Search

Background Having a penicillin allergy label is associated with the use of less appropriate and more expensive antibiotics and increased healthcare utilization. Penicillin allergy testing results in delabeling most allergy claimants and may be cost-saving. This study aimed to project whether penicillin allergy testing in patients reporting a penicillin allergy is cost-saving. Methods In this economic evaluation study, we built decision models to project the economic impact of 2 strategies for a patient with a penicillin allergy label: (1) perform diagnostic testing (drug challenges, with or without skin tests); and (2) do not perform diagnostic testing. The health service perspective was adopted, considering costs with penicillin allergy tests, and with hospital bed-days/outpatient visits, antibiotic use, and diagnostic testing. Twenty-four base case decision models were built, accounting for differences in the diagnostic workup, setting (inpatient vs outpatient) and geographic region. Uncertainty was explored via probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results Penicillin allergy testing was cost-saving in all decision models built. For models assessing the performance of both skin tests and drug challenges, allergy testing resulted in average savings (in United States [US] dollars) of $657 for inpatients (US: $1444; Europe: $489) and $2746 for outpatients (US: $256; Europe: $6045). 75% of simulations obtained through probabilistic sensitivity analysis identified testing as the less costly option. Conclusions Penicillin allergy testing was projected to be cost-saving across different scenarios. These results are devised to inform guidelines, supporting the adoption of policies promoting widespread testing of patients with a penicillin allergy label. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The adequate definition of pollen seasons is essential to facilitate a correct diagnosis, treatment choice, and outcome assessment in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. A position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) proposed season definitions for Northern and Middle Europe., Objective: To test the pollen season definitions proposed by EAACI in six Mediterranean cities for seven pollen taxa., Methods: As part of the @IT.2020 multi-center study, pollen counts for Poaceae, Oleaceae, Fagales, Cupressaceae, Urticaceae (Parietaria spp.), and Compositae (Ambrosia spp., Artemisia spp.) were collected from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Based on these data, pollen seasons were identified according to EAACI criteria. A unified monitoring period for patients in AIT trials was created and assessed for feasibility., Results: The analysis revealed a great heterogeneity between the different locations in terms of pattern and length of the examined pollen seasons. Further, we found a fragmentation of pollen seasons in several segments (max. 8) separated by periods of low pollen counts (intercurrent periods). Potential monitoring periods included often many recording days with low pollen exposure (max. 341 days)., Conclusion: The Mediterranean climate leads to challenging pollen exposure times. Monitoring periods for AIT trials based on existing definitions may include many intermittent days with low pollen concentrations. Therefore, it is necessary to find an adapted pollen season definition as individual solution for each pollen and geographical area., (© 2019 The Authors. Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)