Spotlight on Annals
While the December 2017 Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology is the final issue of the year, it has some great articles for the practicing clinician. These articles will increase your knowledge base as well as provide guidance for various aspects of patient care. Two articles in particular meet these important metrics.
There are two additional special articles that I call your attention to in the November issue of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology that should be of benefit to you in the care of your patients. The first, authored by Megan Motosue, MD, and colleagues, examine the likelihood of patients admitted to the Emergency Department (ED) for episodes of anaphylaxis to be prescribed an epi-pen and referred to an allergy-immunology specialist for follow up.
The November issue of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology has a variety of features for our practicing clinician readers. There are features and information about many aspects of our specialty. There are two articles in particular that are worth mentioning.
As the month of October winds down, hopefully everyone has had an opportunity to read and utilize the information from the many articles in this month’s Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. I want to call to attention to two articles that are of very pragmatic value for practicing clinicians.
The October issue of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology has many articles and features that should be of interest to our readers. We have published on a wide variety that will impact practice.
One such article is written by Mark Ballow, MD, FACAAI, and provides an excellent evidence-based overview of the pragmatic aspects of immunoglobulin replacement. He traces the history of immunoglobulin replacement technology from intramuscular injections to current subcutaneous therapy, and the evolution of dosing strategies including amount and frequency. This is all accomplished using a clinical case and is a must read for all who engage in Ig replacement.
The July issue of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology has a variety of features that should be interesting for our readers. I would like to call attention to two specific ones that I encourage you to read.
The first, authored by Enrico Heffler, MD, PhD and colleagues, sought to determine whether a point-of-service device that can provide a blood eosinophil count was accurate enough compared to a standard laboratory-based analyzer. The data suggest that the correlation between the two methodologies was very high. This could provide immediate, office based eligibility for the use of certain biologicals in patients with severe asthma requiring a qualifying blood eosinophil level.