9 research outputs found

    Comparison of American and European practices in the management of patients with primary immunodeficiencies.

    No full text
    Primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDs) comprise a heterogeneous group of rare disorders. This study was devised in order to compare management of these diseases in the northern hemisphere, given the variability of practice among clinicians in North America. The members of two international societies for clinical immunologists were asked about their management protocols in relation to their PID practice. An anonymous internet questionnaire, used previously for a survey of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), was offered to all full members of the European Society for Immunodeficiency (ESID). The replies were analysed in three groups, according to the proportion of PID patients in the practice of each respondent; this resulted in two groups from North America and one from Europe. The 123 responses from ESID members (23·7%) were, in the majority, very similar to those of AAAAI respondents, with > 10% of their practice devoted to primary immunodeficiency. There were major differences between the responses of these two groups and those of the general AAAAI respondents whose clinical practice was composed of < 10% of PID patients. These differences included the routine use of intravenous immunoglobulin therapy (IVIg) for particular types of PIDs, initial levels of IVIg doses, dosing intervals, routine use of prophylactic antibiotics, perceptions of the usefulness of subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy (SCIg) and of the risk to patients' health of policies adopted by health-care funders. Differences in practice were identified and are discussed in terms of methods of health-care provision, which suggest future studies for ensuring continuation of appropriate levels of immunoglobulin replacement therapies

    The efficacy of amino acid-based formulas in relieving the symptoms of cow's milk allergy: a systematic review

    No full text
    The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of amino acid-based formulas (AAF) in patients with cow's milk allergy (CMA). Studies were identified using electronic databases and bibliography searches. Subjects eligible for inclusion were patients of any age with CMA or symptoms suggestive of it. Comparisons of interest were AAF vs. extensively hydrolysed formula (eHF), AAF vs. soy-based formula (SF) and AAF vs. cow's milk or cow's milk-based formula. Outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal (GI), dermatological, respiratory and behavioural symptoms as well as growth. A total of 20 studies [three head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three cross-over challenge RCTs, seven clinical trials (CTs) and seven case reports (CRs)] were included in the review. In infants with confirmed or suspected CMA, the use of an AAF was shown to be safe and efficacious. Findings from RCT comparisons of AAF with eHF showed that both formulas are equally efficacious at relieving the symptoms of CMA in confirmed or suspected cases. However, infants in specific subgroups (e.g. non-IgE mediated food-induced gastro-enterocolitisproctitis syndromes with failure to thrive, severe atopic eczema, or with symptoms during exclusive breastfeeding) were more likely overall to benefit from AAF, as intolerance to eHF may occur. In such cases, symptoms persisting despite eHF feeding usually remit on AAF, and catch-up growth may be seen. Meta-analysis of the findings was not possible due to lack of homogenous reporting of outcomes in the original trials. This systematic review shows clinical benefit from use of AAF in both symptoms and growth in infants and children with CMA who fail to tolerate eHF. Further studies are required to determine the relative medical or economic value of initial treatment with AAF in infants at high risk of eHF intolerance

    Image Segmentation Using Computational Intelligence Techniques: Review

    No full text
    corecore