Hereditary angioedema: beyond international consensus - circa December 2010 - The Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Dr. David McCourtie Lecture
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The 2010 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy and Management of Hereditary Angioedema was published earlier this year in this Journal (Bowen et al. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology 2010, 6:24 - http://www.aacijournal.com/content/6/1/24). Since that publication, there have been multiple phase III clinical trials published on either prophylaxis or therapy of hereditary angioedema and some of these products have changed approval status in various countries. This manuscript was prepared to review and update the management of hereditary angioedema. OBJECTIVE: To review approaches for the diagnosis and management of hereditary angioedema (HAE) circa December 2010 and present thoughts on moving from HAE management from international evidence-based consensus to facilitate more local health unit considerations balancing costs, efficacies of treatments, and risk benefits. Thoughts will reflect Canadian and international experiences. METHODS: PubMed searches including hereditary angioedema and diagnosis, therapy, management and consensus were reviewed as well as press releases from various pharmaceutical companies to early December 2010. RESULTS: The 2010 International Consensus Algorithms for the Diagnosis, Therapy and Management of Hereditary Angioedema is reviewed in light of the newly published phase III Clinical trials for prevention and therapy of HAE. Management approaches and models are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus approach and double-blind placebo controlled trials are only interim guides to a complex disorder such as HAE and should be replaced as soon as possible with large phase IV clinical trials, meta analyses, data base registry validation of approaches including quality of life and cost benefit analyses, safety, and head-to-head clinical trials investigating superiority or non-inferiority comparisons of available approaches. Since not all therapeutic products are available in all jurisdictions and since health care delivery approaches and philosophy vary between countries, each health care delivery sector will likely devise their own algorithms based on local practicalities for implementing evidence-based guidelines and standards for HAE disease management. Quality-of-life and cost affordability benefit conclusions will likely vary between countries and health care units. Data base registries for rare disorders like HAE should be used to detect early adverse events for new therapies and to facilitate phase IV clinical trials and encourage superiority and non-inferiority comparisons of HAE management approaches.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».