Use of technology to improve adherence in allergy/immunology.

The integration of technology into healthcare has shown significant promise in enhancing patient adherence, particularly in the field of allergy/immunology. This paper explores the multifaceted approaches through which digital health interventions can be utilized to improve adherence rates among patients with allergic diseases and immunological disorders. By reviewing recent advancements in telemedicine, mobile health applications, wearable devices, and digital reminders, as well as smart inhalers, we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of how these technologies can support patients in managing their conditions. The analysis highlights the role of personalized digital health plans, which, through the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, can offer tailored advice, monitor symptoms, and adjust treatment protocols in real-time. Moreover, the paper discusses the impact of electronic health records and patient portals in fostering a collaborative patient-provider relationship, thereby enhancing communication and adherence. The integration of these technologies has been shown to not only improve clinical outcomes but also to increase patient satisfaction and engagement.

Allergic Diseases and Mental Health.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms have long been acknowledged as a common comorbidity for individuals with allergic diseases. The proposed mechanisms for this relationship vary by disease and patient population and may include neuroinflammation and/or the consequent social implications of disease symptoms and management. We review connections between mental health and allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, vocal cord dysfunction, urticaria, and food allergy. Many uncertainties remain and warrant further research, particularly with regard to how medications interact with pathophysiologic mechanisms of allergic disease in the neuroimmune axis. Proactive screening for mental health challenges, using tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire and Generalized Anxiety Disorder screening instruments among others, can aid clinicians in identifying patients who may need further psychiatric evaluation and support. Although convenient, symptom screening tools are limited by variable sensitivity and specificity and therefore require healthcare professionals to remain vigilant for other mental health "red flags." Ultimately, understanding the connection between allergic disease and mental health empowers clinicians to both anticipate and serve the diverse physical and mental health needs of their patient populations.

Herpes zoster burden in patients with asthma: real-world incidence, healthcare resource utilisation and cost.

BACKGROUND: Herpes zoster (HZ) is a painful condition caused by reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus. The objectives of this study were to compare HZ incidence in adults with asthma versus adults without asthma and to compare healthcare resource use as well as direct costs in adults with HZ and asthma versus adults with asthma alone in the USA. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study included adults aged ≥18 years across the USA. Patients were identified from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, an administrative claims database, between 1 October 2015 and 28 February 2020, including commercially insured and Medicare Advantage with part D beneficiaries. Cohorts of patients with and without asthma, and separate cohorts of patients with asthma and HZ and with asthma but not HZ, were identified using International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. HZ incidence, healthcare resource use and costs were compared, adjusting for baseline characteristics, between the relevant cohorts using generalised linear models. RESULTS: HZ incidence was higher in patients with asthma (11.59 per 1000 person-years) than patients without asthma (7.16 per 1000 person-years). The adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) for HZ in patients with asthma, compared with patients without asthma, was 1.34 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.37). Over 12 months of follow-up, patients with asthma and HZ had more inpatient stays (aIRR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21), emergency department visits (aIRR 1.26; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.34) and outpatient visits (aIRR 1.19; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.22), and direct healthcare costs that were US dollars ($) 3058 (95% CI $1671 to $4492) higher than patients with asthma without HZ. CONCLUSION: Patients with asthma had a higher incidence of HZ than those without asthma, and among patients with asthma HZ added to their healthcare resource use and costs.

Development of neffy, an Epinephrine Nasal Spray, for Severe Allergic Reactions.

Epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are used for the treatment of severe allergic reactions in a community setting; however, their utility is limited by low prescription fulfillment rates, failure to carry, and failure to use due to fear of needles. Given that delayed administration of epinephrine is associated with increased morbidity/mortality, there has been a growing interest in developing needle-free, easy-to-use delivery devices. neffy (epinephrine nasal spray) consists of three Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved components: epinephrine, Intravail A3 (absorption enhancer), and a Unit Dose Spray (UDS). neffy's development pathway was established in conjunction with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency and included multiple clinical trials to evaluate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses under a variety of conditions, such as self-administration and allergic and infectious rhinitis, as well as an animal anaphylaxis model of severe hypotension, where neffy demonstrated a pharmacokinetic profile that is within the range of approved injection products and a pharmacodynamic response that is as good or better than injections. The increased pulse rate (PR) and blood pressure (BP) observed even one minute following the administration of neffy confirm the activation of α and ß adrenergic receptors, which are the key components of epinephrine's mechanism of action. The results suggest that neffy will provide a safe and effective needle-free option for the treatment of severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

The Cost-effectiveness of Omalizumab for Treatment of Food Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Omalizumab is an anti-IgE therapy newly approved by the Food and Drug Administration for allergen agnostic treatment of single or multiple food allergies in patients aged 1 year or older. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab as a food allergy treatment. METHODS: We evaluated health and economic outcomes in Markov cohorts of simulated food allergic infants randomized to receive omalizumab using a 15-year horizon. Monte Carlo simulation was used (n = 40,000 subjects) to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective, incorporating both a family-level and individual-level analysis. We included family-level analysis to incorporate a broad perspective for health utility change, given treatment effects likely benefit all parties at home (eg, caregivers, siblings), not just the patient, representing the sum of changes in all such persons. Supplemental analyses explored lower omalizumab cost and home initiation. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the family-level cohort analysis, omalizumab exceeded cost-effectiveness thresholds ($185,183/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]). In a comparison of the omalizumab strategy (OMA) with the non-omalizumab strategy, the cost of OMA exceeded the non-omalizumab strategy ($315,020 vs $136,609) with greater incremental effectiveness (12.668 vs 11.699 QALY). In the individual-level analysis, the cost-effectiveness of OMA was $573,698/QALY. In base-case assessments, OMA was cost-effective (willingness to pay, $100,000/QALY) at a health state utility (HSU) improvement of 0.265. The value-based cost of OMA ranged from $14,166 to $23,791 when it was considered at the individual and family-unit levels. Requiring OMA administration in the clinic was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $260,239). CONCLUSIONS: In the base case and at current pricing, omalizumab is not cost-effective, but it could be at a lower retail price or when use creates large health utility shifts in the family and patient.

Characterization of Moderate and Severe Asthma Exacerbations in the CAPTAIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the relative impact of moderate and severe exacerbations on asthma control and impairment. OBJECTIVE: To explore data from the CAPTAIN trial to evaluate the relationship between first moderate or severe exacerbation and changes in lung function, symptoms, physical activity limitation scores, and short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) usage to determine the clinical relevance of moderate events. METHODS: CAPTAIN was a phase IIIA 24- to 52-week, multicenter, international, randomized controlled trial evaluating efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI in patients with uncontrolled asthma on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist. Outcomes reported include first postrandomization exacerbation event by severity (wk 1-52), frequency and duration of moderate and severe exacerbations, and time course of changes over ± 14-day peri-exacerbation period for lung function, symptoms, limitations, and SABA use. RESULTS: Of the intent-to-treat population (n = 2,436), 550 patients (23%) continued to 52 weeks. There were 529 moderate and 546 severe exacerbations. Lung function changes were similar, but symptom, physical activity limitation scores, and SABA use were higher, for severe versus moderate exacerbations. Lung function decline preceded increases in symptom, physical activity limitation scores, and SABA use, irrespective of exacerbation severity. Lung function variables, limitation scores, and SABA use returned to pre-exacerbation baseline after approximately 8 to 12 days for both exacerbation severities. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas severe events were associated with greater impact on symptoms, physical activity limitations, and SABA use, onset and time to resolution were generally similar for moderate and severe events. Both exacerbation severities represent clinically important deteriorations comprising clinical and functional changes.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Asthma.

Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research defines patient-reported outcomes as "any report of the status of a patient's health condition, health behavior, or experience with healthcare that comes directly form the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else." Validated patient-reported outcome measures are used extensively in pediatric and adult asthma across clinical and research settings to assess the impact of treatments on patient outcomes over time. This work aims to review some of the most commonly used asthma patient-reported outcomes across the following criteria: validity, reliability, responsiveness, time to complete, ease of administration, target population, recall period, scoring method, availability in different languages, use in clinical practice or research settings, licensing requirements, and cost of use.

Pharmacoequity and Biologics in the Allergy Clinic: Providing the Right Care, at the Right Time, Every Time, to Everyone.

Pharmacoequity refers to equity in access to pharmacotherapy for all patients and is an especially large barrier to biologic agents in patients with allergic diseases. Value-based care models can prompt clinicians to address social determinants of health, promoting pharmacoequity. Pharmacoequity is influenced by numerous factors including socioeconomic status, which may be mediated through insurance status, educational attainment, and access to specialist care. In addition to lower socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, age, locations isolated from care systems, and off-label indications for biologic agents all constitute barriers to pharmacoequity. Whereas pharmaco-inequity is more apparent for expensive biologics, it also affects many other allergy treatments including epinephrine autoinjectors and SMART for asthma. Current programs aimed at alleviating cost barriers are imperfect. Patient assistance programs, manufacturer-sponsored free drug programs, and rebates often increase the complexity of care, with resultant inequity, particularly for patients with lower health literacy. Ultimately, single silver-bullet solutions are elusive. Long-term improvement instead requires a combination of research, advocacy, and creative problem-solving to design more intelligent and efficient systems that provide timely access to necessary care for every patient, every time.

Targeting Asthma Remission as the Next Therapeutic Step Toward Improving Disease Control.

The long-term goal of asthma management is to achieve disease control, comprising the assessment of 2 main domains: (1) symptom control and (2) future risk of adverse outcomes. Decades of progress in asthma management have correlated with increasingly ambitious disease control targets. Moreover, the introduction of precision medicines, such as biologics, has further expanded the limits of what can be achieved in terms of disease control. It is now believed that clinical remission, a term rarely associated with asthma, may be an achievable treatment goal. An expert framework published in 2020 took the first step toward developing a commonly accepted definition of clinical remission in asthma. However, there remains a widespread discussion about the clinical parameters and thresholds that should be included in a standardized definition of clinical remission. This review aims to discuss on-treatment clinical remission as an aspirational outcome in asthma management, drawing on experiences from other chronic diseases where remission has long been a goal. We also highlight the integral role of shared decision-making between patients and health care professionals and the need for a common understanding of the individual patient journey to remission as foundational elements in reducing disease burden and improving outcomes for patients with asthma.

Updated grading system for systemic allergic reactions: Joint Statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee and Allergen Immunotherapy Committee.

There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice.

Baseline Characteristics and ICS/LAMA/LABA Response in Asthma: Analyses From the CAPTAIN Study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from CAPTAIN (NCT02924688) suggest that treatment response to fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) differs according to baseline type 2 inflammation markers in patients with moderate to severe asthma. Understanding how other patient physiologic and clinical characteristics affect response to inhaled therapies may guide physicians toward a personalized approach for asthma management. OBJECTIVE: To investigate, using CAPTAIN data, the predictive value of key demographic and baseline physiologic variables in patients with asthma (lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age, age at asthma onset) on response to addition of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist UMEC to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination FF/VI, or doubling the FF dose. METHODS: Prespecified and post hoc analyses of CAPTAIN data were performed using categorical and continuous variables of key baseline characteristics to understand their influence on treatment outcomes (lung function [trough FEV1], annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, and asthma control [Asthma Control Questionnaire]) following addition of UMEC to FF/VI or doubling the FF dose in FF/VI or FF/UMEC/VI. RESULTS: Adding UMEC to FF/VI led to greater improvements in trough FEV1 versus doubling the FF dose across all baseline characteristics assessed. Doubling the FF dose was generally associated with numerically greater reductions in the annualized rate of moderate/severe exacerbations compared with adding UMEC, independent of baseline characteristics. Adding UMEC and/or doubling the FF dose generally led to improvements in Asthma Control Questionnaire scores irrespective of baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike previous findings with type 2 biomarkers, lung function, bronchodilator reversibility, age and age at asthma onset do not appear to predict response to inhaled therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000). RESULTS: Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

At-home asthma mortality unchanged despite declining mortality in other settings: US death certificate data (2000-2019).

BACKGROUND: Asthma mortality rates in the United States have declined since 1999; however, asthma mortality by place of death has not been comprehensively evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate temporal trends in asthma mortality rates and place of death in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a population-based analysis using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-ranging ONline Data for Epidemiologic Research platform to evaluate deaths with asthma as the underlying cause (2000-2019) among US residents of all ages. Absolute numbers of asthma-related deaths were described by place of death. Counts were applied to US Census Bureau population counts to calculate mortality rates per 100,000 persons. RESULTS: In the 20-year period evaluated, 67,695 asthma deaths were registered in the United States. An overall 32% decline in the asthma mortality rate was observed, from 1.43 to 0.98 per 100,000 persons from 2000 to 2019, respectively. Although asthma mortality rates declined in all medical facility locations, the at-home asthma mortality rate remained stable (0.32 and 0.34 per 100,000 persons in 2000 and 2019, respectively). Consequently, the proportion of at-home asthma deaths increased from 23% in 2000 to 2001 to 36% in 2018 to 2019. The distribution of place of death varied by age, sex, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. CONCLUSION: Despite an overall decline in asthma mortality in the United States, at-home asthma mortality has remained unchanged. In recent years, more than one-third of asthma deaths have occurred at home. These findings warrant further study and underscore the importance of increased efforts to identify and treat uncontrolled asthma across demographic groups.