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.
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-allergicpatients 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.
Authors: Michael A Golding; Elinor Simons; Elissa M Abrams; Jennifer Gerdts; Jennifer L P Protudjer Journal: Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 3.406