Search

Objective: To review the evolution of our understanding of hereditary angioedema (HAE) from the first historical reference to the present day., Data Sources: MEDLINE and PubMed were searched using the following keywords: history of HAE, C1 inhibitor, complements system, genetics of HAE, mechanisms of HAE, and treatment of HAE., Study Selection: Information was selected that outlines the advances made in complementology, the first report of HAE, and subsequent studies that elucidated the underlying mechanisms of this disease, leading to current therapy of this orphan disease., Results: Generational research efforts in HAE have focused on the following: (1) several new clinical presentations, (2) acquired forms of non-histamine-induced angioedema, (3) the genetic basis for the inherited forms, (4) the effects of C1 inhibitor on contact phases of coagulation-fibrinolytic pathways, and (5) various therapies for short- and long-term control of the disease., Conclusion: The progress made in understanding the pathogenesis and treatment of HAE is an excellent example of the "bench to the bedside" paradigm involving the collaboration between clinicians and researchers.

Background: Herbal products are widely used by consumers as alternatives to prescription drugs in treating symptoms of allergic rhinitis. However, there have been few placebo-controlled clinical trials that have examined the efficacy or safety of these products. Although grapeseed extract (GSE) is an herbal that is marketed for treating allergic rhinitis, its efficacy is unproven., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of GSE with placebo in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR)., Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of GSE 100 mg, twice daily, versus placebo. Patients with SAR and skin prick test sensitivity to ragweed were randomized to 8 weeks of active treatment or placebo which was begun before the ragweed pollen season. Outcomes included: daily symptom diary scores recorded by patients, rhinitis quality of life scores at baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment; and requirements for rescue chlorpheniramine. Safety was monitored with routine laboratory studies., Results: Over 8 weeks of treatment, no significant differences were observed between active and placebo groups in rhinitis quality of life assessments, symptom diary scores, or requirements for rescue antihistamine. No significant laboratory abnormalities were detected., Conclusions: This study did not show trends supporting the efficacy of GSE in the treatment of SAR.

The algorithm and text annotations in this document are intended to assist clinical decision making about patients who present with symptoms of rhinitis. This document complements the Executive Summary of Joint Task Force Practice Parameters for Diagnosis and Management of Rhinitis (Ann Allergy, Asthma, Immunol 1998; 81:463-468) and Diagnosis and Management of Rhinitis: Complete Guidelines of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (Ann Allergy, Asthma, Immunol 1998;81:478-578). The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology is co-sponsored by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

This document contains complete guidelines for diagnosis and management of rhinitis developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters in Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the Joint Council on Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. The guidelines are comprehensive and begin with statements on clinical characteristics and diagnosis of different forms of rhinitis (allergic, non-allergic, occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis [pregnancy and hypothyroidism], drug-induced rhinitis, rhinitis from food ingestion), and other conditions that may be confused with rhinitis. Recommendations on patient evaluation discuss appropriate use of history, physical examination, and diagnostic testing, as well as unproven or inappropriate techniques that should not be used. Parameters on management include use of environmental control measures, pharmacologic therapy including recently introduced therapies and allergen immunotherapy. Because of the risks to patients and society from sedation and performance impairment caused by first generation antihistamines, second generation antihistamines that reduce or eliminate these side effects should usually be considered before first generation antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. The document emphasizes the importance of rhinitis management for comorbid conditions (asthma, sinusitis, otitis media). Guidelines are also presented on special considerations in patients subsets (children, the elderly, pregnancy, athletes and patients with rhinitis medicamentosa); and when consultation with an allergist-immunologist should be considered.

This algorithm on the diagnosis and treatment of asthma is intended to complement and update the previously published Practice Parameters for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma. Both documents were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the AAAAI, ACAAI, and the JCAAI. The authors of this asthma algorithm have attempted to include all the elements essential for the diagnosis and care of patients with asthma. Every effort was made to keep the algorithm clear and concise, yet thorough and complete (Fig 1). Each component of the algorithm is elaborated further in a brief annotation. For further discussion, the reader is referred to the more extensive Practice Parameters for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Asthma.

Background: Experience with human seminal plasma hypersensitivity in the last decade has led to increased physician awareness of symptoms consistent with human seminal plasma sensitization in women. Incidence and prevalence of human seminal plasma hypersensitivity in women are unknown., Objective: A questionnaire survey was distributed to determine the prevalence of human seminal plasma hypersensitivity among a population of women suspected of having this disorder., Methods: A questionnaire designed to elicit age, symptoms, duration of symptoms, number of sexual partners, time to onset of symptoms after first human seminal plasma exposure, onset of symptoms after first intercourse, recent gynecologic procedures, history of atopy, vaginitis, food or drug allergy and family history of atopy was distributed to 1,073 women who suspected they had symptoms consistent with human seminal plasma hypersensitivity. Women were considered "possible" for human seminal plasma hypersensitivity if they reported two or more symptoms consistent with localized or systemic human seminal plasma hypersensitivity. Women were considered "probable" for disease if they fulfilled the "ultimate criterion" defined as complete prevention of symptoms with a condom. Women with "possible" localized or systemic human seminal plasma hypersensitivity who had persistent symptoms despite use of a condom served as cohort control groups., Results: Two-hundred sixty-six women reported symptoms "possible" for human seminal plasma hypersensitivity (88 localized and 178 systemic). When the "ultimate criterion" was applied, 130 (46 localized and 84 systemic) of the 266 women were identified as having "probable" human seminal plasma hypersensitivity. The responses to most of the questions from each group were very similar. A significantly shorter time interval to symptom onset after initial human seminal plasma exposure was more common for women with "probable" localized human seminal plasma hypersensitivity compared with their cohort control group (49 months versus 108 months; P < .02) whereas a significantly increased number of women with "probable" systemic human seminal hypersensitivity gave positive food allergy histories compared with their cohort control group (31 versus 20; P < .05). Atopy did not appear to be a risk factor for human seminal plasma hypersensitivity., Conclusions: Evaluation of women with symptoms suggestive of human seminal plasma hypersensitivity using a validated questionnaire indicates that this disorder is more common than previously recognized.