+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To...

Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To...

Date post: 01-Apr-2015
Category:
Upload: tobias-farley
View: 216 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
17
Objectives and background
Transcript
Page 1: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Objectives and background

Page 2: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Objectives

• To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual

• To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional and alternative allergy testing

• To select the appropriate management strategy following a relevant history and appropriate testing

Page 3: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.
Page 4: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.
Page 5: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.
Page 6: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.
Page 7: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Products of the mast cell• Preformed - immediate release

• Histamine• Tryptase• Hydrolases

• Secreted mediators - released a few hours later• Prostaglandins• Leukotrienes• Cytokines

Page 8: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.
Page 9: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Is allergy becoming more common?

• Selective perception

• ? Previously underestimated

• Increasing worldwide

• Incidence of hayfever and asthma rose in East

Germany following unification

Page 10: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

So why are allergies increasing?

• The role of the farm environment in reducing the risk of hayfever and asthma is established.

• Applies only to children in the first year of life and must to be maintained to aged 5.

• The “Farm Effect” may result from the increased exposure to bacterial products such as endotoxin

Page 11: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Endotoxin - LPS - from outer cell membrane of all gram negative bacteria

• Presence of household animals is associated with higher levels of house dust and airbourne endotoxin in metropolitan homes

• Paradoxically the high exposure to cat allergens reduced sensitisation, whereas high HDM increased likelihood of sensitisation.

Page 12: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

• Local factors will significantly alter the endotoxin exposure in the home.

• Personal hygiene measures such as fastidiousness of bathing, laundering and floor cleanliness are prime endotoxin reducing candidates

Page 13: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Prevalence of Atopic Eczema

• Urban > Rural

• Small > Large families

• Well off > Poorer households

Page 14: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Genetic influence

• Parental atopy especially maternal

• Concordance for allergy between twins

Page 15: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

“Hygiene hypothesis”• ‘Modern living is associated with too little

microbial stimulation early in life’ • ‘Microbial deprivation syndrome’ - cleaner

environment and the widespread use of antibiotics’

• Higher birth order associated with allergies, -‘The Sibling effect’

• Recurrent infections lead to Th1 >>Th2 (multiple rather than a few microbial species)

Page 16: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Probiotics

• ‘Living (or inactivated) organisms that are claimed to exert when ingested beneficial effects on health’ EAACI 2002

• Particularly Lactobacilli, Bifidobacteria, Enterococci and E. Coli

• Meningitis associated with Bifidobacteria• Fatal sepsis with a vancomycin resistant

Lactobacillus• Only preliminary studies available and not

conclusive

Page 17: Objectives and background. Objectives To identify the allergic versus the non allergic individual To understand the strengths and limitations of conventional.

Probiotics in primary of atopic disease: a randomised placebo controlled trial

• Lactobacillus GC given 4 weeks prenatally to mothers with > one first degree relative with atopic eczema, allergic rhinitis and asthma and postnatally for 6 months to breastfeeding mothers/their infants

• End point - chronic recurring eczema• Eczema diagnosed in 46/132 (35%)• Frequency of eczema in probiotic group was half that

in placebo group, 15/64 (23%) vs 31/68 (46%) The Lancet 2001; 357:1076-9, follow up 2003;361:1869-71 SPT same


Recommended