Impact of a drug allergy education course for non-specialists: Findings from ADAPT-A randomized crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of drug allergy remain a global health concern. Drug allergy is often a neglected topic and many non-specialists lack sufficient knowledge or confidence in evaluating or managing this common condition. Evidence-based interventions to better equip non-specialists to tackle drug allergy are needed. The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive educational course on drug allergy knowledge and practice of non-specialists. METHODS: A randomized crossover trial (NCT06399601) was conducted among practicing physicians and nurses participating in an intensive drug allergy course-Advances in Drug Allergy & Penicillin Testing (ADAPT). Participants' baseline knowledge and self-reported practices were assessed with standardized questionnaires (scored from 0 to 100, with "satisfactory" defined as ≥60/100). Participants were randomized into two cohorts and attended ADAPT at different time points. Serial responses before and after the course were compared within and between cohorts. RESULTS: Seventy participants (25 physicians, 45 nurses) randomized into two groups completed the course. Baseline drug allergy knowledge (58.0 ± 19.9) and self-reported practice (36.9 ± 24.3) were unsatisfactory among non-specialists, with significantly lower scores from nurses than physicians in both domains (knowledge: 49.0 ± 17.4 vs. 74.0 ± 12.7; practice: 32.1 ± 21.3 vs. 53.3 ± 23.1; all p < 0.001). Following completion of ADAPT, participants demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge (58.0 ± 19.9 vs. 77.7 ± 15.9, p < 0.001) and self-reported practice (36.9 ± 24.3 vs. 71.0 ± 20.2, p < 0.001). All participants (100%) and 99% of participants agreed that the course improved their clinical knowledge and practice, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ADAPT, an intensive drug allergy educational course was effective in improving drug allergy knowledge and practice for non-specialists. Further longitudinal studies are required to evaluate long-term impact.

[RECURRENT AND VIRTUAL EDUCATION FOR ALL DISCIPLINES AND OCCUPATIONS IN THE ALLERGY REALM : A SURVEY OF THE PARTICIPANTS FROM THE INITIATIVE 'OUTREACH LECTURES' TO CREATE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES].

BACKGROUND: In the enhancement of allergy care involving multidisciplinary and multiple medical departments, there is a perceived need for education that targets not only specialists but also non-specialists. However, research on the need for and methods of such education remains inadequate. OBJECTIVE: To design a remote allergy care education program for all medical practitioners and to validate its necessity and utility. METHODS: The Empowering Next Generation Allergist/immunologist toward Global Excellence Task Force (ENGAGE-TF), supported by the Japanese Society of Allergology, initiated a virtual educational program called 'Outreach Lectures' in collaboration with Keio University and Fukui University. This initiative was widely promoted through social media and various institutions, and a survey was conducted through its mailing list. RESULTS: 1139 responses were obtained. More than half were physicians from non-allergy specialties, representing a diverse range of healthcare professions. Over 70% expressed being 'very satisfied,' and over 60% found the difficulty level 'appropriate.' Free-form feedback revealed differences in learning focus based on profession and learning approach based on years of experience. CONCLUSION: The high participation rate (90%) of non-specialist physicians underscores the demand for addressing allergic conditions in primary care. The effectiveness of virtual / recurrent education, particularly for healthcare professionals with over 11 years of experience, was implied. Further follow-up investigation focusing on quantitative and objective assessment of educational effectiveness is indispensable.

The appropriateness of penicillin allergy de-labelling by non-allergist clinical ward teams.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the appropriateness of penicillin allergy (PenA) assessment conducted by clinical teams and to review the safety of subsequent exposure of these patients to penicillin. METHODS: Opportunistic, prospective observational study of usual clinical care, between 16 May 2023 and 14 August 2023, of inpatients with a PenA and requiring antibiotics, in a 750-bed hospital in England. To assess the appropriateness of management, PenA patients prescribed penicillins were grouped into risk categories using a validated antibiotic allergy assessment tool: eligible for de-label on history alone (direct de-label; DDL), eligible for direct oral challenge (DOC), high risk or unable to obtain history. RESULTS: Of the 123 patients admitted with a PenA (or sensitivity record) and exposed to a penicillin, data were collected for 50. Their PenA records were grouped follows: eligible for DDL 34 (68%), eligible for DOC 11 (22%), high risk 4 (8%) and unable to obtain history 1 (2%). In 14/50 (28%) patients there was no evidence of a current PenA assessment in the medical notes. CONCLUSIONS: Using the allergy risk tool, most patients with PenA records were exposed to penicillin appropriately. However, patients meeting high-risk criteria were also exposed to penicillin when the tool excluded them. PenA assessment needs to be carried out with appropriate training and governance structures in place.

Prospective, Multicenter, Head-to-Head Comparison Between Allergists Versus Nonallergists in Low-Risk Penicillin Allergy Delabeling: Effectiveness, Safety, and Quality of Life (HK-DADI2).

BACKGROUND: Penicillin "allergy" labels are prevalent but frequently misdiagnosed. Mislabelled allergies are associated with adverse outcomes and increased antimicrobial resistance. With an urgent need to delabel the overwhelming number of mislabeled allergies, nonallergist evaluations have been advocated for low-risk individuals. Despite growing interest in non-allergist-led initiatives, evidence on their effectiveness, safety, and impact by direct comparisons is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative outcomes of penicillin allergy evaluations conducted by allergists versus nonallergists. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, pragmatic study was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals (1 allergist- vs 3 non-allergist-led) for low-risk penicillin allergy patients in Hong Kong-the Hong Kong Drug Allergy Delabelling Initiative 2 (HK-DADI2). RESULTS: Among 228 low-risk patients who underwent testing (32.9% by allergists, 67.1% by nonallergists), only 14 (6.1%) had positive penicillin allergy testing results. Delabeling rates (94.1% vs 93.3%; P = .777), positive skin test results (2.6% vs 2.7%; P > .99), and drug provocation test results (3.3% vs 2.7%; P = 1.000) were similar between allergists and nonallergists. There were no systemic reactions in either cohort. All patients had significant improvements in health-related quality of life (Drug Hypersensitivity Quality of Life Questionnaire scores -5.00 vs -8.33; P = .072). Nonallergist evaluations had shorter waiting times (0.57 vs 15.7 months; P < .001), whereas allergists required fewer consultations with higher rate of completing evaluations within a single visit (odds ratio, 0.04; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: With training and support, nonallergists can independently evaluate low-risk penicillin allergies. Compared with allergists, evaluation of low-risk penicillin allergy by nonallergists can be comparably effective, safe, and impactful on quality of life. More multidisciplinary partnerships to empower nonallergists to conduct allergy evaluations should be encouraged.

Identifying Children at Risk of Growth and Nutrient Deficiencies in the Food Allergy Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies affect growth in children by decreasing the availability of nutrients through decreased dietary intake, increased dietary needs, food-medication interactions, and psychosocial burden. Guidelines on food allergy management frequently recommend nutrition counseling and growth monitoring of children with food allergies. OBJECTIVE: To provide clear guidance for clinicians to identify children with food allergies who are at nutritional risk and ensure prompt intervention. METHODS: We provide a narrative review summarizing information from national and international guidelines, retrospective studies, population studies, review articles, case reports, and case series to identify those with food allergy at greatest nutritional risk, determine the impact of nutritional interventions on growth, and develop guidance for risk reduction in children with food allergies. RESULTS: Children with food allergies are at increased risk of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth. Nutritional assessment and intervention can improve outcomes. Identifying poor growth is an important step in the nutrition assessment. Therefore, growth should be assessed at each allergy evaluation. Interventions to ensure adequate dietary intake for growth include appropriately prescribed elimination diets, breast-feeding support and assessment, supplemental formula, vitamin and/or mineral supplementation, appropriate milk substitutes, and timely introduction of nutrient-dense complementary foods. Access to foods of appropriate nutritional value is an ongoing concern. CONCLUSION: Nutrition intervention or referral to registered dietitian nutritionists with additional training and/or experience in food allergy may result in improved growth and nutrition outcomes.

Perspectives and gaps in the management of food allergy and anaphylaxis in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Background: Food allergy (FA), which is a condition that has no effective cure and can result in severe life-threatening allergic reactions, remains a global public health concern; however, little is known about how FAs are currently managed in the Asia-Pacific region. Objective: The main objective of this survey was to evaluate the epidemiology of FA, as well as the availability of resources and practices for management of FA and anaphylaxis by health care providers across Asia. Methods: From June 2022 to September 2022, a questionnaire-based survey comprising 66 questions was electronically sent to member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology by using Survey Monkey. Results: A total of 20 responses were received from 15 member countries and territories. Compared with the pediatric data, there was a lack of prevalence data for FA in adults. Except for Australia and Japan, most regions had between 0.1 and 0.5 allergists per 100,000 population and some had fewer than 0.1 allergists per 100,000 population. The perceived rate of FA in regions with a short supply of allergists was high. Although specific IgE tests and oral food challenges were available in all regions, the median wait time for oral food challenges at government facilities was 37 days (interquartile range = 10.5-60 days). Seven regions still relied on prescriptions of ampules and syringes of injectable adrenaline, and adrenaline autoinjectors were not accessible in 4 regions. Oral immunotherapy as FA treatment was available in half of the surveyed countries and territories. Conclusions: Our study offers a cross-sectional evaluation of the management practices for FA in each Asia Pacific Association of Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology member country or territory. Urgent actions are required to enhance allergy services, improve the accessibility and affordability of adrenaline autoinjectors, and conduct robust epidemiologic studies.

Preparing the Allergist/Immunologist for the Next Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on society in general and allergists' practices in particular. The adverse effects included a loss of practice productivity and income, staffing, and in-office procedures due to concerns about the spread of infection and the need for social/physical distancing as well as isolation. Allergy training programs and research activities also suffered. Federal financial assistance, rapid adoption of telehealth with Medicare waivers, and adaptation of practice sites, training programs, and research activities allowed for some return to normal, although still with significant restrictions in staffing and in-office procedures. There were positive aspects to the pandemic in the form of telehealth initiatives, pathways for rapid development and approval of tests and treatments, opportunities for new collaborations, and expertise in vaccines. Preparation for the next pandemic needs to be considered now to avoid the mistakes and missteps that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic. On a national level, a strategy to overcome the societal divisions, misinformation/disinformation, and distrust of science needs to be developed based on better communication, as well as advocacy for continued improvement in our public health system. Practices and training programs as well as research centers need to institutionalize changes made during the pandemic so they can quickly be reinitiated when necessary.

Improving Detection of Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency: Role of the Allergist.

Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (AATD) is a genetic disorder that manifests as lung and/or liver disease. Because symptoms of AATD overlap with those of common pulmonary and hepatic conditions, AATD is often misdiagnosed, which has resulted in substantial underdiagnosis of AATD worldwide. Although screening patients for AATD is recommended, the lack of procedures to facilitate testing remains a barrier to accurate diagnosis of AATD. Delays in AATD diagnosis can worsen outcomes for patients by postponing appropriate disease-modifying treatments. Patients with AATD-related lung disease experience symptoms similar to other obstructive lung disorders and are often misdiagnosed for years. In addition to existing screening guidelines, we recommend that screening for AATD become a standard part of allergists' workups of patients with asthma and fixed obstructive disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis without known origin, and patients under consideration for treatment with biologics. This Rostrum article reviews screening and diagnostic tests available in the United States and emphasizes evidence-based strategies to increase testing frequency and improve AATD detection rates. We underscore the pivotal role of allergists in managing care for patients with AATD. Finally, we urge health care providers to be aware of potentially poor clinical outcomes among patients with AATD during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Primary care referral patterns for patients with asthma: analysis of real-world data.

OBJECTIVE: To identify features related to management of patients prior to referral from primary care physicians (PCPs) to pulmonologists and allergists. METHODS: This is an analysis of patient claims data from Symphony Health (2013-2018). To characterize referrals, a longitudinal cohort included 12 months with no asthma claims prior to the index date, followed by 36 months of observation. We also assessed a cross-sectional cohort for 12 months at the end of the observational period to characterize disease control and treatment patterns. Referral was defined as the first appearance of a claim from an allergist or pulmonologist for a patient's initial visit for asthma. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The majority of patients with asthma were managed by PCPs (60%), followed by pulmonologists (16%) and allergists (8%). Forty-three percent had uncontrolled asthma. Only 8% were referred to specialists within the first 24 months after initial diagnosis, of which 76% were seen by pulmonologists and 24% by allergists. Referrals resulted in treatment change in 55%-68% of the cases. Patients who received a referral were more likely to be on oral corticosteroids (OCS) and/or have more hospitalizations/ED visits. CONCLUSIONS: About one-third of the patients managed by PCPs received intermittent and/or chronic OCS prior to referral, which may be an indication of uncontrolled disease. The referral patterns in this analysis illustrate underutilization of specialists in the consultation and management of patients with uncontrolled asthma.

The effect of asthma specialist intervention on asthma control among adults.

Background: Various ways to improve asthma control have been studied, with only a modest effect. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of asthma specialist visit on asthma control among adult asthma patients. Patients and methods: This matched cohort study included patients ages 21-50 with asthma and at least 1 visit to an asthma specialist. Patients were compared to adult asthma patients treated only by primary care physicians. The study outcomes, included use of asthma medication, healthcare visits, and mortality. All outcomes were compared one year before and after specialist visit. Results: 4166 pairs were included in the study. In the study group, a statistically significant decrease in the average number of relievers (1.5 ± 3.2 vs. 1.17 ± 2.9, p < 0.001) and systemic steroids purchased (0.53 ± 1.2 vs. 0.4 ± 1.2, p < 0.001), with an increase in average number of inhaled steroid purchased (1.6 ± 2.5 vs. 2.3 ± 33, p < 0.001) was seen over time. A significant decrease in the average number of PCP visits (9.5 ± 7.2 vs. 8.9 ± 7.3, p < 0.001), emergency department (ED) visits (0.46 ± 1 vs. 0.4 ± 0.9, p = 0.05) and all-cause hospitalization (0.03 ± 0.22 vs. 0.01 ± 1.9, p < 0.001) was seen in the study group but not in controls. Generalized linear modeling demonstrated an overall significant effect of specialist intervention for all parameters (p < 0.01), except ED visits (p = 0.06). During follow-up, eight (0.2%) study group patients vs. 19 (0.5%) controls died (p = 0.03). Conclusion: We found that asthma specialist intervention significantly improved asthma outcomes in adults. Referring adult asthma patients to an asthma specialist should be a goal of asthma management plans. Trial registration: Not relevant.

The Impact of Allergy Specialty Care on Health Care Utilization Among Peanut Allergy Children in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The influence of allergist management on peanut allergy (PA)-related health care utilization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether allergist care lowers PA costs. METHODS: IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was analyzed for PA diagnosis/reaction-related codes (January 2010-June 2019) in patients 64 years or younger, with demographically matched non-PA food allergy controls (NPAFACs). Outcomes were measured and compared 12 months before/after first claim date. RESULTS: Among 72,854 persons with PA (39,068 with ≥1 allergist visit, 53.6%), and 166,825 NPAFACs, the number of National Drug Codes and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes was higher for persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit during both baseline and follow-up (all P < .001). Persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit were prescribed epinephrine at significantly higher rates (RR, 1.67; P < .001). Rates of epinephrine claims, mean epinephrine costs, and proportion with peanut anaphylaxis were higher among the PA group with versus without an allergist visit (69.9% vs 63.3%; $676 vs $493, 48.9% vs 20.7%; all P < .001). The proportion with anaphylaxis episodes was higher in the PA group versus the NPAFAC group (53.1% vs 31.6%; P < .001). Total health care costs were higher in the NPAFAC group versus the PA group ($7863 vs $7261; P < .001) and lower for persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit ($6347 vs $8270; P < .001), with no significant differences in PA reaction-related costs between PA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of anaphylaxis were seen among the PA group with versus without an allergist visit during the follow-up period (53.6% of overall PA group). Allergist care was associated with a reduction in total health care costs and higher rates of epinephrine prescription.

Role of Allergist Advice in Determining Personal Decisions for COVID-19 Vaccination of People With a History of Allergies.

Introduction Vaccination is the most important confirmed tool that can stop the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but the vaccination rate remains low in some countries, including Romania, despite consistent and undoubtedly scientific proof of this disease-prevention method. The risk of allergic reactions after COVID-19 vaccines may be a reasonable cause for the antivaccination attitude of people with a history of allergies or who consider themselves at risk for having severe allergic reactions after vaccination. Objective Our paper aims to analyze the role of allergist advice in getting people with a history of allergies to trust and accept COVID-19 vaccines and to evaluate the real risk of allergic reactions to these vaccines in this population. Method We performed a retrospective study of patients who asked for allergist advice from our hospital before getting one of the COVID-19 vaccines and who received a consultation either through phone call or online or have been admitted for hospital evaluation in 2021. Results More than 300 calls and 100 online consultations for COVID-19 vaccination-related allergist advice were done in our center within one year. From the total number of 210 people who were evaluated based on a one-day hospital stay in the Allergology department, 64 patients (30.47%) have been scheduled for evaluation before vaccination because of their past or recent medical history of allergies. Nine patients had documented post-vaccination adverse events, which occurred after the first dose in seven cases, after the second dose in one case, and after the booster in one case. The reactions were mild but one was moderate. No patient was considered to have a contraindication or special precaution for COVID-19 vaccination, and all patients with reactions after the first dose could safely complete the vaccination scheme. Conclusion In conclusion, allergist advice and evaluation can significantly influence the decision to vaccinate in patients with a history of allergies.

The perceived impact of pediatric food allergy on mental health care needs and supports: A pilot study.

Background: Evidence suggests a mental health impact of food allergy on affected children and their families; however, little is known about health care professionals' understanding of these impacts and the resources available to patients and their families. Objective: Our aim was to conduct a pilot study examining health care professionals' perceptions of the psychosocial and financial burden of food allergy to identify gaps in education and resources and thus better support families with food allergy moving forward. Methods: Between February 20 and November 19, 2020, we conducted audiorecorded interviews (n = 6) and profession-specific focus groups (n = 2 [representing 7 individuals]). The participants included pediatric allergists, allergy nurse educators, and clinical dietitians who were directly involved in pediatric food allergy care. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was subsequently applied to identify the main themes. Results: Our study consisted of an interdisciplinary group of Manitoban health care providers (N = 13) who were directly involved with pediatric food allergy care. We identified 3 main themes from these interviews: anxiety among families with food allergy, which is a common comorbidity; limited resources available within current public infrastructure; and empowerment through education. These themes describe issues surrounding access to information and resources and how this can affect anxiety and parenting styles among families with food allergy. Conclusions: Health care professionals perceive that many families experience anxiety as a result of their child's food allergy. They further advocate that access to information and suitability of public resources be considered when planning for related programs.

Development of a Website for a Living Network Meta-analysis of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments Using a User-Centered Design: Multimethod Study.

BACKGROUND: A rapid expansion of systemic immunological treatment options for atopic dermatitis (AD) has created a need for clinically relevant and understandable comparative efficacy and safety information for patients and clinicians. Given the scarcity of head-to-head trials, network meta-analysis (NMA) is an alternative way to enable robust comparisons among treatment options; however, NMA results are often complex and difficult to directly implement in shared decision-making. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop a website that effectively presents the results of a living systematic review and NMA on AD treatments to patient and clinician users. METHODS: We conducted a multimethod study using iterative feedback from adults with AD, adult caregivers of children with AD, dermatologists, and allergists within a user-centered design framework. We used questionnaires followed by workshops among patients and clinicians to develop and improve the website interface. Usability testing was done with a caregiver of a patient with eczema. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 31 adults with AD or caregivers and 94 clinicians. Patients and caregivers felt it was very important to know about new treatments (20/31, 65%). Clinicians felt the lack of evidence-based comparisons between treatments was a barrier to care (55/93, 59%). "Avoiding dangerous side effects" was ranked as the most important priority for patients (weighted ranking 5.2/7, with higher ranking being more important), and "improving patients' overall symptoms" was the most important priority for clinicians (weighted ranking 5.0/6). A total of 4 patients and 7 clinicians participated in workshops; they appreciated visualizations of the NMA results and found the website valuable for comparing different treatments. The patients suggested changes to simplify the interface and clarify terminology related to comparative efficacy. The user in the usability testing found the website intuitive to navigate. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a website, "eczematherapies.com," with a user-centered design approach. Visualizations of NMA results enable users to compare treatments as part of their shared decision-making process.

Multifaceted role of the registered nurse on an oral immunotherapy clinical team.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) emerged into clinical practice, and its delivery highlights the multifaceted expertise of registered nurses (RN) as central to allergy/immunology interprofessional collaborative teams. The allergist-RN model of clinical evidenced-based OIT provision is presented. RN competencies, role components, and intervention examples are included to assist RNs and allergists in maximizing RN capabilities. RNs' patient-centered focus, and the ability to evaluate and incorporate physical, psychological, and sociological patient aspects are assets to OIT teams. RNs can establish best practices, initiate scholarly inquiry, and disseminate new knowledge to interdisciplinary colleagues. RNs also implement allergist-prescribed standing protocols within their legal practice scope by using their clinical judgment during evaluation of a patient receiving OIT. The same RN may serve as a nurse clinician, patient and family educator, case manager, research collaborator, and OIT program manager. Allergy/immunology practices use diverse staffing models, which thus require adaptation of presented descriptions per clinical team needs and resources.

Current situation of allergy education in Mexico and other parts of Latin America.

Allergic diseases are one of the most frequent chronic diseases in the world. It has been established that there is a worldwide epidemic of allergic diseases; therefore, the treatment of allergies should be acknowledged as a worldwide priority and the specialty of allergy should be considered an important field in medicine. Due to the fact that allergic diseases involve many organs, and Allergy and Clinical Immunology is one of the specialties in which physicians may be trained to treat patients of all ages, the subject in medical schools is not always taught as an individual specialty but often as part of another subject such as internal medicine or pediatrics. Certified allergists are an important contribution to health systems, providing the necessary care for patients who have allergic diseases. Undergraduate programs in many universities do not include allergy as a subject, contributing to a lack of knowledge regarding the correct management of allergic diseases. World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 1 allergist per 50,000 people; however, there is an uneven distribution of allergy and clinical immunology specialists. Most practitioners are localized mainly in larger cities and state capitals, while in other regions, specialists are still greatly needed. Support and training systems are required for allergy and clinical immunology specialists to promote continuing education and keep their clinical competence up to date, which will lead to better care for their patients. Increased exposure to the concepts of allergy and clinical immunology diagnosis and treatment in undergraduate education may also potentially lead to an increase in interest in the field of allergy and clinical immunology among physicians in training. This review will approach allergy education in Mexico and other parts of Latin America.

Patient and physician perceptions of seasonal allergic rhinitis and allergen immunotherapy: a parallel physician patient survey.

BACKGROUND: The Allergy Patient Identification for Immunotherapy (AsPIRe) program was a parallel physician and patient survey. The objectives were to examine physician and patient perceptions of seasonal allergy symptoms and their impact on patients, and to examine patient and physician attitudes to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for seasonal allergies. AsPIRe was led by a steering committee and received research ethics board clearance from Queen's University. METHODS: Allergists (17) from across Canada enrolled in the AsPIRe program and completed an on-line survey to collect demographic information and baseline perceptions. Allergists then recruited patients and completed paper-based parallel physician and patient questionnaires. Patients received an AIT informational booklet with their questionnaire. Patients who were AIT-naïve with no contraindication to AIT and 12 years of age and older met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The survey was in field from February 2018 to June 2018. A total of 141 allergist surveys and 136 patient surveys were completed. Mean age of patients was 30 years old (range 12-70). Fifty-seven percent of patients reported prior knowledge of AIT. Seventy-two percent of patients reported seasonal allergies of longer than 5 years duration and in this subset of patients, 46% were at their first allergist visit. Seventy-three percent of all patients indicated they would be likely or very likely to try sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), if recommended by their allergist compared to 36% for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Conversely, 10% of patients reported they would be unlikely or very unlikely to try SLIT compared to 46% of patients who would be unlikely or very unlikely to try SCIT if recommended by their allergist. CONCLUSIONS: In this particular study cohort, there was a gap in perception between allergists and their patients as to the impact of allergy symptoms on daily life. Patients reported being more frequently impacted vs. their physician's assessment. When asked about preference for AIT options, Canadian patients reported they were more likely to follow their allergists' recommendation for initiation of SLIT compared to SCIT.