User login
Peanut is most prevalent culprit in anaphylaxis PICU admits
ORLANDO – Food was found to be the most commonly identified trigger, with peanuts the most prevalent food cause, in what researchers say is the largest comprehensive review of anaphylaxis episodes in North America that led to pediatric intensive-care unit stays.
Researchers examined the Virtual Pediatrics Systems database, an international database of pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) information, said Carla M. Davis, MD, a pediatrician at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. During 2010-2015, there were 1,989 pediatric anaphylaxis admissions to these units in North America, she reported at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
“Because anaphylaxis is one of the most severe consequences of allergic disease, we decided that this study needed to be done to see really what the landscape was in the most critically ill children,” she said.
Peanuts accounted for 45% of the food triggers, followed by tree nuts and seeds at 19%, and milk at 10%.
Common causes aside from food included drug, blood products, and venom, Dr. Davis said.
Anaphylaxis accounted for 0.3% of all PICU admissions over the 5-year period, researchers found. Dr. Davis said this was “higher than what we anticipated.”
The overall mortality rate was 1%, and researchers found that peanuts and dairy were main causes of death of all the food-induced cases.
Anaphylaxis occurred more often in children ages 6-18 years than in kids of other ages and was least common among those aged 2-5 years. Asian children were disproportionately represented among the PICU anaphylaxis patients, but the mortality rate didn’t vary by any demographic factors.
Admissions were most likely to happen in the fall and were more common in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, Dr. Davis reported.
She said the deep look at the causes of these severe cases should help drive home the importance of counseling patients and families about prevention.
“For patients that have had a history of an allergic reaction to food or medication, but specifically food, I think really stressing avoidance measures will be something that will be very helpful, as well as counseling about epinephrine injectors and carrying them is going to help,” she said. “I think having a little more knowledge, pediatricians should be able to counsel and refer to allergists when they don’t feel they have all the necessary skills.”
Dr. Davis reports financial relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies.
SOURCE: Davis CM et al. 2018 AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress Abstract 775.
ORLANDO – Food was found to be the most commonly identified trigger, with peanuts the most prevalent food cause, in what researchers say is the largest comprehensive review of anaphylaxis episodes in North America that led to pediatric intensive-care unit stays.
Researchers examined the Virtual Pediatrics Systems database, an international database of pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) information, said Carla M. Davis, MD, a pediatrician at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. During 2010-2015, there were 1,989 pediatric anaphylaxis admissions to these units in North America, she reported at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
“Because anaphylaxis is one of the most severe consequences of allergic disease, we decided that this study needed to be done to see really what the landscape was in the most critically ill children,” she said.
Peanuts accounted for 45% of the food triggers, followed by tree nuts and seeds at 19%, and milk at 10%.
Common causes aside from food included drug, blood products, and venom, Dr. Davis said.
Anaphylaxis accounted for 0.3% of all PICU admissions over the 5-year period, researchers found. Dr. Davis said this was “higher than what we anticipated.”
The overall mortality rate was 1%, and researchers found that peanuts and dairy were main causes of death of all the food-induced cases.
Anaphylaxis occurred more often in children ages 6-18 years than in kids of other ages and was least common among those aged 2-5 years. Asian children were disproportionately represented among the PICU anaphylaxis patients, but the mortality rate didn’t vary by any demographic factors.
Admissions were most likely to happen in the fall and were more common in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, Dr. Davis reported.
She said the deep look at the causes of these severe cases should help drive home the importance of counseling patients and families about prevention.
“For patients that have had a history of an allergic reaction to food or medication, but specifically food, I think really stressing avoidance measures will be something that will be very helpful, as well as counseling about epinephrine injectors and carrying them is going to help,” she said. “I think having a little more knowledge, pediatricians should be able to counsel and refer to allergists when they don’t feel they have all the necessary skills.”
Dr. Davis reports financial relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies.
SOURCE: Davis CM et al. 2018 AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress Abstract 775.
ORLANDO – Food was found to be the most commonly identified trigger, with peanuts the most prevalent food cause, in what researchers say is the largest comprehensive review of anaphylaxis episodes in North America that led to pediatric intensive-care unit stays.
Researchers examined the Virtual Pediatrics Systems database, an international database of pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) information, said Carla M. Davis, MD, a pediatrician at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. During 2010-2015, there were 1,989 pediatric anaphylaxis admissions to these units in North America, she reported at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
“Because anaphylaxis is one of the most severe consequences of allergic disease, we decided that this study needed to be done to see really what the landscape was in the most critically ill children,” she said.
Peanuts accounted for 45% of the food triggers, followed by tree nuts and seeds at 19%, and milk at 10%.
Common causes aside from food included drug, blood products, and venom, Dr. Davis said.
Anaphylaxis accounted for 0.3% of all PICU admissions over the 5-year period, researchers found. Dr. Davis said this was “higher than what we anticipated.”
The overall mortality rate was 1%, and researchers found that peanuts and dairy were main causes of death of all the food-induced cases.
Anaphylaxis occurred more often in children ages 6-18 years than in kids of other ages and was least common among those aged 2-5 years. Asian children were disproportionately represented among the PICU anaphylaxis patients, but the mortality rate didn’t vary by any demographic factors.
Admissions were most likely to happen in the fall and were more common in the Northeast and Western regions of the United States, Dr. Davis reported.
She said the deep look at the causes of these severe cases should help drive home the importance of counseling patients and families about prevention.
“For patients that have had a history of an allergic reaction to food or medication, but specifically food, I think really stressing avoidance measures will be something that will be very helpful, as well as counseling about epinephrine injectors and carrying them is going to help,” she said. “I think having a little more knowledge, pediatricians should be able to counsel and refer to allergists when they don’t feel they have all the necessary skills.”
Dr. Davis reports financial relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies.
SOURCE: Davis CM et al. 2018 AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress Abstract 775.
REPORTING FROM AAAAI/WAO JOINT CONGRESS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Researchers found that 45% of these PICU stays from food were caused by reactions to peanuts.
Study details: A review of 1,989 cases during 2010-2015 in the Virtual Pediatrics Systems database, which collects international PICU information.
Disclosures: Dr. Davis reports financial relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies.
Source: Davis CM et al. 2018 AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress, Abstract 775.
Climate change is worsening allergies, expert says
ORLANDO – Climate change is not just eroding coastlines and threatening seaside cities and taking lives with increasingly powerful hurricanes, but appears to be contributing to increases in allergy and asthma, an expert told the audience at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
Longer pollen seasons, allergens unleashed by felled trees and ripped-up plants, mold growth following floods, and irritants launched into the air by wildfires are some of the concerns that should be alarming physicians and policy makers, said Nelson A. Rosario, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Federal University of Paraná (Brazil).
And evidence suggests that his fellow allergists and their patients agree.
A 2015 international survey found that 80% of rhinitis patients blamed climate change for contributing to their symptoms.
Only 11% said that climate change wasn’t relevant at all. Asked how patients have been affected by climate change, about two-thirds said “increased care for allergic sensitization and symptoms on exposure to plants or mold.”
Science supports these views, Dr. Rosario said.
A 2011 study of North American pollen seasons found that some cities had significant increases of 11-27 days, compared with 15 years before.
And a 2017 review noted the impacts of the consequences of climate change, from increased allergies due to heavy precipitation events, asthma prompted by intense tropical cyclones, and allergic conditions caused by extremely high sea levels.
Dr. Rosario suggested that, rather than wait for official agencies to take action, physicians need to adapt and help their patients adapt. A team of doctors wrote in 2013 that while “improved governmental controls” could lead to cleaner air, they “meet strong opposition because of their effect on business and productivity.” So, they said, the allergy community should adjust, by “anticipating the needs of patients and by adopting practices and research methods to meet changing environmental conditions.”
Dr. Rosario urged physicians to think of the climate-change effects on allergy and asthma as a “collective action” problem, not an individual one.
“The consequences will come,” he said. “There must be international cooperation.”
ORLANDO – Climate change is not just eroding coastlines and threatening seaside cities and taking lives with increasingly powerful hurricanes, but appears to be contributing to increases in allergy and asthma, an expert told the audience at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
Longer pollen seasons, allergens unleashed by felled trees and ripped-up plants, mold growth following floods, and irritants launched into the air by wildfires are some of the concerns that should be alarming physicians and policy makers, said Nelson A. Rosario, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Federal University of Paraná (Brazil).
And evidence suggests that his fellow allergists and their patients agree.
A 2015 international survey found that 80% of rhinitis patients blamed climate change for contributing to their symptoms.
Only 11% said that climate change wasn’t relevant at all. Asked how patients have been affected by climate change, about two-thirds said “increased care for allergic sensitization and symptoms on exposure to plants or mold.”
Science supports these views, Dr. Rosario said.
A 2011 study of North American pollen seasons found that some cities had significant increases of 11-27 days, compared with 15 years before.
And a 2017 review noted the impacts of the consequences of climate change, from increased allergies due to heavy precipitation events, asthma prompted by intense tropical cyclones, and allergic conditions caused by extremely high sea levels.
Dr. Rosario suggested that, rather than wait for official agencies to take action, physicians need to adapt and help their patients adapt. A team of doctors wrote in 2013 that while “improved governmental controls” could lead to cleaner air, they “meet strong opposition because of their effect on business and productivity.” So, they said, the allergy community should adjust, by “anticipating the needs of patients and by adopting practices and research methods to meet changing environmental conditions.”
Dr. Rosario urged physicians to think of the climate-change effects on allergy and asthma as a “collective action” problem, not an individual one.
“The consequences will come,” he said. “There must be international cooperation.”
ORLANDO – Climate change is not just eroding coastlines and threatening seaside cities and taking lives with increasingly powerful hurricanes, but appears to be contributing to increases in allergy and asthma, an expert told the audience at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
Longer pollen seasons, allergens unleashed by felled trees and ripped-up plants, mold growth following floods, and irritants launched into the air by wildfires are some of the concerns that should be alarming physicians and policy makers, said Nelson A. Rosario, MD, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Federal University of Paraná (Brazil).
And evidence suggests that his fellow allergists and their patients agree.
A 2015 international survey found that 80% of rhinitis patients blamed climate change for contributing to their symptoms.
Only 11% said that climate change wasn’t relevant at all. Asked how patients have been affected by climate change, about two-thirds said “increased care for allergic sensitization and symptoms on exposure to plants or mold.”
Science supports these views, Dr. Rosario said.
A 2011 study of North American pollen seasons found that some cities had significant increases of 11-27 days, compared with 15 years before.
And a 2017 review noted the impacts of the consequences of climate change, from increased allergies due to heavy precipitation events, asthma prompted by intense tropical cyclones, and allergic conditions caused by extremely high sea levels.
Dr. Rosario suggested that, rather than wait for official agencies to take action, physicians need to adapt and help their patients adapt. A team of doctors wrote in 2013 that while “improved governmental controls” could lead to cleaner air, they “meet strong opposition because of their effect on business and productivity.” So, they said, the allergy community should adjust, by “anticipating the needs of patients and by adopting practices and research methods to meet changing environmental conditions.”
Dr. Rosario urged physicians to think of the climate-change effects on allergy and asthma as a “collective action” problem, not an individual one.
“The consequences will come,” he said. “There must be international cooperation.”
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAAAI/WAO JOINT CONGRESS
Data paint mixed picture on e-cigarettes
ORLANDO – E-cigarettes are likely safer than traditional cigarettes but it depends on the user, the voltage used, and the kind of liquid, according to a panel of experts at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
Thomas Casale, MD, professor of medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said studies have found that in some ways, e-cigarettes seem safer. For example, the levels of carcinogens such as formaldehyde and heavy metals are found at levels that are 9-450 times higher in combustible cigarette smoke than e-cigarette vapor, he said. And toxic compounds have been found to be significantly lower in the urine of e-cigarette users compared to traditional cigarette smokers.
But it’s not so simple. While e-cigarettes typically cause lower exposure to formaldehyde, when heated at a higher voltage, exposure to formaldehyde hemiacetal, a formaldehyde precursor, is about seven times higher for someone smoking 3 mL of e-cigarette fluid a day – similar to a pack a day – than the formaldehyde exposure of someone smoking the same quantity of combustible cigarettes.
Dr. Casale added that experienced e-cigarette users typically take longer puffs than traditional smokers and that the unregulated e-cigarette industry is rife with mislabeling on things such as how much nicotine is in a given fluid.
“It’s dependent upon the device, the battery, how much it heats up and what’s in the liquid,” he said. “So in general, are they safer? Probably. But not exactly.”
There are also no long-term data on e-cigarettes, he added.
The evidence on how e-cigarettes affects traditional smoking habits is also mixed.
Some studies have indicated that e-cigarettes use can be helpful in kicking a traditional cigarette habit, said Jill Poole, MD, of the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
A survey by the U.S. Census Bureau found that, in the 2014-2015 data collection year, about 60% of smokers of combustible cigarettes who also smoked e-cigarettes tried to quit smoking combustibles, compared to 40% of those who didn’t smoke e-cigarettes. And 8% of e-cigarette users were successful over 3 months, compared to 4% of nonusers.
But data reveals risks for kids who’ve never smoked and then start using e-cigarettes.
“Does noncigarette tobacco use among never smoking youth determine subsequent smoking initiation?” she said. “The answer is yes.”
Dr. Poole added that a study published this year found that youths who’d never smoked traditional cigarettes were 87% more likely to start if they had first tried e-cigarettes (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(2):181-187).
And more children are using e-cigarettes frequently. The National Youth Tobacco Survey found that 16% of high schoolers in 2016 had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days, way up from 1.5% in 2011, even as traditional cigarette use has declined from 15.8% to 9.3% among those children over that time.
Loretta Que, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted how advertising for e-cigarettes is similar to the old ads for traditional cigarettes, attempting to convey coolness. With their wide array of colors and thousands of flavors, there is no doubt that e-cigarette pens have caught on among children, she said.
“They’re becoming something akin to an iPhone case or a handbag.”
ORLANDO – E-cigarettes are likely safer than traditional cigarettes but it depends on the user, the voltage used, and the kind of liquid, according to a panel of experts at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
Thomas Casale, MD, professor of medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said studies have found that in some ways, e-cigarettes seem safer. For example, the levels of carcinogens such as formaldehyde and heavy metals are found at levels that are 9-450 times higher in combustible cigarette smoke than e-cigarette vapor, he said. And toxic compounds have been found to be significantly lower in the urine of e-cigarette users compared to traditional cigarette smokers.
But it’s not so simple. While e-cigarettes typically cause lower exposure to formaldehyde, when heated at a higher voltage, exposure to formaldehyde hemiacetal, a formaldehyde precursor, is about seven times higher for someone smoking 3 mL of e-cigarette fluid a day – similar to a pack a day – than the formaldehyde exposure of someone smoking the same quantity of combustible cigarettes.
Dr. Casale added that experienced e-cigarette users typically take longer puffs than traditional smokers and that the unregulated e-cigarette industry is rife with mislabeling on things such as how much nicotine is in a given fluid.
“It’s dependent upon the device, the battery, how much it heats up and what’s in the liquid,” he said. “So in general, are they safer? Probably. But not exactly.”
There are also no long-term data on e-cigarettes, he added.
The evidence on how e-cigarettes affects traditional smoking habits is also mixed.
Some studies have indicated that e-cigarettes use can be helpful in kicking a traditional cigarette habit, said Jill Poole, MD, of the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
A survey by the U.S. Census Bureau found that, in the 2014-2015 data collection year, about 60% of smokers of combustible cigarettes who also smoked e-cigarettes tried to quit smoking combustibles, compared to 40% of those who didn’t smoke e-cigarettes. And 8% of e-cigarette users were successful over 3 months, compared to 4% of nonusers.
But data reveals risks for kids who’ve never smoked and then start using e-cigarettes.
“Does noncigarette tobacco use among never smoking youth determine subsequent smoking initiation?” she said. “The answer is yes.”
Dr. Poole added that a study published this year found that youths who’d never smoked traditional cigarettes were 87% more likely to start if they had first tried e-cigarettes (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(2):181-187).
And more children are using e-cigarettes frequently. The National Youth Tobacco Survey found that 16% of high schoolers in 2016 had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days, way up from 1.5% in 2011, even as traditional cigarette use has declined from 15.8% to 9.3% among those children over that time.
Loretta Que, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted how advertising for e-cigarettes is similar to the old ads for traditional cigarettes, attempting to convey coolness. With their wide array of colors and thousands of flavors, there is no doubt that e-cigarette pens have caught on among children, she said.
“They’re becoming something akin to an iPhone case or a handbag.”
ORLANDO – E-cigarettes are likely safer than traditional cigarettes but it depends on the user, the voltage used, and the kind of liquid, according to a panel of experts at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
Thomas Casale, MD, professor of medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said studies have found that in some ways, e-cigarettes seem safer. For example, the levels of carcinogens such as formaldehyde and heavy metals are found at levels that are 9-450 times higher in combustible cigarette smoke than e-cigarette vapor, he said. And toxic compounds have been found to be significantly lower in the urine of e-cigarette users compared to traditional cigarette smokers.
But it’s not so simple. While e-cigarettes typically cause lower exposure to formaldehyde, when heated at a higher voltage, exposure to formaldehyde hemiacetal, a formaldehyde precursor, is about seven times higher for someone smoking 3 mL of e-cigarette fluid a day – similar to a pack a day – than the formaldehyde exposure of someone smoking the same quantity of combustible cigarettes.
Dr. Casale added that experienced e-cigarette users typically take longer puffs than traditional smokers and that the unregulated e-cigarette industry is rife with mislabeling on things such as how much nicotine is in a given fluid.
“It’s dependent upon the device, the battery, how much it heats up and what’s in the liquid,” he said. “So in general, are they safer? Probably. But not exactly.”
There are also no long-term data on e-cigarettes, he added.
The evidence on how e-cigarettes affects traditional smoking habits is also mixed.
Some studies have indicated that e-cigarettes use can be helpful in kicking a traditional cigarette habit, said Jill Poole, MD, of the University of Nebraska, Omaha.
A survey by the U.S. Census Bureau found that, in the 2014-2015 data collection year, about 60% of smokers of combustible cigarettes who also smoked e-cigarettes tried to quit smoking combustibles, compared to 40% of those who didn’t smoke e-cigarettes. And 8% of e-cigarette users were successful over 3 months, compared to 4% of nonusers.
But data reveals risks for kids who’ve never smoked and then start using e-cigarettes.
“Does noncigarette tobacco use among never smoking youth determine subsequent smoking initiation?” she said. “The answer is yes.”
Dr. Poole added that a study published this year found that youths who’d never smoked traditional cigarettes were 87% more likely to start if they had first tried e-cigarettes (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(2):181-187).
And more children are using e-cigarettes frequently. The National Youth Tobacco Survey found that 16% of high schoolers in 2016 had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days, way up from 1.5% in 2011, even as traditional cigarette use has declined from 15.8% to 9.3% among those children over that time.
Loretta Que, MD, associate professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., noted how advertising for e-cigarettes is similar to the old ads for traditional cigarettes, attempting to convey coolness. With their wide array of colors and thousands of flavors, there is no doubt that e-cigarette pens have caught on among children, she said.
“They’re becoming something akin to an iPhone case or a handbag.”
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE AAAAI/WAO JOINT CONGRESS
App collects allergy symptoms in real time
ORLANDO – Use of an app combining patient-reported symptoms with local environmental triggers led patients to take action to improve their health, Penny Jones, PhD, reported at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
AirRater is a smartphone app and data collection network that includes information on air particulates, daily pollen and fungi counts, temperature, and planned burn locations. Patients enter their respiratory symptoms, which are correlated with local environmental conditions, according to Dr. Jones, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Tasmania (Australia) in Hobart.
Most of the environmental data are gathered from government agencies; however, researchers collect pollen and fungi counts at their own stations.
Patients do not see the environmental data until they’ve logged in their symptoms so that their reports aren’t biased by that information, Dr. Jones said, adding that the app also sends notifications when pollen and pollutant levels are high.
“It’s an environmental monitoring system coupled with a smartphone app designed to help people with allergies and asthma make better decisions around their health,” Dr. Jones said.
The AirRater network and app are now operating in both Tasmania and Canberra, Australia.
There are more than 6,000 users, and data from surveys show that it is having an effect, Dr. Jones said. About 40% of users said they have changed their behavior in some way because of information provided by the app, including staying indoors, taking preventive medication, or speaking with their doctors.“It does appear that people are generally finding it a useful tool,” she said.
In a pilot study, researchers found that several environmental triggers were significantly correlated with exacerbation of patient symptoms, including maximum temperature (P < .001), particulate pollution (P < .001), relative humidity (P = .01), birch pollen (P = .006), and cypress pollen (P = .004).
Researchers plan to expand use of the network and app to other parts of Australia and are working to refine the understanding of aerobiological symptom drivers through DNA analysis of airborne particles. Their goal is to be able to identify personalized drivers of sensitivities, she said.
“We’ll keep working on this,” Dr. Jones said. “But we think that certainly has promise.”
The investigators reported no financial conflicts of interest, and the study had no outside funding.
SOURCE: Jones P et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress, Abstract 270.
ORLANDO – Use of an app combining patient-reported symptoms with local environmental triggers led patients to take action to improve their health, Penny Jones, PhD, reported at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
AirRater is a smartphone app and data collection network that includes information on air particulates, daily pollen and fungi counts, temperature, and planned burn locations. Patients enter their respiratory symptoms, which are correlated with local environmental conditions, according to Dr. Jones, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Tasmania (Australia) in Hobart.
Most of the environmental data are gathered from government agencies; however, researchers collect pollen and fungi counts at their own stations.
Patients do not see the environmental data until they’ve logged in their symptoms so that their reports aren’t biased by that information, Dr. Jones said, adding that the app also sends notifications when pollen and pollutant levels are high.
“It’s an environmental monitoring system coupled with a smartphone app designed to help people with allergies and asthma make better decisions around their health,” Dr. Jones said.
The AirRater network and app are now operating in both Tasmania and Canberra, Australia.
There are more than 6,000 users, and data from surveys show that it is having an effect, Dr. Jones said. About 40% of users said they have changed their behavior in some way because of information provided by the app, including staying indoors, taking preventive medication, or speaking with their doctors.“It does appear that people are generally finding it a useful tool,” she said.
In a pilot study, researchers found that several environmental triggers were significantly correlated with exacerbation of patient symptoms, including maximum temperature (P < .001), particulate pollution (P < .001), relative humidity (P = .01), birch pollen (P = .006), and cypress pollen (P = .004).
Researchers plan to expand use of the network and app to other parts of Australia and are working to refine the understanding of aerobiological symptom drivers through DNA analysis of airborne particles. Their goal is to be able to identify personalized drivers of sensitivities, she said.
“We’ll keep working on this,” Dr. Jones said. “But we think that certainly has promise.”
The investigators reported no financial conflicts of interest, and the study had no outside funding.
SOURCE: Jones P et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress, Abstract 270.
ORLANDO – Use of an app combining patient-reported symptoms with local environmental triggers led patients to take action to improve their health, Penny Jones, PhD, reported at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
AirRater is a smartphone app and data collection network that includes information on air particulates, daily pollen and fungi counts, temperature, and planned burn locations. Patients enter their respiratory symptoms, which are correlated with local environmental conditions, according to Dr. Jones, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Tasmania (Australia) in Hobart.
Most of the environmental data are gathered from government agencies; however, researchers collect pollen and fungi counts at their own stations.
Patients do not see the environmental data until they’ve logged in their symptoms so that their reports aren’t biased by that information, Dr. Jones said, adding that the app also sends notifications when pollen and pollutant levels are high.
“It’s an environmental monitoring system coupled with a smartphone app designed to help people with allergies and asthma make better decisions around their health,” Dr. Jones said.
The AirRater network and app are now operating in both Tasmania and Canberra, Australia.
There are more than 6,000 users, and data from surveys show that it is having an effect, Dr. Jones said. About 40% of users said they have changed their behavior in some way because of information provided by the app, including staying indoors, taking preventive medication, or speaking with their doctors.“It does appear that people are generally finding it a useful tool,” she said.
In a pilot study, researchers found that several environmental triggers were significantly correlated with exacerbation of patient symptoms, including maximum temperature (P < .001), particulate pollution (P < .001), relative humidity (P = .01), birch pollen (P = .006), and cypress pollen (P = .004).
Researchers plan to expand use of the network and app to other parts of Australia and are working to refine the understanding of aerobiological symptom drivers through DNA analysis of airborne particles. Their goal is to be able to identify personalized drivers of sensitivities, she said.
“We’ll keep working on this,” Dr. Jones said. “But we think that certainly has promise.”
The investigators reported no financial conflicts of interest, and the study had no outside funding.
SOURCE: Jones P et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress, Abstract 270.
REPORTING FROM THE AAAAI/WAO JOINT CONGRESS
Key clinical point: A smartphone app has been developed to collect patient allergy and asthma symptoms and fuse that information with environmental data to find correlations.
Major finding: About 40% of app users said information provided by the app prompted them to take preventive action.
Study details: A survey of 6,000 app users and a retrospective study correlating reported allergy and asthma symptoms with real-time environmental data.
Disclosures: The investigators reported no financial conflicts of interest, and the study had no outside funding.
Source: Jones P et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress, Abstract 270.
‘Modified rush’ immunotherapy delivers good results
ORLANDO – Patients with allergic rhinitis undergoing allergen immunotherapy achieved the goal of their monthly maintenance dose at a 20% higher rate when they underwent went a “modified rush” protocol, compared with those who received the therapy with the much slower conventional approach.
The findings offer proof that the faster approach is safe, more effective, and should be more widely used even though many allergists continue to be hesitant to do so, according to Christine Schafer, MD, clinical assistant professor at Michigan State University, East Lansing and a private practice allergist in Grand Rapids, Mich.
“The beauty of it is you’ve consolidated 3 months into a day,” said Dr. Schafer, who added that patients also feel better faster. “They don’t have to have this going every week for 3 months not feeling any better.”
Dr. Schafer and her colleagues reviewed a year’s worth of results for patients undergoing conventional immunotherapy or a “modified rush” protocol in 2014. They found that the conventional approach produced a 64.5% success rate, compared with an 84.4% success rate for those doing the faster protocol (P less than .001).
Typically, allergen immunotherapy takes 6 months, with patients making weekly visits with gradually increasing doses. The weekly visits can be a burden, and many patients drop out. The modified rush protocol seems to be easier for patients to accomplish, Dr. Schafer said at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
The study compared 231 patients on the faster protocol with 392 treated with the traditional approach.
On the “modified rush” protocol, patients aged 12-15 years took preventive medications – 20 mg of prednisone and 150 mg of ranitidine 2 days before their appointment and again the day after. In addition, they took 10 mg of cetirizine and 5 mg of montelukast 2 days before their appointment. Patients also took those same medications the morning of the treatment.
For patients 16 and older, the dose of prednisone was 30 mg and the dose of montelukast was 10 mg.
The protocol consisted of eight shots, starting at a more diluted dose than the conventional protocol, as an additional safety precaution. The shots were given first every 15 minutes, then every 30 minutes or an hour as the dose increases. Once the treatment was over, the dilution was 1:10, a milestone not reached until 3 months under the conventional approach.
An hour or two after the treatment, all patients received 20 mg of prednisone.
Patients resumed the normal conventional protocol after the first visit.
Reactions were rare under the “modified rush” protocol, with 6 patients experiencing flushing but nothing else, 21 with grade 1 reactions, 3 with grade 2, and no reactions worse than that. Five patients needed epinephrine.
Dr. Schafer said the approach may hold appeal because, even though it’s accelerated, there is a slower lead-in to the maintenance dose.
“If you ask allergists, ‘Do you rush?’ they’ll say, ‘No, no, no, I don’t rush. It’s too risky.’” she said. “Hence, modified rush.”
SOURCE: Schafer C et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress abstract 520.
ORLANDO – Patients with allergic rhinitis undergoing allergen immunotherapy achieved the goal of their monthly maintenance dose at a 20% higher rate when they underwent went a “modified rush” protocol, compared with those who received the therapy with the much slower conventional approach.
The findings offer proof that the faster approach is safe, more effective, and should be more widely used even though many allergists continue to be hesitant to do so, according to Christine Schafer, MD, clinical assistant professor at Michigan State University, East Lansing and a private practice allergist in Grand Rapids, Mich.
“The beauty of it is you’ve consolidated 3 months into a day,” said Dr. Schafer, who added that patients also feel better faster. “They don’t have to have this going every week for 3 months not feeling any better.”
Dr. Schafer and her colleagues reviewed a year’s worth of results for patients undergoing conventional immunotherapy or a “modified rush” protocol in 2014. They found that the conventional approach produced a 64.5% success rate, compared with an 84.4% success rate for those doing the faster protocol (P less than .001).
Typically, allergen immunotherapy takes 6 months, with patients making weekly visits with gradually increasing doses. The weekly visits can be a burden, and many patients drop out. The modified rush protocol seems to be easier for patients to accomplish, Dr. Schafer said at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
The study compared 231 patients on the faster protocol with 392 treated with the traditional approach.
On the “modified rush” protocol, patients aged 12-15 years took preventive medications – 20 mg of prednisone and 150 mg of ranitidine 2 days before their appointment and again the day after. In addition, they took 10 mg of cetirizine and 5 mg of montelukast 2 days before their appointment. Patients also took those same medications the morning of the treatment.
For patients 16 and older, the dose of prednisone was 30 mg and the dose of montelukast was 10 mg.
The protocol consisted of eight shots, starting at a more diluted dose than the conventional protocol, as an additional safety precaution. The shots were given first every 15 minutes, then every 30 minutes or an hour as the dose increases. Once the treatment was over, the dilution was 1:10, a milestone not reached until 3 months under the conventional approach.
An hour or two after the treatment, all patients received 20 mg of prednisone.
Patients resumed the normal conventional protocol after the first visit.
Reactions were rare under the “modified rush” protocol, with 6 patients experiencing flushing but nothing else, 21 with grade 1 reactions, 3 with grade 2, and no reactions worse than that. Five patients needed epinephrine.
Dr. Schafer said the approach may hold appeal because, even though it’s accelerated, there is a slower lead-in to the maintenance dose.
“If you ask allergists, ‘Do you rush?’ they’ll say, ‘No, no, no, I don’t rush. It’s too risky.’” she said. “Hence, modified rush.”
SOURCE: Schafer C et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress abstract 520.
ORLANDO – Patients with allergic rhinitis undergoing allergen immunotherapy achieved the goal of their monthly maintenance dose at a 20% higher rate when they underwent went a “modified rush” protocol, compared with those who received the therapy with the much slower conventional approach.
The findings offer proof that the faster approach is safe, more effective, and should be more widely used even though many allergists continue to be hesitant to do so, according to Christine Schafer, MD, clinical assistant professor at Michigan State University, East Lansing and a private practice allergist in Grand Rapids, Mich.
“The beauty of it is you’ve consolidated 3 months into a day,” said Dr. Schafer, who added that patients also feel better faster. “They don’t have to have this going every week for 3 months not feeling any better.”
Dr. Schafer and her colleagues reviewed a year’s worth of results for patients undergoing conventional immunotherapy or a “modified rush” protocol in 2014. They found that the conventional approach produced a 64.5% success rate, compared with an 84.4% success rate for those doing the faster protocol (P less than .001).
Typically, allergen immunotherapy takes 6 months, with patients making weekly visits with gradually increasing doses. The weekly visits can be a burden, and many patients drop out. The modified rush protocol seems to be easier for patients to accomplish, Dr. Schafer said at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization.
The study compared 231 patients on the faster protocol with 392 treated with the traditional approach.
On the “modified rush” protocol, patients aged 12-15 years took preventive medications – 20 mg of prednisone and 150 mg of ranitidine 2 days before their appointment and again the day after. In addition, they took 10 mg of cetirizine and 5 mg of montelukast 2 days before their appointment. Patients also took those same medications the morning of the treatment.
For patients 16 and older, the dose of prednisone was 30 mg and the dose of montelukast was 10 mg.
The protocol consisted of eight shots, starting at a more diluted dose than the conventional protocol, as an additional safety precaution. The shots were given first every 15 minutes, then every 30 minutes or an hour as the dose increases. Once the treatment was over, the dilution was 1:10, a milestone not reached until 3 months under the conventional approach.
An hour or two after the treatment, all patients received 20 mg of prednisone.
Patients resumed the normal conventional protocol after the first visit.
Reactions were rare under the “modified rush” protocol, with 6 patients experiencing flushing but nothing else, 21 with grade 1 reactions, 3 with grade 2, and no reactions worse than that. Five patients needed epinephrine.
Dr. Schafer said the approach may hold appeal because, even though it’s accelerated, there is a slower lead-in to the maintenance dose.
“If you ask allergists, ‘Do you rush?’ they’ll say, ‘No, no, no, I don’t rush. It’s too risky.’” she said. “Hence, modified rush.”
SOURCE: Schafer C et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress abstract 520.
REPORTING FROM AAAAI/WAO JOINT CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Completing an immunotherapy regimen on a ‘modified rush’ basis leads to better adherence.
Major finding: A total of 84.4% completed the ‘modified rush’ protocol, vs. 65.4% for the conventional protocol.
Study details: Retrospective chart review of 623 patients who received allergen immunotherapy via the conventional, 6-month approach or a modified, faster approach.
Disclosures: The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.
Source: Schafer C et al. AAAAI/WAO Joint Congress abstract 520.
Does boosting inhaled glucocorticoids avoid asthma exacerbations?
in preventing the exacerbation from occurring, according to the results of two trials in adults and children.
Presented at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization and simultaneously published in the March 3 online edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, one study explored the effect of quadrupling the inhaled glucocorticoid dose in adults and adolescents with asthma, while the other looked at quintupling the dose in children.
At 1 year, there was a significantly lower incidence of severe asthma exacerbations in the group who used the higher dose of inhaled glucocorticoids (45% vs. 52%; hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, and peak flow measures at randomization.
Researchers also saw a lower percentage of participants using systemic glucocorticoids in the quadruple-dose group compared with the normal-dose group (33% vs. 40%), and the quadruple-dose group also showed a 14% lower incidence of unscheduled health care consultations.
At the end of the 12-month follow-up, the estimated mean total dose of inhaled glucocorticoids was 385 mg in the quadruple-dose group and 328 mg in the normal-dose group.
The most common serious adverse event was hospitalization for asthma, which occurred three times in the quadruple-dose group and 18 times in the normal-dose group. However the incidence of oral candidiasis and dysphonia – both potentially treatment related – was significantly higher in the quadruple-dose group (36 events vs. 9 events).
Overall, the number needed to treat with the quadruple dose to prevent one severe asthma exacerbation was 15.
“Given the potential benefit with respect to preventing exacerbations and in view of the toxic effects of inhaled glucocorticoids and the biases that may have been introduced by the absence of blinding, individual practitioners, patients, and guideline committees will need to consider whether the magnitude of the reduction achieved is clinically meaningful,” wrote Tricia McKeever, PhD, from the department of epidemiology and public health at the University of Nottingham (United Kingdom) and her coauthors.
The second study, which was double blinded, investigated whether quintupling the dose of inhaled glucocorticoids might avoid exacerbations in children. They randomized 254 children who had mild-moderate persistent asthma and had had at least one exacerbation treated with systemic glucocorticoids in the previous year to manage “yellow zone” early warning signs with either normal dose or five times their usual dose of inhaled glucocorticoids.
The rate of severe asthma exacerbations did not differ significantly between the quintuple-dose and normal-dose groups at the 1-year follow-up (0.48 vs. 0.37; P = 0.3), nor did the time to the first severe exacerbation or the rate of emergency department or urgent care visits.
The four hospitalizations for asthma all occurred in the high-dose group. However, there was a lower growth rate seen in children in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group (5.43 cm/yr vs. 5.65 cm/yr; P = .06). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other adverse events.
However, Daniel J. Jackson, MD, and his coauthors noted that there were fewer yellow zone episodes and fewer exacerbations in both groups than they had anticipated.
“It is important to recognize that our findings are specific to school-age children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma regularly treated with daily low-dose inhaled glucocorticoids (with good adherence),” wrote Dr. Jackson from the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and his coauthors.
The first study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research. Six authors declared grants, personal fees and other funding and support from the pharmaceutical industry outside the submitted work.
The second study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Fifteen authors declared grants, personal fees and other funding from the pharmaceutical industry, as well as other private industry, outside the submitted work. Several also declared grants from organizations including the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: McKeeve T et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1714257; Jackson DJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJM0a1710988.
These two trials address the important question of whether substantial escalation of regularly used inhaled glucocorticoids prevents exacerbations if started at the first sign of deterioration, as this so-called yellow zone has long been thought the perfect time to initiate more aggressive care. However glucocorticoids have serious side effects, and there is some preclinical evidence that they may enhance viral replication
One trial shows that escalating dose in this yellow zone does not prevent exacerbations in children with the early signs of asthma instability. The second trial is more complex and more controversial, as the open-label design may have biased the outcome, and the degree of benefit is debatable.
Together, these studies suggest that high doses of inhaled glucocorticoids either do not prevent exacerbations or only do so in a small subgroup of patients with as-yet-undefined baseline and exacerbation characteristics.
Philip G. Bardin, PhD, is from the Monash Lung and Sleep Unit at the Monash University Medical Centre in Melbourne, Australia. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1800152). Dr. Bardin reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.
These two trials address the important question of whether substantial escalation of regularly used inhaled glucocorticoids prevents exacerbations if started at the first sign of deterioration, as this so-called yellow zone has long been thought the perfect time to initiate more aggressive care. However glucocorticoids have serious side effects, and there is some preclinical evidence that they may enhance viral replication
One trial shows that escalating dose in this yellow zone does not prevent exacerbations in children with the early signs of asthma instability. The second trial is more complex and more controversial, as the open-label design may have biased the outcome, and the degree of benefit is debatable.
Together, these studies suggest that high doses of inhaled glucocorticoids either do not prevent exacerbations or only do so in a small subgroup of patients with as-yet-undefined baseline and exacerbation characteristics.
Philip G. Bardin, PhD, is from the Monash Lung and Sleep Unit at the Monash University Medical Centre in Melbourne, Australia. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1800152). Dr. Bardin reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.
These two trials address the important question of whether substantial escalation of regularly used inhaled glucocorticoids prevents exacerbations if started at the first sign of deterioration, as this so-called yellow zone has long been thought the perfect time to initiate more aggressive care. However glucocorticoids have serious side effects, and there is some preclinical evidence that they may enhance viral replication
One trial shows that escalating dose in this yellow zone does not prevent exacerbations in children with the early signs of asthma instability. The second trial is more complex and more controversial, as the open-label design may have biased the outcome, and the degree of benefit is debatable.
Together, these studies suggest that high doses of inhaled glucocorticoids either do not prevent exacerbations or only do so in a small subgroup of patients with as-yet-undefined baseline and exacerbation characteristics.
Philip G. Bardin, PhD, is from the Monash Lung and Sleep Unit at the Monash University Medical Centre in Melbourne, Australia. These comments are taken from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1800152). Dr. Bardin reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work.
in preventing the exacerbation from occurring, according to the results of two trials in adults and children.
Presented at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization and simultaneously published in the March 3 online edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, one study explored the effect of quadrupling the inhaled glucocorticoid dose in adults and adolescents with asthma, while the other looked at quintupling the dose in children.
At 1 year, there was a significantly lower incidence of severe asthma exacerbations in the group who used the higher dose of inhaled glucocorticoids (45% vs. 52%; hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, and peak flow measures at randomization.
Researchers also saw a lower percentage of participants using systemic glucocorticoids in the quadruple-dose group compared with the normal-dose group (33% vs. 40%), and the quadruple-dose group also showed a 14% lower incidence of unscheduled health care consultations.
At the end of the 12-month follow-up, the estimated mean total dose of inhaled glucocorticoids was 385 mg in the quadruple-dose group and 328 mg in the normal-dose group.
The most common serious adverse event was hospitalization for asthma, which occurred three times in the quadruple-dose group and 18 times in the normal-dose group. However the incidence of oral candidiasis and dysphonia – both potentially treatment related – was significantly higher in the quadruple-dose group (36 events vs. 9 events).
Overall, the number needed to treat with the quadruple dose to prevent one severe asthma exacerbation was 15.
“Given the potential benefit with respect to preventing exacerbations and in view of the toxic effects of inhaled glucocorticoids and the biases that may have been introduced by the absence of blinding, individual practitioners, patients, and guideline committees will need to consider whether the magnitude of the reduction achieved is clinically meaningful,” wrote Tricia McKeever, PhD, from the department of epidemiology and public health at the University of Nottingham (United Kingdom) and her coauthors.
The second study, which was double blinded, investigated whether quintupling the dose of inhaled glucocorticoids might avoid exacerbations in children. They randomized 254 children who had mild-moderate persistent asthma and had had at least one exacerbation treated with systemic glucocorticoids in the previous year to manage “yellow zone” early warning signs with either normal dose or five times their usual dose of inhaled glucocorticoids.
The rate of severe asthma exacerbations did not differ significantly between the quintuple-dose and normal-dose groups at the 1-year follow-up (0.48 vs. 0.37; P = 0.3), nor did the time to the first severe exacerbation or the rate of emergency department or urgent care visits.
The four hospitalizations for asthma all occurred in the high-dose group. However, there was a lower growth rate seen in children in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group (5.43 cm/yr vs. 5.65 cm/yr; P = .06). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other adverse events.
However, Daniel J. Jackson, MD, and his coauthors noted that there were fewer yellow zone episodes and fewer exacerbations in both groups than they had anticipated.
“It is important to recognize that our findings are specific to school-age children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma regularly treated with daily low-dose inhaled glucocorticoids (with good adherence),” wrote Dr. Jackson from the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and his coauthors.
The first study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research. Six authors declared grants, personal fees and other funding and support from the pharmaceutical industry outside the submitted work.
The second study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Fifteen authors declared grants, personal fees and other funding from the pharmaceutical industry, as well as other private industry, outside the submitted work. Several also declared grants from organizations including the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: McKeeve T et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1714257; Jackson DJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJM0a1710988.
in preventing the exacerbation from occurring, according to the results of two trials in adults and children.
Presented at the joint congress of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the World Asthma Organization and simultaneously published in the March 3 online edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, one study explored the effect of quadrupling the inhaled glucocorticoid dose in adults and adolescents with asthma, while the other looked at quintupling the dose in children.
At 1 year, there was a significantly lower incidence of severe asthma exacerbations in the group who used the higher dose of inhaled glucocorticoids (45% vs. 52%; hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, and peak flow measures at randomization.
Researchers also saw a lower percentage of participants using systemic glucocorticoids in the quadruple-dose group compared with the normal-dose group (33% vs. 40%), and the quadruple-dose group also showed a 14% lower incidence of unscheduled health care consultations.
At the end of the 12-month follow-up, the estimated mean total dose of inhaled glucocorticoids was 385 mg in the quadruple-dose group and 328 mg in the normal-dose group.
The most common serious adverse event was hospitalization for asthma, which occurred three times in the quadruple-dose group and 18 times in the normal-dose group. However the incidence of oral candidiasis and dysphonia – both potentially treatment related – was significantly higher in the quadruple-dose group (36 events vs. 9 events).
Overall, the number needed to treat with the quadruple dose to prevent one severe asthma exacerbation was 15.
“Given the potential benefit with respect to preventing exacerbations and in view of the toxic effects of inhaled glucocorticoids and the biases that may have been introduced by the absence of blinding, individual practitioners, patients, and guideline committees will need to consider whether the magnitude of the reduction achieved is clinically meaningful,” wrote Tricia McKeever, PhD, from the department of epidemiology and public health at the University of Nottingham (United Kingdom) and her coauthors.
The second study, which was double blinded, investigated whether quintupling the dose of inhaled glucocorticoids might avoid exacerbations in children. They randomized 254 children who had mild-moderate persistent asthma and had had at least one exacerbation treated with systemic glucocorticoids in the previous year to manage “yellow zone” early warning signs with either normal dose or five times their usual dose of inhaled glucocorticoids.
The rate of severe asthma exacerbations did not differ significantly between the quintuple-dose and normal-dose groups at the 1-year follow-up (0.48 vs. 0.37; P = 0.3), nor did the time to the first severe exacerbation or the rate of emergency department or urgent care visits.
The four hospitalizations for asthma all occurred in the high-dose group. However, there was a lower growth rate seen in children in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group (5.43 cm/yr vs. 5.65 cm/yr; P = .06). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other adverse events.
However, Daniel J. Jackson, MD, and his coauthors noted that there were fewer yellow zone episodes and fewer exacerbations in both groups than they had anticipated.
“It is important to recognize that our findings are specific to school-age children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma regularly treated with daily low-dose inhaled glucocorticoids (with good adherence),” wrote Dr. Jackson from the department of pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and his coauthors.
The first study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research. Six authors declared grants, personal fees and other funding and support from the pharmaceutical industry outside the submitted work.
The second study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Fifteen authors declared grants, personal fees and other funding from the pharmaceutical industry, as well as other private industry, outside the submitted work. Several also declared grants from organizations including the National Institutes of Health.
SOURCE: McKeeve T et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1714257; Jackson DJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJM0a1710988.
FROM AAAAI/WAO JOINT CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Escalating the dose of inhaled glucocorticoids at the first early warnings of an asthma exacerbation may not significantly reduce the likelihood of the exacerbation occurring.
Major finding: Fifteen individuals would need to quadruple their dose of inhaled glucocorticoids to avoid one asthma exacerbation.
Data source: Two randomized, controlled trials in 1,992 adolescents and adults and 254 children with asthma.
Disclosures: The first study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research. Six authors declared grants, personal fees, and other funding and support from the pharmaceutical industry outside the submitted work. The second study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Fifteen authors declared grants, personal fees, and other funding from the pharmaceutical industry, as well as other private industry, outside the submitted work. Several also declared grants from organizations including the National Institutes of Health. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Sources: McKeeve T et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1714257; Jackson DJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJM0a1710988.