Determining Levers of Cost-effectiveness for Screening Infants at High Risk for Peanut Sensitization Before Early Peanut Introduction

Importance Early peanut introduction reduces the risk of developing peanut allergy, especially in high-risk infants. Current US recommendations endorse screening but are not cost-effective relative to other international strategies. Objective To identify scenarios in which current early peanut introduction guidelines would be cost-effective. Design, Setting, and Participants This simulation/cohort economic evaluation used microsimulations and cohort analyses in a Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early peanut introduction with and without peanut skin prick test (SPT) screening in high-risk infants during an 80-year horizon from a societal perspective. Data were analyzed from April to May 2019. Exposures High-risk infants with early-onset eczema and/or egg allergy underwent early peanut introduction with and without peanut SPT screening (100 000 infants per treatment strategy) using a dichotomous 8-mm SPT cutoff value (stipulated in the current US guideline). Main Outcomes and Measures Cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), net monetary benefit, peanut allergic reactions, severe allergic reactions, and deaths due to peanut allergy. Results In the simulated cohort of 200 000 infants and using the base case during the model horizon, a no-screening approach had lower mean (SD) costs ($13 449 [$38 163] vs $15 279 [$38 995]) and higher mean (SD) gain in QALYs (29.25 [3.28] vs 29.23 [3.30]) vs screening but resulted in more allergic reactions (mean [SD], 1.07 [3.15] vs 1.01 [3.02]), severe allergic reactions (mean [SD], 0.53 [1.66] vs 0.52 [1.62]), and anaphylaxis involving cardiorespiratory compromise (mean [SD], 0.50 [1.59] vs 0.49 [1.47]) per individual. In deterministic SPT sensitivity analyses at base-case sensitivity and specificity rates, screening could be cost-effective at a high disutility rate (the negative effect of a food allergic reaction) (76-148 days of life traded) for an at-home vs in-clinic reaction in combination with high baseline peanut allergy prevalence among infants at high risk for peanut allergy and not yet exposed to peanuts. If an equivalent rate and disutility of accidental and index anaphylaxis was assumed and the 8-mm SPT cutoff had 0.85 sensitivity and 0.98 specificity, screening was cost-effective at a peanut allergy prevalence of 36%. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this study suggest that the current screening approach to early peanut introduction could be cost-effective at a particular health utility for an in-clinic reaction, SPT sensitivity and specificity, and high baseline peanut allergy prevalence among high-risk infants. However, such conditions are unlikely to be plausible to realistically achieve. Further research is needed to define the health state utility associated with reaction location

Allergist-Reported Trends in the Practice of Food Allergen Oral Immunotherapy

Food allergen oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an experimental, immune-modifying therapy that may induce clinical desensitization in some patients. OIT is still in early phase clinical research, but some provider may offer OIT as a clinical service. To understand the current practices of allergists performing OIT an on-line survey was emailed to members of the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology. Among 442 respondents, 61 (13.8%) reported participating in OIT, including 28 in non-academic settings. Informed consent for OIT was obtained by 91.3%, IRB approval by 47.7% and Investigational New Drug (IND) approval by 38.1%. Compared to non-academic participants, more academic participants used peanut OIT, obtained IRB and IND (p <0.0001 respectively), and challenged patients prior to entry (p=0.008). More non-academic providers billed the patient or insurance for reimbursement (p<0.0001). Low reported regard for the importance for FDA approval or a standardized product (increased odds), and high regard for better safety data (decreased odds) were associated with considering to offer OIT as a service. Significant differences exist in OIT occurring in academic vs. non-academic settings. Further assessment is needed regarding the different motivations and practice styles among providers offering OIT, and those considering doing so

A survey study of index food‐related allergic reactions and anaphylaxis management

Background:  Initial food‐allergic reactions are often poorly recognized and under‐treated. Methods:  Parents of food‐allergic children were invited to complete an online questionnaire, designed with Kids with Food Allergies Foundation , about their children’s first food‐allergic reactions resulting in urgent medical evaluation. Results:  Among 1361 reactions, 76% (95% CI 74–79%) were highly likely to represent anaphylaxis based on NIAID/FAAN criteria. Only 34% (95% CI 31–37%) of these were administered epinephrine. In 56% of these, epinephrine was administered by emergency departments; 20% by parents; 9% by paramedics; 8% by primary care physicians; and 6% by urgent care centers. In 26% of these, epinephrine was given within 15 min of the onset of symptoms; 54% within 30 min; 82% within 1 h; and 93% within 2 h. Factors associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving epinephrine for anaphylaxis included age <12 months, milk and egg triggers, and symptoms of abdominal pain and/or diarrhea. Epinephrine was more likely to be given to asthmatic children and children with peanut or tree nut ingestion prior to event. Post‐treatment, 42% of reactions likely to represent anaphylaxis were referred to allergists, 34% prescribed and/or given epinephrine auto‐injectors, 17% trained to use epinephrine auto‐injectors, and 19% given emergency action plans. Of patients treated with epinephrine, only half (47%) were prescribed epinephrine auto‐injectors. Conclusions:  Only one‐third of initial food‐allergic reactions with symptoms of anaphylaxis were recognized and treated with epinephrine. Fewer than half of patients were referred to allergists. There is still a need to increase education and awareness about food‐induced anaphylaxis.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93515/1/pai1315.pd

Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials for mixed and non‐IgE‐mediated food allergy: Systematic review

Background Mixed and non‐IgE‐mediated food allergy is a subset of immune‐mediated adverse food reactions that can impose a major burden on the quality of life of affected patients and their families. Clinical trials to study these diseases are reliant upon consistent and valid outcome measures that are relevant to both patients and clinicians, but the degree to which such stringent outcome reporting takes place is poorly studied. Objective As part of the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) project, we identified outcomes reported in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of treatments for mixed or non‐IgE‐mediated food allergy. Design In this systematic review, we searched the Ovid, MEDLINE and Embase databases for RCTs in children or adults investigating treatments for food protein‐induced enterocolitis syndrome, food protein‐induced allergic proctocolitis, food protein‐induced enteropathy and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders including eosinophilic esophagitis [EoE], eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic colitis published until 14 October 2022. Results Twenty‐six eligible studies were identified, with 23 focused on EoE (88%). Most interventions were corticosteroids or monoclonal antibodies. All EoE studies assessed patient‐reported dysphagia, usually using a non‐validated questionnaire. Twenty‐two of 23 EoE studies used peak tissue eosinophil count as the primary outcome, usually using a non‐validated assessment method, and other immunological markers were only exploratory. Thirteen (57%) EoE studies reported endoscopic outcomes of which six used a validated scoring tool recently recommended as a core outcome for EoE trials. Funding source was not obviously associated with likelihood of an RCT reporting mechanistic versus patient‐reported outcomes. Only 3 (12%) RCTs concerned forms of food allergy other than EoE, and they reported on fecal immunological markers and patient‐reported outcomes.ConclusionsOutcomes measured in clinical trials of EoE and non‐IgE‐mediated food allergy are heterogeneous and largely non‐validated. Core outcomes for EoE have been developed and need to be used in future trials. For other forms of mixed or non‐IgE‐mediated food allergies, core outcome development is needed to support the development of effective treatments

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

Excessive Media Consumption About COVID-19 is Associated With Increased State Anxiety : Outcomes of a Large Online Survey in Russia

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has potentially had a negative impact on the mental health and well-being of individuals and families. Anxiety levels and risk factors within particular populations are poorly described. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate confidence, understanding, trust, concerns, and levels of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population and assess risk factors for increased anxiety. METHODS: We launched a cross-sectional online survey of a large Russian population between April 6 and 15, 2020, using multiple social media platforms. A set of questions targeted confidence, understanding, trust, and concerns in respondents. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was used to measure anxiety. Multiple linear regressions were used to model predictors of COVID-19-related anxiety. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 23,756 out of 53,966 (44.0% response rate) unique visitors; of which, 21,364 were residing in 62 areas of Russia. State Anxiety Scale (S-Anxiety) scores were higher than Trait Anxiety Scale scores across all regions of Russia (median S-Anxiety score 52, IQR 44-60), exceeding published norms. Time spent following news on COVID-19 was strongly associated with an increased S-Anxiety adjusted for baseline anxiety level. One to two hours spent reading COVID-19 news was associated with a 5.46 (95% CI 5.03-5.90) point difference, 2-3 hours with a 7.06 (95% CI 6.37-7.74) point difference, and more than three hours with an 8.65 (95% CI 7.82-9.47) point difference, all compared to less than 30 minutes per day. Job loss during the pandemic was another important factor associated with higher S-Anxiety scores (3.95, 95% CI 3.31-4.58). Despite survey respondents reporting high confidence in information regarding COVID-19 as well as an understanding of health care guidance, they reported low overall trust in state and local authorities, and perception of country readiness. CONCLUSIONS: Among Russian respondents from multiple social media platforms, there was evidence of higher levels of state anxiety associated with recent job loss and increased news consumption, as well as lower than expected trust in government agencies. These findings can help inform the development of key public health messages to help reduce anxiety and raise perceived trust in governmental response to this current national emergency. Using a similar methodology, comparative surveys are ongoing in other national populations.Peer reviewe

Excessive media consumption about COVID-19 is associated with increased state anxiety: Outcomes of a large online survey in Russia

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has potentially had a negative impact on the mental health and well-being of individuals and families. Anxiety levels and risk factors within particular populations are poorly described. Objective: This study aims to evaluate confidence, understanding, trust, concerns, and levels of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population and assess risk factors for increased anxiety. Methods: We launched a cross-sectional online survey of a large Russian population between April 6 and 15, 2020, using multiple social media platforms. A set of questions targeted confidence, understanding, trust, and concerns in respondents. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was used to measure anxiety. Multiple linear regressions were used to model predictors of COVID-19–related anxiety. Results: The survey was completed by 23,756 out of 53,966 (44.0% response rate) unique visitors; of which, 21,364 were residing in 62 areas of Russia. State Anxiety Scale (S-Anxiety) scores were higher than Trait Anxiety Scale scores across all regions of Russia (median S-Anxiety score 52, IQR 44-60), exceeding published norms. Time spent following news on COVID-19 was strongly associated with an increased S-Anxiety adjusted for baseline anxiety level. One to two hours spent reading COVID-19 news was associated with a 5.46 (95% CI 5.03-5.90) point difference, 2-3 hours with a 7.06 (95% CI 6.37-7.74) point difference, and more than three hours with an 8.65 (95% CI 7.82-9.47) point difference, all compared to less than 30 minutes per day. Job loss during the pandemic was another important factor associated with higher S-Anxiety scores (3.95, 95% CI 3.31-4.58). Despite survey respondents reporting high confidence in information regarding COVID-19 as well as an understanding of health care guidance, they reported low overall trust in state and local authorities, and perception of country readiness. Conclusions: Among Russian respondents from multiple social media platforms, there was evidence of higher levels of state anxiety associated with recent job loss and increased news consumption, as well as lower than expected trust in government agencies. These findings can help inform the development of key public health messages to help reduce anxiety and raise perceived trust in governmental response to this current national emergency. Using a similar methodology, comparative surveys are ongoing in other national populations

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

BackgroundFood allergy is an important public health problem because it affects children and adults, can be severe and even lifeâ 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 peanutâ containing foods beginning in infancy.ObjectivesPrompted 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.ResultsThe 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 peanutâ 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.ConclusionsGuidelines have been developed for early introduction of peanutâ containing foods into the diets of infants at various risk levels for peanut allergy.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135514/1/pde13093_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/135514/2/pde13093.pd