Understanding caregiver goals, benefits, and acceptable risks of peanut allergy therapies

Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: aligning clinical trials with patient priorities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the clinical outcomes used in immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy (FA) intervention studies, emphasizing unmet need for patient-centred outcomes. Standardizing outcome measurement is critical as research into FA treatments, particularly food immunotherapy, expands. Here we discuss how outcomes should reflect the multidimensional impact of FA on people's lives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence reveals a discrepancy between clinical trial outcomes and those most valued by patients and carers. While trials often prioritize changes in reactivity thresholds or immunological markers, patients and carers emphasize need in reducing severe reactions, improving quality of life, and enhancing confidence in disease management. This disparity highlights importance of harmonization efforts to guide FA research.The Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative recently identified two core outcomes - 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' - through an international consensus process involving patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. Outcomes like 'desensitization' and 'remission/sustained unresponsiveness' were considered important but were not seen as the most critical.

SUMMARY

Developing and implementing a COS for FA intervention studies is essential to align research with patient priorities, ensuring meaningful improvements in routine clinical care. Standardized outcome measurement will generate robust evidence, inform clinical practice, and empower patients and caregivers in decision-making about FA management.

Evolving Food Allergy Clinical Trials to Become More Patient-Centered

The current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) paradigm may not fully capture important patient-centered outcomes or measure a primary outcome that is truly meaningful to patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized tools measuring the patient's experience in food allergy clinical trials, which can help support shared decision-making (SDM) and further our understanding of treatment impact. Food allergy PROMs include quality of life (QoL), health state utility (HSU), severity, and self-efficacy measures. Currently, FDA registration trials for product approval only consider a fixed increase in allergen threshold from pre-to-post intervention as a primary outcome (vs a more flexible "X-fold" increase not accounting for an upper and lower specific threshold), though many use QoL as a secondary outcome for patient-centered assessment of treatment impact. Currently used QoL PROMs were not designed to measure change on therapy nor measure HSU (eg, quantitative risk a patient may be willing to take to improve their current health), which can be used to determine therapy value. Although the current paradigm for primary and secondary outcomes in food allergy clinical trials was appropriate at the early stages of food allergy therapy development when conceived in the late 2000s and early 2010s, in the 2020s, these outcome choices risk being stagnant and outdated. As such, the current paradigm for food allergy outcomes should evolve to incorporate more patient-centered primary outcome measures that patient data indicate are meaningful, so outcomes more realistically reflect a therapy's impact. This evolution will better support SDM discussions as patients consider their therapy options and can inform new product development.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy

Peanut allergy treatment options remain limited, but novel approaches are being studied, including epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). EPIT uses the cutaneous immune system to promote tolerance to food allergens. Viaskin™ Peanut, an approach to EPIT in late-stage clinical development uses an occlusive patch with a condensation chamber that enables natural epidermal water loss to solubilize dry antigen on the patch, which is then absorbed and captured by skin Langerhans cells. This form of EPIT does not require disruption of the skin barrier, thus avoiding a proinflammatory cytokine response by targeting the nonvascularized epidermis and limiting systemic allergen exposure. Extensive preclinical research suggests that Viaskin Peanut has a distinct mechanism of desensitization, including the potential for disease modification, driven by a unique population of regulatory T cells. Numerous clinical studies of Viaskin Peanut have demonstrated desensitization and reductions in reaction severity, particularly in children aged 1 through 11 years, as well as a favorable safety profile with mostly mild-to-moderate skin reactions that were observed to decrease over time. EPIT with Viaskin Peanut may be a potential therapeutic option for peanut allergy that is clinically practical with long-term efficacy and tolerability.

The use and implementation of omalizumab as food allergy treatment: Consensus-based guidance and Work Group Report of the Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Omalizumab was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of any single food allergy or multiple food allergies in children aged 1 year and older and adults. There is currently no formal guidance regarding recommended best practices for omalizumab use in food allergy, including patient selection, anticipated goals and outcomes of therapy, procedure for monitoring patients who elect to start omalizumab therapy, and ways in which omalizumab can be incorporated into the landscape of food allergy management and daily clinical practice. This work group report was developed by the food allergy therapies subcommittee of the Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee within the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Consensus, evidence-based guidance regarding experts' recommendations for using omalizumab to treat children and adults with food allergy was developed by using modified Delphi methodology. In iterative fashion, a total of 8 statements regarding how to use omalizumab to treat patients with food allergy were developed by 16 clinical experts. This guidance provides the clinician with a suggested approach to patient selection, initiation of therapy, monitoring of efficacy, and long-term follow-up care. The role of preference-sensitive care is emphasized, with most statements offering care recommendations relevant to the culture and values of a particular practice setting.

Food allergy yardstick: Where does omalizumab fit?

Food allergy management has greatly evolved in the last several years, moving from passive approaches, such as strict food allergen avoidance, to more active treatments, including regulatory approval of the first specifically indicated immunotherapy product (for peanut) in 2020. In 2024, a second therapy, omalizumab, received regulatory approval for the treatment of 1 or more IgE-mediated food allergies, providing clinicians with multiple treatment options to offer patients and families. With this expanded armamentarium of food allergy treatment options, the practicing clinician requires detailed knowledge of benefits and risks of omalizumab, how omalizumab fits into the management landscape, and how to use shared decision-making to optimize therapy. This yardstick aims to provide the clinician with a review of data leading to omalizumab's food allergy indication and an evidence-based expert opinion approach regarding on how best to use this and other therapies available to optimize patient management.

Community and academic allergists' perspectives on integrating biologics into food allergy care: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Biologics are an important area of research and development, including for treatment of food allergy (FA). However, how allergists perceive the risks and benefits of biologics to treat FA remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how US-based allergists perceive the use of biologics in FA treatment.

METHODS

Using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling, providers were recruited through direct solicitation by email to participate in a telephone or Zoom interview about their perceptions of the risks and benefits of current and future FA treatment options. Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and coded to conduct a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted 60 interviews with providers from 34 states working either in community practice (53.3%) or academic medical centers (46.7%). Our sample was primarily non-Hispanic White (60.0%) and men (56.7%). The plurality was in their 40s (41.7%). Our findings clustered in the following 4 main themes: (1) perceived benefits of biologics, (2) ideal use of biologics, (3) concerns about biologics, and (4) biologics as the perceived future of FA. Community and academic providers had largely similar views, but academic providers more often emphasized the benefits of biologics, and community providers were, on the whole, more supportive of using biologics as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy rather than as monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that providers hold mixed views about the use of biologics to treat FA. However, most were enthusiastic about prescribing biologics for FA while also being highly concerned about the cost to patients and the health care system.

Development and acceptability of a decision-aid for food allergy oral immunotherapy in children

BACKGROUND

Limited decision-support tools are available to help shared decision-making (SDM) regarding food oral immunotherapy (OIT) initiation. No current tool covers all foods, forms, and pediatric ages for which OIT is offered.

METHODS

In compliance with International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, this pediatric decision-aid comparing OIT versus avoidance was developed in three stages. Nested qualitative data assessing OIT decisional needs were supplemented with evidence-synthesis from the OIT literature to create the prototype decision-aid content. This underwent iterative development with food allergy experts and patient advocacy stakeholders until unanimous consensus was reached regarding content, bias, readability, and utility in making a choice. Lastly, the tool underwent validated assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy.

RESULTS

The decision-aid underwent 5 iterations, resulting in a 4-page written aid (Flesch-Kincaid reading level 6.1) explaining therapy choices, risks and benefits, providing self-rating for attribute importance for the options and self-assessment regarding how adequate the information was in decision-making. A total of n = 135 caregivers of food-allergic children assessed the decision-aid, noting good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 85.9/100) and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.9/100). Information content was rated adequate and sufficient, the therapy choices wording balanced, and presented without bias for a "best choice." Lower decisional conflict was associated with caregiver-reported anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

This first pediatric OIT decision-aid, agnostic to product, allergen, and age has good acceptability, limited bias, and is associated with low decisional conflict and high decisional self-efficacy. It supports SDM in navigating the decision to start OIT or continue allergen avoidance.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Omalizumab for Treatment of Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is an anti-IgE therapy newly approved by the Food and Drug Administration for allergen agnostic treatment of single or multiple food allergies in patients aged 1 year or older.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab as a food allergy treatment.

METHODS

We evaluated health and economic outcomes in Markov cohorts of simulated food allergic infants randomized to receive omalizumab using a 15-year horizon. Monte Carlo simulation was used (n = 40,000 subjects) to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective, incorporating both a family-level and individual-level analysis. We included family-level analysis to incorporate a broad perspective for health utility change, given treatment effects likely benefit all parties at home (eg, caregivers, siblings), not just the patient, representing the sum of changes in all such persons. Supplemental analyses explored lower omalizumab cost and home initiation. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the family-level cohort analysis, omalizumab exceeded cost-effectiveness thresholds ($185,183/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]). In a comparison of the omalizumab strategy (OMA) with the non-omalizumab strategy, the cost of OMA exceeded the non-omalizumab strategy ($315,020 vs $136,609) with greater incremental effectiveness (12.668 vs 11.699 QALY). In the individual-level analysis, the cost-effectiveness of OMA was $573,698/QALY. In base-case assessments, OMA was cost-effective (willingness to pay, $100,000/QALY) at a health state utility (HSU) improvement of 0.265. The value-based cost of OMA ranged from $14,166 to $23,791 when it was considered at the individual and family-unit levels. Requiring OMA administration in the clinic was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $260,239).

CONCLUSIONS

In the base case and at current pricing, omalizumab is not cost-effective, but it could be at a lower retail price or when use creates large health utility shifts in the family and patient.

Age-Related Food Aversion and Anxiety Represent Primary Patient Barriers to Food Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Although oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a reasonable treatment option, barriers to this procedure's implementation have not been extensively evaluated from a patient perspective.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the barriers patients face during OIT administration, including anxiety and taste aversion, and the role of health care professionals, especially dietitians.

METHODS

A survey in Canada and the United States involved families currently enrolled in food OIT programs.

RESULTS

Of responses from 379 participants, fear of reaction was the most common barrier to OIT initiation, with 45.6% reporting it being a "very significant" barrier with other fears reported. However, taste aversion represented the prominent obstacle to continuation. Taste aversion was associated with a slower buildup (P = .02) and a reduction in dose (P = .002). Taste aversion was a strongly age-dependent barrier for initiation (P < .001) and continuation (P < .002), with older children over 6 years of age reporting it as a very significant barrier (P < .001). Boredom was reported as a concern for specific allergens such as peanut, egg, sesame, and hazelnuts (P < .05), emphasizing the need for diverse food options. Notably, 59.9% of respondents mixed OIT foods with sweet items. Despite these dietary concerns, dietitians were underutilized, with only 9.5% of respondents having seen a dietitian and the majority finding dietitian support helpful with greater certainty about the exact dose (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Taste aversion and anxiety represent primary patient-related barriers to OIT. Taste aversion was highly age dependent, with older patients being more affected. Dietitians and psychology support were underutilized, representing a critical target to improve adherence and OIT success.

Flex-IT! Applying "Platform Trials" Methodology to Immunotherapy for Food Allergy in Research and Clinical Practice

There is an increasing trend in the management of food allergy toward active treatment using allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Although AIT is efficacious, treatment-related adverse events are common, particularly with oral immunotherapy in those with high levels of allergen-specific IgE sensitization. In clinical practice, these adverse events inevitably create challenges: clinicians and patients routinely face decisions whether to alter the dose itself, the frequency of dosing, and the pace of escalation, or indeed discontinue AIT altogether. Flexibility is therefore needed to adapt treatment, particularly in clinical practice, so that participants are "treated-to-target." For example, this may entail a significant change in the dosing protocol or even switching from one route of administration to another in response to frequent adverse events. We refer to this approach as flexible immunotherapy. However, there is little evidence to inform clinicians as to what changes to treatment are most likely to result in treatment success. Classical clinical trials rely, by necessity, on relatively rigid updosing protocols. To provide an evidence base to optimize AIT, the food allergy community should adopt adaptive platform trials, where a "master protocol" facilitates more efficient evaluation, including longer-term outcomes of multiple interventions. Within a single clinical trial, participants are able to switch between different treatment arms; interventions can be added or dropped without compromising the integrity of the trial. Developing platform trials for food AIT may initially be costly, but they represent a significant opportunity to grow the evidence base (with respect to both treatment outcomes and biomarker discovery) at scale. In addition, they could help understand longitudinal disease trajectories that are difficult to study in clinical trials for food allergy due to the time needed to demonstrate changes in efficacy. Finally, their adoption would achieve greater collaboration and consistency in approaches to proactive management of food allergy in routine clinical practice. As a community, we need to actively pursue this with funders and established research collaborations to deliver the very best outcomes for our patients and their families.

Food Allergen Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Patients with IgE-Mediated Food Allergy

The prevalence of allergic diseases, including food allergy, is increasing, especially in developed countries. Implementation of an elimination diet is not a sufficient therapeutic strategy in patients with food allergy, whose quality of life is significantly impaired. In recent years, new effective therapeutic strategies have been developed, such as the application of oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy. Oral immunotherapy is the most often applied strategy because of its effectiveness and ease of application, with an acceptable safety profile. The effectiveness of oral immunotherapy in patients with egg, cow's milk, and peanut allergy has been proven both in terms of raising of the threshold and the development of tolerance, and in some patients, the development of sustainable unresponsiveness. Although oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for food allergy, several limitations, including a long duration and a significant rate of reported adverse events, reduces its success. Therefore, new therapeutic options, such as treatment with biologicals, either as combinations with food allergen immunotherapy or as monotherapy with the aim of improving the efficacy and safety of treatment, are being investigated.

Anthropological and sociological perspectives on food allergy

This review explores the anthropological and sociological literature on food allergy and identifies four primary areas of research to date. The first explores the relationality and management of risk, uncertainty and stigma among parents and sufferers of food allergies. The second analyses the influence of intersectionality, specifically the effects of class, gender, race/ethnicity and disability on experiences of food allergy. The third discusses diagnostic difficulties and the impact these have on legitimacy and believability, both in the context of clinician-patient relations and in managing food allergies in public spaces. The fourth explores the ethics and uncertainties in food allergy treatments and how scientific knowledge of emerging treatments is constructed. This body of research illustrates that although an individual disease, food allergy experiences are significantly affected by socio-cultural structures, institutions, ideologies and discourses. The review concludes with four primary recommendations. First, there should be more incorporation of anthropological or sociological methodologies and perspectives into studies of food allergy. Second, studies are needed from more countries exploring lived experience of food allergy. Third, research on food allergy needs to incorporate an analysis of intersectional factors such as gender, class and race/ethnicity, and should explore the experiences of minority populations. Fourth, more research is needed on the interactions between biomedicine and local systems of knowledge, as well as the factors that shape what treatments become available, for whom it becomes available, experiences of treatment and aspects (including biases) that influence patient-clinician interactions.

Immune response evolution in peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children

BACKGROUND

Epicutaneous immunotherapy with investigational Viaskin™ Peanut 250 μg (DBV712) has demonstrated statistically superior desensitization versus placebo in peanut-allergic children in clinical trials. It is unclear whether serologic biomarkers predict response.

METHODS

Serum-specific IgG4 and IgE (whole peanut and components) from subjects enrolled in the phase 3 Efficacy and Safety of Viaskin Peanut in Children With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy study were examined by exploratory univariate and multivariate analyses to determine trajectories and predictors of treatment response, based upon peanut protein eliciting dose (ED) at Month (M) 12 double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge.

RESULTS

Among Viaskin Peanut-treated subjects, peanut sIgG4 significantly increased from baseline through M12 and peanut sIgE peaked at M3 and fell below baseline by M12, with sIgG4 and sIgE peanut components mirroring these trajectories. Placebo subjects had no significant changes. By univariate analysis, M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE was higher in treatment responders (p < 0.001) and had highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ED ≥300 mg and ≥1000 mg (AUC 69.5% and 69.9%, respectively). M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE >20.1 predicted M12 ED ≥300 mg (80% positive predictive value). The best performing component was Ara h 1 sIgE <15.7 kUA /L (AUC 66.5%). A multivariate model combining Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had an AUC of 68.2% (ED ≥300 mg) and 67.8% (ED ≥1000 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut sIgG4 rise most clearly differentiated Viaskin Peanut versus placebo subjects. sIgG4/sIgE ratios >20.1 and the combination of Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had moderate ability to predict treatment response and could potentially be useful for clinical monitoring. Additional data are needed to confirm these relationships.

Open-label study of the efficacy, safety, and durability of peanut sublingual immunotherapy in peanut-allergic children

BACKGROUND

Studies on the efficacy of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are limited. The durability of desensitization after SLIT has not been well described.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4-mg peanut SLIT and persistence of desensitization after SLIT discontinuation.

METHODS

Challenge-proven peanut-allergic 1- to 11-year-old children were treated with open-label 4-mg peanut SLIT for 48 months. Desensitization after peanut SLIT was assessed by a 5000-mg double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). A novel randomly assigned avoidance period of 1 to 17 weeks was followed by the DBPCFC. Skin prick test results immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation test results, TH1, TH2, and IL-10 cytokines were measured longitudinally. Safety was assessed through patient-reported home diaries.

RESULTS

Fifty-four participants were enrolled and 47 (87%) completed peanut SLIT and the 48-month DBPCFC per protocol. The mean successfully consumed dose (SCD) during the DBPCFC increased from 48 to 2723 mg of peanut protein after SLIT (P < .0001), with 70% achieving clinically significant desensitization (SCD > 800 mg) and 36% achieving full desensitization (SCD = 5000 mg). Modeled median time to loss of clinically significant desensitization was 22 weeks. Peanut skin prick test; peanut-specific IgE, IgG4, and IgG4/IgE ratio; and peanut-stimulated basophil activation test, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IFN-γ, and IL-10 changed significantly compared with baseline, with changes seen as early as 6 months. Median rate of reaction per dose was 0.5%, with transient oropharyngeal itching being the most common, and there were no dosing symptoms requiring epinephrine.

CONCLUSIONS

In this open-label, prospective study, peanut SLIT was safe and induced clinically significant desensitization in most of the children, lasting more than 17 weeks after discontinuation of therapy.

Phase 3 Trial of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Toddlers with Peanut Allergy

BACKGROUND

No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).

Food allergies on vacation-there and back again

OBJECTIVE

Food allergy is an important public health concern that affects all facets of life, and travel is no exception. We sought to provide a scoping review regarding the literature pertaining to management of FA while traveling.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase were queried for English-language articles published in the last 20 years containing "food allergy" and "travel".

STUDY SELECTIONS

The search produced 83 references which were reviewed. After removal of duplicates and irrelevant material, 23 references that discussed travel and FA remained, 13 of which were conference abstracts published as supplemental material.

RESULTS

Priorities for consideration by patient-families and their allergist-immunologist include concern for reactions away from home, proximity to emergency medical services, risk for various methods of travel including potential for cross-contact exposure resulting in symptoms, and considerations for international travel including language barriers.

CONCLUSION

Patients with FA must use careful planning and preparation to ensure access to safe food and emergency medications at all times while away from home.

Endpoints and Outcomes After Immunotherapy for Food Allergy: What Is Meaningful for Patients?

Multiple novel interventions for food allergy are currently at various stages of development with the goal of reducing or eliminating allergic reactions. However, the relative success of these therapeutics in achieving meaningful, long-term improvements to patients' lives is difficult to determine as there is currently very limited understanding of the degree of alignment between clinical trial efficacy endpoints and patient-centered outcomes. Furthermore, outcome measures used in clinical trials of food allergy immunotherapies vary widely, are often misinterpreted, and not necessarily consistent with what patients expect to achieve through treatment. This review aims to assist clinicians in critically interpreting outcomes reported in clinical trials and accurately communicating risks and outcomes to patients when practicing shared decision-making.

Information needs of patients considering oral immunotherapy for food allergy

While the historic management of food allergy includes avoidance strategies and allergic reaction treatment, oral immunotherapy (OIT) approaches have become more commonly integrated into therapeutic approaches. International guidelines, phase 3 trials and real-world experience have supported the implementation of this procedure. However, OIT is an elective, rarely curative procedure with inherent risks that necessitates an increased degree of health literacy for the patients and families. Families assume the responsibility of amateur healthcare providers to ensure the daily safe administration of the allergenic food. As such, it is incumbent upon physicians to ensure that families are prepared for this role. A thorough educational and shared decision-making approach is necessary during the counselling and consent process to adequately inform the families. Educated discussion about the efficacy and patient-centred effectiveness, therapeutic alternatives and family goals is required to align physician and patient expectations. A frank discussion about the struggles, practical challenges, risks and contraindications can help to develop an understanding of the risk mitigation strategies employed to maintain safety. Physicians should develop a proactive approach to educate families about this, at times, burdensome procedure. This educational approach should encourage ongoing support starting prior to consent through the maintenance visits. By preparing families for their unique management role, physicians can help ensure the safe and successful integration of OIT into the therapeutic offering for the management of food allergies.

Managing food allergy: GA2LEN guideline 2022

Food allergy affects approximately 2-4% of children and adults. This guideline provides recommendations for managing food allergy from the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN). A multidisciplinary international Task Force developed the guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II framework and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We reviewed the latest available evidence as of April 2021 (161 studies) and created recommendations by balancing benefits, harms, feasibility, and patient and clinician experiences. We suggest that people diagnosed with food allergy avoid triggering allergens (low certainty evidence). We suggest that infants with cow's milk allergy who need a breastmilk alternative use either hypoallergenic extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk formula or an amino acid-based formula (moderate certainty). For selected children with peanut allergy, we recommend oral immunotherapy (high certainty), though epicutaneous immunotherapy might be considered depending on individual preferences and availability (moderate certainty). We suggest considering oral immunotherapy for children with persistent severe hen's egg or cow's milk allergy (moderate certainty). There are significant gaps in evidence about safety and effectiveness of the various strategies. Research is needed to determine the best approaches to education, how to predict the risk of severe reactions, whether immunotherapy is cost-effective and whether biological therapies are effective alone or combined with allergen immunotherapy.

Considerations for a shared decision-making conversation when initiating food oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an office-based procedure that offers potential treatment of immunoglobulin E mediated food allergy. OIT has multiple benefits, e.g., the ability to desensitize the individual with food allergy, which shifts the eliciting dose threshold required in that individual to trigger an allergic reaction, and also potentially to decrease the severity of any resulting reactions. However, OIT is not a cure and has distinct risks, including the risk of allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis) from the therapy itself, the potential risk of developing eosinophilic esophagitis (or similar clinical symptoms without a formal biopsy), and logistical issues in coordinating when to give the daily dose, and there are still uncertain intermediate-to-long-term outcomes with regard to OIT. The decision to start OIT is complex and potentially nuanced. Shared decision-making is a process that allows the patient and family and the clinician to undergo a mutual discussion of the risks, benefits, alternatives, and other considerations with regard to a medical decision (such as starting OIT) whereby there is an exchange of information that allows the patient and family to formally clarify and express their values and preferences with regard to facets of the decision in this particular context. The goal is for the patient to be able to make a fully informed decision that is reflective of his or her goals, values, preferences, and desires. This article outlined some of the key considerations to discuss with parents and patients before enrolling in an OIT program with regard to the risks and benefits, to assist in engaging in shared decision-making and obtaining informed consent.

Long term oral immunotherapy management and assessment of success

There is limited data addressing the optimal dose, dosing frequency, and duration of OIT maintenance. Using higher maintenance doses, more frequent dosing, and a long dosing duration makes it more likely that sustained unresponsiveness will be achieved but also increases the burden of care on the OIT patient and family. The OIT maintenance regimen should be individualized based on the treatment goals of the patient and family.

Multifaceted role of the registered nurse on an oral immunotherapy clinical team

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) emerged into clinical practice, and its delivery highlights the multifaceted expertise of registered nurses (RN) as central to allergy/immunology interprofessional collaborative teams. The allergist-RN model of clinical evidenced-based OIT provision is presented. RN competencies, role components, and intervention examples are included to assist RNs and allergists in maximizing RN capabilities. RNs' patient-centered focus, and the ability to evaluate and incorporate physical, psychological, and sociological patient aspects are assets to OIT teams. RNs can establish best practices, initiate scholarly inquiry, and disseminate new knowledge to interdisciplinary colleagues. RNs also implement allergist-prescribed standing protocols within their legal practice scope by using their clinical judgment during evaluation of a patient receiving OIT. The same RN may serve as a nurse clinician, patient and family educator, case manager, research collaborator, and OIT program manager. Allergy/immunology practices use diverse staffing models, which thus require adaptation of presented descriptions per clinical team needs and resources.

Phase 2, randomized multi oral immunotherapy with omalizumab 'real life' study

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is frequently discontinued due to adverse events (AEs) and current data suggests that lowering OIT doses can minimize severity and frequency of AEs. However, the minimum daily dose that can enable desensitization and induce immune responses in multi-food OIT (mOIT) is unknown.

METHODS

Participants aged 2-25 years with multi-food allergies were pretreated with fixed-dose omalizumab (150 mg, 3 doses, every 4 weeks), and randomized 1:1 to receive mOIT to a total maintenance dose of either 300 or 1200 mg total protein, (total dose includes at least two and up to a max of five allergens) and then transitioned to real-food protein equivalents after 18 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with increases in IgG4/IgE ratio of at least 2 allergens by ≥25% from baseline after 18 weeks of therapy. The primary efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Sixty participants were enrolled across two sites. Seventy percent of participants in both arms showed changes in sIgG4/sIgE ratio in at least 2 allergens with no difference between the treatment groups (OR [95% CI] = 1.00 [0.29, 3.49]). Overall, there were no differences in AEs between the 300 and 1200 mg groups (19% vs. 17%, p = .69), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that plasma marker changes are induced early, even at a total protein dose of 300 mg inclusive of multiple allergens when mOIT is combined with fixed-dose omalizumab. Identification of optimal mOIT dosing with adjunct omalizumab is needed for the long-term success of OIT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03181009).

Psychological needs and support among patients and families undergoing food oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising treatment for food allergy (FA) however it is a challenging process for patients and parents. Induction can generate stress and anxiety. This may in turn affect their motivation and ability to cope with OIT challenges.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate psychological needs and support to patients/parents undergoing food OIT assessing participants' main characteristics, reasons for seeking psychological support, OIT phase and related psychological difficulties, type and timing of treatments and patients' perception of the effectiveness of the intervention.

METHODS

This is an observational, retrospective study. 50 psychological interventions required for OIT related problems were selected consecutively in a Referral Centre in North-Eastern Italy. All patients had a medical diagnosis of FA and were undergoing OIT or had just discontinued it. Data were collected from hospital records. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

66% of patients asked for psychological support for the initial phase (e.g., oral food challenge, first maintenance doses), 20% during the up-dosing phase, 8% during maintenance and 6% after discontinuation. 70% of treatments were required mainly because of emotional problems including dysfunctional anxiety and mood disorders, increased distress and excessive worry and/or fear related to OIT; 20% because of difficulties in managing OIT; 10% because of eating difficulties; 50% of patients reported recent anaphylaxis. All patients reported improvement and felt the psychological intervention was helpful.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended to evaluate the psychological needs in profiling patients and families suitable to OIT and offer specific psychological support when needed.

Food-allergy-specific anxiety and distress in parents of children with food allergy: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Parenting a child with food allergy (FA) can lead to impaired quality of life and family functioning. Anxiety is a critical component of FA-associated distress and a potential target for therapeutic intervention. This systematic review aimed to clarify the concept of FA-specific anxiety (FAA) and its antecedents, consequences, and correlates and to determine the extent to which existing FA-specific outcome measures capture symptoms of parental distress and FAA.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies examining distress or anxiety in parents of children with FA through August 2020. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020208316) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight studies were included in the final narrative synthesis. Most participants were mothers, and reporting of demographic data was limited. Parents identified anxiety as the most burdensome form of FA-specific emotional distress. Several allergy-related factors as well as medical and psychosocial interventions were associated with reduced parental anxiety and distress. However, affective, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions of FAA were only partially addressed by existing measures for general anxiety symptoms and FA-specific parental factors.

CONCLUSIONS

FAA contributes to distress and functional impairment among parents of children with FA. Current FA-specific parent measures fail to adequately capture dimensions of FAA, suggesting that further work is needed to improve the assessment and monitoring of FAA and its impacts. Characterization of this construct represents an initial step in developing standardized methods for assessing and monitoring FAA in clinical populations.

Advances, Practical Implementation, and Unmet Needs Regarding Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

Treatment of food allergy is a rapidly changing landscape, with arguably, the most significant advancement in recent years, the transition of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to clinical practice. As an innovation, OIT is a phase of rapidly increasing demand, particularly for some allergens such as peanut, egg, and milk, which have substantial evidence of efficacy. However, significant questions remain about how to best treat multiple food allergies and less common food allergies and how to optimize long-term safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the currently available resources for integrating food allergy OIT into clinical practice and focuses on the multiple remaining unmet needs such as providing an approach for OIT to food allergens for which there is no or limited evidence; practical issues related to food allergy treatment particularly when it is not going well; long-term outcomes and follow-up after OIT; and strategies to help meet the impending increase in demand.

Medical clown support is associated with better quality of life of children with food allergy starting oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

The start of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a critical period in the treatment process, with a potential to influence patient quality of life (QOL) and subsequently treatment outcome. The association of medical clowning with QOL at OIT initiation was examined.

METHODS

Children aged 4-12 years supported by a medical clown (MC) during the induction week of OIT for food allergy were studied. Children in the same age range starting OIT without the support of a MC served as controls. Parents of all children completed the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Form (FAQLQ-PF), and children aged 8-12 years completed the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Child Form (FAQLQ-CF). QOL scores of parents and children with and without a MC support were compared.

RESULTS

Children with (n = 88) and without (n = 212) the support of a MC were comparable in demographics and clinical characteristics. The study group had a significantly lower single highest tolerated dose compared to controls (57 ± 83 vs 162 ± 274 mg protein, respectively, P < .001). Parental perception of the QOL of children was not associated with a MC support (P = .81) but rather with previous reaction severity (P < .01). In contrast, the QOL of children aged 8-12 years (n = 119) was positively associated primarily with a MC support, total score 3.7 ± 1.1 vs 4.6 ± 1.3 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

While the perception of QOL of parents of children with food allergy at OIT initiation is mainly associated with previous reaction severity, the QOL of the children themselves is primarily positively associated with MC support.

Heterogeneity in Parent Preferences for Peanut Desensitization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Recently developed peanut desensitization treatment reduces the incidence of allergic reactions, the anxiety associated with the risk of accidental exposure, and the burden of precautionary behavior. Eliciting parent preferences for tradeoffs involving treatment effectiveness, tolerability, costs, and convenience quantifies the burden of juvenile peanut allergy and the perceived value of peanut desensitization therapies.

OBJECTIVE

To understand heterogeneity in parents' treatment preferences and the role of personal characteristics in explaining differences.

METHODS

An Internet-based, discrete-choice experiment survey was administered to a national sample of 500 parents of children aged 4 to 17 years with peanut allergy to quantify parents' preferences for peanut desensitization therapies for their children. Latent-class, mixed-logit analysis estimated relative importance coefficients for groups of participants with distinctly different preferences.

RESULTS

Parents' choice patterns fell into 1 of 4 preference subgroups: (1) Cost-sensitive, (2) Protreatment (but Side-Effect-Averse), (3) Trader, and (4) Inconsistent. Mode of administration had little relative importance across all subgroups. Characteristics associated with belonging to a given preference subgroup included parent age, child age, income, parent perception of child risk and ability to manage allergic reactions, past allergic reactions, and changes in precautionary behaviors posttreatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We found distinct differences in parent preferences for tradeoffs involving effectiveness, tolerability, and costs of peanut desensitization treatments. Parents' treatment preferences help quantify the burden of juvenile peanut allergy and the perceived value of new therapies. Such information can inform patient-centric clinical and regulatory decision making.

Peanut-induced anaphylaxis in children and adolescents: Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy has a rising prevalence in high-income countries, affecting 0.5%-1.4% of children. This study aimed to better understand peanut anaphylaxis in comparison to anaphylaxis to other food triggers in European children and adolescents.

METHODS

Data was sourced from the European Anaphylaxis Registry via an online questionnaire, after in-depth review of food-induced anaphylaxis cases in a tertiary paediatric allergy centre.

RESULTS

3514 cases of food anaphylaxis were reported between July 2007 - March 2018, 56% in patients younger than 18 years. Peanut anaphylaxis was recorded in 459 children and adolescents (85% of all peanut anaphylaxis cases). Previous reactions (42% vs. 38%; p = .001), asthma comorbidity (47% vs. 35%; p < .001), relevant cofactors (29% vs. 22%; p = .004) and biphasic reactions (10% vs. 4%; p = .001) were more commonly reported in peanut anaphylaxis. Most cases were labelled as severe anaphylaxis (Ring&Messmer grade III 65% vs. 56% and grade IV 1.1% vs. 0.9%; p = .001). Self-administration of intramuscular adrenaline was low (17% vs. 15%), professional adrenaline administration was higher in non-peanut food anaphylaxis (34% vs. 26%; p = .003). Hospitalization was higher for peanut anaphylaxis (67% vs. 54%; p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

The European Anaphylaxis Registry data confirmed peanut as one of the major causes of severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reactions in European children, with some characteristic features e.g., presence of asthma comorbidity and increased rate of biphasic reactions. Usage of intramuscular adrenaline as first-line treatment is low and needs to be improved. The Registry, designed as the largest database on anaphylaxis, allows continuous assessment of this condition.

An Approach to the Office-Based Practice of Food Oral Immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) provides an active treatment option for patients with food allergies. OIT may improve quality of life and raise the threshold at which a patient with food allergy may react to an allergen, but it is a rigorous therapy that requires a high degree of commitment by the clinician, patients, and families. Recent guidelines from the Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology have provided a framework for the ethical, evidence-based, and patient-oriented clinical practice of OIT, and the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology guidelines have also recommended that OIT can be used as a potential treatment. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of an OIT pharmaceutical has accelerated the adoption of OIT. This review provides a summary of the recent Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines and a consensus of practical experience of clinicians across the United States and Canada related to patient selection, office and staff preparation, the general OIT process, OIT-related reaction management, and treatment outcomes.

Patients' Perspectives and Needs on Novel Food Allergy Treatments in the United States

PURPOSE

Food allergy management places a daily psychosocial burden on patients and their caregivers. New food allergy treatments may positively impact their lives, but also introduce new stressors. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the current state of the literature regarding patients' and caregivers' food allergy experiences and needs within the United States as well as a set of recommendations regarding how best to proceed with patient-centered development and evaluation of new food allergy treatments.

RECENT FINDINGS

The first pharmaceutical-grade product for peanut oral immunotherapy was approved in the United States for children aged 4-17 years following a successful international Phase 3 trial. This new treatment is only the first of several food allergy treatments currently under development. Patients will soon be presented with multiple options for food allergy treatment and will need to make decisions about what treatment is best for them.

SUMMARY

Allergy researchers and providers are encouraged to consider patients' perspectives and needs when developing and evaluating new food allergy treatments. Recommendations regarding next steps include the development of new patient-reported outcome tools, focus on psychosocial support, health disparities, and financial implications, and research harmonization and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Quality of life of children aged 8-12 years undergoing food allergy oral immunotherapy: Child and parent perspective

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy improves the quality of life (QOL) of children from parental perspective but little is known about the child perception.

METHODS

The Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Child Form (FAQLQ-CF) was administered to children aged 8-12 years, and the FAQLQ-Parent Form (FAQLQ-PF) was administered to their parents at the start of OIT for milk, egg, peanut, sesame, or tree nuts, at the end of up-dosing, and after 6 months of follow-up. Food-allergic children not undergoing OIT served as controls. Children QOL scores were compared to their parents.

RESULTS

The total FAQLQ-CF score of 103 children undergoing OIT improved significantly from start of OIT (median (IQR); 4.8, 3.8-5.7) to end of up-dosing (3.9, 3-5.2) (P < .001). A greater improvement was noted in the 56 children who reached a follow-up visit, from 5.0 (3.7-5.8) at OIT start to 3.1 (1.8-5.0) on follow-up, (P < .001). In contrast, FAQLQ-CF scores of control patients improved mildly and nonsignificantly between the two time points from 5.3 (4.3-5.7) to 4.8 (3.6-6.0), (P = .13). The improvement in the total FAQLQ-CF scores from OIT start to follow-up was significantly greater compared to the change in control patients during observation (P = .015). Parents reported better QOL scores compared to their children at all stages of OIT (start 4.0, 3.2-5, P = .004; end of up-dosing 2.9, 1.9-4.7, P = .04; follow-up 2.2, 1.6-3.6, P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

QOL of food-allergic children undergoing OIT improves significantly compared to controls. Parents perceive QOL to be better than the perception of the children.

Improvements in Quality of Life in Children Following Epicutaneous Immunotherapy (EPIT) for Peanut Allergy in the PEPITES and PEOPLE Studies

BACKGROUND

Food allergy quality of life (FAQL) is impaired in children with peanut allergy. Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQs) provide disease-specific insight into the burden of peanut allergy and potential FAQL changes after peanut immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To examine FAQL changes in children after treatment with epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy (250 μg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250 μg).

METHODS

FAQL was prospectively measured using the FAQLQ parent proxy form (Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Proxy Form [FAQLQ-PF], for children aged ≤12 years) and child form (Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Child Form [FAQLQ-CF], child rated if aged ≥8 years) during the 12-month double-blind, randomized, controlled Peanut EPIT Efficacy and Safety Study (PEPITES) trial and the initial 12 months of the open-label PEPITES Open Label Extension Study (PEOPLE) follow-up study. Data were analyzed for between-group differences after treatment unblinding.

RESULTS

FAQLQs from placebo participants (FAQLQ-PF: 96; FAQLQ-CF: 47) and treatment group participants (FAQLQ-PF: 209; FAQLQ-CF: 105) were analyzed. Twenty-four-month global FAQL scores (FAQLQ-PF/FAQLQ-CF) were significantly improved in the treatment group versus the placebo group (least squares mean, 0.34, P = .008, and 0.46, P = .023, respectively). At 24 months, there was significant FAQLQ-PF score improvement in participants initially randomized to treatment who met the efficacy primary end point (n = 74; least squares mean, 0.55; P < .001) and in participants with any eliciting dose increase (n = 127; least squares mean, 0.66; P < .001). FAQLQ-PF improvements were observed in social dietary limitations (P = .002), food-related anxiety (P = .029), and emotional impact (P = .048) domains. FAQLQ-CF improvements were observed in risk of accidental exposure (P = .002) and allergen avoidance (P = .04) domains. Nearly all outcomes met a nontreatment context minimal clinically important difference previously cited for FAQLQ.

CONCLUSIONS

Epicutaneous immunotherapy treatment was observed to be associated with significant global and domain-specific FAQL improvement (FAQLQ-PF/FAQLQ-CF), largely driven by increases in eliciting dose, in children with peanut allergy.

Risk of shared equipment in restaurants for consumers with peanut allergy: a simulation for preparing Asian foods: A simulation for preparing Asian foods

BACKGROUND

Allergic reactions to meals consumed outside the home are common and can be severe and sometimes fatal.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the risk reduction potentially achieved by increasing an individual's threshold sensitivity to peanut (such as by means of immunotherapy) in scenarios of peanut exposure through shared kitchen materials in a restaurant setting.

METHODS

Three versions of popular peanut-containing sauces were selected to represent common ingredients used in Asian cooking. Different combinations of utensils, equipment, sauces, and test conditions were prepared by a professional chef, with or without common cleaning procedures, to represent normal daily practice. Residue amounts of peanut-containing material on kitchen equipment and utensils were measured and used for quantitative risk assessment to model the risk reduction associated with increasing an individual's threshold.

RESULTS

Shared utensils had mean residue amounts of 23 to 1519 mg peanut protein (no cleaning) and 3 to 82 mg peanut protein (after water rinse). Shared woks and pans had up to 20 mg peanut protein after rinsing. Individuals who reach a threshold of 300 mg peanut protein have a predicted relative risk reduction of 94.9% to greater than 99.99% with brief cleaning. With no cleaning, relative risk reductions were 63.5% to 91.1% for individuals with a baseline threshold of less than or equal to 100 mg peanut protein who reach a threshold of 300 mg peanut protein, increasing to 91% to 99.7% when reaching a threshold value of 1000 mg peanut protein.

CONCLUSION

In all shared kitchen material scenarios that we studied, achieving an eliciting dose of 300 or 1000 mg peanut protein seems clinically relevant for the peanut-allergic population.

Long-term, open-label extension study of the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: PEOPLE 3-year results

BACKGROUND

The PEPITES (Peanut EPIT Efficacy and Safety) trial, a 12-month randomized controlled study of children with peanut allergy and 4 to 11 years old, previously reported the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy (250 μg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250 μg).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess interim safety and efficacy of an additional 2 years of EPIT from the ongoing (5-year treatment) PEOPLE (PEPITES Open-Label Extension) study.

METHODS

Subjects who completed PEPITES were offered enrollment in PEOPLE. Following an additional 2 years of daily DBV712 250 μg, subjects who had received DBV712 250 μg in PEPITES underwent month-36 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge with an optional month-38 sustained unresponsiveness assessment.

RESULTS

Of 213 eligible subjects who had received DBV712 250 μg in PEPITES, 198 (93%) entered PEOPLE, of whom 141 (71%) had assessable double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at month 36. At month 36, 51.8% of subjects (73 of 141) reached an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg, compared with 40.4% (57 of 141) at month 12; 75.9% (107 of 141) demonstrated increased eliciting dose compared with baseline; and 13.5% (19 of 141) tolerated the full double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge of 5444 mg. Median cumulative reactive dose increased from 144 to 944 mg. Eighteen subjects underwent an optional sustained unresponsiveness assessment; 14 of those (77.8%) maintained an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg at month 38. Local patch-site skin reactions were common but decreased over time. There was no treatment-related epinephrine use in years 2 or 3. Compliance was high (96.9%), and withdrawals due to treatment-related adverse events were low (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that daily EPIT treatment for peanut allergy beyond 1 year leads to continued response from a well-tolerated, simple-to-use regimen.

A counseling video with pre- and posttesting and checklist for oral immunotherapy consent improves participant knowledge

BACKGROUND

The use of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies has been expanding in North America. Although families are interested in this therapeutic approach, misconceptions are common; therefore, education of these families is essential before obtaining informed consent.

OBJECTIVE

To improve parent and patient knowledge about OIT by investigating the use of a counseling video (CV) and checklist.

METHODS

This retrospective review was conducted in a pediatric outpatient clinic. After consultation and review of the information package, 467 parents and patients (>12 years old) performed pre- and posttests in conjunction with a CV during a checklist-based 2-hour counseling session for OIT.

RESULTS

The evaluation of pre- and posttest performance suggested an improvement in the ability of patients to answer relevant questions pertaining to OIT. This was statistically significant for all groups, including mothers, fathers, and children (P < .001). Mothers performed better than fathers and patients in mean number of correct responses in both pre- and posttest scores and in posttest scores after adjustment for pretest scores. Fathers performed better than patients in both pre- and posttest scores but not on posttest scores after adjustment for pretest scores. A checklist-based format resulted in 100% of all major topics being discussed in a 1-hour discussion. Reported satisfaction was high among the participants.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to evaluate the use of a CV in conjunction with pre- and posttesting to educate families about the key principles of OIT. We suggest that as part of extensive counseling for OIT, an educational video is beneficial in a pediatric outpatient clinic.

Sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy and its future directions

Food allergy is an important medical problem with increasing prevalence throughout the world. Different approaches of food immunotherapy are being investigated including oral, epicutaneous and sublingual routes. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy involves placement of glycerinated allergen under the tongue daily to achieve allergen-specific desensitization. SLIT has been studied in the treatment of hazelnut, peach, apple, milk and peanut allergies with substantial focus on the treatment of peanut allergy. Phase II studies have shown SLIT for treatment of peanut allergy increases the tolerated dose of peanut by a substantial margin with fewer and less severe side effects than other modalities. This review discusses the mechanisms of SLIT, early studies of its use in food allergy and larger randomized controlled trials for treatment of peanut allergy. Future directions using the mechanisms involved in SLIT include oral mucosal immunotherapy for peanut allergy.

Shared decision-making in the care of a patient with food allergy

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making is a patient-centered approach that involves a mutual discussion about management or treatment options, which account for the patient's underlying values and preferences for therapy. Little is known about the role of shared decision-making in the care of patients with food allergy.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review of the shared decision-making and food allergy outcomes literature in the past 20 years was performed.

RESULTS

In shared decision-making, care must be taken to help clarify the patient's values regarding their care options, but not instill the clinician's values or preferences into that choice. It is essential to understand the mutual roles of the clinician in the process of providing evidence-based options for care, advocating for treatments that are aligned with their goals and preferences, and allowing patients to make fully informed decisions within this paradigm. Decision support tools such as decision aids can assist patients in the values clarification process, particularly in which preference-sensitive care exists, in which options hold significant tradeoffs and varying outcomes, and the decision is reflective of personal values and preferences. There are multiple potential preference-sensitive care scenarios in food allergy in which shared decision-making could be optimized, including the development of decision aids. These areas include early allergenic solid introduction, preemptive epinephrine use in which there is allergen exposure but no symptoms, automatic activation of EMS after using epinephrine, and choices of food allergy treatment. Only one decision aid in food allergy exists.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making is an approach that could greatly enhance food allergy care and improve patient-reported outcomes.

Unmet needs of children with peanut allergy: Aligning the risks and the evidence

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is a potentially severe and lifelong allergy, with few effective treatments or preventive measures.

OBJECTIVE

To convene an expert panel of allergists, pediatricians, and advocates to discuss and highlight unmet needs in the prevention and management of peanut allergies.

METHODS

Literature searches of PubMed were performed. The panel evaluated published data on the prevention of peanut allergy, treatment of existing peanut allergy, and management of reactions after unintentional peanut exposures.

RESULTS

The following key unmet needs in the prevention and management of peanut allergy were identified: (1) enhancing and optimizing implementation of early peanut introduction as a means of preventing the development of peanut allergy, (2) developing knowledge translation strategies regarding the safety and efficacy data for current and emerging immunotherapies for peanut-allergic children to support their use in clinical practice, and (3) promoting understanding of true exposure risk in allergic individuals and ensuring access to epinephrine for unintentional exposures that provoke severe reactions. Practitioners should help educate caregivers about the actual risks associated with peanut allergy and its prevention and management so that treatment decisions can be evidence based rather than fear based. Support tools are needed to help address caregiver goals, expectations, and psychological barriers, as well as identify facilitators for prevention and treatment strategies.

CONCLUSION

There are significant unmet needs in our understanding of peanut allergy; addressing these needs will help to enhance understanding of how to most effectively prevent and treat peanut allergy, as well as educate the food-allergic and nonallergic community regarding current evidence-based practices.

CSACI guidelines for the ethical, evidence-based and patient-oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging approach to the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy and is in the process of transitioning to clinical practice.

Objective

To develop patient-oriented clinical practice guidelines on oral immunotherapy based on evidence and ethical imperatives for the provision of safe and efficient food allergy management.

Materials and methods

Recommendations were developed using a reflective patient-centered multicriteria approach including 22 criteria organized in five dimensions (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociopolitical). Data was obtained from: (1) a review of scientific and ethic literature; (2) consultations of allergists, other healthcare professionals (pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, registered dieticians, psychologists, peer supporters), patients and caregivers; and patient associations through structured consultative panels, interviews and on-line questionnaire; and (3) organizational and economic data from the milieu of care. All data was synthesized by criteria in a multicriteria deliberative guide that served as a platform for structured discussion and development of recommendations for each dimension, based on evidence, ethical imperatives and other considerations.

Results

The deliberative grid included 162 articles from the literature and media reviews and data from consultations involving 85 individuals. Thirty-eight (38) recommendations were made for the practice of oral immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE mediated food allergy, based on evidence and a diversity of ethical imperatives. All recommendations were aimed at fostering a context conducive to achieving objectives identified by patients and caregivers with food allergy. Notably, specific recommendations were developed to promote a culture of shared responsibility between patients and healthcare system, equity in access, patient empowerment, shared decision making and personalization of OIT protocols to reflect patients' needs. It also provides recommendations to optimize organization of care to generate capacity to meet demand according to patient choice, e.g. OIT or avoidance. These recommendations were made acknowledging the necessity of ensuring sustainability of the clinical offer in light of various economic considerations.

Conclusions

This innovative CPG methodology was guided by patients' perspectives, clinical evidence as well as ethical and other rationales. This allowed for the creation of a broad set of recommendations that chart optimal clinical practice and define the conditions required to bring about changes to food allergy care that will be sustainable, equitable and conducive to the well-being of all patients in need.

Development and acceptability of a shared decision-making tool for commercial peanut allergy therapies

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is the process through which patients and their medical provider mutually explore therapy goals, risk/benefit, and treatment options regarding medical care. Decision aids are tools that aid in the process of values clarification and help assess decisional needs and potential decisional conflicts.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and assess acceptability of a decision aid for commercial peanut allergy therapies.

METHODS

The creation of this decision aid occurred in 3 stages, including a qualitative study to assess decisional needs, development of a draft decision aid through multiple iterations in accordance with international guidelines and decision aid experts, and assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy related to using the decision aid.

RESULTS

The decision aid went through 9 iterations, resulting in a 4-page aid with 7 parts, explaining the therapies, key risks and benefits of therapy choices, relative importance of key attributes of the therapies, and a self-check assessment regarding informational adequacy and how to take the next steps. A total of 24 subjects assessed the decision aid, noting it had good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 91.9/100), and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.2/100). Respondents rated the information content as adequate and sufficient and the information regarding the therapy choices as fair and balanced without a clear bias or presenting a "best choice."

CONCLUSION

We have developed this decision aid as a tool to help caregivers navigate the complexity of decision making for peanut allergy treatment options. The decision aid was noted to have good acceptability, with scores reflective of the instrument enhancing decisional self-efficacy and reducing decisional conflict.