Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Contact dermatitis is an inflammatory skin disorder characterized by an erythematous pruritic rash. The disorder can be either irritant or allergic. Allergic contact dermatitis is diagnosed by patch testing along with patient history.

Objectives: To review the results of patch tests conducted thought 2 years and to present real-life data characterizing clinical features and comparing prevalent local allergens to the ones common worldwide.

Methods: The retrospective cohort included 517 participants (384 females and 133 males) who underwent patch testing during a 2-year period. For each patient, clinical and demographic data were collected, and statistical analysis was conducted.

Results: We found that 261 patients had a positive test for at least one allergen. More females tested positive than males (52.9% vs. 43.6%). Test indications other than dermatitis were associated with a negative result. Hands, head, and neck were the most prevalent body parts affected. Patients with a background of atopic dermatitis had a higher rate of contact sensitization (69 vs. 43). Patients with a specific suspected offending allergen had significantly higher contact sensitizations. The most common allergen was nickel.

Conclusions: Patch testing should be conducted in patients with relevant dermatological findings accompanied by taking a thorough medical history. Clinicians should be updated on emerging allergens and exposure trends.

Background: The efficacy of subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic asthma and stinging insect hypersensitivity has been demonstrated in several studies.

Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness and side effects of immunotherapy in Israel and the relationship between local and systemic side effects.

Methods: This retrospective study was based on patient records and a computerized database for drug dispensing over a 5 year period. Success was rated as partial or complete. Side effects were classified as local or systemic. Systemic side effects were further classified according to severity, as mild (cutaneous), moderate (respiratory symptoms), or severe (cardiovascular).

Results: Of the 135 patients on aero-allergen immunotherapy who reached maintenance, 120 (88.9%) exhibited complete or partial improvement and 15 (11.1%) did not improve. All of the 44 patients on hymenoptera immunotherapy reached effective maintenance doses. The mean percent side effects calculated per treatment (injection) were 2.49 for local and 1.58 for a systemic reaction during the build-up phase, and 1.13 and 1.12 during the maintenance phase, respectively. Rates of systemic reactions were 1.3% for cutaneous, 1.14% for respiratory and 0.97% for cardiovascular reactions during the build-up phase, and 1.11%, 0.53%, and 0.51% during the maintenance phase, respectively. The odds of systemic reactions were significantly higher in patients with local reactions both in the build-up phase (P = 0.03) and in the maintenance phase (P = 0.0003). The number of annual medications dispensed per patient decreased from 31.5 to 26.0 during the first year after reaching maintenance, and to 22.5 in the second year. Pharmaceutical costs were 67% lower 1 year after the start of the maintenance phase, compared to the year before the start of immunotherapy, and 63% lower in the second year (P = NS).

Conclusions: Immunotherapy was effective and safe. Recognizing the benefits and safety of immunotherapy is necessary for physicians and health authorities in order to provide better care for allergic patients.

Background: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common, debilitating disease that is frequently resistant to standard therapy. Omalizumab, anti-immunoglobulin-E humanized monoclonal antibody, was recently shown to be effective in treating resistant CSU.

Objectives: To investigated the treatment of CSU with omalizumab in Israel.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients with refractory CSU treated with omalizuamb in Israel during 2012–2013. Complete improvement was defined as resolution of symptoms with no need for other medications, or satisfactory when patients’ condition improved but required regular or intermittent doses of antihistamines.

Results: Forty-three patients received omalizumab off-label for refractory CSU. Their mean age was 45 ± 12 years and CSU duration was 4.3 ± 4 years. In this cohort, 98% were unsuccessfully treated with high dose H(1)-antihistamines, 88% with systemic glucocorticoids and 30% with cyclosporine and/or other immune-modulators. Fourteen patients received only one injection of omalizumab, while the other 29 received on average of 4.3 ± 3.2 injections; 30 patients received 150 mg/month and 13 received 300 mg/month. Following omalizumab therapy, disease remitted within weeks in 86% of patients, of whom half achieved complete remission. The latter was associated with usage of high dose omalizumab, 300 mg/month vs. 150 mg/month (P = 0.02) and repeated therapy (i.e., multiple injections vs. a single injection) (P = 0.0005).

Conclusions: Omalizumab is an effective and safe treatment for refractory CSU with rapid onset of action for inducing and maintaining remission. Treating CSU patients mandates an individual approach, because while low dose omalizumab will suffice for some patients others might need higher doses and prolonged therapy. 

Background: Patients with allergy as well as their parents frequently fail to use the self-administered epinephrine injection (EpiPen®) properly in cases of allergic emergencies.

Objectives: To determine the benefit of an instruction session with follow-up instruction.

Methods: We evaluated 141 patients aged 1.9–23.4 years (median 5.8 years, 83% with food allergy) or their parents (for those aged < 12 years) who were trained in the use of the EpiPen during the first diagnostic visit to the allergy clinic during 2006–2009. At the next follow-up visit, the patients or their parents were asked to list the indications for epinephrine administration and to demonstrate the five steps involved in using the EpiPen. Each step was scored on a scale of 0–2.

Results: Fourteen participants (9.9%) had used self-injectable epinephrine in the past. Only 65 (46%) brought the device with them to the follow-up visit. The mean total score for the whole sample was 4.03 ± 3. Fifty-three participants (38%) failed to remove the cap before trying to apply the device. Only 8 (5.6%) had a maximum score. The patients and their parents were reinstructed in the use of the device: 41 participants were reexamined at a subsequent follow-up visit after 1.02 ± 0.56 years their mean score improved from 4.71 ± 3.04 to 6.73 ± 3.18 (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Patients with severe allergic reactions, as well as their parents, are not sufficiently skilled in the use of the EpiPen after only one instruction session with a specialist. Repeated instruction may improve the results and we therefore recommend that the instructions be repeated at every follow-up visit.