Adherence issues related to sublingual immunotherapy as perceived by allergists

Objectives: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a viable alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy to treat allergic rhinitis and asthma, and is widely used in clinical practice in many European countries. The clinical efficacy of SLIT has been established in a number of clinical trials and meta-analyses. However, because SLIT is self-administered by patients without medical supervision, the degree of patient adherence with treatment is still a concern. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception by allergists of issues related to SLIT adherence. Methods: We performed a questionnaire-based survey of 296 Italian allergists, based on the adherence issues known from previous studies. The perception of importance of each item was assessed by a VAS scale ranging from 0 to 10. Results: Patient perception of clinical efficacy was considered the most important factor (ranked 1 by 54% of allergists), followed by the possibility of reimbursement (ranked 1 by 34%), and by the absence of side effects (ranked 1 by 21%). Patient education, regular follow-up, and ease of use of SLIT were ranked first by less than 20% of allergists. Conclusion: These findings indicate that clinical efficacy, cost, and side effects are perceived as the major issues influencing patient adherence to SLIT, and that further improvement of adherence is likely to be achieved by improving the patient information provided by prescribers. © 2010 Scurati et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd

A survey of clinical features of allergic rhinitis in adults

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) has high prevalence and substantial socio-economic burden. Material/Methods: The study included 35 Italian Centers recruiting an overall number of 3383 adult patients with rhinitis (48% males, 52% females, mean age 29.1, range 18\u201345 years). For each patient, the attending physician had to fill in a standardized questionnaire, covering, in particular, some issues such as the ARIA classification of allergic rhinitis (AR), the results of skin prick test (SPT), the kind of treatment, the response to treatment, and the satisfaction with treatment. Results: Out of the 3383 patients with rhinitis, 2788 (82.4%) had AR: 311 (11.5%) had a mild intermittent, 229 (8.8%) a mild persistent, 636 (23.5%) a moderate-severe intermittent, and 1518 (56.1%) a moderate-severe persistent form. The most frequently used drugs were oral antihistamines (77.1%) and topical corticosteroids (60.8%). The response to treatment was judged as excellent in 12.2%, good in 41.3%, fair in 31.2%, poor in 14.5%, and very bad in 0.8% of subjects. The rate of treatment dissatisfaction was significantly higher in patients with moderate-to-severe AR than in patients with mild AR (p<0.0001). Indication to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) was significantly more frequent (p<0.01) in patients with severe AR than with mild AR. . Conclusions: These fndings confirm the appropriateness of ARIA guidelines in classifying the AR patients and the association of severe symptoms with unsuccessful drug treatment. The optimal targeting of patients to be treated with AIT needs to be reassessed

Cost Analysis of 2 Empiric Antibacterial Regimens Containing Glycopeptides for the Treatment of Febrile Neutropenia in Patients with Acute Leukaemia

Objective: Patients with cancer-associated neutropenia are at high risk of developing severe infections which can be fatal if treatment is not promptly administered. For this reason, fever is treated as soon as possible with broad spectrum antibacterial therapy. The objective of this study was to conduct a cost analysis in Italy comparing 2 empiric glycoprotein-containing antibacterial regimens for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in patients with acute leukaemia. Design and setting: A retrospective cost analysis was conducted, using the records of 527 febrile neutropenic patients with acute leukaemia who participated in an 18-month multicentre (29 Italian haematological units) randomised trial during 1991. All patients received either of the following 2 empiric intravenous regimens, each containing 3 antibacterial agents: ceftazidime (2g, 3 times daily) and amikacin (15 mg/kg/day, in 3 separate doses) plus teicoplanin (6 mg/kg, in a single dose) or vancomycin (30 mg/kg/day, in 2 separate doses). Economic analyses were carried out from a hospital perspective. Only the direct costs per patient, i.e. mean antibacterial treatment and management cost, mean overall treatment failure cost and mean cost of adverse effects, were included. Main outcome measures and results: No differences were found in the clinical response, defined as the improvement in the rate of fever or infection (if documented), between the 2 regimens. However, tolerability, defined as the incidence of adverse effects probably or definitely related to the assigned treatment, was reported to be better with the teicoplanin- rather than the vancomycin-containing regimen. Conclusions: This retrospective cost analysis showed that despite the higher acquisition cost of teicoplanin relative to vancomycin, the lower incidence of adverse effects associated with teicoplanin and its ease of administration (single daily dose) resulted in equivalent overall treatment costs between teicoplanin- and vancomycin-containing regimens.Pharmacoeconomics, Cost-analysis, Ceftazidime, Amikacin, Teicoplanin, Vancomycin, Immunocompromised-infections, Neutropenia, Antibacterials, Leukaemia