RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: A number of medical conditions, some of them recently reported, are associated with an increased production of eosinophils. We report the first case of eosinophilic parotitis in the literature. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient was an eight-year-old Caucasian boy who presented with a two-year history of recurring acute parotitis with no fever. He had had a total of five episodes with no response to antibiotics, but remission had been achieved with oral corticosteroid therapy. We performed allergy tests for inhalant and food allergens and for haptens, but the results were all negative. The results of echography ruled out sialodochitis. Instead, a swab from the parotid duct led to the detection of a high number of eosinophils. CONCLUSIONS: This report is first in the literature to describe a case of eosinophilic parotitis, and we suggest that a cytological assessment, which is quite simple yet rarely used by physicians, be performed when patients with parotitis of uncertain origin are under evaluation.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The worldwide increased prevalence of allergic diseases, and especially of respiratory allergy, is paralleled by increased health costs. This requires consideration of the cost to efficacy ratio of the available treatment to identify the optimal choice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the different economic relevance, over a long evaluation time, of symptomatic pharmacologic therapy and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in patients with allergic asthma. METHODS: Seventy patients with perennial allergic asthma, sensitized to dust mites, were enrolled; 50 of these patients were treated with SLIT against house dust mites and 20 were treated with symptomatic drugs. The patients were evaluated for 2 years after discontinuing immunotherapy, which was performed for 3 years, to obtain a more complete follow-up. Symptom scores, medication scores, and all other direct medical costs were evaluated with a specific questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients treated with SLIT plus drugs had a higher mean annual cost in the first year of SLIT treatment compared with patients only receiving drug treatment, but the mean annual cost became significantly lower since the end of SLIT both in the whole population and in the subgroups defined by disease severity. CONCLUSION: The economic advantage measured alongside this prospective observational study was long lasting and still present at the fifth year of the follow-up (2 years after discontinuing SLIT) and could positively be related to the persistent good clinical control of patients.