Healthcare Prof:

4 (7 votes)

Article Opinions:three posts
Seafood allergies are the most commonly-reported severe allergy in adults. A study led by Mount Sinai School of Medicine scientists and published today while in the July, 2004 Journal of Allergy & Medical Immunology shows that seafood allergies are much more prevalent than once thought, with more than 6.5 million Americans believed to be affected. The study “Prevalence of Seafood Allergy inside the U.S.” revealed that the onset of seafood allergy is likely to begin in adulthood and frequent, severe reactions are reported by sufferers.

In all, about 11 million people – roughly 1-in-25 Americans – are now believed to be affected by 1 or more food allergies, a disease triggered by the ingestion of certain foods that may trigger life-threatening reactions, or anaphylaxis, according to The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN), a co-investigator in the nationwide survey.

Seafood, common while in the U.S. diet, includes fish (cod, salmon and tuna, for example), and shellfish (shrimp, crab and lobster, squid, scallop, clams, mussels, and snails). The study showed that a shellfish allergy is reported by 1-in-50 Americans and a fish allergy by 1-in-250.

The reported rate of onset was during adulthood for approximately 60 percent with shellfish allergies and 40 percent with fish allergies. In all age groups, adults reported a prevalence of at least 2.5 percent, while among children the highest prevalence reported was 0.8% in the 6-17 age group.

Among adults, women reported more allergies than men, and among children boys were affected more often than girls. The highest rate (3.7 percent) of seafood allergies was reported by African-Americans.

“Further studies are needed to determine the cause for women and minorities having a higher rate of seafood allergy, whether it is cultural eating differences, associations with environment exposures or other explanations,” said Scott Sicherer, MD, assistant professor of pediatric allergy and immunology while in the Jaffe Food Allergy Institute at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and co-author on the study.

“What we do know is that seafood-allergic reactions may be potentially life threatening and really should be taken very seriously, yet many of the participants did not seek proper diagnosis and remedy. We have to get the word out so that sufferers get an appropriate diagnosis and can learn how to prevent and treat reactions to ensure their safety.”

The rate of prevalence may be attributed to growing seafood consumption, both finfish and shellfish, has increased by 25 percent since 1970. More specifically, the seafood consumption rate has risen from a per capita consumption of 12.5 pounds in 1970 to 15.6 pounds in 2002. (Source: www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2003/sep03/noaa03105.html, accessed December 2003.)

A high number of recurrent and severe reactions were reported inside the study. Multiple reactions were reported by 53 percent for fish and 57 percent for shellfish. In 55 percent of fish reactions and 40 percent of shellfish reactions, evaluation by a physician or care in an emergency room was sought. Treatment of severe symptoms and administration of epinephrine, the drug of choice for treating a severe allergic reaction, was reported in only 15 percent of seafood-allergic individuals.

“FAAN has launched a Seafood Allergy Registry to learn more about this national health care issue. We encourage anyone with a seafood allergy to participate,” said Anne Muoz-Furlong, CEO and founder of FAAN, a patient advocacy group. “We are hopeful that through the Seafood Allergy Registry we can learn much more about why allergic reactions begin in adulthood, why the reactions are so severe as well as how to avoid such severe reactions. The findings will not only help seafood allergic people, but the seafood and food industry, especially in the areas of food labeling and product development.”

The FAAN Seafood Registry

Launched in 2003, the seafood registry is open to anyone with an allergy to any type of fish or shellfish. Surveys were initially sent to FAAN’s 26,000 members and allergists who are members of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology or the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Forms are available to download from FAAN’s website, www.foodallergy.org.

About the Study

Nearly 15,000 people were surveyed while in the telephone study conducted in 2002 by FAAN and Drs. Scott H. Sicherer and Hugh A. Sampson, from your Mount Sinai School of Medicine. The study was sponsored by The Food Allergy Initiative (FAI), The Jaffe Family Foundation, and The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN).

About The Mount Sinai Medical Center

The Mount Sinai Medical Center encompasses The Mount Sinai Hospital and Mount Sinai School of Medicine. The Mount Sinai Hospital is one with the nation’s oldest, largest and most-respected voluntary hospitals. Founded in 1852, Mount Sinai today can be a 1,171-bed tertiary-care teaching facility that is internationally-acclaimed for excellence in medical care.

Last year, nearly 48,000 people were treated at Mount Sinai as inpatients, more than 72,000 received care inside the emergency department, and the outpatient department recorded nearly 470,000 visits. Mount Sinai School of Medicine is internationally-recognized being a leader in ground-breaking medical and basic-science research, as well as innovative approaches to medical education.

Mount Sinai ranks 9th amongst the nation’s 125 medical schools within the percentage of graduates who go on to faculty positions in medical schools across the country. Mount Sinai also is in the top 25 in receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants with a total of more than $154 million during Fiscal Year 2003. Information about Mount Sinai can be found online at: www.mountsinai.org and www.mssm.edu

About FAAN

The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) is a Virginia-based, nonprofit organization with more than 26,000 members while in the United States and worldwide. Established in 1991, FAAN’s mission is to increase awareness, to provide education and advocacy, and to advance research on behalf of all those affected by food allergies and anaphylaxis. For more information, visit the FAAN web site at www.foodallergy.org or call (800)929-4040. Contact the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology or the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology to reach a board-certified allergist.

Contact: Mount Sinai Press Office
NewsMedia@mssm.edu
212-241-9200
Mount Sinai Hospital / Mount Sinai School of Medicine

Healthcare Prof:

Soy-protein based infant formulas have been used to treat infants who have food allergies or intolerances. This raises the possibility that soy formulas might prevent food allergies in children at high-risk, such as an infant with family history of allergy. A recent review in the available literature, however, concludes that there is no evidence to suggest that soy formulas are any more effective in preventing allergies than formula based on cow’s milk. In addition, the research showed that there was more risk of developing allergies if a soy formula was used rather than a hydrolysed protein formula. Consequently, soy formulas cannot be recommended for preventing allergies in high-risk infants.

Review title: Soy formula for prevention of allergy and food
intolerance in infants
Reviewers: Osborn DA and Sinn J.

The Cochrane Library contains high quality health care information, including Systematic Reviews through the Cochrane Collaboration. These bring together research on the effects of health care and are considered the gold standard for determining the relative effectiveness of different interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org) is really a UK registered international charity and the world’s leading producer of systematic reviews, which form the building blocks of evidence-based medical decision-making.

Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., provides must- have content and services to customers worldwide. Our core businesses include scientific, technical, and medical journals, encyclopedias, books, and online products and services; professional and consumer books and subscription services; and educational materials for undergraduate and graduate students and lifelong learners. Wiley has publishing, marketing, and distribution centers while in the United States, Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The company is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbols JWa and JWb. Wiley’s Internet site can be accessed at http://www.wiley.com.

Healthcare Prof:

Children’s Hospital Boston (CHB) has secured contracts totaling nearly $10.5 million through the National Institutes of Health to study a potentially life-threatening complication of smallpox immunization known as eczema vaccinatum (EV). The goal is to minimize the risk of EV and develop a safer smallpox vaccine.

EV can be a severe skin infection caused by vaccinia, the live virus used within the smallpox vaccine. The risk of EV has been a major barrier to reintroducing widespread smallpox immunization. Routine vaccination ended in the U.S. in 1972, so many Americans lack immunity to smallpox, which is now seen as being a potential weapon of bioterrorism.

Most susceptible to EV are the millions of Americans, including many young children, who have a history of atopic dermatitis, the allergy-related skin condition better known as eczema. People with weakened immune systems also are at risk. If not treated in time, EV has a mortality rate of up to 6 percent, and as high as 30 percent amongst children under age 2.

CHB’s Division of Immunology will play a leading role in a nationwide research network, launched by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), that will investigate why atopic dermatitis predisposes smallpox vaccine recipients to EV.

“Since 5 percent of kids and about one percent of adults have atopic dermatitis, the risk is great must a decision be made to mass vaccinate,” says Dr. Raif Geha, chief of Immunology at CHB. “EV can develop even in people with mild atopic dermatitis, as well as healthy people who had atopic dermatitis within the past. Also, since the virus while in the smallpox vaccine is live, it can spread from contact with people who have been vaccinated.”

Geha will head up the Animal Studies Consortium under the contract, coordinating animal studies at CHB and five subcontracting institutions under a five-year, $10 million grant. Geha’s own lab will establish a mouse model for atopic dermatitis, explore different components with the immune response to the vaccinia virus used in smallpox vaccine, seek biochemical factors that predispose mice to EV, and test possible preventive therapies. The researchers hypothesize that an abnormal immune response inside the skin makes people with atopic dermatitis susceptible to EV after smallpox vaccination. Dr. Hans Oettgen, clinical director of Immunology at CHB, will use animal models to further examine the role of skin abnormalities. His group will compare immune responses to the vaccinia virus with responses to two other viruses: herpes simplex virus, which also causes severe skin infections, and yellow fever virus, which infects via the skin, but does not cause skin disease.

Dr. Lynda Schneider, director in the Allergy Program at CHB, will be 1 of six principal investigators inside the Clinical Studies Consortium. Under a three-year grant of approximately $450,000, her group will investigate the immune response to vaccination with live varicella virus, a less harmful skin virus that causes chickenpox and shingles. Children with and without atopic dermatitis will receive live varicella vaccine and undergo a battery of lab tests 3 weeks later. Varicella will act like a surrogate for vaccinia, yielding clues about how atopic dermatitis may alter the immune response to live virus vaccines.

Understanding the relationship between atopic dermatitis and EV is important because atopic dermatitis is so common, together with the highest prevalence in young children. During the 1960s, when smallpox vaccine was still being given, EV was estimated to cause 10 to 39 cases of EV per million people vaccinated. Today, the potential number of cases is believed to be much higher, since atopic dermatitis has become much more prevalent inside the population.

For more information on the NIAID research network, contact Anne A. Oplinger, NIH/NIAID, 301-496-5717.

Children’s Hospital Boston is home to the world’s largest research enterprise based at a pediatric medical center, where its discoveries have benefited both children and adults for more than 100 years. More than 500 scientists, including seven members in the National Academy of Sciences, nine members of the Institute of Medicine and nine members of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute comprise Children’s research community. Founded in 1869 being a 20-bed hospital for children, Children’s Hospital Boston today can be a 300-bed comprehensive center for pediatric and adolescent health care grounded while in the values of excellence in patient care and sensitivity to the complex needs and diversity of children and families. It is also the primary pediatric teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. For more information about the hospital visit: http://www.childrenshospital.org.

Contact: Mary-Ellen Shay
mary.shay@childrens.harvard.edu
617-355-6420
Children’s Hospital Boston

Healthcare Prof:

1 (1 votes)

Tiger White, the new alternative to dairy and soya milk that ‘s made from the highly nutritious roots of the sedge plant (Chufa in Spanish), has been presented with two special endorsements from Allergy UK.

Allergy UK is the country’s leading medical charity dedicated to helping promote awareness and understanding about allergies. It was established in 1991 by a group of Britain’s top allergy specialists to improve the management and treatment of allergies and offers advice and support to victims as well as training and support for healthcare professionals.

Trophy Tiger

Tiger White’s considerate development of a drink from simple, natural ingredients without the use of preservatives has received Allergy UK’s prestigious Consumer Award.

Health-conscience shoppers recommended that Tiger White receive the award as it generally benefits the health and wellbeing of those with allergies. A panel of experts at Allergy UK then conducted careful assessment of Tiger White to verify the consumers’ comments.

In addition, Tiger White has also received Allergy UK’s Free From Award. This endorsement is achieved only after independent experts scrutinise the ingredients used and also check that proper manufacturing protocols are in place.

Commenting on Tiger White’s awards, Allergy UK’s chief executive Muriel Simmons comments: “People with allergies are always interested in expanding the range of products that they can safely buy and we’re delighted that the launch of Tiger White adds more nutritious diversity to the list.

With so many labels and logos now displayed on food and drink packaging, the Allergy UK award scheme acts being a valuable sign post to those actively avoiding some ingredients.

Tiger White has been specifically created to be dairy-free and the manufacturers contacted us early in its development to ensure it would meet the needs of those with allergies. We’re pleased to have contributed to its early success.”

The absence of stabilisers means that some settling can occur in Tiger White creating nutrient-rich ‘tiger spots’ on the surface. These have no impact on the delicious taste and consumers are encouraged to shake Tiger White thoroughly each time before serving.

Packed in 1 litre Tetra Paks Tiger White is available in unsweetened and sweetened formats priced at 1.59 and 1.65 respectively. Tiger White is available in selected Tesco, Holland & Barrett and Booths stores and from speciality food retailers nationwide.

Find out more at http://www.tigerwhitedrinks.com

Allergy Foundation, UK

Healthcare Prof:

3 (2 votes)

Article Opinions:10 posts
Cicada Films have been asked to make a two-part special series for Channel Four Television (UK) about those people who are seriously affected by allergies and skin conditions. Each film will be 1 hour long and will be broadcast sometime while in the New Year.

We hope to find several people to follow more than the next 4 months in order that we can truly realize what it is like living with a potentially life-threatening allergy. We wish to use their experiences to educate people on this important issue, and to raise public awareness about the critical shortage of resources in this area.

We are interested in all types of allergy and skin condition as long as it is an unresolved case that is still causing difficulties, and can include reactions to food, chemicals, and more rarely, sun, water and touch.

We would like to follow people who are either receiving treatment for their condition, or are at the point of diagnosis, or are shortly embarking on a brand new phase in their lives and so will need to adapt to a brand new set of circumstances. We are especially keen to feature at least one child or teenager who is learning to come to terms with their often frightening and unpleasant condition, and would also wish to spend time with their whole family as we realize that living with an allergy becomes a concern for the whole household.

This is an observational series using a small, unobtrusive camera and a friendly two-person group spending time in your home at times convenient to you. It does not come with any kind of journalistic narrative or agenda – the films will be told in a heartwarming and sensitive manner by the sufferers that we encounter along the way, plus their families and clinician, if relevant.

Film 1 will show a wide variety of common allergic reactions as they are happening when we film within an Accident & Emergency department and witness people coming in for help, and then we will follow some of these cases as they seek therapy from an Allergy Clinic. In this way we hope to illustrate that the number of allergies in the UK has reached epidemic proportions, can effect people from all walks of life, and that the medical profession is under-resourced. We have already been given permission to film in Addenbrookes Allergy Clinic and A&E, and are in talks with St Mary’s in London and Southampton General Hospital.

Film Two will follow people living with rarer skin conditions and allergies, such as Solar and Aquagenic Urticaria, showing how much they can impact on their lives and families.

Our group is keen to make this as powerful and meaningful a series as we can, and it is important that we speak to many folks as we can in order that we can choose the best, most gripping stories as told by the most sympathetic and articulate people.

Many of Cicada’s films have won awards at ceremonies as prestigious as the BAFTAs, New York, Wildscreen, Jackson Hole and the Japanese Wildlife Film Festival. Cicada specialises in quality television documentaries – please see our website for further information on past productions http://www.cicadafilms.com

Please help us with our research by telling us about your unresolved, severe or rare case.
All calls will be in confidence and would not commit anybody to filming at this stage.

Please contact Allergy UK for more details on (UK 01322 619 898or E-mail us at: info@allergyuk.org

Healthcare Prof:

3.1 (10 votes)

Article Opinions:one posts
This online course is designed for health professionals in primary care throughout Europe who wish to learn the theoretical aspects of allergy to certificate or diploma level.

The allergy certificate and diploma are part of the online learning programme run by Allergy UK and inside the process of accreditation by the University of Greenwich.

These e-learning courses are fully online and incorporate sound pedagogical principles, a carefully constructed syllabus together with computer mediated tutoring.

HOW DOES IT WORK?

– 100% online – at times to suit you

– The Certificate comprises 15 weekly modules

– The Diploma continues through the certificate with a further 15 weekly modules

– Each module lasts 15 weeks – and builds on previous knowledge

– Classes are small – each with a trained tutor

– Learning is fully interactive through conference areas and email

KEY BENEFITS

– Great flexibility – to suit available time and individual interest

– Small classes – where you are a name not a number

– High levels of interactivity with fellow students and course tutors

– Unparalleled opportunities for decision making

Qualifications university accredited

To apply for the Allergy Diploma Course you need to be able to provide evidence of a national qualification or professional appointment as a Nurse Practitioner, General Medical Practitioner, Pharmacist and or Pharmaceutical Company Staff Member, Dietician or Health Visitor.

For more information please visit:
http://www.allergyuk.org/

Healthcare Prof:

USA – You may have seen the advertisement: A melodrama of crime and corruption, conflict and emotion, centering on indoor hit men like dust and dander, and outdoor hit men such as pollen and ragweed, all threatening to offend a young and very beautiful woman’s nose. The 45-second broadcast ad covers everything from talking to your doctor to the possible side effects that people can expect. Then the narrator mentions “Flonase.”

Entertaining though it may be, the Food and Drug Administration states this promotional piece about nasal allergy relief also has all the elements of a well-crafted, easy-to-understand prescription drug advertisement directed at consumers, and it meets agency requirements for these ads.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs in its varied forms–TV, radio, magazines, newspapers–is widely used throughout the United States. DTC advertising is really a category of promotional information about specific drug treatments provided directly to consumers by or on behalf of drug companies. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office–the investigational arm of Congress–pharmaceutical manufacturers spent $2.7 billion on DTC advertising in 2001 alone.

The Controversy

Whether it is a 1940s, detective-style film noir of unusual allergy suspects or a middle-aged man throwing a football through a tire swing announcing that he’s “back within the game,” the DTC approach to advertising prescription drugs has been controversial. Some say that DTC promotion provides useful information to consumers that results in better health outcomes. Others argue that it encourages overuse of prescription drugs and use with the most costly treatments, instead of less expensive treatments that would be just as satisfactory.

There seems to be little doubt that DTC advertising can help advance the public health by encouraging more people to talk with health care professionals about health problems, particularly under-treated conditions such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

DTC advertising also can help remove the stigma that accompanies diseases that within the past were rarely openly discussed, such as erectile dysfunction or depression. DTC ads also can remind patients to get their prescriptions refilled and help them adhere to their medication regimens.

On the other hand, ads that are false or misleading do not advance–and may even threaten–the public health. While the FDA encourages DTC advertisements that contain accurate information, the agency also has the job of making sure that consumers are not misled or deceived by advertisements that violate the law.

“The goal here is getting truthful, non-misleading information to consumers about safe and effective therapeutic products so they can be partners in their own health care,” says Peter Pitts, the FDA’s associate commissioner for external relations. “Better-informed consumers are empowered to choose and use the products we regulate to improve their health.”

MORE……..FDA Consumer magazine

By Carol Rados

Healthcare Prof:

2 (1 votes)

A genetically engineered allergy vaccine has provided promising results in a trial which took place in Austria, Sweden and France. This vaccine, say scientists, provided hay fever sufferers with significant benefits.

You can read about this trial in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The team say they have also had excellent results with other genetically engineered vaccines for many types of allergies.

Experts say that at least 25% of us have some kind of allergy (worldwide).

An allergy is an overreaction by the person’s immune system to a foreign body (this foreign body is harmless).

Most vaccines are aimed at increasing the body’s immune system. An allergy vaccine has the opposite aim – it has to minimize the person’s immune system.

Team leader, Rudolf Valenta, Medical University of Vienna, Austria, said “What we find in fact, is that when people are vaccinated, they have kind of a barrier of antibodies; and apparently these antibodies prevent the oil getting to the fire and heating up the allergic inflammation.”

The group produced genetically engineered birch tree pollen so that the body can produce antibodies which greatly minimize the immune response (to pollen). The vaccine did not only lessen response to birch wood pollen, but to many other pollens as well.

The advantage of using genetic engineering is that there are no side effects for the patient (in this case).

The group hope to develop their research so that vaccines can be made for all types of allergies – to treat an existing allergy or prevent one from developing.

Healthcare Prof:

Children who have severe allergic reactions when stung by bees, wasps and other insects must receive venom immunotherapy, or allergy shots, to minimize the chance of future life-threatening reactions if a repeat sting really should occur, said an allergist at UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. In an editorial published in today’s issue in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Rebecca Gruchalla, chief in the allergy division of internal medicine and associate professor of pediatrics at UT Southwestern, recommends the shots for children who have had a serious systemic allergic reaction to an insect sting.

Systemic allergic reactions go beyond the expected swelling and pain at the sting site and could include low blood pressure, tightness inside the chest and swelling inside the throat. These type reactions require immediate medical care due to their life-threatening nature, she said.

“Claritin isn’t going to be able to fix this,” Dr. Gruchalla said of the over-the-counter medicine used for seasonal allergies. “Severe reactions to stings and the stuffiness caused by ragweed are mediated by the same ‘allergy antibody,’ immunoglobulin E, but the clinical manifestations are very different.

“It’s similar to having a food allergy. The majority of kids with documented food allergies have only mild hive reactions when they eat the ‘culprit’ food, but for those with a severe allergy, the reaction could be deadly.”

The article accompanies a study by researchers through the Johns Hopkins Asthma and Allergy Center in Baltimore. Researchers found that children who had severe allergic reactions to bee stings and who were given the venom allergy shots were significantly less likely to suffer life-threatening reactions when restung, even if the repeat sting happened years later.

“The common belief has been that children typically outgrow insect sting allergies and for this reason, venom immunotherapy may not be needed. This study sets the record straight,” Dr. Gruchalla said, adding that the therapy is not necessary for kids who suffer from allergic skin reactions such as hives.

“Hopefully now, since hard data have been provided, physicians will be able to move beyond previous misconceptions and endorse venom immunotherapy for these children most at risk,” she said.

The culprits responsible for most with the reactions include honeybees, bumblebees, yellow jackets, yellow hornets, white-faced hornets, paper wasps and fire ants.

There are at least 40 fatal stings within the nation each year but it is likely that many deaths go unreported, Dr. Gruchalla said. Almost 1 percent of all children are reported to have a medical history of severe allergic reactions to insect stings, she said.

To automatically receive news releases from UT Southwestern via e-mail, subscribe at http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/receivenews

Contact: Staishy Bostick Siem
staishy.siem@utsouthwesten.edu
214-648-3404
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas

Healthcare Prof:

A cream applied to the inside of the nose appears effective in reducing the symptoms of allergic rhinitis, according to an article inside the August issue in the Archives of Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

According to the article, allergies are common and are often caused by inhaling or ingesting triggering allergens, such as pollen, dust, mites and animal dander. Hay fever is an inhalation allergy that causes rhinitis- an irritation from the mucous membranes from the nose often accompanied by sneezing, itching, nasal discharge, and congestion. Some allergy medications can cause adverse effects, the article states. A brand new ointment (a “pollen blocker cream”) applied inside the lower part from the nose is thought to form a barrier that traps allergens, reducing the number of allergens entering the nose and helps to reduce allergy symptoms.

Swetlana Schwetz, M.D., in the Federal Scientific Research Center, Moscow, Russia, and colleagues tested the effectiveness and safety of this pollen blocker cream in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted from November 2001 through September 2002 in two outpatient centers in Germany and 1 in Russia.

Ninety-one sufferers between the ages of 18 and 55 years with at least a two-year history of rhinitis were randomly assigned to receive either pollen blocker cream (n=43) or placebo gel (n=48). Participants applied the products to the lower part of the nostrils 4 times per day for nine days.

On day 1, patients’ allergic reactions were measured before application with the product using a face mask in a procedure called the nasal provocation test. The allergen each patient was most allergic to (as identified by a skin prick test) was delivered through the face mask in increasing concentrations over time until a reaction was elicited. Symptoms were scored on a scale of one to four, with four being the worst symptoms.

On day two, individuals applied either pollen blocker cream or placebo, and the nasal provocation test was performed again. The rate of airflow while in the nasal passageways was measured, and the patients’ symptoms were scored. On days two through five, the patients applied their products 4 times per day. On day six, the study was repeated, with sufferers who received the pollen blocker cream given placebo, and individuals who had received placebo for the first part from the study switched to pollen blocker cream.

The scientists found that the median symptom score decreased from 4 to one after application with the pollen blocker cream and from four to three in the placebo group. They also found that the increased improvement in airflow in response to remedy was roughly 20 percent while in the pollen blocker group and only about 10 percent in the placebo group.

“The blocker was significantly more effective than placebo and reduced the typical symptoms of allergic rhinitis in response to nasal challenge with allergen by nearly 60 percent (placebo reduced symptoms by 25 percent),” the scientists write. “The pollen blocker cream did not produce any adverse effects. For that reason, the efficacy of the investigational product can be rated as good.”

(Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:979-984. Available post-embargo at archoto.com) Editor’s Note: This study had funding provided by Phyt-Immum GmbH, Homburg, Germany.

To contact corresponding author Alexandre Grigorov, M.D., e-mail alexandre.grigorov@charite.de

For more information, contact JAMA/Archives Media Relations at 312-464-JAMA (5262) or e-mail mediarelations@jama-archives.org.

Contact: Alexandre Grigorov, M.D.
alexandre.grigorov@charite.de
JAMA and Archives Journals Website