Asthma

PHILADELPHIA – U.S. children and teens who were hospitalized because of asthma had twice the rate of migraine headache when compared with a similar pediatric population without asthma. The finding is based on an analysis of more than 11 million U.S. pediatric hospitalizations over the course of a decade.

Among children and adolescents aged 3-21 years who were hospitalized for asthma, migraine rates were significantly higher among girls, adolescents, and whites, compared with boys, children aged 12 years or younger, and nonwhites, respectively, in a trio of adjusted analyses, Riddhiben S. Patel, MD, and associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Our hope is that, by establishing an association between childhood asthma and migraine, [these children] may be more easily screened for, diagnosed, and treated early by providers,” wrote Dr. Patel, a pediatric neurologist and headache specialist at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and associates.

Their analysis used administrative billing data collected by the Kids’ Inpatient Database, maintained by the U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The project includes a representative national sample of about 3 million pediatric hospital discharges every 3 years. The study used data from 11,483,103 hospitalizations of children and adolescents aged 3-21 years during 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012, and found an overall hospitalization rate of 0.8% billed for migraine. For patients also hospitalized with a billing code for asthma, the rate jumped to 1.36%, a 120% statistically significant relative increase in migraine hospitalizations after adjustment for baseline demographic differences, the researchers said.

Among the children and adolescents hospitalized with an asthma billing code, the relative rate of also having a billing code for migraine after adjustment was a statistically significant 80% higher in girls, compared with boys, a statistically significant 7% higher in adolescents, compared with children 12 years or younger, and was significantly reduced by a relative 45% rate in nonwhites, compared with whites.

The mechanisms behind these associations are not known, but could involve mast-cell degranulation, autonomic dysfunction, or shared genetic or environmental etiologic factors, the authors said.

Dr. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel RS et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:1-208, Abstract P78.

PHILADELPHIA – U.S. children and teens who were hospitalized because of asthma had twice the rate of migraine headache when compared with a similar pediatric population without asthma. The finding is based on an analysis of more than 11 million U.S. pediatric hospitalizations over the course of a decade.

Among children and adolescents aged 3-21 years who were hospitalized for asthma, migraine rates were significantly higher among girls, adolescents, and whites, compared with boys, children aged 12 years or younger, and nonwhites, respectively, in a trio of adjusted analyses, Riddhiben S. Patel, MD, and associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Our hope is that, by establishing an association between childhood asthma and migraine, [these children] may be more easily screened for, diagnosed, and treated early by providers,” wrote Dr. Patel, a pediatric neurologist and headache specialist at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and associates.

Their analysis used administrative billing data collected by the Kids’ Inpatient Database, maintained by the U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The project includes a representative national sample of about 3 million pediatric hospital discharges every 3 years. The study used data from 11,483,103 hospitalizations of children and adolescents aged 3-21 years during 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012, and found an overall hospitalization rate of 0.8% billed for migraine. For patients also hospitalized with a billing code for asthma, the rate jumped to 1.36%, a 120% statistically significant relative increase in migraine hospitalizations after adjustment for baseline demographic differences, the researchers said.

Among the children and adolescents hospitalized with an asthma billing code, the relative rate of also having a billing code for migraine after adjustment was a statistically significant 80% higher in girls, compared with boys, a statistically significant 7% higher in adolescents, compared with children 12 years or younger, and was significantly reduced by a relative 45% rate in nonwhites, compared with whites.

The mechanisms behind these associations are not known, but could involve mast-cell degranulation, autonomic dysfunction, or shared genetic or environmental etiologic factors, the authors said.

Dr. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel RS et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:1-208, Abstract P78.

PHILADELPHIA – U.S. children and teens who were hospitalized because of asthma had twice the rate of migraine headache when compared with a similar pediatric population without asthma. The finding is based on an analysis of more than 11 million U.S. pediatric hospitalizations over the course of a decade.

Among children and adolescents aged 3-21 years who were hospitalized for asthma, migraine rates were significantly higher among girls, adolescents, and whites, compared with boys, children aged 12 years or younger, and nonwhites, respectively, in a trio of adjusted analyses, Riddhiben S. Patel, MD, and associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“Our hope is that, by establishing an association between childhood asthma and migraine, [these children] may be more easily screened for, diagnosed, and treated early by providers,” wrote Dr. Patel, a pediatric neurologist and headache specialist at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and associates.

Their analysis used administrative billing data collected by the Kids’ Inpatient Database, maintained by the U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The project includes a representative national sample of about 3 million pediatric hospital discharges every 3 years. The study used data from 11,483,103 hospitalizations of children and adolescents aged 3-21 years during 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012, and found an overall hospitalization rate of 0.8% billed for migraine. For patients also hospitalized with a billing code for asthma, the rate jumped to 1.36%, a 120% statistically significant relative increase in migraine hospitalizations after adjustment for baseline demographic differences, the researchers said.

Among the children and adolescents hospitalized with an asthma billing code, the relative rate of also having a billing code for migraine after adjustment was a statistically significant 80% higher in girls, compared with boys, a statistically significant 7% higher in adolescents, compared with children 12 years or younger, and was significantly reduced by a relative 45% rate in nonwhites, compared with whites.

The mechanisms behind these associations are not known, but could involve mast-cell degranulation, autonomic dysfunction, or shared genetic or environmental etiologic factors, the authors said.

Dr. Patel reported no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel RS et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:1-208, Abstract P78.

ORLANDO – Clinicians at the primary care level should learn to distinguish the difference between severe and difficult-to-treat asthma to help facilitate referral to an asthma care specialist, according to a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Care providers are seeing patients with severe asthma at their primary care practice, whether they realize it or not, and should therefore learn to recognize and diagnose these patients even if they are not directly treating them for asthma, said Michelle R. Dickens, MSN, RN, FNP-C, AE-C, a nurse practitioner at Ferrell-Duncan Clinic department of allergy, asthma, and immunology in Springfield, Mo., said in her presentation.

“There’s still a lot we can do to get the ball rolling,” Ms. Dickens said. “While you may not be prescribing some of these newer biologics and some of the high-level, $30,000-a-year medications for your asthmatic, you still have a role in this in identifying them and helping us to get to where they need to be.”

Ms. Dickens noted that patients may not even disclose their asthma history with their primary care provider if it is not the reason for the office visit. “Because asthma can be such an episodic disease, it’s not right on the top of their radar,” she said. “They have bigger issues they want to talk about with you, and they forget to mention the asthma part.”

Under Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria, severe asthma is defined as poorly controlled asthma even after patients demonstrate adherence and good technique. However, before diagnosing a patient with severe asthma, clinicians should first rule out whether the patient has asthma that is difficult to treat, said Ms. Dickens. Difficult-to-treat asthma is characterized by inadequate dosing of medication, noncompliance with medication dose (“spreading out” the medication), poor technique when self-administering the medication, and comorbid conditions. It is also possible that difficult-to-treat asthma is not well controlled because the asthma was misdiagnosed and is actually another condition, she added.

If a patient has difficult-to-treat asthma, ensure they are adhering to the therapy, using proper technique, and that the medicine is being administered at the proper dose. Using Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3) and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, clinicians should maximize the treatment for a patient with severe asthma based on the stepwise approach outlined in the guidelines, and referring out to an asthma specialist for add-on therapy or stepping up therapy when indicated.

Researchers are beginning to explore the genotypes, phenotypes, and endotypes of asthma to learn more about severe asthma and potentially identify asthma subtypes, said Ms. Dickens. “We’re not there yet, but we are learning a little bit about why certain patients have certain types of asthma,” she said.

The Severe Asthma Research Program has found three clusters of likely severe asthma candidates: those with classic childhood asthma onset, those who have asthma with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and patients with both obesity and asthma characterized by “high impairment but mildly abnormal lung function.” Clinicians can use spirometry, complete blood count with differential, total immunoglobulin E, body mass index, allergy testing, and exhaled nitric oxide with these data and biomarkers to gain a better idea of a patient’s asthma situation.

Referrals to an asthma specialist should be considered if a patient experiences a life-threatening exacerbation, is not responding to therapy, has an unusual presentation of asthma symptoms, has comorbid conditions, or needs additional testing or additional education. Patients who are at step 2 or higher in EPR-3 guidelines and ready to move to step 3 and are under 4 years of age, and patients who are 5 years or older at step 4 of therapy or higher should be referred to an asthma specialist. “I think the younger the patient and the more severe the [symptoms], the more likely you should be referring to a specialist,” said Ms. Dickens.

Ms. Dickens reports no relevant financial disclosures. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

ORLANDO – Clinicians at the primary care level should learn to distinguish the difference between severe and difficult-to-treat asthma to help facilitate referral to an asthma care specialist, according to a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Care providers are seeing patients with severe asthma at their primary care practice, whether they realize it or not, and should therefore learn to recognize and diagnose these patients even if they are not directly treating them for asthma, said Michelle R. Dickens, MSN, RN, FNP-C, AE-C, a nurse practitioner at Ferrell-Duncan Clinic department of allergy, asthma, and immunology in Springfield, Mo., said in her presentation.

“There’s still a lot we can do to get the ball rolling,” Ms. Dickens said. “While you may not be prescribing some of these newer biologics and some of the high-level, $30,000-a-year medications for your asthmatic, you still have a role in this in identifying them and helping us to get to where they need to be.”

Ms. Dickens noted that patients may not even disclose their asthma history with their primary care provider if it is not the reason for the office visit. “Because asthma can be such an episodic disease, it’s not right on the top of their radar,” she said. “They have bigger issues they want to talk about with you, and they forget to mention the asthma part.”

Under Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria, severe asthma is defined as poorly controlled asthma even after patients demonstrate adherence and good technique. However, before diagnosing a patient with severe asthma, clinicians should first rule out whether the patient has asthma that is difficult to treat, said Ms. Dickens. Difficult-to-treat asthma is characterized by inadequate dosing of medication, noncompliance with medication dose (“spreading out” the medication), poor technique when self-administering the medication, and comorbid conditions. It is also possible that difficult-to-treat asthma is not well controlled because the asthma was misdiagnosed and is actually another condition, she added.

If a patient has difficult-to-treat asthma, ensure they are adhering to the therapy, using proper technique, and that the medicine is being administered at the proper dose. Using Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3) and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, clinicians should maximize the treatment for a patient with severe asthma based on the stepwise approach outlined in the guidelines, and referring out to an asthma specialist for add-on therapy or stepping up therapy when indicated.

Researchers are beginning to explore the genotypes, phenotypes, and endotypes of asthma to learn more about severe asthma and potentially identify asthma subtypes, said Ms. Dickens. “We’re not there yet, but we are learning a little bit about why certain patients have certain types of asthma,” she said.

The Severe Asthma Research Program has found three clusters of likely severe asthma candidates: those with classic childhood asthma onset, those who have asthma with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and patients with both obesity and asthma characterized by “high impairment but mildly abnormal lung function.” Clinicians can use spirometry, complete blood count with differential, total immunoglobulin E, body mass index, allergy testing, and exhaled nitric oxide with these data and biomarkers to gain a better idea of a patient’s asthma situation.

Referrals to an asthma specialist should be considered if a patient experiences a life-threatening exacerbation, is not responding to therapy, has an unusual presentation of asthma symptoms, has comorbid conditions, or needs additional testing or additional education. Patients who are at step 2 or higher in EPR-3 guidelines and ready to move to step 3 and are under 4 years of age, and patients who are 5 years or older at step 4 of therapy or higher should be referred to an asthma specialist. “I think the younger the patient and the more severe the [symptoms], the more likely you should be referring to a specialist,” said Ms. Dickens.

Ms. Dickens reports no relevant financial disclosures. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

ORLANDO – Clinicians at the primary care level should learn to distinguish the difference between severe and difficult-to-treat asthma to help facilitate referral to an asthma care specialist, according to a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Care providers are seeing patients with severe asthma at their primary care practice, whether they realize it or not, and should therefore learn to recognize and diagnose these patients even if they are not directly treating them for asthma, said Michelle R. Dickens, MSN, RN, FNP-C, AE-C, a nurse practitioner at Ferrell-Duncan Clinic department of allergy, asthma, and immunology in Springfield, Mo., said in her presentation.

“There’s still a lot we can do to get the ball rolling,” Ms. Dickens said. “While you may not be prescribing some of these newer biologics and some of the high-level, $30,000-a-year medications for your asthmatic, you still have a role in this in identifying them and helping us to get to where they need to be.”

Ms. Dickens noted that patients may not even disclose their asthma history with their primary care provider if it is not the reason for the office visit. “Because asthma can be such an episodic disease, it’s not right on the top of their radar,” she said. “They have bigger issues they want to talk about with you, and they forget to mention the asthma part.”

Under Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) criteria, severe asthma is defined as poorly controlled asthma even after patients demonstrate adherence and good technique. However, before diagnosing a patient with severe asthma, clinicians should first rule out whether the patient has asthma that is difficult to treat, said Ms. Dickens. Difficult-to-treat asthma is characterized by inadequate dosing of medication, noncompliance with medication dose (“spreading out” the medication), poor technique when self-administering the medication, and comorbid conditions. It is also possible that difficult-to-treat asthma is not well controlled because the asthma was misdiagnosed and is actually another condition, she added.

If a patient has difficult-to-treat asthma, ensure they are adhering to the therapy, using proper technique, and that the medicine is being administered at the proper dose. Using Expert Panel Report 3 (EPR-3) and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, clinicians should maximize the treatment for a patient with severe asthma based on the stepwise approach outlined in the guidelines, and referring out to an asthma specialist for add-on therapy or stepping up therapy when indicated.

Researchers are beginning to explore the genotypes, phenotypes, and endotypes of asthma to learn more about severe asthma and potentially identify asthma subtypes, said Ms. Dickens. “We’re not there yet, but we are learning a little bit about why certain patients have certain types of asthma,” she said.

The Severe Asthma Research Program has found three clusters of likely severe asthma candidates: those with classic childhood asthma onset, those who have asthma with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and patients with both obesity and asthma characterized by “high impairment but mildly abnormal lung function.” Clinicians can use spirometry, complete blood count with differential, total immunoglobulin E, body mass index, allergy testing, and exhaled nitric oxide with these data and biomarkers to gain a better idea of a patient’s asthma situation.

Referrals to an asthma specialist should be considered if a patient experiences a life-threatening exacerbation, is not responding to therapy, has an unusual presentation of asthma symptoms, has comorbid conditions, or needs additional testing or additional education. Patients who are at step 2 or higher in EPR-3 guidelines and ready to move to step 3 and are under 4 years of age, and patients who are 5 years or older at step 4 of therapy or higher should be referred to an asthma specialist. “I think the younger the patient and the more severe the [symptoms], the more likely you should be referring to a specialist,” said Ms. Dickens.

Ms. Dickens reports no relevant financial disclosures. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

ORLANDO – Regular education of patients with asthma and their loved ones about how to manage the disease is critical to successful treatment, according to a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“Every contact with them is a teachable moment,” Mary Lou Hayden, RN, MS, FNP-BC, AE-C, a board-certified nurse practitioner and asthma educator, said in her presentation. “You want to make sure you’re involving the important people in their lives to help them.”

Education for asthma includes teaching patients and their families the difference between long-term control and reliever medications; the proper timing and technique with the medications, as well as the importance of adherence; how to recognize and avoid triggers for asthma; how to self-monitor their asthma and control the disease; and when to seek medication care, she said.

“We review their inhaler technique every time they come in,” she added.

According to the American Lung Association, patients learn in visual, auditory, and kinesthetic styles. Teaching patients in a kinesthetic style by actually showing the patient how to take the medication through example will help the patient learn through feeling, or muscle memory. This also method works even if patients do not have the medication with them at the time, said Ms. Hayden.

“Let’s say, you don’t have [the medication], but you prescribe it,” she said. “When they come back, tell them to bring their bag of medications and make sure you go back through because if they can kinesthetically use it correctly, they’ve already mastered the visual and the auditory piece.

Written action plans are also important to successful asthma management. The plan should be tailored to the patient’s disease severity, loss of control, and include information like the peak expiratory flow and medication types, dosages, and frequencies. The action plan should also be available at home, daycare, and school. “You want them to know how to recognize their symptoms, what to do about their symptoms, and when to contact you or go to urgent care or [the emergency room],” said Ms. Hayden.

To simplify the plan, Ms. Hayden recommended zoning actions based on color, like the asthma action plan provided by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI plan uses traffic colors to signify how well controlled a patient’s asthma is, with green indicating well-controlled disease, yellow denoting worsening asthma, and red indicating that the asthma needs to be treated right away.

Action plans should also address a patient’s health literacy level and culture. “Think about who’s going to be using it,” said Ms. Hayden.

The goal of asthma therapy is to prevent chronic or problematic symptoms, lower use of short-acting beta-agonists, maintain good pulmonary function, normalize activity levels at school and work, prevent exacerbations and hospitalizations, and meet the patient’s expectations, as well as those of their family. “If you’re thinking only severe patients have exacerbations that are near fatal or fatal, that’s not true,” she said. It’s “very common for somebody with a very mild and intermittent asthma to go to severe in a very short period of time.”

When properly implemented, patient education is performed at the time of diagnosis, is done according to a plan, is integrated into care, reinforces important information, improves adherence, is individualized to the patient and addresses their needs, and builds a partnership between provider and patient.

“We really are thinking of the team concept: us, the patient and the important people the patient’s lives, and other clinicians that might be involved with other diseases to care for the patient,” said Ms. Hayden.

Ms. Hayden reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

ORLANDO – Regular education of patients with asthma and their loved ones about how to manage the disease is critical to successful treatment, according to a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“Every contact with them is a teachable moment,” Mary Lou Hayden, RN, MS, FNP-BC, AE-C, a board-certified nurse practitioner and asthma educator, said in her presentation. “You want to make sure you’re involving the important people in their lives to help them.”

Education for asthma includes teaching patients and their families the difference between long-term control and reliever medications; the proper timing and technique with the medications, as well as the importance of adherence; how to recognize and avoid triggers for asthma; how to self-monitor their asthma and control the disease; and when to seek medication care, she said.

“We review their inhaler technique every time they come in,” she added.

According to the American Lung Association, patients learn in visual, auditory, and kinesthetic styles. Teaching patients in a kinesthetic style by actually showing the patient how to take the medication through example will help the patient learn through feeling, or muscle memory. This also method works even if patients do not have the medication with them at the time, said Ms. Hayden.

“Let’s say, you don’t have [the medication], but you prescribe it,” she said. “When they come back, tell them to bring their bag of medications and make sure you go back through because if they can kinesthetically use it correctly, they’ve already mastered the visual and the auditory piece.

Written action plans are also important to successful asthma management. The plan should be tailored to the patient’s disease severity, loss of control, and include information like the peak expiratory flow and medication types, dosages, and frequencies. The action plan should also be available at home, daycare, and school. “You want them to know how to recognize their symptoms, what to do about their symptoms, and when to contact you or go to urgent care or [the emergency room],” said Ms. Hayden.

To simplify the plan, Ms. Hayden recommended zoning actions based on color, like the asthma action plan provided by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI plan uses traffic colors to signify how well controlled a patient’s asthma is, with green indicating well-controlled disease, yellow denoting worsening asthma, and red indicating that the asthma needs to be treated right away.

Action plans should also address a patient’s health literacy level and culture. “Think about who’s going to be using it,” said Ms. Hayden.

The goal of asthma therapy is to prevent chronic or problematic symptoms, lower use of short-acting beta-agonists, maintain good pulmonary function, normalize activity levels at school and work, prevent exacerbations and hospitalizations, and meet the patient’s expectations, as well as those of their family. “If you’re thinking only severe patients have exacerbations that are near fatal or fatal, that’s not true,” she said. It’s “very common for somebody with a very mild and intermittent asthma to go to severe in a very short period of time.”

When properly implemented, patient education is performed at the time of diagnosis, is done according to a plan, is integrated into care, reinforces important information, improves adherence, is individualized to the patient and addresses their needs, and builds a partnership between provider and patient.

“We really are thinking of the team concept: us, the patient and the important people the patient’s lives, and other clinicians that might be involved with other diseases to care for the patient,” said Ms. Hayden.

Ms. Hayden reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

ORLANDO – Regular education of patients with asthma and their loved ones about how to manage the disease is critical to successful treatment, according to a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

“Every contact with them is a teachable moment,” Mary Lou Hayden, RN, MS, FNP-BC, AE-C, a board-certified nurse practitioner and asthma educator, said in her presentation. “You want to make sure you’re involving the important people in their lives to help them.”

Education for asthma includes teaching patients and their families the difference between long-term control and reliever medications; the proper timing and technique with the medications, as well as the importance of adherence; how to recognize and avoid triggers for asthma; how to self-monitor their asthma and control the disease; and when to seek medication care, she said.

“We review their inhaler technique every time they come in,” she added.

According to the American Lung Association, patients learn in visual, auditory, and kinesthetic styles. Teaching patients in a kinesthetic style by actually showing the patient how to take the medication through example will help the patient learn through feeling, or muscle memory. This also method works even if patients do not have the medication with them at the time, said Ms. Hayden.

“Let’s say, you don’t have [the medication], but you prescribe it,” she said. “When they come back, tell them to bring their bag of medications and make sure you go back through because if they can kinesthetically use it correctly, they’ve already mastered the visual and the auditory piece.

Written action plans are also important to successful asthma management. The plan should be tailored to the patient’s disease severity, loss of control, and include information like the peak expiratory flow and medication types, dosages, and frequencies. The action plan should also be available at home, daycare, and school. “You want them to know how to recognize their symptoms, what to do about their symptoms, and when to contact you or go to urgent care or [the emergency room],” said Ms. Hayden.

To simplify the plan, Ms. Hayden recommended zoning actions based on color, like the asthma action plan provided by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI plan uses traffic colors to signify how well controlled a patient’s asthma is, with green indicating well-controlled disease, yellow denoting worsening asthma, and red indicating that the asthma needs to be treated right away.

Action plans should also address a patient’s health literacy level and culture. “Think about who’s going to be using it,” said Ms. Hayden.

The goal of asthma therapy is to prevent chronic or problematic symptoms, lower use of short-acting beta-agonists, maintain good pulmonary function, normalize activity levels at school and work, prevent exacerbations and hospitalizations, and meet the patient’s expectations, as well as those of their family. “If you’re thinking only severe patients have exacerbations that are near fatal or fatal, that’s not true,” she said. It’s “very common for somebody with a very mild and intermittent asthma to go to severe in a very short period of time.”

When properly implemented, patient education is performed at the time of diagnosis, is done according to a plan, is integrated into care, reinforces important information, improves adherence, is individualized to the patient and addresses their needs, and builds a partnership between provider and patient.

“We really are thinking of the team concept: us, the patient and the important people the patient’s lives, and other clinicians that might be involved with other diseases to care for the patient,” said Ms. Hayden.

Ms. Hayden reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

SEATTLE – Adding a 3-day course of azithromycin to treatment regimens of children hospitalized with asthma did not shorten length of stay or bring other benefits in a randomized, blinded trial of more than 150 youngsters at The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In recent years, some pediatricians at Montefiore had begun giving short-course azithromycin to hospitalized children who were not recovering as quickly as they had hoped, spurred by outpatient reports of reduced exacerbations and other benefits with long-term azithromycin (e.g., Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):659-68).

“We had no evidence for doing that at all” in the hospital, and it might be going on elsewhere, said senior investigator Alyssa Silver, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. She and her colleagues, including primary investigator Lindsey Douglas, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, took a closer look.

The negative results mean that “we can stop doing this, giving kids unnecessary things. Word is starting to get out” at Montefiore. “People are not using it as much,” she said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

The team had expected azithromycin to shorten length of stay (LOS) by about half a day, due to its anti-inflammatory effects, but that’s not what was found when they randomized 80 children aged 4-12 years with persistent asthma to oral azithromycin 10 mg/kg per day for 3 days within 12 hours of admission, and 79 to placebo.

LOS was 1.86 days in the placebo arm, and 1.69 days in the azithromycin group (P = .23). One placebo child was transferred to the pediatric ICU, versus none in the azithromycin arm (P = .50). The study was stopped short of its 214 subject enrollment goal because of futility, but even so, it was well powered to detect a difference in LOS, the primary outcome, Dr. Silver said.

At 1 week phone follow-up, 7 placebo children and 11 in the azithromycin arm had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .42), and 1 placebo child and 2 azithromycin children had been readmitted (P greater than .99). There were no differences in days of school missed, or work days missed among parents and guardians.

At one month, 23 placebo and 18 azithromycin children had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .5); 7 placebo and 6 azithromycin children had returned to the ED (P = .75).

In short, “we really found no difference” with short-course azithromycin. “Clinicians should consider [these] data before prescribing azithromycin [to] children hospitalized with asthma,” Dr. Silver and her team concluded.

Subjects were an average of about 7 years old, and about two-thirds were boys. They were not on azithromycin or other antibiotics prior to admission. About half had been admitted in the previous year, and about a quarter had at least one previous pediatric ICU admission. Over two-thirds had been on daily asthma medications. There were about 2 days of symptoms prior to admission.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Silver had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Adding a 3-day course of azithromycin to treatment regimens of children hospitalized with asthma did not shorten length of stay or bring other benefits in a randomized, blinded trial of more than 150 youngsters at The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In recent years, some pediatricians at Montefiore had begun giving short-course azithromycin to hospitalized children who were not recovering as quickly as they had hoped, spurred by outpatient reports of reduced exacerbations and other benefits with long-term azithromycin (e.g., Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):659-68).

“We had no evidence for doing that at all” in the hospital, and it might be going on elsewhere, said senior investigator Alyssa Silver, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. She and her colleagues, including primary investigator Lindsey Douglas, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, took a closer look.

The negative results mean that “we can stop doing this, giving kids unnecessary things. Word is starting to get out” at Montefiore. “People are not using it as much,” she said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

The team had expected azithromycin to shorten length of stay (LOS) by about half a day, due to its anti-inflammatory effects, but that’s not what was found when they randomized 80 children aged 4-12 years with persistent asthma to oral azithromycin 10 mg/kg per day for 3 days within 12 hours of admission, and 79 to placebo.

LOS was 1.86 days in the placebo arm, and 1.69 days in the azithromycin group (P = .23). One placebo child was transferred to the pediatric ICU, versus none in the azithromycin arm (P = .50). The study was stopped short of its 214 subject enrollment goal because of futility, but even so, it was well powered to detect a difference in LOS, the primary outcome, Dr. Silver said.

At 1 week phone follow-up, 7 placebo children and 11 in the azithromycin arm had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .42), and 1 placebo child and 2 azithromycin children had been readmitted (P greater than .99). There were no differences in days of school missed, or work days missed among parents and guardians.

At one month, 23 placebo and 18 azithromycin children had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .5); 7 placebo and 6 azithromycin children had returned to the ED (P = .75).

In short, “we really found no difference” with short-course azithromycin. “Clinicians should consider [these] data before prescribing azithromycin [to] children hospitalized with asthma,” Dr. Silver and her team concluded.

Subjects were an average of about 7 years old, and about two-thirds were boys. They were not on azithromycin or other antibiotics prior to admission. About half had been admitted in the previous year, and about a quarter had at least one previous pediatric ICU admission. Over two-thirds had been on daily asthma medications. There were about 2 days of symptoms prior to admission.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Silver had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Adding a 3-day course of azithromycin to treatment regimens of children hospitalized with asthma did not shorten length of stay or bring other benefits in a randomized, blinded trial of more than 150 youngsters at The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In recent years, some pediatricians at Montefiore had begun giving short-course azithromycin to hospitalized children who were not recovering as quickly as they had hoped, spurred by outpatient reports of reduced exacerbations and other benefits with long-term azithromycin (e.g., Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):659-68).

“We had no evidence for doing that at all” in the hospital, and it might be going on elsewhere, said senior investigator Alyssa Silver, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. She and her colleagues, including primary investigator Lindsey Douglas, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, took a closer look.

The negative results mean that “we can stop doing this, giving kids unnecessary things. Word is starting to get out” at Montefiore. “People are not using it as much,” she said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

The team had expected azithromycin to shorten length of stay (LOS) by about half a day, due to its anti-inflammatory effects, but that’s not what was found when they randomized 80 children aged 4-12 years with persistent asthma to oral azithromycin 10 mg/kg per day for 3 days within 12 hours of admission, and 79 to placebo.

LOS was 1.86 days in the placebo arm, and 1.69 days in the azithromycin group (P = .23). One placebo child was transferred to the pediatric ICU, versus none in the azithromycin arm (P = .50). The study was stopped short of its 214 subject enrollment goal because of futility, but even so, it was well powered to detect a difference in LOS, the primary outcome, Dr. Silver said.

At 1 week phone follow-up, 7 placebo children and 11 in the azithromycin arm had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .42), and 1 placebo child and 2 azithromycin children had been readmitted (P greater than .99). There were no differences in days of school missed, or work days missed among parents and guardians.

At one month, 23 placebo and 18 azithromycin children had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .5); 7 placebo and 6 azithromycin children had returned to the ED (P = .75).

In short, “we really found no difference” with short-course azithromycin. “Clinicians should consider [these] data before prescribing azithromycin [to] children hospitalized with asthma,” Dr. Silver and her team concluded.

Subjects were an average of about 7 years old, and about two-thirds were boys. They were not on azithromycin or other antibiotics prior to admission. About half had been admitted in the previous year, and about a quarter had at least one previous pediatric ICU admission. Over two-thirds had been on daily asthma medications. There were about 2 days of symptoms prior to admission.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Silver had no disclosures.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Inhaler choice for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be chosen on the basis of access, cost, prescriber, patient ability, and patient preference.

That’s according to Gabriel Ortiz, MPAS, PA-C, DFAAPA, a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

There are several treatment options available in inhaler form for patients with COPD, including short-acting and long-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA/LABA), short-acting and long-acting antimuscarinics (SAMA/LAMA), combination therapy, and triple therapy. But education and training on how to use an inhaler is also important, Mr. Ortiz said in his presentation.

Providers should help a patient choose an inhaler they are most likely to use. “It’s difficult to actuate and inhale, so there’s a lot of education that goes into that,” said Mr. Ortiz, of Pediatric Pulmonary Services in El Paso, Texas. “What we do for our patients is, we educate them, we tell them to demonstrate it, then bring [the] inhaler back on the next visit and demonstrate to us every time.”

“Make sure that they demonstrate because, as patients get older, they may lose their ability to actuate and inhale,” he added.

Adherence to therapy should also be considered before changing from a current therapy, he added. Mr. Ortiz described a scenario in which a prescription was filled, but because of the cost, the patient reduced the dose by half to make the therapy last longer.

“We could be the best providers in the world, prescribing the best medication in the world. If the medication doesn’t get to where we need it, it’s not going to help anybody,” he said.

Providers should also use nonpharmacological treatments to prevent or keep COPD from progressing. Smoking cessation is key to reducing the risk of developing COPD, and it is not clear whether e-cigarettes aid in smoking cessation, despite companies that market these products making that claim. “We have a huge e-cigarette epidemic here,” he said.

Instead, Mr. Ortiz recommended identifying which patients are current tobacco users, encouraging them to quit, determining whether the patient is willing to make a commitment to cut down on tobacco use or stop entirely, helping draft a quit plan and obtaining intra- and extratreatment social support for smoking cessation, and scheduling follow-up. Providers should discuss smoking cessation at each visit, and it may take multiple visits before a patient is willing to consider quitting, he said.

Another measure providers can take is making sure patients with COPD have received influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations because this can lower the risk of respiratory tract infections. Physical activity, training in exercise, nutritional support, and pulmonary rehabilitation can improve their health status, dyspnea, and exercise tolerance. While C-level evidence shows education alone is not effective according to Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, providers working with patients through self-management interventions have been shown to improve health status and decrease COPD-related hospitalizations.

Oxygen therapy has been effective for patients with severe resting chronic hypoxia and improves survival, said Mr. Ortiz. For patients who gradually decline in health despite treatment, palliative, hospice, and end-of-life care may be an option. “Remember that as acute exacerbations continue, that increases the risk of death,” he said. “We want to try and prevent [those] exacerbations and improve quality of life.”

During follow-up visits, providers should continue performing spirometry tests annually to measure decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, information on symptoms that have presented since the previous visit, details of any exacerbations that occurred, and current smoking status. When making decisions to adjust therapy, providers should examine the effectiveness of the current regimen and consider the dose of prescribed medications, whether the patient is adhering to the regimen, inhaler technique, and any side effects.

Mr. Ortiz reports also being a paid employee for Thermo Fisher, a biotechnology product development company based in Waltham, Mass. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.


 

ORLANDO – Inhaler choice for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be chosen on the basis of access, cost, prescriber, patient ability, and patient preference.

That’s according to Gabriel Ortiz, MPAS, PA-C, DFAAPA, a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

There are several treatment options available in inhaler form for patients with COPD, including short-acting and long-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA/LABA), short-acting and long-acting antimuscarinics (SAMA/LAMA), combination therapy, and triple therapy. But education and training on how to use an inhaler is also important, Mr. Ortiz said in his presentation.

Providers should help a patient choose an inhaler they are most likely to use. “It’s difficult to actuate and inhale, so there’s a lot of education that goes into that,” said Mr. Ortiz, of Pediatric Pulmonary Services in El Paso, Texas. “What we do for our patients is, we educate them, we tell them to demonstrate it, then bring [the] inhaler back on the next visit and demonstrate to us every time.”

“Make sure that they demonstrate because, as patients get older, they may lose their ability to actuate and inhale,” he added.

Adherence to therapy should also be considered before changing from a current therapy, he added. Mr. Ortiz described a scenario in which a prescription was filled, but because of the cost, the patient reduced the dose by half to make the therapy last longer.

“We could be the best providers in the world, prescribing the best medication in the world. If the medication doesn’t get to where we need it, it’s not going to help anybody,” he said.

Providers should also use nonpharmacological treatments to prevent or keep COPD from progressing. Smoking cessation is key to reducing the risk of developing COPD, and it is not clear whether e-cigarettes aid in smoking cessation, despite companies that market these products making that claim. “We have a huge e-cigarette epidemic here,” he said.

Instead, Mr. Ortiz recommended identifying which patients are current tobacco users, encouraging them to quit, determining whether the patient is willing to make a commitment to cut down on tobacco use or stop entirely, helping draft a quit plan and obtaining intra- and extratreatment social support for smoking cessation, and scheduling follow-up. Providers should discuss smoking cessation at each visit, and it may take multiple visits before a patient is willing to consider quitting, he said.

Another measure providers can take is making sure patients with COPD have received influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations because this can lower the risk of respiratory tract infections. Physical activity, training in exercise, nutritional support, and pulmonary rehabilitation can improve their health status, dyspnea, and exercise tolerance. While C-level evidence shows education alone is not effective according to Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, providers working with patients through self-management interventions have been shown to improve health status and decrease COPD-related hospitalizations.

Oxygen therapy has been effective for patients with severe resting chronic hypoxia and improves survival, said Mr. Ortiz. For patients who gradually decline in health despite treatment, palliative, hospice, and end-of-life care may be an option. “Remember that as acute exacerbations continue, that increases the risk of death,” he said. “We want to try and prevent [those] exacerbations and improve quality of life.”

During follow-up visits, providers should continue performing spirometry tests annually to measure decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, information on symptoms that have presented since the previous visit, details of any exacerbations that occurred, and current smoking status. When making decisions to adjust therapy, providers should examine the effectiveness of the current regimen and consider the dose of prescribed medications, whether the patient is adhering to the regimen, inhaler technique, and any side effects.

Mr. Ortiz reports also being a paid employee for Thermo Fisher, a biotechnology product development company based in Waltham, Mass. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.


 

ORLANDO – Inhaler choice for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be chosen on the basis of access, cost, prescriber, patient ability, and patient preference.

That’s according to Gabriel Ortiz, MPAS, PA-C, DFAAPA, a speaker at the Cardiovascular & Respiratory Summit by Global Academy for Medical Education.

There are several treatment options available in inhaler form for patients with COPD, including short-acting and long-acting beta₂-agonists (SABA/LABA), short-acting and long-acting antimuscarinics (SAMA/LAMA), combination therapy, and triple therapy. But education and training on how to use an inhaler is also important, Mr. Ortiz said in his presentation.

Providers should help a patient choose an inhaler they are most likely to use. “It’s difficult to actuate and inhale, so there’s a lot of education that goes into that,” said Mr. Ortiz, of Pediatric Pulmonary Services in El Paso, Texas. “What we do for our patients is, we educate them, we tell them to demonstrate it, then bring [the] inhaler back on the next visit and demonstrate to us every time.”

“Make sure that they demonstrate because, as patients get older, they may lose their ability to actuate and inhale,” he added.

Adherence to therapy should also be considered before changing from a current therapy, he added. Mr. Ortiz described a scenario in which a prescription was filled, but because of the cost, the patient reduced the dose by half to make the therapy last longer.

“We could be the best providers in the world, prescribing the best medication in the world. If the medication doesn’t get to where we need it, it’s not going to help anybody,” he said.

Providers should also use nonpharmacological treatments to prevent or keep COPD from progressing. Smoking cessation is key to reducing the risk of developing COPD, and it is not clear whether e-cigarettes aid in smoking cessation, despite companies that market these products making that claim. “We have a huge e-cigarette epidemic here,” he said.

Instead, Mr. Ortiz recommended identifying which patients are current tobacco users, encouraging them to quit, determining whether the patient is willing to make a commitment to cut down on tobacco use or stop entirely, helping draft a quit plan and obtaining intra- and extratreatment social support for smoking cessation, and scheduling follow-up. Providers should discuss smoking cessation at each visit, and it may take multiple visits before a patient is willing to consider quitting, he said.

Another measure providers can take is making sure patients with COPD have received influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations because this can lower the risk of respiratory tract infections. Physical activity, training in exercise, nutritional support, and pulmonary rehabilitation can improve their health status, dyspnea, and exercise tolerance. While C-level evidence shows education alone is not effective according to Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines, providers working with patients through self-management interventions have been shown to improve health status and decrease COPD-related hospitalizations.

Oxygen therapy has been effective for patients with severe resting chronic hypoxia and improves survival, said Mr. Ortiz. For patients who gradually decline in health despite treatment, palliative, hospice, and end-of-life care may be an option. “Remember that as acute exacerbations continue, that increases the risk of death,” he said. “We want to try and prevent [those] exacerbations and improve quality of life.”

During follow-up visits, providers should continue performing spirometry tests annually to measure decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, information on symptoms that have presented since the previous visit, details of any exacerbations that occurred, and current smoking status. When making decisions to adjust therapy, providers should examine the effectiveness of the current regimen and consider the dose of prescribed medications, whether the patient is adhering to the regimen, inhaler technique, and any side effects.

Mr. Ortiz reports also being a paid employee for Thermo Fisher, a biotechnology product development company based in Waltham, Mass. Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.


 

Adults with asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome who took statins had lower rates of anxiety and depression than did those not on statins, based on data from approximately 9,000 patients.

Although asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) has been associated with depression, the effects of oral and inhaled corticosteroids on anxiety and depression in these patients have not been well investigated, wrote Jun-Jun Yeh, MD, of Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi (Taiwan) Christian Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers analyzed 9,139 ACOS patients including 1,252 statin users and 7,887 nonstatin users; 62% were male.

The statin users had significantly lower risk of both anxiety and depression than did the nonstatin users (adjusted hazard ratio 0.34 for anxiety and 0.36 for depression) after researchers controlled for factors including age, sex, comorbidities, and medications. Statin users experienced a total of 109 anxiety or depression events over an average of 8 years’ follow-up, while nonstatin users experienced a total of 1,333 anxiety or depression events over an average of 5 years’ follow-up.

The incidence density rate of anxiety was 11/1,000 person-years for statin users and 33/1,000 person-years for nonstatin users. The incidence density rate of depression was 3/1,000 person-years for statin users and 9/1,000 person-years for nonstatin users.

Significantly lower risk of anxiety and depression also were observed in statin users, compared with nonstatin users, in subgroups of men, women, patients younger than 50 years, and patients aged 50 years and older. The risks of anxiety and depression were lower in statin users versus nonstatin users across all subgroups with or without inhaled or oral corticosteroids.

Overall, the statin users were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to use inhaled or oral corticosteroids than were the nonstatin users.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective nature of the study and a lack of information on prescribed daily doses of medication, the researchers noted. However, the results support those from previous studies and suggest that “the anti-inflammatory effect of statins may attenuate anxiety and depression in ACOS patients, even in the late stages of the disease,” although the exact mechanism of action remains unknown and larger, randomized, controlled trials are needed, they said.

The study was supported by grants from a variety of organizations in Taiwan, China, and Japan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yeh JJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Jun 15; 253:277-84.

Adults with asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome who took statins had lower rates of anxiety and depression than did those not on statins, based on data from approximately 9,000 patients.

Although asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) has been associated with depression, the effects of oral and inhaled corticosteroids on anxiety and depression in these patients have not been well investigated, wrote Jun-Jun Yeh, MD, of Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi (Taiwan) Christian Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers analyzed 9,139 ACOS patients including 1,252 statin users and 7,887 nonstatin users; 62% were male.

The statin users had significantly lower risk of both anxiety and depression than did the nonstatin users (adjusted hazard ratio 0.34 for anxiety and 0.36 for depression) after researchers controlled for factors including age, sex, comorbidities, and medications. Statin users experienced a total of 109 anxiety or depression events over an average of 8 years’ follow-up, while nonstatin users experienced a total of 1,333 anxiety or depression events over an average of 5 years’ follow-up.

The incidence density rate of anxiety was 11/1,000 person-years for statin users and 33/1,000 person-years for nonstatin users. The incidence density rate of depression was 3/1,000 person-years for statin users and 9/1,000 person-years for nonstatin users.

Significantly lower risk of anxiety and depression also were observed in statin users, compared with nonstatin users, in subgroups of men, women, patients younger than 50 years, and patients aged 50 years and older. The risks of anxiety and depression were lower in statin users versus nonstatin users across all subgroups with or without inhaled or oral corticosteroids.

Overall, the statin users were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to use inhaled or oral corticosteroids than were the nonstatin users.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective nature of the study and a lack of information on prescribed daily doses of medication, the researchers noted. However, the results support those from previous studies and suggest that “the anti-inflammatory effect of statins may attenuate anxiety and depression in ACOS patients, even in the late stages of the disease,” although the exact mechanism of action remains unknown and larger, randomized, controlled trials are needed, they said.

The study was supported by grants from a variety of organizations in Taiwan, China, and Japan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yeh JJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Jun 15; 253:277-84.

Adults with asthma–chronic obstructive pulmonary disease overlap syndrome who took statins had lower rates of anxiety and depression than did those not on statins, based on data from approximately 9,000 patients.

Although asthma–COPD overlap syndrome (ACOS) has been associated with depression, the effects of oral and inhaled corticosteroids on anxiety and depression in these patients have not been well investigated, wrote Jun-Jun Yeh, MD, of Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi (Taiwan) Christian Hospital, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers analyzed 9,139 ACOS patients including 1,252 statin users and 7,887 nonstatin users; 62% were male.

The statin users had significantly lower risk of both anxiety and depression than did the nonstatin users (adjusted hazard ratio 0.34 for anxiety and 0.36 for depression) after researchers controlled for factors including age, sex, comorbidities, and medications. Statin users experienced a total of 109 anxiety or depression events over an average of 8 years’ follow-up, while nonstatin users experienced a total of 1,333 anxiety or depression events over an average of 5 years’ follow-up.

The incidence density rate of anxiety was 11/1,000 person-years for statin users and 33/1,000 person-years for nonstatin users. The incidence density rate of depression was 3/1,000 person-years for statin users and 9/1,000 person-years for nonstatin users.

Significantly lower risk of anxiety and depression also were observed in statin users, compared with nonstatin users, in subgroups of men, women, patients younger than 50 years, and patients aged 50 years and older. The risks of anxiety and depression were lower in statin users versus nonstatin users across all subgroups with or without inhaled or oral corticosteroids.

Overall, the statin users were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to use inhaled or oral corticosteroids than were the nonstatin users.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective nature of the study and a lack of information on prescribed daily doses of medication, the researchers noted. However, the results support those from previous studies and suggest that “the anti-inflammatory effect of statins may attenuate anxiety and depression in ACOS patients, even in the late stages of the disease,” although the exact mechanism of action remains unknown and larger, randomized, controlled trials are needed, they said.

The study was supported by grants from a variety of organizations in Taiwan, China, and Japan. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yeh JJ et al. J Affect Disord. 2019 Jun 15; 253:277-84.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine in children and teens with asthma or recurrent wheezing does not increase risk of postvaccination lower respiratory events, according to an analysis published in Vaccine.

The data corroborate other research indicating that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is safe for children with asthma older than 2 years and suggest that the choice of vaccination in this population should be based on effectiveness, according to James D. Nordin, MD, MPH, a clinical researcher at HealthPartners Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues.

Children and adolescents with asthma have an increased risk of morbidity if they contract influenza. They represent a disproportionate number of pediatric influenza hospitalizations and have been a focus of efforts to vaccinate children against influenza. Since 2003, the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and the LAIV have been available. Research indicates that LAIV is more effective than IIV at preventing culture-confirmed influenza in children. Two studies found an increased risk of wheezing in children who received LAIV, but other studies failed to replicate these findings.
 

A retrospective cohort study

Dr. Nordin and associates conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to investigate whether use of a guideline recommending LAIV for children aged 2 years and older with asthma increased the risk of lower respiratory events within 21 or 42 days of vaccination, compared with standard guidelines to administer IIV in children with asthma. The investigators drew data from two large medical groups with independent clinical leadership that serve demographically similar populations in Minnesota. One group (the LAIV group) switched its preference for all children from IIV to LAIV in 2010. The control group continued using IIV for children with asthma throughout the study period. Each group operates more than 20 clinics.

The investigators included children and adolescents aged 2-17 years who presented during one or more influenza season from 2007-2008 through 2014-2015. Eligible participants had a diagnosis of asthma or wheezing, received one or more influenza vaccines, had continuous insurance enrollment, and had at least one primary care or asthma related subspecialty encounter. They excluded patients with contraindications for LAIV (e.g., pregnancy, malignancy, and cystic fibrosis) and those with any hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient encounter for a lower respiratory event in the 42 days before influenza vaccination.

Dr. Nordin and colleagues used a generalized estimating equation regression to estimate the ratio of rate ratios (RORs) comparing events before and after vaccination between the LAIV guideline and control groups. The researchers examined covariates such as age, gender, race or ethnicity, Medicaid insurance for at least 1 month in the previous year, neighborhood poverty, and neighborhood rates of asthma.
 

No increased risk

The investigators included 4,771 children and 7,851 child-influenza records in their analysis. During the period from 2007 to 2010, there were 2,215 child-influenza records from children and adolescents included from the LAIV group and 735 from the IIV guideline group. From 2010 to 2015, there were 3,767 child-influenza records in children and adolescents from the LAIV group and 1,134 from the IIV guideline group. After the LAIV group adopted the new guideline, the proportion of patients receiving LAIV increased from 23% to 68% in the LAIV group and from 7% to 11% in the control group.

About 88% of lower respiratory events included diagnoses for asthma exacerbations. When the investigators adjusted the data for age, asthma severity, asthma control, race or ethnicity, and Medicaid coverage, they found no increase in lower respiratory events associated with the LAIV guideline. The adjusted ROR was 0.74 for lower respiratory events within 21 days of vaccination and 0.77 for lower respiratory events within 42 days of vaccination. The results were similar when Dr. Nordin and colleagues stratified the data by age group, and including additional covariates did not alter the ROR estimates. In all, 21 hospitalizations occurred within 42 days of influenza vaccination, and the LAIV guideline did not increase the risk for hospitalization.

“Findings from this study are consistent with several recent observational studies of LAIV in children and adolescents with asthma,” said Dr. Nordin and colleagues.

One limitation of the current study was that the data were restricted to the information available in electronic health care or claims records. The researchers therefore were able to observe only medically attended lower respiratory events. Furthermore, the exclusion of asthma management encounters and the classification of asthma severity were based on diagnoses, visits, and medication orders and fills. The estimates thus are prone to misclassification, which may have biased the results. Finally, information on important variables such as daycare attendance, presence of school-age siblings, and exposure to secondhand smoke was not available.

The research was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nordin JD et al. Vaccine. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.081.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine in children and teens with asthma or recurrent wheezing does not increase risk of postvaccination lower respiratory events, according to an analysis published in Vaccine.

The data corroborate other research indicating that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is safe for children with asthma older than 2 years and suggest that the choice of vaccination in this population should be based on effectiveness, according to James D. Nordin, MD, MPH, a clinical researcher at HealthPartners Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues.

Children and adolescents with asthma have an increased risk of morbidity if they contract influenza. They represent a disproportionate number of pediatric influenza hospitalizations and have been a focus of efforts to vaccinate children against influenza. Since 2003, the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and the LAIV have been available. Research indicates that LAIV is more effective than IIV at preventing culture-confirmed influenza in children. Two studies found an increased risk of wheezing in children who received LAIV, but other studies failed to replicate these findings.
 

A retrospective cohort study

Dr. Nordin and associates conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to investigate whether use of a guideline recommending LAIV for children aged 2 years and older with asthma increased the risk of lower respiratory events within 21 or 42 days of vaccination, compared with standard guidelines to administer IIV in children with asthma. The investigators drew data from two large medical groups with independent clinical leadership that serve demographically similar populations in Minnesota. One group (the LAIV group) switched its preference for all children from IIV to LAIV in 2010. The control group continued using IIV for children with asthma throughout the study period. Each group operates more than 20 clinics.

The investigators included children and adolescents aged 2-17 years who presented during one or more influenza season from 2007-2008 through 2014-2015. Eligible participants had a diagnosis of asthma or wheezing, received one or more influenza vaccines, had continuous insurance enrollment, and had at least one primary care or asthma related subspecialty encounter. They excluded patients with contraindications for LAIV (e.g., pregnancy, malignancy, and cystic fibrosis) and those with any hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient encounter for a lower respiratory event in the 42 days before influenza vaccination.

Dr. Nordin and colleagues used a generalized estimating equation regression to estimate the ratio of rate ratios (RORs) comparing events before and after vaccination between the LAIV guideline and control groups. The researchers examined covariates such as age, gender, race or ethnicity, Medicaid insurance for at least 1 month in the previous year, neighborhood poverty, and neighborhood rates of asthma.
 

No increased risk

The investigators included 4,771 children and 7,851 child-influenza records in their analysis. During the period from 2007 to 2010, there were 2,215 child-influenza records from children and adolescents included from the LAIV group and 735 from the IIV guideline group. From 2010 to 2015, there were 3,767 child-influenza records in children and adolescents from the LAIV group and 1,134 from the IIV guideline group. After the LAIV group adopted the new guideline, the proportion of patients receiving LAIV increased from 23% to 68% in the LAIV group and from 7% to 11% in the control group.

About 88% of lower respiratory events included diagnoses for asthma exacerbations. When the investigators adjusted the data for age, asthma severity, asthma control, race or ethnicity, and Medicaid coverage, they found no increase in lower respiratory events associated with the LAIV guideline. The adjusted ROR was 0.74 for lower respiratory events within 21 days of vaccination and 0.77 for lower respiratory events within 42 days of vaccination. The results were similar when Dr. Nordin and colleagues stratified the data by age group, and including additional covariates did not alter the ROR estimates. In all, 21 hospitalizations occurred within 42 days of influenza vaccination, and the LAIV guideline did not increase the risk for hospitalization.

“Findings from this study are consistent with several recent observational studies of LAIV in children and adolescents with asthma,” said Dr. Nordin and colleagues.

One limitation of the current study was that the data were restricted to the information available in electronic health care or claims records. The researchers therefore were able to observe only medically attended lower respiratory events. Furthermore, the exclusion of asthma management encounters and the classification of asthma severity were based on diagnoses, visits, and medication orders and fills. The estimates thus are prone to misclassification, which may have biased the results. Finally, information on important variables such as daycare attendance, presence of school-age siblings, and exposure to secondhand smoke was not available.

The research was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nordin JD et al. Vaccine. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.081.

Live attenuated influenza vaccine in children and teens with asthma or recurrent wheezing does not increase risk of postvaccination lower respiratory events, according to an analysis published in Vaccine.

The data corroborate other research indicating that live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) is safe for children with asthma older than 2 years and suggest that the choice of vaccination in this population should be based on effectiveness, according to James D. Nordin, MD, MPH, a clinical researcher at HealthPartners Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues.

Children and adolescents with asthma have an increased risk of morbidity if they contract influenza. They represent a disproportionate number of pediatric influenza hospitalizations and have been a focus of efforts to vaccinate children against influenza. Since 2003, the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) and the LAIV have been available. Research indicates that LAIV is more effective than IIV at preventing culture-confirmed influenza in children. Two studies found an increased risk of wheezing in children who received LAIV, but other studies failed to replicate these findings.
 

A retrospective cohort study

Dr. Nordin and associates conducted a retrospective observational cohort study to investigate whether use of a guideline recommending LAIV for children aged 2 years and older with asthma increased the risk of lower respiratory events within 21 or 42 days of vaccination, compared with standard guidelines to administer IIV in children with asthma. The investigators drew data from two large medical groups with independent clinical leadership that serve demographically similar populations in Minnesota. One group (the LAIV group) switched its preference for all children from IIV to LAIV in 2010. The control group continued using IIV for children with asthma throughout the study period. Each group operates more than 20 clinics.

The investigators included children and adolescents aged 2-17 years who presented during one or more influenza season from 2007-2008 through 2014-2015. Eligible participants had a diagnosis of asthma or wheezing, received one or more influenza vaccines, had continuous insurance enrollment, and had at least one primary care or asthma related subspecialty encounter. They excluded patients with contraindications for LAIV (e.g., pregnancy, malignancy, and cystic fibrosis) and those with any hospitalization, ED visit, or outpatient encounter for a lower respiratory event in the 42 days before influenza vaccination.

Dr. Nordin and colleagues used a generalized estimating equation regression to estimate the ratio of rate ratios (RORs) comparing events before and after vaccination between the LAIV guideline and control groups. The researchers examined covariates such as age, gender, race or ethnicity, Medicaid insurance for at least 1 month in the previous year, neighborhood poverty, and neighborhood rates of asthma.
 

No increased risk

The investigators included 4,771 children and 7,851 child-influenza records in their analysis. During the period from 2007 to 2010, there were 2,215 child-influenza records from children and adolescents included from the LAIV group and 735 from the IIV guideline group. From 2010 to 2015, there were 3,767 child-influenza records in children and adolescents from the LAIV group and 1,134 from the IIV guideline group. After the LAIV group adopted the new guideline, the proportion of patients receiving LAIV increased from 23% to 68% in the LAIV group and from 7% to 11% in the control group.

About 88% of lower respiratory events included diagnoses for asthma exacerbations. When the investigators adjusted the data for age, asthma severity, asthma control, race or ethnicity, and Medicaid coverage, they found no increase in lower respiratory events associated with the LAIV guideline. The adjusted ROR was 0.74 for lower respiratory events within 21 days of vaccination and 0.77 for lower respiratory events within 42 days of vaccination. The results were similar when Dr. Nordin and colleagues stratified the data by age group, and including additional covariates did not alter the ROR estimates. In all, 21 hospitalizations occurred within 42 days of influenza vaccination, and the LAIV guideline did not increase the risk for hospitalization.

“Findings from this study are consistent with several recent observational studies of LAIV in children and adolescents with asthma,” said Dr. Nordin and colleagues.

One limitation of the current study was that the data were restricted to the information available in electronic health care or claims records. The researchers therefore were able to observe only medically attended lower respiratory events. Furthermore, the exclusion of asthma management encounters and the classification of asthma severity were based on diagnoses, visits, and medication orders and fills. The estimates thus are prone to misclassification, which may have biased the results. Finally, information on important variables such as daycare attendance, presence of school-age siblings, and exposure to secondhand smoke was not available.

The research was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nordin JD et al. Vaccine. 2019 Jun 10. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.05.081.

Inhaler technique may not be the cause of chronic uncontrolled asthma in a population of low-income, inner-city adults with the condition, a study has found.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“Incorrect inhaler technique cannot explain the poor disease control in our patient population,” wrote Patrick K. Gleeson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators. Their report is in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. “In individuals with poorly controlled asthma, other factors contributing to disease mortality must be considered.”

The 586 patients in the study were observed using their inhalers, and their technique was scored by way of a checklist developed for the study. Inhaler technique – widely regarded as a risk factor for poor disease control – was “better than expected,” the investigators reported, with 56% of patients using metered dose inhalers and 64% of those using dry powder inhalers not making any errors.

“The seeming disassociation between subjects’ asthma control and inhaler technique is counterintuitive, and may be explained by important baseline characteristics in our patients,” they wrote. For instance, participants had suboptimal living conditions in lower income Philadelphia neighborhoods. Almost a quarter – 23% – were current smokers, and almost half were Medicaid recipients. In addition, their mean body mass index was 35.1 kg/m².

The investigators hypothesized that patients with lower health literacy would have poorer technique but found instead that technique did not vary by reading comprehension or numeracy levels.

More than half of the adults in the study had uncontrolled asthma as defined by prednisone use, an emergency department visit, or a hospitalization for asthma in the past 12 months. A subset had moderate to severe disease per a physician’s diagnosis, forced expiratory volume in 1 second less than 80% predicted, and improvement with a bronchodilator. All patients, however, were considered to have uncontrolled asthma.

There is “uncertainty” in the field about how to measure inhaler technique, and the technique checklist used in the study “may have omitted potentially important errors,” the investigators noted. Still, “good technique predominated among our [population of vulnerable patients].”

The project was supported through awards from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Coinvestigator Andrea J. Apter, MD, reported that she consults for UpToDate and is an associate editor for the journal. Coinvestigator Knashawn H. Morales, ScD, reported owning stock in Altria Group, British American Tobacco, and Philip Morris International. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Gleeson PK. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.05.048.

Inhaler technique may not be the cause of chronic uncontrolled asthma in a population of low-income, inner-city adults with the condition, a study has found.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“Incorrect inhaler technique cannot explain the poor disease control in our patient population,” wrote Patrick K. Gleeson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators. Their report is in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. “In individuals with poorly controlled asthma, other factors contributing to disease mortality must be considered.”

The 586 patients in the study were observed using their inhalers, and their technique was scored by way of a checklist developed for the study. Inhaler technique – widely regarded as a risk factor for poor disease control – was “better than expected,” the investigators reported, with 56% of patients using metered dose inhalers and 64% of those using dry powder inhalers not making any errors.

“The seeming disassociation between subjects’ asthma control and inhaler technique is counterintuitive, and may be explained by important baseline characteristics in our patients,” they wrote. For instance, participants had suboptimal living conditions in lower income Philadelphia neighborhoods. Almost a quarter – 23% – were current smokers, and almost half were Medicaid recipients. In addition, their mean body mass index was 35.1 kg/m².

The investigators hypothesized that patients with lower health literacy would have poorer technique but found instead that technique did not vary by reading comprehension or numeracy levels.

More than half of the adults in the study had uncontrolled asthma as defined by prednisone use, an emergency department visit, or a hospitalization for asthma in the past 12 months. A subset had moderate to severe disease per a physician’s diagnosis, forced expiratory volume in 1 second less than 80% predicted, and improvement with a bronchodilator. All patients, however, were considered to have uncontrolled asthma.

There is “uncertainty” in the field about how to measure inhaler technique, and the technique checklist used in the study “may have omitted potentially important errors,” the investigators noted. Still, “good technique predominated among our [population of vulnerable patients].”

The project was supported through awards from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Coinvestigator Andrea J. Apter, MD, reported that she consults for UpToDate and is an associate editor for the journal. Coinvestigator Knashawn H. Morales, ScD, reported owning stock in Altria Group, British American Tobacco, and Philip Morris International. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Gleeson PK. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.05.048.

Inhaler technique may not be the cause of chronic uncontrolled asthma in a population of low-income, inner-city adults with the condition, a study has found.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“Incorrect inhaler technique cannot explain the poor disease control in our patient population,” wrote Patrick K. Gleeson, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators. Their report is in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice. “In individuals with poorly controlled asthma, other factors contributing to disease mortality must be considered.”

The 586 patients in the study were observed using their inhalers, and their technique was scored by way of a checklist developed for the study. Inhaler technique – widely regarded as a risk factor for poor disease control – was “better than expected,” the investigators reported, with 56% of patients using metered dose inhalers and 64% of those using dry powder inhalers not making any errors.

“The seeming disassociation between subjects’ asthma control and inhaler technique is counterintuitive, and may be explained by important baseline characteristics in our patients,” they wrote. For instance, participants had suboptimal living conditions in lower income Philadelphia neighborhoods. Almost a quarter – 23% – were current smokers, and almost half were Medicaid recipients. In addition, their mean body mass index was 35.1 kg/m².

The investigators hypothesized that patients with lower health literacy would have poorer technique but found instead that technique did not vary by reading comprehension or numeracy levels.

More than half of the adults in the study had uncontrolled asthma as defined by prednisone use, an emergency department visit, or a hospitalization for asthma in the past 12 months. A subset had moderate to severe disease per a physician’s diagnosis, forced expiratory volume in 1 second less than 80% predicted, and improvement with a bronchodilator. All patients, however, were considered to have uncontrolled asthma.

There is “uncertainty” in the field about how to measure inhaler technique, and the technique checklist used in the study “may have omitted potentially important errors,” the investigators noted. Still, “good technique predominated among our [population of vulnerable patients].”

The project was supported through awards from the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Coinvestigator Andrea J. Apter, MD, reported that she consults for UpToDate and is an associate editor for the journal. Coinvestigator Knashawn H. Morales, ScD, reported owning stock in Altria Group, British American Tobacco, and Philip Morris International. The other authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
 

SOURCE: Gleeson PK. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019 Jun 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.05.048.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

A needs- and barriers-based intervention that addressed psychosocial, physical, cognitive, and environmental barriers to self-management of asthma for older adults was successful in improving asthma outcomes and management, a recent trial has shown.

Medioimages/Photodisc/ThinkStock

“This study demonstrates the value of patient centeredness and care coaching in supporting older adults with asthma and for ongoing efforts to engage patients in care delivery design and personalization,” Alex D. Federman, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote in their study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine. “It also highlights the challenges of engaging vulnerable populations in self-management support, including modest retention rates and reduced impact over time despite repeated encounters designed to sustain its effects.”

The researchers said older adults often have difficulty with self-management tasks like inhaler technique and use of inhaled corticosteroids, which can be caused by various psychosocial, physical, cognitive, or environmental barriers. However, an attempt at creating self-management tools around specific problems, rather than generalized training, has not been traditionally attempted, they noted.

For the SAMBA trial, Dr. Federman and colleagues enrolled 391 patients who were randomized to receive a home-based intervention, clinic-based intervention, or usual care, where an asthma care coach would identify the barriers to asthma control, train the patient in areas of improvement, and provide reinforcement when necessary. Patients were at least age 60 years (15.1% men) with uncontrolled asthma in New York City and were enrolled between February 2014 and December 2017. Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, Asthma Control Test, metered dose inhaler technique, Medication Adherence Rating Scale, and visits to the emergency room to assess outcomes between interventions and usual care, and between home and clinic care. The data was analyzed using the ‘difference in differences’ statistical technique to compare the change differential between the groups.

They found significantly better asthma control scores between the intervention group and the control groups at 3 months (difference-in-differences, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-2.2; P = .02), 6 months (D-in-Ds, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.0-2.1; P = .049), and 12 months (D-inDs, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.5 to 1.8; P = .28). Quality of life was significantly improved in the intervention group, compared with control patients (overall effect, chi-squared = 10.5; with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .01), as was adherence to medication (overall effect, chi-squared = 9.5, with 4 degrees of freedom; P = .049), and inhaler technique as measured by correctly completed steps at 12 months (75% vs. 58%). Visits to the emergency room were also lower in the intervention group, compared with the control group (6.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-0.99; both P = .03). The researchers noted there were no significant differences between home care and clinic care.

Potential limitations in the study included a lower-than-planned statistical power, 70% retention in the intervention arms, low generalizability of the findings, and lack of blinding on the part of research assistants as well as some improvement in asthma control and outcomes in the control group.

This study was funded in part by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Coauthors Nandini Shroff reported grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; Michael S. Wolf reported grants from Eli Lilly; and Juan P. Wisnivesky reported personal fees from Sanofi, Quintiles, and Banook, and grants from Sanofi and Quorum. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Federman AD et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.1201.

The prevalence of allergic disease in the general population is quite high; 8.3% of adults and children have asthma and 11.4% of children have skin allergies.¹ Food allergies are present in 8% of children and 5% of adults,² and up to 10% of anaphylactic reactions in the United States are due to stinging insects.³

Allergy immunotherapy has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.

Moderate-to-severe food and environmental allergies can negatively affect multiple organ systems and significantly impact morbidity and mortality.⁴ Quality of life and the financial well-being of patients with allergic diseases, as well as that of their families, can also be significantly impacted by these conditions.^4,5 High prevalence and burden of disease mandate that family physicians (FPs) stay up-to-date on the full array of treatment options for allergic diseases. What follows are 6 common questions about allergy immunotherapy (AIT) and the evidence-based answers that will help you to identify and treat appropriate candidates, as well as educate them along the way.

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Who is a candidate for AIT?

Patients with moderate-to-severe immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated allergies whose symptoms are not adequately controlled by medications and allergen trigger avoidance are candidates for AIT.^6-8 Skin prick/puncture testing provides the most reliable and cost-effective confirmation of allergies that are suspected, based on patient history and clinical assessment for allergic symptoms.⁹ Life-threatening reactions to skin prick/puncture testing are rare.⁹ While in vitro (laboratory) testing for IgE levels to specific antigens may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.⁹

What constitutes AIT?

AIT is a disease-modifying treatment that, along with allergen avoidance, can provide long-term remission of allergic disease in certain circumstances.^6,7 Consistent gradual exposure to an allergen helps to dampen the inflammatory reaction driven by T cells and B cells, producing clinical tolerance or desensitization that persists after the discontinuation of AIT.⁸ While subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the most widely known type of AIT (ie, allergy shots), there are additional ways that AIT can be administered. These include sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), venom immunotherapy (VIT), and oral immunotherapy (OIT). The selection of the route of administration depends on the exact nature and symptoms of the allergic condition being treated (TABLE^6,8-12).

AIT involves 2 phases

The first phase is the induction or buildup phase during which patients are given gradually increasing amounts of allergen to induce a protective immunologic response.⁶ After 8 to 28 weeks, the maintenance phase begins, during which continued, consistent allergen exposure is designed to prevent relapse of, and facilitate continued remission of, allergy symptoms.⁶ The maintenance phase of AIT can last 24 to 48 months.^6,10 Certain patients may qualify for an expedited AIT regimen called cluster or rush immunotherapy.⁶

While lab testing may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/ puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.

Conventional schedules for AIT involve increasing the dose of allergen given at each visit (1-3 doses/wk), whereas rush dosing involves multiple, increasing doses given in a single extended visit to reach therapeutic desensitization faster.⁶ AIT has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.¹⁰

Length of therapy must be individualized

Experts recommend that the length of treatment with AIT be customized for each patient based on the severity of pretreatment allergy symptoms, the benefit experienced with AIT, the inconvenience of AIT to the patient, and the anticipated impact of symptom relapse.^6,10 There are no physiologic symptoms or objective tests that predict which patients will remain in remission after discontinuing AIT; thus, a joint task force of allergy experts suggests that the decision to restart AIT in patients who have a relapse in allergic symptoms should be made based on the same factors used to determine the duration of the maintenance phase.⁶

Continue to: These allergans are appropriate for AIT

Allergens may be described in terms of mechanism and chronicity of exposure. While avoidance of offending allergens is recommended for those who are sensitized, avoidance is not always possible.^6,7,9,13 AIT has been studied as a therapeutic modality to prevent exposure-related symptoms associated with each of the following types of allergens.^6,7,9,11,14

Inhalant allergens circulate in disturbed and undisturbed air and may be seasonal (eg, pollen), perennial (eg, cat/dog allergens), and/or occupational.⁹ They can derive from the indoors (eg, cockroach, cat, dog, dust mite) or outdoors (eg, tree, grass, or weed pollen ),^6,7,9,11 and serve as triggers for many allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic dermatitis, and asthma.^7,13

Food allergens. Sensitization to food allergens may produce a range of symptoms.^6,7 One person may experience nothing more than tingling of the lips when eating a peach, while another may experience throat tightness and anaphylaxis due to the aroma of shellfish cooking.

Occupational allergens. Exposure to occupational allergens varies depending on the setting. Those who work in health care or with animals can be exposed to allergens (eg, latex and animal proteins, respectively) that can cause skin or respiratory hypersensitivity reactions. Occupational allergens can also include chemicals; workers in agriculture or housekeeping may be particularly at risk.

Insect allergens. Envenomation by stinging insects of the order Hymenoptera (bees, yellow jackets, hornets, wasps, fire ants) most commonly causes a pruritic, painful local reaction, but patients sensitized to Hymenoptera venom experience systemic allergic reactions that range from mild to life-threatening.^3,6,7

Continue to: When should you use AIT?

Allergic rhinitis (AR). AR can be triggered by exposure to indoor or outdoor inhalant allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective treatment for AR and the conjunctivitis caused by inhaled environmental allergens.^15-17 AIT results in improved symptom control and decreased use of rescue medication (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to -0.33, favoring AIT intervention) in patients with seasonal or perennial AR.^15-17

SCIT effectiveness has been demonstrated in sensitized patients who have symptoms associated with pollen, animal allergens, dust mites, and mold/fungi,^15,16 and SCIT may be effective for the treatment of symptoms associated with cockroach exposure.¹¹ SLIT is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of several pollen allergens with efficacy rates similar to those of SCIT and with no significant difference in adverse events (AEs).^8,15,16 Direct comparison studies of SCIT and SLIT preparations for treating grass allergy, while of low quality, showed comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctival symptoms.¹⁵

Asthma. AIT (SCIT and SLIT) has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma associated with inhalant allergens. Asthma should be controlled prior to initiation of AIT.^6,8,10 Well-known allergic triggers for asthma exacerbation include indoor inhaled allergens (eg, house dust mite, animal dander, cockroach), outdoor inhalant allergens (plants, pollen), and occupational inhaled allergens (silkworm, weevil).^11,13

In one meta-analysis of 796 patients with asthma from 19 different randomized controlled trials, SCIT significantly decreased asthma-related symptom scores (SMD = -0.94; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.29; P = .004), as well as asthma medication scores (SMD = -1.06; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.42; P = .001).¹⁸ While AIT has not been shown to improve lung function, meta-analyses have shown that adults with asthma treated with AIT experience fewer/less severe exacerbations and use less rescue medication when compared with those taking placebo.^19,20 Furthermore, studies have shown that SCIT and SLIT reduce asthma symptoms and asthma medication use compared with placebo or usual care in the pediatric population.²⁰

Adults with asthma treated with allergy immunotherapy use less rescue medication when compared to those taking placebo.

As helpful as AIT can be for some patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, patients with severe asthma experience more severe adverse reactions with AIT.²¹ Therefore, most experts recommend against administering AIT to patients with severe asthma.^6,8,21

Continue to: Stinging insects

Stinging insects. VIT is used for patients with hypersensitivity to the venom from insects of the order Hymenoptera (see previous list of insects).^3,11,22 A meta-analysis concluded, based on limited evidence from low-quality studies, that VIT has the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of severe allergic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera sensitivity with 72% of patients benefitting from VIT (number needed to treat [NNT] = 1.4).²² VIT reduces the risk of a systemic reaction, as well as the size and duration of large local reactions (LLRs).^6,22 Immunotherapy for stinging insects also has been shown to improve disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41 strongly favoring VIT).^6,22

Insect allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective therapy for many allergens even though the potency and effectiveness for some allergens are not standardized or regulated.^6,7,11,14 For example, AIT is available for some inhaled insect allergens; however, because the extracts are not standardized, AIT produces inconsistent outcomes.^11,14 As another example, certain occupations lead to exposure to inhaled insect allergens such as silkworm and weevils. AIT is not indicated for either because available silkworm extracts are used only for allergy testing.¹¹ There are no extracts to test for or treat weevil allergy.¹¹

Food. IgE-mediated food allergy can result in oral allergy syndrome, angioedema, urticaria, and/or anaphylaxis.^2,7,8 There is some evidence that AIT raises the threshold of reactivity in children with IgE-mediated food allergies.^6,7,23-25 But the studies available for meta-analyses (some of which involved OIT) were deemed to be of low quality due to a high risk of bias and a small number of participants.^24,25 AIT for food allergies is associated with a substantially increased incidence of moderate adverse reactions, including upper respiratory, gastrointestinal, and skin symptoms, with a probability of 46% during the buildup phase and a number needed to harm (NNH) of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.5; P < .0001).^6,25 Therefore, experts consider AIT in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.^6,10

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis has proven to be effective at improving quality of life and symptom control and decreasing comorbid disease and use of rescue medication.

But preliminary data from a recent phase 3 trial of OIT for peanut allergy involving 499 children and teens are promising; 67.2% tolerated the food challenge of ≥ 600 mg of peanut protein at the completion of peanut OIT without dose-limiting symptoms (difference = 63.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 53-73.3; P < .001).²⁶ More than twice as many participants in the placebo group vs the treatment group experienced AEs that were moderate (59% vs 25%, respectively) or severe (11% vs 5%, respectively).

There are ongoing trials of SCIT, SLIT, and OIT using modified food allergens to make participants less allergic while maintaining immunogenicity.^2,27 Additional trials include adjunctive treatments like probiotics to create safer, more effective options for children with food allergies.^2,27 Keep in mind that children with food allergies often have concomitant allergies (eg, inhalant allergies) that can benefit from AIT.

Continue to: Other clinical practice strategies include...

Other clinical practice strategies include the introduction of extensively heated (baked) milk and egg products, which benefit the majority of milk- and egg-allergic children.^2,28 An American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI)-sponsored Task Force and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) support exclusive breastfeeding for the first 4 to 6 months of life to decrease the risk of developing food allergies.^6,7

Atopic dermatitis (AD). AD is an IgE-mediated skin disease that affects children and adults. AD is associated with asthma, AR, and food allergy.¹³ Early studies showed that AIT reduced topical corticosteroid use and improved the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis; see www.scorad.corti.li/) score.¹⁰ However, Cochrane reviews of studies involving children and adults with AD undergoing AIT via SCIT, SLIT, or OIT routes found that AIT was not effective in treating AD when accounting for the quality and heterogeneity of the studies.^12,29 In addition, there were no significant differences in SCORAD scores.^10,12

Contact allergens. Contact allergens, including plant resins (eg, poison ivy) and metals (eg, nickel) cause local dermatitis through a cell-mediated, delayed hypersensitivity response. AIT is not indicated for contact dermatitis.^6,9

Why use AIT?

First, AIT has been shown to modify disease. Second, because of its disease-modifying properties, AIT may provide cost savings over standard drug treatment in patients with asthma and AR.^17,20,30 In fact, individual studies have demonstrated ≥ 80% cost savings of AIT over standard drug regimens, although meta-analyses have been unable to demonstrate the same.^30,31

In addition, initial studies suggested that AIT might help to prevent the development of new allergen sensitizations.³² One meta-analysis found that AIT decreased the short-term risk of developing asthma in children with AR; however, subsequent studies showed that AIT did not have efficacy in preventing new allergic disease.^31,33

Continue to: How do you administer AIT?

FPs may be asked to administer AIT to their patients. Patients will typically have weekly office visits during the induction phase of AIT and should have appointments every 6 to 12 months during the maintenance phase.^6,8

While allergy immunotherapy has not been shown to improve lung function in patients with asthma, studies have shown that patients experience fewer exacerbations.

Collaboration with an allergy specialist is wise for dosing schedules and possibly for information regarding adverse reactions during administration. It is essential that AIT be administered by clinicians who are knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of minor allergic reactions (eg, pruritus, mild erythema, and swelling at the administration site) and severe ones (eg, angioedema, shock, anaphylaxis), as well as who have immediate access to emergency medications and resuscitation, should it be needed.^6-8,34

Most (86%) adverse reactions will occur within 30 minutes of administration of AIT; hence, the recommendation is to observe patients for 30 minutes following AIT administration.^6,7,34 Continual training and “mock” severe reaction responses are beneficial for staff administering AIT to ensure appropriate equipment is available and that appropriate procedures are followed. Late-phase reactions can occur and usually present within 6 to 12 hours of administration; thus, it is essential for patients to be educated on the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions and on symptomatic and emergent treatment.^9,34

Experts consider allergy immunotherapy in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.

Rush immunotherapy regimens for inhalant allergens are associated with increased AEs; therefore, pretreatment with antihistamines, leukotriene antagonists, the monoclonal antibody omalizumab, corticosteroids, or combinations of these agents is often used.^6,34 In contrast to inhaled allergens, rush VIT has not been associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions in meta-analyses.^6,22,34 Most experts recommend that AIT be discontinued if anaphylaxis occurs.^8,34

Is AIT safe?

AIT is a proven safe and effective disease-modifying treatment option.^6-8,31,35 Even when AIT is initiated within the season of increased allergen exposure, meta-analyses reveal no increase in adverse events in patients undergoing AIT.³⁵ Given the lack of high-quality evidence confirming the safety of AIT in the following specific situations, both the AAAAI and EAACI have concluded that these conditions/situations are absolute contraindications for AIT due to the risk of severe reactions by activation of underlying disease^8,21,36:

• severe asthma;
• acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); and
• initiation of AIT during pregnancy.

Continue to: Patients with a history of transplantation...

Patients with a history of transplantation, cancer in remission, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) without AIDS, and cardiovascular disease have been safely treated with AIT with a < 1.5% incidence of serious adverse events.^6,21,36 It is possible to give patients taking beta-blockers and/or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) AIT with appropriate consideration. Both classes of drugs can interfere with emergency treatment, so one should consider substitution with an agent from another class if possible during AIT.^6,8,20,34 Patients taking ACEIs receiving VIT had substantially increased adverse reactions compared with other forms of AIT; thus, individual risks and benefits must be weighed carefully before initiating VIT.^6,34

Looking ahead

Studies evaluating the indications for AIT in oral allergy syndrome, food allergy, latex allergy, AD, and venom allergy are ongoing.^2,7,10,26 Although the incidence of severe adverse allergy reactions during AIT is rare, there are investigations of using various immune-modifying agents to improve the safety and efficacy of AIT.³⁷ Application of allergen preparation using skin patches, intralymphatic injections, and chemically modified allergens to make them less immunologically reactive are being researched to further improve safety profiles and make AIT less time consuming.³⁸ In Europe and the United States, there is a call for more rigid studies using standardized SLIT preparations. This will allow for an increased number of AIT studies with decreased heterogeneity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dellyse Bright, MD, Carolinas Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Atrium Health, 2001 Vail Avenue, Suite 400B, Charlotte, NC 28207; [email protected].

The prevalence of allergic disease in the general population is quite high; 8.3% of adults and children have asthma and 11.4% of children have skin allergies.¹ Food allergies are present in 8% of children and 5% of adults,² and up to 10% of anaphylactic reactions in the United States are due to stinging insects.³

Allergy immunotherapy has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.

Moderate-to-severe food and environmental allergies can negatively affect multiple organ systems and significantly impact morbidity and mortality.⁴ Quality of life and the financial well-being of patients with allergic diseases, as well as that of their families, can also be significantly impacted by these conditions.^4,5 High prevalence and burden of disease mandate that family physicians (FPs) stay up-to-date on the full array of treatment options for allergic diseases. What follows are 6 common questions about allergy immunotherapy (AIT) and the evidence-based answers that will help you to identify and treat appropriate candidates, as well as educate them along the way.

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Who is a candidate for AIT?

Patients with moderate-to-severe immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated allergies whose symptoms are not adequately controlled by medications and allergen trigger avoidance are candidates for AIT.^6-8 Skin prick/puncture testing provides the most reliable and cost-effective confirmation of allergies that are suspected, based on patient history and clinical assessment for allergic symptoms.⁹ Life-threatening reactions to skin prick/puncture testing are rare.⁹ While in vitro (laboratory) testing for IgE levels to specific antigens may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.⁹

What constitutes AIT?

AIT is a disease-modifying treatment that, along with allergen avoidance, can provide long-term remission of allergic disease in certain circumstances.^6,7 Consistent gradual exposure to an allergen helps to dampen the inflammatory reaction driven by T cells and B cells, producing clinical tolerance or desensitization that persists after the discontinuation of AIT.⁸ While subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the most widely known type of AIT (ie, allergy shots), there are additional ways that AIT can be administered. These include sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), venom immunotherapy (VIT), and oral immunotherapy (OIT). The selection of the route of administration depends on the exact nature and symptoms of the allergic condition being treated (TABLE^6,8-12).

AIT involves 2 phases

The first phase is the induction or buildup phase during which patients are given gradually increasing amounts of allergen to induce a protective immunologic response.⁶ After 8 to 28 weeks, the maintenance phase begins, during which continued, consistent allergen exposure is designed to prevent relapse of, and facilitate continued remission of, allergy symptoms.⁶ The maintenance phase of AIT can last 24 to 48 months.^6,10 Certain patients may qualify for an expedited AIT regimen called cluster or rush immunotherapy.⁶

While lab testing may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/ puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.

Conventional schedules for AIT involve increasing the dose of allergen given at each visit (1-3 doses/wk), whereas rush dosing involves multiple, increasing doses given in a single extended visit to reach therapeutic desensitization faster.⁶ AIT has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.¹⁰

Length of therapy must be individualized

Experts recommend that the length of treatment with AIT be customized for each patient based on the severity of pretreatment allergy symptoms, the benefit experienced with AIT, the inconvenience of AIT to the patient, and the anticipated impact of symptom relapse.^6,10 There are no physiologic symptoms or objective tests that predict which patients will remain in remission after discontinuing AIT; thus, a joint task force of allergy experts suggests that the decision to restart AIT in patients who have a relapse in allergic symptoms should be made based on the same factors used to determine the duration of the maintenance phase.⁶

Continue to: These allergans are appropriate for AIT

Allergens may be described in terms of mechanism and chronicity of exposure. While avoidance of offending allergens is recommended for those who are sensitized, avoidance is not always possible.^6,7,9,13 AIT has been studied as a therapeutic modality to prevent exposure-related symptoms associated with each of the following types of allergens.^6,7,9,11,14

Inhalant allergens circulate in disturbed and undisturbed air and may be seasonal (eg, pollen), perennial (eg, cat/dog allergens), and/or occupational.⁹ They can derive from the indoors (eg, cockroach, cat, dog, dust mite) or outdoors (eg, tree, grass, or weed pollen ),^6,7,9,11 and serve as triggers for many allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic dermatitis, and asthma.^7,13

Food allergens. Sensitization to food allergens may produce a range of symptoms.^6,7 One person may experience nothing more than tingling of the lips when eating a peach, while another may experience throat tightness and anaphylaxis due to the aroma of shellfish cooking.

Occupational allergens. Exposure to occupational allergens varies depending on the setting. Those who work in health care or with animals can be exposed to allergens (eg, latex and animal proteins, respectively) that can cause skin or respiratory hypersensitivity reactions. Occupational allergens can also include chemicals; workers in agriculture or housekeeping may be particularly at risk.

Insect allergens. Envenomation by stinging insects of the order Hymenoptera (bees, yellow jackets, hornets, wasps, fire ants) most commonly causes a pruritic, painful local reaction, but patients sensitized to Hymenoptera venom experience systemic allergic reactions that range from mild to life-threatening.^3,6,7

Continue to: When should you use AIT?

Allergic rhinitis (AR). AR can be triggered by exposure to indoor or outdoor inhalant allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective treatment for AR and the conjunctivitis caused by inhaled environmental allergens.^15-17 AIT results in improved symptom control and decreased use of rescue medication (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to -0.33, favoring AIT intervention) in patients with seasonal or perennial AR.^15-17

SCIT effectiveness has been demonstrated in sensitized patients who have symptoms associated with pollen, animal allergens, dust mites, and mold/fungi,^15,16 and SCIT may be effective for the treatment of symptoms associated with cockroach exposure.¹¹ SLIT is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of several pollen allergens with efficacy rates similar to those of SCIT and with no significant difference in adverse events (AEs).^8,15,16 Direct comparison studies of SCIT and SLIT preparations for treating grass allergy, while of low quality, showed comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctival symptoms.¹⁵

Asthma. AIT (SCIT and SLIT) has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma associated with inhalant allergens. Asthma should be controlled prior to initiation of AIT.^6,8,10 Well-known allergic triggers for asthma exacerbation include indoor inhaled allergens (eg, house dust mite, animal dander, cockroach), outdoor inhalant allergens (plants, pollen), and occupational inhaled allergens (silkworm, weevil).^11,13

In one meta-analysis of 796 patients with asthma from 19 different randomized controlled trials, SCIT significantly decreased asthma-related symptom scores (SMD = -0.94; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.29; P = .004), as well as asthma medication scores (SMD = -1.06; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.42; P = .001).¹⁸ While AIT has not been shown to improve lung function, meta-analyses have shown that adults with asthma treated with AIT experience fewer/less severe exacerbations and use less rescue medication when compared with those taking placebo.^19,20 Furthermore, studies have shown that SCIT and SLIT reduce asthma symptoms and asthma medication use compared with placebo or usual care in the pediatric population.²⁰

Adults with asthma treated with allergy immunotherapy use less rescue medication when compared to those taking placebo.

As helpful as AIT can be for some patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, patients with severe asthma experience more severe adverse reactions with AIT.²¹ Therefore, most experts recommend against administering AIT to patients with severe asthma.^6,8,21

Continue to: Stinging insects

Stinging insects. VIT is used for patients with hypersensitivity to the venom from insects of the order Hymenoptera (see previous list of insects).^3,11,22 A meta-analysis concluded, based on limited evidence from low-quality studies, that VIT has the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of severe allergic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera sensitivity with 72% of patients benefitting from VIT (number needed to treat [NNT] = 1.4).²² VIT reduces the risk of a systemic reaction, as well as the size and duration of large local reactions (LLRs).^6,22 Immunotherapy for stinging insects also has been shown to improve disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41 strongly favoring VIT).^6,22

Insect allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective therapy for many allergens even though the potency and effectiveness for some allergens are not standardized or regulated.^6,7,11,14 For example, AIT is available for some inhaled insect allergens; however, because the extracts are not standardized, AIT produces inconsistent outcomes.^11,14 As another example, certain occupations lead to exposure to inhaled insect allergens such as silkworm and weevils. AIT is not indicated for either because available silkworm extracts are used only for allergy testing.¹¹ There are no extracts to test for or treat weevil allergy.¹¹

Food. IgE-mediated food allergy can result in oral allergy syndrome, angioedema, urticaria, and/or anaphylaxis.^2,7,8 There is some evidence that AIT raises the threshold of reactivity in children with IgE-mediated food allergies.^6,7,23-25 But the studies available for meta-analyses (some of which involved OIT) were deemed to be of low quality due to a high risk of bias and a small number of participants.^24,25 AIT for food allergies is associated with a substantially increased incidence of moderate adverse reactions, including upper respiratory, gastrointestinal, and skin symptoms, with a probability of 46% during the buildup phase and a number needed to harm (NNH) of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.5; P < .0001).^6,25 Therefore, experts consider AIT in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.^6,10

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis has proven to be effective at improving quality of life and symptom control and decreasing comorbid disease and use of rescue medication.

But preliminary data from a recent phase 3 trial of OIT for peanut allergy involving 499 children and teens are promising; 67.2% tolerated the food challenge of ≥ 600 mg of peanut protein at the completion of peanut OIT without dose-limiting symptoms (difference = 63.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 53-73.3; P < .001).²⁶ More than twice as many participants in the placebo group vs the treatment group experienced AEs that were moderate (59% vs 25%, respectively) or severe (11% vs 5%, respectively).

There are ongoing trials of SCIT, SLIT, and OIT using modified food allergens to make participants less allergic while maintaining immunogenicity.^2,27 Additional trials include adjunctive treatments like probiotics to create safer, more effective options for children with food allergies.^2,27 Keep in mind that children with food allergies often have concomitant allergies (eg, inhalant allergies) that can benefit from AIT.

Continue to: Other clinical practice strategies include...

Other clinical practice strategies include the introduction of extensively heated (baked) milk and egg products, which benefit the majority of milk- and egg-allergic children.^2,28 An American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI)-sponsored Task Force and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) support exclusive breastfeeding for the first 4 to 6 months of life to decrease the risk of developing food allergies.^6,7

Atopic dermatitis (AD). AD is an IgE-mediated skin disease that affects children and adults. AD is associated with asthma, AR, and food allergy.¹³ Early studies showed that AIT reduced topical corticosteroid use and improved the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis; see www.scorad.corti.li/) score.¹⁰ However, Cochrane reviews of studies involving children and adults with AD undergoing AIT via SCIT, SLIT, or OIT routes found that AIT was not effective in treating AD when accounting for the quality and heterogeneity of the studies.^12,29 In addition, there were no significant differences in SCORAD scores.^10,12

Contact allergens. Contact allergens, including plant resins (eg, poison ivy) and metals (eg, nickel) cause local dermatitis through a cell-mediated, delayed hypersensitivity response. AIT is not indicated for contact dermatitis.^6,9

Why use AIT?

First, AIT has been shown to modify disease. Second, because of its disease-modifying properties, AIT may provide cost savings over standard drug treatment in patients with asthma and AR.^17,20,30 In fact, individual studies have demonstrated ≥ 80% cost savings of AIT over standard drug regimens, although meta-analyses have been unable to demonstrate the same.^30,31

In addition, initial studies suggested that AIT might help to prevent the development of new allergen sensitizations.³² One meta-analysis found that AIT decreased the short-term risk of developing asthma in children with AR; however, subsequent studies showed that AIT did not have efficacy in preventing new allergic disease.^31,33

Continue to: How do you administer AIT?

FPs may be asked to administer AIT to their patients. Patients will typically have weekly office visits during the induction phase of AIT and should have appointments every 6 to 12 months during the maintenance phase.^6,8

While allergy immunotherapy has not been shown to improve lung function in patients with asthma, studies have shown that patients experience fewer exacerbations.

Collaboration with an allergy specialist is wise for dosing schedules and possibly for information regarding adverse reactions during administration. It is essential that AIT be administered by clinicians who are knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of minor allergic reactions (eg, pruritus, mild erythema, and swelling at the administration site) and severe ones (eg, angioedema, shock, anaphylaxis), as well as who have immediate access to emergency medications and resuscitation, should it be needed.^6-8,34

Most (86%) adverse reactions will occur within 30 minutes of administration of AIT; hence, the recommendation is to observe patients for 30 minutes following AIT administration.^6,7,34 Continual training and “mock” severe reaction responses are beneficial for staff administering AIT to ensure appropriate equipment is available and that appropriate procedures are followed. Late-phase reactions can occur and usually present within 6 to 12 hours of administration; thus, it is essential for patients to be educated on the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions and on symptomatic and emergent treatment.^9,34

Experts consider allergy immunotherapy in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.

Rush immunotherapy regimens for inhalant allergens are associated with increased AEs; therefore, pretreatment with antihistamines, leukotriene antagonists, the monoclonal antibody omalizumab, corticosteroids, or combinations of these agents is often used.^6,34 In contrast to inhaled allergens, rush VIT has not been associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions in meta-analyses.^6,22,34 Most experts recommend that AIT be discontinued if anaphylaxis occurs.^8,34

Is AIT safe?

AIT is a proven safe and effective disease-modifying treatment option.^6-8,31,35 Even when AIT is initiated within the season of increased allergen exposure, meta-analyses reveal no increase in adverse events in patients undergoing AIT.³⁵ Given the lack of high-quality evidence confirming the safety of AIT in the following specific situations, both the AAAAI and EAACI have concluded that these conditions/situations are absolute contraindications for AIT due to the risk of severe reactions by activation of underlying disease^8,21,36:

• severe asthma;
• acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); and
• initiation of AIT during pregnancy.

Continue to: Patients with a history of transplantation...

Patients with a history of transplantation, cancer in remission, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) without AIDS, and cardiovascular disease have been safely treated with AIT with a < 1.5% incidence of serious adverse events.^6,21,36 It is possible to give patients taking beta-blockers and/or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) AIT with appropriate consideration. Both classes of drugs can interfere with emergency treatment, so one should consider substitution with an agent from another class if possible during AIT.^6,8,20,34 Patients taking ACEIs receiving VIT had substantially increased adverse reactions compared with other forms of AIT; thus, individual risks and benefits must be weighed carefully before initiating VIT.^6,34

Looking ahead

Studies evaluating the indications for AIT in oral allergy syndrome, food allergy, latex allergy, AD, and venom allergy are ongoing.^2,7,10,26 Although the incidence of severe adverse allergy reactions during AIT is rare, there are investigations of using various immune-modifying agents to improve the safety and efficacy of AIT.³⁷ Application of allergen preparation using skin patches, intralymphatic injections, and chemically modified allergens to make them less immunologically reactive are being researched to further improve safety profiles and make AIT less time consuming.³⁸ In Europe and the United States, there is a call for more rigid studies using standardized SLIT preparations. This will allow for an increased number of AIT studies with decreased heterogeneity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dellyse Bright, MD, Carolinas Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Atrium Health, 2001 Vail Avenue, Suite 400B, Charlotte, NC 28207; [email protected].

The prevalence of allergic disease in the general population is quite high; 8.3% of adults and children have asthma and 11.4% of children have skin allergies.¹ Food allergies are present in 8% of children and 5% of adults,² and up to 10% of anaphylactic reactions in the United States are due to stinging insects.³

Allergy immunotherapy has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.

Moderate-to-severe food and environmental allergies can negatively affect multiple organ systems and significantly impact morbidity and mortality.⁴ Quality of life and the financial well-being of patients with allergic diseases, as well as that of their families, can also be significantly impacted by these conditions.^4,5 High prevalence and burden of disease mandate that family physicians (FPs) stay up-to-date on the full array of treatment options for allergic diseases. What follows are 6 common questions about allergy immunotherapy (AIT) and the evidence-based answers that will help you to identify and treat appropriate candidates, as well as educate them along the way.

IMAGE: © ALICIA BUELOW

Who is a candidate for AIT?

Patients with moderate-to-severe immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated allergies whose symptoms are not adequately controlled by medications and allergen trigger avoidance are candidates for AIT.^6-8 Skin prick/puncture testing provides the most reliable and cost-effective confirmation of allergies that are suspected, based on patient history and clinical assessment for allergic symptoms.⁹ Life-threatening reactions to skin prick/puncture testing are rare.⁹ While in vitro (laboratory) testing for IgE levels to specific antigens may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.⁹

What constitutes AIT?

AIT is a disease-modifying treatment that, along with allergen avoidance, can provide long-term remission of allergic disease in certain circumstances.^6,7 Consistent gradual exposure to an allergen helps to dampen the inflammatory reaction driven by T cells and B cells, producing clinical tolerance or desensitization that persists after the discontinuation of AIT.⁸ While subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the most widely known type of AIT (ie, allergy shots), there are additional ways that AIT can be administered. These include sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), venom immunotherapy (VIT), and oral immunotherapy (OIT). The selection of the route of administration depends on the exact nature and symptoms of the allergic condition being treated (TABLE^6,8-12).

AIT involves 2 phases

The first phase is the induction or buildup phase during which patients are given gradually increasing amounts of allergen to induce a protective immunologic response.⁶ After 8 to 28 weeks, the maintenance phase begins, during which continued, consistent allergen exposure is designed to prevent relapse of, and facilitate continued remission of, allergy symptoms.⁶ The maintenance phase of AIT can last 24 to 48 months.^6,10 Certain patients may qualify for an expedited AIT regimen called cluster or rush immunotherapy.⁶

While lab testing may be more convenient for patients and less invasive than skin prick/ puncture testing, it is also less sensitive and less reliable at quantifying the severity of sensitization.

Conventional schedules for AIT involve increasing the dose of allergen given at each visit (1-3 doses/wk), whereas rush dosing involves multiple, increasing doses given in a single extended visit to reach therapeutic desensitization faster.⁶ AIT has been shown to produce a 2.7- to 13.7-fold overall improvement in hypersensitivity reactions.¹⁰

Length of therapy must be individualized

Experts recommend that the length of treatment with AIT be customized for each patient based on the severity of pretreatment allergy symptoms, the benefit experienced with AIT, the inconvenience of AIT to the patient, and the anticipated impact of symptom relapse.^6,10 There are no physiologic symptoms or objective tests that predict which patients will remain in remission after discontinuing AIT; thus, a joint task force of allergy experts suggests that the decision to restart AIT in patients who have a relapse in allergic symptoms should be made based on the same factors used to determine the duration of the maintenance phase.⁶

Continue to: These allergans are appropriate for AIT

Allergens may be described in terms of mechanism and chronicity of exposure. While avoidance of offending allergens is recommended for those who are sensitized, avoidance is not always possible.^6,7,9,13 AIT has been studied as a therapeutic modality to prevent exposure-related symptoms associated with each of the following types of allergens.^6,7,9,11,14

Inhalant allergens circulate in disturbed and undisturbed air and may be seasonal (eg, pollen), perennial (eg, cat/dog allergens), and/or occupational.⁹ They can derive from the indoors (eg, cockroach, cat, dog, dust mite) or outdoors (eg, tree, grass, or weed pollen ),^6,7,9,11 and serve as triggers for many allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic dermatitis, and asthma.^7,13

Food allergens. Sensitization to food allergens may produce a range of symptoms.^6,7 One person may experience nothing more than tingling of the lips when eating a peach, while another may experience throat tightness and anaphylaxis due to the aroma of shellfish cooking.

Occupational allergens. Exposure to occupational allergens varies depending on the setting. Those who work in health care or with animals can be exposed to allergens (eg, latex and animal proteins, respectively) that can cause skin or respiratory hypersensitivity reactions. Occupational allergens can also include chemicals; workers in agriculture or housekeeping may be particularly at risk.

Insect allergens. Envenomation by stinging insects of the order Hymenoptera (bees, yellow jackets, hornets, wasps, fire ants) most commonly causes a pruritic, painful local reaction, but patients sensitized to Hymenoptera venom experience systemic allergic reactions that range from mild to life-threatening.^3,6,7

Continue to: When should you use AIT?

Allergic rhinitis (AR). AR can be triggered by exposure to indoor or outdoor inhalant allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective treatment for AR and the conjunctivitis caused by inhaled environmental allergens.^15-17 AIT results in improved symptom control and decreased use of rescue medication (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to -0.33, favoring AIT intervention) in patients with seasonal or perennial AR.^15-17

SCIT effectiveness has been demonstrated in sensitized patients who have symptoms associated with pollen, animal allergens, dust mites, and mold/fungi,^15,16 and SCIT may be effective for the treatment of symptoms associated with cockroach exposure.¹¹ SLIT is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of several pollen allergens with efficacy rates similar to those of SCIT and with no significant difference in adverse events (AEs).^8,15,16 Direct comparison studies of SCIT and SLIT preparations for treating grass allergy, while of low quality, showed comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctival symptoms.¹⁵

Asthma. AIT (SCIT and SLIT) has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma associated with inhalant allergens. Asthma should be controlled prior to initiation of AIT.^6,8,10 Well-known allergic triggers for asthma exacerbation include indoor inhaled allergens (eg, house dust mite, animal dander, cockroach), outdoor inhalant allergens (plants, pollen), and occupational inhaled allergens (silkworm, weevil).^11,13

In one meta-analysis of 796 patients with asthma from 19 different randomized controlled trials, SCIT significantly decreased asthma-related symptom scores (SMD = -0.94; 95% CI, -1.58 to -0.29; P = .004), as well as asthma medication scores (SMD = -1.06; 95% CI, -1.70 to -0.42; P = .001).¹⁸ While AIT has not been shown to improve lung function, meta-analyses have shown that adults with asthma treated with AIT experience fewer/less severe exacerbations and use less rescue medication when compared with those taking placebo.^19,20 Furthermore, studies have shown that SCIT and SLIT reduce asthma symptoms and asthma medication use compared with placebo or usual care in the pediatric population.²⁰

Adults with asthma treated with allergy immunotherapy use less rescue medication when compared to those taking placebo.

As helpful as AIT can be for some patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, patients with severe asthma experience more severe adverse reactions with AIT.²¹ Therefore, most experts recommend against administering AIT to patients with severe asthma.^6,8,21

Continue to: Stinging insects

Stinging insects. VIT is used for patients with hypersensitivity to the venom from insects of the order Hymenoptera (see previous list of insects).^3,11,22 A meta-analysis concluded, based on limited evidence from low-quality studies, that VIT has the potential to substantially reduce the incidence of severe allergic reactions in patients with Hymenoptera sensitivity with 72% of patients benefitting from VIT (number needed to treat [NNT] = 1.4).²² VIT reduces the risk of a systemic reaction, as well as the size and duration of large local reactions (LLRs).^6,22 Immunotherapy for stinging insects also has been shown to improve disease-specific quality of life (risk difference = 1.41 strongly favoring VIT).^6,22

Insect allergens. Research has shown AIT to be an effective therapy for many allergens even though the potency and effectiveness for some allergens are not standardized or regulated.^6,7,11,14 For example, AIT is available for some inhaled insect allergens; however, because the extracts are not standardized, AIT produces inconsistent outcomes.^11,14 As another example, certain occupations lead to exposure to inhaled insect allergens such as silkworm and weevils. AIT is not indicated for either because available silkworm extracts are used only for allergy testing.¹¹ There are no extracts to test for or treat weevil allergy.¹¹

Food. IgE-mediated food allergy can result in oral allergy syndrome, angioedema, urticaria, and/or anaphylaxis.^2,7,8 There is some evidence that AIT raises the threshold of reactivity in children with IgE-mediated food allergies.^6,7,23-25 But the studies available for meta-analyses (some of which involved OIT) were deemed to be of low quality due to a high risk of bias and a small number of participants.^24,25 AIT for food allergies is associated with a substantially increased incidence of moderate adverse reactions, including upper respiratory, gastrointestinal, and skin symptoms, with a probability of 46% during the buildup phase and a number needed to harm (NNH) of 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.5; P < .0001).^6,25 Therefore, experts consider AIT in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.^6,10

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis has proven to be effective at improving quality of life and symptom control and decreasing comorbid disease and use of rescue medication.

But preliminary data from a recent phase 3 trial of OIT for peanut allergy involving 499 children and teens are promising; 67.2% tolerated the food challenge of ≥ 600 mg of peanut protein at the completion of peanut OIT without dose-limiting symptoms (difference = 63.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 53-73.3; P < .001).²⁶ More than twice as many participants in the placebo group vs the treatment group experienced AEs that were moderate (59% vs 25%, respectively) or severe (11% vs 5%, respectively).

There are ongoing trials of SCIT, SLIT, and OIT using modified food allergens to make participants less allergic while maintaining immunogenicity.^2,27 Additional trials include adjunctive treatments like probiotics to create safer, more effective options for children with food allergies.^2,27 Keep in mind that children with food allergies often have concomitant allergies (eg, inhalant allergies) that can benefit from AIT.

Continue to: Other clinical practice strategies include...

Other clinical practice strategies include the introduction of extensively heated (baked) milk and egg products, which benefit the majority of milk- and egg-allergic children.^2,28 An American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI)-sponsored Task Force and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) support exclusive breastfeeding for the first 4 to 6 months of life to decrease the risk of developing food allergies.^6,7

Atopic dermatitis (AD). AD is an IgE-mediated skin disease that affects children and adults. AD is associated with asthma, AR, and food allergy.¹³ Early studies showed that AIT reduced topical corticosteroid use and improved the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis; see www.scorad.corti.li/) score.¹⁰ However, Cochrane reviews of studies involving children and adults with AD undergoing AIT via SCIT, SLIT, or OIT routes found that AIT was not effective in treating AD when accounting for the quality and heterogeneity of the studies.^12,29 In addition, there were no significant differences in SCORAD scores.^10,12

Contact allergens. Contact allergens, including plant resins (eg, poison ivy) and metals (eg, nickel) cause local dermatitis through a cell-mediated, delayed hypersensitivity response. AIT is not indicated for contact dermatitis.^6,9

Why use AIT?

First, AIT has been shown to modify disease. Second, because of its disease-modifying properties, AIT may provide cost savings over standard drug treatment in patients with asthma and AR.^17,20,30 In fact, individual studies have demonstrated ≥ 80% cost savings of AIT over standard drug regimens, although meta-analyses have been unable to demonstrate the same.^30,31

In addition, initial studies suggested that AIT might help to prevent the development of new allergen sensitizations.³² One meta-analysis found that AIT decreased the short-term risk of developing asthma in children with AR; however, subsequent studies showed that AIT did not have efficacy in preventing new allergic disease.^31,33

Continue to: How do you administer AIT?

FPs may be asked to administer AIT to their patients. Patients will typically have weekly office visits during the induction phase of AIT and should have appointments every 6 to 12 months during the maintenance phase.^6,8

While allergy immunotherapy has not been shown to improve lung function in patients with asthma, studies have shown that patients experience fewer exacerbations.

Collaboration with an allergy specialist is wise for dosing schedules and possibly for information regarding adverse reactions during administration. It is essential that AIT be administered by clinicians who are knowledgeable about the signs and symptoms of minor allergic reactions (eg, pruritus, mild erythema, and swelling at the administration site) and severe ones (eg, angioedema, shock, anaphylaxis), as well as who have immediate access to emergency medications and resuscitation, should it be needed.^6-8,34

Most (86%) adverse reactions will occur within 30 minutes of administration of AIT; hence, the recommendation is to observe patients for 30 minutes following AIT administration.^6,7,34 Continual training and “mock” severe reaction responses are beneficial for staff administering AIT to ensure appropriate equipment is available and that appropriate procedures are followed. Late-phase reactions can occur and usually present within 6 to 12 hours of administration; thus, it is essential for patients to be educated on the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions and on symptomatic and emergent treatment.^9,34

Experts consider allergy immunotherapy in any form for food hypersensitivity to be investigational.

Rush immunotherapy regimens for inhalant allergens are associated with increased AEs; therefore, pretreatment with antihistamines, leukotriene antagonists, the monoclonal antibody omalizumab, corticosteroids, or combinations of these agents is often used.^6,34 In contrast to inhaled allergens, rush VIT has not been associated with an increased risk of adverse reactions in meta-analyses.^6,22,34 Most experts recommend that AIT be discontinued if anaphylaxis occurs.^8,34

Is AIT safe?

AIT is a proven safe and effective disease-modifying treatment option.^6-8,31,35 Even when AIT is initiated within the season of increased allergen exposure, meta-analyses reveal no increase in adverse events in patients undergoing AIT.³⁵ Given the lack of high-quality evidence confirming the safety of AIT in the following specific situations, both the AAAAI and EAACI have concluded that these conditions/situations are absolute contraindications for AIT due to the risk of severe reactions by activation of underlying disease^8,21,36:

• severe asthma;
• acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); and
• initiation of AIT during pregnancy.

Continue to: Patients with a history of transplantation...

Patients with a history of transplantation, cancer in remission, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) without AIDS, and cardiovascular disease have been safely treated with AIT with a < 1.5% incidence of serious adverse events.^6,21,36 It is possible to give patients taking beta-blockers and/or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) AIT with appropriate consideration. Both classes of drugs can interfere with emergency treatment, so one should consider substitution with an agent from another class if possible during AIT.^6,8,20,34 Patients taking ACEIs receiving VIT had substantially increased adverse reactions compared with other forms of AIT; thus, individual risks and benefits must be weighed carefully before initiating VIT.^6,34

Looking ahead

Studies evaluating the indications for AIT in oral allergy syndrome, food allergy, latex allergy, AD, and venom allergy are ongoing.^2,7,10,26 Although the incidence of severe adverse allergy reactions during AIT is rare, there are investigations of using various immune-modifying agents to improve the safety and efficacy of AIT.³⁷ Application of allergen preparation using skin patches, intralymphatic injections, and chemically modified allergens to make them less immunologically reactive are being researched to further improve safety profiles and make AIT less time consuming.³⁸ In Europe and the United States, there is a call for more rigid studies using standardized SLIT preparations. This will allow for an increased number of AIT studies with decreased heterogeneity.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dellyse Bright, MD, Carolinas Medical Center Family Medicine Residency Program, Atrium Health, 2001 Vail Avenue, Suite 400B, Charlotte, NC 28207; [email protected].