Search

BACKGROUND: Double-blind placebo controlled food (DBPCFC) is the gold standard diagnostic test in food allergy because it minimizes diagnostic bias. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential effect of diagnosis on the socioeconomic costs of food allergy. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal cost analysis study was conducted in Spain and Poland within the EuroPrevall project. Food-allergic patients were enrolled into the study and in all cases diagnosis was confirmed through a standardized DBPCFC. Data were collected through a self-administered survey on all aspects of health and social care resource use, costs of living, and costs of leisure activities. Costs were measured before and 6 months after the DBPCFC and reported in international dollars with 2007 as the benchmark year. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were enrolled. Twenty-one patients had a negative DBPCFC and the suspected food was reintroduced into their diet. Comparing total direct costs before and after the DBPCFC, the reactive group spent a significantly higher amount (median increase of $ 813.1 over baseline), while the tolerant group's spending decreased by a median of $ 87.3 (P=0.31). The amount of money spent on food 6 months after diagnosis was also significantly higher in the reactive group (P=40). Finally, a larger, but not statistically significant, decrease in total indirect costs was observed in the tolerant group compared with the reactive group ($538.3 vs $ 32.3). CONCLUSION: DBPCFC has an impact on indirect and direct costs of living. The main contrubition to this increase was money to spent on food. Keywords: Food allergy. Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Food Challenge. Diagnosis. Socioeconomic impact.

Introduction: Food allergy is a recognized health problem, but little has been reported on its cost for health services. The EuroPrevall project was a European study investigating the patterns, prevalence and socio-economic cost of food allergy. Aims: To investigate the health service cost for food-allergic Europeans and the relationship between severity and cost of illness. Methods: Participants recruited through EuroPrevall studies in a case-control study in four countries, and cases only in five countries, completed a validated economics questionnaire. Individuals with possible food allergy were identified by clinical history, and those with food-specific immunoglobulin E were defined as having probable allergy. Data on resource use were used to estimate total health care costs of illness. Mean costs were compared in the case-control cohorts. Regression analysis was conducted on cases from all 9 countries to assess impact of country, severity and age group. Results: Food-allergic individuals had higher health care costs than controls. The mean annual cost of health care was international dollars (I$)2016 for food-allergic adults and I$1089 for controls, a difference of I$927 (95% confidence interval I$324-I$1530). A similar result was found for adults in each country, and for children, and was not sensitive to baseline demographic differences. Cost was significantly related to severity of illness in cases in nine countries. Conclusions: Food allergy is associated with higher health care costs. Severity of allergic symptoms is a key explanatory factor. © 2013 The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved.

An estimated 350 adults develop severe, but potentially reversible respiratory failure in the UK annually. Current management uses intermittent positive pressure ventilation, but barotrauma, volutrauma and oxygen toxicity can prevent lung recovery. An alternative treatment, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, uses cardio-pulmonary bypass technology to temporarily provide gas exchange, allowing ventilator settings to be reduced. While extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is proven to result in improved outcome when compared to conventional ventilation in neonates with severe respiratory failure, there is currently no good evidence from randomised controlled trials to compare these managements for important clinical outcomes in adults, although evidence from case series is promising.\ud \ud

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important in informing clinical practice and commissioning. Two systematic reviews of a treatment for low back pain and sciatica using epidural steroid injections, published in the same year, arrived at conflicting conclusions. Only one was reported in a digest for evidence-based medicine. This paper aims to find the reasons for the discordance between the reviews, and draw conclusions for users of reviews. Using comparative analysis of two published systematic reviews and their source material, it was found that the two reviews had the same overall aims and met the criteria for review methods. They differed in their choice of methods, including the judgement of quality of studies for inclusion and for summing-up evidence. Estimation of summary odds ratios in one review led to stronger conclusions about effectiveness. In conclusion, the choice of methods for systematic review may alter views about the current state of evidence. Users should be aware that systematic reviews include an element of judgement, whatever method is used.