Pharmacoequity and Biologics in the Allergy Clinic: Providing the Right Care, at the Right Time, Every Time, to Everyone

A health economic analysis of noninjectable epinephrine compared with intramuscular epinephrine

BACKGROUND

Noninjectable epinephrine to treat allergic reactions addresses an unmet need. Intranasal epinephrine is approved and a sublingual form is under development. Inhaled epinephrine is poorly studied for anaphylaxis. These forms have unknown cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate cost-effectiveness of commercially available noninjectable epinephrine compared with intramuscular epinephrine for treatment of anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Markov cohort analyses evaluated the cost-effectiveness of noninjectable epinephrine forms. The base-case assumed exaggerated anaphylaxis fatality rates (50-fold increase) for using inhaled epinephrine given low certainty evidence in anaphylaxis and deliberately reduced fatality risk for nasal or sublingual forms (10-fold reduction) theorizing higher adherence and early use during an allergic reaction.

RESULTS

In the base-case scenario, assuming a 10-fold decreased risk in peanut allergy fatality associated with intranasal or sublingual epinephrine treatment for a severe allergic reaction (net monetary benefit [NMB], $2,189,134) vs intramuscular epinephrine use (NMB, $2,189,114), intranasal or sublingual epinephrine was the most cost-effective option (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER], $83,748/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]), but only at a marginal annual cost of $4. Intramuscular epinephrine was cost-effective (ICER, $17,900/QALY) vs inhaled epinephrine (NMB, $2,183,531), although inhaled epinephrine reached cost-effectiveness (willingness to pay [$100,000/QALY]) if associated fatality risk fell below 2.5-fold. Substituting a single noninjectable form of epinephrine for a second injectable device (in patients prescribed 2 autoinjectors already) would be cost-effective; however, adding a supplemental noninjectable device was not cost-effective, even assuming a 10-fold risk reduction with multiple device carriage (ICER, $858,462).

CONCLUSION

Noninjectable routes of epinephrine can be cost-effective options provided fatality risk is not significantly elevated. Carriage of redundant epinephrine autoinjectors with noninjectable forms is not cost-effective if associated with excess cost of redundant device packs.

Comparison of Systemic Exposure Between Epinephrine Delivered via Metered-Dose Inhalation and Intramuscular Injection

Background: Primatene® MIST, an epinephrine metered-dose inhaler (MDI), has long been questioned by some medical professionals for asthma treatment despite having been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. One of the primary reasons for their concerns stemmed from potential cardiovascular complications following epinephrine administration. However, the majority of documented cardiovascular complications seemed to occur following the injection route of the epinephrine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the systemic exposure of epinephrine delivered through different administration routes and to understand its relationship with cardiovascular effects. Since albuterol inhalers are commonly recommended for asthma, albuterol was also studied as a comparator drug. Method: A randomized, evaluator-blinded, three-arm crossover study was conducted in 28 healthy adult subjects to compare the profiles of systemic exposure for epinephrine delivered by MDI versus epinephrine intramuscular (IM) injection and albuterol MDI. Serially sampled plasma epinephrine and albuterol levels were measured and compared between treatment groups. Safety was assessed by adverse events, serial vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and clinical laboratory tests obtained at each crossover dosing visit. Results: Systemic exogenous drug exposure for inhaled epinephrine MDI (39 pg/mL × hour) was ∼9 times lower than that of epinephrine IM (435 pg/mL × hour) and 122 times lower than that of albuterol MDI (3453 pg/mL × hour) after dose normalization. The Cmax in epinephrine MDI (345 pg/mL) was approximately half of that of epinephrine IM (816 pg/mL) and that of albuterol MDI (681 pg/mL). Plasma drug concentrations for epinephrine MDI dropped rapidly to baseline (∼0.6 hour), while epinephrine IM took ∼8 hours, and albuterol MDI required more than 24 hours. Epinephrine MDI and albuterol MDI resulted in minimal, clinically insignificant changes in vital signs and ECGs, whereas epinephrine IM led to mild transient increases in systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and corrected QT interval. Conclusion: Epinephrine MDI (Primatene MIST) had ∼9 times lower systemic drug exposure (SDE) than that of epinephrine IM and ∼122 times lower than that of albuterol MDI. The lower SDE of inhaled epinephrine also correlated with reassuring safety findings, with no significant cardiovascular adverse effects found, compared with transient effects seen after IM epinephrine. Clinical trial registration number: NCT04207840.

The Art of Clinical Negotiation

The art of clinical negotiation is an important, yet underappreciated aspect of medicine. Key components of negotiation include the need to consider principles over personalities; to explore all options before deciding on the best course; to realize that, if consensus cannot be achieved, then compromise may still be possible; to work from evidence to incorporate contextual factors; and to stay evidence based. These principles can be helpful in many settings, including contract negotiation, drug pricing, and research. Negotiating the balance between patient safety and efficient research methodology is central to discussions with institutional review boards and public and private researchers. When guidelines are developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, shared decision making and negotiation of treatment plans can be seamlessly incorporated into patient conversations for conditional recommendations, and negotiation skills may facilitate clinical adoption of strong recommendation as well.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy: A review of safety and efficacy

Epcutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) is a novel, non-oral route of allergen immunotherapy, utilizing the skin and its robust density of epidermal Langerhans cells (LC) for antigen presentation. This space is non-vascularized and impermeable, which limits allergen exposure into the bloodstream but preserves antigen presentation to regional lymph nodes to generate gut-homing regulatory T cells. The EPIT patch utilizes natural water loss from the skin to absorb electrosprayed allergen through condensation. EPIT represents an alternative, non-oral route of immunotherapy for food allergy, with good efficacy and strong safety profiles across multiple phase 2 and 3 studies for milk and peanut. Efficacy appears the best in very young children (1-3 years old), which has been shown to continue to enhance with extended treatment duration up to 36 months. Efficacy in slightly older children ages 4-11 years of age is less clear, but appears to be better in children ages 4-7 years of age. In clinical trials of milk and peanut EPIT, most subjects experienced adverse effects, mainly mild-to-moderate skin reactions localized around the patch placement site, which improve with continued duration of wear. Rates of treatment-related anaphylaxis have been very low across all studies and ages, ranging from 1.6% to 4%, and were lowest in the infant and toddler population. While further studies of safety (1- to 3-year-olds) and efficacy (4- to 7-year-olds) are ongoing, EPIT is a potentially valuable addition to the current landscape of food allergy therapies, in particular for infants and toddlers where families may be seeking a non-oral route of treatment.

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.

The use of biologics in food allergy management

Patients and families living with food allergy may experience significant burdens, including social isolation, impaired quality of life, and anxiety. Allergists/immunologists play a critical role in educating families living with food allergies about risk, particularly with regard to the rarity of fatal food allergy. Appropriate risk framing can greatly decrease the fear-based burden of disease. In 2024, an increasing complex fabric of food allergy treatments has emerged that includes oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and omalizumab, with the promise of additional treatments, including epicutaneous immunotherapy and oral mucosal immunotherapy in the near future. Younger children may be most likely to benefit from OIT and SLIT, with some evidence that suggests the possibility of an immunomodulatory effect. Omalizumab, approved in 2024 for use in conjunction with strict avoidance, increases the threshold of reactivity before a moderate-to-severe reaction for many, but not all, patients. There is no evidence to date that omalizumab has an immunomodulatory effect, and young children treated with omalizumab monotherapy may bear a lost opportunity cost from possible immunomodulation would they have been treated with OIT or SLIT instead; however, within a shared decision-making paradigm, beyond label use of omalizumab may include treatment with OIT or SLIT. Fortunately, the co-evolution of shared decision-making with modern food allergy treatments will facilitate the critical preference-sensitive care that must be characteristic of all decisions surrounding active food allergy management.

Patient-Centered Practice Guidelines: GRADEing Evidence to Incorporate Certainty, Balance Between Benefits and Harms, Equity, Feasibility, and Cost-Effectiveness

The practice of medicine in recent years has emphasized the use of evidence-based clinical guidelines to help inform treatment decisions. Since its development in 2004, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach has offered a systematic process for reviewing and summarizing the certainty of evidence found in the medical literature regarding various treatment options. To develop truly patient-centered care guidelines, this appraisal of the certainty of evidence must be combined with an understanding of the balance between benefits and harms, patient preferences, equity, feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and policy implications. This review examines each of these domains in detail, exploring the process and benefits of developing relevant, patient-focused guidelines directly applicable to the practice of modern medicine.

A Media Advocacy Toolkit for the Allergist-Immunologist

For clinicians involved in improving healthcare for patients with allergic and immunologic conditions, advocacy on a broader level through public outreach is key to advancing value-based care. In this article, we provide a toolkit of strategies and resources that can be used to raise public awareness of important issues through various mediums, including podcasts and social media, newspapers, testimonies, presentations, and interviews. A simple approach to effective media interactions is described using the acronym "RATIO," which stands for Research, Audience, Targeted topic, Interview rephrasing, and Optimism. The acronym also reminds the person who is presenting information that only a fraction of what is discussed will be recalled, and an even smaller proportion will be implemented. Key points should be made early. Examples of key talking points are provided for selected topics, including food allergy, anaphylaxis, asthma, rhinitis, and broader healthcare advocacy.

Allergic Diseases and Mental Health

Neuropsychiatric symptoms have long been acknowledged as a common comorbidity for individuals with allergic diseases. The proposed mechanisms for this relationship vary by disease and patient population and may include neuroinflammation and/or the consequent social implications of disease symptoms and management. We review connections between mental health and allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, vocal cord dysfunction, urticaria, and food allergy. Many uncertainties remain and warrant further research, particularly with regard to how medications interact with pathophysiologic mechanisms of allergic disease in the neuroimmune axis. Proactive screening for mental health challenges, using tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire and Generalized Anxiety Disorder screening instruments among others, can aid clinicians in identifying patients who may need further psychiatric evaluation and support. Although convenient, symptom screening tools are limited by variable sensitivity and specificity and therefore require healthcare professionals to remain vigilant for other mental health "red flags." Ultimately, understanding the connection between allergic disease and mental health empowers clinicians to both anticipate and serve the diverse physical and mental health needs of their patient populations.