A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

Cost Utility of Lifelong Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy vs Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant to Treat Agammaglobulinemia.

Importance: Lifelong immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IRT) is standard-of-care treatment for congenital agammaglobulinemia but accrues high annual costs ($30 000-$90 000 per year) and decrements to quality of life over patients' life spans. Hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) offers an alternative 1-time therapy, but has high morbidity and mortality. Objective: To evaluate the cost utility of IRT vs matched sibling donor (MSD) and matched unrelated donor (MUD) HSCT to treat patients with agammaglobulinemia in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used Markov analysis to model the base-case scenario of a patient aged 12 months with congenital agammaglobulinemia receiving lifelong IRT vs MSD or MUD HSCT. Costs, probabilities, and quality-of-life measures were derived from the literature. Microsimulations estimated premature deaths for each strategy in a virtual cohort. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated uncertainty around parameter estimates performed from a societal perspective over a 100-year time horizon. The threshold for cost-effective care was set at $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). This study was conducted from 2020 across a 100-year time horizon. Exposures: Immunoglobulin replacement therapy vs MSD or MUD HSCT for treatment of congenital agammaglobulinemia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed in 2020 US dollars per QALY gained and premature deaths associated with each strategy. Results: In this economic evaluation of patients with congenital agammaglobulinemia, lifelong IRT cost more than HSCT ($1 512 946 compared with $563 776 [MSD] and $637 036 [MUD]) and generated similar QALYs (20.61 vs 17.25 [MSD] and 17.18 [MUD]). Choosing IRT over MSD or MUD HSCT yielded ICERs of $282 166 per QALY gained over MSD and $255 633 per QALY gained over MUD HSCT, exceeding the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY. However, IRT prevented at least 2488 premature deaths per 10 000 microsimulations compared with HSCT. When annual IRT price was reduced from $60 145 to below $29 469, IRT became the cost-effective strategy. Findings remained robust in sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In the US, IRT is more expensive than HSCT for agammaglobulinemia treatment. The findings of this study suggest that IRT prevents more premature deaths but does not substantially increase quality of life relative to HSCT. Reducing US IRT cost by 51% to a value similar to IRT prices in countries implementing value-based pricing may render it the more cost-effective strategy.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Deriving individual threshold doses from clinical food challenge data for population risk assessment of food allergens.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies are a significant public health issue, and the only effective management option currently available is strict avoidance of all foods containing the allergen. In view of the practical impossibility of limiting risks to zero, quantitative allergen risk assessment and management strategies are needed. OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop appropriate methods for informing population-based risk assessments and risk management programs to benefit all stakeholders but particularly patients with food allergy. METHODS: Individual thresholds for food allergens (maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses) can ideally be established through double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. If double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge data are not available, data from widely used open food challenges using predefined objective criteria can also provide useful data regarding minimum eliciting doses. For more than 20 years, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research and the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have been collecting individual maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses that produce objective symptoms from published and unpublished clinical data to better refine knowledge regarding the sensitivity of the population to food allergens. RESULTS: In this article we provide in-depth insights into the methodology applied by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research and Food Allergy Research and Resource Program to derive individual maximum tolerable doses and minimum eliciting doses for objective symptoms from clinical food challenge data. More than 90 examples for determining individual allergic thresholds are presented. CONCLUSION: With the methodology presented in this article, we aim to stimulate harmonization and transparency in quantitative food allergen risk assessment and risk management programs, encouraging their wider adoption.

Partially hydrolyzed formula in non-exclusively breastfed infants: A systematic review and expert consensus.

OBJECTIVES: Guidance and evidence supporting routine use of partially hydrolyzed formula (pHF) versus intact cows' milk protein (CMP) formula are limited in non-exclusively breastfed infants. The aim of this review was to better clarify issues of routine use of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants who are not at risk for allergic disease by using a systematic review and Delphi Panel consensus. METHODS: A systematic review and Delphi consensus panel (consisting of eight8 international pediatric allergists and gastroenterologists) was conducted to evaluate evidence supporting growth, tolerability, and effectiveness of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants. RESULTS: None of the studies reviewed identified potential harm of pHF use compared with CMP in non-exclusively breastfed infants. There was an expert consensus that pHF use is likely as safe as intact CMP formula, given studies suggesting these have comparable nutritional parameters. No high-quality studies were identified evaluating the use of pHF to prevent allergic disease in non-exclusively breastfed infants who are not at risk for allergic disease (e.g., lacking a parental history of allergy). Limited data suggest that pHF use in non-exclusively breastfed infants may be associated with improved gastric emptying, decreased colic incidence, and other common functional gastrointestinal symptoms compared with CMP. However, because the data are of insufficient quality, the findings from these studies have to be taken with caution. No studies were identified that directly compared the different types of pHF, but there was an expert consensus that growth, allergenicity, tolerability, effectiveness, and clinical role among such pHF products may differ. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist evaluating routine use of pHFs in non-exclusively breastfed infants, with no contraindications identified in the systematic review. An expert consensus considers pHFs for which data were available to be as safe as CMP formula as growth is normal. The preventive effect on allergy of pHF in infants who are not at risk for allergic disease has been poorly studied. Cost of pHF versus starter formula with intact protein differs from country to country. However, further studies in larger populations are needed to clinically confirm the benefits of routine use of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants. These studies should also address potential consumer preference bias.

Managing Cross-Reactivity in Those with Peanut Allergy.

Peanut is an allergenic legume that can cross-react with other plant-based foods, notably other legumes and tree nuts. Peanut-allergic individuals can be both cosensitized and coallergic to such items, requiring foresight when eliciting a clinical history of a reaction, in the diagnostic evaluation of such allergies, and in the counseling of patients as to food avoidances after a diagnosis is made. Legume allergens belong to the Fabaceae family and encompass the cupin, prolamin, PR-10, and lipid transfer protein families, which mediate cross-sensitization including that between peanut and tree nut. Among legumes, the most common patterns of clinical cross-reactivity are between peanut and lupine, peanut and soy, as well as chickpea and lentil, though this is highly dependent on geography and prevalence of these foods in the diet. Issues of cross-sensitization may exist between peanut and certain tree nuts, as well as among tree nuts though such patterns do not always result in clinically relevant allergy. Molecular diagnostic testing may be a future tool to help parse out the aforementioned patterns, but oral food challenges are still the gold standard for accurate diagnosis. Although potential desensitization treatments have emerged for peanut allergy, these have not been developed for other legumes and most tree nuts, and desensitization to peanut has not proven to have an effect on legume cross-sensitization.

Analysis of Value-Based Costs of Undesignated School Stock Epinephrine Policies for Peanut Anaphylaxis.

Importance: Children experiencing anaphylaxis at school may lack access to a personal epinephrine device, prompting recent legislation permitting undesignated (eg, non-student specific) stock epinephrine autoinjector units at school. However, epinephrine device costs vary, and the cost-effectiveness of undesignated school stock epinephrine is uncharacterized to date. Objective: To define value-based strategies for undesignated school stock epinephrine programs. Design, Setting, and Participants: Markov simulations of the Chicago Public Schools system were used over extended time horizons to model 2 school stock epinephrine autoinjector policies to provide access for at-risk students. The dates of the data used in the analysis were September 2017 to June 2018 (the 2017-2018 school year). Main Outcomes and Measures: This study compared the following 3 strategies: no school undesignated epinephrine supply, school undesignated supplemental epinephrine supply (supplemental model), and school undesignated universal epinephrine supply (universal model). The base-case model assumed a 10-fold reduced fatality risk with having undesignated stock epinephrine units available vs not having undesignated stock epinephrine units available. Costs of school stock epinephrine units available for acquisition by schools were evaluated from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total epinephrine acquisition expenses were calculated. Results: Based on Markov simulations of the Chicago Public Schools system (371 382 students), the cost was $107 816 (95% CI, $107 382-$108 250) for no school undesignated epinephrine supply compared with $108 160 (95% CI, $107 725-$108 595) for the supplemental model and $100 397 (95% CI, $99 979-$100 815) for the universal model. Undesignated stock epinephrine improved outcomes, with 26.869 (95% CI, 26.841-26.897) QALYs accrued as the model concluded compared with 26.867 (95% CI, 26.839-26.896) QALYs for the strategy without undesignated stock epinephrine. When comparing supplemental model stock epinephrine to the strategy without undesignated devices, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was high at $268 811 per QALY in the base-case simulation. However, the cost of the supplemental model fell below $100 000 per QALY when the annual undesignated epinephrine acquisition costs did not exceed $338 per school (compared with stock epinephrine unavailability). The universal model dominated all others and was associated with significant cost savings ($7419 per student at risk who would otherwise be prescribed an individual school epinephrine supply). Conclusions and Relevance: Undesignated school stock epinephrine is cost-effective at device acquisition costs not exceeding $338 per school per year, although a universal model vs a supplemental model is associated with superior health and economic outcomes.

Primary Prevention of Food Allergy.

Food allergy is estimated to affect approximately 8% of children in the USA. This is a disease without any known treatment or cure and, for some, a disease that can be quite severe, even life-threatening. While recent advances in potential treatment have made remarkable strides, with two food-targeted immunotherapy products now in phase III trials, perhaps the biggest gains in the field have come in the advent of potential preventative strategies to avoid the development of food allergy in high-risk individuals. There have been multiple, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) performed in the past 5 years that have demonstrated significant risk reduction from early allergen introduction. These include two trials for early peanut introduction and five trials for early egg introduction in the first year of life. The results indicate that primary prevention of food allergy through early allergen introduction may represent a strategy that could potentially avert tens of thousands of children from becoming food allergic. In support of the data for peanut, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases recently sponsored an addendum to the 2010 food allergy guidelines, specifically recommending peanut be introduced in both high- and standard-risk infants to reduce the risk of developing peanut allergy. To date, no formal recommendations have been made for egg, however. This review will focus on the latest evidence supporting early introduction as a strategy to prevent food allergy, as well as on practical aspects for its successful implementation.

Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States: Report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases-Sponsored Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is an important public health problem because it affects children and adults, can be severe and even life-threatening, and may be increasing in prevalence. Beginning in 2008, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with other organizations and advocacy groups, led the development of the first clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. A recent landmark clinical trial and other emerging data suggest that peanut allergy can be prevented through introduction of peanut-containing foods beginning in infancy. OBJECTIVES: Prompted by these findings, along with 25 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases facilitated development of addendum guidelines to specifically address the prevention of peanut allergy. RESULTS: The addendum provides 3 separate guidelines for infants at various risk levels for the development of peanut allergy and is intended for use by a wide variety of health care providers. Topics addressed include the definition of risk categories, appropriate use of testing (specific IgE measurement, skin prick tests, and oral food challenges), and the timing and approaches for introduction of peanut-containing foods in the health care provider's office or at home. The addendum guidelines provide the background, rationale, and strength of evidence for each recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines have been developed for early introduction of peanut-containing foods into the diets of infants at various risk levels for peanut allergy.

Addendum Guidelines for the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in the United States: Report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases-Sponsored Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is an important public health problem because it affects children and adults, can be severe and even life-threatening, and may be increasing in prevalence. Beginning in 2008, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with other organizations and advocacy groups, led the development of the first clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. A recent landmark clinical trial and other emerging data suggest that peanut allergy can be prevented through introduction of peanut-containing foods beginning in infancy. OBJECTIVES: Prompted by these findings, along with 25 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases facilitated development of addendum guidelines to specifically address the prevention of peanut allergy. RESULTS: The addendum provides three separate guidelines for infants at various risk levels for the development of peanut allergy and is intended for use by a wide variety of health care providers. Topics addressed include the definition of risk categories, appropriate use of testing (specific IgE measurement, skin prick tests, and oral food challenges), and the timing and approaches for introduction of peanut-containing foods in the health care provider's office or at home. The addendum guidelines provide the background, rationale, and strength of evidence for each recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines have been developed for early introduction of peanut-containing foods into the diets of infants at various risk levels for peanut allergy.

Addendum guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy in the United States: Report of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases-sponsored expert panel.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is an important public health problem because it affects children and adults, can be severe and even life-threatening, and may be increasing in prevalence. Beginning in 2008, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with other organizations and advocacy groups, led the development of the first clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. A recent landmark clinical trial and other emerging data suggest that peanut allergy can be prevented through introduction of peanut-containing foods beginning in infancy. OBJECTIVES: Prompted by these findings, along with 25 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases facilitated development of addendum guidelines to specifically address the prevention of peanut allergy. RESULTS: The addendum provides 3 separate guidelines for infants at various risk levels for the development of peanut allergy and is intended for use by a wide variety of health care providers. Topics addressed include the definition of risk categories, appropriate use of testing (specific IgE measurement, skin prick tests, and oral food challenges), and the timing and approaches for introduction of peanut-containing foods in the health care provider's office or at home. The addendum guidelines provide the background, rationale, and strength of evidence for each recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines have been developed for early introduction of peanut-containing foods into the diets of infants at various risk levels for peanut allergy.