Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.

In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease.

This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work.

The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available.

Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed.

The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-aria-2008-update-13eqfzaw4u.pdf

Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen)

Authors Jan L. Brozek, MD, PhD – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Jean Bousquet, MD, PhD – Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France, INSERM, CESP U1018, Respiratory and Environmental Epidemiology Team, France, and WHO Collaborating Center for Rhinitis and Asthma Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani, MD – Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina Sergio Bonini, MD – Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine – CNR, Rome, Italy and Department of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy G. Walter Canonica, MD – Allergy & Respiratory Diseases, DIMI, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Thomas B. Casale, MD – Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA Roy Gerth van Wijk, MD, PhD – Section of Allergology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Ken Ohta, MD, PhD – Division of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Torsten Zuberbier, MD – Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Holger J. Schunemann, MD, PhD, MSc – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-20b4c7y0pr.pdf

Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma

The nomenclature proposed in the October 2003 report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization is an update of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology Revised Nomenclature for Allergy Position Statement published in 2001. The nomenclature can be used independently of target organ or patient age group and is based on the mechanisms that initiate and mediate allergic reactions. It is assumed that as knowledge about basic causes and mechanisms improves, the nomenclature will need further review.

Revised nomenclature for allergy for global use: Report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization, October 2003.

Food allergy is an important public health problem that affects children and adults and may be increasing in prevalence. Despite the risk of severe allergic reactions and even death, there is no current treatment for food allergy: the disease can only be managed by allergen avoidance or treatment of symptoms. The diagnosis and management of food allergy also may vary from one clinical practice setting to another. Finally, because patients frequently confuse nonallergic food reactions, such as food intolerance, with food allergies, there is an unfounded belief among the public that food allergy prevalence is higher than it truly is. In response to these concerns, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with 34 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, led the development of clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. These Guidelines are intended for use by a wide variety of health care professionals, including family practice physicians, clinical specialists, and nurse practitioners. The Guidelines include a consensus definition for food allergy, discuss comorbid conditions often associated with food allergy, and focus on both IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated reactions to food. Topics addressed include the epidemiology, natural history, diagnosis, and management of food allergy, as well as the management of severe symptoms and anaphylaxis. These Guidelines provide 43 concise clinical recommendations and additional guidance on points of current controversy in patient management. They also identify gaps in the current scientific knowledge to be addressed through future research.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-diagnosis-and-management-of-food-allergy-3ktbybxq5o.pdf

Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Food Allergy in the United States: Summary of the NIAID-Sponsored Expert Panel Report

This report has been prepared by an EAACI task force representing the five EAACI Sections and the EAACI Executive Committee composed of specialists that reflect the broad opinion on allergy expressed by various clinical and basic specialties dealing with allergy. The aim of this report is to propose a revised nomenclature for allergic and related reactions that can be used independently of target organ or patient age group. The nomenclature is based on the present knowledge of the mechanisms which initiate and mediate allergic reactions. However, the intention has not been to revise the nomenclature of nonallergic hypersensitivity.

A revised nomenclature for allergy. An EAACI position statement from the EAACI nomenclature task force.

Latex surgical gloves may cause contact urticaria and serious allergic reactions in sensitized persons, but the frequency of this allergy is not known. In the present study, 512 hospital employees were screened with a latex-glove scratch-chamber test; 23 (4.5%) were suspected and 15 (2.9%) were proven allergic with latex prick and use tests. All of them were doctors and nurses, and 12 had had contact urticaria but no serious symptoms. They could continue their routine work using cotton or vinyl undergloves or special latex surgical gloves. Atopy, hand eczema and surgical work seemed to be predisposing factors. In operating units, 7.4% of the doctors and 5.6% of the nurses were allergic; the frequency was lower in non-operating units and among laboratory personnel. The high frequency of latex glove allergy, especially in operating units, focuses attention on the quality of surgical latex gloves.

Incidence of immediate allergy to latex gloves in hospital personnel.

BACKGROUND: Early recognition of dietary allergies in infants with atopic dermatitis is essential for avoidance of unnecessary elimination diets, amelioration of the skin disease, and secondary prevention of the development of multiple food allergies. Simple and accurate methods of identifying provocative foods are urgently needed. METHODS: The usefulness of skin prick and patch tests as indicators of cow milk allergy was evaluated in 183 patients ranging in age from 2 to 36 months with double-blind, placebo-controlled ( n = 118) or open ( n = 65) cow milk challenges. RESULTS: The oral cow milk challenges were interpreted as positive in 54% of both challenge types. Positive challenge rapidly elicited pruritus, urticaria, and/or exanthema in 49% of cases and delayed-onset eczematous lesions in 51%. The skin prick and patch tests gave markedly discrepant results; prick tests were positive in 67% of the cases with acute-onset reactions to milk challenge, whereas patch tests tended to be negative. Patch tests were positive in 89% of those with delayed-onset reactions, although prick tests were frequently negative. CONCLUSIONS: The observations indicate that IgE and T cell-mediated responses to cow milk can be distinguished in atopic dermatitis. Parallel skin testing with combined prick and patch tests can significantly enhance the accuracy in diagnosis of specific dietary allergies in patients with atopic dermatitis. (J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL 1996;97:9-15.)

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(96)70277-4/pdf

Combined skin prick and patch testing enhances identification of food allergy in infants with atopic dermatitis

The history of natural rubber latex (NRL) allergy is relatively short; the first case reports appeared in 1979-80 in the European (1, 2) and in 1989 in the North American literature (3-5). During the last 10 years, NRL allergy has been acknowledged as a major occupational problem among glovewearing health-care workers. In addition, several authors have noted that NRL allergy also occurs frequently outside the health-care environment. Populations at increased risk include not only glove-wearing kitchen workers and housekeeping personnel (6-8) but also children who may exhibit allergic reactions when blowing up balloons (9, 10). Even patients allergic to various fruits, such as banana and avocado, may experience allergic reactions from NRL and vice versa (11-14). The wide spectrum of symptoms of NRL allergy range from mild contact urticaria to asthma and anaphylactic reactions (3, 15-17). Severe allergic reactions are frequently reported to occur intraoperatively in children with spina bifida (18, 19). It has recently been emphasized that NRL allergens become easily airborne with glove powder and that persons sensitized to NRL may also suffer from occupational asthma (20-23). The presence of specific IgE in NRL-allergic patients may be verified by skin prick tests (SPT) or by serologic methods such as RAST (24-27). The limited knowledge of the relevant NRL allerK. Turjanmaa', H. Alenius', S. Makinen-Kiljuned, T. R e ~ n a l a ~ , ~ , T. Palosuo'

Natural rubber latex allergy

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of latex sensitisation among a large group of healthcare workers, study the occupational and non-occupational factors associated with latex allergy, and characterise latex exposure in air and by gloves. METHODS: All 2062 employees of a general hospital in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada who regularly used latex gloves were invited to participate in a cross sectional survey, representing the baseline phase of a prospective cohort morbidity study. Attempts were made to recruit employees who were diagnosed with latex allergy before the survey. Glove extracts were assayed for antigenic protein, and area and personal air samples were obtained on two occasions (summer and winter) to estimate exposure to airborne latex protein. A questionnaire on medical and occupational information was administered by an interviewer. Skin prick tests were performed with latex reagents, three common inhalants, and six foods. RESULTS: The mean (SD) latex protein concentrations were 324 (227) micrograms/g in powdered surgical gloves and 198 (104) micrograms/g in powdered examination gloves. Personal latex aeroallergen concentrations ranged from 5 to 616 ng/m3. There was a total of 1351 (66%) participants. The prevalence of positive latex skin tests was 12.1% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 10.3% to 13.9%). This prevalence did not vary by sex, age, hospital, or smoking status but subjects who were latex positive were significantly more likely to be atopic (P < 0.01). Participants who were latex positive were also significantly more likely to have positive skin tests to one or more foods (Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) adjusted for atopy 12.1, 95% CI 7.6 to 19.6, P < 10(-9)). Work related symptoms were more often reported among latex positive people, and included hives (OR 6.3, 95% CI 3.2 to 12.5), eye symptoms (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.8), and wheezy or whistling chest (OR 4.7, 95% CI 2.8 to 7.9). The prevalence of latex sensitivity was highest among laboratory workers (16.9%), and nurses and physicians (13.3%). When the glove consumption per healthcare worker for each department was grouped into tertiles, the prevalence of latex skin test positivity was greater in the higher tertiles of glove use for sterile (surgical) gloves (P < 0.005) but not for examination gloves. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, cross sectional study of healthcare workers, the prevalence of latex sensitisation was 12.1% (9.5% among all those eligible), and there were significant associations with atopy, positive skin tests to certain foods, work related symptoms, and departmental use of gloves per healthcare worker. This cohort is being followed up prospectively and will be retested to determine the incidence of development of latex sensitivity.

https://oem.bmj.com/content/oemed/54/5/335.full.pdf

Latex allergy: epidemiological study of 1351 hospital workers.

A number of scientific reports have been published on patch tests with protein allergens performed on patients with atopic eczema (AE). Evaluation of eczematous skin lesions with an atopy patch test (APT) can be used as a diagnostic tool in characterizing patients with aeroallergen- and food-triggered AE. Indications for testing with APT, choice of allergens (aeroallergens and foods), test materials and technique, including present knowledge on sensitivity and specificity, are reviewed on the basis of available literature. This position paper also points out the need for future research on the clinical use of the APT.

Kristiina Turjanmaa

Papers

Incidence of immediate allergy to latex gloves in hospital personnel.

Combined skin prick and patch testing enhances identification of food allergy in infants with atopic dermatitis

Natural rubber latex allergy

Latex allergy: epidemiological study of 1351 hospital workers.

EAACI/GA2LEN position paper: present status of the atopy patch test.