Caregiver views on virtual management of food allergy: A mixed-methods study

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on adults and children with atopic dermatitis and food allergy: Systematic review

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significant disruptions to health care services and health impacts on patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) and/or food allergy (FA).

Objective

We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and disease on AD/FA patients.

Methods

A comprehensive systematic literature search was conducted from December 2019 to 2022. Screening and data extraction were done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, or MMAT, was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

In total, 159 studies were included. Five of 7 studies reported no significant changes in overall incidence or prevalence of AD during the pandemic, although some studies noted an increase in the elderly and infants. Telehealth served as an effective alternative to face-to-face consultations, with mixed levels of patient and provider satisfaction. Dissatisfaction was most marked in patients with more severe disease, who thought that their disease was inadequately managed through telemedicine. Higher levels of general anxiety were recorded in both AD/FA patients and caregivers, and it was more pronounced in patients with severe disease. Most studies reported no significant differences in postvaccination adverse effects in AD patients; however, results were more varied in FA patients.

Conclusion

Our review identified the impact of COVID-19 pandemic- and disease-driven changes on AD/FA patients. Telemedicine is uniquely suited to manage atopic diseases, and hybrid care may be a suitable approach even in the postpandemic era. COVID-19 vaccines and biologics can be safely administered to patients with atopic diseases, with appropriate patient education to ensure continued care for high-risk patients.

The Economic Burden of Food Allergy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn

Purpose of Review

Food allergy management and treatment require dietary modification, are associated with significant burdens, and affect food choices and behaviours. Emerging therapies, such as oral immunotherapy (OIT), provide a glimmer of hope for those living with the condition. Some burdens have received substantial focus, whereas many knowledge gaps on the significance of other impacts, including economic burden, remain.

Recent Findings

Evidence from many countries, but disproportionately from the United States, supports that food allergy carries significant healthcare and societal costs. Early introduction for the prevention of food allergies is theoretically cost-effective, but remains largely undescribed. Unique considerations, such as those to cow’s milk protein allergy, which affects a substantial proportion of infants, and adrenaline autoinjectors, which have a high cost-per-use, require a balance between cost-effectiveness to the healthcare system and adverse outcomes. Household costs have largely been explored in two countries, but owing to different healthcare structures and costs of living, comparisons are difficult, as are generalisations to other countries. Stock epinephrine in schools may present a cost-effective strategy, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. Costs relating to OIT must be examined within both immediate benefits, such as protection from anaphylaxis, and long-term benefits, such as sustained unresponsiveness.

Summary

Although the absolute costs differ by region/country and type of food allergy, a consistent pattern persists: food allergy is a costly condition, to those who live with it, and the multiple stakeholders with which they interact.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40521-022-00306-5.