Search

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease‐modifying treatment in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR). Its efficacy depends on the precise identification of the triggering allergen. However, diagnostics based on retrospective clinical history and sensitization to whole extracts (SWE) often leads to equivocal results. Objectives: To assess the usability and impact of a recently established algorithm for a clinical decision support system (@IT2020‐CDSS) for SAR and its diagnostic steps [anamnesis, SWE (skin prick test or serum IgE), component resolved diagnosis, CRD, and real‐time digital symptom recording, eDiary] on doctor's AIT prescription decisions. Methods: After educational training on the @IT2020‐CDSS algorithm, 46 doctors (18 allergy specialists, AS, and 28 general practitioners, GP) expressed their hypothetical AIT prescription for 10 clinical index cases. Decisions were recorded repeatedly based on different steps of the algorithm. The usability and perceived impact of the algorithm were evaluated. Results: The combined use of CRD and an eDiary increased the hypothetical AIT prescriptions, both among AS and GP (p <.01). AIT prescription for pollen and Alternaria allergy based on anamnesis and SWE was heterogeneous but converged towards a consensus by integrating CRD and eDiary information. Doctors considered the algorithm useful and recognized its potential in enhancing traditional diagnostics. Conclusions and clinical implications: The implementation of CRD and eDiary in the @IT2020‐CDSS algorithm improved consensus on AIT prescription for SAR among AS and GP. The potential usefulness of a CDSS for aetiological diagnosis of SAR and AIT prescription in real‐world clinical practice deserves further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nowadays, technology permeates every aspect of human activity, from the professional to the recreational side, and the recent pandemic crisis has only amplified a clearly defined trend. Through portable devices, people play, work, and get information. The immediacy of information and of many aspects of our life is a condition that, once acquired, is difficult to give up. However, immediate information must also be correct, and not all issues can easily be simplified to the point of being understandable in the absence of basic theoretical notions to a large audience. This aspect is particularly relevant when dealing with issues related to human health and the communication problems encountered in recent months concerning the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2, and the vaccination campaign is there to prove it. With the intent of clarifying the advantages and disadvantages of fast and accessible information, in this article, some of the most widespread applications for mobile devices, dedicated to pollen allergens, air quality, parks, gardens, and green areas, were examined. A widespread lack of clarity on the sources of the data and on the criteria used to formulate synthetic judgments—that often confuse the final users—was noted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: The identification of the primary sensitizing pollen is difficult in Southern European patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis (SAR) if sensitized to various pollen sources with overlapping seasonality. A more precise diagnosis is obtained by IgE assays to allergen molecules, currently available as singleplex or microarrays. Objectives: To test the analytical performance of a multi‐parameter immunoblot molecular "Pollen Test" specifically designed to test IgE antibodies to pollen extracts and molecules clinically relevant in Southern Europe. Methods: Sera were obtained from 101 children and 98 adults with SAR and tested with a customized multiplex immunoblot assay (EUROLINE Southern European Pollen Profile [ESEP]; EUROIMMUN AG, Luebeck, Germany) containing a comprehensive panel of allergen extracts and molecules. ESEP's outcomes were then compared in selected sera (ESEP positive to negative = 2:1) with those of singleplex IgE assays (ImmunoCAP; ThermoFisher Scientific, Uppsala, Sweden). For each of the examined reagents, qualitative (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy), semi‐quantitative (classes) and quantitative (Spearman's rank correlation, Bland‐Altmann plots) comparisons were performed. Results: Compared to ImmunoCAP, cumulative ESEP's sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% CI 84%‐90%) and 88% (83%‐93%) for extracts and 99% (98%‐100%) and 87% (83%‐91%) for molecules. Cohen's kappa coefficients (κC) ranged for extracts from 0.18 (Pellitory) to 0.50 (Cypress) and for molecules from 0.21 (Ole e 1) to 0.68 (Phl p 7). The quantitative outcomes of the two diagnostic tests were highly correlated, with Spearman's rank correlation coefficients always exceeding 0.80. Bland‐Altmann plots showed a tendency of ESEP to overestimate serum specific IgE levels, when compared to ImmunoCAP. Conclusions and clinical relevance: Sensitivity and specificity of ESEP in testing serum IgE antibodies against pollen allergen extracts and molecules, in Italian patients with SAR, both exceeded 85%. The advantages and limitations of a multiplex customized immunoblot assay, in the routine clinical use of molecular diagnostics in Southern European pollen allergic patients, deserve to be tested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Many different symptom (medication) scores are nowadays used as measures of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis severity in individual patients and in clinical trials. Their differences contribute to the heterogeneity of the primary end-point in meta-analyses, so that calls for symptom (medication) score harmonization have been launched. Objective To prospectively compare six different severity scores for allergic rhinitis ( AR) against pollen counts at both population and individual levels. Methods Two groups of children with seasonal AR and grass pollen sensitization were recruited in Ascoli, Italy (n = 76) and Berlin, Germany (n = 29). Symptoms and drug intake were monitored daily for 40 and 30 days of the grass pollen season in 2011 (Ascoli) and 2013 (Berlin), respectively, through an Internet-based platform (AllergyMonitor™, TPS Production srl, Rome, Italy). From the gathered data, the informatics platform automatically generated one symptom score ( RTSS) and five symptom-medication scores ( RC- ACS©, ACS, RTSS[ LOCF], RTSS[ WC] and Ad SS). Values were then statistically normalized for reciprocal comparison and matched against the daily variations of local grass pollen counts (Spearman's rank correlation). Results The grass pollen counts were higher in Ascoli than in Berlin (peak values 194 vs. 59 grains/m3). At population level, the trajectories of the normalized average values of the six scores differed only slightly in both studies and correlated well with the pollen counts (ranges r2: 0.38-0.50 in Ascoli, 0.41-0.56 in Berlin). By contrast, in individual patients, trajectories of different scores were often quite heterogeneous. The RTSS[ WC] had a very low discriminatory power and generated in many patients long, flat horizontal segments. Conclusions Disease severity scores for seasonal AR, as evaluated via an Internet-based platform, tend to provide similar results at population level but can often produce heterogeneous slopes in individual patients. The choice of the disease severity score might have only a low impact on the outcome of a very large clinical trial, but it may be crucial in the management of individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complete diagnosis and therapy of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis require evidence that exposure to the sensitizing pollen triggers allergic symptoms. Electronic clinical diaries, by recording disease severity scores and pollen exposure, can demonstrate this association. However, patients who spontaneously download an e-diary app show very low adherence to their recording.Objective: The objective of our study was to assess adherence of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis to symptom recording via e-diary explicitly prescribed by an allergist within a blended care approach.Methods: The @IT-2020 project is investigating the diagnostic synergy of mobile health and molecular allergology in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. In the pilot phase of the study, we recruited Italian children (Rome, Italy) and adults (Pordenone, Italy) with seasonal allergic rhinitis and instructed them to record their symptoms, medication intake, and general conditions daily through a mobile app (Allergy.Monitor) during the relevant pollen season.Results: Overall, we recruited 101 Italian children (Rome) and 93 adults (Pordenone) with seasonal allergic rhinitis. Adherence to device use slowly declined during monitoring in 3 phases: phase A: first week, ≥1267/1358, 90%; phase B: second to sixth week, 4992/5884, 80% to 90%; and phase C: seventh week onward, 2063/2606, 70% to 80%. At the individual level, the adherence assessed in the second and third weeks of recording predicted with enough confidence (Rome: Spearman ρ=0.75; P<.001; Pordenone: ρ=0.81; P<.001) the overall patient adherence to recording and was inversely related to postponed reporting (ρ=-0.55; P<.001; in both centers). Recording adherence was significantly higher during the peak grass pollen season in Rome, but not in Pordenone.Conclusions: Adherence to daily recording in an e-diary, prescribed and motivated by an allergist in a blended care setting, was very high. This observation supports the use of e-diaries in addition to face-to-face visits for diagnosis and treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis and deserves further investigation in real-life contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]