Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John Oppenheimer

Publications and source records attributed to John Oppenheimer.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Skin testing.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the reader with a relevant review of the literature regarding skin testing in the allergist's office. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search for the years 1970 through 2005 was performed using the following keywords: allergy skin testing, skin prick testing, and intradermal skin testing. STUDY SELECTION: Articles that highlighted aspects of sentinel to clinical allergists' use of skin testing in the office, such as methods of skin testing, intradermal vs skin prick testing, skin test devices, and methods of expressing skin test results, were selected for further review. RESULTS: Skin testing remains the central test to confirm an allergic response. It is minimally invasive and when performed correctly has good reproducibility. Results are easily quantifiable and correlate well with end organ challenge. It is imperative however that technicians who perform the skin tests and the clinicians who order or interpret these tests understand the characteristics of the specific tests they are administering. It is also important that the clinician express skin test results in a manner that allows easy interpretation by another physician. CONCLUSIONS: Allergists must consider controllable variables that affect skin test results and their interpretation. When not considered, they may be responsible for some of the inaccuracies associated with allergy skin testing.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

Skin testing: a survey of allergists.

BACKGROUND: In the allergist's office, skin testing remains the central way to confirm allergic response. Although anecdotal data suggest widely varying practices in skin testing by allergists, the diversity and relative frequency of these practices have not been documented. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of the diversity in skin testing practices among allergists. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent via the Internet to all physician members and fellows of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology who practice in the United States. This survey explored choice of extract concentrations, skin test device, number and type of tests, method for interpretation and documentation of skin test results, and quality assurance procedures used. RESULTS: Overall, a significant degree of variability was reported with regard to number of skin tests performed, extract concentrations, skin test devices, interpretation and documentation of results, and quality assurance procedures. The average number of skin prick tests performed ranged from 5.09 (grasses) to 10.9 (trees), whereas the average number of intradermal tests performed ranged from 2.03 (grasses) to 5.6 (perennial). The allergen extract concentrations used for intradermal testing varied widely. Expressed as a dilution of the concentrated extracts, 20.8% use 1:100 dilutions, 10.3% use 1:500 dilutions, and 59.4% use 1:1,000 dilutions. Significant variability also occurred regarding devices and the technique with which the devices were used. Most clinicians (92.1%) used the most concentrated extract available for skin prick testing. For reporting the results of skin testing, 53.8% used a 0 to 4+ scale, and only 28.3% measured orthogonal diameters. Of those using a 0 to 4+ scale, two thirds related the results to the size of the histamine control. Quality assurance testing was reportedly performed by 61.2% of responders. However, less than 10% of responders used an objective test protocol for this purpose. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights some of the areas that allergists can improve on in the use and reporting of skin tests.

Allergy and Immunology↗
PubMed2006

Running on empty.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed2003

Steroid-sparing effects of fluticasone propionate 100 microg and salmeterol 50 microg administered twice daily in a single product in patients previously controlled with fluticasone propionate 250 microg administered twice daily.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent use of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and an inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist provides better overall asthma control than the use of higher doses of ICS alone. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether fluticasone propionate (FP) combined with salmeterol in the Diskus device can be used to reduce the dose of ICS in patients currently stable on medium-dose ICS while maintaining asthma control. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 12- to 24-week trial consisting of a 3-part run-in period. The run-in period was designed to first establish FP 250 microg administered twice a day (bid) via Diskus as the minimum effective dose. During run-in period 1, patients received FP 220 microg bid or the equivalent for 10 to 14 days. Controlled patients moved to run-in period 2 (5-28 days), which assessed asthma stability on FP 100 microg bid administered via Diskus. Only patients who became unstable on FP 100 microg bid were eligible to enter run-in period 3 (26-30 days), during which they were placed on FP 250 microg bid and those regaining asthma control were eligible for randomization. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who remained in the study with no evidence of worsening asthma. Secondary efficacy measures included FEV1, morning peak expiratory flow, percent of symptom-free days, and daily albuterol use. RESULTS: Only 5% of patients treated with FP100/salmeterol withdrew because of worsening asthma in the first 12 weeks; this compared with 7% in the FP250 group. All patients from a subset of sites continued in the study for an additional 12 weeks; only an additional 1% of patients treated with either FP100/salmeterol or FP250 withdrew because of worsening asthma. Secondary efficacy measures confirmed primary efficacy results. CONCLUSION: In patients requiring FP250 bid for asthma stability, FP100/salmeterol bid was steroid-sparing, allowing a 60% reduction in the FP dose while maintaining overall asthma control.

Administration, Inhalation↗
PubMed2002

Does introduction of new "easy to use" inhalational devices improve medical personnel's knowledge of their proper use?

BACKGROUND: Lack of basic inhaler skills by medical personnel has been documented by numerous studies. Consequently, training of patients in correct inhalational technique suffers. Newer dry powder inhalers such as Turbuhaler (budesonide, Astra USA, Westborough, MA) and Diskus (salmeterol, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC) have some advantages over conventional metereddose inhalers (MDIs) including easier technique of usage. They have been recently marketed with the hope of overcoming this problem. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether introduction of newer "easy to use" dry powder inhalers such as budesonide (Turbuhaler) and salmeterol (Diskus) would result in improvement in medical personnel's knowledge of their proper use. METHODS: In and around a community-based teaching hospital, interviews were conducted in March 2000 of 50 assorted randomly selected medical personnel. They included 10 respiratory therapists, 10 registered nurses, 10 medical residents, 10 primary care physicians, and 10 pharmacists. Objective evaluation was made of their skills demonstration and knowledge scores for usage of MDIs, budesonide, and salmeterol. RESULTS: Mean percentage demonstration scores of different medical personnel for all three devices taken together: respiratory therapist (81.6%), primary care physicians (77.7%), pharmacists (57.7%), registered nurses (54.4%), and medical residents (53.8%). Mean percentage demonstration scores of different inhalers for all medical personnel taken together: MDI (80.9%), salmeterol (64.2%), budesonide (49.9%). Mean percentage knowledge score of all three inhalational devices taken together for respiratory therapist was the best at 76.6%. Registered nurses performed the worst with a score of 52.0%. Mean percentage knowledge scores: MDI (78%), salmeterol (63.2%), and budesonide (52.4%). A repeated measures two-way analysis of variance demonstrated that differences in both demonstration and knowledge scores between inhaler types and between medical personnel were all highly statistically significant (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Demonstration skills and knowledge scores for use of both budedsonide and salmeterol were substantially lower than that for MDI for all medical personnel. Medical personnel responsible for teaching the correct use of inhalational devices are lacking in basic knowledge and user skills. This likely contributes to patient's poor technique when using these devices.

Adult↗