Skip to main content

Table 4 Items included in the questionnaire about “Allergy to other pollens” (4A) and results (4B)

From: Diagnosis and allergen immunotherapy treatment of polysensitised patients with respiratory allergy in Spain: an Allergists’ Consensus

4A) 4B)
Items Mean Median % Panellists IQ Result
69- Pollen respiratory allergy does not always have a seasonal character 7.79 8 8.06 2 A
70- In the allergologic diagnosis, it is essential to know the allergenic sources and preferential exposure calendars from the geographic area 8.37 8.5 0 1 A
71- In the allergologic diagnosis, it is essential to know the sensitisation prevalence to different allergenic molecules from the geographical area 7.77 8 6.45 2 A
72- It is essential to know the aerobiology area: more captures are needed 7.81 8 8.06 2 A
Clinical relevance
73- The diagnosis of allergy to Parietaria can sometimes be hampered by the co-sensitisation to other allergen sources, such as dust mites 6.84 7 25.81 2 A
74- Sensitisation to Parietaria pollen represents a major challenge for the establishment of clinical relevance, because pollination coincides with other relevant allergenic sources 7.35 7.5 12.9 1 A
75- Clinical data (symptoms, time of symptoms, their duration) and aerobiological data are the most important tools for the diagnosis of primary sensitisation sources in patients sensitised to multiple pollens 6.85 7 20 1 A
76- In pollinic polysensitised patients, panallergen skin-tests (profilin, LTP and polcalcin) are useful for selecting relevant allergens 6.82 8 25.81 2 A
77- The molecular diagnosis does not provide more information than skin-tests, as most sensitisation is due to relevant molecular allergens rather than panallergens 4.85 3 48.33 4 NC
78- In a polysensitised patient, the presence of symptoms during the pollinic period of given pollen does not imply clinical relevance of this allergenic source 5.22 5.5 88.33 4 NC
79- Molecular diagnostics is limited by the supply of molecular constituents of low prevalence pollens 6.87 7 11.67 1 A
Therapeutic strategy
80- Immunotherapy is contraindicated in polysensitised patients with more than two clinically relevant pollen types 2.66 2.5 17.74 2 D
81- Patients polysensitised to pollens with polcalcin sensitisation do not benefit from treatment with immunotherapy because they have a higher number of reactions 4.1 5 45 2 NC
82- The administration of more than one vaccine could be indicated for patients sensitised to more than one relevant allergenic source 6.63 7 20 0 A
83- Immunotherapy prescription with different allergenic sources is only justified in the case that pollination periods from such sources do not coincide 2.92 3 22.58 1 D
84- When prescribing immunotherapy with a mixture of several allergenic sources, only those pollens with significant exposure should be considered 7.07 7 11.67 0 A
85- In areas where grass and olive are prevalent allergens, if profilin is positive, only grass must be included in the vaccine, although it is also common to find sensitisation to other pollens as well 4.03 3 35 3.5 NC
86- If mixtures of several allergenic sources are used in immunotherapy, they should include a higher percentage, depending on the clinical relevance of each geographical area 4.58 5 66.67 4 NC
87- Immunotherapy would only be indicated if quality extracts for these pollens exist 7.81 8 6.45 2 A
88- The efficacy of immunotherapy is associated with an early indication 7.31 7.5 19.35 1 A
  1. A = Agreement; D = Disagreement; NC = No Consensus; IQ = Interquartile range.
  2. % panellists = percentage of panellists out of the median region.