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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update.

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Expert Consensus on SABA Use for Asthma Clinical Decision-Making: A Delphi Approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A modified Delphi process was undertaken to provide a US expert-led consensus to guide clinical action on short-acting beta2-agonist (SABA) use. This comprised an online survey (Phase 1), forum discussion and statement development (Phase 2), and statement adjudication (Phase 3). RECENT FINDINGS: In Phase 1 (n = 100 clinicians), 12% routinely provided patients with ≥4 SABA prescriptions/year, 73% solicited SABA use frequency at every patient visit, and 21% did not consult asthma guidelines/expert reports. Phase 3 experts (n = 8) reached consensus (median Likert score, interquartile range) that use of ≥3 SABA canisters/year is associated with increased risk of exacerbation and asthma-related death (5, 4.75-5); SABA use history should be solicited at every patient visit (5, 4.75-5); usage patterns over time, not absolute thresholds, should guide response to SABA overuse (5, 4.5-5). Future asthma guidelines should include clear recommendations regarding SABA usage, using expert-led thresholds for action.

COVID-19 and Its Impact on Common Diseases in the Allergy Clinics.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious viral disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It has various effects on asthma, allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, and urticaria and may change the course of the disease depending on the severity of the infection and control status of the disease. Conversely, these diseases may also impact the course of COVID-19. Patients with chronic urticaria and atopic dermatitis may have COVID-19-induced disease exacerbations and biological treatments reduce the risk of exacerbations. Poor asthma control is linked to severe COVID-19 while allergic asthma is associated with lower risk of death and a lower rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared with nonallergic asthma. The use of intranasal corticosteroids is associated with lower rates of hospitalization due to COVID-19 in patients with allergic rhinitis, whereas the effect of inhaled corticosteroids is confounded by asthma severity. These observations reinforce the importance of keeping allergic diseases under control during pandemics. The use of biologicals during COVID-19 is generally regarded as safe, but more evidence is needed. The pandemic substantially changed the management of allergic disorders such as home implementation of various biologicals, allergen immunotherapy, food introduction, and increased use of telemedicine and even home management of anaphylaxis to reduce emergency department burden and reduce risk of infection. Physicians need to be aware of the potential impact of COVID-19 on allergic diseases and educate their patients on the importance of continuing prescribed medications and adhering to their treatment plans to maintain optimal control of their disease.

American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred steps 1 to 3 asthma maintenance and reliever therapy and incomplete insurance coverage indicated as main practice hurdle.

BACKGROUND: New asthma guidelines (GINA, 2022; NAEPP EPR-4, 2020) include considerable changes in treatment recommendations, specifically regarding anti-inflammatory rescue and Single MAintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). OBJECTIVE: To explore American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred treatment and perceived hurdles. METHODS: A survey (SurveyMonkey) regarding steps 1 to 3 asthma therapy was e-mailed to American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members. RESULTS: The allergists completed 147 surveys (46% with >20 years of experience; 98% from United States; 29% academic, 75% [also] private practice). In addition, 69% follow the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program and 81% the Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. Of 147 allergists, 117 (80%) indicated correctly what SMART strategy is; 21%/36%/50%/39% would use SMART in step 3 treatment of a below 5-year-old/5- to 11-year-old/12- to 65-year-old/above 65-year-old patient, respectively. In this group, 11% to 14% incorrectly chose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus salmeterol and 9% ICS plus vilanterol for SMART. In a 4-year-old needing step 1 therapy (N = 129), 55% of the respondents would add anti-inflammatory therapy; for step 2 treatment, most would prescribe ICS 100 to 200 µg budesonide equivalent daily; in step 3, 49% would prescribe ICS plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA). In a 7-year-old needing step 1 treatment (N = 134), 40% would prescribe only short-acting beta-agonist; in step 3, 45% would institute SMART strategy, but only 8 of 135 (6%) chose very-low dose ICS plus formoterol (as recommended in Global Initiative for Asthma); most (39%) use low-dose ICS plus formoterol. As for rescue therapy, 59% is now instituting some form of anti-inflammatory rescue. Finally, in a 25-year-old patient (N = 144): in step 1, 39% would prescribe exclusively short-acting beta-agonist; in step 2, 4% only anti-inflammatory rescue and the rest prescribes ICS maintenance; one-third begins SMART strategy at step 2 and 50% in step 3. Major hurdles for prescribing one's preferred strategy included incomplete insurance coverage, insurance not approving more than one canister of ICS-formoterol per month, and cost. CONCLUSION: Asthma therapy varies among physicians, with respondents suggesting underutilization of the recommended anti-inflammatory rescue and SMART therapy. A major hurdle is lack of insurance coverage of medication in line with the guidelines.

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

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