Disclosure of potential conflict of interest K. Niespodziana receives grant support (grant no. P29398) from the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF). K. F. Chung has received honoraria for participating in advisory board meetings of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Teva regarding treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and has also been renumerated for speaking engagements. A. Custovic reports personal fees from Novartis,

No abstract

Background: The novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride (AZE) and fluticasone propionate (FP) in a single spray (MP-AzeFlu) was compared with a first-line intranasal antihistamine spray (AZE) in Russian seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients. Methods: Moderate-to-severe SAR/rhinoconjunctivitis patients (n = 149; aged 18–65 years) were randomized to receive MP-AzeFlu (137/50 μg AZE/FP per spray) or AZE (137 μg/spray), both as 1 spray/nostril twice daily, in a multicenter, open-label, 14-day, parallel-group trial. The primary outcome was change from baseline in morning and evening reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS). Secondary end points included: change from baseline in reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), reflective total of 7 symptom scores (rT7SS), 28-item Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) overall score, and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire score. Results: When compared with AZE-treated patients, those treated with MP-AzeFlu experienced significantly greater reductions in rTNSS (difference: –2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] –3.65 to –1.30; p < 0.001), rTOSS (difference: –1.62; 95% CI –2.32 to –0.92; p < 0.001), and rT7SS (difference: –4.34; 95% CI –5.98 to –2.70; p < 0.001). Superior relief observed on day 2 with MP-AzeFlu versus AZE was sustained throughout the study. MP-AzeFlu-treated patients experienced a greater improvement in QoL than AZE-treated patients as measured by overall RQLQ score (mean ± SD 2.91 ± 1.08 vs. 2.05 ± 1.15) and EQ-5D score (mean ± SD 87.4 ± 10.3 vs. 83.0 ± 12.8). MP-AzeFlu was well tolerated. Conclusions: MP-AzeFlu was superior to AZE in reducing moderate-to-severe SAR symptoms, providing earlier and more complete symptom relief.

No abstract

Anaphylactic shock is a severe life-threatening reaction, that may be caused by medicines, food, hymenoptera and animal poisons, etc. Therefore, anaphylactic shock (anaphylaxis) can develop both in a medical institution and outside it, and physicians of any specialties should be ready to treat this condition. In this regard, clinical guidelines for anaphylactic shock have been developed. These recommendations were approved by the Russian Association of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (Protocol No. 743/12 dated December 30, 2020) and the Federation of Anesthesiologists and Resuscitators (Protocol No. 1 dated January 13, 2021), approved at a meeting of the Scientific and Practical Council of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Protocol No. .2020 No. 743/12). The guidelines cover a number of nosologies that correspond to the codes of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems: T 78.0; T 78.2; T 80.5; T 88.6. The clinical guidelines systematize modern data on etiology, epidemiology, classification, clinical picture, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of anaphylactic shock. An algorithm for managing a patient with anaphylactic shock has been developed. Clinical guidelines for anaphylactic shock are intended for practitioners of all specialties, students and teachers of medical universities, residents, graduate students.

The increase in the frequency and unfavorable outcomes of anaphylactic shock in recent decades determines the need for the development of clear and clear definitions, diagnosis and treatment of both shock and prevention of possible complications associated with it. The article provides options for the course of anaphylactic shock, algorithms for diagnosis and treatment.

The evidence of the beneficial effects of dairy products on the intestinal microflora was given for the first time in 1908 by I.I. Mechnikov in the famous article «A few words about the sour milk». Since that time probiotics - the living microorganisms for regulation of intestinal microbiota are the case of interest. Interactions between the probiotics and macroorganism are very complex and include a network of genes receptors, signaling molecules and a variety of other factors that determine the natural course of the disease.

ABSTRACT