The Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) survey: provider practices and beliefs about allergen immunotherapy

Background The practices and beliefs of the provider specialties that treat allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with allergen immunotherapy (AIT) may vary. Methods A telephone survey of 500 randomly selected health care practitioners in 7 specialties, conducted in 2012. Results AIT was provided as a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International forum of allergy & rhinology 2014-10, Vol.4 (10), p.779-788
Main Authors: Leatherman, Bryan, Skoner, David P., Hadley, James A., Walstein, Nicole, Blaiss, Michael S., Dykewicz, Mark S., Craig, Timothy, Smith, Nancy, Allen-Ramey, Felicia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
administration and dosage
Adult
allergens
Allergies
Attitude to Health
Child
Conjunctivitis, Allergic - therapy
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data
Health Surveys
Humans
immunology
Immunotherapy
Immunotherapy - methods
Male
Nurse practitioners
Otolaryngology
physician's practice patterns
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data
Rhinitis, Allergic - therapy
subcutaneous immunotherapy
sublingual immunotherapy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background The practices and beliefs of the provider specialties that treat allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with allergen immunotherapy (AIT) may vary. Methods A telephone survey of 500 randomly selected health care practitioners in 7 specialties, conducted in 2012. Results AIT was provided as a subcutaneous injection (SCIT) by 91% of allergist/immunologists, 54% of otolaryngologists, and 18% to 24% of other specialties. Otolaryngologists were the most frequent providers of sublingual drops of AIT (SLIT; 33%), compared to 2% to 10% of other specialties. AIT was recommended for adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis by 100% of allergist/immunologists vs 62% to 84% of the other specialties (p < 0.001). The primary reason for recommending AIT for adults (52%) or children (46%) was that other therapies did not work. Between 48% (nurse practitioners/physician assistants) and 93% (allergist/immunologists) of practitioners always or often decreased symptomatic medications over the course of AIT treatment. Most practitioners in all specialties (82–100%) thought that AIT was appropriate for patients with severe allergy symptoms. Significantly more allergist/immunologists and otolaryngologists than other specialists thought AIT was appropriate for mild allergy symptoms (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively, vs other specialties). Significantly more allergist/immunologists than other specialists thought that AIT was more effective than symptomatic medications (p < 0.001), could reduce the further development of allergies (p = 0.03), and could prevent the development of asthma. Conclusion SCIT was more frequently provided than SLIT by all the specialties. Otolaryngologists were the most likely to offer SLIT, while very few allergist/immunologists offered SLIT. Allergist/immunologists differed from other specialties in some beliefs about the effectiveness of AIT.
ISSN:2042-6976
2042-6984
DOI:10.1002/alr.21349