Testing for allergic disease: Parameters considered and test value

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Test results for allergic disease are especially valuable to allergists and family physicians for clinical evaluation, decisions to treat, and to determine needs for referral.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study used a repeated measures design (conjoint analysis) to examine trade offs among clinical parameters that influence the decision of family physicians to use specific IgE blood testing as a diagnostic aid for patients suspected of having allergic rhinitis. Data were extracted from a random sample of 50 family physicians in the Southeastern United States. Physicians evaluated 11 patient profiles containing four clinical parameters: symptom severity (low, medium, high), symptom length (5, 10, 20 years), family history (both parents, mother, neither), and medication use (prescribed antihistamines, nasal spray, over-the-counter medications). Decision to recommend specific IgE testing was elicited as a "yes" or "no" response. Perceived value of specific IgE blood testing was evaluated according to usefulness as a diagnostic tool compared to skin testing, and not testing.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The highest odds ratios (OR) associated with decisions to test for allergic rhinitis were obtained for symptom severity (OR, 12.11; 95%CI, 7.1–20.7) and length of symptoms (OR, 1.46; 95%CI, 0.96–2.2) with family history having significant influence in the decision. A moderately positive association between testing issues and testing value was revealed (β = 0.624, <it>t </it>= 5.296, <it>p </it>≤ 0.001) with 39% of the variance explained by the regression model.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The most important parameters considered when testing for allergic rhinitis relate to symptom severity, length of symptoms, and family history. Family physicians recognize that specific IgE blood testing is valuable to their practice.</p

Comparative Effectiveness of Budesonide-Formoterol Combination and Fluticasone-Salmeterol Combination for Asthma Management: A United States Retrospective Database Analysis

BackgroundComparative effectiveness of the budesonide–formoterol fumarate dihydrate combination (BFC) and the fluticasone propionate–salmeterol combination (FSC) therapy on asthma exacerbation has not been assessed in real-world settings in the United States.ObjectiveTo compare exacerbation rates and health care utilization for patients with asthma who initiate BFC versus FSC therapy.MethodsThis retrospective cohort comparative effectiveness study queried medical and pharmacy data for patients with asthma from a large managed care data repository that covers major US population centers. The patients were 12 to 64 years old, with ≥12 months of pre- and postindex enrollment and ≥1 pharmacy claim(s) for BFC or FSC initiated during June 1, 2007, and September 30, 2010; the first prescription fill date was defined as the index date. Patients with other respiratory diseases and/or cancer were excluded. Exacerbation was defined as asthma-related hospitalization, emergency department visit, and/or oral corticosteroid prescription fill. Cohorts were matched by using propensity scores.ResultsA total of 3043 patients per cohort were matched and balanced. During the 12 months following the initiation the BFC cohort had lower adjusted exacerbations per person year versus the FSC cohort (0.85 vs 0.93; RR 0.92, 95% CI [0.85-0.99]), lower oral corticosteroid fill rates, and fewer asthma-related emergency department visits but comparable asthma-related hospitalization.ConclusionsAsthma exacerbation was lower for BFC versus FSC initiators due to lower rates of oral corticosteroid use and asthma-related emergency department visits, which indicate better treatment effectiveness of those patients initiated with BFC compared with FSC