Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE: We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS: We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION: We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Effects of combination treatment with tezepelumab and allergen immunotherapy on nasal responses to allergen: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) has been shown to play a central role in the initiation and persistence of allergic responses. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether tezepelumab, a human monoclonal anti-TSLP antibody, improved the efficacy of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and promoted the development of tolerance in patients with allergic rhinitis. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind parallel design trial in patients with cat allergy. A total of 121 patients were randomized to receive either intravenous tezepelumab plus subcutaneous cat SCIT, cat SCIT alone, tezepelumab alone, or placebo for 52 weeks, followed by 52 weeks of observation. Nasal allergen challenge (NAC), skin testing, and blood and nasal samples were obtained throughout the study. RESULTS: At week 52, the NAC-induced total nasal symptom scores (TNSS) (calculated as area under the curve [AUC0-1h] and as peak score [Peak0-1h] during the first hour after NAC) were significantly reduced in patients receiving tezepelumab/SCIT compared to SCIT alone. At week 104, one year after stopping treatment, the primary end point TNSS AUC0-1h was not significantly different in the tezepelumab/SCIT group compared to SCIT alone, while TNSS Peak0-1h was significantly lower in those receiving combination treatment versus SCIT. Transcriptomic analysis of nasal epithelial samples demonstrated that treatment with the combination of SCIT/tezepelumab, but neither monotherapy, caused persistent downregulation of a gene network related to type 2 inflammation that was associated with improvement in NAC responses. CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of TSLP augments the efficacy of SCIT during therapy and may promote tolerance after a 1-year course of treatment. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02237196).

Real-world experience of pediatric patients treated with peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp.

BACKGROUND: Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) is the first oral immunotherapy indicated for children aged 4 to 17 years with peanut allergy. There are limited real-world data on patients treated with PTAH. OBJECTIVE: To characterize pediatric patients treated with PTAH and associated treatment patterns in US clinical practice. METHODS: US-based physicians with allergy and immunology training treating patients with peanut allergy aged 4 to 17 years with PTAH were recruited from an existing physician panel and completed an online case report form (October to December 2021) with data abstracted from patient medical charts. Physician practice circumstances, patient characteristics, and PTAH treatment patterns were reported. Time to reach the 300-mg dose and treatment persistence were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A geographically balanced sample of 43 physicians contributed data for 118 demographically diverse pediatric patients. Patients had heterogeneous diagnostic test results, with a wide range of peanut-specific immunoglobulin E levels; 6.8% received an oral food challenge. During the updosing phase, there were no temporary interruptions and 5.1% of the patients required downdosing. Patients reached the 300-mg dose at a median of 21.3 weeks post-initiation. The rate of PTAH persistence at 24 weeks was 93.4%. Only 1 patient discontinued treatment because of treatment-related systemic allergic symptoms, and the remaining discontinuations were for reasons other than treatment-related symptoms. Prophylactic antihistamines were used by 33.9% of the patients to prevent PTAH adverse effects. CONCLUSION: PTAH was prescribed in demographically diverse patients with a wide range of peanut-specific immunoglobulin E levels. Treatment persistence with PTAH was high in this study population, with a small number of patients experiencing treatment modification.

Participant characteristics and safety outcomes of peanut oral immunotherapy in the RAMSES and ARC011 trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials (PALISADE [ARC003], ARTEMIS [ARC010]) proving efficacy and safety of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) have used double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) to screen for eligibility and to evaluate efficacy. In routine clinical practice, individuals with peanut allergy do not always undergo food challenges to confirm diagnosis or determine candidacy for treatment. OBJECTIVE: To describe PTAH safety and tolerability in participants selected by clinical history and peanut sensitization parameters not undergoing DBPCFCs during trials and to compare findings with previously published data. METHODS: RAMSES (ARC007) was a 6-month, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in children aged 4 to 17 years with physician-confirmed peanut allergy. ARC011 was the subsequent 6-month follow-on maintenance PTAH study. The primary end point for RAMSES and ARC011 was the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). We descriptively compared baseline characteristics and safety outcomes from RAMSES and ARC011 to participants undergoing DBPCFCs in phase 3 PALISADE and ARTEMIS trials. RESULTS: In 506 patients randomized to study treatment, baseline characteristics appeared balanced among groups. Proportion of participants with at least 1 AE was 55% for PTAH vs 33.9% for placebo during initial dose escalation and 98.8% vs 94.0% during updosing, respectively. Most participants with AEs had mild or moderate events. The most common AEs were gastrointestinal. Comparisons to pooled PALISADE and ARTEMIS data revealed higher baseline median peanut-specific immunoglobulin E and skin prick test values for RAMSES participants. Safety outcomes during trial periods were comparable. CONCLUSION: Safety data from clinically selected children with peanut allergy receiving PTAH do not seem different from those in phase 3 trials requiring DBPCFC to enter trials.

AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy.

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; P<0.001). During the exit food challenge, the maximum severity of symptoms was moderate in 25% of the participants in the active-drug group and 59% of those in the placebo group and severe in 5% and 11%, respectively. Adverse events during the intervention period affected more than 95% of the participants 4 to 17 years of age. A total of 34.7% of the participants in the active-drug group had mild events, as compared with 50.0% of those in the placebo group; 59.7% and 44.4% of the participants, respectively, had events that were graded as moderate, and 4.3% and 0.8%, respectively, had events that were graded as severe. Efficacy was not shown in the participants 18 years of age or older. CONCLUSIONS: 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 .).

The global burden of illness of peanut allergy: A comprehensive literature review.

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.

Health-care resource utilization associated with peanut allergy management under allergen avoidance among commercially insured individuals.

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.

Mind the gaps: Clinical trial concepts to address unanswered questions in aeroallergen immunotherapy-An NIAID/AHRQ Workshop.

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.

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.

Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction update-2016.

The first practice parameter on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) was published in 2010. This updated practice parameter was prepared 5 years later. In the ensuing years, there has been increased understanding of the pathogenesis of EIB and improved diagnosis of this disorder by using objective testing. At the time of this publication, observations included the following: dry powder mannitol for inhalation as a bronchial provocation test is FDA approved however not currently available in the United States; if baseline pulmonary function test results are normal to near normal (before and after bronchodilator) in a person with suspected EIB, then further testing should be performed by using standardized exercise challenge or eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH); and the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical interventions (omega-3 fatty acids) has been challenged. The workgroup preparing this practice parameter updated contemporary practice guidelines based on a current systematic literature review. The group obtained supplementary literature and consensus expert opinions when the published literature was insufficient. A search of the medical literature on PubMed was conducted, and search terms included pathogenesis, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and therapy (both pharmaceutical and nonpharmaceutical) of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction or exercise-induced asthma (which is no longer a preferred term); asthma; and exercise and asthma. References assessed as relevant to the topic were evaluated to search for additional relevant references. Published clinical studies were appraised by category of evidence and used to document the strength of the recommendation. The parameter was then evaluated by Joint Task Force reviewers and then by reviewers assigned by the parent organizations, as well as the general membership. Based on this process, the parameter can be characterized as an evidence- and consensus-based document.

Effect of Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Exposure Among Patients With Peanut Sensitivity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Epicutaneous immunotherapy may have potential for treating peanut allergy but has been assessed only in preclinical and early human trials. Objective: To determine the optimal dose, adverse events (AEs), and efficacy of a peanut patch for peanut allergy treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of a peanut patch in peanut-allergic patients (6-55 years) from 22 centers, with a 2-year, open-label extension (July 31, 2012-July 31, 2014; extension completed September 29, 2016). Patients (n = 221) had peanut sensitivity and positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein. Interventions: Randomly assigned patients (1:1:1:1) received an epicutaneous peanut patch containing 50 µg (n = 53), 100 µg (n = 56), or 250 µg (n = 56) of peanut protein or a placebo patch (n = 56). Following daily patch application for 12 months, patients underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge to establish changes in eliciting dose. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was percentage of treatment responders (eliciting dose: ≥10-times increase and/or reaching ≥1000 mg of peanut protein) in each group vs placebo patch after 12 months. Secondary end points included percentage of responders by age strata and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Of 221 patients randomized (median age, 11 years [quartile 1, quartile 3: 8, 16]; 37.6% female), 93.7% completed the trial. A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at month 12 between the 250-µg (n = 28; 50.0%) and placebo (n = 14; 25.0%) patches (difference, 25.0%; 95% CI, 7.7%-42.3%; P = .01). No significant difference was seen between the placebo patch vs the 100-µg patch. Because of statistical testing hierarchical rules, the 50-µg patch was not compared with placebo. Interaction by age group was only significant for the 250-µg patch (P = .04). In the 6- to 11-year stratum, the response rate difference between the 250-µg (n = 15; 53.6%) and placebo (n = 6; 19.4%) patches was 34.2% (95% CI, 11.1%-57.3%; P = .008); adolescents/adults showed no difference between the 250-µg (n = 13; 46.4%) and placebo (n = 8; 32.0%) patches: 14.4% (95% CI, -11.6% to 40.4%; P = .40). No dose-related serious AEs were observed. The percentage of patients with 1 or more TEAEs (largely local skin reactions) was similar across all groups in year 1: 50-µg patch = 100%, 100-µg patch = 98.2%, 250-µg patch = 100%, and placebo patch = 92.9%. The overall median adherence was 97.6% after 1 year; the dropout rate for treatment-related AEs was 0.9%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this dose-ranging trial of peanut-allergic patients, the 250-µg peanut patch resulted in significant treatment response vs placebo patch following 12 months of therapy. These findings warrant a phase 3 trial. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01675882.

Functional Outcomes after Behavioral Treatment of Paradoxical Vocal Fold Motion in Adults.

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.

Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency.

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) and the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing the "Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

Validation of an ICD-9-based claims algorithm for identifying patients with chronic idiopathic/spontaneous urticaria.

BACKGROUND: There is no specific International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code for chronic idiopathic urticaria or spontaneous urticaria (CIU/CSU), a skin condition characterized by hives and angioedema lasting at least 6 weeks with no known cause. OBJECTIVE: To validate an ICD-9-CM-based algorithm for identification of patients with CIU/CSU and thus facilitate claims-based research. METHODS: Patient records were reviewed at 4 US practices. Patients included in the study were from a random sample of those identified by their physician as having CIU/CSU or because they met the following diagnosis-based algorithm: (1) at least 2 outpatient ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes 708.1, 708.8, or 708.9 at least 6 weeks apart or (2) 1 outpatient diagnosis of 708.1, 708.8, or 708.9 and 1 diagnosis of 995.1 at least 6 weeks apart. Data collected included ICD-9-CM codes, diagnoses of urticaria and allergy-related conditions, and medication use. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were calculated. The study was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: One hundred forty-nine patient records were reviewed (mean age 41.1 years; 73.8% were women; 69.1% were white): 115 were identified with the diagnosis-based algorithm, 90 were patients with "known CIU/CSU", and 56 were in the 2 groups. The mean duration of CIU/CSU was 2.9 to 3.1 years. The 2 cohorts most frequently had diagnoses of idiopathic urticaria, unspecified urticaria, and other specified urticaria. The diagnosis-based algorithm had a positive predictive value of 90.4% and a sensitivity of 71.1%. CONCLUSION: The high positive predictive value suggests that patients identified using the algorithm are highly likely to have CIU/CSU. The 71.1% sensitivity suggests that most patients with CIU/CSU will be identified. The validation statistics support the use of the diagnosis-based algorithm in claims-based research, although future studies could refine the algorithm further.

The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update.

These parameters were developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters (JTFPP), representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "The diagnosis and management of acute and chronic urticaria: 2014 update." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing environment, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the JTFPP, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The JTFPP understands that the cost of diagnostic tests and therapeutic agents is an important concern that might appropriately influence the work-up and treatment chosen for a given patient. The JTFPP recognizes that the emphasis of our primary recommendations regarding a medication might vary, for example, depending on third-party payer issues and product patent expiration dates. However, because a given test or agent's cost is so widely variable and there is a paucity of pharmacoeconomic data, the JTFPP generally does not consider cost when formulating practice parameter recommendations. In extraordinary circumstances, when the cost/benefit ratio of an intervention is prohibitive, as supported by pharmacoeconomic data, commentary might be provided. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The JTFPP is committed to ensuring that the practice parameters are based on the best scientific evidence that is free of commercial bias. To this end, the parameter development process includes multiple layers of rigorous review. These layers include the workgroup convened to draft the parameter, the task force reviewers, and peer review by members of each sponsoring society. Although the task force has the final responsibility for the content of the documents submitted for publication, each reviewer comment will be discussed, and reviewers will receive written responses to comments, when appropriate. To preserve the greatest transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest, all members of the JTFPP and the practice parameter workgroups will complete a standard potential conflict of interest disclosure form, which will be available for external review by the sponsoring organization and any other interested individual. In addition, before confirming the selection of a Work Group chairperson, the Joint Task Force will discuss and resolve all relevant potential conflicts of interest associated with this selection. Finally, all members of parameter workgroups will be provided a written statement regarding the importance of ensuring that the parameter development process is free of commercial bias. Practice parameters are available online at www.jcaai.org and www.allergyparameters.org.

Food allergy: a practice parameter update-2014.

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (JCAAI). The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Food Allergy: A practice parameter update-2014." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing one, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, ACAAI, and JCAAI. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.