The impact of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) on the socioeconomic cost of food allergy in Europe

Background: Double-blind placebo controlled food challenge (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=.031). The amount of money spent on food 6 months after diagnosis was also significantly higher in the reactive group (P=.040). 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 contribution to this increase was money spent on food (AU)

Introducción: La provocación oral doble ciego controlada con placebo (PODCCP) es prueba diagnóstica "gold standard" en alergia a alimentos. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio es investigar el efecto del diagnóstico en los costes socioeconómicos de la alergia a alimentos (AA). Métodos: Estudio prospectivo longitudinal de análisis de costes llevado a cabo en España y Polonia en el contexto de proyecto EuroPrevall. Se seleccionaron pacientes con AA y en todos los casos el diagnóstico fue estandarizado a través de una PODCCP estandarizada. Se utilizaron cuestionarios autoadministrados para recoger datos del uso de recursos sociosanitarios, coste de vida y coste de actividades de ocio. Los costes se midieron en dos puntos, antes y 6 meses después de PODCCP, expresados en dólares internacionales (nivel de costes 2007). Resultados: Se incluyeron 42 pacientes. 21 pacientes tuvieron una PODCCP negativa y se reintrodujo el alimento. Comparando los costes directos antes y después de PODCCP, el gasto en el grupo de pacientes reactivos fue significativamente mayor (mediana de incremento $813,1 a los 6 meses), mientras que en el grupo de pacientes tolerantes disminuyó una mediana de $87,3 (p=0,031). Los pacientes con una provocación positiva gastaron también más dinero en comida a los 6 meses del diagnóstico (p=0,040). Por último, los costes indirectos disminuyeron, aunque de forma no estadísticamente significativa, en el grupo de pacientes tolerantes comparado con los reactivos ($ 538,3 versus $32,3). Conclusión: La PODCCP tiene un impacto en los costes directos e indirectos, en su mayor parte debido al dinero gastado en comida (AU)

The impact of double-blind placebo- controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) on the socioeconomic cost of food allergy in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Double-blind placebo controlled food challenge (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 = .031). The amount of money spent on food 6 months after diagnosis was also significantly higher in the reactive group (P = .040). 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 contribution to this increase was money spent on food.

Which Is Better: Simultaneous or Sequential Choice?

The term "diversification bias" refers to the tendency for people to take more variety when choosing several items simultaneously than when choosing them sequentially. In this article, we investigate whether this really is a bias by measuring evaluations of sets chosen simultaneously or sequentially. In Experiment 1 participants made two choices between audio tracks for consecutive consumption. Participants liked low-variety sets most and were more likely to choose high-variety sets in simultaneous choice. In Experiment 2 participants chose between three gambles which varied in the probability of winning and their expected value. Again, simultaneous choices seemed worse than sequential ones: The simultaneous-choice groups took far more low expected value gambles than did sequential-choice subjects and rated their enjoyment as lower. We conclude that simultaneous choice often leads to outcomes that are worse than sequential choice and discuss the circumstances when this is likely to be true.