Anaphylaxis Research - Food Allergies, Diagnosis, Treatment, Causes

Anaphylaxis Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Anaphylaxis, including details on food allergies, diagnosis, treatment, causes.


Anaphylaxis Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Anaphylaxis

Books on Anaphylaxis

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



Analysis of the burden of treatment in patients receiving an EpiPen for yellow jacket anaphylaxis.

Oude Elberink JN, van der Heide S, Guyatt GH, Dubois AE

Department of Allergology, University Medical Center of Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands. j.n.g.oude@elberink@int.azg.nl

BACKGROUND: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is a treatment with established efficacy for the prevention of repeated anaphylactic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera allergy, which also allows patients to discontinue carrying an EpiPen. Despite their merits, both treatments can have negative aspects potentially important to patients. OBJECTIVE: We examined possible negative aspects of the EpiPen in comparison with VIT as perceived by patients. METHODS: Positive and negative aspects of both treatments were measured by using a burden of treatment questionnaire together with statements about the EpiPen. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three patients were included, of whom 94 consented to randomization: 47 received VIT, and 47 received the EpiPen. Of the remaining 99, 75 chose VIT, and 26 chose the EpiPen. Of the patients receiving VIT, 91.5% were (extremely) positive about their treatment, and 85% would choose VIT again. Of the patients receiving the EpiPen, only 48% were positive about their treatment, and even of these patients, 68% preferred to be treated with VIT after 1 year of carrying the EpiPen. Although most patients indicated that it is reassuring to carry an EpiPen and makes them feel safe, many patients also indicated that it is inconvenient and troublesome. Especially patients who were negative about the EpiPen indicated that they would not dare use the EpiPen if necessary and were afraid at possible side effects. CONCLUSION: In contrast to VIT, the EpiPen is perceived as burdensome by most patients with venom allergy. For most patients, an EpiPen is an unsuitable definitive treatment. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As VIT enables patients with venom allergy to get rid of the EpiPen, patients should be offered VIT.

Published 4 September 2006 in J Allergy Clin Immunol, 118(3): 699-704.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2005-2008 Anaphylaxis Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Anaphylaxis Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2005)
  Issue 1 (November)
  Issue 2 (December)

Volume 2 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)



Anaphylaxis Books

Clinical Management of Urticaria and Anaphylaxis (Allergic Disease and Therapy)

Clinical Management of Urticaria and Anaphylaxis (Allergic Disease and Therapy)