A Prospective Study of Costs Associated with the Evaluation of ß-Lactam Allergy in Children.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the costs associated with evaluation of ß-lactam allergy in children labeled as allergic. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective year-long real life observational study designed to evaluate all pediatric patients with suspected ß-lactam allergy who consulted for allergy evaluation. Direct and indirect costs were systematically recorded. Direct healthcare costs were calculated by taking into account the number of visits and all complementary and diagnostic tests performed. Direct nonhealthcare costs were calculated by considering the number of visits and the kilometers from their homes to the clinic. Finally, indirect costs were evaluated by considering the absenteeism of parents or other companions who took the children to the clinic. RESULTS: A total of 40 children with suspected allergy to ß-lactams were evaluated in our outpatient clinic from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Total direct healthcare costs were $5038.03, with an average cost per patient of $125.95. Direct nonhealthcare costs reached $901.87 ($22.55 per patient) and indirect nonhealthcare costs reached $6384.35 ($159.61 per patient). The total cost was $12 324.25, a cost of $308.11 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Elective evaluation of ß-lactam allergy and delabeling children who are not allergic is not expensive. In addition, it could save future expenses because of an unnecessary lifelong use of alternative antibiotics that are usually more expensive, less effective, and more frequently associated with antimicrobial resistance and different side effects.

Food allergen panel testing often results in misdiagnosis of food allergy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of food allergy panel testing among patients referred to a pediatric food allergy center. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of all new patients seen between September 2011 and December 2012 by 1 provider in a tertiary referral pediatric food allergy center. A cost analysis was performed to calculate the estimated cost of evaluation for patients who have received a food allergy panel. RESULTS: Of 797 new patient encounters, 284 (35%) patients had received a food allergy panel. Only 90 (32.8%) individuals had a history warranting evaluation for food allergy; 126 individuals were avoiding a food based on recommendations from the referring provider and 112 (88.9%) were able to re-introduce at least 1 food into their diet. The positive predictive value of food allergy panel testing in this unselected population was 2.2%. The estimated cost of evaluation for this population was $79,412. CONCLUSIONS: Food allergy panel testing often results in misdiagnosis of food allergy, overly restrictive dietary avoidance, and an unnecessary economic burden on the health system.

Tuberculosis screening of travelers to higher-incidence countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Travelers to countries with high tuberculosis incidence can acquire infection during travel. We sought to compare four screening interventions for travelers from low-incidence countries, who visit countries with varying tuberculosis incidence. METHODS: Decision analysis model: We considered hypothetical cohorts of 1,000 travelers, 21 years old, visiting Mexico, the Dominican Republic, or Haiti for three months. Travelers departed from and returned to the United States or Canada; they were born in the United States, Canada, or the destination countries. The time horizon was 20 years, with 3% annual discounting of future costs and outcomes. The analysis was conducted from the health care system perspective. Screening involved tuberculin skin testing (post-travel in three strategies, with baseline pre-travel tests in two), or chest radiography post-travel (one strategy). Returning travelers with tuberculin conversion (one strategy) or other evidence of latent tuberculosis (three strategies) were offered treatment. The main outcome was cost (in 2005 US dollars) per tuberculosis case prevented. RESULTS: For all travelers, a single post-trip tuberculin test was most cost-effective. The associated cost estimate per case prevented ranged from $21,406 for Haitian-born travelers to Haiti, to $161,196 for US-born travelers to Mexico. In all sensitivity analyses, the single post-trip tuberculin test remained most cost-effective. For US-born travelers to Haiti, this strategy was associated with cost savings for trips over 22 months. Screening was more cost-effective with increasing trip duration and infection risk, and less so with poorer treatment adherence. CONCLUSION: A single post-trip tuberculin skin test was the most cost-effective strategy considered, for travelers from the United States or Canada. The analysis did not evaluate the use of interferon-gamma release assays, which would be most relevant for travelers who received BCG vaccination after infancy, as in many European countries. Screening decisions should reflect duration of travel, tuberculosis incidence, and commitment to treat latent infection.

[Prick tests using RM steel lancets]. / Pruebas cutáneas por punción con lancetas de acero RM.

There exist several technics of application for allergy skin tests: intradermal in which the antigen is injected in the dermis: mean while in the other puncture method (PRICK), the antigen is applied on the skin and it is introduced with a device in the epidermis which there exist several technics of application. Realizing an analysis of different methods it's known that in the patients in which are indicated to realize direct skin test, we should practice first the puncture test, which are easy to apply with less or a minimum systemic and local reactions. To facilitate its application and reduce costs, we suggest the modified method, in a tray Multiwell with antigen, where are put sterilized reusable steel lancets previous sterilization to realize the punctures. We analyze different costs in materials that are used so they would be of easy acquisition.