Registries as useful tools in characterization of allergic manifestations

Improving Clinical Practice Through Patient Registries in Allergy and Immunology

Patient registries are a mechanism for collecting data on allergic and immunologic diseases that provide important information on epidemiology and outcomes that can ultimately improve patient care. Key criteria for establishing effective registries include the use of a clearly defined purpose, identifying the target population and ensuring consistent data collection. Registries in allergic diseases include those for diseases such as inborn errors of immunity (IEI), food allergy, asthma and anaphylaxis, pharmacological interventions in vulnerable populations, and adverse effects of pharmacologic interventions including hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and vaccines. Important insights gained from patient registries in our field include contributions in phenotype and outcomes in IEI, the risk for adverse reactions in food-allergic patients in multiple settings, the benefits and risk of biologic medications for asthma during pregnancy, vaccine safety, and the categorization and genetic determination of risk for severe cutaneous adverse reactions to medications. Impediments to the development of clinically meaningful patient registries include the lack of funding resources for registry establishment and the quality, quantity, and consistency of available data. Despite these drawbacks, high-quality and successful registries are invaluable in informing clinical practice and improving outcomes in patients with allergic and immunological diseases.

Low agreement between Swedish national registers and parental questionnaires on allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) has been well documented using questionnaire-based studies. Here, we examine the agreement between parental-reported data during childhood with the emphasis on 12-year-olds and data from two national Swedish registers to determine whether register data on AR can supplement or replace questionnaire data.

METHODS

Data were collected from a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of children born in western Sweden in 2003. Parental questionnaires were filled out at 6 months and one, four, eight, and 12 years of age. A total of 3634 children were linked to the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register (SPDR) and the National Patient Register (NPR) using personal identity numbers. The agreement between the register and questionnaire data was estimated using Cohen's kappa with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

According to the SPDR, 9.9% (n = 360/3634) of the children were dispensed specific AR medication at 11-13 years of age compared with the 12 years questionnaire where 23% reported AR medication use during the last 12 months. The overall agreement between questionnaire and SPDR data on AR medication was slight (kappa 0.05). At 11-12 years, 1.8% (n = 65/3634) of the children received an outpatient AR diagnosis in the NPR, while 10% reported doctor-diagnosed AR in the questionnaire. The overall agreement between questionnaire and NPR data on AR diagnosis was slight (kappa 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

There was poor agreement between questionnaire and register data regarding AR and dispensed medication. Explanations could include over-the-counter drugs and diagnosis in primary care, which are not included in the registers.

Overview of registries for anaphylaxis: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to describe the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries, and to assess their contribution to improving knowledge of anaphylaxis and care of patients who experience anaphylaxis by measuring their research output.

INTRODUCTION

Structured data collection and reporting systems, such as registries, are needed to better understand the burden of anaphylaxis and to protect the growing number of patients with severe allergy. There is a need to characterize current anaphylaxis registries to identify their value in anaphylaxis surveillance, management, and research. Information synthesized in this review will provide knowledge on benefits and gaps in current registries, which may inform the implementation and global standardization of future anaphylaxis reporting systems.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review considered literature describing registries worldwide that enroll patients who have experienced anaphylaxis. Published and gray literature sources were included if they described the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries.

METHODS

This review followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched for relevant articles. Identified keywords and index terms were adapted for searches of gray literature sources, using Google advanced search functions. Only full-text studies in English were considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers conducted title and abstract screening and those that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. The full text of potentially relevant articles were retrieved; full-text screening and data extraction were also conducted by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Tables and a narrative summary were used to describe and compare the scope and features (eg, inclusion criteria, patient demographics, clinical symptoms) of the identified anaphylaxis registries, and to outline their output to assess their contribution to research and clinical practice for anaphylaxis.

RESULTS

A total of 77 full-text publications and eight gray literature sources were used to extract data. The literature search identified 19 anaphylaxis registries, with sites in 28 countries including Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Korea, and Australia. The main purposes of the identified registries were to collect clinical data for research; provide clinical support tools to improve patient care; and operate as allergen surveillance systems to protect the wider community with allergies. Differences in inclusion and health care settings exist, with 11 collecting data on anaphylaxis of any cause, two on food reactions alone, three on fatal anaphylaxis, one on perioperative anaphylaxis, and two on allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis). Five registries enroll cases in allergy centers, five in hospital settings, one in schools, and others target a combination of general practitioners, specialists in emergency departments, and other relevant hospital departments and allergy outpatient clinics. Only three registries operate under a mandatory framework. A total of 57 publications were considered research outputs from registries. All registries except two have published studies from collected data, with the greatest number of articles published from 2019 to the present. Publications mostly addressed questions regarding demographic profile, causes and cofactors, severity, fatal reactions, and gaps in management.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrated that anaphylaxis registries differ in their scope and operation, having been established for different purposes. Importantly, registries have contributed significantly to research, which has highlighted gaps in anaphylaxis management, provoking allergens, and informed targets for prevention for severe and fatal events. Beyond this, registries relay information about anaphylaxis to clinicians and regulatory bodies to improve patient care and protect the community. The ability to link registry data with other health datasets, standardization of data across registries, and incorporation of clinical care indicators to promote quality health care across the health system represent important targets for future systems.

The challenges of chronic urticaria part 1: Epidemiology, immunopathogenesis, comorbidities, quality of life, and management

This is Part 1 of an updated follow-up review of a World Allergy Organization (WAO) position paper published in 2012 on the diagnosis and treatment of urticaria and angioedema. Since 2012, there have been advances in the understanding of the pathogenesis of chronic urticaria, and greater experience with the use of biologics, such as omalizumab, in patients with severe refractory disease. For these reasons, the WAO decided to initiate an update targeted to general practitioners around the world, incorporating the most recent information on epidemiology, immunopathogenesis, comorbidities, quality of life, clinical case presentations, and the management of chronic spontaneous and chronic inducible urticaria, including urticaria in special situations such as childhood and pregnancy. A special task force of WAO experts was invited to write the different sections of the manuscript, and the final document was approved by the WAO Board of Directors. This paper is not intended to be a substitute for current national and international guidelines on the management of urticaria and angioedema but to provide an updated, simplified guidance for physicians around the world who manage patients with this common ailment.

Overview of registries for anaphylaxis: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This review will describe the scope and operational features of global registries for anaphylaxis and assess their contribution to improving knowledge and care of anaphylaxis by measuring their research output.

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of anaphylaxis is increasing around the world. Structured reporting systems, such as patient registries, are needed to better understand the burden of anaphylaxis and protect the growing number of allergic patients.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

The concept to be mapped is registries across the world that enroll patients who have experienced anaphylaxis. Published and gray literature sources will be considered if they describe the scope and operational features of anaphylaxis registries. Only full-text studies published in English will be included. There will be no date restriction.

METHODS

The JBI methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and CINAHL will be searched from inception date for relevant articles. Identified keyword and index terms will be adapted for searches of gray literature sources, using Google advanced search functions. The authors and developers of identified registries will be contacted, where possible, to obtain additional information about the development and structure of systems. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Any discrepancies will be resolved by a third reviewer. Tables and a narrative summary will be used to describe and compare the scope and features of anaphylaxis registries and outline their output to assess their contribution to research, clinical practice, and public health policy for anaphylaxis.

Latin American chronic urticaria registry (CUR) contribution to the understanding and knowledge of the disease in the region

Chronic urticaria (CU) has a widespread spectrum on causal or exacerbating factors, clinical manifestations, therapeutic response and quality of life affectation. Registries are useful tools in several real-life diagnosis and management approach.We aimed to evaluate the characteristics of CU patients living in Latin America through an original cross-sectional registry with data entered by regional allergologists.

Results

Three hundred patients were included, being 72% female, with median age of 36 years (1-85) and 20 months of CU median evolution time. The cause of CU was reported as unknown in 72% of them.Thirty-nine percent of suspected cases presented positive serology for Mycoplasma, positive autologous serum skin test (ASST) was reported in 47%, and occasional presence of thyroid or antinuclear autoantibodies and parasites. The impact of pruritus in their quality of life was moderate to severe in 60% of patients, with almost 3 out of four patients having partial or lack of urticaria control with anti-histamines.

Conclusions

Our registry provides retrospective data on the real-life assistance of a large number of patients from the region. Continuous search for associated conditions and better treatment possibilities are needed, in order to control the significant impact on quality of life and the length of disease.

Why a registry of Chronic Urticaria (CUR) is needed

Chronic urticaria (CU) has a major effect on patients’ quality of life. While there have been progressive advances regarding its pathogenesis and treatment, much remains to be done.

Registries of other chronic non-communicable diseases have shown many benefits, such as additional basic knowledge and management approaches to diabetes mellitus. Standards of care as well as diagnostic approaches can be elaborated and compared from different sites, using validated instruments. Registries in allergic diseases are also becoming well recognized, and the first registry on CU, accessible from SLaai’s webpage, includes parameters for identification, evaluation and management. In our vision, informatics strategies have the potential to improve care for chronic illnesses such as CU. The registry represents a valid instrument from which to obtain a sufficient sample size for epidemiological studies and/or clinical research planning, including feasibility and potential enrollment. It can also provide invaluable data for adapting guidelines to local populations, as well as diagnostic approaches and cost-effective interventions in the context of organizational efforts to improve patient care.