Factors Influencing Career Choice of Allergy and Immunology Fellows-in-Training: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Program Directors Assembly Executive Committee.

BACKGROUND: As the burden of allergic and immunologic disease continues to increase, there is increased demand for a larger Allergy and Immunology (AI) subspecialty workforce. The field must prioritize the expansion of our workforce and the recruitment of exceptional and diverse trainees to ensure the vitality of the specialty. Although the AI fellowship match has traditionally been competitive, recent trends in fellowship applications have demonstrated fewer applicants per fellowship position. This trend has made recruitment a priority on the agenda of the national AI societies. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate key factors influencing the decision to choose the field of AI by querying fellows-in-training. METHODS: A survey was created and distributed yearly to fellows-in-training from 2017 to 2021 to identify factors influencing a career choice in AI. RESULTS: Approximately 59% of respondents rotated with AI in residency and 35% in both medical school and residency. Most respondents reported having a mentor in the field before fellowship, and many had their first exposures to AI during medical school (40%) or residency (32%). Most respondents decided to pursue AI during residency. The most common factors that influenced the decision to pursue AI were work/life balance, clinical aspects of the field, mentorship, and research opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the decision to pursue a career in AI often occurs during residency training and is motivated primarily by work/life balance, clinical aspects of the field, and clinician mentorship. Our survey results could provide guidance to AI training programs on strategies to recruit exceptional and diverse trainees.

Absence of Iodinated Contrast Hypersensitivity and Characterization of Gadolinium Utilization in an Interventional Pain Population.

BACKGROUND: Iodinated contrast media (ICM) allergy labels pose a unique clinical problem for the interventional pain physician due to the drawbacks of gadolinium for enhancement during pain procedures, as well as the reluctance to add to the cumulative steroid burden with steroid premedication. However, the risks of ICM hypersensitivity specific to this setting have not been previously described. METHODS: We aimed to describe the incidence of ICM-induced hypersensitivity during the performance of epidural injections in a large healthcare system. We also sought to characterize preexisting ICM allergy labels and how these affected consequent gadolinium utilizations in this population. RESULTS: 6,471 epidural pain procedures requiring contrast enhancement were performed during the 18-month study period. There were no reported contrast-induced hypersensitivity reactions in this time. 108 patients (1.6%) had a preexisting ICM allergy; a shellfish/seafood allergy was recorded in 118 patients (1.82%), and 51 charts (0.78%) were labeled with "iodine" allergy. 183 individuals received gadolinium for enhancement during epidural steroid injections. 96.7% of gadolinium utilization occurred in the context of preexisting allergy labels in the electronic medical record. Of note, 20 patients (18.5%) with ICM allergy labels also received iodinated contrast, and this was uneventful in all cases. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that ICM-associated hypersensitivity is very rare during epidural procedures and the incidence is significantly lower than expected based on reaction rates during intravascular administration. This may be related to both dose as well as route of administration. The establishment of a protocol for safe workup of ICM allergy labels would be useful in optimizing pain procedures.