Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT): More on the Hidden Agenda--a reader writes...
As a blogger, I love it when readers write in...it means somewhere out there people are actually READING this stuff...my last entry talked about the potential for a "Hidden Agenda" propagated by the major allergy societies for SLIT..."packaging" it so that the traditional allergist is the sole purveyor of treatment, by "pumping up" it's side effect potential so that other physicians won't be as tempted to use it. A reader wrote to me after this entry,
I have been thinking about an interesting medical legal point.
Traditional allergists live in fear of lawsuits from anaphylaxis. It is a problem of their own making.If SLIT is accepted and recognized as very safe, then a physician using a much less safe method does not have a defensible position.A reasonable patient would choose a safe method of treatment which is effective. So part of the SLIT anaphylaxis campaign is to protect against reasonable lawsuits from SCIT anaphylaxis where the physician
did not choose a prudent treatment method, ie SLIT.Even if there really are a handful of adverse reaction from SLIT, the relative risk is several orders of magnitude higher for SCIT.
You're right, pal. This is one more reason to inflate the side effects of SLIT. So look for more emphasis on SLIT side-effects in the future. We can't have a treatment that's TOO safe, right? It would make injection immunotherapy (SCIT) look bad. And we don't want that now, do we?
Later, Dude
George F Kroker MD FACAAI
in Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT)
|
Post a Comment
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments