Introduction The COVID‐19 pandemic dramatically disrupts health care around the globe. The impact of the pandemic on chronic urticaria (CU) and its management are largely unknown. Aim To understand how CU patients are affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic; how specialists alter CU patient management; and the course of CU in patients with COVID‐19. Materials and Methods Our cross‐sectional, international, questionnaire‐based, multicenter UCARE COVID‐CU study assessed the impact of the pandemic on patient consultations, remote treatment, changes in medications, and clinical consequences. Results The COVID‐19 pandemic severely impairs CU patient care, with less than 50% of the weekly numbers of patients treated as compared to before the pandemic. Reduced patient referrals and clinic hours were the major reasons. Almost half of responding UCARE physicians were involved in COVID‐19 patient care, which negatively impacted on the care of urticaria patients. The rate of face‐to‐face consultations decreased by 62%, from 90% to less than half, whereas the rate of remote consultations increased by more than 600%, from one in 10 to more than two thirds. Cyclosporine and systemic corticosteroids, but not antihistamines or omalizumab, are used less during the pandemic. CU does not affect the course of COVID‐19, but COVID‐19 results in CU exacerbation in one of three patients, with higher rates in patients with severe COVID‐19. Conclusions The COVID‐19 pandemic brings major changes and challenges for CU patients and their physicians. The long‐term consequences of these changes, especially the increased use of remote consultations, require careful evaluation.
Background Chronic urticaria (CU) is characterized by itchy recurrent wheals, angioedema, or both for 6 weeks or longer. CU can greatly impact patients' physical and emotional quality of life. Patients with chronic conditions are increasingly seeking information from information and communications technologies (ICTs) to manage their health. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of usage and preference of ICTs from the perspective of patients with CU. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 1800 patients were recruited from primary healthcare centers, university hospitals or specialized clinics that form part of the UCARE (Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence) network throughout 16 countries. Patients were >12 years old and had physician-diagnosed chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) or chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU). Patients completed a 23-item questionnaire containing questions about ICT usage, including the type, frequency, preference, and quality, answers to which were recorded in a standardized database at each center. For analysis, ICTs were categorized into 3 groups as follows: one-to-one: SMS, WhatsApp, Skype, and email; one-to-many: YouTube, web browsers, and blogs or forums; many-to-many: Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Results Overall, 99.6% of CU patients had access to ICT platforms and 96.7% had internet access. Daily, 85.4% patients used one-to-one ICT platforms most often, followed by one-to-many ICTs (75.5%) and many-to-many ICTs (59.2%). The daily ICT usage was highest for web browsers (72.7%) and WhatsApp (70.0%). The general usage of ICT platforms increased in patients with higher levels of education. One-to-many was the preferred ICT category for obtaining general health information (78.3%) and for CU-related information (75.4%). A web browser (77.6%) was by far the most commonly used ICT to obtain general health information, followed by YouTube (25.8%) and Facebook (16.3%). Similarly, for CU-specific information, 3 out of 4 patients (74.6%) used a web browser, 20.9% used YouTube, and 13.6% used Facebook. One in 5 (21.6%) patients did not use any form of ICT for obtaining information on CU. The quality of the information obtained from one-to-many ICTs was rated much more often as very interesting and of good quality for general health information (53.5%) and CU-related information (51.5%) as compared to the other categories. Conclusions Usage of ICTs for health and CU-specific information is extremely high in all countries analyzed, with web browsers being the preferred ICT platform.
Background: Psoriasis is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease with an exceptionally high burden for women. Objective: Sex-dependent differences in disease manifestation, severity, treatment choices, subjective disease perception, and the impact on quality of life and risk factors are described and comprehensively discussed. Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews to investigate the challenges in treating women with psoriasis. Results and conclusions: The incidence, prevalence, and manifestation of psoriasis of the skin are similar between different sexes. Genetic and environmental factors such as obesity and metabolic syndrome are risk factors and are not equally relevant or pronounced in women and men. Overall, women have a lower disease severity measured by the Psoriasis Area Severity Index, which is associated with a higher impairment of their life quality measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index compared with men. In addition, women with psoriasis are more likely to have depression than men. Hormonal factors affect psoriasis, with a correlation of high estrogen levels and improvement of psoriasis. Data regarding differences in prescribing patterns of systemic treatments and the severity of psoriasis are not entirely consistent. Registry studies show that men tend to have more severe psoriasis and, in some cases, are prescribed systemic therapies more frequently. Women tend to respond better to systemic treatments and to experience more adverse events. Treatment options are the same for both sexes, except during pregnancy and lactation. Various treatment options are contraindicated due to fear of fetal or neonate harm and lack of data. Topical steroids can be prescribed with a high degree of safety during pregnancy. For other topical therapies (calcineurin inhibitors and vitamin D analogs), no studies of adverse effects in pregnancy are available, and safety data mainly stem from studies examining effects after systemic administration. Antitumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibodies (except for certolizumab pegol) have been associated with a possible increased risk of preterm birth, low gestational age, and cesarean deliveries. Prospective data on the safety of biologics other than antitumor necrosis factor-alpha antibodies to accurately assess whether novel biologics (eg, anti-interleukin 17, 12/23, 23) can be used for systemic therapy in pregnancy are lacking or currently being conducted.
Background Information/communication technologies such as mobile phone applications (apps) would enable chronic urticaria (CU) patients to self‐evaluate their disease activity and control. Yet, recently Antó et al (2021) reported a global paucity of such apps for patients with CU. In this analysis, we assessed patient interest in using apps to monitor CU disease activity and control using questions from the chronic urticaria information and communication technologies (CURICT) study. Methods The methodology for CURICT has been reported. Briefly, a 23‐item questionnaire was completed by 1841 CU patients from 17 UCAREs across 17 countries. Here, we analyzed patient responses to the CURICT questions on the use of apps for urticaria‐related purposes. Results As previously published, the majority of respondents had chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU; 63%; 18% chronic inducible urticaria (CIndU) [CIndu]; 19% with both), were female (70%) and in urban areas (75%). Over half of patients were very/extremely interested in an app to monitor disease activity (51%) and control (53%), while only ∼1/10 were not. Patients with both urticaria types versus those with CSU only (odds ratio [OR], 1.36 [1.03–1.79]) and females versus males (OR [95% CI], 1.47 [1.17–1.85]) were more likely to be very to extremely interested in an app to assess disease control. Conclusions Overall, half of the patients with CU were very to extremely interested in using an app to assess their disease activity and control. Development of well‐designed apps, specific to disease types (CSU, CIndU, CSU + CIndU, etc), validated by experts across platforms would help improve the management and possibly outcomes of CU treatment while providing important patient information to be used in future research.
Background Patients with chronic urticaria (CU) are increasingly using information and communication technologies (ICTs) to manage their health. What CU patients expect from ICTs and which ICTs they prefer remains unknown. We assessed why CU patients use ICTs, which ones they prefer, and what drives their expectations and choices. Methods In this cross-sectional study, 1841 patients across 17 countries were recruited at UCAREs (Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence). Patients with CU who were >12 years old completed a 23-item questionnaire. Results Most patients were interested in receiving disease information (87.3%), asking physicians about CU (84.1%), and communicating with other patients through ICTs (65.6%). For receiving disease information, patients preferred one-to-one and one-to-many ICTs, especially web browsers. One-to-one ICTs were also the ICTs of choice for asking physicians about urticaria and for communicating with other patients, and e-mail and WhatsApp were the preferred ICTs, respectively. Many-to-many ICTs such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter were least preferred for all 3 purposes. Living in rural areas and higher education were linked to higher odds of being interested in receiving disease information, asking physicians, and communicating with patients through ICTs. Conclusions Most patients and especially patients with higher education who live in rural areas are interested in using ICTs for their healthcare, but prefer different ICTs for different purposes, ie, web browsers for obtaining information, e-mail for asking physicians, and WhatsApp for communicating with other patients. Our findings may help to improve ICTs for CU.
Since the discovery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a mediator of allergic diseases in 1967, our knowledge about the immunological mechanisms of IgE‐mediated allergies has remarkably increased. In addition to understanding the immune response and clinical symptoms, allergy diagnosis and management depend strongly on the precise identification of the elicitors of the IgE‐mediated allergic reaction. In the past four decades, innovations in bioscience and technology have facilitated the identification and production of well‐defined, highly pure molecules for component‐resolved diagnosis (CRD), allowing a personalized diagnosis and management of the allergic disease for individual patients. The first edition of the “EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide” (MAUG) in 2016 rapidly became a key reference for clinicians, scientists, and interested readers with a background in allergology, immunology, biology, and medicine. Nevertheless, the field of molecular allergology is moving fast, and after 6 years, a new EAACI Taskforce was established to provide an updated document. The Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0 summarizes state‐of‐the‐art information on allergen molecules, their clinical relevance, and their application in diagnostic algorithms for clinical practice. It is designed for both, clinicians and scientists, guiding health care professionals through the overwhelming list of different allergen molecules available for testing. Further, it provides diagnostic algorithms on the clinical relevance of allergenic molecules and gives an overview of their biology, the basic mechanisms of test formats, and the application of tests to measure allergen exposure.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.