Suchergebnisse

The pandemic outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) affects health care systems globally and leads to other challenges besides infection and its direct medical consequences. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic on the university dermatology outpatient clinic (UDOC) of the Technical University of Munich, Germany. We analyzed datasets from 2015 until 2020 extracted from the hospital information system database and our documented outpatient files regarding patient numbers, gender, age, and diagnoses. In 2020, case numbers of outpatient care declined significantly (p = 0.021) compared to previous years and was related to the timing of political announcements answering SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Additionally, during calendar week 10 to 15—the peak time of the spread of COVID-19 in Germany—the proportion of patients missing their consultation was significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 (22.4% vs. 12.4%; p < 0.001). Gender-associated differences regarding absences were not detected, but patients aged 85 years or older were significantly more likely to miss their consultation compared to all other age groups (p = 0.002). Regarding different disease clusters, patients with chronic inflammatory skin diseases and infectious and malignant diseases were more likely to miss their consultation (p = 0.006). Noticeably, less patients with malignant diseases, and particularly malignant melanoma, were registered during this pandemic. Our data support the hypothesis that medically constructive prioritization might not be implemented properly by patients themselves. Identifying missed patients and catching up on their medical care apart from COVID-19 will pose an enormous challenge for health care systems globally.

Potential residues of the potent allergen lysozyme used as a microbial stabilizing agent in wine production might pose a serious health thread to susceptible individuals. Therefore, EU legislation requires the labeling of the allergenic agent, if it is present in the final product. To allow for product testing, an indirect ELISA method to be specifically used in wine analysis was developed and validated. Furthermore, trial wines treated with defined amounts of lysozyme were subjected to an array of different filtration and other enological processing regimes in order to evaluate their potential to deplete the allergen content of the wines. By these means, processing methods ought to be identified that can be integrated in a good manufacturing practice guideline to enable wine producers to utilize lysozyme in their cellars and still provide wines free of allergenic residues. However, among the enological procedures under scrutiny, only bentonite fining proved to be capable of significantly reducing the allergenic residues.

Proteinogenic wine fining agents are hidden allergens and could present a risk for consumers with allergies. Therefore, the European Parliament adopted Directive 2003/89/EC amending Directive 2000/13/EC to declare ingredients, contaminations and processing aids that are known to trigger allergic reactions. The Amendment Regulation (EU) 1266/2010 excluded the labelling of wines which are processed with hen's egg and products thereof until 30 June 2012 to get more scientific findings. After 1 July 2012 wine fining agents have to be declared if above 0.25 mg l(-1) (Regulation (EU) 579/2012 in conjunction with article 120 g of Regulation (EU) 1234/2007). The Organisation International de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) advises this limit of detection (LOD) for potential allergenic residues of proteins. Wine fining agents are processing aids and according to the wine producer's knowledge will be removed after coagulation by filtration or other production steps. Due to lack of scientific data, residues of fining agents in the final product could not be excluded. In this risk assessment, highly sensitive ELISA methods for ovalbumin of known origin for wine have been developed. The objective was to investigate the presence of allergen residues in wine after certain technological treatments were applied to remove the wine fining agents. For all developed ELISA methods the LODs are in the low µg l(-1) range between 5 and 10 µg l(-1) fining agent, whereas the LOQ varies between 5 and 80 µg l(-1) fining agent. The results of the investigation of well-known wines and fining agents demonstrate that white wines fined with white or ovalbumin from hen's egg could retain allergens. The use of certain technological procedures during wine processing leads to different results. In white wine, bentonite or sheet filtration followed by sterile filtration lead to wines containing no detectable amounts of ovalbumin. In red wine, especially the final sterile filtration removes the fining agents.

Background: Food allergy is targeted as a public health priority by the European Union Commission. Parental perception of food allergy in their offspring is a proxy measure of the potential demand for allergy medicine services in the paediatric population. Methods: A representative sample of the general population was contacted by a randomised telephone survey in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Switzerland. A standardised questionnaire was administered regarding parentally perceived food allergy reports, symptoms, foods and medical service use by their live-in children. Results: 40,246 adults were polled, yielding data on 8,825 children. Parentally perceived food allergy prevalence was 4.7% (90% CI 4.2–5.2%). The most affected age group was 2- to 3-year olds (7.2%). Single-country incidence ranged between 1.7% (Austria) to 11.7% (Finland). Milk (38.5%), fruits (29.5%), eggs (19.0%) and vegetables (13.5%) were most often implicated, although with significant age-linked variations. Medical treatment was needed by 75.7% of affected children because of a food reaction. This translates into a proxy measure for food allergy prevalence of 3.75%. Skin symptoms were widespread (71.5%), followed by gastrointestinal (27.6%) and respiratory (18.5%) symptoms. Discussion: We provide the first point prevalence of parentally perceived food allergy in the general paediatric population across the European Union. Parental reports confirm the public health significance of adverse reactions to some foods in specified age groups. Our data may inform intervention planning, cost of illness assessments and quality-of-life-enhancing public health measures.

In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

Women's work has traditionally been considered less hazardous to health in comparison with men's work. The increased women's participation in the workforce has led to an increased attention to women's working conditions. Women and men are unequally represented in individual professions or sectors (horizontal segregation), with women also under-represented in leadership positions (vertical segregation). The selection of specific occupations can result in differences between types and levels of occupational exposures among women and men and can affect prevalence of occupational allergy. Gender distribution of work-related asthma appears to vary across countries without clear global difference. Occupational rhinitis tends to be higher in women, although is not clear if this is related to a sex/gender effect or to differences in work exposure. Women are more likely to have occupational contact dermatitis, mainly due to wet work. No clear effects of gender on rates of hypersensitivity pneumonitis have been shown. Besides variation in exposures, physical and physiological characteristics, different behaviours and health consciousness have an impact on the occupational health hazards of women and men. Occupational allergy health promotion strategies need to consider approaches for women and men adjusted by gender, and legislative actions similarly could be implemented in a more gender-sensitive way.

BACKGROUND: For the preventive treatment of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) an unprecedented global research effort studied the safety and efficacy of new vaccine platforms that have not been previously used in humans. Less than one year after the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral sequence, these vaccines were approved for use in the European Union (EU) as well as in numerous other countries and mass vaccination efforts began. The so far in the EU approved mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are based on similar lipid-based nanoparticle carrier technologies; however, the lipid components differ. Severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination are very rare adverse events but have drawn attention due to potentially lethal outcomes and have triggered a high degree of uncertainty. METHODS: Current knowledge on anaphylactic reactions to vaccines and specifically the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was compiled using a literature search in Medline, PubMed, as well as the national and international study and guideline registries, the Cochrane Library, and the Internet, with special reference to official websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). RESULTS: Based on the international literature and previous experience, recommendations for prophylaxis, diagnosis and therapy of these allergic reactions are given by a panel of experts. CONCLUSION: Allergy testing is not necessary for the vast majority of allergic patients prior to COVID-19 vaccination with currently licensed vaccines. In case of allergic/anaphylactic reactions after vaccination, allergy workup is recommended, as it is for a small potential risk population prior to the first vaccination. Evaluation and approval of diagnostic tests should be done for this purpose.

BACKGROUND: For the preventive treatment of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) an unprecedented global research effort studied the safety and efficacy of new vaccine platforms that have not been previously used in humans. Less than one year after the discovery of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral sequence, these vaccines were approved for use in the European Union (EU) as well as in numerous other countries and mass vaccination efforts began. The so far in the EU approved mRNA vaccines BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are based on similar lipid-based nanoparticle carrier technologies; however, the lipid components differ. Severe allergic reactions and anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination are very rare adverse events but have drawn attention due to potentially lethal outcomes and have triggered a high degree of uncertainty. METHODS: Current knowledge on anaphylactic reactions to vaccines and specifically the new mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was compiled using a literature search in Medline, PubMed, as well as the national and international study and guideline registries, the Cochrane Library, and the Internet, with special reference to official websites of the World Health Organization (WHO), US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert Koch Institute (RKI), and Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI). RESULTS: Based on the international literature and previous experience, recommendations for prophylaxis, diagnosis and therapy of these allergic reactions are given by a panel of experts. CONCLUSION: Allergy testing is not necessary for the vast majority of allergic patients prior to COVID-19 vaccination with currently licensed vaccines. In case of allergic/anaphylactic reactions after vaccination, allergy workup is recommended, as it is for a small potential risk population prior to the first vaccination. Evaluation and approval of diagnostic tests should be done for this purpose.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, skin reactions secondary to the use of medical devices (MD), such as allergic contact dermatitis have increasingly been observed (e.g. to continuous blood sugar monitoring systems, insulin pumps, wound dressings, medical gloves, etc.): this is regarded as a developing epidemic. Lack of labelling of the composition of MD, as well as frequent lack of cooperation of manufacturers to disclose this relevant information, even when contacted by the clinician for the individual case of an established adverse reaction, significantly impede patient care. OBJECTIVES: To advocate for full ingredient labelling in the implementation of EU regulation for MD. METHODS: This position paper reviews the scientific literature, the current regulatory framework adopted for MD to date, and the likely impact, including some costs data in case of the absence of such labelling. RESULTS: Efforts made by several scientific teams, who are trying to identify the culprit of such adverse effects, either via asking for cooperation from companies, or using costly chemical analyses of MD, can only partly, and with considerable delay, compensate for the absence of meaningful information on the composition of MD; hence, patient management is compromised. Indeed, without knowing the chemical substances present, physicians are unable to inform patients about which substances they should avoid, and which alternative MD may be suitable/tolerated. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for full and accurate labelling of the chemical composition of MD in contact with the human body.

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell–driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell–driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell–driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.