Search

Background: The prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) is increasing in developing countries. Different worldwide guidelines have been proposed, but their applicability for AD specialists in Latin American (LA) countries is unknown., Objective: The objective of this study was to explore the medical approach to treating AD in LA countries., Methods: The study population comprised AD specialists (allergists and dermatologists). They completed an electronic survey containing questions about the health system, diagnostic criteria, and pharmacotherapy approach to treating AD. The survey was constructed and validated by the Atopic Dermatitis Committee of the Latin American Society of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (SLAAI) in Spanish and Portuguese. Each member was responsible for distributing the questionnaire through different networks in their respective countries., Results: A total of 284 AD specialists from 13 LA countries completed the questionnaire; among them, 67% were allergists and 33% were dermatologists. Less than 50% of the AD specialists strictly followed guideline recommendations. Among the AD specialists, the European and North American guidelines were more frequently used, and only 16% followed LA guidelines. Dermatologists used the local guidelines less frequently than allergists. Most physicians did not routinely use AD assessment tools (55%). The frequency of the diagnostic tests depends on symptom severity. The availability of some systemic treatments, such as biologics and Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors, is not universal in all LA countries., Conclusion: There were marked differences between the specialists, and these differences seemed to be affected by their specialty and each country's healthcare system. New AD education strategies that consider the particularities of the region could allow patients to be more accurately managed. AD assessment tools may provide a way to enhance AD treatment and allow for shared decision-making, patient empowerment, and standardized care., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with this article., (© 2023 The Authors.)

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., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Few studies have explored the association between obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and chronic urticaria (CU). Our study aims to fill this gap by determining the frequency of the risk categories for OSA and how they might correlate with the specific CU patient reported outcome measures urticaria activity score (UAS7), urticaria control test (UCT) and CU quality of life questionnaire (CU-Q2oL)., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study involving a cohort of 171 Latin American CU patients. Descriptive statistics were used to determine frequency and proportions for demographic and clinical variables, while a chi-squared test for association between STOP-Bang OSA questionnaire categories and both UAS7 and UCT categories was performed to analyze how such variables interact. To further assess the strength of the correlation a Cramer's V coefficient was reported. Finally, a Kendall-Tau b correlation coefficient was performed to measure the correlation between the STOP-Bang score and other independent continuous variables., Results: The average STOP-Bang score was 2.5, with 24% and 21% of patients falling into the intermediate and high-risk category for moderate-to-severe OSA, respectively. There was a strong statistically significant association (Cramer's V = 0.263; p = .000) between UAS-7 categories and STOP-Bang risk categories . A similar pattern of strong significant association (Cramer's V = .269; p = .002) was observed between UCT categories and STOP-Bang risk categories. A weak positive correlation between the STOP-Bang score and the CU-Q2oL average score (τ b  = 0.188, p = .001) was identified. Overall, 72.5% patients reported limitations with respect to sleep in a varied degree according to the CU-Q2oL., Conclusions: Our results suggest that a considerable proportion of patients with CU are at intermediate to high risk for OSA. Higher disease activity, poor CU control, and worse quality of life were all found to be associated with an increased risk. Additional studies are needed to determine the exact link between these conditions, and to determine whether screening and treatment for OSA might benefit patients with CU., Competing Interests: Authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this work., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Background: Patients with chronic urticaria (CU) are increasingly using information and communication technologies (ICTs) to manage their health. What CU patients expect from ICTs and which ICTs they prefer remains unknown. We assessed why CU patients use ICTs, which ones they prefer, and what drives their expectations and choices., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 1841 patients across 17 countries were recruited at UCAREs (Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence). Patients with CU who were >12 years old completed a 23-item questionnaire., Results: Most patients were interested in receiving disease information (87.3%), asking physicians about CU (84.1%), and communicating with other patients through ICTs (65.6%). For receiving disease information, patients preferred one-to-one and one-to-many ICTs, especially web browsers. One-to-one ICTs were also the ICTs of choice for asking physicians about urticaria and for communicating with other patients, and e-mail and WhatsApp were the preferred ICTs, respectively. Many-to-many ICTs such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter were least preferred for all 3 purposes. Living in rural areas and higher education were linked to higher odds of being interested in receiving disease information, asking physicians, and communicating with patients through ICTs., Conclusions: Most patients and especially patients with higher education who live in rural areas are interested in using ICTs for their healthcare, but prefer different ICTs for different purposes, ie, web browsers for obtaining information, e-mail for asking physicians, and WhatsApp for communicating with other patients. Our findings may help to improve ICTs for CU., Competing Interests: I Cherrez-Ojeda has no conflicts of interest. E Vanegas has no conflicts of interest. A Cherrez has no conflicts of interest. M Felix has no conflicts of interest. K Weller is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Biocryst, CSL Behring, Dr. Pfleger, FAES, Moxie, Novartis, Shire/Takeda, and Uriach. M Magerl is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Biocryst, CSL Behring, Kalvista Pharmaceuticals, Moxie, Novartis, Pharming, and Shire/Takeda. RR Maurer has no conflicts of interest. VL Mata has no conflicts of interest. A Kasperska-Zajac has no conflicts of interest. A Sikora has no conflicts of interest. D Fomina is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Glaxo SmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Shire/Takeda. E Kovalkova has no conflicts of interest. K Godse has no conflicts of interest. N Dheeraj Rao has no conflicts of interest. M Khoshkhui has no conflicts of interest. S Rastgoo has no conflicts of interest. RFJ Criado has no conflicts of interest. M Abuzakouk has no conflicts of interest. D Grandon has no conflicts of interest. MBA van Doorn is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen Cilag, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Genzyme. S Valle has no conflicts of interest. E Magalhães de Souza Lima has no conflicts of interest. SF Thomsen is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. GD Ramón has no conflicts of interest. EE Matos Benavides has no conflicts of interest. A Bauer is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Novartis, Sanofi, Genentech, Leo Pharma and Shire/Takeda. Ana M Giménez-Arnau has held roles as a Medical Advisor for Sanofi, Uriach, Genentech, Novartis, Amgen , ThemoFisher, Roche, Almirall, and has research grants supported by Instituto Carlos III- FEDER, Novartis, and Uriach; she also participates in educational activities for Almirall, Genentech, Glaxo SmithKline, LEO Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Avene and Uriach. E Kocatürk is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for Bayer, Novartis, and Sanofi. C Guillet has no conflicts of interest. JI Larco is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for: FAES, Novartis, and Sanofi. Z-T Zhao has no conflicts of interest. M Makris is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Glaxo SmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. C Ritchie has no conflicts of interest. P Xepapadak reports personal fees from Galenica Greece, Glaxo SmithKline, Nestle, Novartis, Nutricia, and Uriach, outside the submitted work. LF Ensina is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. S Cherrez has no conflicts of interest. M Maurer is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Allakos, Alnylam, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Biocryst, Blueprint, CSL Behring, FAES, Genentech, Kalvista Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Menarini, Moxie, MSD, Novartis, Pharming, Pharvaris, Roche, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, UCB, and Uriach., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Allergic diseases are one of the most frequent chronic diseases in the world. It has been established that there is a worldwide epidemic of allergic diseases; therefore, the treatment of allergies should be acknowledged as a worldwide priority and the specialty of allergy should be considered an important field in medicine. Due to the fact that allergic diseases involve many organs, and Allergy and Clinical Immunology is one of the specialties in which physicians may be trained to treat patients of all ages, the subject in medical schools is not always taught as an individual specialty but often as part of another subject such as internal medicine or pediatrics. Certified allergists are an important contribution to health systems, providing the necessary care for patients who have allergic diseases. Undergraduate programs in many universities do not include allergy as a subject, contributing to a lack of knowledge regarding the correct management of allergic diseases. World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 1 allergist per 50,000 people; however, there is an uneven distribution of allergy and clinical immunology specialists. Most practitioners are localized mainly in larger cities and state capitals, while in other regions, specialists are still greatly needed. Support and training systems are required for allergy and clinical immunology specialists to promote continuing education and keep their clinical competence up to date, which will lead to better care for their patients. Increased exposure to the concepts of allergy and clinical immunology diagnosis and treatment in undergraduate education may also potentially lead to an increase in interest in the field of allergy and clinical immunology among physicians in training. This review will approach allergy education in Mexico and other parts of Latin America., Competing Interests: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: Chronic urticaria (CU) is characterized by itchy recurrent wheals, angioedema, or both for 6 weeks or longer. CU can greatly impact patients' physical and emotional quality of life. Patients with chronic conditions are increasingly seeking information from information and communications technologies (ICTs) to manage their health. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of usage and preference of ICTs from the perspective of patients with CU., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 1800 patients were recruited from primary healthcare centers, university hospitals or specialized clinics that form part of the UCARE (Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence) network throughout 16 countries. Patients were >12 years old and had physician-diagnosed chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) or chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU). Patients completed a 23-item questionnaire containing questions about ICT usage, including the type, frequency, preference, and quality, answers to which were recorded in a standardized database at each center. For analysis, ICTs were categorized into 3 groups as follows: one-to-one: SMS, WhatsApp, Skype, and email; one-to-many: YouTube, web browsers, and blogs or forums; many-to-many: Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn., Results: Overall, 99.6% of CU patients had access to ICT platforms and 96.7% had internet access. Daily, 85.4% patients used one-to-one ICT platforms most often, followed by one-to-many ICTs (75.5%) and many-to-many ICTs (59.2%). The daily ICT usage was highest for web browsers (72.7%) and WhatsApp (70.0%). The general usage of ICT platforms increased in patients with higher levels of education. One-to-many was the preferred ICT category for obtaining general health information (78.3%) and for CU-related information (75.4%). A web browser (77.6%) was by far the most commonly used ICT to obtain general health information, followed by YouTube (25.8%) and Facebook (16.3%). Similarly, for CU-specific information, 3 out of 4 patients (74.6%) used a web browser, 20.9% used YouTube, and 13.6% used Facebook. One in 5 (21.6%) patients did not use any form of ICT for obtaining information on CU. The quality of the information obtained from one-to-many ICTs was rated much more often as very interesting and of good quality for general health information (53.5%) and CU-related information (51.5%) as compared to the other categories., Conclusions: Usage of ICTs for health and CU-specific information is extremely high in all countries analyzed, with web browsers being the preferred ICT platform., Competing Interests: M Maurer is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Allakos, Alnylam, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Biocryst, Blueprint, CSL Behring, FAES, Genentech, Kalvista Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Menarini, Moxie, MSD, Novartis, Pharming, Pharvaris, Roche, Sanofi, Shire/Takeda, UCB, and Uriach. K Weller is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Biocryst, CSL Behring, Dr. Pfleger, FAES, Moxie, Novartis, Shire/Takeda, and Uriach. M Magerl is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Biocryst, CSL Behring, Kalvista Pharmaceuticals, Moxie, Novartis, Pharming, and Shire/Takeda. RR Maurer has no conflicts of interest. E Vanegas has no conflicts of interest. M Felix has no conflicts of interest. A Cherrez has no conflicts of interest. VL Mata has no conflicts of interest. A Kasperska-Zajac has no conflicts of interest. A Sikora has no conflicts of interest. D Fomina is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Glaxo SmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Shire/Takeda. E Kovalkova has no conflicts of interest. K Godse has no conflicts of interest. N Dheeraj Rao has no conflicts of interest. M Khoshkhui has no conflicts of interest. S Rastgoo has no conflicts of interest. RFJ Criado has no conflicts of interest. M Abuzakouk has no conflicts of interest. D Grandon has no conflicts of interest. M van Doorn is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen Cilag, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Genzyme. S Valle has no conflicts of interest. E Magalhães de Souza Lima has no conflicts of interest. SF Thomsen is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from: Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and UCB. GD Ramón has no conflicts of interest. EE Matos Benavides has no conflicts of interest. A Bauer has no conflicts of interest. Ana M Giménez-Arnau has held roles as a Medical Advisor for Sanofi and Uriach, and has research grants supported by Instituto Carlos III- FEDER, Novartis, and Uriach; she also participates in educational activities for Almirall, Genentech, Glaxo SmithKline, LEO Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, and Uriach. E Kocatürk is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for Bayer, Novartis, and Sanofi. C Guillet has no conflicts of interest. JI Larco is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for: FAES, Novartis, and Sanofi. Z-T Zhao has no conflicts of interest. M Makris is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Glaxo SmithKline, Novartis, and Sanofi. C Ritchie has no conflicts of interest. P Xepapadak reports personal fees from Galenica Greece, Glaxo SmithKline, Nestle, Novartis, Nutricia, and Uriach, outside the submitted work. LF Ensina is or recently was a speaker and/or advisor for, and/or has received research funding from Novartis, Sanofi, and Takeda. S Cherrez has no conflicts of interest. I Cherrez-Ojeda has no conflicts of interest., (© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of World Allergy Organization.)

Competing Interests: In relation to this work authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest.

Background: Grass pollinosis is an important contributor to allergic diseases, with varying patterns and frequency of allergens according to the geographical location studied. Our study aims to provide a better understanding of subtropical grass pollinosis in Argentinian patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study involving 894 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis from Bahía Blanca, Argentina. Skin prick tests were performed to selected pollen species belonging to three subfamilies of the Poaceae genera. Frequency of sensitization to specific grass pollen extracts, cross-reactivity of allergens assessed by skin prick test, and possible associations between allergen extracts and asthma or allergic conjunctivitis were analyzed., Results: Sensitization to the Pooideae subfamily was the most frequent, encompassing 86.8% (CI: 84.4%-88.9%) of the studied population. Positive reactions to allergen extracts from the Chloridoideae and the Panicoideae subfamilies showed smaller papule size than allergen extracts from the Pooideae subfamily (χ 2 (5) = 83.75, p < 0.001). Patients with a positive skin prick test (SPT) to a specific extract were more likely to present some degree of cross-reactivity to the remaining pollens when compared to patients with negative SPT to the same specific extract. Even though the proportion of patients presenting with asthma (46.9%) was higher than those with conjunctivitis (22.6%), there was only a statistically significant association between sensitization to Festuca arundinacea (φ = 0.089, p = .009), Phalaris arundinacea (φ = 0.074, p = .032) and Paspalum notatum (φ = 0.070, p = .038) and the presence of conjunctivitis., Conclusions: Our results suggest a high frequency of sensitization to grass pollen extracts from the Poaceae family among patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Overall, sensitization to the Pooidae subfamily was the most common, where Phalaris arundinacea presented the highest frequency., (© 2019 The Author(s).)

Background: Updated urticaria guidelines recommend that patients should be assessed for disease activity, severity, control, and quality of life at baseline and follow up. Regarding treatment, guidelines consider second generation antihistamines as the cornerstone in therapy for chronic urticaria (CU), while other drugs, such as omalizumab, are conceived as second-line alternatives. In regards to omalizumab, despite advances in the management of CU, there are still open questions about timing, dosing, and objective measures for clinical response. This study was designed to portray the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in chronic urticaria management, as well as the effectiveness and treatment patterns of omalizumab in CU, as seen in a real-life setting in Latin America., Methods: This is a retrospective observational study, involving 72 Latin American patients with chronic urticaria treated with omalizumab. Patient reported outcomes and treatment patterns, response, quality of life improvement and discontinuation were analyzed., Results: From the 72 patients, 91.7% (n = 66) were assessed through PROs, where urticaria control test (UCT) was the most used (79.2%; n = 57). Overall, 80.0% (n = 44) responded to omalizumab at some point of the treatment. Omalizumab 300 mg was associated with earlier response compared to lower doses. Regardless of dosage, most patients assessed with CU-Q2oL improved quality of life (80.8%; n = 21). With respect to omalizumab discontinuation, 20.8% (n = 15) patients interrupted omalizumab before the 3rd month of treatment (p = .000)., Conclusions: The present study highlights how the use of PROs and omalizumab in Latin America differ from guidelines' recommendations and clinical trials. Even though most patients were initiated under omalizumab 300 mg, most of them finished with lower doses. Regardless of dosage, most patients responded to omalizumab and improved quality of life at some point during treatment. However, such features were seen earlier with omalizumab 300 mg. Regarding treatment discontinuation, one-fifth of patients interrupted omalizumab before the third month.

Background: Existing guidelines do not offer a quick, efficient alternative to the patient's recollection of relevant clinical features during anamnesis and physical examination for chronic urticaria (CU). This study aimed to identify specific items reflecting the main characteristics of CU that should be included in a comprehensive medical history for patients with CU. We also aimed to clarify possible eliciting factors for CU to support accurate diagnosis of the disease., Methods: A panel of postgraduate dermatologists conducted a literature search for relevant studies on CU using Medline, the Cochrane database, and PubMed., Results: We identified82 articles from which we drew a collection of items to inform development of an easy-to-use checklist and collection of items that should be included in a correct medical history. The final version of the checklist included42 items across two areas: essential clues for anamnesis and diagnosis of CU; and typical symptoms/parameters or characteristics according to subtype, etiology, and laboratory findings. Items included time of disease onset; duration, shape, size, color, and distribution of wheals; associated angioedema; atopy; and triggering factors., Conclusions: Our guide provides an easy-to-use tool to support clinicians to focus, orient themselves, and save time in medical consultations for CU, allowing better diagnosis and management of this disease.

Background: Chronic urticaria (CU) is defined as the spontaneous appearance of wheals, with or without angioedema, persisting for ≥6 weeks. Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria (CSU) is a type of CU which affects 0.5-1 % of the global population, but it represents a high burden to patients. In recent years, omalizumab is available as treatment of disease. Our aim is to extend previous findings, analyzing effects of omalizumab on symptoms in Latin American patients with CSU., Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients treated with omalizumab in Cuenca-Ecuador. 150 mg omalizumab was administered every 4 weeks, and its effects were measured by Urticaria Activity Score (UAS) at baseline and each month in follow up. Complete response was defined as a UAS of 0 or 1, and partial response was classified as a UAS of 2 or more. Also, demographic and clinical variables were collected. Descriptive analyses were employed. Response rates were summarized as counts and percentages after 3 and 5 months. Related Samples Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare UAS at baseline and after 3 months. P values <0.05 indicated statistical significance., Results: 26 subjects were enrolled, almost half were female individuals (57.7 %), with mean age 47.8 years (range, 18-81 years). Mean duration of CU after diagnosis was 23.3 months (range, 2-180 months). Mean UAS at baseline was 5.7 points (range, 4-6 points). Nine patients (34.6 %) completed 3 months of treatment (33 % reported a complete response), with a mean difference in UAS of 3.33 ( p  = 0.01). Four patients completed 5 months of treatment (75.0 % showed a complete response). All patients previously treated with first-generation antihistamines plus corticosteroids showed no responses at neither 3 nor 5 months of treatment., Conclusion: Omalizumab is an effective treatment for patients with CU. It is necessary to conduct some future investigations where we can establish if 150 mg could be an option in developing countries.