A Comparison of the United States and International Perspective on Chronic Urticaria Guidelines

作者：Zuberbier Torsten; Bernstein Jonathan A^*

来源：Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice, 2018, 6(4): 1144-1151.

DOI：10.1016/j.jaip.2018.04.012

• Urticaria
• Angioedema
• Guidelines
• International
• United States
• Joint Task Force
• Scientific evidence
• Evaluation
• Treatment

Urticaria is a heterogeneous skin disorder that may be acute or chronic and is defined by the appearance of wheals, angioedema, or both. The European perspective is expressed in a recent international guideline and the American perspective has been based on the US Joint Task Force chronic urticaria practice parameter published in 2014. Both the international guideline (initiated by the European societies European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology [EAACI]/Global Allergy and Asthma European Network [GA(2)LEN]/European Dermatology Forum [EDF] in collaboration with the World Allergy Organization [WAO]) and the US (American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology) guideline have been developed to help direct primary care physicians and specialists in the management of their patients with urticaria. The EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO guideline applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to developing consensus recommendations and these were then discussed in a Delphi conference including more than 250 specialists in the field and have been endorsed by more than 40 international societies. In contrast, the US Joint Task Force CU practice parameter made recommendations based on scientific evidence whenever possible; however, when there was insufficient evidence, recommendations were based on expert consensus opinion. Although both agree on most points regarding the definition, general evaluation, and treatment, there are some differences that exist between the 2 guidelines. Most of these differences pertain to recommendations based on expert opinion because of weak scientific evidence. Within this document, we compare the recommendations of these 2 groups, highlighting the key similarities and differences.

• 出版日期2018-8