Letter to the Editor Regarding Eosinophilic Otitis Media.

We commend Varghese et al. for "mandating a different outlook" in their recent article on eosinophilic otitis media (EOM). Their statements are supported by medical literature dating back to 1931, reported by Proetz, Shambaugh, Zhang, Draper, Doyle, Pelikan, Ojala, McMahan, Tomonaga, Nsouli, Lasisi, Nguyen, Tian, Sobol, Smirnova, Shim, Smirnova, Luong, and ourselves. Allergy causes EOM and it responds to immunotherapy.

Clinical Relevance and Advantages of Intradermal Test Results in 371 Patients with Allergic Rhinitis, Asthma and/or Otitis Media with Effusion.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the value of positive intradermal dilution testing (IDT) after negative skin prick tests (SPT) by retrospectively determining allergy immunotherapy (AIT) outcomes. METHODS: This private practice, cohort study compared the relative value of SPT vs. IDT in 371 adults and children with suspected manifestations of allergy: chronic allergic rhinitis (AR), asthma and/or chronic otitis media with effusion (OME). The primary outcome measure was symptom resolution following immunotherapy, as determined by symptom severity questionnaires completed by patients before and after AIT. RESULTS: Positive IDT identified 193 (52%) patients who would not otherwise have been diagnosed. IDT detected 3.7-fold more allergens per patient than SPT (8.56 vs. 2.3; p < 0.01). Patients positive only on IDT responded to AIT equally well as those identifiable by SPT, independent of allergen sensitivity (67% by SPT vs. 62% by IDT; p = 0.69, not significantly different). CONCLUSION: Intradermal titration can identify patients who will benefit from allergy immunotherapy more accurately than SPT. Outcomes analysis in 371 patients shows that IDT doubled their chance of successful treatment with no greater risk of therapeutic failure. Positive IDT, following negative SPT, is clinically relevant and offers superior sensitivity over SPT for detecting allergens clinically relevant to diagnosis of AIT-responsive atopic disease.

Intradermal Testing Doubles Identification of Allergy among 110 Immunotherapy-Responsive Patients with Eustachian Tube Dysfunction.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the sensitivity advantage of intradermal dilutional testing (IDT) is clinically relevant in patients with obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD) or otitis media with effusion (OME). This retrospective, private-practice cohort study compared the sensitivity of skin prick tests (SPT) vs. IDT in 110 adults and children with suspected allergy and OME. Primary outcome measure was symptom resolution from allergy immunotherapy (AIT). IDT identified 57% more patients as being allergic, and 8.6 times more reactive allergens than would have been diagnosed using only SPT. Patients diagnosed by IDT had the same degree of symptom improvement from immunotherapy, independent of allergen sensitivity (66% by SPT vs. 63% by IDT; p = 0.69, not different). Low-sensitivity allergy tests, which may fail to identify allergy in over two thirds of children aged 3 to 15 as being atopic, or among 60% of patients with ETD, may explain why many physicians do not consider allergy as a treatable etiology for their patient's OME/ETD. IDT offers superior sensitivity over SPT for detecting allergens clinically relevant to treating OME/ETD. These data strongly support increased utilization of intradermal testing and invite additional clinical outcome studies.

Efficacy comparison of multiple-antigen subcutaneous injection immunotherapy and multiple-antigen sublingual immunotherapy.

We performed an observational study to determine whether allergen-specific sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as effective as allergen-specific subcutaneous injection immunotherapy (SCIT). Our study population was comprised of 66 patients who had been taking SLIT. Of this group, 36 patients had switched to SLIT after having been treated with SCIT (group I), while the remaining 30 patients had received SLIT only (group II). A questionnaire was used to evaluate the results of treatment. In group I, 33 patients (92%) gave SLIT a favorable rating; 27 of these patients (75%) said it was just as effective as SCIT and 6 (17%) said it was actually superior(the remaining 3 patients [8%] said that SCIT was better). In group II, 27 of 30 patients (90%) said they had attained symptom relief with SLIT; 21 (70%) said that the relief had been very significant. Overall, 60 of the 66 patients (91%) expressed various degrees of satisfaction with SLIT We believe that our SLIT protocol, which is based on established guidelines for SCIT administration, is an effective, safe, well-tolerated, and easy-to-use regimen. Future prospective studies of larger groups are clearly indicated.