Osteopathic manipulative treatment for inpatients with pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis: effects on spirometry findings and patient assessments of breathing, anxiety, and pain.

CONTEXT: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) has been studied in patients with various respiratory diseases. However, to the authors' knowledge, no studies have assessed the efficacy of OMT in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pulmonary function and perceptions of breathing, anxiety, and pain of CF patients who receive OMT in addition to standard inpatient management of pulmonary exacerbation. METHODS: In a single-blind randomized controlled trial, we assessed adult patients with a history of CF who were admitted to the hospital because of pulmonary exacerbation. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a daily standardized protocol of OMT or sham therapy. Both groups also received standard treatment for CF. Spirometry and questionnaire data (self-assessment of breathing, pain, and anxiety level) were collected before the first OMT or sham therapy session and after the final session. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients were included in the study: 16 in the OMT group and 17 in the sham therapy group. Improvements in spirometric parameters were observed in both the OMT and the sham therapy groups, with no statistically significant differences found between the groups. More patients in the OMT group than in the sham therapy group had questionnaire response patterns that indicated their breathing had improved during the study period (15 of 16 vs 8 of 16, respectively). No differences were found between groups for perceived improvement of pain and anxiety. CONCLUSION: In the current study, CF patients who received OMT did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in pre- and posttreatment spirometry findings compared with CF patients who received sham therapy. Questionnaire findings suggest that OMT may affect CF patients' perception of overall quality of breathing. Additional studies are needed to assess the clinical use of OMT in patients with CF.

The rate of epinephrine administration associated with allergy skin testing in a suburban allergy practice from 1997 to 2010.

Allergy skin testing is considered a safe method for testing for IgE-mediated allergic responses although anaphylactic events can occur. Reported rates of anaphylaxis per patient are not consistent and range from 0.008 to 4%. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of epinephrine use associated with allergy skin-prick testing (SPT) and intradermal testing (IDT) in a suburban practice over 13 years. This retrospective chart review used billing and procedure coding records during the time period from January 1997 to June 2010 to identify encounters where epinephrine was administered after SPT or IDT. Patient encounters with procedure codes for skin testing plus either parenteral epinephrine, corticosteroid, antihistamine, or i.v. fluid administration were identified. These patient charts were reviewed to determine if epinephrine was administered, whether systemic reactions developed, and rates of epinephrine administration were calculated. There were 28,907 patient encounters for SPT and 18,212 for IDT. Epinephrine was administered in six patient encounters (0.02%) where SPT was performed; no IDT encounters led to epinephrine administration. There were no fatalities. Allergy skin testing to a variety of allergens, when administered by well-trained personnel, is a safe procedure. This study, involving the largest population to date, showed a rate of systemic reactions requiring epinephrine of 20 per 100,000 SPT visits. No epinephrine was given after IDT.