Search

Epidemiological studies have shown a rise in the prevalence of allergic diseases in India during the last two decades. However, recent evidence from the Global Asthma Network study has observed a decrease in allergic rhinitis, asthma and atopic dermatitis in children. Still, with a population over 1.3 billion, there is a huge burden of allergic rhinitis, asthma and atopic dermatitis, and this is compounded by an unmet demand for trained allergy specialists and poor health service framework. There is wide variation in the prevalence of allergic diseases between different geographical locations in India, and the reasons are unclear at present. This may at least in part be attributable to considerable heterogeneity in aero‐biology, weather, air pollution levels, cultural and religious factors, diet, socioeconomic strata and literacy. At present, factors enhancing risks and those protecting from development of atopy and allergic diseases have not been well delineated, although there is some evidence for the influence of genetic factors alongside cultural and environmental variables such as diet, exposure to tobacco smoke and air pollution and residence in urban areas. This narrative review provides an overview of data from India regarding epidemiology, risk factors and genetics and highlights gaps in evidence as well as areas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many patients report allergies to penicillin, although in over 90% of these the label of penicillin allergy is shown to be incorrect following comprehensive testing. Inappropriate and inaccurate penicillin allergy labelling is a barrier to antimicrobial stewardship and can lead to patient harm. This review assesses an emergent evidence base and trend favouring delabelling using direct oral penicillin challenges following a stratified risk assessment of the likelihood and existence of true penicillin allergy, to identify and make recommendations for key components for implementation in standard practice. Research to date has focussed on the feasibility and clinical and financial outcomes of these direct delabelling strategies. There is a paucity of studies exploring the views and engagement of patients and healthcare professionals, and a gap in the evidence for prerequisites to safely deliver, sustain and spread the implementation of such services across health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]