and do they work? Any past experiences or comments are welcome.. I'm thinking about them but not sure if they are worthwhile.
Are allergy shots worth it......
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
I am or was allergic to a great deal of things: furry animals, pollen (almost all kinds), food additives. I was not on meds, instead we got rid of the cat, the bird, the dog, the candy, and when pollen season was on, I stayed indoors. My interpretation is that this is the reason I'm practically allergy free today [up to the point of still not inhaling a cat]. My understanding of shots (which is dated by 20 years) is that they are hard on the system (increased heart rate) and they work best for those who have single or a limited number of allergies. My dad used to get them for harvest season and they worked.
Are they worth it? That's a value question and depends on how much you're sneezing and how annoying this is, whether the allergic triggers can be avoided (my solution), etc.
Are they worth it? That's a value question and depends on how much you're sneezing and how annoying this is, whether the allergic triggers can be avoided (my solution), etc.
Personal experience is that they work. I too had them as a teenager, and it reduced my allergy season from a few months to the week or two when trees go full bloom. Of course, there's no way for me to say that I didn't just "grow out of" my allergies. I also didn't pay for them, as we had really good health insurance and the copay was insignificant.
I had allergies and got the shots.
First off, I had a lot of allergies. They tested me for about 50 of the most common allergens in my area, and I was allergic to at least 1/3 of them...
My symptoms were year-round, so I took loratadine or other meds year-round. That wasn't so bad, until they made loratadine over-the-counter. That made is quite expensive to buy. This is when I looked into getting the shots. Insurance covered part of the costs, but not all.
I did the shots for two years with good results. When I was doing the shots I didn't have to take any meds, and didn't have to after that. As a bonus, I got over my fear of getting shots. Having to get them so often gave me ample opportunity to change that.
First off, I had a lot of allergies. They tested me for about 50 of the most common allergens in my area, and I was allergic to at least 1/3 of them...
My symptoms were year-round, so I took loratadine or other meds year-round. That wasn't so bad, until they made loratadine over-the-counter. That made is quite expensive to buy. This is when I looked into getting the shots. Insurance covered part of the costs, but not all.
I did the shots for two years with good results. When I was doing the shots I didn't have to take any meds, and didn't have to after that. As a bonus, I got over my fear of getting shots. Having to get them so often gave me ample opportunity to change that.
Perhaps most importantly, as Jacob has suggested, I suggest that allergen avoidance or elimination should be the first line of allergy treatment.
WRT allergy shots, on the research side of things, there is abundant data to support the efficacy of allergy shots in reducing symptoms. For example, a meta-analysis from 2007 pooled data from several trials, comparing allergy shots to placebo and found statistically significant reductions in symptoms for those receiving the therapy.
Additional research has suggested that allergy shots can reduce an individual's health care costs when compared with symptomatic treatments. These studies have been conducted in both Europe and the US.
So, there is evidence that the shots work, and reduce health care costs.
An additional point: If compliance is factored in, it seems that daily use of nasal steroid sprays (such as flonase, or its generic) reduce symptoms better than antihistamine pills. However, more people are compliant with taking a pill than a nasal spray.
@zrooster, loratadine is available in generic form, and it is far less costly than it once was. Generally, one can get 300 tabs of 10mg loratadine for under $20 (google kirkland loratadine). So, daily cost should be around 6 cents. In the early 90s, the same medication cost around $2 per day.
WRT allergy shots, on the research side of things, there is abundant data to support the efficacy of allergy shots in reducing symptoms. For example, a meta-analysis from 2007 pooled data from several trials, comparing allergy shots to placebo and found statistically significant reductions in symptoms for those receiving the therapy.
Additional research has suggested that allergy shots can reduce an individual's health care costs when compared with symptomatic treatments. These studies have been conducted in both Europe and the US.
So, there is evidence that the shots work, and reduce health care costs.
An additional point: If compliance is factored in, it seems that daily use of nasal steroid sprays (such as flonase, or its generic) reduce symptoms better than antihistamine pills. However, more people are compliant with taking a pill than a nasal spray.
@zrooster, loratadine is available in generic form, and it is far less costly than it once was. Generally, one can get 300 tabs of 10mg loratadine for under $20 (google kirkland loratadine). So, daily cost should be around 6 cents. In the early 90s, the same medication cost around $2 per day.
I am not going to argue for this side or that (I just lived with Hay fever when I was living abroad. And no, I didn't feel "dreadful" either)
So FWIW, I just want to point to a recent study where it was discovered that "placebos work even if you tell people they’re taking placebos"
P.S: Let's not wander down to the "What sample size" field, please (already acknowledged in article
)?
So FWIW, I just want to point to a recent study where it was discovered that "placebos work even if you tell people they’re taking placebos"
P.S: Let's not wander down to the "What sample size" field, please (already acknowledged in article
)?@ishidav,
Intranasal steroids are thought to be relatively safe for long term use. I'm not aware of a study showing rebound congestion from an intranasal steroid-- however OTC intranasal vasoconstrictive agents, such as oxymetazoline, are thought to cause rebound congestion.
Significant nasal mucosal atrophy does not seem to be a problem identified currently with long term use, though septal irritation is. Though one might counter that the irritation experienced with intranasal steroid use may be less overall than what is experienced in untreated allergic rhinitis-- that is, by taking the intranasal steroid you get an irritated septum, whereas without it you have an irritated nose. It is possible that one's risk of atrophy could be increased by long-term daily use (similar to the idea that smoking daily eventually increases one's risk of a number of problems), but as of yet I'm not aware that this has been identified.
If it helps to read it from the Mayo Clinic website,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-edge- ... feb-3.html
Defining safety is often a relative, and personal choice. I suspect that using a nasal steroid daily is probably safer than driving a car daily, or drinking 3 alcoholic beverages daily-- you know, the old 'pick your poison'... If it helps, know that literally millions of people have used nasal steroids over the past 40 years-- though probably only a small minority use them long-term, and daily.
Intranasal steroids are thought to be relatively safe for long term use. I'm not aware of a study showing rebound congestion from an intranasal steroid-- however OTC intranasal vasoconstrictive agents, such as oxymetazoline, are thought to cause rebound congestion.
Significant nasal mucosal atrophy does not seem to be a problem identified currently with long term use, though septal irritation is. Though one might counter that the irritation experienced with intranasal steroid use may be less overall than what is experienced in untreated allergic rhinitis-- that is, by taking the intranasal steroid you get an irritated septum, whereas without it you have an irritated nose. It is possible that one's risk of atrophy could be increased by long-term daily use (similar to the idea that smoking daily eventually increases one's risk of a number of problems), but as of yet I'm not aware that this has been identified.
If it helps to read it from the Mayo Clinic website,
http://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-edge- ... feb-3.html
Defining safety is often a relative, and personal choice. I suspect that using a nasal steroid daily is probably safer than driving a car daily, or drinking 3 alcoholic beverages daily-- you know, the old 'pick your poison'... If it helps, know that literally millions of people have used nasal steroids over the past 40 years-- though probably only a small minority use them long-term, and daily.