Search

Introduction The phase 3 trial PALISADE, comparing peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) oral immunotherapy versus placebo in peanut-allergic children, reported that a significantly higher percentage of PTAH-treated participants tolerated higher doses of peanut protein after 1 year of treatment. This study used PALISADE data to estimate the reduction in the risk of systemic allergic reaction (SAR) after accidental exposure following 1 year of PTAH treatment. Methods Participants (aged 4–17 years) enrolled in PALISADE were included. Parametric interval-censoring survival analysis with the maximum likelihood estimation was used to construct a real-world distribution of peanut protein exposure using lifetime SAR history and highest tolerated dose (HTD) from a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge conducted at baseline. The SAR risk reduction was extrapolated using the exposure distribution and the HTD were collected at baseline and trial exit for PTAH- and placebo-treated participants. Results Assuming a maximum peanut protein intake of 1500 mg, participants were estimated to have 0.01 mg during daily life. The mean annual SAR risk at trial entry was 9.25–9.98%. At trial exit, the relative SAR risk reduction following accidental exposure was 94.9% for PTAH versus 6.4% for placebo. For PTAH-treated participants with exit HTD of 600 or 1000 mg without dose-limiting symptoms, the SAR risk reduction increased to 97.2%. The result was consistent in the sensitivity analysis across different parametric distributions. Conclusion Oral immunotherapy with PTAH is expected to result in a substantially greater reduction in risk of SAR following accidental exposure compared to placebo among children with peanut allergy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01843-2.

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of food allergy is large; however, costs specific to individuals with peanut allergy experiencing reactions to peanuts remain to be evaluated. As the prevalence of peanut allergy continues to increase in children, a better understanding of the cost of care is warranted. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost of care of peanut allergy among privately insured and Medicaid-insured pediatric patients in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective matched-cohort study included patients aged 4-17 years from the Optum Health Care Solutions and Medicaid Claims databases (January 1, 2007-March 31, 2017). Patients were classified into 2 cohorts: peanut allergy (with peanut allergy diagnosis codes and reactions triggering health care resource utilization [HRU]) and peanut allergy-free (no peanut allergy diagnosis codes in claims). Peanut allergy patients were matched 1:10 to peanut allergy-free patients based on baseline covariates. Comorbidities including anxiety and depression, HRU, and direct health care costs were compared between cohorts and reported for both perspectives separately. RESULTS: Compared with peanut allergy-free patients (n = 30,840 privately insured; n = 12,450 Medicaid), peanut allergy patients (n = 3,084 privately insured; n = 1,245 Medicaid) had higher prevalence of asthma, atopic dermatitis/eczema, other food allergies, allergic rhinitis, depression, and anxiety (all P < 0.01). Peanut allergy patients had higher HRU per patient per year (PPPY), including 90% more emergency department visits among both privately insured and Medicaid patients (P < 0.01) and higher direct health care costs PPPY, with incremental costs of $2,247 total or $1,712 excluding asthma-related costs for privately insured patients and $2,845 total or $1,844 excluding asthma-related costs for Medicaid patients (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients in the United States with peanut allergy and reactions triggering HRU had significantly higher comorbidity burdens, HRU, and direct health care costs, regardless of asthma-related costs, versus those without peanut allergy. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Aimmune Therapeutics, a Nestle Health Science company. The study sponsor was involved in several aspects of the research including the study design, the interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Yu and Tilles are employees of Aimmune Therapeutics, a Nestle Health Science company. Robison and Norrett were employees of Aimmune Therapeutics at the time this study was conducted. Blaiss, Meadows, and Hass provided paid consulting services to Aimmune Therapeutics. Guerin and Latremouille-Viau are employees of Analysis Group, a consulting company that provided paid consulting services to Aimmune Therapeutics. Parts of the results were presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting held March 25-28, 2019, in San Diego, CA, and at the ISPOR Annual Meeting held May 18-22, 2019, in New Orleans, LA.

Background Shared learnings from the early use of novel therapies can aid in their optimization. The recent introduction of peanut oral immunotherapy (peanut OIT; Palforzia [Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp]) for peanut allergy addresses a significant unmet need but also highlights the requirement for consideration of several factors by both prescribers and patients. Objective To provide guidance for prescribers of licenced peanut OIT to facilitate treatment delivery and improve outcomes. Methods Clinicians with experience of licenced peanut OIT (United States n = 6, United Kingdom n = 1) participated in a series of interviews and group discussions designed to elicit tips for successful implementation. Results Clinicians identified 8 tips that were considered the most relevant, practical, and impactful for prescribers of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp: (1) preparing to provide treatment, (2) assessing the medical indication for treatment and (3) shared decision making, (4) staff education, (5) establishing office processes, (6) managing patient expectations and using anticipatory guidance, (7) optimising adherence and (8) maintaining flexibility throughout the treatment process. In addition, a range of supporting materials (e.g., checklists and action plans) are provided. Conclusion The introduction of a novel therapy often requires healthcare providers to modify or adopt practices to effectively employ the treatment. The provision of guidance based upon early real-world experiences of licenced peanut OIT may help inform clinical practice and improve treatment outcomes.

Background: Until recently, the standard approach to care for individuals with peanut allergy (PA) was limited to allergen avoidance and treatment of reactions with emergency medicines. Objectives: To assess health-care resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with PA management under allergen avoidance and to identify risk factors associated with peanut reactions that resulted in inpatient (IP) and/or emergency department (ED) visits. Methods: Privately insured individuals with PA diagnosis codes were identified from a large U.S. administrative claims data base (January 1, 1999, to March 31, 2017). PA-related HRU, indicated by a PA diagnosis and/or diagnostic procedure codes and by epinephrine autoinjectors (EAI) prescription fills in medical and pharmacy claims, respectively, and all-cause costs were described per patient-year (PPY). Risk factors associated with peanut reactions in an IP and/or ED setting were identified by using a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: A total of 86,483 patient-years from 14,136 individuals with PA were included. At the patient-year level, 28.1% were ages 0‐3 years, 43.6% were ages 4‐11 years, 13.7% were ages 12‐17 years, and 14.5% were ages ≥ 18 years; 35.6% had PA-related outpatient visits; 50.6% had EAI fills; and 2.4% had PA-related IP and/or ED visits PPY. Younger individuals had more PA-related outpatient visits and EAI fills, with peak intensive use at ages 4‐11 years. The proportion of individuals with PA-related IP and/or ED visits was highest among those aged ≥ 18 years. Mean all-cause costs were $3084 PPY; individuals with PA-related IP and/or ED visits incurred $8902 PPY ($17,451 for those with one or more IP visits). Risk factors associated with peanut reactions that resulted in IP and/or ED visits included young adults (odds ratio [OR] 3.19 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.66‐3.83]), previous peanut reaction(s) (OR 1.66 [95% CI, 1.23‐2.24]), asthma (OR 1.33 [95% CI, 1.18‐1.51]), and male sex (OR 1.14 [95% CI, 1.01‐1.28]). Conclusion: Individuals with PA and under allergen avoidance had significant HRU that varied across all age groups, with more PA-related outpatient visits during preschool and/or school age and PA-related urgent care among adults. Individuals with previous peanut reaction(s), asthma, and males had a higher risk of peanut reactions that resulted in IP and/or ED visits.

Background: As there is limited data on the sustainability of desensitization of multifood-oral immunotherapy (multifood-OIT), we conducted a multisite multifood-OIT study to compare the efficacy of successful desensitization with sustained dosing vs discontinued dosing after multifood-OIT. Methods: We enrolled 70 participants, aged 5–22 years with multiple food allergies confirmed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs). In the open-label phase of the study, all participants received omalizumab (weeks 1–16) and multi-OIT (2–5 allergens; weeks 8–30) and eligible participants (on maintenance dose of each allergen by weeks 28–29) were randomized 1:1:1 to 1 g, 300 mg, or 0 mg arms (blinded, weeks 30–36) and then tested by food challenge at week 36. Success was defined as passing 2 g food challenge to at least 2 foods in week 36. Findings: Most participants were able to reach a dose of 2 g or higher of each of 2, 3, 4, and 5 food allergens (as applicable to the participant's food allergens in OIT) in week 36 food challenges. Using an intent-to-treat analysis, we did not find evidence that a 300 mg dose was effectively different than a 1 g dose in maintaining desensitization, and both together were more effective than OIT discontinuation (0 mg dose) (85% vs 55%, P = 0.03). Fifty-five percent of the intent-to-treat participants and 69% of per protocol participants randomized to the 0 mg arm showed no objective reactivity after 6 weeks of discontinuation. Cross-desensitization was found between cashew/pistachio and walnut/pecan when only one of the foods was part of OIT. No statistically significant safety differences were found between the three arms. Interpretation: These results suggest that sustained desensitization after omalizumab-facilitated multi-OIT best occurs through continued maintenance OIT dosing of either 300 mg or 1 g of each food allergen as opposed to discontinuation of multi-OIT. Funding: Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, NIAID AADCRC U19AI104209. Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02626611. Keywords: Food allergy, Oral immunotherapy, Omalizumab, Sustained unresponsiveness, Food allergen

Peanut allergy (PA) currently affects approximately 2% of the general population of Western nations and may be increasing in prevalence. Patients with PA and their families/caregivers bear a considerable burden of self‐management to avoid accidental peanut exposure and to administer emergency medication (adrenaline) if needed. Compared with other food allergies, PA is associated with higher rates of accidental exposure, severe reactions and potentially fatal anaphylaxis. Approximately 7%–14% of patients with PA experience accidental peanut exposure annually, and one‐third to one‐half may experience anaphylaxis, although fatalities are rare. These risks impose considerably high healthcare utilization and economic costs for patients with PA and restrictions on daily activities. Measures to accommodate patients with PA are often inadequate, with inconsistent standards for food labelling and inadequate safety policies in public establishments such as restaurants and schools. Children with PA are often bullied, resulting in sadness, humiliation and anxiety. These factors cumulatively contribute to significantly reduced health‐related quality of life for patients with PA and families/caregivers. Such factors also provide essential context for risk/benefit assessments of new PA therapies. This narrative review comprehensively assessed the various factors comprising the burden of PA.

Rationale Food allergy is documented to result in considerable morbidity, negative impact on quality of life, and substantial medical care costs. Although anecdotal data suggest widely varying practices in the diagnosis and management of food allergies, the diversity and relative frequency of these practices have not been documented. Methods A questionnaire was developed evaluating allergists’ management approaches of individuals with peanut allergy (PA) in Germany (DE), France (FR), and the United Kingdom (UK). Results Here, we report the survey results from a total of 109 allergists from DE, FR and the UK. They reported to confirm PA at initial diagnosis using skin prick test (≥60%), while allergists from DE and FR reported using allergen-specific IgE testing more (>86%) compared to the UK (75%). Half of the responders reported assessing the patient’s quality of life. 63% allergists reported retesting for PA resolution at a later date, with 45% allergists indicated to recommend ingestion of a normal serving of peanut regularly upon resolution. Lack of effective PA treatment was reported to be a ‘very significant’ barrier for optimal PA treatment, with allergists being less than ‘moderately familiar’ with data from clinical trials testing new treatments options for PA. Lastly, allergists stated that the severity of patient’s PA ranked as the most important factor in their decision to recommend oral immunotherapy for PA treatment. Conclusions This survey provides essential insights into the practice of allergists and highlights some areas that would inform strategies for education and improving PA healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy, for which there are no approved treatment options, affects patients who are at risk for unpredictable and occasionally life-threatening allergic reactions.METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we screened participants 4 to 55 years of age with peanut allergy for allergic dose-limiting symptoms at a challenge dose of 100 mg or less of peanut protein (approximately one third of a peanut kernel) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Participants with an allergic response were randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive AR101 (a peanut-derived investigational biologic oral immunotherapy drug) or placebo in an escalating-dose program. Participants who completed the regimen (i.e., received 300 mg per day of the maintenance regimen for approximately 24 weeks) underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at trial exit. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants 4 to 17 years of age who could ingest a challenge dose of 600 mg or more, without dose-limiting symptoms.RESULTS: Of the 551 participants who received AR101 or placebo, 496 were 4 to 17 years of age; of these, 250 of 372 participants (67.2%) who received active treatment, as compared with 5 of 124 participants (4.0%) who received placebo, were able to ingest a dose of 600 mg or more of peanut protein, without dose-limiting symptoms, at the exit food challenge (difference, 63.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 53.0 to 73.3; PCONCLUSIONS: In this phase 3 trial of oral immunotherapy in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut, treatment with AR101 resulted in higher doses of peanut protein that could be ingested without dose-limiting symptoms and in lower symptom severity during peanut exposure at the exit food challenge than placebo. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; PALISADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02635776 .).

Introduction La poudre de graine d’Arachis hypogaea allegee en graisses (precedemment appele AR101) est une immunotherapie orale recemment approuvee pour attenuer les reactions allergiques apres exposition accidentelle aux arachides chez les allergiques a l’arachide âgees de 4 a 17 ans. Des donnees long terme permettront de mieux caracteriser le profil dʼevenements indesirables (EI) de ce traitement. Methodes Les donnees de securite de six essais cliniques (n = 3, controles ; n = 3, extension ouverte) ont ete mises en commun et evaluees. Resultats Sur les 1127 sujets ayant recu le traitement, totalisant 1821 annees dʼexposition, la plupart ont subi un ou plusieurs EI (n = 1119 ; 99,3 %). La severite maximale etait legere pour 410 sujets (36,4 %) ; moderee pour 651 (57,8 %) ; et severe pour 57 (5,1 %). Un sujet (0,1 %) a eu un EI potentiellement mortel non lie au traitement (leucemie lymphoblastique aigue). Des EI graves sont survenus chez 41 (3,6 %) sujets ; neuf (0,8 %) ont subi des EI graves lies au traitement. Au total, 150 (13,3 %) sujets se sont retires de l’essai en raison dʼEI. La plupart ont presente un symptome gastro-intestinal (n = 93) et ont cesse de participer au cours des six premiers mois (n = 90). Apres ajustement en fonction de lʼexposition, les taux des EI et les EI lies au traitement ont ete 73,9 et 56,6 evenements/annee dʼexposition, respectivement, pendant la phase d’augmentation de dose et ont diminue a 17,4 et 10,1 evenements/annee dʼexposition, respectivement, pendant la phase d’entretien a 300 mg. Les taux de reactions anaphylactiques (reactions allergiques systemiques toutes severites confondues) et dʼutilisation dʼadrenaline ajustes en fonction de lʼexposition etaient faibles au cours de la premiere annee (0,28 et 0,26), et ont diminue au cours de la deuxieme (0,21 et 0,16) et de la troisieme annee (0,13 et 0,10). Conclusion Dans cette analyse groupee de securite sur 3 ans de traitement, les EI diminuent en frequence et en severite, meme si le biais des survivants doit etre pris en compte. Ces donnees peuvent aider les cliniciens a gerer la securite et a faciliter les decisions partagees avec leurs patients.

Objective: Paradoxical vocal fold motion (PVFM) is responsive to behavioral therapy, often resulting in a remission of symptoms, but little is known about whether treatment is beneficial with regard to PVFM-associated psychological symptoms or functional limitations. The goal of the study was to identify patient perceptions of the impact of treatment for PVFM and characteristics associated with treatment outcomes. Methods: A survey was conducted of all adults who had received at least 1 session of treatment for PVFM in our outpatient clinic over a 2-year period. Results: The 39 participants ranged in age from 18 to 82 and had received a median of 3 treatment sessions. At a median follow-up of 10 months following treatment, respondents reported improvements in a wide range of areas, including sports and leisure, daily activities, and social participation. The majority reported improvements in feelings of anxiety, helplessness, and control. Poorer outcomes were associated with more severe voice symptoms, fewer treatment sessions, and needing oral steroids for asthma control. Conclusion: There was a reduction in a wide range of activity limitations after treatment. Feelings of control were strongly associated with positive outcomes. The therapy appeared to be equally effective for adults with exercise-induced and environmental variants of PVFM.

Background: Peanut allergy is a major health burden in the United States. Treatment is limited to avoidance and acute reaction management. No drug or medical product is approved for use as a peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) agent. Objective: To examine peanut allergy diagnosis and treatment, peanut challenge protocols, nonpublished POIT approaches, POIT practice requirements and logistical considerations, and barriers to providing POIT. Methods: Qualitative in-depth telephonic interviews were conducted with 34 allergists and nurse food allergy specialists across the United States between April and June 2016. Interviewed clinicians managed > 100 patients with peanut allergy per year; 50% of the interviewed allergists offered POIT in clinical studies or used self-developed approaches. Results: The physicians consistently reported conducting food challenges in 5-10% of patients to confirm a peanut allergy diagnosis. The allergists who offered POIT described using a variety of approaches. Areas of divergence included patient selection (ages, 4-7 years), peanut material (crushed peanuts, peanut flour, peanut protein, peanut butter, peanut extract), starting and ending doses, and updosing intervals (1 to 2 weeks). Generally, POIT administration and observation occupied an examination room for up to 2 hours; some practices reported accommodating 2 to 5 patients who received POIT simultaneously. Among physicians who did not offer POIT, barriers included medicolegal risks and the lack of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapy. Conclusion: Although POIT is currently not supported in treatment guidelines, some allergists have developed experimental POIT approaches to support patient needs. In the absence of a product that has approval by the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA) or other national competent authority, substantial variability in POIT approaches exists. Although logistical factors are not major obstacles to adoption, POIT dose preparation can be perceived as burdensome, and observation requires a dedicated staff. All the physicians interviewed suggested a need for effective, FDA-approved, disease-modifying treatments.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases organized a workshop to develop trial concepts that could improve the use and effectiveness of aeroallergen immunotherapy (AAIT). Expert groups were formed to accomplish the following tasks: (1) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous versus sublingual AAIT; (2) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of AAIT by using 1 or a few allergens versus all or most allergens to which a patient is sensitized; (3) propose a study design to determine whether AAIT can alter the progression of childhood allergic airways disease; and (4) propose a study design to determine the optimal dose and duration of AAIT to achieve maximal effectiveness with acceptable safety. Study designs were presented by the workgroups, extensively discussed at the workshop, and revised for this report. The proposed trials would be of long duration and require large highly characterized patient populations. Scientific caveats and feasibility matters are discussed. These concepts are intended to help the development of clinical trials that can address some of the major questions related to the practice of AAIT for the management and prevention of allergic airways disease.