OBJECTIVE: To investigate the estimated minimal prevalence, needs, and potential interventions for the diagnosis and management of HAE in the AP.
METHODS: A structured questionnaire was distributed to representative experts from member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. Patient profiles and the presence of diagnostic facilities or tests, regional and national HAE guidelines, and patient support groups were reported and compared.
RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were received from 14 representatives of 12 member countries and territories, representing 46% of the world population. Overall minimal prevalence of HAE in the AP region was 0.02/100,000 population, with significant heterogeneity across different centers. Only one-half and one-third had registered on-demand and prophylactic medications, respectively. Few had patient support groups (58%) or regional guidelines (33%), and their existence was associated with the availability of HAE-specific medications. Availability of C1-inhibitor level testing was associated with a lower age at HAE diagnosis (P = .017).
CONCLUSIONS: Hereditary angioedema in the AP differs from that in Western countries. Hereditary angioedema-specific medications were registered in only a minority of countries and territories, but those with patient support groups or regional guidelines were more likely to have better access. Asia Pacific-specific consensus and guidelines are lacking and urgently needed.
OBJECTIVE: Different specialists' perceptions and managements of CRS in Asia-Pacific regions were assessed in an attempt to gauge these practices against EPOS 2020 guidelines.
METHODS: A transregional, cross-sectional survey was conducted to assess otolaryngologists' and allergists' perceptions and managements of CRS with regard to diagnosis, management and adherence to EPOS 2020 guidelines.
RESULTS: Sixteen physicians in Asia-Pacific regions responded to the questionnaire. A total of 71.4% of otolaryngologists preferred to diagnose CRS with a combination of positive nasal symptoms and nasal endoscopy plus sinus CT, whereas 22.2% of allergists took such criterion to diagnose CRS. Compared to allergists, otolaryngologists more often considered the endotype classification (85.8% versus 55.5%). For the preferred first-line treatment, in addition to intranasal corticosteroids recommended by all respondents, 66.7% of allergists preferred antihistamines, whereas 71.4% of otolaryngologists preferred nasal saline irrigation. Regarding the proper timing of surgery, 71.5% of otolaryngologists reported 8-12 weeks of treatment after the initiation of medication, while more than half of the allergists recommended 4-6 weeks of medical treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: This survey shows that variable perceptions and practices for CRS may exist between physicians with different specialties and highlights the need for increased communication and awareness between otolaryngologists and allergists to improve the diagnosis and treatment of CRS.
OBJECTIVE: To collect detailed information about the practical management patterns specific for AR patients and investigate compliance with ARIA in the clinical practice of Asian physicians and elucidate the possible inadequacy in the existing ARIA guidelines.
METHODS: An e-mail with a structured questionnaire was sent to members of the Asia-Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology. The questionnaire consisted of doctors' characteristics, environment of medical practice, routine clinical practice following ARIA guidelines and patients' adherence to the prescription.
RESULTS: Physicians from 14 countries and regions sent valid questionnaires back, 94.12% of whom were senior doctors with more than 10 years of experience. 88.24% of doctors diagnosed AR depending on the history combined with allergy tests. 82.35% of participants employed the classification criteria by ARIA. 94.12%, 88.24% and 41.8% of respondents recommended intranasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists as first-line medications. 5.88% treated perennial AR by intranasal corticosteroids alone. 11.76% of clinicians recommended no allergen immunotherapy (AIT) or biologics and 58.82% of interviewees reported AR patients occasionally or sometimes agreed with the recommendation of AIT.
CONCLUSIONS: There was high compliance with ARIA guidelines in Asian senior physicians' actual notion and practice in the management of AR. New-generation ARIA guidelines are imperative for unmet needs.
Objective: To study the diagnostic modalities used in the evaluation and management of drug allergy/drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) among member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology (APAAACI).
Methods: A questionnaire comprising 41 questions was circulated electronically to member societies and individual members of APAAACI between January 23, 2020 and March 6, 2020.
Results: Twenty-six respondents from 15 member societies and 1 individual member responded. European DHR guidelines were most commonly used. Skin prick and intradermal testing was used by 100%, with only 60% having access to commercial penicillin skin test reagents. In vitro-specific IgE tests were used by 75%, and basophil activation test by 56.3% for immediate DHR. Patch tests were used by 75% in contrast to lymphocyte transformation tests by 25% for nonimmediate DHR. Drug provocation tests were used by 68.8%, the most common indication being to exclude hypersensitivity where history/symptoms were not suggestive of drug hypersensitivity/allergy (93.3%). Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genotype testing was mandatory among 25% respondents before new carbamazepine prescriptions, and 8.3% for allopurinol prescriptions.
Conclusions: There was increased use of skin testing for iodinated contrast media hypersensitivity and patch testing for nonimmediate DHR. HLA genotype testing prior to new carbamazepine, allopurinol and abacavir prescriptions remain variable despite strong associations for severe cutaneous adverse reactions with Asian ethnicity. Results of this survey form a useful framework for developing educational and training needs and for improving access to drug allergy diagnostic and treatment modalities across APAAACI member societies.
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this survey was to evaluate the epidemiology of FA, as well as the availability of resources and practices for management of FA and anaphylaxis by health care providers across Asia.
METHODS: From June 2022 to September 2022, a questionnaire-based survey comprising 66 questions was electronically sent to member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology by using Survey Monkey.
RESULTS: A total of 20 responses were received from 15 member countries and territories. Compared with the pediatric data, there was a lack of prevalence data for FA in adults. Except for Australia and Japan, most regions had between 0.1 and 0.5 allergists per 100,000 population and some had fewer than 0.1 allergists per 100,000 population. The perceived rate of FA in regions with a short supply of allergists was high. Although specific IgE tests and oral food challenges were available in all regions, the median wait time for oral food challenges at government facilities was 37 days (interquartile range = 10.5-60 days). Seven regions still relied on prescriptions of ampules and syringes of injectable adrenaline, and adrenaline autoinjectors were not accessible in 4 regions. Oral immunotherapy as FA treatment was available in half of the surveyed countries and territories.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers a cross-sectional evaluation of the management practices for FA in each Asia Pacific Association of Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology member country or territory. Urgent actions are required to enhance allergy services, improve the accessibility and affordability of adrenaline autoinjectors, and conduct robust epidemiologic studies.