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.

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.

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.

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.

Environmental assessment and exposure reduction of cockroaches: a practice parameter.

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. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Environmental assessment and remediation: a practice parameter." 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 person, 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. The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

A focused parameter update: hereditary angioedema, acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated angioedema.

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 and Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "A focused parameter update: Hereditary angioedema, acquired C1 inhibitor deficiency, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated angioedema." 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 and Immunology. The Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters 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 the cost of a given test or agent 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 some instances the cost benefit of an intervention is considered relevant, and commentary might be provided. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion. The Joint Task Force 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 Joint Task Force and the Practice Parameters 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 Workgroup 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.

Exercise-induced vocal cord dysfunction and exercise-induced laryngomalacia in children and adolescents: the same clinical syndrome?

BACKGROUND: Exercise-induced respiratory symptoms associated with paradoxical laryngeal motion are relatively common and often mistaken for asthma. Exercise-induced vocal cord dysfunction (VCD) and exercise-induced laryngomalacia (LM) have been described separately in the literature but have never been systematically compared. OBJECTIVE: To compare subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of exercise-induced VCD or exercise-induced LM by performing a retrospective chart review of subjects who had symptoms provoked by a free running exercise challenge and documented concurrent paradoxical laryngeal motion. METHODS: Demographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed in patients with confirmed paradoxical motion of the vocal cords (VCD) and those with paradoxical arytenoid motion without abnormal vocal cord movement (LM) during symptoms. RESULTS: Sixty subjects with exercise-induced LM and 83 subjects with exercise-induced VCD were identified. Subjects with confirmed exercise-induced VCD were slightly older, had a higher body mass index, and higher grade point averages compared with subjects with exercise-induced LM without abnormal vocal cord movement. There were no differences in sex distribution, presenting symptoms, reported aggravating factors other than exercise, atopic status, confirmed bronchospasm during symptoms, mean number of asthma controller medications at time of evaluation, level of athletic competition, reported history of acid reflux, reported history of psychiatric disorders, baseline lung function, or lung function during symptoms. Most subjects were not "elite" athletes and did not have a history of anxiety or depression. CONCLUSION: There were remarkably few differences between subjects with exercise-induced VCD and those with exercise-induced LM. Prospective controlled studies are needed to determine whether exercise-induced VCD and exercise-induced LM are in fact distinct syndromes.