One aim was to try to identify expert practice as applied to PID, Everolimus mouse while another was to understand the impact of experience upon such practice. We conducted a cross-sectional study among members of ESID and the AAAAI. Individuals who were full members of ESID in 2006 and members of AAAAI in 2005 were eligible for inclusion in this study. Members

of the AAAAI were included as described [5], and those of ESID who met eligibility were sent the study questionnaire with an accompanying covering letter. A close replica of the questionnaire administered to the members of the AAAAI in 2005 was designed to be self-administered via the internet [5]. The aim was to collect the specialist perspectives on therapy for PIDs from members of ESID, for comparison with the findings from members of the AAAAI. Changes made prior to distribution were only minor, related mainly to European compared to American English, as the goal was to keep the two questionnaires as similar as possible. All changes made to the survey instrument were Wnt activity approved by the ESID Board to ensure applicability to a European audience. A print format reproduction of the survey instrument is available as Appendix A and the original AAAAI survey is available as a supplement to the previous publication [5]. Some of the topics addressed in this survey instrument included utilization of IVIg for specific diseases,

dosing and frequency of IVIg administration, utility of subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy (SCIg), use of prophylactic antibiotics and health-care concerns. A covering letter from ESID, explaining the purpose of the questionnaire, was sent via e-mail to full members of ESID, approximately 450 physicians or paediatricians with a link to a non-incentivized, web-based questionnaire. Three follow-up e-mails were sent as reminders to help increase survey participation,

which was also conducted for the AAAAI members. Responses were collected electronically from July 2006 to September 2006 in a database. Each member of ESID was allowed to respond once to Y-27632 nmr the questionnaire. Duplicate responses were identified by careful analysis of name, e-mail and location fields. These repeated responses were examined closely and if the response pattern was the same in each entry, only one entry was preserved and the rest were removed. If there were multiple responses with different response patterns, all entries from the physician were removed as there was no way to determine which entry was the desired response. The original data from the AAAAI survey were analysed again for the purposes of this paper and duplicate entries treated in the same fashion to allow for optimal comparison between the two data sources. AAAAI respondents were categorized into two groups as before [5]: a ‘focused’ group that reported that > 10% of their practice was devoted to patients with PID, and a ‘general’ group where ≤10% of their practice was devoted to patients with PID.