Shared decision-making in food allergy: Navigating an exciting era

Treatment of Food Allergy: Immunotherapy, Omalizumab, or Both

Food allergy is a common disease that has substantial impacts on the quality of life of patients and their families, and all reactions have the potential for causing life-threatening anaphylaxis. Food-allergic individuals currently have 2 Food and Drug Administration- approved therapeutic options available to them aside from life-long allergen avoidance: oral immunotherapy (OIT) and omalizumab. OIT for food allergy has been extensively studied in clinical trials and currently provides the greatest level of protection; however, it also has a high burden of treatment. Studies suggest that more successful OIT outcomes may be attained with earlier intervention; however, early OIT presents its own challenges. Omalizumab, recently Food and Drug Administration-approved, is a biologic targeting IgE, a major driver of allergic reactions. In contrast to OIT, omalizumab monotherapy offers a low treatment burden therapeutic option that provides a safety net against reactions to accidental ingestion of multiple allergens. In addition, omalizumab has been investigated as an adjunct to OIT, improving the speed and safety of single-allergen or multiallergen OIT. Here, we discuss the clinical use of these therapeutic options and provide a guide for shared decision making between patients and physicians about what therapeutic option might be more appropriate.

Novel diagnostics in food allergy

Food allergy is increasing in prevalence, posing significant challenges for individuals and their families and adversely affecting their quality of life. Misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary dietary and social limitations and increased food allergy risk, whereas failure to diagnose may result in life-threatening anaphylaxis. Therefore, a precise diagnosis is of the utmost importance; however, barriers exist at every stage of the diagnostic process. Diagnosis of food allergy relies on clinical history, IgE sensitization tests, and oral food challenge. Component testing and identification of optimal cutoffs have improved diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless, many patients still require an oral food challenge, and better tests are needed to reduce this need. Novel ways of detecting biomarkers, such as the basophil activation test and peptide-specific IgE level, are transitioning into clinical practice. Future approaches may include the use of alternative biologic samples, novel laboratory technologies, and analytic tools (including artificial intelligence) to integrate test results and clinical information. Conscientious use of existing tests, access to tests with superior diagnostic accuracy, and combination of tests, can lead to improved precision of diagnosis of food allergy and timely introduction of tolerated foods into the diet. This review summarizes recent advances in novel approaches to food allergy diagnosis that can enhance clinical decision making both now and in the future.

Management of children with food allergies by allergists in the United States

Background

Management of patients with food allergies is complex, especially in cases of patients with multiple and potentially severe food allergies. Although international guidelines exist for food allergy management, the role of the allergist in the decision-making process is key.

Objective

Our aim was to investigate the management patterns and educational needs of practicing allergists treating patients with food allergies.

Methods

An online survey was e-mailed to United States-based practicing allergists (N = 2833) in November-December 2021. The allergists were screened for managing 1 or more patients (including ≥25% pediatric patients) with food allergies per month. The allergists responded to questions regarding food allergy management in response to 2 hypothetical pediatric case studies, their familiarity with available guidelines and emerging treatments, and their future educational preferences. A descriptive analysis of outcomes was conducted.

Results

A total of 125 responding allergists (4.4%) met the eligibility criteria and completed the survey. The allergists prioritized written exposure action plans, patient-caregiver communication, prevention of serious reactions, and consideration of both food allergy severity and allergic comorbidities in the management of patients with food allergies. With regard to recommending biologics in the future, the allergists identified patient history of anaphylaxis and hospitalizations, food allergy severity, and allergic comorbidities as all being important factors to consider when deciding on appropriate treatment options. The allergists noted their ongoing educational needs, especially for current and emerging treatments for food allergies.

Conclusion

With the treatment landscape for food allergies evolving rapidly, the decision-making priorities and continuing educational needs of allergists will be important in optimizing the management of patients with food allergies.

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.

Impact of two different patient decision aids in prosthodontic consultations: a prospective randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVES

Different approaches to prosthodontic consultation, all involving a strong focus on shared decision-making, were analyzed from the perspective of patients by inter-group comparisons. No patient decision aid (PDA) was used in the control group, a paper-based PDA in test group 1, and a software-based PDA in test group 2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five patients were prospectively randomized to the control group or a test group. All patients then rated the consultation on a questionnaire, six key items of which were analyzed, along with the time spent on each consultation.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction was highest in test group 2, with a significant difference from the control group (p = 0.015). Test group 2 showed the most favorable ratings for all six questionnaire items, which invariably was significant compared to the control group (p = 0.032). Test group 1 significantly differed from test group 2 based on two items (consultation was adequately intelligible: p = 0.011; consultation was adequately comprehensive: p = 0.034) but not from the control group based on any item (p = 0.070).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, the use of a software-based PDA, in particular, can be recommended based on patient satisfaction and was associated with the shortest sessions for consultation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patients are routinely faced with a wealth of information in dental offices and may be overwhelmed especially by prosthetic treatment options and decision requirements. Our findings shed some light on the nature of aids that may truly be helpful in the process of shared decision-making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov.Identifier: ISRCTN11472465.