Results of an allergy educational needs questionnaire for primary care

Risk Stratification of Penicillin Allergy Labeled Children: A Cross-Sectional Study from Jordan

Background

Implementing allergy testing among children with a reported history of penicillin allergy could be challenging, particularly in developing countries with limited resources. This study screened and risk-stratified the likelihood of true penicillin allergy among children labeled with penicillin allergy in Jordan.

Methods

A web-based survey, completed by parents, assessed history, type, and severity of penicillin allergic reactions, including age at diagnosis, symptoms, time to the reaction, reaction's course and resolution, and received medical evaluation/testing. Low-risk allergic symptoms were defined as vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, itching, rash, cough, or runny nose without evidence of anaphylaxis or severe cutaneous reactions.

Results

A total of 530 parents of "penicillin allergy"-labeled children completed the survey. Of these, 86.4% reported allergic reactions to penicillin and 13.6% reported avoidance of penicillin due to family history. Among the former, 52.2% were male, 67.3% were three years old or younger when the reported reaction was established, and 68.3% experienced exclusively low-risk symptoms. Overall, skin rash was the most reported symptom (86.0%). High-risk symptoms were reported in 31.5% of children. About two-thirds (64.0%) of children were reported to have experienced symptoms after the first exposure to penicillin. The most common indication for antibiotic use was a throat infection (63.8%). Asthma comorbidity was significantly higher among high-risk (24.8%) compared low-risk group (11.5%).

Conclusion

In Jordan, many parent-reported penicillin allergic reactions seem to be clinically insignificant and unlikely to be verifiable, which can adversely affect patients' care and antimicrobial stewardship. An appropriate clinical history/evaluation is a key step in identifying true immunoglobulin E-mediated allergic reactions and risk stratifying patients for either de-labeling those with obviously non-immune-mediated reactions or identifying candidates for direct oral challenge test.

The Definition, Classification, and History of Urticaria

The term "urticaria" was first introduced by William Cullen in the eighteenth century. Urticaria is a common mast cell-mediated cutaneous disease presenting with pruritic wheals, angioedema, or both. It is classified as acute (≤6 weeks) or chronic (>6 weeks) and as spontaneous (no definite triggers) or inducible (definite and subtype-specific triggers). The international urticaria guideline on the definition, classification, diagnosis, and management of urticaria is revised every 4 years. The global network of Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence, the biggest and most active consortium of urticaria specialists, offers physicians and patients several research, educational, and digital care initiatives.

Editorial comments on "Global assessment of the knowledge and confidence in managing allergic disorders among primary care pediatricians across Europe: An EAACI task force report"

image

A Patient Charter for Chronic Urticaria

Chronic urticaria (CU) is the recurring development of wheals (aka "hives" or "welts"), angioedema, or both for more than 6 weeks. Wheals and angioedema occur with no definite triggers in chronic spontaneous urticaria, and in response to known and definite physical triggers in chronic inducible urticaria. Approximately 1.4% of individuals globally will have CU during their lifetime. The itching and physical discomfort associated with CU have a profound impact on daily activities, sexual function, work or school performance, and sleep, causing significant impairment in a patient's physical and mental quality of life. CU also places a financial burden on patients and healthcare systems. Patients should feel empowered to self-advocate to receive the best care. The voice of the patient in navigating the journey of CU diagnosis and management may improve patient-provider communication, thereby improving diagnosis and outcomes. A collaboration of patients, providers, advocacy organizations, and pharmaceutical representatives have created a patient charter to define the realistic and achievable principles of care that patients with CU should expect to receive. Principle (1): I deserve an accurate and timely diagnosis of my CU; Principle (2): I deserve access to specialty care for my CU; Principle (3): I deserve access to innovative treatments that reduce the burden of CU on my daily life; Principle (4): I deserve to be free of unnecessary treatment-related side-effects during the management of my CU; and Principle (5): I expect a holistic treatment approach to address all the components of my life impacted by CU. The stated principles may serve as a guide for healthcare providers who care for patients with CU and translate into better patient-physician communication. In addition, we urge policymakers and authors of CU treatment guidelines to consider these principles in their decision-making to ensure the goals of the patient are achievable.

Clinical review: The suggested management pathway for urticaria in primary care

Background

Urticaria is a common condition presenting both as acute and chronic disease within primary care. To those without specialist training it is poorly understood from the points of view of diagnosis and management. It causes a considerable disease burden to sufferers with marked impact on quality of life.

Purpose of this review

The recent publication of the EAACI/GA²LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI Guideline for the Definition, Classification, Diagnosis and Management of Urticaria guideline prompted us to take this excellent resource and re-configure its findings and recommendations to a non-specialist audience with particular reference to the needs of the primary care team.

Allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in non-specialist care: Flow diagrams to support clinical practice

Most patients presenting with allergies are first seen by primary care health professionals. The perceived knowledge gaps and educational needs were recently assessed in response to which the LOGOGRAM Task Force was established with the remit of constructing pragmatic flow diagrams for common allergic conditions in line with an earlier EAACI proposal to develop simplified pathways for the diagnosis and management of allergic diseases in primary care. To address the lack of accessible and pragmatic guidance, we designed flow diagrams for five major clinical allergy conditions: asthma, anaphylaxis, food allergy, drug allergy, and urticaria. Existing established allergy guidelines were collected and iteratively distilled to produce five pragmatic and accessible tools to aid diagnosis and management of these common allergic problems. Ultimately, they should now be validated prospectively in primary care settings.

Impact of pharmacist-led educational intervention on knowledge of self-management among asthmatic patients: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Poor control of asthma in the majority of patients could be partly due to their lack of knowledge concerning disease management, its triggering agents and when to seek advice from the healthcare provider. This study aims to assess the impact of pharmacist-led educational intervention on knowledge of self-management among asthmatic patients.

DESIGN

A pre-post cohort study.

SETTING

Outpatient department of a tertiary care hospital affiliated with Quaid-i-Azam University, Pakistan.

PARTICIPANTS

Approximately 265 adult asthmatic patients selected through a spirometry process, aged ≥18 years, were approached. 240 patients gave consent to participate in the study and were divided into control and treatment groups.

INTERVENTIONS

The educational intervention consisted of individual patient counselling using educational material with time varied according to each patient's comprehension and previous knowledge.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Assessment consisted of a 14-item Asthma Self-Management Knowledge Questionnaire (ASMQ) quantifying a patient's self-management knowledge through an ASMQ score and its change following an educational intervention.

RESULTS

Disease self-management knowledge was low with an average raw ASMQ score of 4.1 (max 14); which equates to a transformed score of 29.34 (max 100) and the proportion of patients who correctly answered more than 50% of questions were 16.7% preintervention. More than half of the participants (55%) did not know that asthma cannot be cured. The administration of educational intervention protocols resulted in significantly improved level of knowledge of asthma self-management (<0.001) in the treatment group (mean ASMQ score improved from 4.20 to 9.77).

CONCLUSION

On baseline visit, patients possessed a poor knowledge about asthma self-management. Educational intervention protocols had a positive impact on improving patients' knowledge about disease self-management. This would suggest that education and self-management skills should be seen as an integral component of asthma management and should be incorporated in structured patient care to achieve optimal asthma control.

Current allergy educational needs in primary care. Results of the EAACI working group on primary care survey exploring the confidence to manage and the opportunity to refer patients with allergy

The aim of this survey was to explore the specific educational needs of a cohort of European GPs with regards to allergy training so that future educational initiatives may better support the delivery of allergy services in primary care.

METHOD

This study took the form of a cross-sectional observational study in which a structured electronic questionnaire was distributed to primary care providers, in eight languages, across 8 European countries between September 2019 and November 2019. Data associated with demographic parameters, professional qualifications, type of employment, level of confidence regarding competencies for diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases, referral of patients to allergist and preferred method of learning and assessment were collected. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess level of confidence. Exploratory analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 687 responses were available for analysis, with 99.3% of responders working within Europe. 70.1% of participants were female; and 48.0% and 48.0% of participants respectively had received some undergraduate and/or postgraduate allergy education. Confidence in dealing with different aspect of allergy management differed between countries. The main reason for specialist referral was a perceived need for tertiary assessment (54.3%), and the main barrier for referral was the consideration that the patient's condition could be appropriately diagnosed and treated in a primary care facility. Up to 44.7% and 55.3% of participants reported that they preferred e-Learning over traditional learning.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the specific areas of skills training and educational needs of GPs in managing allergic conditions in primary care, and provided insights into possible strategies for more feasible and cost-effective approaches.

Usefulness of the drug allergy passport in the drug allergy management

Introduction

Nowadays, the number of people with drug hypersensitivity has been increasing and it has become a major problem for the healthcare system. Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of which medications they can safely use.

Aim

To assess the suitability of a drug allergy passport in patients with drug hypersensitivity in order to increase knowledge about medicines that can be safely used.

Material and methods

The study was conducted in 54 hospitalized patients with confirmed hypersensitivity to drugs by issuing a drug passport at discharge. The study was carried out with the questionnaire method. The questionnaire was conducted by phone 3, 6 and 12 months after the patients received the drug passport.

Results

Fifty-eight people were contacted by phone. The survey was conducted in 54 people (42 women (77%), mean age: 48, range: 19-71), which gives a response rate of 98%. The application of the drug allergy passport by patients increased with time and the number of patients who did not use their passport decreased. With time, patients showed the drug allergy passport to a larger number of doctors, most often to general practitioners and dentists. In the following months, the number of doctors who followed passport recommendations and patients who adhered to the passport recommendations increased.

Conclusions

The analysis of drug allergy passport shows that patients are better informed about medicines they can use and have a greater sense of security. By showing the passport to specialists, they choose the safest and adequate treatment.

A study to assess current approaches of allergists in European countries diagnosing and managing children and adolescents with peanut allergy

RATIONALE

Food allergy is documented to result in considerable morbidity, negative impact on quality of life, and substantial medical care costs. Although anecdotal data suggest widely varying practices in the diagnosis and management of food allergies, the diversity and relative frequency of these practices have not been documented.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed evaluating allergists' management approaches of individuals with peanut allergy (PA) in Germany (DE), France (FR), and the United Kingdom (UK).

RESULTS

Here, we report the survey results from a total of 109 allergists from DE, FR and the UK. They reported to confirm PA at initial diagnosis using skin prick test (≥60%), while allergists from DE and FR reported using allergen-specific IgE testing more (>86%) compared to the UK (<50%). At initial diagnosis, oral food challenge was used less in DE (13%) and FR (14%) and very rarely in the UK (3%) to confirm diagnosis. Recognition of acute reactions, use of adrenaline auto-injectors and allergen avoidance were reported to be discussed with the patient/caregiver at the initial office visit by most allergists (>75%). Half of the responders reported assessing the patient's quality of life. 63% allergists reported retesting for PA resolution at a later date, with 45% allergists indicated to recommend ingestion of a normal serving of peanut regularly upon resolution. Lack of effective PA treatment was reported to be a 'very significant' barrier for optimal PA treatment, with allergists being less than 'moderately familiar' with data from clinical trials testing new treatments options for PA. Lastly, allergists stated that the severity of patient's PA ranked as the most important factor in their decision to recommend oral immunotherapy for PA treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides essential insights into the practice of allergists and highlights some areas that would inform strategies for education and improving PA healthcare.

The Potential of Clinical Decision Support Systems for Prevention, Diagnosis, and Monitoring of Allergic Diseases

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) aid health care professionals (HCP) in evaluating large sets of information and taking informed decisions during their clinical routine. CDSS are becoming particularly important in the perspective of precision medicine, when HCP need to consider growing amounts of data to create precise patient profiles for personalized diagnosis, treatment and outcome monitoring. In allergy care, several CDSS are being developed and investigated, mainly for respiratory allergic diseases. Although the proposed solutions address different stakeholders, the majority aims at facilitating evidence-based and shared decision-making, incorporating guidelines, and real-time clinical data. We offer here an overview on existing tools, new developments and novel concepts and discuss the potential of digital CDSS in improving prevention, diagnosis and monitoring of allergic diseases.

Development of algorithms for the diagnosis and management of acute allergy in primary practice

Most patients presenting with allergies are first seen in the primary care setting. However, inadequacies in training and available guidance for general practitioners (GP) have been identified as significantly impacting the quality of care for these patients, resulting in inefficient use of healthcare resources. To address the lack of available guidance, a working group of French allergists has developed a series of online tools aimed at GPs. The expert panel developed algorithms for the diagnosis and treatment of common allergies by incorporating deliberations based on clinical guidelines and experience. In addition, they developed tables of common symptoms and detailed clinical cases that guide GPs through the typical decisions they are faced with in line with current best practice. These tools translate evidence-based recommendations from international clinical guidelines, outlining the key steps involved and assisting the physician in making decisions at each step. In addition to targeting improvements in diagnosis and standard of primary care, the tools also aim to reduce the burden on specialist allergy services by enabling GPs to diagnose and treat mild and moderate allergies, referring only severe and/or atypical cases to secondary care. The tools are adapted to the high primary care workload, enabling the physician to access essential information rapidly without unnecessary referrals to specialist allergy services.

A patient-centric analysis to identify key influences in allergic rhinitis management

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is increasingly becoming a patient self-managed disease. Just under 70% of patients purchasing pharmacotherapy self-select their treatment with no health-care professional intervention often resulting in poor choices, leading to suboptimal management and increased burden of AR on the individual and the community. However, no decision is made without external, influencing forces. This study aims to determine the key influences driving patients’ decision-making around AR management. To accomplish this aim, we utilised a social network theory framework to map the patient’s AR network and identify the strength of the influences within this network. Adults who reported having AR were interviewed and completed an AR network map and AR severity and quality of life questionnaires. Forty one people with AR completed the study. The AR networks of the participants had a range of 1–11 influences (alters), with an average number of 4 and a median of 5. The larger the impact of AR on their quality of life, the greater the number of alters within their network. The three most commonly identified alters were, general practitioners, pharmacists and the participants’ ‘own experience’. The strength of the influence of health-care professionals (HCPs) was varied. The proportion of HCPs within the AR network increased as the impact of AR on their quality of life increased. By mapping the AR network, this study demonstrated that there are multiple influences behind patient’s decisions regarding AR management but the role of the HCP cannot be dismissed.

In-depth interviews with allergy sufferers about their treatment decisions highlights a need for healthcare professionals to help optimize allergy management. Allergic rhinitis (AR), a set of conditions including hayfever, is often poorly managed by patients, partly due to the growing availability of over-the-counter medications. However, little is known about what influences patients’ self-management decisions. Biljana Cvetkovski at the University of Sydney, Australia, and co-workers interviewed 41 adults with AR. The participants also completed quality of life questionnaires and created network maps of key influencers. Cvetkovski found that patients followed many different influences when making treatment decisions, including online resources, family, friends and healthcare professionals. Three of the key influencers were general practitioners, pharmacists and patients’ own experience. Those with severe AR had a larger, more diverse network of influences and often reported treatment fatigue.

Parental confusion may result when primary health care professionals show heterogeneity in their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding infant nutrition, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Whether the guidelines on infant nutrition, food allergy and atopic dermatitis confer real health benefits in practice at the population level has not been deeply studied. We aimed here to characterize the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions regarding these issues among primary health care professionals. In addition, we surveyed available parent-reported information sources and the incidence of food-related symptoms, dietary restrictions, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis among one-year-old children in the general population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online questionnaire was designed for public health nurses and general practitioners. In addition, parents of one-year-old children were recruited to a separate survey at the time of their regular check-up visit.

RESULTS

Altogether, 80 professionals took part. The median overall knowledge score was 77% and significantly higher among the general practitioners than among the nurses (p=0.004). However, only 35% of all the professionals recognized either severe airway or cardiovascular symptoms as potential food allergy-related symptoms. Moisturizers and emollients were thought to be adequate treatment for atopic dermatitis by 56%. Among 248 one-year-old children, the incidence of food allergy was 4% and atopic dermatitis 13%. During this period, parents intentionally avoided giving at least one food to 23% of the children, yet more than 80% of these restrictions can be regarded as unnecessary.

CONCLUSION

The knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding infant feeding, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis varied significantly among the primary care professionals. This will likely result in heterogeneous guidance practices and confusion among the families at the population level.

The feasibility of an allergy management support system (AMSS) for IgE-mediated allergy in primary care

Background

The allergy management support system (AMSS) was developed to assist general practitioners (GPs) to handle the increasing burden of allergic diseases and facilitates the diagnosis and management of allergy. The aim of this cluster-randomized controlled pilot study was to test the feasibility of this AMSS for primary care.

Methods

GPs received diagnostic and management recommendations generated by the AMSS in addition to sIgE-test results (intervention) or GPs received sIgE-test results only (control). The AMSS recommendations are based on the previously developed patient-completed AMSS questionnaire and sIgE-test results. The AMSS was considered feasible when > 70% of the AMSS recommendations were sent to the GP within ten working days of sIgE-testing. GPs completed a questionnaire on their diagnosis and management before (T1) and after (T2) receiving sIgE test results. Agreement and disagreement concerning diagnosis, medication and referrals between GPs and AMSS was investigated at T1 and T2. A total agreement score between GPs and AMSS was calculated. GPs in the intervention group completed a questionnaire to evaluate the utility of the AMSS. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore the motivation of GPs who did not include patients in this pilot study.

Results

Twenty-seven GPs included 101 patients. Forty-two patients (72%) completed the AMSS questionnaire in the intervention group. The majority of the AMSS recommendations (93%) were returned to the GP within 10 working days after sIgE-test results were known [mean (SD) 4.7 (4.0) working days]. GPs in the intervention group reported largely following the AMSS recommendations in 71% of cases. The total agreement scores concerning diagnosis were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the intervention group than the control group [mean (SD); 0.9 (1.8) vs − 0.8 (1.0)]. The agreement concerning medication or referral between GPs and AMSS did not differ between the intervention and the control group. GPs in the intervention group were reasonably positive about the AMSS. Not enrolling patients was not caused by anticipated ineffectiveness of the AMSS.

Conclusion

The AMSS can be considered to be feasible for primary care. GPs tend to follow the AMSS recommendations. The AMSS may contribute to the empowerment of GPs to better manage allergy patients in primary care.

Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN36780877. Registered 23 November 2017 (retrospectively registered)

An EAACI task force report: recognising the potential of the primary care physician in the diagnosis and management of drug hypersensitivity

Adverse drug reactions include drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs), which can be immunologically mediated (allergy) or non-immunologically mediated. The high number of DHRs that are unconfirmed and often self-reported is a frequent problem in daily clinical practice, with considerable impact on future prescription choices and patient health. It is important to distinguish between hypersensitivity and non-hypersensitivity reactions by adopting a structured diagnostic approach to confirm or discard the suspected drug, not only to avoid life-threatening reactions, but also to reduce the frequent over-diagnosis of DHRs. Primary care physicians are often the first point of contact for the sufferer of a reaction, as such they have a key role in deciding whether to discard the diagnosis or send the patient for further investigation. In this review, we highlight the importance of diagnosing DHRs, analysing in detail the role of primary care physicians. We describe the common patterns of DHRs and signs of its progression, as well as the indications and contraindications for referring the patient to an allergist. The diagnostic process is described and the possible tests are discussed, which often depend on the drug involved and the type of DHR suspected. We also describe recommendations regarding the avoidance of medication suspected to have caused the reaction and the use of alternatives.

Challenges in the implementation of the EAACI AIT guidelines: A situational analysis of current provision of allergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has produced Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT). We sought to gauge the preparedness of primary care to participate in the delivery of AIT in Europe.

METHODS

We undertook a mixed-methods, situational analysis. This involved a purposeful literature search and two surveys: one to primary care clinicians and the other to a wider group of stakeholders across Europe.

RESULTS

The 10 papers identified all pointed out gaps or deficiencies in allergy care provision in primary care. The surveys also highlighted similar concerns, particularly in relation to concerns about lack of knowledge, skills, infrastructural weaknesses, reimbursement policies and communication with specialists as barriers to evidence-based care. Almost all countries (92%) reported the availability of AIT. In spite of that, only 28% and 44% of the countries reported the availability of guidelines for primary care physicians and specialists, respectively. Agreed pathways between specialists and primary care physicians were reported as existing in 32%-48% of countries. Reimbursement appeared to be an important barrier as AIT was only fully reimbursed in 32% of countries. Additionally, 44% of respondents considered accessibility to AIT and 36% stating patient costs were barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful working with primary care providers is essential to scaling-up AIT provision in Europe, but to achieve this, the identified barriers must be overcome. Development of primary care interpretation of guidelines to aid patient selection, establishment of disease management pathways and collaboration with specialist groups are required as a matter of urgency.