Innovations in the treatment of anaphylaxis: A review of recent data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current standard of first-line emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is intramuscular (IM) epinephrine, mostly administered through epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) in the outpatient setting. However, undercarriage and underuse of EAIs are common, and delayed epinephrine use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals have expressed a strong desire for small, needle-free devices and products that would offer improved carriage, ease of use, and more convenient, less invasive routes of epinephrine administration. Novel mechanisms of epinephrine administration are under investigation to help address several recognized EAI limitations. This review explores innovative nasal and oral products under investigation for the outpatient emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. FINDINGS: Human studies of epinephrine administered through nasal epinephrine spray, a nasal powder spray, and a sublingual film have been conducted. Data from these studies indicate promising pharmacokinetic results comparable to those of the standard of outpatient emergency care (0.3-mg EAI) and syringe and needle IM epinephrine administration. Several products have shown maximum plasma concentration values higher than those of the 0.3-mg EAI and manual IM injection, although it remains unclear whether this has clinical relevancy in patient outcomes. Generally, these modalities show comparable time to maximum concentrations. Pharmacodynamic changes observed with these products are comparable to or more robust than those seen with EAI and manual IM injection. SUMMARY: Given comparable or superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results and safety of innovative epinephrine therapies to those of current standards of care, US Food and Drug Administration approval of these products may help address numerous barriers that EAIs present. The ease of use and carriage and favorable safety profiles of needle-free treatments may make them an attractive alternative to patients and caregivers, potentially addressing injection fears, needle-based safety risks, and other reasons for lack of or delayed use.

Proposed solutions by the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and advocacy experts to address racial disparities in atopic dermatitis and food allergy.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and food allergies are more prevalent and more severe in people with skin of color than White individuals. The American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) sought to understand the effects of racial disparities among patients with skin of color with AD and food allergies. The ACAAI surveyed its members (N = 200 completed), conducted interviews with health care providers and advocacy leaders, and hosted a roundtable to explore the challenges of diagnosis and management of AD and food allergies in people with skin of color and to discuss potential solutions. Most of the survey respondents (68%) agreed that racial disparities make it difficult for people with skin of color to receive adequate treatment for AD and food allergies. The interviews and roundtable identified access to care, burden of costs, policies and infrastructure that limit access to safe foods and patient education, and inadequate research involving people with skin of color as obstacles to care. Proposed solutions included identifying ways to recruit more people with skin of color into clinical trials and medical school, educating health care providers about diagnosis and treating AD and food allergy in people with skin of color, improving access to safe foods, creating and disseminating culturally appropriate materials for patients, and working toward longer appointment times for patients who need them. Challenges in AD and food allergy in persons with skin of color were identified by the ACAAI members. Solutions to these challenges were proposed to inspire actions to mitigate racial disparities in AD and food allergy.

Determining the minimal important differences in the RQLQ score with grass and tree allergy immunotherapy versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe allergy.

BACKGROUND: Pollen from grasses and trees can trigger allergic rhinitis (AR), where the symptoms and associated consequences can negatively affect quality of life (QoL). The Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) is frequently used in clinical trials of AR to assess QoL. To help interpret RQLQ data, the minimal important difference (MID) can be used to assess whether a mean difference in QoL between treatment groups is clinically meaningful. In seasonal allergy, an MID differs according to the allergen, pollen exposure, symptom severity, patient age and treatment; the same MID cannot be applied to all scenarios. METHODS: Using data from four Phase III clinical trials of SQ sublingual immunotherapy-tablets in adults with moderate-to-severe allergy, between-group MIDs were derived for the RQLQ in grass pollen allergy (during the peak [n = 501] and entire [n = 514] pollen seasons), and in tree pollen allergy (during the birch [n = 516] and tree [n = 518] pollen seasons), using anchor-based methodology, supported by distribution-based methods. RESULTS: For grass pollen allergy, anchor-based derived between-group MIDs were 0.22 for the entire pollen season (n = 343) and 0.10 for the peak pollen season (n = 335). For tree pollen allergy, anchor-based derived between-group MIDs were 0.26 for the tree pollen season (n = 306) and 0.16 for the birch pollen season (n = 305) (representative of peak season). Distribution-based derived MIDs were supportive of the anchor-based values. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has derived between-group MIDs specific to the trial populations evaluated and to the conditions under which the data were obtained, and highlights the need for a range of MIDs to reflect the unique nature of seasonal allergic disease.

Pediatric sublingual allergen immunotherapy.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) offers an important therapeutic modality in the management of children with respiratory allergies. Along with subcutaneous immunotherapy, these modalities are the only selections that have shown not merely relief of symptoms but also disease-modifying activity. SLIT can be given as either a dissolvable tablet (SLIT-T) or liquid drops (SLIT-D). In studies that examined the efficacy and safety in allergic rhinitis and asthma, SLIT-T and SLIT-D both show efficacy in reducing symptoms and the need for medication, although it seems that SLIT-T may show a better response. Almost all SLIT-D efficacy studies are with single allergens. There are virtually no data on the efficacy of mixing unrelated allergens in the same prescription. Both SLIT-T and SLIT-D treatments are safe, with the most common adverse effects being local ones, such as oral pruritus and mouth irritation, which tend to be mild and short lived. Studies that assess the role of SLIT in the prevention of new sensitizations and asthma in the pediatric population are insufficient and of mixed results; therefore, no conclusions can be made. In the treatment of other pediatric conditions, such as food allergy and atopic dermatitis, there are few studies that assessed if, and the degree of, the benefit with SLIT. In determining if SLIT should be prescribed for the pediatric patient, there is a need for shared decision-making to allow the older child and parents or caregivers to understand the pros and cons, and the costs of all the options and relate their values and preferences to the physician.

Allergy to oak pollen in North America.

Background: Oak pollen is an important allergen in North America. The genus Quercus (oak) belongs to the family Fagaceae under the order Fagales. Objective: The objective of this article was to narratively review the oak pollen season, clinical and epidemiologic aspects of allergy to oak pollen, oak taxonomy, and oak allergen cross-reactivity, with a focus on the North American perspective. Methods: A PubMed literature review (no limits) was conducted. Publications related to oak pollen, oak-related allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, and oak-related allergic asthma were selected for review. Results: Oak species are common throughout the United States and contribute up to 50% to overall atmospheric pollen loads. Mean peak oak pollen counts can reach >2000 grains/m³. The start of the oak pollen season generally corresponds to the seasonal shift from winter to spring based on latitude and elevation, and may begin as early as mid February. The duration of the season can last > 100 days and, in general, is longer at lower latitudes. In the United States, ∼30% of individuals with allergy are sensitized to oak. The oak pollen season correlates with increased allergic rhinitis symptom-relieving medication use and asthma-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Oak falls within the birch homologous group. Extensive immunologic cross-reactivity has been demonstrated between oak pollen and birch pollen allergens, and, more specifically, their major allergens Que a 1 and Bet v 1. The cross-reactivity between oak and birch has implications for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) because guidelines suggest selecting one representative allergen within a homologous group for AIT, a principle that would apply to oak. Conclusion: Allergy to oak pollen is common in North America and has a substantial clinical impact. Oak pollen allergens are cross-reactive with birch pollen allergens, which may have implications for AIT.

Efficacy and safety of crisaborole in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis and other atopic comorbidities.

Background: Crisaborole is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD); however, the efficacy and safety of crisaborole in patients with AD and other atopic comorbidities have not been investigated. Objective: This post hoc pooled analysis of the pivotal phase III studies (CrisADe CORE 1 and CORE 2) assessed the efficacy and safety of crisaborole versus vehicle in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD and other atopic comorbidities. Methods: Patients with mild-to-moderate AD and a medical history of asthma, allergic rhinitis, or food allergies were identified. Efficacy assessments included the proportion of patients who achieved Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) success at day 29, ISGA clear or almost clear at day 29, and improvement in the Severity of Pruritus Scale score at week 4. Safety was assessed via treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: This analysis included 1522 patients (crisaborole, 1016; vehicle, 506); 26.2, 15.9, and 16.5% had a medical history of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and food allergies, respectively. The mean age was 12.2 years. A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with crisaborole achieved ISGA success at day 29 compared with patients treated with vehicle for most subgroups analyzed. Furthermore, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with crisaborole achieved ISGA clear or almost clear at day 29 across all subgroups and demonstrated improvement in the Severity of Pruritus Scale score at week 4 versus patients treated with vehicle in most of the subgroups. Overall, most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity; the most common treatment-related TEAE in patients with atopic comorbidities was application-site pain (crisaborole, 5.1%; vehicle, 1.7%). Conclusion: Crisaborole was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate AD and other atopic comorbidities, which suggested that crisaborole should be considered for the management of AD in this population. Clinical Trials NCT02118766 (CrisADe CORE 1) and NCT02118792 (CrisADe CORE 2), www.clinicaltrials.gov.

The role of mobile health technologies in allergy care: An EAACI position paper.

Mobile health (mHealth) uses mobile communication devices such as smartphones and tablet computers to support and improve health-related services, data and information flow, patient self-management, surveillance, and disease management from the moment of first diagnosis to an optimized treatment. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology created a task force to assess the state of the art and future potential of mHealth in allergology. The task force endorsed the "Be He@lthy, Be Mobile" WHO initiative and debated the quality, usability, efficiency, advantages, limitations, and risks of mobile solutions for allergic diseases. The results are summarized in this position paper, analyzing also the regulatory background with regard to the "General Data Protection Regulation" and Medical Directives of the European Community. The task force assessed the design, user engagement, content, potential of inducing behavioral change, credibility/accountability, and privacy policies of mHealth products. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and allergic patients are discussed, underlining the need of thorough investigation for an effective design of mHealth technologies as auxiliary tools to improve quality of care. Within the context of precision medicine, these could facilitate the change in perspective from clinician- to patient-centered care. The current and future potential of mHealth is then examined for specific areas of allergology, including allergic rhinitis, aerobiology, allergen immunotherapy, asthma, dermatological diseases, food allergies, anaphylaxis, insect venom, and drug allergy. The impact of mobile technologies and associated big data sets are outlined. Facts and recommendations for future mHealth initiatives within EAACI are listed.

Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: What Are the Important Therapeutic and Real-World Considerations?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Allergen immunotherapy has been used for over 100 years in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. With two major options for administering this disease-modifying therapy, SCIT, and SLIT, what is our current understanding of the efficacy and safety of each one? How do we determine who is the appropriate candidate for each one in the real world? RECENT FINDINGS: SCIT and SLIT show significant improvement in clinical symptoms and need for medication in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In recent meta-analyses, there is no significant difference in the efficacy between the two treatments, but SLIT has more local side effects though less systemic ones. Shared decision-making should be instituted to determine which treatment should be started in a patient with allergic rhinitis. This review provides up-to-date information on the efficacy and safety of SCIT vs SLIT in the care of children and adults with allergic rhinitis in the real world and the role of shared decision-making in the use of these modalities. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04145219 and NCT02478398.

Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Childhood Asthma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been an explosion of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of severe uncontrolled adult asthma. Studies have now been published in severe pediatric asthma. There are numerous questions that need to be answered in determining whether these modalities are appropriate and safe in children. RECENT FINDINGS: This is a narrative review examining the latest pediatric literature on monoclonal antibodies, both approved and in the pipeline, for uncontrolled asthma. Presently, all of the biologics are positioned to treat patients with underlying type 2 high disease. Two monoclonal antibodies are approved for children 6 years of age and older, omalizumab and mepolizumab, with more likely approved in the near future. The effect of these agents in controlling severe pediatric asthma is promising. Data is limited to long-term efficacy and safety, and whether any agent has an effect on the natural history of asthma.

Intravenous Cetirizine Versus Intravenous Diphenhydramine for the Treatment of Acute Urticaria: A Phase III Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute urticaria is a frequent presentation in emergency departments (EDs), urgent care centers, and other clinical arenas. Treatment options are limited if diphenhydramine is the only intravenous antihistamine offered because of its short duration of action and well-known adverse effects. We evaluate cetirizine injection, the first second-generation injectable antihistamine, for acute urticaria in this multicenter, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: Adult patients presenting to EDs and urgent care centers with acute urticaria requiring an intravenous antihistamine were randomized to either intravenous cetirizine 10 mg or intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg. The primary endpoint was the 2-hour pruritus score change from baseline, with time spent in treatment center and rate of return to treatment centers as key secondary endpoints. Frequency of sedation and anticholinergic adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: Among 262 enrolled patients, the 2-hour pruritus score change from baseline for intravenous cetirizine was statistically noninferior to that for intravenous diphenhydramine (-1.6 versus -1.5; 95% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.3), and in favor of cetirizine. Treatment differences also favored cetirizine for mean time spent in treatment center (1.7 versus 2.1 hours; P=.005), return to treatment center (5.5% versus 14.1%; P=.02), lower change from baseline sedation score at 2 hours (0.1 versus 0.5; P=.03), and adverse event rate (3.9% versus 13.3%). CONCLUSION: Intravenous cetirizine is an effective alternative to intravenous diphenhydramine for treating acute urticaria, with benefits of less sedation, fewer adverse events, shorter time spent in treatment center, and lower rates of revisit to treatment center.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps management in the age of biologics.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis is one of the most common medical conditions seen in the U.S. population. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) in adults has predominately a type 2 inflammatory endotype that usually is treated with medical management that consists of inhaled corticosteroids, saline solution irrigation, oral corticosteroid bursts, and, at times, leukotriene antagonists and antibiotics. If medical management fails, then surgical intervention is usually recommended. Various biologics that target type 2 inflammation are now available, which have been or will be approved for use in these patients. Objective: To determine where biologics that affect the type 2 pathway fit into the algorithm of treatment for CRSwNP. Methods: A review of the literature on standard-of-care measures and surgical interventions in CRSwNP and an analysis of recent studies on the efficacy and safety of biologics in this condition. Results: Standard of care with medication and surgical interventions fail in some patients with CRSwNP. Biologics that affect the type 2 inflammatory pathway led to a decrease in nasal polyp size, improved nasal congestion, and improved quality of life both in patients who had surgery and those who had not had surgery for CRSwNP. Also, they showed efficacy and safety in patients whether or not they had comorbid asthma. These agents do not cure the patient with CRSwNP, and will be required chronically for control. Conclusion: Shared decision-making should be used in determining the use of certain medications, surgical management, and biologics in patients with CRSwNP. In patients for whom surgery has already failed and in patients with moderate-to-severe CRSwNP who have other type 2 comorbidities, e.g., asthma, a trial of biologics is a rational course.

Shared decision making for the allergist.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more commonly appreciated and used in medical practice as a way to empower patients who are facing treatment preference-sensitive conditions, such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and persistent asthma. The purpose of this review is to educate the allergy health care provider about how SDM works and provide practical advice and allergist-specific SDM resources. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and online patient decision aid resources. STUDY SELECTIONS: Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and patient decision aids relevant to the allergy health care provider were selected for discussion. RESULTS: There are ethical, practical, economic, and psychological imperatives for the implementation of quality SDM, particularly for chronic diseases. Many benefits and barriers of SDM have been identified and models have been developed to encourage implementation of quality SDM. For the allergy health care provider, SDM for asthma has been shown to improve adherence, outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care. Patient decision aids are useful tools for SDM and have recently been developed for allergen immunotherapy, severe asthma, and atopic dermatitis. CONCLUSION: Effective SDM has been shown to improve adherence and lead to better outcomes. SDM should be universally implemented as a key component of patient-centered health care. Allergy health care providers should work with their patients to reach treatment decisions that align with their values and preferences.

Current management and use of oral immunotherapy in the United States for patients with peanut allergy.

Background: Peanut allergy is a major health burden in the United States. Treatment is limited to avoidance and acute reaction management. No drug or medical product is approved for use as a peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) agent. Objective: To examine peanut allergy diagnosis and treatment, peanut challenge protocols, nonpublished POIT approaches, POIT practice requirements and logistical considerations, and barriers to providing POIT. Methods: Qualitative in-depth telephonic interviews were conducted with 34 allergists and nurse food allergy specialists across the United States between April and June 2016. Interviewed clinicians managed > 100 patients with peanut allergy per year; 50% of the interviewed allergists offered POIT in clinical studies or used self-developed approaches. Results: The physicians consistently reported conducting food challenges in 5-10% of patients to confirm a peanut allergy diagnosis. The allergists who offered POIT described using a variety of approaches. Areas of divergence included patient selection (ages, 4-7 years), peanut material (crushed peanuts, peanut flour, peanut protein, peanut butter, peanut extract), starting and ending doses, and updosing intervals (1 to 2 weeks). Generally, POIT administration and observation occupied an examination room for up to 2 hours; some practices reported accommodating 2 to 5 patients who received POIT simultaneously. Among physicians who did not offer POIT, barriers included medicolegal risks and the lack of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapy. Conclusion: Although POIT is currently not supported in treatment guidelines, some allergists have developed experimental POIT approaches to support patient needs. In the absence of a product that has approval by the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA) or other national competent authority, substantial variability in POIT approaches exists. Although logistical factors are not major obstacles to adoption, POIT dose preparation can be perceived as burdensome, and observation requires a dedicated staff. All the physicians interviewed suggested a need for effective, FDA-approved, disease-modifying treatments.

The burden of allergic rhinitis and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis on adolescents: A literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature regarding the burden of allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in adolescents (aged 10-19 years). DATA SOURCES: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Health Technology Assessment Database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database for studies that evaluated concepts of symptoms, quality of life (QOL), daily activities, sleep, examination performance, school absenteeism and presenteeism, and treatment burden in adolescents with AR or ARC. STUDY SELECTIONS: English-language journal articles indexed in the last 15 years describing noninterventional, population-based studies. Records were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 27 articles were identified; outcomes evaluated were symptoms (n = 6 studies), QOL (n = 9), daily activities (n = 5), emotional aspects (n = 3), sleep (n = 6), education (n = 7), and treatment burden (n = 2). AR symptoms rated most bothersome were rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, and itchy eyes. QOL was worse in adolescents with AR vs controls regardless of QOL instrument used. Nasal symptoms and nasal obstruction were more likely to be associated with poor QOL in adolescents than in adults or younger children, respectively. Daily functioning and sleep were also negatively affected by AR. In addition, a detrimental effect on absenteeism, school productivity, and academic performance was reported. CONCLUSION: Although AR and ARC are sometimes perceived as trivial conditions, this review indicates that their effect on adolescent life is negative and far-reaching. It is critical that clinicians gain a greater understanding of the unique burden of AR and ARC in adolescents to ensure they receive prompt and appropriate care and treatment to improve clinical and academic outcomes.

The burden of atopic dermatitis.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a dermatologic condition that affects a large percentage of children and adults in the United States. The disease process is not fully understood, and, currently, there is no cure, so today's treatment methodologies focus on the rash and the symptoms, e.g., pruritus. Even though there is no mortality with this condition, there is significant morbidity and burden. Objective: This review concentrated on several areas in which AD influences quality of life. The areas include sleep, interference with daily activities (e.g., school and/or work), psychological stressors, and the impact on parents and caregivers. The direct and indirect costs of AD are also examined. Methods: A medical literature search was conducted that focused on quality of life (QOL), health-related quality of life, and costs in patients with AD. Results: AD caused poor QOL as assessed in both generic and specific QOL questionnaires. Skin pain was frequently experienced in this condition, which worsens QOL. A significant effect on sleep was found in multiple studies. A large amount of school and/or work absenteeism and psychological stressors was seen in patients with AD. Multiple burdens of the caregivers and parents of patients with AD were documented. Medical costs were also significantly higher compared with patients without AD. Conclusion: The impact of AD is likely more significant than previously acknowledged. AD results in significant morbidity as seen through generic and specific QOL questionnaires, sleep studies, and other questionnaires that measure psychological effects. Physicians should consider evaluating patients with AD beyond their rash and symptoms to achieve the best care possible.

Guiding principles for use of newer biologics and bronchial thermoplasty for patients with severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma poses significant disease-related and economic burdens in the United States. Challenges in practice include how to define "severe asthma" for a given patient, knowing which are the right tests to perform and when, and having a better understanding of a patient's asthma phenotype. Furthermore, current guidelines do not address a clear, practical approach to treatment that is based on a patient's asthma phenotype. OBJECTIVE: To develop a consensus on the definition of severe asthma, the role of biomarkers and phenotyping severe asthma, and the use of newer biologic therapies and bronchial thermoplasty to help guide practicing clinicians. METHODS: A roundtable meeting was convened with a panel of severe asthma experts to discuss areas in practice that are not adequately addressed by current guidelines, specifically phenotype-guided treatment. RESULTS: We describe a consensus on the definition of severe asthma, asthma phenotyping with the use of available biomarkers, and guiding principles for newer biologic therapies and bronchial thermoplasty. CONCLUSION: To optimize therapy and improve outcomes such as daily symptoms, quality of life, exacerbations, and hospitalizations, a clear picture of a patient's asthma phenotype is needed to guide therapy. Determining asthma phenotypes is the foundation of precision medicine for this persistent, often difficult-to-treat disease.

Diagnosis and treatment of nasal and ocular allergies: the Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) surveys.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is managed by a number of health care professional specialties, whose practice styles may vary. OBJECTIVE: To survey patients and health care professionals about the diagnosis and treatment of ARC. METHODS: The Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) surveys were telephone surveys of randomly selected patients and health care professionals in the United States in 2012. Participants were 2,765 people ever diagnosed as having nasal and/or ocular allergies and 500 practitioners in 7 specialties who were treating ARC. RESULTS: Adult respondents to the patient survey reported that their allergies had been diagnosed most often by physicians in family practice (46%) rather than by allergists/immunologists (17%) or otolaryngologists (11%). Children's allergies had been diagnosed most often by pediatricians (41%) and family practitioners (22%). Most respondents with conditions diagnosed by an allergist/immunologist (94.9%) or otolaryngologist (62.7%) had been given an allergy test, but the test was not given to most patients with conditions diagnosed by family practitioners (61.3%) or pediatricians (64.9%). Most patients (75.8%) were treating their allergies with over-the-counter medications, and 53.5% were taking prescription medications. Allergen immunotherapy was being used by 33% (adult) or 28% (child) patients of allergist/immunologists, 25% (adult) or 24% (child) patients of otolaryngologists, and 8% and 10% of patients of family practitioners and pediatricians, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most patients took nonprescription medications for their allergy symptoms or were treated by general practitioners, who did not use allergy testing when diagnosing ARC. Most patients seen by allergist/immunologists and otolaryngologists were evaluated with allergy tests, and most allergen immunotherapy was provided by allergy specialists.