Addressing Health Equity in Food Allergy.

Social determinants of health can lead to poor health outcomes for food-allergic patients, including limited access to allergen-free foods and specialty care. Housing and transportation limitations can worsen social factors including food insecurity, poor early food introduction, increased reactivity to foods, lower tertiary/allergy care utilization, and increased emergency department utilization. A key component of addressing health equity involves valuing all people with sustained, focused efforts to address social determinants of health. In this clinical commentary, we discuss the current state of heath equity for food-allergic patients, highlighting the disparities in emergency care, food allergy prevention, and food insecurity. Solutions to improve health equity through clinical practice are proposed. Currently available funding opportunities through the National Institutes of Health for health equity initiatives are outlined. Gaps in health equity for food-allergic patients include the lack of documented successful implementation of effective solutions to food insecurity, poor early food introduction uptake, poor access to specialist care, and unequal distribution of educational resources. The availability of research funding and legislative policies supporting access to food and education bolster the impetus to move toward health equity for 20 million people in the United States with food allergy.

The Future of Telehealth for Allergic Disease.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an explosion in the use of telehealth. However, telehealth consists of much more than a video discussion between doctor and patient. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, allergists have demonstrated a high level of synchronous telemedicine adoption with existing patients but have not taken full advantage of other virtual care modalities that have the potential to facilitate the efficient delivery of allergy care to the broader population. This is partially due to a lack of awareness about the various remote care services and how to implement and bill for them appropriately. This rostrum describes the spectrum of telehealth services, reviews existing literature on the use of telehealth in allergy, and provides suggestions about how allergists and immunologists can optimize the use of telehealth to optimize patient access and outcomes as well as receive appropriate compensation for specialty clinical services provided by themselves and their staff.

Caregiver Preferences and Barriers Toward Accessing Pediatric Dermatology Care for Childhood Atopic Dermatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic childhood illness. It is often treated by primary care providers (PCPs) though it may require referral to a dermatology specialist. METHOD: We administered an exploratory survey to 50 caregivers of children aged 0-17 years with AD to assess their preferences and barriers toward accessing dermatology specialty care for their child's AD. RESULTS: Caregivers felt PCPs and specialists equally listened to their child's AD concerns. However, many felt there was a difference in the care provided and control of the AD and preferred to see a specialist for ongoing management. DISCUSSION: Caregivers may benefit from their children being referred to dermatology specialists earlier and more often for their AD. Further work must be done to characterize preferences and barriers toward AD care across race and ethnicity.

Validation of remote atopic dermatitis severity assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Ondex in children using caregiver-provided photos and videos.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantify the reliability and validity of remote atopic dermatitis (AD) severity assessment using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) applied to caregiver-provided photos (p-EASI) and videos (v-EASI). METHODS: Children (0-17 years) with a physician diagnosis of AD were recruited. Caregivers took photos and a video of their child's skin. A clinician scored in-person EASI on the same day, then p-EASI and v-EASI for each participant 10 days or more between ratings. Two additional clinicians scored p-EASI and v-EASI. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was employed to assess criterion validity using in-person EASI as the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess interrater reliability of p-EASI and v-EASI. RESULTS: Fifty racially and ethnically diverse children (age [mean ± SD]: 4.3 ± 4.4 years; 42% female) with a range of AD severity (EASI: 6.3 ± 6.4) and Fitzpatrick skin types (1-2: 9%; 3-4: 60%; 5-6: 31%) were enrolled and received in-person EASI assessment. Fifty had p-EASI and 49 had v-EASI by the same in-person rater, and by two additional raters. The CCC and ICC for p-EASI were 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.95] and 0.81, 95% CI [0.71, 0.89], respectively. The CCC and ICC for v-EASI were 0.75, 95% CI [0.63, 0.88] and 0.69, 95% CI [0.51, 0.81], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this diverse population with a range of skin tones, p-EASI showed good criterion validity and good interrater reliability. v-EASI showed moderate to good criterion validity and moderate interrater reliability. Both may be reliable and valid options for remote AD severity assessment.

Conducting an Oral Food Challenge: An Update to the 2009 Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee Work Group Report.

Oral food challenges are an integral part of an allergist's practice and are used to evaluate the presence or absence of allergic reactivity to foods. A work group within the Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology was formed to update a previously published oral food challenge report. The intention of this document was to supplement the previous publication with additional focus on safety, treatment of IgE-mediated allergic reactions, guidance for challenges in infants and adults, psychosocial considerations for children and families participating in an oral food challenge, specific guidance for baked milk or baked egg challenges, masking agents and validated blinding recipes for common food allergens, and recommendations for conducting and interpreting challenges in patients with suspected food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome. Tables and figures within the report and an extensive online appendix detail age-specific portion sizes, appropriate timing for antihistamine discontinuation, serum and skin test result interpretation, written consents, and instructional handouts that may be used in clinical practice.

Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome (FPIES): Review of Recent Guidelines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To increase understanding of food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES), a non-immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reaction to food, by reviewing a growing body of literature, including recently published international consensus guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: FPIES primarily affects infants and young children and is characterized by the delayed onset of gastrointestinal symptoms, predominantly repetitive vomiting, in response to a trigger food. Symptoms are often severe and can lead to shock. Diagnosis can be challenging due to a wide differential diagnoses and lack of disease biomarkers. FPIES is a clinical diagnosis, with allergy testing playing a very limited role, if any. Medically supervised oral food challenges are used to monitor resolution of disease, which generally occurs in early childhood. FPIES is an important condition presenting to clinicians in a variety of settings. Recent international consensus guidelines and a growing body of literature can better equip practitioners to care for these often-challenging patients.

Food allergen panel testing often results in misdiagnosis of food allergy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of food allergy panel testing among patients referred to a pediatric food allergy center. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of all new patients seen between September 2011 and December 2012 by 1 provider in a tertiary referral pediatric food allergy center. A cost analysis was performed to calculate the estimated cost of evaluation for patients who have received a food allergy panel. RESULTS: Of 797 new patient encounters, 284 (35%) patients had received a food allergy panel. Only 90 (32.8%) individuals had a history warranting evaluation for food allergy; 126 individuals were avoiding a food based on recommendations from the referring provider and 112 (88.9%) were able to re-introduce at least 1 food into their diet. The positive predictive value of food allergy panel testing in this unselected population was 2.2%. The estimated cost of evaluation for this population was $79,412. CONCLUSIONS: Food allergy panel testing often results in misdiagnosis of food allergy, overly restrictive dietary avoidance, and an unnecessary economic burden on the health system.

A randomized controlled study of peanut oral immunotherapy: clinical desensitization and modulation of the allergic response.

BACKGROUND: Open-label oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols have been used to treat small numbers of patients with peanut allergy. Peanut OIT has not been evaluated in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of OIT for peanut allergy in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: In this multicenter study, children ages 1 to 16 years with peanut allergy received OIT with peanut flour or placebo. Initial escalation, build-up, and maintenance phases were followed by an oral food challenge (OFC) at approximately 1 year. Titrated skin prick tests (SPTs) and laboratory studies were performed at regular intervals. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects were enrolled in the study. Three peanut OIT subjects withdrew early in the study because of allergic side effects. During the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, all remaining peanut OIT subjects (n = 16) ingested the maximum cumulative dose of 5000 mg (approximately 20 peanuts), whereas placebo subjects (n = 9) ingested a median cumulative dose of 280 mg (range, 0-1900 mg; P < .001). In contrast with the placebo group, the peanut OIT group showed reductions in SPT size (P < .001), IL-5 (P = .01), and IL-13 (P = .02) and increases in peanut-specific IgG(4) (P < .001). Peanut OIT subjects had initial increases in peanut-specific IgE (P < .01) but did not show significant change from baseline by the time of OFC. The ratio of forkhead box protein 3 (FoxP3)(hi): FoxP3(intermediate) CD4+ CD25+ T cells increased at the time of OFC (P = .04) in peanut OIT subjects. CONCLUSION: These results conclusively demonstrate that peanut OIT induces desensitization and concurrent immune modulation. The current study continues and is evaluating the hypothesis that peanut OIT causes long-term immune tolerance.

Role of tolerance in the development of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases.

Although the precise link is not completely understood, eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases have been shown to be highly associated with atopy. Oral tolerance describes the specific suppression of immune responses to an antigen by prior administration of the antigen by the oral route. Like other allergic gastrointestinal diseases, eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders may result from a loss of oral tolerance or a failure in the induction of tolerance. Further study to clarify the role of tolerance in the development of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases can help identify potential prevention strategies and therapeutic targets.