Aims: Food allergies impose a large clinical and financial burden on patients and the health care system. However, little is known about the factors associated with health care resource use and ...costs. The aim of this study was to investigate health care resource use and costs in individuals with food allergies utilizing health care in the United States.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from the Merative™ MarketScan® Research Databases (indexed from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2022). All-cause and food allergy-related health care resource use, direct medical, and out-of-pocket costs for medical services were estimated for 12 months post-index using International Classification of Diseases ICD codes.Results: Of 355,520 individuals with food allergies continuously enrolled in a health insurance plan for ≥12 months pre- and post-index, 17% had a food allergy-related emergency department visit and 0.9% were hospitalized. The top patient characteristics associated with all-cause and food allergy-related hospitalizations, all-cause costs, and food allergy-related outpatient visit costs was a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of ≥2. Food allergy-related direct medical and out-of-pocket costs were high among patients with a food allergy-related visit. Out-of-pocket cost per patient per year for outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations had an estimated mean of $1,631 for patients with food allergy-related visits, which is approximately 11% of the total costs for these services ($14,395 per patient per year).Limitations: Study limitations are primarily related to the nature of claims databases, including generalizability and reliance on ICD codes. Nevertheless, MarketScan databases provide robust patient-level insights into health care resource use and costs from a large, commercially insured patient population.Conclusion: The health care resource use of patients with food allergies imposes a burden on both the health care system and on patients and their families, especially if patients had comorbidities.Aims: Food allergies impose a large clinical and financial burden on patients and the health care system. However, little is known about the factors associated with health care resource use and costs. The aim of this study was to investigate health care resource use and costs in individuals with food allergies utilizing health care in the United States.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of insurance claims data from the Merative™ MarketScan® Research Databases (indexed from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2022). All-cause and food allergy-related health care resource use, direct medical, and out-of-pocket costs for medical services were estimated for 12 months post-index using International Classification of Diseases ICD codes.Results: Of 355,520 individuals with food allergies continuously enrolled in a health insurance plan for ≥12 months pre- and post-index, 17% had a food allergy-related emergency department visit and 0.9% were hospitalized. The top patient characteristics associated with all-cause and food allergy-related hospitalizations, all-cause costs, and food allergy-related outpatient visit costs was a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of ≥2. Food allergy-related direct medical and out-of-pocket costs were high among patients with a food allergy-related visit. Out-of-pocket cost per patient per year for outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations had an estimated mean of $1,631 for patients with food allergy-related visits, which is approximately 11% of the total costs for these services ($14,395 per patient per year).Limitations: Study limitations are primarily related to the nature of claims databases, including generalizability and reliance on ICD codes. Nevertheless, MarketScan databases provide robust patient-level insights into health care resource use and costs from a large, commercially insured patient population.Conclusion: The health care resource use of patients with food allergies imposes a burden on both the health care system and on patients and their families, especially if patients had comorbidities.
Gastrointestinal side effects are common during oral immunotherapy (OIT) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a potential complication. We aimed to characterize eosinophilic gastrointestinal ...responses to peanut OIT, in which peanut protein is given orally, with incremental increases in dose over time.
Twenty adults with IgE-mediated peanut allergy were randomly assigned to groups given peanut OIT (n = 15) or placebo (n = 5); 1 additional subject withdrew before randomization. Serial gastrointestinal biopsies were collected at baseline (n = 21, 0 weeks), following dose escalation (n = 10, 52 weeks), and during the maintenance phase (n = 11, 104 weeks). Endoscopic findings were characterized using the EoE endoscopic reference score. Biopsies were assessed for eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) and other pathology features using EoE histologic scoring system scores. We performed immunohistochemical analyses of eosinophil peroxidase deposition, quantified using automated image analysis.
At baseline, no subjects reported current gastrointestinal symptoms. However, 3 of the 21 subjects (14%) had esophageal peak eosinophil counts ≥15 eos/hpf and all subjects had dilated intercellular spaces (DIS). OIT induced or exacerbated esophageal eosinophilia (EE) at 52 weeks in most subjects (peak eosinophil counts >5 eos/hpf in 6 of 7 patients 86%; peak eosinophil counts ≥15 eos/hpf in 4 of 7 patients 57%). One subject met clinicopathologic criteria for EoE and withdrew; no significant changes in esophageal peak eosinophil counts were observed in the placebo group. EE in the OIT group corresponded with significant increases in EoE histologic scoring system scores and deposition of eosinophil peroxidase. In 4 of 6 participants (67%), OIT-induced EE and gastrointestinal eosinophilia resolved by the end of the maintenance phase. Gastrointestinal symptoms were not clearly associated with EE or gastrointestinal eosinophilia.
In this pilot study, we found that peanut OIT-induced EE and gastrointestinal eosinophilia are usually transient and are not always associated with gastrointestinal symptoms. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02103270.
The Role of Biologics in the Treatment of Food Allergy Sindher, Sayantani B; Fiocchi, Alessandro; Zuberbier, Torsten ...
The journal of allergy and clinical immunology in practice (Cambridge, MA)
12, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
The landscape of food allergy (FA) treatment is poised for a paradigm shift with the emergence of biologic therapies. The Food and Drug Administration approval of a standardized peanut powder for ...oral immunotherapy in 2020 marked a milestone, signaling a departure from allergen avoidance toward proactive treatment strategies. Although oral immunotherapy has been proven effective in desensitizing patients to specific allergens, there are several limitations such as lacking standardization, a long-time commitment to achieve maintenance, and adverse events. Biologics, including omalizumab, dupilumab, and antialarmins, have shown promise in treating various allergic diseases, including FA. These biologics target the underlying immunologic pathways driving allergic reactions, offering an antigen-agnostic approach. Omalizumab (anti-IgE) has been the most studied biologic in this space and can be used both as an adjunct therapy with oral immunotherapy and as monotherapy. Dupilumab targeting IL-4 and IL-13 also shows promise as an adjunct therapy. The emergence of antialarmins further broadens the spectrum of FA treatment possibilities. Biologics represent a transformative approach to FA treatment, directly addressing the underlying mechanisms. Future research should focus on patient selection criteria, personalized biomarker panels, optimal timing of intervention, and treatment durations.
As of May 2021, more than 32 million cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in the United States, resulting in more than 615 000 deaths. Anaphylactic reactions associated with the Food and Drug ...Administration (FDA)-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been reported.
To characterize the immunologic mechanisms underlying allergic reactions to these vaccines.
This case series included 22 patients with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines between December 18, 2020, and January 27, 2021, at a large regional health care network. Participants were individuals who received at least 1 of the following International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision anaphylaxis codes: T78.2XXA, T80.52XA, T78.2XXD, or E949.9, with documentation of COVID-19 vaccination. Suspected allergy cases were identified and invited for follow-up allergy testing.
FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Allergic reactions were graded using standard definitions, including Brighton criteria. Skin prick testing was conducted to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate 80 (P80). Histamine (1 mg/mL) and filtered saline (negative control) were used for internal validation. Basophil activation testing after stimulation for 30 minutes at 37 °C was also conducted. Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgE antibodies to PEG were obtained to determine possible mechanisms.
Of 22 patients (20 91% women; mean SD age, 40.9 10.3 years; 15 68% with clinical allergy history), 17 (77%) met Brighton anaphylaxis criteria. All reactions fully resolved. Of patients who underwent skin prick tests, 0 of 11 tested positive to PEG, 0 of 11 tested positive to P80, and 1 of 10 (10%) tested positive to the same brand of mRNA vaccine used to vaccinate that individual. Among these same participants, 10 of 11 (91%) had positive basophil activation test results to PEG and 11 of 11 (100%) had positive basophil activation test results to their administered mRNA vaccine. No PEG IgE was detected; instead, PEG IgG was found in tested individuals who had an allergy to the vaccine.
Based on this case series, women and those with a history of allergic reactions appear at have an elevated risk of mRNA vaccine allergy. Immunological testing suggests non-IgE-mediated immune responses to PEG may be responsible in most individuals.
Continuing insight into the molecular mechanisms of atopic disorders has enabled the development of biologics to precisely target these diseases. Food allergy (FA) and eosinophilic gastrointestinal ...disorders (EGIDs) are driven by similar inflammatory molecular mechanisms and exist along the same atopic disease spectrum. Therefore, many of the same biologics are being investigated to target key drivers of mechanisms shared across the disease states. The enormous potential of biologics for the treatment of FA and EGIDs is highlighted by the significant increases in the number of ongoing clinical trials (more than 30) evaluating their use in these disease states, as well as by the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of dupilumab for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Here we discuss past and current research into the use of biologics in FA and EGIDs and their potential role in improving treatment options in the future, with the need to have biologics widely clinically available.
The efficacy and safety of omalizumab has been demonstrated in children as young as 6 years of age. Omalizumab is currently approved for a range of immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels that differ by age. ...In patients with IgE levels higher than the indicated therapeutic window, only a few studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of its use. Specifically, no reported studies exist to describe the use of omalizumab in pediatric patients with asthma ages <12 years and with high IgE levels.
We reported a series of pediatric patients who were initiated on omalizumab despite an IgE level higher than the age-indicated therapeutic windows and aimed to describe whether omalizumab was safe and improved asthma outcomes.
Patients who initiated omalizumab in our pediatric allergy clinic between January 2008 and December 2015, with serum IgE levels higher than the age-indicated therapeutic ranges were included. Patient charts were reviewed to determine the number of asthma-related events in the 12 months before and after initiation of omalizumab and the Asthma Control Test™ scores at the time of initiation and at 12 months of therapy.
Eleven patients were identified with pretreatment IgE levels higher than the age-approved thresholds. Five patients were ages <12 years, and six patients were ages >12 years. For all but one patient, the maximum recommended dose of 375 mg every 2 weeks was effective in reducing the need for corticosteroids, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations in the year after initiation of therapy. During the period of therapy, there were no reports of severe reactions.
Despite a small study group, our results indicated that omalizumab may be safely used in pediatric patients with IgE levels higher than the indicated therapeutic windows.
No approved treatment exists for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk allergy (CMA), a common childhood food allergy.
To assess dose, efficacy, and safety of epicutaneous ...immunotherapy with Viaskin milk in children with IgE-mediated CMA.
A phase 1/2, 2-part, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging clinical trial in children aged 2 to 17 years with IgE-mediated CMA was conducted between November 2014 through December 2017. It took place at 17 trial sites in the US and Canada. Current CMA was confirmed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at study entry. Part A assessed the short-term safety of 150 μg, 300 μg, or 500 μg of Viaskin milk; part B evaluated the efficacy and safety of the 3 doses vs placebo over 12 months of treatment. Of the 308 screened participants with physician-diagnosed CMA, 198 met eligibility criteria (including an eliciting dose 300 mg or less) and were randomized.
Safety of Viaskin milk (150-μg, 300-μg, or 500-μg doses) was evaluated over a 3-week period (part A). In part B, 180 additional participants were randomized to receive Viaskin milk at doses of 150 μg, 300 μg, or 500 μg or placebo (1:1:1:1) for 12 months.
The primary outcome was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as a 10-fold or more increase in the cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein (reaching at least 144 mg) or a cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein at 1444 mg or more at the month 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge.
A total of 95.5% of the randomized participants (mean SD age, 8 4.17 years; 124 of 198 were male 62.6%) completed treatment. The highest response rate was observed in participants who received Viaskin milk at the 300-μg dose with 24 of 49 responders (49.0%) overall vs 16 of 53 responders (30.2%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.91-5.41; P = .09), highest in the 2 to 11 years age group (22 of 38 57.9% vs 13 of 40 32.5%; P = .04). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate application-site reactions. One participant in the 500-μg Viaskin milk dose group experienced treatment-related anaphylaxis.
In this randomized clinical trial, 12 months of daily epicutaneous immunotherapy with a dose of Viaskin milk at 300 μg was associated with a statistically significant treatment response in 2- to 11-year-old children with IgE-mediated CMA. Treatment-related anaphylaxis and treatment-related discontinuation rates were low. Further research is needed to explore Viaskin milk as a viable treatment option for children with IgE-mediated CMA.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02223182.
Background
Conventional basophil activation tests (BATs) measure basophil activation by the increased expression of CD63. Previously, fluorophore‐labeled avidin, a positively‐charged molecule, was ...found to bind to activated basophils, which tend to expose negatively charged granule constituents during degranulation. This study further compares avidin versus CD63 as basophil activation biomarkers in classifying peanut allergy.
Methods
Seventy subjects with either a peanut allergy (N = 47), a food allergy other than peanut (N = 6), or no food allergy (N = 17) were evaluated. We conducted BATs in response to seven peanut extract (PE) concentrations (0.01–10,000 ng/mL) and four control conditions (no stimulant, anti‐IgE, fMLP (N‐formylmethionine‐leucyl‐phenylalanine), and anti‐FcεRI). We measured avidin binding and CD63 expression on basophils with flow cytometry. We evaluated logistic regression and XGBoost models for peanut allergy classification and feature identification.
Results
Avidin binding was correlated with CD63 expression. Both markers discriminated between subjects with and without a peanut allergy. Although small by percentage, an avidin+/CD63− cell subset was found in all allergic subjects tested, indicating that the combination of avidin and CD63 could allow a more comprehensive identification of activated basophils. Indeed, we obtained the best classification accuracy (97.8% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity) by combining avidin and CD63 across seven PE doses. Similar accuracy was obtained by combining PE dose of 10,000 ng/mL for avidin and PE doses of 10 and 100 ng/mL for CD63.
Conclusions
Avidin and CD63 are reliable BAT activation markers associated with degranulation. Their combination enhances the identification of activated basophils and improves the classification accuracy of peanut allergy.
Avidin binding to activated basophils correlates with basophil CD63 expression. In classifying peanut‐allergic versus not peanut‐allergic or nonallergic subjects, combining avidin and CD63 features gives higher classification accuracy than using avidin or CD63 alone. %Av+ at 10,000 ng/mL of peanut extract (PE) and %CD63+ at 100 and 10 ng/mL PE give 97.8% sensitivity and 96.7% specificity using an XGBoost model.Abbreviations: AUC, area under the dose response curve; AUROC, area under the receiver operating characteristic; Av, avidin; BAS, basophil; BAT, basophil activation test; EC50, half maximal effective concentration; MFI, mean fluorescence intensity; NonA, nonallergic; NotPA, not peanut‐allergic; PA, peanut‐allergic; PE, peanut extract; XGBoost, extreme gradient boosting, tree‐based ensemble machine learning algorithm.
Abstract Background During the COVID‐19 pandemic, novel nanoparticle‐based mRNA vaccines were developed. A small number of individuals developed allergic reactions to these vaccines although the ...mechanisms remain undefined. Methods To understand COVID‐19 vaccine‐mediated allergic reactions, we enrolled 19 participants who developed allergic events within 2 h of vaccination and 13 controls, nonreactors. Using standard hemolysis assays, we demonstrated that sera from allergic participants induced stronger complement activation compared to nonallergic subjects following ex vivo vaccine exposure. Results Vaccine‐mediated complement activation correlated with anti‐polyethelyne glycol (PEG) IgG (but not IgM) levels while anti‐PEG IgE was undetectable in all subjects. Depletion of total IgG suppressed complement activation in select individuals. To investigate the effects of vaccine excipients on basophil function, we employed a validated indirect basophil activation test that stratified the allergic populations into high and low responders. Complement C3a and C5a receptor blockade in this system suppressed basophil response, providing strong evidence for complement involvement in vaccine‐mediated basophil activation. Single‐cell multiome analysis revealed differential expression of genes encoding the cytokine response and Toll‐like receptor (TLR) pathways within the monocyte compartment. Differential chromatin accessibility for IL‐13 and IL‐1B genes was found in allergic and nonallergic participants, suggesting that in vivo, epigenetic modulation of mononuclear phagocyte immunophenotypes determines their subsequent functional responsiveness, contributing to the overall physiologic manifestation of vaccine reactions. Conclusion These findings provide insights into the mechanisms underlying allergic reactions to COVID‐19 mRNA vaccines, which may be used for future vaccine strategies in individuals with prior history of allergies or reactions and reduce vaccine hesitancy.
PDF
