Cox L, Esch RE, Corbett M, Hankin C, Nelson M, Plunkett G. Allergen immunotherapy practice in the United States: guidelines, measures, and outcomes.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2011;
107:289-99; quiz 300. [PMID:
21962088 DOI:
10.1016/j.anai.2011.06.018]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2011] [Revised: 06/08/2011] [Accepted: 06/18/2011] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
To discuss recent issues pertinent to allergen immunotherapy practice in the United States. Allergen extract preparation guidelines, updated allergen immunotherapy practice parameter (AIPP) guidelines, and evolving trends in how immunotherapy outcomes will be measured and assessed. Allergen extract preparation guidelines have been established by 2 entities: the US Pharmacopeia and an American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology/Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force. Minor differences exist between these guidelines, but both focus on aseptic techniques and require that compounding personnel pass a written examination and annual media fill test. The AIPP third update provides new dosing recommendations for Bermuda grass, imported fire ant, and nonstandardized extracts distinguishing between pollen (0.5 mL of a 1:100 or 1:200 vol/vol) and mold/fungi or cockroach (highest tolerated dose) extracts. Because of limited and sometimes conflicting data on high and low proteolytic-containing extract compatibility, the AIPP continues to recommend against mixing these together. Although the AIPP does not specifically recommend a specific diluent, recent evidence suggests normal saline may not be as effective a stabilizer for extract dilutions as glycerin or human serum albumin. Currently, immunotherapy efficacy is determined with subjective assessments that rely on patient reporting, but this may change as health care reform evolves. It will likely become more important for US allergy/immunology practices to demonstrate immunotherapy comparative-effectiveness and report quality measures. Recent comparative-effectiveness studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy compared with symptomatic drug treatment.
Collapse