Stinging insect identification: Are the allergy specialists any better than their patients?

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that the general population is not skillful at identifying stinging insects with the exception of the honeybee. No information is available to evaluate allergy physicians' accuracy with stinging insect identification. OBJECTIVE: To measure the accuracy of allergists' ability to identify stinging insects and assess their common practices for evaluating individuals with suspected insect hypersensitivity. METHODS: A picture-based survey and a dried specimen insect box were constructed to determine allergists' and nonallergists' accuracy in identifying insects. Allergists attending the 2013 American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology meeting were invited to participate in the study. Common practice approaches for evaluating individuals with stinging insect hypersensitivity were also investigated using a brief questionnaire. RESULTS: Allergy physicians are collectively better at insect identification than nonallergists. Overall, the mean (SD) number of correct responses for nonallergists was 5.4 (2.0) of a total of 10. This score was significantly lower than the score for allergists (6.1 [2.0]; P = .01) who participated in the study. Most allergists (78.5%) test for all stinging insects and use skin testing (69.5%) as the initial test of choice for evaluating individuals with insect hypersensitivity. CONCLUSION: Overall, allergists are more skilled at Hymenoptera identification. Most allergy specialists reported testing for all stinging insects when evaluating insect hypersensitivity, and skin testing was the preferred testing method in nearly 70% of allergists. These data support the practice parameter's recommendation to consider testing for all flying Hymenoptera insects during venom evaluation, which most of the participating allergists surveyed incorporate into their clinical practice.

Perception and practice of sublingual immunotherapy among practicing allergists in the United States: a follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited information regarding current trends of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) use, perception, and prescribing patterns among allergists in the United States is available. OBJECTIVE: To obtain information about current allergist perception and practice of SLIT compared with 2007. METHODS: On behalf of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) Immunotherapy and Diagnostics Committee, an electronic survey was sent to all practicing allergists of the ACAAI in August 2011. RESULTS: Fifty-nine of 519 US respondents (11.4%) reported experience using SLIT compared with 45 of 766 (5.9%) in 2007 (P < .001). Lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval was the primary barrier in using SLIT in the United States among 469 of 520 respondents (90.2%), which was increased from 471 of 763 (61.7%) in 2007 (P < .001). Among US respondents, 344 of 516 (66.7%) believed that SLIT was safer than subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) compared with 554 of 755 (73.4%) in 2007 (P < .01). In total, 22 of 51 SLIT users (43.1%) reported SLIT efficacy equal to or even greater than SCIT, which was similar to 21 of 38 (55.3%) reported in 2007 (P < .36). CONCLUSION: Rates of SLIT use reported by US respondents have nearly doubled in the last 4 years, with 11.4% of US respondents reporting SLIT use. Because the greatest barrier to SLIT use in the United States is the lack of FDA approval, it is anticipated that once an FDA-approved product is available, there will be widespread use of SLIT in the United States. Practice guidelines, which include effective dosages and schedules, will be critical to the broad implementation of SLIT in the United States.