Mobile health (mHealth) uses mobile communication devices such as smartphones and tablet computers to support and improve health‐related services, data and information flow, patient self‐management, surveillance, and disease management from the moment of first diagnosis to an optimized treatment. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology created a task force to assess the state of the art and future potential of mHealth in allergology. The task force endorsed the “Be He@lthy, Be Mobile” WHO initiative and debated the quality, usability, efficiency, advantages, limitations, and risks of mobile solutions for allergic diseases. The results are summarized in this position paper, analyzing also the regulatory background with regard to the “General Data Protection Regulation” and Medical Directives of the European Community. The task force assessed the design, user engagement, content, potential of inducing behavioral change, credibility/accountability, and privacy policies of mHealth products. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and allergic patients are discussed, underlining the need of thorough investigation for an effective design of mHealth technologies as auxiliary tools to improve quality of care. Within the context of precision medicine, these could facilitate the change in perspective from clinician‐ to patient‐centered care. The current and future potential of mHealth is then examined for specific areas of allergology, including allergic rhinitis, aerobiology, allergen immunotherapy, asthma, dermatological diseases, food allergies, anaphylaxis, insect venom, and drug allergy. The impact of mobile technologies and associated big data sets are outlined. Facts and recommendations for future mHealth initiatives within EAACI are listed.

Abstract.Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) may be sporadic or inherited. Although KIT and PDGFRA activating mutations are the oncogenic mechanisms in most sporadic and inherited GISTs, a small subset of GISTs are negative for both. Besides the classical Familial GIST Syndrome, GIST can occur as part of multi-neoplastic disease. The present study was designed to analyze the synchronous and metachronous tumors developed among GIST patients assessed by our institution for GIST Syndrome setting recognition. Patients (n=141) with primary GIST (77 men and 64 women) were recruited between 1988 and 2007 and their clinical and pathological records were reviewed. Mutation analysis of KIT, PDGFRA, NF1 and MMR genes was performed on somatic and peripheral blood DNA. GISTs occurred associated with other primary malignancies in 46 of 141 (32.6%) patients. The most common neoplasms were gastrointestinal and genitourinary. A novel exon 6 germline large deletion of NF1 was identified in the NF1/ GIST kindred. The development of GIST associated with other neoplasms is common and diagnosis of peculiar benign associated-neoplasms warrants the search for familial cancer susceptibility. In particular, syndromic or familial settings have to be suspected in the presence of neurofibroma or lung chordoma in C-KIT and PDGFRA negative GIST patients.

Background There is controversy whether taking β‐blockers or ACE inhibitors (ACEI) is a risk factor for more severe systemic insect sting reactions (SSR) and whether it increases the number or severity of adverse events (AE) during venom immunotherapy (VIT). Methods In this open, prospective, observational, multicenter trial, we recruited patients with a history of a SSR and indication for VIT. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether patients taking β‐blockers or ACEI show more systemic AE during VIT compared to patients without such treatment. Results In total, 1,425 patients were enrolled and VIT was performed in 1,342 patients. Of all patients included, 388 (27.2%) took antihypertensive (AHT) drugs (10.4% took β‐blockers, 11.9% ACEI, 5.0% β‐blockers and ACEI). Only 5.6% of patients under AHT treatment experienced systemic AE during VIT as compared with 7.4% of patients without these drugs (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43–1.22, p = 0.25). The severity of the initial sting reaction was not affected by the intake of β‐blockers or ACEI (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89–1.46, p = 0.29). In total, 210 (17.7%) patients were re‐stung during VIT and 191 (91.0%) tolerated the sting without systemic symptoms. Of the 19 patients with VIT treatment failure, 4 took β‐blockers, none an ACEI. Conclusions This trial provides robust evidence that taking β‐blockers or ACEI does neither increase the frequency of systemic AE during VIT nor aggravate SSR. Moreover, results suggest that these drugs do not impair effectiveness of VIT. (Funded by Medical University of Graz, Austria; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04269629).

No abstract

No abstract