Original Research
Impact of comorbidities on the treatment of atopic dermatitis in clinical practice
Alexandra Werner-Busse, Karel Kostev, Guido Heine, and Margitta Worm
Price
42.00 $
Volume 52 p. 726 - 731
Abstract
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Vol. 52 – No. 9/2014 (726-731)
Impact of comorbidities on the treatment of atopic dermatitis in clinical practice
Alexandra Werner-Busse1, Karel Kostev2, Guido Heine1, and Margitta Worm1
1Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, and 2IMS Health Epidemiology and Pharmacovigilance, Frankfurt am Main, German
Background and aim: Atopic dermatitis is often associated with atopic comorbidities such as allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma and food allergy. The aim of the present study was to analyze treatment data pertaining to atopic dermatitis patients in Germany with regard to the presence of other atopic comorbidities in the primary care and to investigate whether the presence of atopic codiagnoses has an impact on the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) patients. Methods: We used data from the Disease Analyzer database (IMS HEALTH, Germany) including 1,631 physicians (general practitioners, dermatologists and pediatricians) and 3.3 million patients. 39,642 (7.5%) of these patients were treated by dermatologists, 17,124 (5.2%) by pediatricians and 15,774 (0.9%) by general practitioners and had a documented diagnosis of atopic dermatitis. Results: 46.4% of AD patients treated by general practitioners, 42.5% by dermatologists and 32.0% by pediatricians were codiagnosed with one defined atopic diseases (allergic asthma, urticaria, allergic rhinitis and food allergy). In patients without AD, the proportion of atopic diseases was significantly smaller (41.4% for those treated by general practitioners, 38.4% for those treated by dermatologists, 26.4% for those treated by pediatricians). AD patients with another atopic comorbidity received topical corticosteroids (CS) (42.5%) more frequently than those without comorbidity (46.4% vs. 41.4% for patients treated by general practitioners, 42.5% vs. 38.4% for patients treated by dermatologists, 32.0% vs. 26.4% for patients treated by pediatricians). The general practitioners and pediatricians prescribed systemic corticosteroids to 13.2% and 7.8% of AD patients with additional atopic diseases, while the rate was only 5.1% and 3.0% in patients without comorbidities. Conclusion: In AD patients, the share of patients diagnosed with atopic diseases is significantly higher than in patients without AD. AD outpatients with concomitant atopic comorbidities receive topical, but also systemic corticosteroid prescriptions more frequently.Correspondence to:
Dr. Karel Kostev
IMS Health – Epidemiologie and Pharmacovigilance
Darmstädter Straße 108
60598 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Email: [email protected]
Consensus paper
“Delabeling” by direct provocation testing in children and adolescents with a suspected history of a delayed reaction to β-lactam antibiotics. Consensus paper of Gesellschaft für pädiatrische Allergologie und Umweltmedizin (GPAU
Irena Neustädter, Sophie Blatt, Gerda Wurpts, Heinrich Dickel, Christian Walter, Werner Aberer, Sebastian Bode, Timo Buhl, Sunhild Gernert, Susanne Harner, Guido Heine, Sebastian Kerzel, Meike Köhler, Lars Lange, Joachim List, Hans F. Merk, Thomas Nüßlein, Hagen Ott, Franziska Sattler, Antje Schuster, Helen Straube, Bettina Wedi, Torsten Zuberbier, and Knut Brockow
Volume 8 (2024) p. 206 - 211
Abstract
Allergologie select, Vol. 8/2024 (206-211)
“Delabeling” by direct provocation testing in children and adolescents with a suspected history of a delayed reaction to β-lactam antibiotics. Consensus paper of Gesellschaft für pädiatrische Allergologie und Umweltmedizin (GPAU
Irena Neustädter1, Sophie Blatt1, Gerda Wurpts3, Heinrich Dickel4, Christian Walter5, Werner Aberer6, Sebastian Bode7, Timo Buhl8, Sunhild Gernert9, Susanne Harner10, Guido Heine11, Sebastian Kerzel10, Meike Köhler12, Lars Lange9, Joachim List13, Hans F. Merk2, Thomas Nüßlein14, Hagen Ott15, Franziska Sattler12, Antje Schuster16, Helen Straube17, Bettina Wedi18, Torsten Zuberbier19, and Knut Brockow2
1Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Diakoneo Klinik Hallerwiese-Cnopfsche Kinderklinik, Nuremberg, 2Clinic and Polyclinic for Dermatology and Allergology at Biederstein, Technical University of Munich, Munich, 3Clinic for Dermatology and Allergology, Aachen Comprehensive Allergy Center (ACAC), University Hospital of RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 4Clinic for Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, St. Josef Hospital, University Hospital of the Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, 5Practice for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Allergology, Bad Homburg, Germany, 6Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Austria, 7University Clinic for Children and Adolescents, Ulm, 8Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Göttingen, 9Department of Pediatrics, St. Marien Hospital, GFO Clinics, Bonn, 10Clinic and Polyclinic for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, 11Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, 12Asthma and Allergy Outpatient Clinic, Dr. von Hauner Children’s Hospital, LMU University Hospital, Munich, 13University of Freiburg, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Freiburg, 14Clinic for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Gemeinschaftsklinikum Mittelrhein, Koblenz, 15Children’s and Youth Hospital Auf der Bult, Hanover, 16Clinic for General Pediatrics, Neonatology and Pediatric Cardiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, 17Princess Margaret Children’s Hospital, Darmstadt, 18Hannover Medical School, Clinic for Dermatology, Allergology and Venereology, Hanover, and 19Allergology and Immunology, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Background: Approximately 10% of European children are classified as allergic to drugs. In the majority of these children, no allergy to β-lactam antibiotics (BLA) can be found. In most cases, the exanthema is caused by the infection. Materials and methods: The objective of this paper is to describe the causes and consequences of a misdiagnosis of drug allergy. We propose a method for establishing a correct diagnosis in the case of a history of a delayed reaction during treatment with a BLA. For this purpose, a proposal was discussed via e-mail communication, and consensus was reached among the members of the drug allergy working groups of the participating medical societies. Results: The suspicion of a BLA allergy based on the medical history alone can have a negative impact on future antibiotic treatment. Exanthema associated with febrile infections not related to drug administration is a frequent finding in children. This makes it all the more important to be able to recommend a standardized procedure for clarification in children and adolescents with suspected hypersensitivity reactions. The medical history should be the basis on which to diagnose either a drug allergy or another possible differential diagnosis. A mild maculopapular exanthema (MPE) can be an expression of a drug allergy or a nonspecific viral exanthema. Uncomplicated MPE is not associated with significant systemic involvement, and there is no involvement of the mucous membranes or cutaneous blistering. Only a small number of children with uncomplicated MPE show positive skin tests and only ~ 7 – 16% of suspected BLA diagnoses can be confirmed by provocation tests. Thus, in children with uncomplicated MPE, drug provocation can be performed in an outpatient setting even without prior skin testing. This paper presents a 3-day outpatient direct provocation scheme for BLA delabeling in children with uncomplicated MPE. Conclusion: Many children and adolescents are unnecessarily denied treatment with BLA after an uncomplicated MPE while being treated with a BLA.Correspondence to:
Dr. med. Irena Neustädter, Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Diakoneo Klinik Hallerwiese-Cnopfsche Kinderklinik, St.-Johannis-Mühlgasse 19, 90419 Nuremberg, Germany
Email: [email protected]
Position Paper
Occupational anaphylaxis: A Position Paper of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)
Regina Treudler, Margitta Worm, Andrea Bauer, Heinrich Dickel, Guido Heine, Uta Jappe, Ludger Klimek, Monika Raulf, Bettina Wedi, Dorothea Wieczorek, Wojciech Francuzik, Thilo Jakob, Oliver Pfaar, Johannes Ring, Franziska Rueff, Sabine Schnadt, Thomas Werfel, Gerda Wurpts, Julia Zarnowski, Torsten Zuberbier, and Knut Brockow
Volume 8 (2024) p. 407 - 424
Abstract
Allergologie select, Vol. 8/2024 (407-424)
Occupational anaphylaxis: A Position Paper of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)
Regina Treudler1, Margitta Worm2, Andrea Bauer3, Heinrich Dickel4, Guido Heine5, Uta Jappe6, Ludger Klimek7, Monika Raulf8, Bettina Wedi9, Dorothea Wieczorek9, Wojciech Francuzik2, Thilo Jakob10, Oliver Pfaar11, Johannes Ring12, Franziska Rueff13, Sabine Schnadt14, Thomas Werfel9, Gerda Wurpts15, Julia Zarnowski16, Torsten Zuberbier1,17, and Knut Brockow12
1Institute of Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, 2Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, 3Department of Dermatology, University AllergyCenter, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, 4Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, St. Josef Hospital, University Medical Center, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, 5Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergy, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, 6Division of Clinical and Molecular Allergology, Research Center Borstel, Airway Research, Center North (ARCN), Member of the German Center for Lung Research, Borstel, Interdisciplinary Allergy Outpatient Clinic, Department of Pneumology, University of Luebeck, 7Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Mainz and Center for Rhinology and Allergology, Wiesbaden, 8Department of Allergology/Immunology; Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr-University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany, 9Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Comprehensive Allergy Center, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, 10Department of Dermatology and Allergology, University Medical Center Giessen (UKGM), Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, 11Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Section of Rhinology and Allergy, University Hospital Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, 12Department of Dermatology and Allergy Biederstein, School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich TUM), 13Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, 14German Allergy and Asthma Association (DAAB), Mönchengladbach, 15Clinic for Dermatology and Allergology, Aachen Comprehensive Allergy Center (ACAC), University Hospital of RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, 16Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, and 17Fraunhofer Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology ITMP, Immunology and Allergology, Berlin, Germany
Background: Anaphylaxis is a systemic allergic reaction that is potentially life-threatening. Occupational anaphylaxis is an anaphylaxis that occurs in an occupational context. In this position paper, we propose diagnostic criteria for occupational anaphylaxis and provide an overview of the current state of knowledge in terms of prevalence, triggers, prevention, and management. Results: The most common triggers of occupational anaphylaxis include Hymenoptera venoms, followed by food and drugs. Chemicals, bites or contact with animals (mammals/snakes/insects) and natural rubber latex are far less common. Occupations at risk for occupational anaphylaxis are therefore beekeepers, outdoor workers, or those who handle food as well as healthcare workers. The route of contact, intensity, and frequency of exposure, type of allergen, and the simultaneous occurrence of co-factors determine the clinical manifestation. A detailed medical history is required to confirm the diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify the trigger. Both skin tests and the determination of specific IgE are recommended, but only very few commercially available and quality-tested allergens are available that can be examined using both test methods. Preventive measures are based on avoiding further exposure or, if necessary, replacing a working substance. A written emergency plan and the prescription of an adrenaline autoinjector as well as instructions for its use are mandatory. Allergen immunotherapy is recommended for systemic Hymenoptera venom allergy. Depending on the national healthcare systems, patients with occupational anaphylaxis must be reported to the accident insurance. Conclusion: Occupational anaphylaxis is very rare. We recommend educational measures and generally standardized recording of occupational anaphylaxis for occupations with an increased risk of anaphylaxis.Correspondence to:
Prof. Dr. Regina Treudler, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Institute of Allergology, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12203 Berlin, Germany
Email: [email protected]
