Analysis of profitability in the diagnosis of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics

Drug allergy is the third most common reason for allergy consultations. There is a tendency to call any adverse drug reaction (ADR) allergic, even without confirmatory allergy study. OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate time of resolution allergy to beta-lactam's study in a sample of 100 patients. (2) Analyse cost-effectiveness of current diagnostic study (skin tests, specific IgE and drug provocation test (DPT)). (3) Describe type and frequency of ADRs in adult/paediatric patients. (4) Compare cost of complete study with DPT. (5) Assess the need to restructure current study methodology according to results obtained. The study is part of a strategic plan of the allergy department (2005-2010). Patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams were included. Procedures performed: medical history, specific IgE, skin tests and DPT. Cost/patient analysis. Cost of protocol analysis for current diagnostic/direct DPT. RESULTS: 100 patients were studied, 52 females/48 males; 43 children/57 adults. Symptoms: 89 cutaneous, 4 anaphylaxis, 3 vasovagal reactions, 6 non-specific symptoms and 4 not recalled. Allergy was confirmed in six patients (only one child). Complete-study cost: 149.3 Euros/patient. DPT-study cost: 97.19 Euros/patient (34.9% less). Resolution time 9-13 months, absenteeism 28.04%. CONCLUSIONS: In the series studied, diagnosis of allergy to beta-lactams was confirmed in 6% of patients (2.3% of paediatric patients). After analysing results and cost of the study we believe that we should propose a specific diagnostic algorithm in those paediatric patients without suspected IgE-mediated ADR, and for those patients direct DPT should be conducted. This will reduce cost/patient (−34.9%), time of resolution and absenteeism

No disponible

Intention to prescribe self-injectable epinephrine: are there differences depending on who assesses the patient post-reaction?

INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is the most severe of all allergic reactions and can even prove fatal. There is limited evidence of a difference in prescribing patterns for self-injectable epinephrine (SIE) between general paediatricians and paediatricians with greater knowledge of allergology. OBJECTIVES: Assess knowledge about prescribing SIE of a sample of primary care/hospital paediatricians and paediatricians with specialised knowledge of allergology through a questionnaire asking them about clinical cases of anaphylaxis in their daily paediatric practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were primary care and hospital paediatricians practicing in different regions of the province of Barcelona and paediatricians with specialised knowledge in the field of allergology from Spain. RESULTS: A total of 183 paediatricians responded. Of that 59.6% were paediatricians with specialised knowledge of allergology. General paediatricians in most cases correctly prescribed SIE device (more than 70% answered correctly in five of the eight clinical cases). In the case of drug anaphylaxis, which is an avoidable allergen for which SIE is not indicated, 67.5% of general paediatricians would prescribe it. In the case of exercise-induced anaphylaxis there were also differences in the prescription of epinephrine by general paediatricians, with only 40% prescribing it. CONCLUSIONS: In this study the percentage of SIE prescriptions would be higher than expected by general paediatricians, with no differences in the cases proposed between them and the paediatricians with better knowledge of allergology. Despite these results, it is important to insist on conducting education programmes and disseminating them to facilitate physicians' recognition and treatment of anaphylactic reactions

No disponible

Allergy medical care network: a new model of care for specialties

In 2005 the Althaia Foundation Allergy Department performed its daily activity in the Hospital Sant Joan de Deu of Manresa. Given the increasing demand for allergy care, the department's performance was analysed and a strategic plan (SP) for 2005---2010 was designed. The main objective of the study was to assess the impact of the application of the SP on the department's operations and organisational level in terms of profitability, productivity and quality of care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive, retrospective study which evaluated the operation of the allergy department. The baseline situation was analysed and the SP was designed. Indicators were set to perform a comparative analysis after application of the SP. RESULTS: The indicators showed an increase in medical care activity (first visits, 34%; successive visits, 29%; day hospital treatments, 51%), high rates of resolution, reduced waiting lists. Economic analysis indicated an increase in direct costs justified by increased activity and territory attended. Cost optimisation was explained by improved patient accessibility, minimised absenteeism in the workplace and improved cost per visit. CONCLUSIONS: After application of the SP a networking system was established for the allergy speciality that has expanded the territory for which it provides care, increased total activity and the ability to resolve patients, optimised human resources, improved quality of care and streamlined medical cost

No disponible

Intention to prescribe self-injectable epinephrine: Are there differences depending on who assesses the patient post-reaction?

INTRODUCTION: Anaphylaxis is the most severe of all allergic reactions and can even prove fatal. There is limited evidence of a difference in prescribing patterns for self-injectable epinephrine (SIE) between general paediatricians and paediatricians with greater knowledge of allergology. OBJECTIVES: Assess knowledge about prescribing SIE of a sample of primary care/hospital paediatricians and paediatricians with specialised knowledge of allergology through a questionnaire asking them about clinical cases of anaphylaxis in their daily paediatric practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were primary care and hospital paediatricians practicing in different regions of the province of Barcelona and paediatricians with specialised knowledge in the field of allergology from Spain. RESULTS: A total of 183 paediatricians responded. Of that 59.6% were paediatricians with specialised knowledge of allergology. General paediatricians in most cases correctly prescribed SIE device (more than 70% answered correctly in five of the eight clinical cases). In the case of drug anaphylaxis, which is an avoidable allergen for which SIE is not indicated, 67.5% of general paediatricians would prescribe it. In the case of exercise-induced anaphylaxis there were also differences in the prescription of epinephrine by general paediatricians, with only 40% prescribing it. CONCLUSIONS: In this study the percentage of SIE prescriptions would be higher than expected by general paediatricians, with no differences in the cases proposed between them and the paediatricians with better knowledge of allergology. Despite these results, it is important to insist on conducting education programmes and disseminating them to facilitate physicians' recognition and treatment of anaphylactic reactions.

Allergy medical care network: a new model of care for specialties.

UNLABELLED: In 2005 the Althaia Foundation Allergy Department performed its daily activity in the Hospital Sant Joan de Deu of Manresa. Given the increasing demand for allergy care, the department's performance was analysed and a strategic plan (SP) for 2005-2010 was designed. The main objective of the study was to assess the impact of the application of the SP on the department's operations and organisational level in terms of profitability, productivity and quality of care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive, retrospective study which evaluated the operation of the allergy department. The baseline situation was analysed and the SP was designed. Indicators were set to perform a comparative analysis after application of the SP. RESULTS: The indicators showed an increase in medical care activity (first visits, 34%; successive visits, 29%; day hospital treatments, 51%), high rates of resolution, reduced waiting lists. Economic analysis indicated an increase in direct costs justified by increased activity and territory attended. Cost optimisation was explained by improved patient accessibility, minimised absenteeism in the workplace and improved cost per visit. CONCLUSIONS: After application of the SP a networking system was established for the allergy speciality that has expanded the territory for which it provides care, increased total activity and the ability to resolve patients, optimised human resources, improved quality of care and streamlined medical costs.

Analysis of profitability in the diagnosis of allergy to beta-lactam antibiotics.

UNLABELLED: Drug allergy is the third most common reason for allergy consultations. There is a tendency to call any adverse drug reaction (ADR) allergic, even without confirmatory allergy study. OBJECTIVES: (1) Evaluate time of resolution allergy to beta-lactam's study in a sample of 100 patients. (2) Analyse cost-effectiveness of current diagnostic study (skin tests, specific IgE and drug provocation test (DPT)). (3) Describe type and frequency of ADRs in adult/paediatric patients. (4) Compare cost of complete study with DPT. (5) Assess the need to restructure current study methodology according to results obtained. The study is part of a strategic plan of the allergy department (2005-2010). Patients with suspected allergy to beta-lactams were included. Procedures performed: medical history, specific IgE, skin tests and DPT. Cost/patient analysis. Cost of protocol analysis for current diagnostic/direct DPT. RESULTS: 100 patients were studied, 52 females/48 males; 43 children/57 adults. SYMPTOMS: 89 cutaneous, 4 anaphylaxis, 3 vasovagal reactions, 6 non-specific symptoms and 4 not recalled. Allergy was confirmed in six patients (only one child). Complete-study cost: 149.3 Euros/patient. DPT-study cost: 97.19 Euros/patient (34.9% less). Resolution time 9-13 months, absenteeism 28.04%. CONCLUSIONS: In the series studied, diagnosis of allergy to beta-lactams was confirmed in 6% of patients (2.3% of paediatric patients). After analysing results and cost of the study we believe that we should propose a specific diagnostic algorithm in those paediatric patients without suspected IgE-mediated ADR, and for those patients direct DPT should be conducted. This will reduce cost/patient (-34.9%), time of resolution and absenteeism.

Rabbit meat anaphylaxis

No disponible

Eosinophilic oesophagitis: clinical manifestations and treatment options. The role of the allergologist

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EO) is an infrequent disorder that is currently underdiagnosed. It has been described in both adults and in children, and is more prevalent among males. The etiology of EO is not clear, though atopy has been suggested as playing an important role in the development of the disease.The clinical presentation of EO is varied, and a differential diagnosis with other digestive tract disorders is required — particularly gastro-oesophageal reflux. Dysphagia and food bolus impactation within the oesophagus are the most characteristic symptoms. Diagnostic confirmation is obtained from multipleoes ophageal biopsy, with the detection in some sample or samples of over 15 eosinophils per high-magnification microscopic field. An allergological study is needed to evaluate the existence of allergens (perennial or seasonal environment alallergens and food allergens) responsible for the eosinophilic infiltration found at oesophageal level.There is no specific treatment for EO, and topical corticosteroids (swallowed) are currently the pharmacological treatment of choice. Dietary therapy in children with food allergy as the causal factor may prove effective, though the existence of polysensitisation complicates the correct implementation of such treatment. Oesophageal dilatation is reserved for cases with severe dysphagia, and is not without complications. Treatment with anti-IL-5, antileukotrienes, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, anti-IgE,etc., could constitute alternatives to topical corticosteroids, although information is still lacking on their long-term safety and efficacy in the paediatric population

No disponible

Eosinophilic oesophagitis: clinical manifestations and treatment options. The role of the allergologist.

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EO) is an infrequent disorder that is currently underdiagnosed. It has been described in both adults and in children, and is more prevalent among males. The etiology of EO is not clear, though atopy has been suggested as playing an important role in the development of the disease. The clinical presentation of EO is varied, and a differential diagnosis with other digestive tract disorders is required particularly gastro-oesophageal re-flux. Dysphagia and food bolus impactation within the oesophagus are the most characteristic symptoms. Diagnostic confirmation is obtained from multiple oesophageal biopsy, with the detection in some sample or samples of over 15 eosinophils per high-magnification microscopic field. An allergological study is needed to evaluate the existence of allergens (perennial or seasonal environmental allergens and food allergens) responsible for the eosinophilic infiltration found at oesophageal level. There is no specific treatment for EO, and topical corticosteroids (swallowed) are currently the pharmacological treatment of choice. Dietary therapy in children with food allergy as the causal factor may prove effective, though the existence of polysensitisation complicates the correct implementation of such treatment. Oesophageal dilatation is reserved for cases with severe dysphagia, and is not without complications. Treatment with anti-IL-5, antileukotrienes, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, anti-IgE, etc., could constitute alternatives to topical corticosteroids, although information is still lacking on their long-term safety and efficacy in the paediatric population.

Recommendations for administering the triple viral vaccine and antiinfluenza vaccine in patients with egg allergy.

Actually, food allergy is an emerging pathology; and egg allergy is the most frequent in childhood. The recommendations for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and influenza vaccination are increasing each year. This implementation increases the exposure of patients with egg allergy to such vaccines. In Spain, since 2004 the only available vaccine for MMR is grown in cultures of fibroblast from chick embryos; previously, patients with egg allergy were vaccinated with an alternative vaccine cultivated in diploid human cells which is no longer commercialized. Influenza vaccines grow in chick egg and the final product contains egg proteins (large variation in egg protein content has been reported). As controversy exist, the Food Allergy Committee of Spanish Society of Clinical Immunology and Pediatric Allergy decided to report some recommendations for the safe administration of MMR and influenza vaccines in patients with egg allergy. In summary, MMR vaccine is safe for children with egg allergy, only in patients with severe anaphylactic reaction after egg ingestion is recommended the administration in his reference hospital. Influenza vaccine is contraindicated in patients with severe anaphylactic reaction after egg ingestion. The rest can receive influenza vaccine in a 2-dose protocol with a vaccine that contains no more than 1.2 mcg of egg protein for mL.

Recommendations for administering the triple viral vaccine and antiinfluenza vaccine in patients with egg allergy / Recomendaciones para la administración de la vacuna triple vírica y la vacuna anti-influenza en pacientes con alergia al huevo

Actually, food allergy is an emerging pathology; and egg allergy is the most frequent in childhood. The recommendations for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) and influenza vaccination are increasing each year. This implementation increases the exposure of patients with egg allergy to such vaccines. In Spain, since 2004 the only available vaccine for MMR is grown in cultures of fibroblast from chick embryos; previously, patients with egg allergy were vaccinated with an alternative vaccine cultivated in diploid human cells which is no longer commercialized. Influenza vaccines grow in chick egg and the final product contains egg proteins (large variation in egg protein content has been reported). As controversy exist, the Food Allergy Committee of Spanish Society of Clinical Immunology and Pediatric Allergy decided to report some recommendations for the safe administration of MMR and influenza vaccines in patients with egg allergy. In summary, MMR vaccine is safe for children with egg allergy, only in patients with severe anaphylactic reaction after egg ingestion is recommended the administration in his reference hospital. Influenza vaccine is contraindicated in patients with severe anaphylactic reaction after egg ingestion. The rest can receive influenza vaccine in a 2-dose protocol with a vaccine that contains no more than 1.2 mcg of egg protein for mL

En la actualidad, la alergia alimentaria constituye una patología emergente; siendo la alergia al huevo la más frecuente en la infancia. Las recomendaciones para la vacunación de sarampión, parotiditis y rubéola (vacuna triple vírica), así como para la vacuna antigripal, aumentan cada año. El cumplimiento de estas recomendaciones aumenta la exposición de pacientes alérgicos al huevo a dichas vacunas. En España, desde el año 2004 solo se dispone de vacuna triple vírica cultivada en fibroblastos de embrión de pollo; anteriormente, los pacientes alérgicos al huevo se inmunizaban con una vacuna alternativa cultivada en células diploides humanas que no se comercializa actualmente. La vacuna antigripal se cultiva en huevos de gallina y el producto final contiene proteína de huevo (la cantidad en proteína de huevo es muy variable). Dada la existente controversia, el Comité de Alergia Alimentaria de la Sociedad Española de Inmunología Clínica y Alergia Pediátrica ha decidido establecer una serie de recomendaciones para la administración segura de la vacuna triple vírica y la vacuna antigripal en pacientes alérgicos al huevo. En resumen, la vacuna triple vírica es segura para los niños alérgicos al huevo, sólo en los pacientes con reacción anafiláctica grave tras la ingesta de huevo se recomienda su administración en su hospital de referencia. La vacuna antigripal está contraindicada en pacientes con reacción anafiláctica grave tras la ingesta de huevo. El resto pueden vacunarse con una administración fraccionada en 2 dosis y con una vacuna que contenga igual o menos de 1.2 mcg de proteína de huevo por ml

Recomendaciones para la administración de la vacuna antigripal en pacientes alérgicos al huevo / Recommendations for administration of the influenza vaccine

No disponible

Human seminal plasma allergy and successful pregnancy.

Human seminal plasma allergy in women is an uncommon phenomenon. A great variety of reactions ranging from local swelling to generalized systemic reactions have been described, and local symptoms have often been misdiagnosed as chronic vulvovaginitis. Sperm barriers, such as condoms, are the most widely advocated method for avoiding these reactions; however this is not acceptable to couples who wish to have children. We present a case of a woman with human seminal plasma allergy who became pregnant after a fourth cycle of artificial insemination. Sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis immunoblotting showing an IgE binding band at 28kDa in the husband's seminal fluid identified the culprit allergen. Artificial insemination is an effective way to achieve a pregnancy in patients with seminal plasma allergy.

[Prevalence of atopy in chronic fatigue syndrome]. / Prevalencia de atopia en el síndrome de fatiga crónica.

BACKGROUND: Several hypotheses have been postulated to explain the etiopathogenesis of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Among these, immunologic dysfunction has been proposed. Up to 30 % of these patients have a history of allergic disease. The aim of this study was to investigate whether allergic sensitization is higher in patients with CFS than in the general population. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with CFS and 20 controls were evaluated. A clinical history for allergy was taken and immediate hypersensitivity tests were performed. RESULTS: Twelve patients (48 %) and eight controls (40 %) had a family history of atopy. Personal histories of atopy were as follows: rhinoconjunctivitis: 12 patients (48 %), seven controls (35 %); asthma: five patients (20 %), two controls (10 %); food allergy: three patients (12 %); atopic dermatitis: two patients; contact dermatitis: two patients. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in any of the variables (p > 0.05). In the CSF group, 3.4 % (15/441) of the inhalant prick tests were positive, and in the control group 3.8 % (16/420) were positive. None of the tests for hypersensitivity to food or latex were positive. CONCLUSIONS: In our study atopy was not more prevalent in patients with CFS than in healthy controls, although the CSF group tended to report more respiratory symptoms and drug allergies.