4.4 Article

Hereditary angiodema: a current state-of-the-art review, VII: Canadian Hungarian 2007 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema

期刊

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
卷 100, 期 1, 页码 S30-S40

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60584-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We published the Canadian 2003 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of Hereditary Angioedema (HAE; C1 inhibitor[C1-INH] deficiency) in 2004. Objective: To ensure that this consensus remains current. Methods: In collaboration with the Canadian Network of Rare Blood Disorder Organizations, we held the second Canadian Consensus discussion with our international colleagues in Toronto, Ontario, on February 3, 2006, and reviewed its content at the Fifth C1 Inhibitor Deficiency Workshop in Budapest on June 2, 2007. Papers were presented by international investigators, and this consensus algorithm approach resulted. Results: This consensus algorithm outlines the approach recommended for the diagnosis, therapy, and management of HAE, which was agreed on by the authors of this report. This document is only a consensus algorithm approach and continues to require validation. As such, participants a-reed to make this a living 2007 algorithm, a work in progress, and to review its content at future international HAE meetings. Conclusions: There is a paucity of double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on the treatment of HAE, making levels of evidence to support the algorithm less than optimal. Controlled trials currently under way will provide further insight into the management of HAE. As with our Canadian 2003 Consensus, this 2007 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy, and Management of HAE was formed through the meeting and agreement of patient care professionals along with patient group representatives and individual patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据