced a model that explained 42% of the variance. Conclusion: The SR-DAQ meets the psychometric requirements for measuring depression attitude in a Spanish-speaking population and shows adequate internal consistency and validity

Latin American anaphylaxis registry

Background: Recent data about clinical features, triggers and management of anaphylaxis in Latin America is lacking. Objective: To provide updated and extended data on anaphylaxis in this region. Method: An online questionnaire was used, with 67 allergy units involved from 12 Latin-American countries and Spain. Among data recorded, demographic information, clinical features, severity, triggering agents, and treatment were received. Results: Eight hundred and seventeen anaphylactic reactions were recorded. No difference in severity, regardless of pre-existing allergy or asthma history was found. Drug induced anaphylaxis (DIA) was most frequent (40.6%), followed by food induced anaphylaxis (FIA) (32.9%) and venom induced anaphylaxis (VIA) (12%). FIA and VIA were more common in children-adolescents. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) were the most frequent drugs involved. Milk (61.1% of FIA) and egg (15.4% of FIA) in children, and shellfish (25.5% of FIA), fresh fruits (14.2% of FIA), and fish (11.3% of FIA) in adults were the most common FIA triggers. Fire ants were the most frequent insect triggers, and they induced more severe reactions than triggers of FIA and DIA (p < 0.0001). Epinephrine was used in 43.8% of anaphylaxis episodes. After Emergency Department treatment, epinephrine was prescribed to 13% of patients. Conclusions: Drugs (NSAIDs and BLA), foods (milk and egg in children and shellfish, fruits and fish in adults) and fire ants were the most common inducers of anaphylaxis. Epinephrine was used in less than half of the episodes emphasizing the urgent need to improve dissemination and implementation of anaphylaxis guidelines.Revisión por pare

Patient-centered digital biomarkers for allergic respiratory diseases and asthma: The ARIA-EAACI approach – ARIA-EAACI Task Force Report

Biomarkers for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with rhinitis and/or asthma are urgently needed. Although some biologic biomarkers exist in specialist care for asthma, they cannot be largely used in primary care. There are no validated biomarkers in rhinitis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) that can be used in clinical practice. The digital transformation of health and health care (including mHealth) places the patient at the center of the health system and is likely to optimize the practice of allergy. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) developed a Task Force aimed at proposing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as digital biomarkers that can be easily used for different purposes in rhinitis and asthma. It first defined control digital biomarkers that should make a bridge between clinical practice, randomized controlled trials, observational real-life studies and allergen challenges. Using the MASK-air app as a model, a daily electronic combined symptom-medication score for allergic diseases (CSMS) or for asthma (e-DASTHMA), combined with a monthly control questionnaire, was embedded in a strategy similar to the diabetes approach for disease control. To mimic real-life, it secondly proposed quality-of-life digital biomarkers including daily EQ-5D visual analogue scales and the bi-weekly RhinAsthma Patient Perspective (RAAP). The potential implications for the management of allergic respiratory diseases were proposed

Digitally-enabled, patient-centred care in rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity: The ARIA-MASK-air® approach

MASK-air®, a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma

Digitally‐Enabled, Patient‐Centred Care in Rhinitis and Asthma Multimorbidity: The ARIA‐MASK‐air ® Approach

MASK-air® , a validated mHealth app (Medical Device regulation Class IIa) has enabled large observational implementation studies in over 58,000 people with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. It can help to address unmet patient needs in rhinitis and asthma care. MASK-air® is a Good Practice of DG Santé on digitally-enabled, patient-centred care. It is also a candidate Good Practice of OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). MASK-air® data has enabled novel phenotype discovery and characterisation, as well as novel insights into the management of allergic rhinitis. MASK-air® data show that most rhinitis patients (i) are not adherent and do not follow guidelines, (ii) use as-needed treatment, (iii) do not take medication when they are well, (iv) increase their treatment based on symptoms and (v) do not use the recommended treatment. The data also show that control (symptoms, work productivity, educational performance) is not always improved by medications. A combined symptom-medication score (ARIA-EAACI-CSMS) has been validated for clinical practice and trials. The implications of the novel MASK-air® results should lead to change management in rhinitis and asthma.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Clinical standards for the diagnosis and management of asthma in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to aid the diagnosis and management of asthma in low-resource settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A panel of 52 experts in the field of asthma in LMICs participated in a two-stage Delphi process to establish and reach a consensus on the clinical standards. RESULTS: Eighteen clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, Every individual with symptoms and signs compatible with asthma should undergo a clinical assessment; Standard 2, In individuals (&gt;6 years) with a clinical assessment supportive of a diagnosis of asthma, a hand-held spirometry measurement should be used to confirm variable expiratory airflow limitation by demonstrating an acute response to a bronchodilator; Standard 3, Pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry should be performed in individuals (&gt;6 years) to support diagnosis before treatment is commenced if there is diagnostic uncertainty; Standard 4, Individuals with an acute exacerbation of asthma and clinical signs of hypoxaemia or increased work of breathing should be given supplementary oxygen to maintain saturation at 94–98%; Standard 5, Inhaled short-acting beta-2 agonists (SABAs) should be used as an emergency reliever in individuals with asthma via an appropriate spacer device for metered-dose inhalers; Standard 6, Short-course oral corticosteroids should be administered in appropriate doses to individuals having moderate to severe acute asthma exacerbations (minimum 3–5 days); Standard 7, Individuals having a severe asthma exacerbation should receive emergency care, including oxygen therapy, systemic corticosteroids, inhaled bronchodilators (e.g., salbutamol with or without ipratropium bromide) and a single dose of intravenous magnesium sulphate should be considered; Standard 8, All individuals with asthma should receive education about asthma and a personalised action plan; Standard 9, Inhaled medications (excluding dry-powder devices) should be administered via an appropriate spacer device in both adults and children. Children aged 0–3 years will require the spacer to be coupled to a face mask; Standard 10, Children aged &lt;5 years with asthma should receive a SABA as-needed at step 1 and an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to cover periods of wheezing due to respiratory viral infections, and SABA as-needed and daily ICS from step 2 upwards; Standard 11, Children aged 6–11 years with asthma should receive an ICS taken whenever an inhaled SABA is used; Standard 12, All adolescents aged 12–18 years and adults with asthma should receive a combination inhaler (ICS and rapid onset of action long-acting beta-agonist [LABA] such as budesonide-formoterol), where available, to be used either as-needed (for mild asthma) or as both maintenance and reliever therapy, for moderate to severe asthma; Standard 13, Inhaled SABA alone for the management of patients aged &gt;12 years is not recommended as it is associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality. It should only be used where there is no access to ICS. The following standards (14–18) are for settings where there is no access to inhaled medicines. Standard 14, Patients without access to corticosteroids should be provided with a single short course of emergency oral prednisolone; Standard 15, Oral SABA for symptomatic relief should be used only if no inhaled SABA is available. Adjust to the individual’s lowest beneficial dose to minimise adverse effects; Standard 16, Oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) can be used as a preventive medication and is preferable to the use of long-term oral systemic corticosteroids; Standard 17, In exceptional circumstances, when there is a high risk of mortality from exacerbations, low-dose oral prednisolone daily or on alternate days may be considered on a case-by-case basis; Standard 18. Oral theophylline should be restricted for use in situations where it is the only bronchodilator treatment option available. CONCLUSION: These first consensus-based clinical standards for asthma management in LMICs are intended to help clinicians provide the most effective care for people in resource-limited settings

JAAD-S-21-01514 Supplement Material

Supplement Material for publication JAAD-S-21-01514 (Response to McMahon et al.’s “Cutaneous Reactions Reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccination: A Registry-Based Study of 414 Cases.”

JAAD-S-21-01514 Supplement Material

Supplement Material for publication JAAD-S-21-01514 (Response to McMahon et al.’s “Cutaneous Reactions Reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccination: A Registry-Based Study of 414 Cases.”