Core Outcome Set for IgE-mediated food allergy clinical trials and observational studies of interventions: International Delphi consensus study 'COMFA'.

BACKGROUND: IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) is a global health concern with substantial individual and societal implications. While diverse intervention strategies have been researched, inconsistencies in reported outcomes limit evaluations of FA treatments. To streamline evaluations and promote consistent reporting, the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative aimed to establish a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FA clinical trials and observational studies of interventions. METHODS: The project involved a review of published clinical trials, trial protocols and qualitative literature. Outcomes found as a result of review were categorized and classified, informing a two-round online-modified Delphi process followed by hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the COS. RESULTS: The literature review, taxonomy mapping and iterative discussions with diverse COMFA group yielded an initial list of 39 outcomes. The iterative online and in-person meetings reduced the list to 13 outcomes for voting in the formal Delphi process. One more outcome was added based on participant suggestions after the first Delphi round. A total of 778 participants from 52 countries participated, with 442 participating in both Delphi rounds. No outcome met a priori criteria for inclusion, and one was excluded as a result of the Delphi. Thirteen outcomes were brought to the hybrid consensus meeting as a result of Delphi and two outcomes, 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' achieved consensus for inclusion as 'core' outcomes. CONCLUSION: In addition to the mandatory reporting of adverse events for FA clinical trials or observational studies of interventions, allergic symptoms and quality of life should be measured as core outcomes. Future work by COMFA will define how best to measure these core outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Food and Drug Allergy.

A patient-reported outcome is directly reported by the patient without interpretation of the patient's response by anyone else. It refers to the patient's health (symptoms and feelings), quality of life, or functional status associated with health care or treatment. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are defined as the tools or instruments that are used to measure patient-reported outcomes. Health-related quality of life has been the most studied psychosocial PROM in food allergy, using validated questionnaires. In drug allergy, PROMs are useful in capturing patients' experiences of potential allergic reactions, including subjective symptoms such as headache, dizziness, or fatigue. Patient-reported outcome measures can also help differentiate true allergies from side effects or other nonallergic reactions and inform decisions about drug challenges and de-labeling strategies. Ensuring the chosen tool is validated for the specific allergy context is crucial for accurate data collection. Integrating patient-reported experiences alongside traditional methods can lead to more accurate assessments and personalized care.

Characterization of Reflective Capacity of Anesthesiology Trainees in an Irish Tertiary Referral Teaching Hospital.

Background: Reflective practice is associated with improved accuracy of medical diagnosis and superior performance in complex situations. Systematic observation of trainees' reflective capacities constitutes a basis for an effective support of reflective practice within the training paradigm. We set out to examine the reflective capacity among anesthesiology trainees in a tertiary referral hospital. Methods: We invited 61 anesthesiology trainees in Cork University Hospitals, Ireland, to participate. Each trainee was invited to respond to 2 investigator-written vignettes prepared by the investigators and suitable for evaluation using the Reflection Evaluation for Learners' Enhanced Competencies Tool (REFLECT) and to produce and then respond to a written vignette based on their own experience. All responses were assessed by 2 independent assessors who had undergone training in the application of the REFLECT rubric, which gives quantifiable scores. Interrater reliability was assessed by weighted kappa coefficient. Association between years of training in medicine and level of reflective capacity was examined using correlation and multiple regression analyses, controlling for age. Results: Twenty-nine trainees agreed to participate, the overall REFLECT Level was 2.16 (SD 0.7), corresponding to "thoughtful action," indicating low to moderate reflective ability. Cronbach's alpha for the 5 items of the REFLECT scale was excellent (r = 0.92). Weighted kappa was very satisfactory (k = 0.81). A strong association was demonstrated between years in medicine and scores on REFLECT, controlling for age of participant (F = -2.57, Beta coefficient = -0.30). Respondents with less experience had greater mean REFLECT scores than respondents with more experience (F = 5.5, P = .02; post hoc mean difference = 0.7, P = .03 for ≤32 months vs ≥99 months). There was a significant effect for gender (t = -4.3, P = .001), with women's responses receiving greater REFLECT scores than men's responses (mean difference = 0.67, P = .001). Conclusions: Overall, participants demonstrated low to moderate reflective capacity, as assessed by the REFLECT rubric. Reflective capacity of the anesthesiology trainees appears to decrease as years of medical training progress. However, our respondents were not sampled over time to fully support this conclusion. Further research is needed on the psychometric properties of the REFLECT rubric and the generalizability of our findings.

Children and caregiver proxy quality of life from peanut oral immunotherapy trials.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is significantly and substantially reduced in individuals with peanut allergy due to many factors associated with unanticipated or potentially fatal reactions. Further insight on the impact of peanut oral immunotherapy in managing peanut allergy on HRQoL is needed. The aim of this analysis was to assess effects of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH), a biologic drug for peanut oral immunotherapy, on HRQoL from three phase 3 and two follow-on trials of PTAH. METHODS: HRQoL assessments from participants aged 4-17 in the PALISADE (ARC003), ARC004 (PALISADE follow-on), ARTEMIS (ARC010), RAMSES (ARC007), and ARC011 (RAMSES follow-on) trials were included in this analysis. Responses on the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire (FAQLQ) and Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM) were evaluated by age group and respondent (self or caregiver proxy). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Student t tests. RESULTS: Baseline FAQLQ and FAIM total scores appeared comparable between PTAH- and placebo-treated participants. Self and caregiver proxy-reported total scores on the FAQLQ for PTAH-treated participants generally improved at trial exit versus baseline; FAIM total scores improved throughout all trials. The tendency for improvement in FAQLQ total scores from baseline for PTAH appeared larger in self versus caregiver proxy-reports. Between treatment groups, PTAH was generally favored in the PALISADE and ARTEMIS trials; differences varied in the RAMSES trial based on age and respondent types. CONCLUSIONS: PTAH for the management of peanut allergy in children appeared to have a beneficial effect on HRQoL in trials. Improvements were seen despite rigors of trial participation.

Probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy versus oral immunotherapy and placebo in children with peanut allergy in Australia (PPOIT-003): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy is effective at inducing desensitisation to allergens and induces sustained unresponsiveness (ie, clinical remission) in a subset of patients, but causes frequent reactions. We aimed to investigate whether addition of a probiotic adjuvant improved the efficacy or safety of peanut oral immunotherapy. METHODS: PPOIT-003, a multicentre, randomised, phase 2b trial, was conducted in three tertiary hospitals in Australia (Adelaide [SA], Melbourne [VIC], and Perth [WA]) in children aged 1-10 years, weighing more than 7 kg, with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (cumulative 4950 mg dose of peanut protein) and positive peanut skin prick test (≥3 mm) or peanut-specific IgE (≥0·35 kU/L). Children were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT), placebo probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT), or placebo probiotic and placebo OIT (placebo) for 18 months, and were followed up until 12 months after completion of treatment. Oral immunotherapy consisted of increasing doses of peanut protein (commercially available food-grade 12% defatted peanut flour [50% peanut protein]) until a 2000 mg daily maintenance dose was reached. The probiotic adjuvant was a daily dose of 2 × 1010 colony-forming units of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 53103. Placebo immunotherapy comprised maltodextrin, brown food colouring, and peanut essence, and placebo probiotic was maltodextrin. Dual primary outcomes were 8-week sustained unresponsiveness, defined as no reaction to a cumulative dose of 4950 mg peanut protein at treatment completion and 8 weeks after treatment completion, in the PPOIT versus placebo groups and the PPOIT versus OIT groups, analysed by intention to treat. Safety endpoints were adverse events during the treatment phase, and peanut ingestion and reactions in the 12-month post-treatment period. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 12616000322437. FINDINGS: Between July 4, 2016, and Sept 21, 2020, 201 participants were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 36 (46%) of 79 children in the PPOIT group and 42 (51%) of 83 children in the OIT group achieved sustained unresponsiveness compared with two (5%) of 39 children in the placebo group (risk difference 40·44% [95% CI 27·46 to 53·42] for PPOIT vs placebo, p<0·0001), with no difference between PPOIT and OIT (-5·03% [-20·40 to 10·34], p=0·52). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 72 (91%) of 79 children in the PPOIT group, 73 (88%) of 83 children in the OIT group, and 28 (72%) of 39 children in the placebo group. Exposure-adjusted incidence of adverse events was 10·58 in the PPOIT group, 11·36 in the OIT, and 2·09 in the placebo group (ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·85 to 0·99] for PPOIT vs OIT, p=0·042; 4·98 [4·11-6·03] for PPOIT vs placebo, p<0·0001; 5·42 [4·48-6·56] for OIT vs placebo, p<0·0001), with differences seen primarily in gastrointestinal symptoms and in children aged 1-5 years. During the 12-month post-treatment period, 60 (85%) of 71 participants in the PPOIT group, 60 (86%) of 70 participants in the OIT group, and six (18%) of 34 participants in the placebo group were eating peanut; rescue epinephrine use was infrequent (two [3%] of 71 in the PPOIT group, four [6%] of 70 in the OIT group, and none in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Both PPOIT and OIT were effective at inducing sustained unresponsiveness. Addition of a probiotic did not improve efficacy of OIT, but might offer a safety benefit compared with OIT alone, particularly in preschool children. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council Australia and Prota Therapeutics.