Real-world effectiveness of dupilumab in patients with asthma: Findings from the US ADVANTAGE study.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is approved as an add-on maintenance therapy for patients (≥6 years) with moderate-to-severe asthma. Better understanding of real-world effectiveness is needed. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the real-world effectiveness of dupilumab in asthma management. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients (≥12 years of age) diagnosed with asthma, initiating dupilumab between November 2018 and September 2020. The study used a US electronic medical record database (TriNetX Dataworks, Cambridge, Massachusetts). Asthma exacerbation rates before and after the initiation of dupilumab were analyzed using generalized estimating equations models with Poisson probabilistic link to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on previous exacerbation data, eosinophil levels, history of atopic dermatitis or chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, previous use of biologics, and presence of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). RESULTS: A total of 2400 patients initiating dupilumab met all study criteria. After initiation of dupilumab, risk of asthma exacerbation was reduced by 44% (IRR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47-0.57; P = <0.0001) and systemic corticosteroid prescriptions by 48% (IRR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.48, 0.56; P = <0.0001) compared with those before initiation of dupilumab. Adjustment for COVID-19 showed a greater reduction in asthma exacerbations (IRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.45-0.55; P = <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Current real-world efficacy evidence indicates that dupilumab reduces asthma exacerbations and total systemic corticosteroid prescriptions in clinical practice. The effectiveness of dupilumab was observed independent of exacerbation history, eosinophil levels, or COVID-19 impact.

Real-world effectiveness of dupilumab versus benralizumab and mepolizumab.

Introduction: In the United States, this real-world study compared the effectiveness of dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in reducing exacerbations and systemic corticosteroid (SCS) prescriptions among patients with asthma. Methods: Patients (≥12 years old) who initiated dupilumab, benralizumab, or mepolizumab (index) between November 2018 and September 2020 were identified by using electronic medical record data. Subjects were included if they had ≥ 12 months of data before and after the index date and two or more severe asthma-related exacerbations before the index date. Differences in baseline characteristics were addressed by using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). Pairwise comparisons between dupilumab and benralizumab, or mepolizumab were conducted by using negative binomial regression, adjusting for baseline rates and unbalance characteristics (≥10% standardized differences) after IPTW. Results: Overall, a total of 1737 subjects met all criteria: 825 dupilumab, 461 benralizumab, and 451 mepolizumab initiators. In the postindex period, dupilumab was associated with a 24% and 28% significant reduction in the risk of severe asthma exacerbations versus benralizumab (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.67-0.86)] and mepolizumab (IRR 0.72 [95% CI, 0.63-0.82]), respectively. In addition, dupilumab treatment significantly reduced SCS prescriptions by 16% and 25% versus benralizumab and mepolizumab, respectively (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study represents one of the largest real-world comparisons of biologics (dupilumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for asthma in the United States to date. This analysis shows that the use of dupilumab was associated with a significantly greater reduction in both severe asthma exacerbations and SCS prescriptions compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab.

How to diagnose IgE-mediated food allergy.

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy is an immune response, typically to a food protein. Accurate diagnosis reduces unnecessary dietary restrictions and economic and psychological burden on patients and caregivers but relies on a rigorous clinical history, specific IgE diagnostic tests and, where needed, oral food challenge. Increased awareness is needed around which patients to test for IgE-mediated food allergy, as well as terms commonly associated with IgE-mediated food allergy testing, in order to optimise patient diagnosis and management. Herein, we describe approaches to diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy, appropriate interpretation of results and risks of overtesting.

Innovations in the treatment of anaphylaxis: A review of recent data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current standard of first-line emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is intramuscular (IM) epinephrine, mostly administered through epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) in the outpatient setting. However, undercarriage and underuse of EAIs are common, and delayed epinephrine use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals have expressed a strong desire for small, needle-free devices and products that would offer improved carriage, ease of use, and more convenient, less invasive routes of epinephrine administration. Novel mechanisms of epinephrine administration are under investigation to help address several recognized EAI limitations. This review explores innovative nasal and oral products under investigation for the outpatient emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. FINDINGS: Human studies of epinephrine administered through nasal epinephrine spray, a nasal powder spray, and a sublingual film have been conducted. Data from these studies indicate promising pharmacokinetic results comparable to those of the standard of outpatient emergency care (0.3-mg EAI) and syringe and needle IM epinephrine administration. Several products have shown maximum plasma concentration values higher than those of the 0.3-mg EAI and manual IM injection, although it remains unclear whether this has clinical relevancy in patient outcomes. Generally, these modalities show comparable time to maximum concentrations. Pharmacodynamic changes observed with these products are comparable to or more robust than those seen with EAI and manual IM injection. SUMMARY: Given comparable or superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results and safety of innovative epinephrine therapies to those of current standards of care, US Food and Drug Administration approval of these products may help address numerous barriers that EAIs present. The ease of use and carriage and favorable safety profiles of needle-free treatments may make them an attractive alternative to patients and caregivers, potentially addressing injection fears, needle-based safety risks, and other reasons for lack of or delayed use.

Proposed solutions by the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and advocacy experts to address racial disparities in atopic dermatitis and food allergy.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) and food allergies are more prevalent and more severe in people with skin of color than White individuals. The American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) sought to understand the effects of racial disparities among patients with skin of color with AD and food allergies. The ACAAI surveyed its members (N = 200 completed), conducted interviews with health care providers and advocacy leaders, and hosted a roundtable to explore the challenges of diagnosis and management of AD and food allergies in people with skin of color and to discuss potential solutions. Most of the survey respondents (68%) agreed that racial disparities make it difficult for people with skin of color to receive adequate treatment for AD and food allergies. The interviews and roundtable identified access to care, burden of costs, policies and infrastructure that limit access to safe foods and patient education, and inadequate research involving people with skin of color as obstacles to care. Proposed solutions included identifying ways to recruit more people with skin of color into clinical trials and medical school, educating health care providers about diagnosis and treating AD and food allergy in people with skin of color, improving access to safe foods, creating and disseminating culturally appropriate materials for patients, and working toward longer appointment times for patients who need them. Challenges in AD and food allergy in persons with skin of color were identified by the ACAAI members. Solutions to these challenges were proposed to inspire actions to mitigate racial disparities in AD and food allergy.

Demographic, clinical, and patient-reported outcome data from 2 global, phase 3 trials of chronic cough.

BACKGROUND: The current characterization of patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC and UCC, respectively) primarily stems from relatively small clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To report the baseline medical history and clinical characteristics of individuals with RCC or UCC who were enrolled in COUGH-1 and COUGH-2, 2 large, global, phase 3 trials of gefapixant, a P2 × 3-receptor antagonist. METHODS: Adults with a chronic cough lasting for more than 1 year, diagnosis of RCC or UCC, and score greater than 40 mm on a 100-mm cough severity visual analog scale at both screening and baseline were eligible for enrollment. Demographics, medical history, and cough characteristics were collected at baseline. Cough-related measures included objective cough frequency, cough severity visual analog scale, Leicester Cough Questionnaire, and Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire. The data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 2044 participants, 75% were women; mean age was 58 years, and mean cough duration was approximately 11 years. Among all participants, 73% were previously diagnosed with asthma, gastroesophageal reflux disease, or upper airway cough syndrome. The mean Leicester Cough Questionnaire total score was 10.4, with domain scores reflecting impaired cough-specific quality of life across physical, psychological, and social domains. The mean Hull Airway Reflux Questionnaire score was 39.6, with some of the most burdensome reported items being consistent with features of cough-reflex hypersensitivity. Participant characteristics and cough burden were comparable across geographic regions. CONCLUSION: Participants with RCC or UCC had characteristics consistent with published demographics associated with chronic cough. These data reflect a global population with burdensome cough of long duration and substantial impairment to quality of life. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: COUGH-1, NCT03449134 (https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT03449134); COUGH-2, NCT03449147 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03449147).

Determining the minimal important differences in the RQLQ score with grass and tree allergy immunotherapy versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe allergy.

BACKGROUND: Pollen from grasses and trees can trigger allergic rhinitis (AR), where the symptoms and associated consequences can negatively affect quality of life (QoL). The Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) is frequently used in clinical trials of AR to assess QoL. To help interpret RQLQ data, the minimal important difference (MID) can be used to assess whether a mean difference in QoL between treatment groups is clinically meaningful. In seasonal allergy, an MID differs according to the allergen, pollen exposure, symptom severity, patient age and treatment; the same MID cannot be applied to all scenarios. METHODS: Using data from four Phase III clinical trials of SQ sublingual immunotherapy-tablets in adults with moderate-to-severe allergy, between-group MIDs were derived for the RQLQ in grass pollen allergy (during the peak [n = 501] and entire [n = 514] pollen seasons), and in tree pollen allergy (during the birch [n = 516] and tree [n = 518] pollen seasons), using anchor-based methodology, supported by distribution-based methods. RESULTS: For grass pollen allergy, anchor-based derived between-group MIDs were 0.22 for the entire pollen season (n = 343) and 0.10 for the peak pollen season (n = 335). For tree pollen allergy, anchor-based derived between-group MIDs were 0.26 for the tree pollen season (n = 306) and 0.16 for the birch pollen season (n = 305) (representative of peak season). Distribution-based derived MIDs were supportive of the anchor-based values. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis has derived between-group MIDs specific to the trial populations evaluated and to the conditions under which the data were obtained, and highlights the need for a range of MIDs to reflect the unique nature of seasonal allergic disease.

Pediatric sublingual allergen immunotherapy.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) offers an important therapeutic modality in the management of children with respiratory allergies. Along with subcutaneous immunotherapy, these modalities are the only selections that have shown not merely relief of symptoms but also disease-modifying activity. SLIT can be given as either a dissolvable tablet (SLIT-T) or liquid drops (SLIT-D). In studies that examined the efficacy and safety in allergic rhinitis and asthma, SLIT-T and SLIT-D both show efficacy in reducing symptoms and the need for medication, although it seems that SLIT-T may show a better response. Almost all SLIT-D efficacy studies are with single allergens. There are virtually no data on the efficacy of mixing unrelated allergens in the same prescription. Both SLIT-T and SLIT-D treatments are safe, with the most common adverse effects being local ones, such as oral pruritus and mouth irritation, which tend to be mild and short lived. Studies that assess the role of SLIT in the prevention of new sensitizations and asthma in the pediatric population are insufficient and of mixed results; therefore, no conclusions can be made. In the treatment of other pediatric conditions, such as food allergy and atopic dermatitis, there are few studies that assessed if, and the degree of, the benefit with SLIT. In determining if SLIT should be prescribed for the pediatric patient, there is a need for shared decision-making to allow the older child and parents or caregivers to understand the pros and cons, and the costs of all the options and relate their values and preferences to the physician.

Review of efficacy of ciclesonide for the treatment of asthma in children.

Background: Ciclesonide (CIC) is an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) approved for the maintenance treatment of asthma in patients ages ≥ 12 years. The prodrug aspect of CIC is associated with a safety profile that may make it ideal for children. Objective: The objective was to summarize efficacy results from the eight phase III, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials in children with asthma conducted during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four trials compared CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo. Two trials compared CIC 160 µg/day with fluticasone propionate 200 µg/day, one trial compared CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with fluticasone 200 µg/day, and one trial compared CIC 160 µg/day with budesonide 400 µg/day. Results: The primary end point was met by at least two CIC doses versus placebo in the trials in which the primary end point was the change from baseline in lung function outcome (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] % predicted or morning peak expiratory flow [PEF]). A trial that compared CIC with placebo did not meet the primary end point of superiority in time-to-first severe wheeze exacerbation or lack of improvement. The primary end point of noninferiority to the active control (fluticasone or budesonide) in the change from baseline in a lung function outcome (FEV1, morning PEF, evening PEF) was met with the CIC 160-µg dose in all active control trials. CIC generally demonstrated statistically significant improvements in forced expiratory flow at 25%-75% of forced vital capacity, asthma symptoms, rescue medication use, and asthma control when compared with placebo and noninferiority for these outcomes compared with fluticasone or budesonide. Conclusion: In children with asthma, once-daily CIC significantly improved large and small airway function, asthma symptoms, and asthma control, and reduced rescue medication use compared with placebo. CIC was comparable with other ICS used to treat asthma in children, which demonstrated its worth for the pediatric population.

Safety of ciclesonide in children with asthma: A review of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Parental concerns about the adverse effects of asthma medications can lead to nonadherence and uncontrolled asthma in children. Ciclesonide (CIC) is a prodrug, with low oropharyngeal deposition and bioavailability that may minimize the risk of local and systemic adverse effects. CIC is U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved for asthma in children ages ≥ 12 years. Objective: To summarize safety results from the 13 phase II or III randomized controlled trials conducted in children with asthma during CIC clinical development. Methods: Four 12- to 24-week trials compared the safety of once-daily CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo; four 12-week trials compared the safety of CIC 80 or 160 µg/day with either fluticasone or budesonide; one 12-month trial compared the long-term safety of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with fluticasone; one 12-month trial compared growth velocity of CIC 40 or 160 µg/day with placebo; and three cross-over trials compared short-term growth velocity and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis effects of CIC 40, 80, or 160 µg/day with placebo or fluticasone. Results: In all, 4399 children were treated with CIC. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) was similar among the CIC doses and between CIC and placebo in short-term studies and between CIC and fluticasone in the long-term safety study. No CIC-related serious AEs were reported in any study. The incidence of treatment-related oral candidiasis was low and similar between CIC (≤0.5%) and placebo (≤0.7%) or active controls (≤0.5%) in the short-term studies. There was no clinically relevant HPA axis suppression or reduction in growth velocity associated with CIC. Conclusion: Data from 13 studies demonstrate that CIC is associated with low rates of oropharyngeal AEs, with no indication of clinically relevant systemic effects in children with asthma. The favorable safety profile and demonstrated improvements in asthma control make CIC an ideal inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma in children.

Allergy to oak pollen in North America.

Background: Oak pollen is an important allergen in North America. The genus Quercus (oak) belongs to the family Fagaceae under the order Fagales. Objective: The objective of this article was to narratively review the oak pollen season, clinical and epidemiologic aspects of allergy to oak pollen, oak taxonomy, and oak allergen cross-reactivity, with a focus on the North American perspective. Methods: A PubMed literature review (no limits) was conducted. Publications related to oak pollen, oak-related allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, and oak-related allergic asthma were selected for review. Results: Oak species are common throughout the United States and contribute up to 50% to overall atmospheric pollen loads. Mean peak oak pollen counts can reach >2000 grains/m³. The start of the oak pollen season generally corresponds to the seasonal shift from winter to spring based on latitude and elevation, and may begin as early as mid February. The duration of the season can last > 100 days and, in general, is longer at lower latitudes. In the United States, ∼30% of individuals with allergy are sensitized to oak. The oak pollen season correlates with increased allergic rhinitis symptom-relieving medication use and asthma-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Oak falls within the birch homologous group. Extensive immunologic cross-reactivity has been demonstrated between oak pollen and birch pollen allergens, and, more specifically, their major allergens Que a 1 and Bet v 1. The cross-reactivity between oak and birch has implications for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) because guidelines suggest selecting one representative allergen within a homologous group for AIT, a principle that would apply to oak. Conclusion: Allergy to oak pollen is common in North America and has a substantial clinical impact. Oak pollen allergens are cross-reactive with birch pollen allergens, which may have implications for AIT.

Efficacy and safety of crisaborole in patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis and other atopic comorbidities.

Background: Crisaborole is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis (AD); however, the efficacy and safety of crisaborole in patients with AD and other atopic comorbidities have not been investigated. Objective: This post hoc pooled analysis of the pivotal phase III studies (CrisADe CORE 1 and CORE 2) assessed the efficacy and safety of crisaborole versus vehicle in patients aged ≥ 2 years with mild-to-moderate AD and other atopic comorbidities. Methods: Patients with mild-to-moderate AD and a medical history of asthma, allergic rhinitis, or food allergies were identified. Efficacy assessments included the proportion of patients who achieved Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) success at day 29, ISGA clear or almost clear at day 29, and improvement in the Severity of Pruritus Scale score at week 4. Safety was assessed via treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: This analysis included 1522 patients (crisaborole, 1016; vehicle, 506); 26.2, 15.9, and 16.5% had a medical history of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and food allergies, respectively. The mean age was 12.2 years. A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with crisaborole achieved ISGA success at day 29 compared with patients treated with vehicle for most subgroups analyzed. Furthermore, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with crisaborole achieved ISGA clear or almost clear at day 29 across all subgroups and demonstrated improvement in the Severity of Pruritus Scale score at week 4 versus patients treated with vehicle in most of the subgroups. Overall, most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity; the most common treatment-related TEAE in patients with atopic comorbidities was application-site pain (crisaborole, 5.1%; vehicle, 1.7%). Conclusion: Crisaborole was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate AD and other atopic comorbidities, which suggested that crisaborole should be considered for the management of AD in this population. Clinical Trials NCT02118766 (CrisADe CORE 1) and NCT02118792 (CrisADe CORE 2), www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Consensus report from the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) 2019 Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy Summit.

Food allergy is a major health problem affecting 5% to 10% of the population in developed nations, including an estimated 32 million Americans. Despite the large number of patients suffering from food allergies, up until the end of January 2020, no treatment for food allergies had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The only options were avoidance of food allergen triggers and acute management of allergic reactions. A considerable body of data exists supporting oral immunotherapy (OIT) as a promising, novel treatment option, including that for the now Food and Drug Administration-approved peanut OIT product Palforzia (Aimmune Therapeutics, Brisbane, Calif). However, data for long-term quality-of-life improvement with OIT varies, depending on the measures used for analysis. Like many therapies, OIT is not without potential harms, and burdens, and the evaluation of patient-specific risk-benefit ratio of food OIT produces challenges for clinicians and patients alike, with many unanswered questions. Food Allergy Research & Education organized the Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy Summit on November 6, 2019, modeled after the PRACTALL sessions between the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology to address these critical issues. Health care providers, patient representatives, researchers, regulators, and food allergy advocates came together to discuss OIT and identify areas of common ground as well as gaps in existing research and areas of uncertainty and disagreement. The purpose of this article was to summarize that discussion and facilitate collaboration among clinicians and patients to help them make better-informed decisions about offering and accepting OIT, respectively, as a therapeutic option.

The role of mobile health technologies in allergy care: An EAACI position paper.

Mobile health (mHealth) uses mobile communication devices such as smartphones and tablet computers to support and improve health-related services, data and information flow, patient self-management, surveillance, and disease management from the moment of first diagnosis to an optimized treatment. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology created a task force to assess the state of the art and future potential of mHealth in allergology. The task force endorsed the "Be He@lthy, Be Mobile" WHO initiative and debated the quality, usability, efficiency, advantages, limitations, and risks of mobile solutions for allergic diseases. The results are summarized in this position paper, analyzing also the regulatory background with regard to the "General Data Protection Regulation" and Medical Directives of the European Community. The task force assessed the design, user engagement, content, potential of inducing behavioral change, credibility/accountability, and privacy policies of mHealth products. The perspectives of healthcare professionals and allergic patients are discussed, underlining the need of thorough investigation for an effective design of mHealth technologies as auxiliary tools to improve quality of care. Within the context of precision medicine, these could facilitate the change in perspective from clinician- to patient-centered care. The current and future potential of mHealth is then examined for specific areas of allergology, including allergic rhinitis, aerobiology, allergen immunotherapy, asthma, dermatological diseases, food allergies, anaphylaxis, insect venom, and drug allergy. The impact of mobile technologies and associated big data sets are outlined. Facts and recommendations for future mHealth initiatives within EAACI are listed.

Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: What Are the Important Therapeutic and Real-World Considerations?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Allergen immunotherapy has been used for over 100 years in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. With two major options for administering this disease-modifying therapy, SCIT, and SLIT, what is our current understanding of the efficacy and safety of each one? How do we determine who is the appropriate candidate for each one in the real world? RECENT FINDINGS: SCIT and SLIT show significant improvement in clinical symptoms and need for medication in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In recent meta-analyses, there is no significant difference in the efficacy between the two treatments, but SLIT has more local side effects though less systemic ones. Shared decision-making should be instituted to determine which treatment should be started in a patient with allergic rhinitis. This review provides up-to-date information on the efficacy and safety of SCIT vs SLIT in the care of children and adults with allergic rhinitis in the real world and the role of shared decision-making in the use of these modalities. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04145219 and NCT02478398.

Monoclonal Antibody Therapy in Childhood Asthma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There has been an explosion of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of severe uncontrolled adult asthma. Studies have now been published in severe pediatric asthma. There are numerous questions that need to be answered in determining whether these modalities are appropriate and safe in children. RECENT FINDINGS: This is a narrative review examining the latest pediatric literature on monoclonal antibodies, both approved and in the pipeline, for uncontrolled asthma. Presently, all of the biologics are positioned to treat patients with underlying type 2 high disease. Two monoclonal antibodies are approved for children 6 years of age and older, omalizumab and mepolizumab, with more likely approved in the near future. The effect of these agents in controlling severe pediatric asthma is promising. Data is limited to long-term efficacy and safety, and whether any agent has an effect on the natural history of asthma.

Intravenous Cetirizine Versus Intravenous Diphenhydramine for the Treatment of Acute Urticaria: A Phase III Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Acute urticaria is a frequent presentation in emergency departments (EDs), urgent care centers, and other clinical arenas. Treatment options are limited if diphenhydramine is the only intravenous antihistamine offered because of its short duration of action and well-known adverse effects. We evaluate cetirizine injection, the first second-generation injectable antihistamine, for acute urticaria in this multicenter, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 clinical trial. METHODS: Adult patients presenting to EDs and urgent care centers with acute urticaria requiring an intravenous antihistamine were randomized to either intravenous cetirizine 10 mg or intravenous diphenhydramine 50 mg. The primary endpoint was the 2-hour pruritus score change from baseline, with time spent in treatment center and rate of return to treatment centers as key secondary endpoints. Frequency of sedation and anticholinergic adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: Among 262 enrolled patients, the 2-hour pruritus score change from baseline for intravenous cetirizine was statistically noninferior to that for intravenous diphenhydramine (-1.6 versus -1.5; 95% confidence interval -0.1 to 0.3), and in favor of cetirizine. Treatment differences also favored cetirizine for mean time spent in treatment center (1.7 versus 2.1 hours; P=.005), return to treatment center (5.5% versus 14.1%; P=.02), lower change from baseline sedation score at 2 hours (0.1 versus 0.5; P=.03), and adverse event rate (3.9% versus 13.3%). CONCLUSION: Intravenous cetirizine is an effective alternative to intravenous diphenhydramine for treating acute urticaria, with benefits of less sedation, fewer adverse events, shorter time spent in treatment center, and lower rates of revisit to treatment center.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps management in the age of biologics.

Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis is one of the most common medical conditions seen in the U.S. population. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) in adults has predominately a type 2 inflammatory endotype that usually is treated with medical management that consists of inhaled corticosteroids, saline solution irrigation, oral corticosteroid bursts, and, at times, leukotriene antagonists and antibiotics. If medical management fails, then surgical intervention is usually recommended. Various biologics that target type 2 inflammation are now available, which have been or will be approved for use in these patients. Objective: To determine where biologics that affect the type 2 pathway fit into the algorithm of treatment for CRSwNP. Methods: A review of the literature on standard-of-care measures and surgical interventions in CRSwNP and an analysis of recent studies on the efficacy and safety of biologics in this condition. Results: Standard of care with medication and surgical interventions fail in some patients with CRSwNP. Biologics that affect the type 2 inflammatory pathway led to a decrease in nasal polyp size, improved nasal congestion, and improved quality of life both in patients who had surgery and those who had not had surgery for CRSwNP. Also, they showed efficacy and safety in patients whether or not they had comorbid asthma. These agents do not cure the patient with CRSwNP, and will be required chronically for control. Conclusion: Shared decision-making should be used in determining the use of certain medications, surgical management, and biologics in patients with CRSwNP. In patients for whom surgery has already failed and in patients with moderate-to-severe CRSwNP who have other type 2 comorbidities, e.g., asthma, a trial of biologics is a rational course.

Shared decision making for the allergist.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more commonly appreciated and used in medical practice as a way to empower patients who are facing treatment preference-sensitive conditions, such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and persistent asthma. The purpose of this review is to educate the allergy health care provider about how SDM works and provide practical advice and allergist-specific SDM resources. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and online patient decision aid resources. STUDY SELECTIONS: Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and patient decision aids relevant to the allergy health care provider were selected for discussion. RESULTS: There are ethical, practical, economic, and psychological imperatives for the implementation of quality SDM, particularly for chronic diseases. Many benefits and barriers of SDM have been identified and models have been developed to encourage implementation of quality SDM. For the allergy health care provider, SDM for asthma has been shown to improve adherence, outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care. Patient decision aids are useful tools for SDM and have recently been developed for allergen immunotherapy, severe asthma, and atopic dermatitis. CONCLUSION: Effective SDM has been shown to improve adherence and lead to better outcomes. SDM should be universally implemented as a key component of patient-centered health care. Allergy health care providers should work with their patients to reach treatment decisions that align with their values and preferences.

Current management and use of oral immunotherapy in the United States for patients with peanut allergy.

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.