Management of the polyallergic patient with allergy immunotherapy: A practice-based approach

Background: The great majority (60-80 %) of patients consulting specialist physicians for allergic respiratory disease are polysensitized and thus may be potentially clinically polyallergic. However, management approaches to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in polysensitized and polyallergic patients are not standardized. Methods: An international group of clinicians with in-depth expertise in AIT product development, clinical trials and clinical practice met to generate up-to-date, unambiguous, pragmatic guidance on AIT in polysensitized and polyallergic patients. The guidance was developed after reviewing (1) the current stance of regulatory bodies and learned societies, (2) the literature data on single- and multi-AIT and (3) the members' confirmed clinical experience with polysensitized patients. Results: AIT is safe and effective in polysensitized and polyallergic patients, and should always be based on the identification of one or more clinically relevant allergens (based on the type and severity of symptoms, the duration of induced symptoms, the impact on quality of life and how difficult an allergen is to avoid). Single-AIT is recommended in polyallergic patients in whom one of the relevant allergens is nevertheless clearly responsible for the most intense and/or bothersome symptoms. Parallel 2-allergen immunotherapy or mixed 2-allergen immunotherapy is indicated in polyallergic patients in whom two causal relevant allergens have a marked clinical and QoL impact. In parallel 2-allergen immunotherapy (whether subcutaneous or sublingual), high-quality, standardized, single-allergen formulations must be administered with an interval of 30 min. Mixing of allergen extracts may be considered, as long as (1) the mixture is technically feasible, (2) the mixture is allowed from a regulatory standpoint, (3) the allergen doses are reduced in proportion to the number of components but are still at concentrations with demonstrated efficacy. Conclusions: Physicians can prescribe AIT (preferably with high-quality, standardized, single-allergen formulations) with confidence in polysensitized and polyallergic patients by focusing on clinical/QoL relevance and safety

Patients' perceptions of the potential of breathing training for asthma: a qualitative study.

Poor symptom control is common in asthma. Breathing training exercises may be an effective adjunct to medication; it is therefore important to understand facilitators and barriers to uptake of breathing training exercises

Food-induced fatal anaphylaxis: from epidemiological data to general prevention strategies

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis hospitalisations are increasing in many countries, in particular for medication and food triggers in young children. Food-related anaphylaxis remains an uncommon cause of death, but a significant proportion of these are preventable. AIM: To review published epidemiological data relating to food-induced anaphylaxis and potential risk factors of fatal and/or near-fatal anaphylaxis cases, in order to provide strategies to reduce the risk of severe adverse outcomes in food anaphylaxis. METHODS: We identified 32 published studies available in MEDLINE (1966-2017), EMBASE (1980-2017), CINAHL (1982-2017), using known terms and synonyms suggested by librarians and allergy specialists. RESULTS: Young adults with a history of asthma, previously known food allergy particularly to peanut/tree nuts are at higher risk of fatal anaphylaxis reactions. In some countries, cow's milk and seafood/fish are also becoming common triggers of fatal reactions. Delayed adrenaline injection is associated with fatal outcomes, but timely adrenaline alone may be insufficient. There is still a lack of evidence regarding the real impact of these risk factors and co-factors (medications and/or alcohol consumption, physical activities, and mast cell disorders). CONCLUSIONS: General strategies should include optimization of the classification and coding for anaphylaxis (new ICD 11 anaphylaxis codes), dissemination of international recommendations on the treatment of anaphylaxis, improvement of the prevention in food and catering areas and, dissemination of specific policies for allergic children in schools. Implementation of these strategies will involve national and international support for ongoing local efforts in relationship with networks of centres of excellence to provide personalized management (which might include immunotherapy) for the most at-risk patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

InternationaL cross-sectIonAl and longItudinal assessment on aSthma cONtrol in European adult patients : the LIAISON study protocol

The study is funded by Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., Parma, ItalyPeer reviewedPublisher PD

Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair (R) is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3-5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair (R) in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging

The hidden burden of adult allergic rhinitis : UK healthcare resource utilisation survey

Funding Funding for this survey was provided by Meda Pharma.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Impact of Rhinitis on Work Productivity : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is increasingly acknowledged as having a substantial socioeconomic impact associated with impaired work productivity, although available information remains fragmented. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review summarizes recently available information to provide a quantitative estimate of the burden of AR on work productivity including lost work time (ie, absenteeism) and reduced performance while working (ie, presenteeism). METHODS: A Medline search retrieved original studies from 2005 to 2015 pertaining to the impact of AR on work productivity. A pooled analysis of results was carried out with studies reporting data collected through the validated Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. RESULTS: The search identified 19 observational surveys and 9 interventional studies. Six studies reported economic evaluations. Pooled analysis of WPAI-based studies found an estimated 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4; 4.8%) missed work time and 35.9% (95% CI, 29.7; 42.1%) had impairment in at-work performance due to AR. Economic evaluations indicated that indirect costs associated with lost work productivity are the principal contributor to the total AR costs and result mainly from impaired presenteeism. The severity of AR symptoms was the most consistent disease-related factor associated with a greater impact of AR on work productivity, although ocular symptoms and sleep disturbances may independently affect work productivity. Overall, the pharmacologic treatment of AR showed a beneficial effect on work productivity. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides summary estimates of the magnitude of work productivity impairment due to AR and identifies its main determinant factors. This information may help guide both clinicians and health policy makers. (C) 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & ImmunologyPeer reviewe