A review of non-pharmacological and pharmacological management of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

Allergic eye disease encompasses a group of hypersensitivity disorders which primarily affect the conjunctiva and its prevalence is increasing. It is estimated to affect 8% of patients attending optometric practice but is poorly managed and rarely involves ophthalmic assessment. Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is the most common form of allergic eye disease (90%), followed by perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC; 5%). Both are type 1 IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions where mast cells play an important role in pathophysiology. The signs and symptoms are similar but SAC occurs periodically whereas PAC occurs year round. Despite being a relatively mild condition, the effects on the quality of life can be profound and therefore they demand attention. Primary management of SAC and PAC involves avoidance strategies depending on the responsible allergen(s) to prevent the hypersensitivity reaction. Cooled tear supplements and cold compresses may help bring relief. Pharmacological agents may become necessary as it is not possible to completely avoid the allergen(s). There are a wide range of anti-allergic medications available, such as mast cell stabilisers, antihistamines and dual-action agents. Severe cases refractory to conventional treatment require anti-inflammatories, immunomodulators or immunotherapy. Additional qualifications are required to gain access to these medications, but entry-level optometrists must offer advice and supportive therapy. Based on current evidence, the efficacy of anti-allergic medications appears equivocal so prescribing should relate to patient preference, dosing and cost. More studies with standardised methodologies are necessary elicit the most effective anti-allergic medications but those with dual-actions are likely to be first line agents.

A systematic review of treatments for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a very common inflammatory skin disease, particularly in children. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) was carried out to assess how many trials exist, what they cover, what they do not cover, the research gaps, provide a 'blue print' for future Cochrane Reviews and assist those making treatment recommendations by summarising the available RCT evidence, using descriptive statistics. The Cochrane Collaboration systematic review process formed the basis of the methodology, from which over 4000 studies were located via electronic database searches and hand searching of journals. A total of 292 trials were finally included covering 9 treatment groups and over 48 individual treatments. There are lots of trials covering lots of interventions but gaps are evident. However, there is evidence of a benefit in the treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical corticosteroids, psychological approaches, UV light, ascomycin derivatives, topical tacrolimus and oral cyclosporin. Treatments that show limited evidence of a benefit include non-sedatory antihistamines, topical doxepin, the oral antibiotic Cefadroxil on clinically infected AD, the topical antibacterial Mupirocin on clinically uninfected AD, Chinese herbs, hypnotherapy and biofeedback, massage therapy, dietary manipulation, house dust mite reduction, patient education, emollients, allergen antibody complexes of house dust mite and thymic extracts. Treatments that show no evidence of benefit include sedatory antihistamines, oral sodium cromoglycate, oral antibiotics on clinically uninfected AD, topical antibacterials, topical antifungals, aromatherapy essential oils, borage oil, fish oil, evening primrose oil, enzyme-free clothes detergent, cotton clothing, house dust mite hyposensitisation, salt baths, topical coal tar, topical cyclosporin and platelet-activating-factor antagonist. When interpreting the conclusions of this thesis it is important to understand that lack of evidence does not equal lack of efficacy, particularly considering the interventions that are commonly in use today to treat atopic dermatitis that have not been subjected to RCTs, such as occlusive dressings, water softening devices and stress management among many others.

Specialist contact lens fitting

What is meant by the term ‘specialist contact lens fitting’? Or put another way, what would be considered non-specialist contact lens fitting? Is there such a thing as routine contact lens fitting? Soft or silicone hydrogel fitting for daily wear would probably be considered as routine contact lens fitting, but would extended or flexible wear remain in the same category or would they be considered a specialist fit? Different eras will classify different products as being ‘specialist’. Certainly twenty years ago soft toric contact lenses were considered as being speciality lenses but today would be thought of as routine lenses. Conversely, gas permeable lenses were thought of as mainstream twenty years ago but now are considered as speciality lenses. Although this would not be the same globally, as in some countries (such as Netherlands, France and Japan) gas permeable lens fitting remains popular and is not on the decline as in other countries (Canada, Australia and Sweden) [1]. Bandage soft lenses applied after surface laser refractive procedures would be considered as therapeutic lenses but in reality they are just plano thin hydrogel lenses worn constantly for 3–4 days to allow the underlying epithelium to convalesce and are then removed [2]. Some patients find that wearing hydrogel lenses during periods when they suffer from seasonal allergies actually improves their ocular comfort as the contact lens acts as a barrier to the allergen [3] and [4]. Scleral lenses have long been considered speciality lenses, apart from a time when they were the only lenses available but at that time all contact lens work would have been considered speciality practice! Nowadays we see the advent of mini-scleral designs and we see large diameter gas permeable lenses too. It is possible that these lenses increase the popularity of gas permeable lenses again and they become more main stream. So it would seem that the lines between routine and speciality contact lens fitting are not clear. Whether a lens is classed a specialist fit or not would depend on the lens type, why it was fitted, where in the world the fitting was being done and even the era in which it was fitted. This begs the question as to what would be considered entry level knowledge in contact lens fitting. This may not be an issue for most BCLA members or CLAE readers but certainly would be for bodies such as the College of Optometrists (UK) or the Association of British Dispensing Opticians when they are planning the final registration examinations for budding practitioners or when planning the level of higher level qualifications such as College Certificates or Diplomas. Similarly for training institutions when they are planning their course content. This becomes even trickier when trying to devise a qualification that spans across many countries, like the European Diploma in Optometry and Optics. How do we know if the training and examination level is correct? One way would be to analyse things when they go wrong and if patterns of malpractice are seen then maybe that could be used as an indicator to more training being needed. There were 162 Fitness to Practice Hearing at the General Optical Council between 2001 and 2010. Forty-seven of these were clinically related case, 39 fraud related, and 76 others. Of the clinical ones only 3 were contact lens related. So it would appear that as whole, in the profession, contact lens clinical skills are not being questioned too often (although it seems a few of us can’t keep our hands out the cookie jar!).

A review of non-pharmacological and pharmacological management of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis

Allergic eye disease encompasses a group of hypersensitivity disorders which primarily affect the conjunctiva and its prevalence is increasing. It is estimated to affect 8% of patients attending optometric practice but is poorly managed and rarely involves ophthalmic assessment. Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is the most common form of allergic eye disease (90%), followed by perennial allergic conjunctivitis (PAC; 5%). Both are type 1 IgE mediated hypersensitivity reactions where mast cells play an important role in pathophysiology. The signs and symptoms are similar but SAC occurs periodically whereas PAC occurs year round. Despite being a relatively mild condition, the effects on the quality of life can be profound and therefore they demand attention. Primary management of SAC and PAC involves avoidance strategies depending on the responsible allergen(s) to prevent the hypersensitivity reaction. Cooled tear supplements and cold compresses may help bring relief. Pharmacological agents may become necessary as it is not possible to completely avoid the allergen(s). There are a wide range of anti-allergic medications available, such as mast cell stabilisers, antihistamines and dual-action agents. Severe cases refractory to conventional treatment require anti-inflammatories, immunomodulators or immunotherapy. Additional qualifications are required to gain access to these medications, but entry-level optometrists must offer advice and supportive therapy. Based on current evidence, the efficacy of anti-allergic medications appears equivocal so prescribing should relate to patient preference, dosing and cost. More studies with standardised methodologies are necessary elicit the most effective anti-allergic medications but those with dual-actions are likely to be first line agents. © 2011 British Contact Lens Association.

AllerTOP v.2 - a server for in silico prediction of allergens

Allergy is an overreaction by the immune system to a previously encountered, ordinarily harmless substance - typically proteins - resulting in skin rash, swelling of mucous membranes, sneezing or wheezing, or other abnormal conditions. The use of modified proteins is increasingly widespread: their presence in food, commercial products, such as washing powder, and medical therapeutics and diagnostics, makes predicting and identifying potential allergens a crucial societal issue. The prediction of allergens has been explored widely using bioinformatics, with many tools being developed in the last decade; many of these are freely available online. Here, we report a set of novel models for allergen prediction utilizing amino acid E-descriptors, auto- and cross-covariance transformation, and several machine learning methods for classification, including logistic regression (LR), decision tree (DT), naïve Bayes (NB), random forest (RF), multilayer perceptron (MLP) and k nearest neighbours (kNN). The best performing method was kNN with 85.3% accuracy at 5-fold cross-validation. The resulting model has been implemented in a revised version of the AllerTOP server (http://www.ddg-pharmfac.net/AllerTOP). © Springer-Verlag 2014.

AllerTOP - a server for in silico prediction of allergens

Background: Allergy is a form of hypersensitivity to normally innocuous substances, such as dust, pollen, foods or drugs. Allergens are small antigens that commonly provoke an IgE antibody response. There are two types of bioinformatics-based allergen prediction. The first approach follows FAO/WHO Codex alimentarius guidelines and searches for sequence similarity. The second approach is based on identifying conserved allergenicity-related linear motifs. Both approaches assume that allergenicity is a linearly coded property. In the present study, we applied ACC pre-processing to sets of known allergens, developing alignment-independent models for allergen recognition based on the main chemical properties of amino acid sequences.Results: A set of 684 food, 1,156 inhalant and 555 toxin allergens was collected from several databases. A set of non-allergens from the same species were selected to mirror the allergen set. The amino acids in the protein sequences were described by three z-descriptors (z1, z2 and z3) and by auto- and cross-covariance (ACC) transformation were converted into uniform vectors. Each protein was presented as a vector of 45 variables. Five machine learning methods for classification were applied in the study to derive models for allergen prediction. The methods were: discriminant analysis by partial least squares (DA-PLS), logistic regression (LR), decision tree (DT), naïve Bayes (NB) and k nearest neighbours (kNN). The best performing model was derived by kNN at k = 3. It was optimized, cross-validated and implemented in a server named AllerTOP, freely accessible at http://www.pharmfac.net/allertop. AllerTOP also predicts the most probable route of exposure. In comparison to other servers for allergen prediction, AllerTOP outperforms them with 94% sensitivity.Conclusions: AllerTOP is the first alignment-free server for in silico prediction of allergens based on the main physicochemical properties of proteins. Significantly, as well allergenicity AllerTOP is able to predict the route of allergen exposure: food, inhalant or toxin. © 2013 Dimitrov et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Is there a role for telemedicine in adult allergy services?

Telemedicine refers to the application of telecommunication and information technology (IT) in the delivery of health and clinical care at a distance or remotely and can be broadly considered in two modalities: store-and-forward and real-time interactive services. Preliminary studies have shown promising results in radiology, dermatology, intensive care, diabetes, rheumatology and primary care. However, the evidence is limited and hampered by small sample sizes, paucity of randomised controlled studies and lack of data relating to cost-effectiveness, health related quality of life and patient and clinician satisfaction. This review appraises the evidence from studies that have employed telemedicine tools in other disciplines and makes suggestions for its potential applications in specific clinical scenarios in adult allergy services. Possible examples include: triaging patients to determine the need for allergy tests; pre-assessment for specialised treatments such as allergen immunotherapy; follow up to assess treatment response and side effects; and education in self-management plan including training updates for self-injectable adrenaline and nasal spray use. This approach might improve access for those with limited mobility or living far away from regional centres, as well as bringing convenience and cost savings for the patient and service provider. These potential benefits need to be carefully weighed against evidence of service safety and quality. Keys to success include delineation of appropriate clinical scenarios, patient selection, training, IT support and robust information governance framework. Well-designed prospective studies are needed to evaluate its role. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

'Their tummys don't really suit that food':children and young teenagers understanding of food allergy

Background: Food allergy (FA) is aunique chronic condition as sufferers aregenerally well unless they accidentally ingest an allergen, whereupon symptoms can be life threatening. A good under-standing of the condition is essential forsuccessful self-management, however little is known about children and young teenagers' understanding. This study aimed toexplore understanding of FA in childrenwith and without FA and whether under-standing changes as children get older.Method: Participants aged 6–14 years (53with FA; 89 without), recruited from loc evidence of a prospective associationbetween maternal, perinatal or infant VDIand subsequent IgE-mediated FA schools and allergy clinics took part insemi-structured interviews; data were analysed using thematic analysis.Results: Three themes were identified fromthe data across the different age groups andallergy statuses: food allergy as a sickness, food allergy as an illness and food allergy asintolerance to food. Children aged 6–8 years described FA as a sickness; you were not allowed the food because it makes youpoorly. Children aged 9–11 years also talked about FA as something that makesyou poorly, but many also described it as anillness and understood that symptoms were caused by food. Children aged 12–14 yearsdescribed it as an intolerance or that FA was your body's response to a particularfood. These age-related differences wereseen in children with and without FA. Conclusion: Although sophistication ofknowledge of FA increases with age, it is still a little understood condition by chil-dren and young teenagers. Clear, age-re-lated information about food allergy andhow it should be managed is needed forthose with and without allergy, to avoidmisunderstanding, and aid awareness andbetter self-management of the condition