Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 156, No. 3, 2011
Issue release date: October 2011
Section title: Original Paper
Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2011;156:333–338
(DOI:10.1159/000323898)

Patients’ Satisfaction with Diagnostic Drug Provocation Tests and Perception of Its Usefulness

Gomes E.R.a · Kvedariene V.b · Demoly P.c · Bousquet P.-J.c
aServiço de Imunoalergologia, Centro Hospitalar do Porto – Hospital Maria Pia, Porto, Portugal; bCenter of Pulmonology and Allergology, Vilnius University Hospital Santariskiu Klinikos and Clinic of Chest Disease, Allergology and Radiology, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania; cService de Pneumologie et Allergologie – Inserm U657, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

Do you have an account?

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
  • Reduced rates with a PPV account
read more

Direct: USD 38.00
Account: USD 26.50

Select

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: 5/22/2010
Accepted: 12/22/2010
Published online: 6/29/2011
Issue release date: October 2011

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 1018-2438 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0097 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/IAA

Abstract

Background and Aim: Although still controversial, drug provocation tests (DPTs) are considered by many as the gold standard for diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity. No studies have addressed the opinion of patients submitted to DPT. We aimed to determine patient satisfaction with diagnostic DPT and their perception of its usefulness. Methods: Surveys were supplied to patients submitted to diagnostic DPT in 3 different drug allergy clinics which used the same diagnostic protocols for drug hypersensitivity evaluation. Seventy-three patients (33.6%) were enrolled in Porto (Portugal), 102 (47%) in Montpellier (France) and 42 (19.4%) in Vilnius (Lithuania). The patients filled in a written questionnaire within 15 days after the diagnostic procedure, and satisfaction was assessed on a 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) score. Results: A total of 217 surveys were collected; 144 female patients (66.4%). The most prevalent studied reactions were cutaneous (70.1%), but 17.9% of the patients had had a systemic reaction. β-Lactam antibiotics were the main culprit drugs (44.3%) tested in all centres and 25.3% of the patients had a positive DPT. No patients were unsatisfied (8.8% were neither unsatisfied nor satisfied and the others were satisfied or very satisfied). The level of satisfaction did not depend on the results of the DPT; 207 (95.4%) believed DPTs were useful and almost all the patients would recommend DPTs to others. Conclusions: Most patients were satisfied with DPT for diagnostic purposes. Satisfaction with the procedure was independent of the results of the provocation tests and did not depend on the country.

© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel


  

Author Contacts

Correspondence to: Dr. Eva R. Gomes
Serviço de Imunoalergologia do Centro Hospitalar do Porto
Rua da Boavista, 827
PT–4050-111 Porto (Portugal)
Tel. +351 22608 9900, ext. 3040, E-Mail evamariasrg@yahoo.com

  

Article Information

Received: May 22, 2010
Accepted after revision: December 22, 2010
Published online: June 29, 2011
Number of Print Pages : 6
Number of Figures : 1, Number of Tables : 2, Number of References : 16

  

Publication Details

International Archives of Allergy and Immunology

Vol. 156, No. 3, Year 2011 (Cover Date: October 2011)

Journal Editor: Valenta R. (Vienna)
ISSN: 1018-2438 (Print), eISSN: 1423-0097 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/IAA


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: 5/22/2010
Accepted: 12/22/2010
Published online: 6/29/2011
Issue release date: October 2011

Number of Print Pages: 6
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 1018-2438 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0097 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/IAA


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.