Ocular surface disorders: office procedures for the allergist/clinical immunologist.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ocular surface disorders (OSDs) are a prevalent and often debilitating condition encountered in clinical practice, particularly by allergists and clinical immunologists. RECENT FINDINGS: A comprehensive guide to office procedures for evaluating and managing OSDs, with a specific focus on ocular allergies, would assist in the evaluation process that begins with an initial patient assessment utilizing standardized forms to systematically gather detailed medical history, symptomatology, and environmental exposure data. This structured approach ensures a thorough understanding of the patient's condition and facilitates targeted interventions. In addition to allergy testing, the assessment of the tear film is essential for a comprehensive evaluation of OSDs. The Schirmer test is employed to quantify tear production, providing objective data on tear film adequacy and guiding interventions for tear film deficiencies. SUMMARY: This multifaceted diagnostic approach ensures that all contributing factors to OSDs are identified and appropriately managed. By integrating these office procedures, allergists and clinical immunologists can enhance their diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic efficacy, ultimately improving patient outcomes. This manuscript provides a practical resource, outlining some of the methodologies and clinical applications of each procedure, and highlighting their role in the holistic management of OSDs in allergic patients.

Geographic variability of Medicaid acceptance among allergists in the US.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the geographic variability of Medicaid acceptance among allergists in the US. STUDY DESIGN: Geospatial analysis predicted Medicaid acceptance across space, and a multivariable regression identified area-level population demographic variables associated with acceptance. METHODS: We used the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System database to identify allergists. Medicaid acceptance was determined from lists or search engines from state Medicaid offices and calls to provider offices. Spatial analysis was performed using the empirical Bayesian kriging tool. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify county-level characteristics associated with provider Medicaid acceptance. RESULTS: Of 5694 allergists, 55.5% accepted Medicaid. Acceptance in each state ranged from 13% to 90%. Washington, Arizona, and the Northeast had lowest predicted proportion of both Medicaid acceptance and Medicaid acceptance per 10,000 enrollees. Overall, county-level characteristics were not associated with the likelihood of accepting Medicaid in multivariate analyses. Only the percentage of individuals living in poverty was associated with a higher likelihood of providers accepting Medicaid (OR, 1.245; 95% CI, 1.156-1.340; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A barrier to accessing allergy-related health care is finding a provider who accepts a patient's insurance, which is largely variable by state. Lack of access to allergy care likely affects health outcomes for children with prevalent atopic conditions such as food allergy.

Climate change from the Asia-Pacific perspective: What an allergist needs to know and do.

Allergic diseases such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, and food allergies are a burgeoning health challenge in the Asia-Pacific region. Compounding this, the region has become increasingly susceptible to the impacts of climate change. The region has weathered extreme precipitation, intense heat waves, and dust storms over the recent decades. While the effects of environmental and genetic factors on allergic diseases are well understood, prevailing gaps in understanding the complex interactions between climate change and these factors remain. We aim to provide insights into the various pathways by which climate change influences allergic diseases in the Asia-Pacific population. We outline practical steps that allergists can take to reduce the carbon footprint of their practice on both a systemic and patient-specific level. We recommend that allergists optimize disease control to reduce the resources required for each patient's care, which contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We encourage the responsible prescription of metered dose inhalers by promoting the switch to dry powder inhalers for certain patients, at each clinician's discretion. We also recommend the utilization of virtual consultations to reduce patient travel while ensuring that evidence-based guidelines for rational allergy management are closely adhered to. Finally, eliminating unnecessary testing and medications will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions in many areas of medical care.

Managing Symptoms of Systemic Sclerosis for the Allergist-Immunologist.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a chronic, multisystem, autoimmune disease characterized by fibrosis, vasculopathy and immune system dysregulation. We provide a comprehensive review of features of systemic sclerosis that can potentially present to the allergist. RECENT FINDINGS: A thorough understanding of the management options is crucial for clinicians involved in the care of patients with SSc to optimize clinical outcomes. Management of systemic sclerosis has drastically changed in the last decade and continues to evolve. This review provides an overview of management strategies for the various symptoms including skin, upper and lower airway, gastrointestinal and vascular manifestations. Institution of treatment early in the disease, including referral to rheumatology or specialized scleroderma centers, can help to both prevent and manage disease complications, and improve patient quality-of-life. While the landscape of systemic sclerosis management has evolved, we continue to recognize that there is still a need for better biomarkers and targeted therapies.

Social Media and the Allergist.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With this brief review, we summarize our findings of how allergists, professional organizations and patients within the allergy space are using social media to date. RECENT FINDINGS: Millions of Americans suffer from allergic conditions and it has been well established that there aren't enough allergists to help treat and reach each of these people. With a noticeable absence from social media platforms of board certified allergists with knowledge based in evidence and science, the vacuum has been filled by others - some of whom advocate for the exact things we discourage because they are not helpful, and can even be harmful, for our allergic patients. While there are drawbacks to using social media platforms, as a specialty we need to acknowledge and perhaps even embrace the idea that the use of social media can have a positive effect - as a means to not only introduce, engage and educate our patients and other HCPs, but also to reduce misinformation. Social media is a powerful tool that can be responsibly used by our allergy community to amplify our collective voice to share important health information with our patients and other healthcare professionals and we believe that more training and education needs to be done so that our speciality can join others in becoming a larger voice in the space.

How Allergists Can Perform an Occupational History in Every Patient.

The occupational history is often neglected in the routine evaluation of new patients with asthma, chronic rhinitis, or dermatologic complaints. Such omissions are inadvertent because work-related conditions are often not prioritized. There also may be lack of awareness of the scope of respiratory or cutaneous allergens capable of inducing occupational asthma (OA) or work-related contact dermatitis. Evidence exists suggesting that the occupational history is often neglected among primary care physicians and specialists. Failure to diagnose OA in a timely fashion by identifying occupational sources of exposure, for example, may result in unnecessary morbidity in workers whose exposure is not modified. In this commentary, we propose a brief intake survey to be administered to all patients coming to an allergy practice to quickly screen for possible work-related respiratory symptoms and another for occupational dermatitis. This would require minimal physician time and could be self-administered at the initial encounter and incorporated into the medical record. A positive response to either survey should trigger a more detailed evaluation by the allergy specialist. More detailed approaches for stepwise clinical evaluation of the worker suspected of OA and contact dermatitis are discussed.

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.

Eosinophil-associated diseases: the Allergist's and Clinical Immunologist's perspective.

Summary: Eosinophil-associated diseases (EADs) refer to heterogeneous conditions in which eosinophils are believed to play critical pathological roles. They encompass common respiratory conditions, such as asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), less common primary eosinophilic disorders of gastrointestinal tract, and rare conditions including eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) and hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). A literature search was carried out in January 2024 in the MEDLINE and Scopus databases using the PubMed search engine (PubMed, National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD). We focused on blood eosinophilia and hypereosinophilia. A diagnostic workup is proposed. From allergist's point of view, we focused the review on 4 groups of eosinophilic disorders of specific interest. Our increased understanding of type 2 inflammation and biology has recently led to development of highly effective precision targeted therapies that are now approved for a growing number of eosinophilic disorders. Novel targeted biologics have a major impact on treatment strategies and have resulted in major advances in our understanding of the pathogenesis of these disorders. In the context of EADs, according to the heterogeneity of eosinophilic disorders a multidisciplinary approach should be adopted. Allergists and Clinical Immunologists play an important role as they have a clear understanding of the eosinophilic inflammation and the role of cytokines and are trained to recognize and characterize type 2 (T2) inflammation and its associated pathologies.

An Ethical Framework for Allergy and Immunology.

Ethical dilemmas routinely occur in the clinical practice of allergy and immunology. These ethical questions stem from the range of conditions and the different populations cared for by Allergists/Immunologists. Hence, medical ethics is not an esoteric concept, but a practical skill physicians exercise regularly. Moreover, an ethics-centered approach may improve patient safety and outcomes. This article describes key principles of bioethics and illustrates an ethical framework that physicians can use in their conversations with patients. Utilization of this ethical framework is demonstrated through applying it to 4 unique clinical scenarios encountered by Allergists/Immunologists from different practice settings. The ethical framework for allergy and immunology is a technique to navigate ethically complex decisions that arise in routine clinical practice.

Cross-sectional analysis of financial relationships between board certified allergists and the pharmaceutical industry in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and physicians lead to conflicts of interest. This study examines the extent and trends of non-research payments made by pharmaceutical companies to board-certified allergists in Japan between 2016 and 2020. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of disclosed payment data from pharmaceutical companies affiliated with the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association was conducted. The study focused on non-research payments for lecturing, consulting, and manuscript drafting made to board-certified allergists from 2016 to 2020. We performed descriptive analyses on payment data. Trends were analyzed using generalized estimating equation models. RESULTS: Of the 3,943 board-certified allergists, 2,398 (60.8%) received non-research payments totaling $43.4 million over five years. Lecturing fees comprised 85.7% ($37.2 million) of the total payment amounts. For allergists who received at least one payment, the median amount per allergist was $3,106 (interquartile range: $966 - $12,124), in contrast to a mean of $18,092 (standard deviation: $49,233) over the five-year span. The top 1% and 10% of these allergists accounted for 20.8% and 68.8% of all non-research payments, respectively. The annual payment amounts significantly increased by 7.2% annual increase (95% CI: 4.4 - 10.0%, p < 0.001) each year until 2019, but saw a significant decrease in 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The majority of allergists received non-research payments, with a notable concentration among a small group. Payments increased annually until the pandemic's onset, which coincided with a substantial decrease. Further research is needed to explore the implications of these financial interactions on clinical practice and patient care in Japan.