Exploring the role of information and communication technologies in allergic rhinitis in specialist centers: Patient perspectives on usefulness, value, and impact on healthcare

Introduction: Information and communication technologies (ICTs) improve patient-centered care and are routinely used in Allergic Rhinitis (AR), but patients\u27 preferences and attitudes are unexplored. This study examines AR-related information preferences and ICT use by AR patients.Methods: A survey-based cross-sectional study was carried out in Ecuador from July to September 2019 in seven centers of reference for allergic disease. Participants were 18 years or older, diagnosed with AR and had access to ICT and the Internet. Descriptive and binomial logistic regressions were performed. A value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: 217 patients were included. 47% (n = 102) used ICTs to learn about AR, of which 38.2% (n = 83) found it useful. Most of participants (75%, n = 164) did not think that ICTs reduce their need to see a doctor. Individuals with poorer quality of life were more likely to utilize ICTs to contact their doctor (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04-1.55), and more likely to be interested in AR-related content (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00-1.52). Patients with long-term AR or other allergies were less likely to use ICTs (OR 0.92 and OR 0.40 respectively). Higher education and lower quality of life may increase AR apps adoption (OR 4.82, 95% CI 1.11-21.00). Academic preparation five-fold increased ICT use for health provider communication (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.18-23.72). Mild-persistent AR enhanced the probabilities of using ICTs to share experiences and communicate with other patients (OR 12.59, 95% CI 1.32-120.35).Conclusions: Our study emphasizes the importance of tailoring digital resources to patient needs by considering factors such as quality of life, education, and specific subgroups within the AR patient population. Additionally, the findings suggest that while ICTs can play a valuable role in patient education and support, they should complement, rather than replace, traditional medical care for many AR patients

Exploring the role of information and communication technologies in allergic rhinitis in specialist centers: Patient perspectives on usefulness, value, and impact on healthcare

Introduction: Information and communication technologies (ICTs) improve patient-centered care and are routinely used in Allergic Rhinitis (AR), but patients\u27 preferences and attitudes are unexplored. This study examines AR-related information preferences and ICT use by AR patients.Methods: A survey-based cross-sectional study was carried out in Ecuador from July to September 2019 in seven centers of reference for allergic disease. Participants were 18 years or older, diagnosed with AR and had access to ICT and the Internet. Descriptive and binomial logistic regressions were performed. A value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: 217 patients were included. 47% (n = 102) used ICTs to learn about AR, of which 38.2% (n = 83) found it useful. Most of participants (75%, n = 164) did not think that ICTs reduce their need to see a doctor. Individuals with poorer quality of life were more likely to utilize ICTs to contact their doctor (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04-1.55), and more likely to be interested in AR-related content (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00-1.52). Patients with long-term AR or other allergies were less likely to use ICTs (OR 0.92 and OR 0.40 respectively). Higher education and lower quality of life may increase AR apps adoption (OR 4.82, 95% CI 1.11-21.00). Academic preparation five-fold increased ICT use for health provider communication (OR 5.29, 95% CI 1.18-23.72). Mild-persistent AR enhanced the probabilities of using ICTs to share experiences and communicate with other patients (OR 12.59, 95% CI 1.32-120.35).Conclusions: Our study emphasizes the importance of tailoring digital resources to patient needs by considering factors such as quality of life, education, and specific subgroups within the AR patient population. Additionally, the findings suggest that while ICTs can play a valuable role in patient education and support, they should complement, rather than replace, traditional medical care for many AR patients

Strategies and Future Opportunities for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Cow Milk Allergy

The prevalence of food allergy has increased over the last 20-30 years, including cow milk allergy (CMA) which is one of the most common causes of infant food allergy. International allergy experts met in 2019 to discuss broad topics in allergy prevention and management of CMA including current challenges and future opportunities. The highlights of the meeting combined with recently published developments are presented here. Primary prevention of CMA should start from pre-pregnancy with a focus on a healthy lifestyle and food diversity to ensure adequate transfer of inhibitory IgG- allergen immune complexes across the placenta especially in mothers with a history of allergic diseases and planned c-section delivery. For non-breastfed infants, there is controversy about the preventive role of partially hydrolyzed formulae (pHF) despite some evidence of health economic benefits among those with a family history of allergy. Clinical management of CMA consists of secondary prevention with a focus on the development of early oral tolerance. The use of extensive Hydrolysate Formulae (eHF) is the nutrition of choice for the majority of non-breastfed infants with CMA; potentially with pre-, probiotics and LCPUFA to support early oral tolerance induction. Future opportunities are, among others, pre- and probiotics supplementation for mothers and high-risk infants for the primary prevention of CMA. A controlled prospective study implementing a step-down milk formulae ladder with various degrees of hydrolysate is proposed for food challenges and early development of oral tolerance. This provides a more precise gradation of milk protein exposure than those currently recommended

Differences between peptide profiles of extensive hydrolysates and their influence on functionality for the management of cow's milk allergy: a short review

Extensively hydrolyzed formulas (eHFs) are recommended for the dietary management of cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) in non-exclusively breastfed infants. Studies show that peptide profiles differ between eHFs. This short review aims to highlight the variability in peptides and their ability to influence allergenicity and possibly the induction of tolerance by different eHFs. The differences between eHFs are determined by the source of the protein fraction (casein or whey), peptide size-distribution profile and residual β-lactoglobulin which is the most immunogenic and allergenic protein in bovine milk for human infants as it is not present in human breastmilk. These differences occur from the hydrolyzation process which result in variable IgE reactivity against cow's milk allergen epitopes by subjects with CMPA and differences in the Th1, Th2 and pro-inflammatory cytokine responses elicited. They also have different effects on gut barrier integrity. Results suggest that one particular eHF-casein had the least allergenic potential due to its low residual allergenic epitope content and demonstrated the greatest effect on restoring gut barrier integrity by its effects on mucin 5AC, occludin and Zona Occludens-1 in human enterocytes. It also increased the production of the tolerogenic cytokines Il-10 and IFN-γ. In addition, recent studies documented promising effects of optional functional ingredients such as pre-, pro- and synbiotics on the management of cow's milk allergy and induction of tolerance, in part via the induction of the production of short chain fatty acids. This review highlights differences in the residual allergenicity, peptide size distribution, presence of optional functional ingredients and overall functionality of several well-characterized eHFs which can impact the management of CMPA and the ability to induce immune tolerance to cow's milk protein

Strategies and Future Opportunities for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Cow Milk Allergy

The prevalence of food allergy has increased over the last 20-30 years, including cow milk allergy (CMA) which is one of the most common causes of infant food allergy. International allergy experts met in 2019 to discuss broad topics in allergy prevention and management of CMA including current challenges and future opportunities. The highlights of the meeting combined with recently published developments are presented here. Primary prevention of CMA should start from pre-pregnancy with a focus on a healthy lifestyle and food diversity to ensure adequate transfer of inhibitory IgG- allergen immune complexes across the placenta especially in mothers with a history of allergic diseases and planned c-section delivery. For non-breastfed infants, there is controversy about the preventive role of partially hydrolyzed formulae (pHF) despite some evidence of health economic benefits among those with a family history of allergy. Clinical management of CMA consists of secondary prevention with a focus on the development of early oral tolerance. The use of extensive Hydrolysate Formulae (eHF) is the nutrition of choice for the majority of non-breastfed infants with CMA; potentially with pre-, probiotics and LCPUFA to support early oral tolerance induction. Future opportunities are, among others, pre- and probiotics supplementation for mothers and high-risk infants for the primary prevention of CMA. A controlled prospective study implementing a step-down milk formulae ladder with various degrees of hydrolysate is proposed for food challenges and early development of oral tolerance. This provides a more precise gradation of milk protein exposure than those currently recommended

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health