Asthma

Insurance and specialty pharmacy delays in authorizing new biologic prescriptions for severe allergies leave waiting patients at risk of asthma attacks, hospitalizations, emergency department visits and prednisone shots and their known side effects, according to a single-center study that was to have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The study of 80 patients in State College, Pa., found that they waited an average of 44 days from when their doctor submitted the preauthorization request to the insurance company until the practice received the shipment for dispensing to the patient, investigator Faoud Ishmael, MD, PhD, of Mount Nittany Medical Group said in an interview. “The implication here is that these are really the most severe patients who, you would argue, need their medications the quickest, and it’s taking longer to get them than it would an inhaler,” Dr. Ishmael said.

The study focused on patients with severe asthma (n = 60) or urticarial (n = 20) who received a new prescription of monoclonal antibody therapy from March 2014 to August 2019. For asthma treatments, the average time was 45.8 days; for urticaria, 40.6 days (P = .573), Dr. Ishmael said. The researchers divided the total amount of time into two components: insurance plan review and approval (P = .654, and specialty pharmacy review and dispensing of the medicine, each of which averaged 22.8 days (P = .384), he said.

He also noted wide disparity in the range of approval times. “The shortest approval time was 1 day, and the longest 97 days,” Dr. Ishmael said. “It’s interesting that we had this really broad spread.”

What’s more, the study found no trend for the delays among insurers and specialty pharmacies, Dr. Ishmael added. “When these prescriptions get submitted, it’s like a black box,” he said. “It really seems arbitrary why some of them take so long and some of them don’t.” The findings were independent of type of coverage, whether commercial or government, or even specific insurance plans. “It’s more the process that is flawed rather than one insurance company being the bad guy,” he said.

The study also looked at what happened to patients while they were waiting for their prescriptions to be delivered. “What we found is that over half of asthmatics had an exacerbation – 51% had at least one asthma attack where they needed prednisone,” Dr. Ishmael said (P = .0015), “and we had three patients admitted to the hospital over that time frame when they were waiting for the drugs.” One of those patients had been admitted twice, making four total hospitalizations. Preliminary data analysis showed that about 40% of the patients who had attacks went to the emergency department.

For asthmatics who needed prednisone, the average dose was 480 mg (P = .284) – “a pretty substantial number,” in Dr. Ishmael’s words. He noted that a large portion of the study patients were obese, with a mean body mass index of 33 kg/m². Other comorbidities prevalent in the study population were hypertension and type 2 diabetes. “Prednisone is something that could worsen all of those conditions, so it’s not a trivial issue,” he said.

The study, however, didn’t evaluate costs of the interventions during the delay period vs. the costs of the medications themselves. Of the 80 prescriptions Dr. Ishmael and coauthors submitted, only one was rejected, that person being a smoker, he said. “I understand these are expensive medicines, but it’s counterproductive to delay them because in the long run the insurance company ends up paying for the hospitalization and the drug rather than just the drug,” he said.

Timothy Craig, DO, of Penn State Health Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and professor of medicine and pediatrics at Penn State College of Medicine, both in Hershey, said he was surprised at the brevity of the delays reported in Dr. Ishmael’s study. “They do much better than we do with preauthorization,” he said, noting that, in his experience, these approvals take much longer. He added that his own research has found faulty insurance plan algorithms are at the heart of these delays. “We need more studies to clarify how much this is interfering with patient care and how much risk they’re putting patients in,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a double-edged sword for physicians managing patients with severe asthma, Dr. Craig noted. “Their asthma care is important, especially if they do test for COVID-19,” he said. On the other hand, doctors and nurses attending to COVID-19 patients will have less time to haggle with payers to expedite coverage for biologics for their severe asthma patients, he said. “I hope the flexibility is there, especially at this time to allow people to get on the biologics and stay on them,” he said.

Dr. Ishmael said these findings have serious implications because biologics are getting prescribed ever more frequently for asthma and hives. Steps his practice has taken to streamline the process include following the payer’s approval guidelines as closely as possible. This sometimes can mean making sure a patient with severe asthma has been maximized on controller medications before submitting the biologic prescription, he said. Another step is to use drug company programs to remove barriers to coverage.

Nonetheless, the approval process can be daunting even when taking those steps, he said. “Those guidelines that constitute approval may vary a lot from one insurer to another; and sometimes those guidelines are different from the criteria that studies may have used when these drugs were being evaluated in clinical trials,” he said. It would be helpful, he said, if payers used the National Heart, Lung and Blood institute and the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines for biologics.

One of the goals of the researchers is to present their findings to payers, “to let them know, here are some of the hang-ups and the real risks associated with delaying these medications,” Dr. Ishmael said.

“When specialists especially prescribe these therapies, there’s usually a valid reason,” he said. “We really need to do something about the current process – if there are ways to make it more transparent, faster.”

Dr. Ishmael has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Ishmael F et al. AAAAI 2020. Session 3609, Presentation 558.

Insurance and specialty pharmacy delays in authorizing new biologic prescriptions for severe allergies leave waiting patients at risk of asthma attacks, hospitalizations, emergency department visits and prednisone shots and their known side effects, according to a single-center study that was to have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The study of 80 patients in State College, Pa., found that they waited an average of 44 days from when their doctor submitted the preauthorization request to the insurance company until the practice received the shipment for dispensing to the patient, investigator Faoud Ishmael, MD, PhD, of Mount Nittany Medical Group said in an interview. “The implication here is that these are really the most severe patients who, you would argue, need their medications the quickest, and it’s taking longer to get them than it would an inhaler,” Dr. Ishmael said.

The study focused on patients with severe asthma (n = 60) or urticarial (n = 20) who received a new prescription of monoclonal antibody therapy from March 2014 to August 2019. For asthma treatments, the average time was 45.8 days; for urticaria, 40.6 days (P = .573), Dr. Ishmael said. The researchers divided the total amount of time into two components: insurance plan review and approval (P = .654, and specialty pharmacy review and dispensing of the medicine, each of which averaged 22.8 days (P = .384), he said.

He also noted wide disparity in the range of approval times. “The shortest approval time was 1 day, and the longest 97 days,” Dr. Ishmael said. “It’s interesting that we had this really broad spread.”

What’s more, the study found no trend for the delays among insurers and specialty pharmacies, Dr. Ishmael added. “When these prescriptions get submitted, it’s like a black box,” he said. “It really seems arbitrary why some of them take so long and some of them don’t.” The findings were independent of type of coverage, whether commercial or government, or even specific insurance plans. “It’s more the process that is flawed rather than one insurance company being the bad guy,” he said.

The study also looked at what happened to patients while they were waiting for their prescriptions to be delivered. “What we found is that over half of asthmatics had an exacerbation – 51% had at least one asthma attack where they needed prednisone,” Dr. Ishmael said (P = .0015), “and we had three patients admitted to the hospital over that time frame when they were waiting for the drugs.” One of those patients had been admitted twice, making four total hospitalizations. Preliminary data analysis showed that about 40% of the patients who had attacks went to the emergency department.

For asthmatics who needed prednisone, the average dose was 480 mg (P = .284) – “a pretty substantial number,” in Dr. Ishmael’s words. He noted that a large portion of the study patients were obese, with a mean body mass index of 33 kg/m². Other comorbidities prevalent in the study population were hypertension and type 2 diabetes. “Prednisone is something that could worsen all of those conditions, so it’s not a trivial issue,” he said.

The study, however, didn’t evaluate costs of the interventions during the delay period vs. the costs of the medications themselves. Of the 80 prescriptions Dr. Ishmael and coauthors submitted, only one was rejected, that person being a smoker, he said. “I understand these are expensive medicines, but it’s counterproductive to delay them because in the long run the insurance company ends up paying for the hospitalization and the drug rather than just the drug,” he said.

Timothy Craig, DO, of Penn State Health Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and professor of medicine and pediatrics at Penn State College of Medicine, both in Hershey, said he was surprised at the brevity of the delays reported in Dr. Ishmael’s study. “They do much better than we do with preauthorization,” he said, noting that, in his experience, these approvals take much longer. He added that his own research has found faulty insurance plan algorithms are at the heart of these delays. “We need more studies to clarify how much this is interfering with patient care and how much risk they’re putting patients in,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a double-edged sword for physicians managing patients with severe asthma, Dr. Craig noted. “Their asthma care is important, especially if they do test for COVID-19,” he said. On the other hand, doctors and nurses attending to COVID-19 patients will have less time to haggle with payers to expedite coverage for biologics for their severe asthma patients, he said. “I hope the flexibility is there, especially at this time to allow people to get on the biologics and stay on them,” he said.

Dr. Ishmael said these findings have serious implications because biologics are getting prescribed ever more frequently for asthma and hives. Steps his practice has taken to streamline the process include following the payer’s approval guidelines as closely as possible. This sometimes can mean making sure a patient with severe asthma has been maximized on controller medications before submitting the biologic prescription, he said. Another step is to use drug company programs to remove barriers to coverage.

Nonetheless, the approval process can be daunting even when taking those steps, he said. “Those guidelines that constitute approval may vary a lot from one insurer to another; and sometimes those guidelines are different from the criteria that studies may have used when these drugs were being evaluated in clinical trials,” he said. It would be helpful, he said, if payers used the National Heart, Lung and Blood institute and the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines for biologics.

One of the goals of the researchers is to present their findings to payers, “to let them know, here are some of the hang-ups and the real risks associated with delaying these medications,” Dr. Ishmael said.

“When specialists especially prescribe these therapies, there’s usually a valid reason,” he said. “We really need to do something about the current process – if there are ways to make it more transparent, faster.”

Dr. Ishmael has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Ishmael F et al. AAAAI 2020. Session 3609, Presentation 558.

Insurance and specialty pharmacy delays in authorizing new biologic prescriptions for severe allergies leave waiting patients at risk of asthma attacks, hospitalizations, emergency department visits and prednisone shots and their known side effects, according to a single-center study that was to have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The study of 80 patients in State College, Pa., found that they waited an average of 44 days from when their doctor submitted the preauthorization request to the insurance company until the practice received the shipment for dispensing to the patient, investigator Faoud Ishmael, MD, PhD, of Mount Nittany Medical Group said in an interview. “The implication here is that these are really the most severe patients who, you would argue, need their medications the quickest, and it’s taking longer to get them than it would an inhaler,” Dr. Ishmael said.

The study focused on patients with severe asthma (n = 60) or urticarial (n = 20) who received a new prescription of monoclonal antibody therapy from March 2014 to August 2019. For asthma treatments, the average time was 45.8 days; for urticaria, 40.6 days (P = .573), Dr. Ishmael said. The researchers divided the total amount of time into two components: insurance plan review and approval (P = .654, and specialty pharmacy review and dispensing of the medicine, each of which averaged 22.8 days (P = .384), he said.

He also noted wide disparity in the range of approval times. “The shortest approval time was 1 day, and the longest 97 days,” Dr. Ishmael said. “It’s interesting that we had this really broad spread.”

What’s more, the study found no trend for the delays among insurers and specialty pharmacies, Dr. Ishmael added. “When these prescriptions get submitted, it’s like a black box,” he said. “It really seems arbitrary why some of them take so long and some of them don’t.” The findings were independent of type of coverage, whether commercial or government, or even specific insurance plans. “It’s more the process that is flawed rather than one insurance company being the bad guy,” he said.

The study also looked at what happened to patients while they were waiting for their prescriptions to be delivered. “What we found is that over half of asthmatics had an exacerbation – 51% had at least one asthma attack where they needed prednisone,” Dr. Ishmael said (P = .0015), “and we had three patients admitted to the hospital over that time frame when they were waiting for the drugs.” One of those patients had been admitted twice, making four total hospitalizations. Preliminary data analysis showed that about 40% of the patients who had attacks went to the emergency department.

For asthmatics who needed prednisone, the average dose was 480 mg (P = .284) – “a pretty substantial number,” in Dr. Ishmael’s words. He noted that a large portion of the study patients were obese, with a mean body mass index of 33 kg/m². Other comorbidities prevalent in the study population were hypertension and type 2 diabetes. “Prednisone is something that could worsen all of those conditions, so it’s not a trivial issue,” he said.

The study, however, didn’t evaluate costs of the interventions during the delay period vs. the costs of the medications themselves. Of the 80 prescriptions Dr. Ishmael and coauthors submitted, only one was rejected, that person being a smoker, he said. “I understand these are expensive medicines, but it’s counterproductive to delay them because in the long run the insurance company ends up paying for the hospitalization and the drug rather than just the drug,” he said.

Timothy Craig, DO, of Penn State Health Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and professor of medicine and pediatrics at Penn State College of Medicine, both in Hershey, said he was surprised at the brevity of the delays reported in Dr. Ishmael’s study. “They do much better than we do with preauthorization,” he said, noting that, in his experience, these approvals take much longer. He added that his own research has found faulty insurance plan algorithms are at the heart of these delays. “We need more studies to clarify how much this is interfering with patient care and how much risk they’re putting patients in,” he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a double-edged sword for physicians managing patients with severe asthma, Dr. Craig noted. “Their asthma care is important, especially if they do test for COVID-19,” he said. On the other hand, doctors and nurses attending to COVID-19 patients will have less time to haggle with payers to expedite coverage for biologics for their severe asthma patients, he said. “I hope the flexibility is there, especially at this time to allow people to get on the biologics and stay on them,” he said.

Dr. Ishmael said these findings have serious implications because biologics are getting prescribed ever more frequently for asthma and hives. Steps his practice has taken to streamline the process include following the payer’s approval guidelines as closely as possible. This sometimes can mean making sure a patient with severe asthma has been maximized on controller medications before submitting the biologic prescription, he said. Another step is to use drug company programs to remove barriers to coverage.

Nonetheless, the approval process can be daunting even when taking those steps, he said. “Those guidelines that constitute approval may vary a lot from one insurer to another; and sometimes those guidelines are different from the criteria that studies may have used when these drugs were being evaluated in clinical trials,” he said. It would be helpful, he said, if payers used the National Heart, Lung and Blood institute and the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines for biologics.

One of the goals of the researchers is to present their findings to payers, “to let them know, here are some of the hang-ups and the real risks associated with delaying these medications,” Dr. Ishmael said.

“When specialists especially prescribe these therapies, there’s usually a valid reason,” he said. “We really need to do something about the current process – if there are ways to make it more transparent, faster.”

Dr. Ishmael has no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Ishmael F et al. AAAAI 2020. Session 3609, Presentation 558.

Patients with both type 2 diabetes and asthma who were on glucagonlike peptide receptor–1 (GLP-1R) agonists for glucose control had lower levels of a key biomarker of airway inflammation than similar patients on other types of glucose-control medications, according to results of a study to have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology. The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings from this study potentially replicated findings in humans that have been reported in preclinical trials.

“Our work showed that type 2 diabetics with asthma who were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists had lower levels of periostin, and this provides really one of the first human data to show that these drugs may impact key inflammation pathways in the airway,” Dinah Foer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. She described periostin as “a known critical inducer of airway mucous production and airway responsiveness.”

The study retrospectively evaluated serum samples from the Partners HealthCare Biobank of 161 adults with both asthma and type 2 diabetes, 42 of whom were on GLP-1R agonists and 119 of whom were taking non-GLP-1R agonist diabetes medications. The study used the Partners Healthcare EHR to identify eligible patients.

The study found that periostin levels were significantly decreased in GLP-1R agonist users: 19.1 ng/mL (standard deviation, +8.7) versus 27.4 ng/mL (SD, +14) in the non-GLP-1R agonist group (P = .001), Dr. Foer said. The other known mediators of asthma inflammatory pathways that were measured – interleukin-6, IL-8, sCD163, total IgE, and sST2 (soluble suppression of tumorigenesis–2) – showed no differences between the two groups, Dr. Foer said.

She said that this was the first human study to show similar results to preclinical models of asthma pathways. “What was interesting to us was that our findings were robust even when we controlled for covariates,” she added.

These findings lay the groundwork for further research into the potential therapeutic role GLP-1R agonists in asthma, Dr. Foer said. “This supports using periostin as a biomarker for novel therapeutic use of GLP-1R [agonists] in asthma,” she said. “At this point further study is needed to understand the clinical impact of GPL-1R [agonists] in asthma both for patients with type 2 diabetes and potentially in the future for patients who don’t have type 2 diabetes or metabolic disease.”

She added: “I don’t think we’re there yet; this is just one foot forward.”

The next step for researchers involves analyzing outcomes in asthmatics with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1R agonist therapy using a larger sample size as well as patients with asthma and metabolic disease, Dr. Foer said. The goal would be to identify corresponding biomarkers.

“There’s a terrific conversation in the field about the relationships between metabolism and asthma,” she said. “What our data contributes to that is, it suggests a role for metabolic pathways, specifically as it’s related GLP-1R [agonist] signaling pathways in regulating airway inflammation.”

Mark Moss, MD, associate professor of allergy & immunology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was to serve as the moderator of the session, was positive about the GLP-1R agonist findings. He said in an interview: “This is promising research that provides a possible new target for the treatment of asthma.”

Dr. Foer disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Foer D et al. AAAAI Session 462, Abstract 784.

Patients with both type 2 diabetes and asthma who were on glucagonlike peptide receptor–1 (GLP-1R) agonists for glucose control had lower levels of a key biomarker of airway inflammation than similar patients on other types of glucose-control medications, according to results of a study to have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology. The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings from this study potentially replicated findings in humans that have been reported in preclinical trials.

“Our work showed that type 2 diabetics with asthma who were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists had lower levels of periostin, and this provides really one of the first human data to show that these drugs may impact key inflammation pathways in the airway,” Dinah Foer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. She described periostin as “a known critical inducer of airway mucous production and airway responsiveness.”

The study retrospectively evaluated serum samples from the Partners HealthCare Biobank of 161 adults with both asthma and type 2 diabetes, 42 of whom were on GLP-1R agonists and 119 of whom were taking non-GLP-1R agonist diabetes medications. The study used the Partners Healthcare EHR to identify eligible patients.

The study found that periostin levels were significantly decreased in GLP-1R agonist users: 19.1 ng/mL (standard deviation, +8.7) versus 27.4 ng/mL (SD, +14) in the non-GLP-1R agonist group (P = .001), Dr. Foer said. The other known mediators of asthma inflammatory pathways that were measured – interleukin-6, IL-8, sCD163, total IgE, and sST2 (soluble suppression of tumorigenesis–2) – showed no differences between the two groups, Dr. Foer said.

She said that this was the first human study to show similar results to preclinical models of asthma pathways. “What was interesting to us was that our findings were robust even when we controlled for covariates,” she added.

These findings lay the groundwork for further research into the potential therapeutic role GLP-1R agonists in asthma, Dr. Foer said. “This supports using periostin as a biomarker for novel therapeutic use of GLP-1R [agonists] in asthma,” she said. “At this point further study is needed to understand the clinical impact of GPL-1R [agonists] in asthma both for patients with type 2 diabetes and potentially in the future for patients who don’t have type 2 diabetes or metabolic disease.”

She added: “I don’t think we’re there yet; this is just one foot forward.”

The next step for researchers involves analyzing outcomes in asthmatics with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1R agonist therapy using a larger sample size as well as patients with asthma and metabolic disease, Dr. Foer said. The goal would be to identify corresponding biomarkers.

“There’s a terrific conversation in the field about the relationships between metabolism and asthma,” she said. “What our data contributes to that is, it suggests a role for metabolic pathways, specifically as it’s related GLP-1R [agonist] signaling pathways in regulating airway inflammation.”

Mark Moss, MD, associate professor of allergy & immunology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was to serve as the moderator of the session, was positive about the GLP-1R agonist findings. He said in an interview: “This is promising research that provides a possible new target for the treatment of asthma.”

Dr. Foer disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Foer D et al. AAAAI Session 462, Abstract 784.

Patients with both type 2 diabetes and asthma who were on glucagonlike peptide receptor–1 (GLP-1R) agonists for glucose control had lower levels of a key biomarker of airway inflammation than similar patients on other types of glucose-control medications, according to results of a study to have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology. The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings from this study potentially replicated findings in humans that have been reported in preclinical trials.

“Our work showed that type 2 diabetics with asthma who were treated with GLP-1 receptor agonists had lower levels of periostin, and this provides really one of the first human data to show that these drugs may impact key inflammation pathways in the airway,” Dinah Foer, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. She described periostin as “a known critical inducer of airway mucous production and airway responsiveness.”

The study retrospectively evaluated serum samples from the Partners HealthCare Biobank of 161 adults with both asthma and type 2 diabetes, 42 of whom were on GLP-1R agonists and 119 of whom were taking non-GLP-1R agonist diabetes medications. The study used the Partners Healthcare EHR to identify eligible patients.

The study found that periostin levels were significantly decreased in GLP-1R agonist users: 19.1 ng/mL (standard deviation, +8.7) versus 27.4 ng/mL (SD, +14) in the non-GLP-1R agonist group (P = .001), Dr. Foer said. The other known mediators of asthma inflammatory pathways that were measured – interleukin-6, IL-8, sCD163, total IgE, and sST2 (soluble suppression of tumorigenesis–2) – showed no differences between the two groups, Dr. Foer said.

She said that this was the first human study to show similar results to preclinical models of asthma pathways. “What was interesting to us was that our findings were robust even when we controlled for covariates,” she added.

These findings lay the groundwork for further research into the potential therapeutic role GLP-1R agonists in asthma, Dr. Foer said. “This supports using periostin as a biomarker for novel therapeutic use of GLP-1R [agonists] in asthma,” she said. “At this point further study is needed to understand the clinical impact of GPL-1R [agonists] in asthma both for patients with type 2 diabetes and potentially in the future for patients who don’t have type 2 diabetes or metabolic disease.”

She added: “I don’t think we’re there yet; this is just one foot forward.”

The next step for researchers involves analyzing outcomes in asthmatics with type 2 diabetes on GLP-1R agonist therapy using a larger sample size as well as patients with asthma and metabolic disease, Dr. Foer said. The goal would be to identify corresponding biomarkers.

“There’s a terrific conversation in the field about the relationships between metabolism and asthma,” she said. “What our data contributes to that is, it suggests a role for metabolic pathways, specifically as it’s related GLP-1R [agonist] signaling pathways in regulating airway inflammation.”

Mark Moss, MD, associate professor of allergy & immunology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who was to serve as the moderator of the session, was positive about the GLP-1R agonist findings. He said in an interview: “This is promising research that provides a possible new target for the treatment of asthma.”

Dr. Foer disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships.

SOURCE: Foer D et al. AAAAI Session 462, Abstract 784.

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Drug Safety Communication that strengthens existing warnings about serious mood- and behavior-related changes associated with montelukast (Singulair), a prescription drug for asthma and allergy.

The new boxed warning advises health care providers to avoid prescribing montelukast for patients with mild symptoms, particularly those with allergic rhinitis, the FDA said in a press release. The drug was first approved in 1998, and the product labeling was updated in 2008 to include information about neuropsychiatric adverse events reported with usage of montelukast.

While the Sentinel study, along with other observational studies, did not find an increased risk of mental health side effects with montelukast treatment, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, those studies had limitations that may have affected results, the FDA said in the Drug Safety Communication. However, the FDA has continued to receive reports of neuropsychiatric events – including agitation, depression, sleeping problems, and suicidal thoughts and actions – in patients receiving the medication.

“The incidence of neuropsychiatric events associated with montelukast is unknown, but some reports are serious, and many patients and health care professionals are not fully aware of these risks,” Sally Seymour, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, allergy and rheumatology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “There are many other safe and effective medications to treat allergies with extensive history of use and safety, such that many products are available over the counter without a prescription.”

In addition to the boxed warning, the FDA now requires a new medication guide to be given to patients with each montelukast prescription, the FDA said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Drug Safety Communication that strengthens existing warnings about serious mood- and behavior-related changes associated with montelukast (Singulair), a prescription drug for asthma and allergy.

The new boxed warning advises health care providers to avoid prescribing montelukast for patients with mild symptoms, particularly those with allergic rhinitis, the FDA said in a press release. The drug was first approved in 1998, and the product labeling was updated in 2008 to include information about neuropsychiatric adverse events reported with usage of montelukast.

While the Sentinel study, along with other observational studies, did not find an increased risk of mental health side effects with montelukast treatment, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, those studies had limitations that may have affected results, the FDA said in the Drug Safety Communication. However, the FDA has continued to receive reports of neuropsychiatric events – including agitation, depression, sleeping problems, and suicidal thoughts and actions – in patients receiving the medication.

“The incidence of neuropsychiatric events associated with montelukast is unknown, but some reports are serious, and many patients and health care professionals are not fully aware of these risks,” Sally Seymour, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, allergy and rheumatology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “There are many other safe and effective medications to treat allergies with extensive history of use and safety, such that many products are available over the counter without a prescription.”

In addition to the boxed warning, the FDA now requires a new medication guide to be given to patients with each montelukast prescription, the FDA said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a Drug Safety Communication that strengthens existing warnings about serious mood- and behavior-related changes associated with montelukast (Singulair), a prescription drug for asthma and allergy.

The new boxed warning advises health care providers to avoid prescribing montelukast for patients with mild symptoms, particularly those with allergic rhinitis, the FDA said in a press release. The drug was first approved in 1998, and the product labeling was updated in 2008 to include information about neuropsychiatric adverse events reported with usage of montelukast.

While the Sentinel study, along with other observational studies, did not find an increased risk of mental health side effects with montelukast treatment, compared with inhaled corticosteroids, those studies had limitations that may have affected results, the FDA said in the Drug Safety Communication. However, the FDA has continued to receive reports of neuropsychiatric events – including agitation, depression, sleeping problems, and suicidal thoughts and actions – in patients receiving the medication.

“The incidence of neuropsychiatric events associated with montelukast is unknown, but some reports are serious, and many patients and health care professionals are not fully aware of these risks,” Sally Seymour, MD, director of the division of pulmonary, allergy and rheumatology products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release. “There are many other safe and effective medications to treat allergies with extensive history of use and safety, such that many products are available over the counter without a prescription.”

In addition to the boxed warning, the FDA now requires a new medication guide to be given to patients with each montelukast prescription, the FDA said.

lfranki@mdedge.com

A 59-year-old man is admitted with abdominal pain. He has a history of pancreatitis. A contrast CT scan is ordered. He reports a history of severe shellfish allergy when the radiology tech checks him in for the procedure. You are paged regarding what to do:

A) Continue with scan as ordered.

B) Switch to MRI scan.

C) Switch to MRI scan with gadolinium.

D) Continue with CT with contrast, give dose of Solu-Medrol.

E) Continue with CT with contrast give IV diphenhydramine.
 

The correct answer here is A, This patient can receive his scan and receive contrast as ordered.

For many years, patients have been asked about shellfish allergy as a proxy for having increased risk when receiving iodine containing contrast. The mistaken thought was that shellfish contains iodine, so allergy to shellfish was likely to portend allergy to iodine.

Allergy to shellfish is caused by individual proteins that are definitely not in iodine-containing contrast.¹ Beaty et al. studied the prevalence of the belief that allergy to shellfish is tied to iodine allergy in a survey given to 231 faculty radiologists and interventional cardiologists.² Almost 70% responded that they inquire about seafood allergy before procedures that require iodine contrast, and 37% reported they would withhold the contrast or premedicate patients if they had a seafood allergy.

In a more recent study, Westermann-Clark and colleagues surveyed 252 health professionals before and after an educational intervention to dispel the myth of shellfish allergy and iodinated contrast reactions.³ Before the intervention, 66% of participants felt it was important to ask about shellfish allergies and 93% felt it was important to ask about iodine allergies; 26% responded that they would withhold iodinated contrast material in patients with a shellfish allergy, and 56% would withhold in patients with an iodine allergy. A total of 62% reported they would premedicate patients with a shellfish allergy and 75% would premedicate patients with an iodine allergy. The numbers declined dramatically after the educational intervention.

Patients who have seafood allergy have a higher rate of reactions to iodinated contrast, but not at a higher rate than do patients with other food allergies or asthma.⁴ Most radiology departments do not screen for other food allergies despite the fact these allergies have the same increased risk as for patients with a seafood/shellfish allergy. These patients are more allergic, and in general, are more likely to have reactions. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology recommends not routinely ordering low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media or pretreating with either antihistamines or steroids in patients with a history of seafood allergy.⁵

• It is unnecessary and unhelpful to ask patients about seafood allergies before ordering radiologic studies involving contrast.
• Iodine allergy does not exist.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. Narayan AK et al. Avoiding contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans in patients with shellfish allergies. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun;11(6):435-7.

2. Beaty AD et al. Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: Are physicians propagating a myth? Am J Med. 2008 Feb;121(2):158.e1-4.

3. Westermann-Clark E et al. Debunking myths about “allergy” to radiocontrast media in an academic institution. Postgrad Med. 2015 Apr;127(3):295-300.

4. Coakley FV and DM Panicek. Iodine allergy: An oyster without a pearl? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Oct;169(4):951-2.

5. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology recommendations on low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media.

6. Schabelman E and M Witting. The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: A medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;39(5):701-7.

7. van Ketel WG and WH van den Berg. Sensitization to povidone-iodine. Dermatol Clin. 1990 Jan;8(1):107-9.

A 59-year-old man is admitted with abdominal pain. He has a history of pancreatitis. A contrast CT scan is ordered. He reports a history of severe shellfish allergy when the radiology tech checks him in for the procedure. You are paged regarding what to do:

A) Continue with scan as ordered.

B) Switch to MRI scan.

C) Switch to MRI scan with gadolinium.

D) Continue with CT with contrast, give dose of Solu-Medrol.

E) Continue with CT with contrast give IV diphenhydramine.
 

The correct answer here is A, This patient can receive his scan and receive contrast as ordered.

For many years, patients have been asked about shellfish allergy as a proxy for having increased risk when receiving iodine containing contrast. The mistaken thought was that shellfish contains iodine, so allergy to shellfish was likely to portend allergy to iodine.

Allergy to shellfish is caused by individual proteins that are definitely not in iodine-containing contrast.¹ Beaty et al. studied the prevalence of the belief that allergy to shellfish is tied to iodine allergy in a survey given to 231 faculty radiologists and interventional cardiologists.² Almost 70% responded that they inquire about seafood allergy before procedures that require iodine contrast, and 37% reported they would withhold the contrast or premedicate patients if they had a seafood allergy.

In a more recent study, Westermann-Clark and colleagues surveyed 252 health professionals before and after an educational intervention to dispel the myth of shellfish allergy and iodinated contrast reactions.³ Before the intervention, 66% of participants felt it was important to ask about shellfish allergies and 93% felt it was important to ask about iodine allergies; 26% responded that they would withhold iodinated contrast material in patients with a shellfish allergy, and 56% would withhold in patients with an iodine allergy. A total of 62% reported they would premedicate patients with a shellfish allergy and 75% would premedicate patients with an iodine allergy. The numbers declined dramatically after the educational intervention.

Patients who have seafood allergy have a higher rate of reactions to iodinated contrast, but not at a higher rate than do patients with other food allergies or asthma.⁴ Most radiology departments do not screen for other food allergies despite the fact these allergies have the same increased risk as for patients with a seafood/shellfish allergy. These patients are more allergic, and in general, are more likely to have reactions. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology recommends not routinely ordering low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media or pretreating with either antihistamines or steroids in patients with a history of seafood allergy.⁵

• It is unnecessary and unhelpful to ask patients about seafood allergies before ordering radiologic studies involving contrast.
• Iodine allergy does not exist.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. Narayan AK et al. Avoiding contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans in patients with shellfish allergies. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun;11(6):435-7.

2. Beaty AD et al. Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: Are physicians propagating a myth? Am J Med. 2008 Feb;121(2):158.e1-4.

3. Westermann-Clark E et al. Debunking myths about “allergy” to radiocontrast media in an academic institution. Postgrad Med. 2015 Apr;127(3):295-300.

4. Coakley FV and DM Panicek. Iodine allergy: An oyster without a pearl? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Oct;169(4):951-2.

5. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology recommendations on low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media.

6. Schabelman E and M Witting. The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: A medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;39(5):701-7.

7. van Ketel WG and WH van den Berg. Sensitization to povidone-iodine. Dermatol Clin. 1990 Jan;8(1):107-9.

A 59-year-old man is admitted with abdominal pain. He has a history of pancreatitis. A contrast CT scan is ordered. He reports a history of severe shellfish allergy when the radiology tech checks him in for the procedure. You are paged regarding what to do:

A) Continue with scan as ordered.

B) Switch to MRI scan.

C) Switch to MRI scan with gadolinium.

D) Continue with CT with contrast, give dose of Solu-Medrol.

E) Continue with CT with contrast give IV diphenhydramine.
 

The correct answer here is A, This patient can receive his scan and receive contrast as ordered.

For many years, patients have been asked about shellfish allergy as a proxy for having increased risk when receiving iodine containing contrast. The mistaken thought was that shellfish contains iodine, so allergy to shellfish was likely to portend allergy to iodine.

Allergy to shellfish is caused by individual proteins that are definitely not in iodine-containing contrast.¹ Beaty et al. studied the prevalence of the belief that allergy to shellfish is tied to iodine allergy in a survey given to 231 faculty radiologists and interventional cardiologists.² Almost 70% responded that they inquire about seafood allergy before procedures that require iodine contrast, and 37% reported they would withhold the contrast or premedicate patients if they had a seafood allergy.

In a more recent study, Westermann-Clark and colleagues surveyed 252 health professionals before and after an educational intervention to dispel the myth of shellfish allergy and iodinated contrast reactions.³ Before the intervention, 66% of participants felt it was important to ask about shellfish allergies and 93% felt it was important to ask about iodine allergies; 26% responded that they would withhold iodinated contrast material in patients with a shellfish allergy, and 56% would withhold in patients with an iodine allergy. A total of 62% reported they would premedicate patients with a shellfish allergy and 75% would premedicate patients with an iodine allergy. The numbers declined dramatically after the educational intervention.

Patients who have seafood allergy have a higher rate of reactions to iodinated contrast, but not at a higher rate than do patients with other food allergies or asthma.⁴ Most radiology departments do not screen for other food allergies despite the fact these allergies have the same increased risk as for patients with a seafood/shellfish allergy. These patients are more allergic, and in general, are more likely to have reactions. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology recommends not routinely ordering low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media or pretreating with either antihistamines or steroids in patients with a history of seafood allergy.⁵

• It is unnecessary and unhelpful to ask patients about seafood allergies before ordering radiologic studies involving contrast.
• Iodine allergy does not exist.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at dpaauw@uw.edu.

References

1. Narayan AK et al. Avoiding contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans in patients with shellfish allergies. J Hosp Med. 2016 Jun;11(6):435-7.

2. Beaty AD et al. Seafood allergy and radiocontrast media: Are physicians propagating a myth? Am J Med. 2008 Feb;121(2):158.e1-4.

3. Westermann-Clark E et al. Debunking myths about “allergy” to radiocontrast media in an academic institution. Postgrad Med. 2015 Apr;127(3):295-300.

4. Coakley FV and DM Panicek. Iodine allergy: An oyster without a pearl? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Oct;169(4):951-2.

5. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology recommendations on low- or iso-osmolar radiocontrast media.

6. Schabelman E and M Witting. The relationship of radiocontrast, iodine, and seafood allergies: A medical myth exposed. J Emerg Med. 2010 Nov;39(5):701-7.

7. van Ketel WG and WH van den Berg. Sensitization to povidone-iodine. Dermatol Clin. 1990 Jan;8(1):107-9.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first generic version of Teva’s ProAir HFA (albuterol sulfate inhalation aerosol).

Generic albuterol sulfate inhalation, from Perrigo Pharmaceutical, is indicated for the treatment or prevention of bronchospasm in people aged 4 years or older who have reversible obstructive airway disease, as well as for the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm.

“Approval of the first generic drug product for one of the most commonly used rescue inhalers in the US is part of our long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic drug products that are as safe and effective as their brand name counterparts, and to expand opportunities to bring generic copies of complex drugs to the market,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a news release.

Metered-dose inhalers are hard to duplicate because of the complexities of their formulation or mode of delivery. “As a result, too many complex drugs lack generic competition even after patents and exclusivities no longer block generic approval,” he explained.

“Supporting development and approval of generic copies of these complex medicines so that these products can get to patients has been a major focus of our efforts to improve competition and access and to lower drug prices. Getting more generic copies of complex drugs to the market is a key priority for how we’ll help bring new savings to consumers,” Hahn added.

In the United States, more than 26 million people suffer from asthma; about 7 million of these people are children.

Perrigo said it will immediately launch a limited quantity of generic albuterol sulfate and, in collaboration with its development and manufacturing partner, Catalent Pharma Solutions, is ramping up production to meet future demand.

The company “anticipates that we will be in a position to provide a steady supply of this product by the fourth quarter of 2020,” Perrigo Executive Vice President and Rx Pharmaceuticals President Sharon Kochan said in a statement.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first generic version of Teva’s ProAir HFA (albuterol sulfate inhalation aerosol).

Generic albuterol sulfate inhalation, from Perrigo Pharmaceutical, is indicated for the treatment or prevention of bronchospasm in people aged 4 years or older who have reversible obstructive airway disease, as well as for the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm.

“Approval of the first generic drug product for one of the most commonly used rescue inhalers in the US is part of our long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic drug products that are as safe and effective as their brand name counterparts, and to expand opportunities to bring generic copies of complex drugs to the market,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a news release.

Metered-dose inhalers are hard to duplicate because of the complexities of their formulation or mode of delivery. “As a result, too many complex drugs lack generic competition even after patents and exclusivities no longer block generic approval,” he explained.

“Supporting development and approval of generic copies of these complex medicines so that these products can get to patients has been a major focus of our efforts to improve competition and access and to lower drug prices. Getting more generic copies of complex drugs to the market is a key priority for how we’ll help bring new savings to consumers,” Hahn added.

In the United States, more than 26 million people suffer from asthma; about 7 million of these people are children.

Perrigo said it will immediately launch a limited quantity of generic albuterol sulfate and, in collaboration with its development and manufacturing partner, Catalent Pharma Solutions, is ramping up production to meet future demand.

The company “anticipates that we will be in a position to provide a steady supply of this product by the fourth quarter of 2020,” Perrigo Executive Vice President and Rx Pharmaceuticals President Sharon Kochan said in a statement.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first generic version of Teva’s ProAir HFA (albuterol sulfate inhalation aerosol).

Generic albuterol sulfate inhalation, from Perrigo Pharmaceutical, is indicated for the treatment or prevention of bronchospasm in people aged 4 years or older who have reversible obstructive airway disease, as well as for the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm.

“Approval of the first generic drug product for one of the most commonly used rescue inhalers in the US is part of our long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic drug products that are as safe and effective as their brand name counterparts, and to expand opportunities to bring generic copies of complex drugs to the market,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a news release.

Metered-dose inhalers are hard to duplicate because of the complexities of their formulation or mode of delivery. “As a result, too many complex drugs lack generic competition even after patents and exclusivities no longer block generic approval,” he explained.

“Supporting development and approval of generic copies of these complex medicines so that these products can get to patients has been a major focus of our efforts to improve competition and access and to lower drug prices. Getting more generic copies of complex drugs to the market is a key priority for how we’ll help bring new savings to consumers,” Hahn added.

In the United States, more than 26 million people suffer from asthma; about 7 million of these people are children.

Perrigo said it will immediately launch a limited quantity of generic albuterol sulfate and, in collaboration with its development and manufacturing partner, Catalent Pharma Solutions, is ramping up production to meet future demand.

The company “anticipates that we will be in a position to provide a steady supply of this product by the fourth quarter of 2020,” Perrigo Executive Vice President and Rx Pharmaceuticals President Sharon Kochan said in a statement.

This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even on-time pneumococcal vaccines don’t completely protect children with asthma from developing invasive pneumococcal disease, a meta-analysis has determined.

Despite receiving pneumococcal valent 7, 10, or 13, children with asthma were still almost twice as likely to develop the disease as were children without asthma, Jose A. Castro-Rodriguez, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics (2020 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1200). None of the studies included rates for those who received the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23).

“For the first time, this meta-analysis reveals 90% increased odds of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among [vaccinated] children with asthma,” said Dr. Castro-Rodriguez, of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, and colleagues. “If confirmed, these findings will bear clinical and public health importance,” they noted, because guidelines now recommend PPSV23 after age 2 in children with asthma only if they’re treated with prolonged high-dose oral corticosteroids.

However, because the analysis comprised only four studies, the authors cautioned that the results aren’t enough to justify changes to practice recommendations.

Asthma treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may be driving the increased risk, Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and his coauthors suggested. ICS deposition in the oropharynx could boost oropharyngeal candidiasis risk by weakening the mucosal immune response, the researchers noted. And that same process may be at work with Streptococcus pneumoniae.

A prior study found that children with asthma who received ICS for at least 1 month were almost four times more likely to have oropharyngeal colonization by S. pneumoniae as were those who didn’t get the drugs. Thus, a higher carrier rate of S. pneumoniae in the oropharynx, along with asthma’s impaired airway clearance, might increase the risk of pneumococcal diseases, the investigators explained.

Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and colleagues analyzed four studies with more than 4,000 cases and controls, and about 26 million person-years of follow-up.

Rates and risks of IPD in the four studies were as follows:

• Among those with IPD, 27% had asthma, with 18% of those without, an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.8.
• In a European of patients who received at least 3 doses of PCV7, IPD rates per 100,000 person-years for 5-year-olds were 11.6 for children with asthma and 7.3 for those without. For 5- to 17-year-olds with and without asthma, the rates were 2.3 and 1.6, respectively.
• In 2001, a Korean found an aOR of 2.08 for IPD in children with asthma, compared with those without. In 2010, the aOR was 3.26. No vaccine types were reported in the study.
• of IPD were 3.7 per 100,000 person-years for children with asthma, compared with 2.5 for healthy controls – an adjusted relative risk of 1.5.

The pooled estimate of the four studies revealed an aOR of 1.9 for IPD among children with asthma, compared with those without, Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and his team concluded.

None of the studies reported hospital admissions, mortality, length of hospital stay, intensive care admission, invasive respiratory support, or additional medication use.

One, however, did find asthma severity was significantly associated with increasing IPD treatment costs per 100,000 person-years: $72,581 for healthy controls, compared with $100,020 for children with mild asthma, $172,002 for moderate asthma, and $638,452 for severe asthma.

In addition, treating all-cause pneumonia was more expensive in children with asthma. For all-cause pneumonia, the researchers found that estimated costs per 100,000 person-years for mild, moderate, and severe asthma were $7.5 million, $14.6 million, and $46.8 million, respectively, compared with $1.7 million for healthy controls.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Castro-Rodriguez J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1200.

Even on-time pneumococcal vaccines don’t completely protect children with asthma from developing invasive pneumococcal disease, a meta-analysis has determined.

Despite receiving pneumococcal valent 7, 10, or 13, children with asthma were still almost twice as likely to develop the disease as were children without asthma, Jose A. Castro-Rodriguez, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics (2020 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1200). None of the studies included rates for those who received the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23).

“For the first time, this meta-analysis reveals 90% increased odds of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among [vaccinated] children with asthma,” said Dr. Castro-Rodriguez, of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, and colleagues. “If confirmed, these findings will bear clinical and public health importance,” they noted, because guidelines now recommend PPSV23 after age 2 in children with asthma only if they’re treated with prolonged high-dose oral corticosteroids.

However, because the analysis comprised only four studies, the authors cautioned that the results aren’t enough to justify changes to practice recommendations.

Asthma treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may be driving the increased risk, Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and his coauthors suggested. ICS deposition in the oropharynx could boost oropharyngeal candidiasis risk by weakening the mucosal immune response, the researchers noted. And that same process may be at work with Streptococcus pneumoniae.

A prior study found that children with asthma who received ICS for at least 1 month were almost four times more likely to have oropharyngeal colonization by S. pneumoniae as were those who didn’t get the drugs. Thus, a higher carrier rate of S. pneumoniae in the oropharynx, along with asthma’s impaired airway clearance, might increase the risk of pneumococcal diseases, the investigators explained.

Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and colleagues analyzed four studies with more than 4,000 cases and controls, and about 26 million person-years of follow-up.

Rates and risks of IPD in the four studies were as follows:

• Among those with IPD, 27% had asthma, with 18% of those without, an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.8.
• In a European of patients who received at least 3 doses of PCV7, IPD rates per 100,000 person-years for 5-year-olds were 11.6 for children with asthma and 7.3 for those without. For 5- to 17-year-olds with and without asthma, the rates were 2.3 and 1.6, respectively.
• In 2001, a Korean found an aOR of 2.08 for IPD in children with asthma, compared with those without. In 2010, the aOR was 3.26. No vaccine types were reported in the study.
• of IPD were 3.7 per 100,000 person-years for children with asthma, compared with 2.5 for healthy controls – an adjusted relative risk of 1.5.

The pooled estimate of the four studies revealed an aOR of 1.9 for IPD among children with asthma, compared with those without, Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and his team concluded.

None of the studies reported hospital admissions, mortality, length of hospital stay, intensive care admission, invasive respiratory support, or additional medication use.

One, however, did find asthma severity was significantly associated with increasing IPD treatment costs per 100,000 person-years: $72,581 for healthy controls, compared with $100,020 for children with mild asthma, $172,002 for moderate asthma, and $638,452 for severe asthma.

In addition, treating all-cause pneumonia was more expensive in children with asthma. For all-cause pneumonia, the researchers found that estimated costs per 100,000 person-years for mild, moderate, and severe asthma were $7.5 million, $14.6 million, and $46.8 million, respectively, compared with $1.7 million for healthy controls.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Castro-Rodriguez J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1200.

Even on-time pneumococcal vaccines don’t completely protect children with asthma from developing invasive pneumococcal disease, a meta-analysis has determined.

Despite receiving pneumococcal valent 7, 10, or 13, children with asthma were still almost twice as likely to develop the disease as were children without asthma, Jose A. Castro-Rodriguez, MD, PhD, and colleagues reported in Pediatrics (2020 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1200). None of the studies included rates for those who received the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23).

“For the first time, this meta-analysis reveals 90% increased odds of invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) among [vaccinated] children with asthma,” said Dr. Castro-Rodriguez, of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, and colleagues. “If confirmed, these findings will bear clinical and public health importance,” they noted, because guidelines now recommend PPSV23 after age 2 in children with asthma only if they’re treated with prolonged high-dose oral corticosteroids.

However, because the analysis comprised only four studies, the authors cautioned that the results aren’t enough to justify changes to practice recommendations.

Asthma treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may be driving the increased risk, Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and his coauthors suggested. ICS deposition in the oropharynx could boost oropharyngeal candidiasis risk by weakening the mucosal immune response, the researchers noted. And that same process may be at work with Streptococcus pneumoniae.

A prior study found that children with asthma who received ICS for at least 1 month were almost four times more likely to have oropharyngeal colonization by S. pneumoniae as were those who didn’t get the drugs. Thus, a higher carrier rate of S. pneumoniae in the oropharynx, along with asthma’s impaired airway clearance, might increase the risk of pneumococcal diseases, the investigators explained.

Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and colleagues analyzed four studies with more than 4,000 cases and controls, and about 26 million person-years of follow-up.

Rates and risks of IPD in the four studies were as follows:

• Among those with IPD, 27% had asthma, with 18% of those without, an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.8.
• In a European of patients who received at least 3 doses of PCV7, IPD rates per 100,000 person-years for 5-year-olds were 11.6 for children with asthma and 7.3 for those without. For 5- to 17-year-olds with and without asthma, the rates were 2.3 and 1.6, respectively.
• In 2001, a Korean found an aOR of 2.08 for IPD in children with asthma, compared with those without. In 2010, the aOR was 3.26. No vaccine types were reported in the study.
• of IPD were 3.7 per 100,000 person-years for children with asthma, compared with 2.5 for healthy controls – an adjusted relative risk of 1.5.

The pooled estimate of the four studies revealed an aOR of 1.9 for IPD among children with asthma, compared with those without, Dr. Castro-Rodriguez and his team concluded.

None of the studies reported hospital admissions, mortality, length of hospital stay, intensive care admission, invasive respiratory support, or additional medication use.

One, however, did find asthma severity was significantly associated with increasing IPD treatment costs per 100,000 person-years: $72,581 for healthy controls, compared with $100,020 for children with mild asthma, $172,002 for moderate asthma, and $638,452 for severe asthma.

In addition, treating all-cause pneumonia was more expensive in children with asthma. For all-cause pneumonia, the researchers found that estimated costs per 100,000 person-years for mild, moderate, and severe asthma were $7.5 million, $14.6 million, and $46.8 million, respectively, compared with $1.7 million for healthy controls.

The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Castro-Rodriguez J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1200.

Researchers in Japan report that infants with atopic dermatitis who are treated early and aggressively with corticosteroids develop fewer food allergies by age 2 years.

For their research published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, Yumiko Miyaji, MD, PhD, of Japan’s National Center for Child Health and Development in Tokyo and colleagues looked at 3 years’ worth of records for 177 infants younger than 1 year of age seen at a hospital allergy center for eczema. Of these infants, 89 were treated with betamethasone valerate within 4 months of disease onset, and 88 were treated after 4 months of onset. Most (142) were followed-up at 22-24 months, when all were in complete remission or near remission from eczema.

At follow-up, clinicians collected information about anaphylactic reactions to food, administered specific food challenges, and tested serum immunoglobin E levels for food allergens. Dr. Miyaji and colleagues found a significant difference in the prevalence of allergies between the early-treated and late-treated groups to chicken egg, cow’s milk, wheat, peanuts, soy, or fish (25% vs. 46%, respectively; P equal to .013). For individual food allergies, only chicken egg was associated with a statistically significant difference in prevalence (15% vs 36%, P equal to .006).

“Our present study may be the first to demonstrate that early aggressive topical corticosteroid treatment to shorten the duration of eczema in infants was significantly associated with a decrease in later development of [food allergies],” Dr. Miyaji and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

The investigators acknowledged as limitations of their study some between-group differences at baseline, with characteristics such as Staphylococcus aureus infections and some inflammatory biomarkers higher in the early treatment group.

The Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development supported the study, and the investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their findings.

SOURCE: Miyaji Y et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.11.036

Researchers in Japan report that infants with atopic dermatitis who are treated early and aggressively with corticosteroids develop fewer food allergies by age 2 years.

For their research published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, Yumiko Miyaji, MD, PhD, of Japan’s National Center for Child Health and Development in Tokyo and colleagues looked at 3 years’ worth of records for 177 infants younger than 1 year of age seen at a hospital allergy center for eczema. Of these infants, 89 were treated with betamethasone valerate within 4 months of disease onset, and 88 were treated after 4 months of onset. Most (142) were followed-up at 22-24 months, when all were in complete remission or near remission from eczema.

At follow-up, clinicians collected information about anaphylactic reactions to food, administered specific food challenges, and tested serum immunoglobin E levels for food allergens. Dr. Miyaji and colleagues found a significant difference in the prevalence of allergies between the early-treated and late-treated groups to chicken egg, cow’s milk, wheat, peanuts, soy, or fish (25% vs. 46%, respectively; P equal to .013). For individual food allergies, only chicken egg was associated with a statistically significant difference in prevalence (15% vs 36%, P equal to .006).

“Our present study may be the first to demonstrate that early aggressive topical corticosteroid treatment to shorten the duration of eczema in infants was significantly associated with a decrease in later development of [food allergies],” Dr. Miyaji and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

The investigators acknowledged as limitations of their study some between-group differences at baseline, with characteristics such as Staphylococcus aureus infections and some inflammatory biomarkers higher in the early treatment group.

The Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development supported the study, and the investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their findings.

SOURCE: Miyaji Y et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.11.036

Researchers in Japan report that infants with atopic dermatitis who are treated early and aggressively with corticosteroids develop fewer food allergies by age 2 years.

For their research published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, Yumiko Miyaji, MD, PhD, of Japan’s National Center for Child Health and Development in Tokyo and colleagues looked at 3 years’ worth of records for 177 infants younger than 1 year of age seen at a hospital allergy center for eczema. Of these infants, 89 were treated with betamethasone valerate within 4 months of disease onset, and 88 were treated after 4 months of onset. Most (142) were followed-up at 22-24 months, when all were in complete remission or near remission from eczema.

At follow-up, clinicians collected information about anaphylactic reactions to food, administered specific food challenges, and tested serum immunoglobin E levels for food allergens. Dr. Miyaji and colleagues found a significant difference in the prevalence of allergies between the early-treated and late-treated groups to chicken egg, cow’s milk, wheat, peanuts, soy, or fish (25% vs. 46%, respectively; P equal to .013). For individual food allergies, only chicken egg was associated with a statistically significant difference in prevalence (15% vs 36%, P equal to .006).

“Our present study may be the first to demonstrate that early aggressive topical corticosteroid treatment to shorten the duration of eczema in infants was significantly associated with a decrease in later development of [food allergies],” Dr. Miyaji and colleagues wrote in their analysis.

The investigators acknowledged as limitations of their study some between-group differences at baseline, with characteristics such as Staphylococcus aureus infections and some inflammatory biomarkers higher in the early treatment group.

The Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development supported the study, and the investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest related to their findings.

SOURCE: Miyaji Y et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.11.036

Children with atopic dermatitis and allergies to eggs and milk were at increased risk for anaphylactic reactions, compared with allergic patients without atopic dermatitis, based on retrospective data from 347 individuals.

Atopic dermatitis has been associated with increased risk of food allergies, but the association and predictive factors of skin reactions to certain foods remain unclear, wrote Bryce C. Hoffman, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and colleagues.

In a letter published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers identified children aged 0-18 years with peanut, cow’s milk, and/or egg allergies with or without atopic dermatitis (AD) using an institutional research database and conducted a retrospective study of medical records.

Overall, children with egg and milk allergies plus AD had significantly higher rates of anaphylaxis than allergic children without AD (47% vs. 11% for egg, 50% vs. 19% for milk). Anaphylaxis rates were similar in children with peanut allergies with or without AD (27% vs. 23%).

“This finding may suggest that skin barrier dysfunction plays a role in the severity of [food allergy]. However, this is not universal to all food antigens, and other mechanisms are likely important in the association of anaphylaxis with a particular food,” the researchers noted.

Rates of tolerance for both baked egg and baked milk were similar between AD and non-AD patients (83% vs. 61% for milk; 82% vs. 67% for egg). In addition, levels of total IgE were increased in children with egg and milk allergies plus AD, compared with children without AD. However, children with peanut allergies plus AD had decreased total IgE, compared with children with peanut allergies but no AD. This “may support a link between T_h2 polarization and [food allergy] severity, ” Dr. Hoffman and associates wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective study design, exclusion of many patients, and lack of data on the amount of food that triggered anaphylactic reactions, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results suggest that children with atopic dermatitis and allergies to eggs and milk are at increased risk and that clinicians should counsel these patients and families about the potential for more-severe reactions to oral food challenges, Dr. Hoffman and associates concluded.

The study was supported by National Jewish Health and the Edelstein Family Chair of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Hoffman BC et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2019.09.008.

Children with atopic dermatitis and allergies to eggs and milk were at increased risk for anaphylactic reactions, compared with allergic patients without atopic dermatitis, based on retrospective data from 347 individuals.

Atopic dermatitis has been associated with increased risk of food allergies, but the association and predictive factors of skin reactions to certain foods remain unclear, wrote Bryce C. Hoffman, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and colleagues.

In a letter published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers identified children aged 0-18 years with peanut, cow’s milk, and/or egg allergies with or without atopic dermatitis (AD) using an institutional research database and conducted a retrospective study of medical records.

Overall, children with egg and milk allergies plus AD had significantly higher rates of anaphylaxis than allergic children without AD (47% vs. 11% for egg, 50% vs. 19% for milk). Anaphylaxis rates were similar in children with peanut allergies with or without AD (27% vs. 23%).

“This finding may suggest that skin barrier dysfunction plays a role in the severity of [food allergy]. However, this is not universal to all food antigens, and other mechanisms are likely important in the association of anaphylaxis with a particular food,” the researchers noted.

Rates of tolerance for both baked egg and baked milk were similar between AD and non-AD patients (83% vs. 61% for milk; 82% vs. 67% for egg). In addition, levels of total IgE were increased in children with egg and milk allergies plus AD, compared with children without AD. However, children with peanut allergies plus AD had decreased total IgE, compared with children with peanut allergies but no AD. This “may support a link between T_h2 polarization and [food allergy] severity, ” Dr. Hoffman and associates wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective study design, exclusion of many patients, and lack of data on the amount of food that triggered anaphylactic reactions, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results suggest that children with atopic dermatitis and allergies to eggs and milk are at increased risk and that clinicians should counsel these patients and families about the potential for more-severe reactions to oral food challenges, Dr. Hoffman and associates concluded.

The study was supported by National Jewish Health and the Edelstein Family Chair of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Hoffman BC et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2019.09.008.

Children with atopic dermatitis and allergies to eggs and milk were at increased risk for anaphylactic reactions, compared with allergic patients without atopic dermatitis, based on retrospective data from 347 individuals.

Atopic dermatitis has been associated with increased risk of food allergies, but the association and predictive factors of skin reactions to certain foods remain unclear, wrote Bryce C. Hoffman, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and colleagues.

In a letter published in the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, the researchers identified children aged 0-18 years with peanut, cow’s milk, and/or egg allergies with or without atopic dermatitis (AD) using an institutional research database and conducted a retrospective study of medical records.

Overall, children with egg and milk allergies plus AD had significantly higher rates of anaphylaxis than allergic children without AD (47% vs. 11% for egg, 50% vs. 19% for milk). Anaphylaxis rates were similar in children with peanut allergies with or without AD (27% vs. 23%).

“This finding may suggest that skin barrier dysfunction plays a role in the severity of [food allergy]. However, this is not universal to all food antigens, and other mechanisms are likely important in the association of anaphylaxis with a particular food,” the researchers noted.

Rates of tolerance for both baked egg and baked milk were similar between AD and non-AD patients (83% vs. 61% for milk; 82% vs. 67% for egg). In addition, levels of total IgE were increased in children with egg and milk allergies plus AD, compared with children without AD. However, children with peanut allergies plus AD had decreased total IgE, compared with children with peanut allergies but no AD. This “may support a link between T_h2 polarization and [food allergy] severity, ” Dr. Hoffman and associates wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective study design, exclusion of many patients, and lack of data on the amount of food that triggered anaphylactic reactions, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results suggest that children with atopic dermatitis and allergies to eggs and milk are at increased risk and that clinicians should counsel these patients and families about the potential for more-severe reactions to oral food challenges, Dr. Hoffman and associates concluded.

The study was supported by National Jewish Health and the Edelstein Family Chair of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Hoffman BC et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019 Sep 11. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2019.09.008.

NEW ORLEANS – After Massachusetts passed antibullying legislation in 2009, Peter C. Raffalli, MD, saw an opportunity to improve care for the increasing numbers of children presenting to his neurology practice at Boston Children’s Hospital who were victims of bullying – especially those with developmental disabilities.

omgimages/thinkstockphotos.com

“I had been thinking of a clinic to help kids with these issues, aside from just helping them deal with the fallout: the depression, anxiety, et cetera, that comes with being bullied,” Dr. Raffalli recalled at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “I wanted to do something to help present to families the evidence-based strategies regarding bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that might help to stop the bullying.”

This led him to launch the Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention and Advocacy Collaborative (BACPAC) at Boston Children’s Hospital, which began in 2009 as an educational resource for families, medical colleagues, and schools. Dr. Raffalli also formed an alliance with the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University (Ann Neurol. 2016;79[2]:167-8).

Two years later in 2011, BACPAC became a formal clinic at Boston Children’s that serves as a subspecialty consult service for victims of bullying and their families. The clinic team consists of a child neurologist, a social worker, and an education resource specialist who meet with the bullying victim and his/her family in initial consultation for 90 minutes. The goal is to develop an evidence-based plan for bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that is individualized to the patient’s developmental and social needs.

“We tell families that bullying is recognized medically and legally as a form of abuse,” said Dr. Raffalli. “The medical and psychological consequences are similar to other forms of abuse. In the clinic, I explain to families that bullying is never the victim’s fault, and they should not blame themselves for the bullying. You’d be surprised how often patients do think the bullying is their fault.”
 

The extent of the problem

Researchers estimate that 25%-30% of children will experience some form of bullying between kindergarten and grade 12, and about 8% will engage in bullying themselves. When BACPAC began in 2009, Dr. Raffalli conducted an informal search of peer-reviewed literature on bullying in children with special needs; it yielded just four articles. “Since then, there’s been an exponential explosion of literature on various aspects of bullying,” he said. Now there is ample evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to show the increased risk for bullying/cyberbullying in children/teens, not just with neurodevelopmental disorders, but also for kids with other medical disorders such as obesity, asthma, and allergies.

“We’ve had a good number of kids over the years with peanut allergy who were literally threatened physically with peanut butter at school,” he said. “It’s incredible how callous some kids can be. Kids with oppositional defiant disorder, impulse control disorder, and callous/unemotional traits from a psychological standpoint are hardest to reach when it comes to getting them to stop bullying. You’d be surprised how frequently bullies use the phrase [to their victims], ‘You should kill yourself.’ They don’t realize the damage they’re doing to people. Bullying can lead to severe psychological but also long-term medical problems, including suicidal ideation.”

Published studies show that the highest incidences of bullying occur in children with neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, autistic spectrum disorders, Tourette syndrome, and other learning disabilities (Eur J Spec Needs Ed. 2010;25[1]:77-91). This population of children is overrepresented in bullying “because the services they receive at school make their disabilities more visible,” explained Dr. Raffalli, who is also an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They stand out, and they have social information–processing deficits or distortions that exacerbate bullying involvement. They also have difficulty interpreting social cues or attributing hostile characteristics to their peer’s behavior.”
 

The consequences of bullying

The psychological and educational consequences of bullying among children in general include being more likely to develop depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, alcohol and drug abuse, sleeping difficulties, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and attempts. “We’re social creatures, and when we don’t have those social connections, we get very depressed.”

Bullying victims also are more likely to develop school avoidance and absence, decreased school performance, poor concentration, high anxiety, and social withdrawal – all of which limit their opportunities to learn. “The No. 1 thing you can do to help these kids is to believe their story – to explain to them that it’s not their fault, and to explain that you are there for them and that you support them,” he said. “When a kid gets the feeling that someone is willing to listen to them and believe them, it does an enormous good for their emotional state.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Dr. Raffalli added that a toxic stress response can occur when a child experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity – such as physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, and/or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship – without adequate adult support. This kind of prolonged activation of the stress response systems can disrupt the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and increase the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into the adult years.

In the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, researchers set out to investigate what’s known about the long-term health effects of childhood bullying. They found that bullying can induce “aspects of the stress response, via epigenetic, inflammatory, and metabolic mediators [that] have the capacity to compromise mental and physical health, and to increase the risk of disease.” The researchers advised clinicians who care for children to assess the mental and physical health effects of bullying (Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2017;25[2]:89-95).

Additional vulnerabilities for bullying victims include parents and children whose primary language is not English, as well as parents with mental illness or substance abuse and families living in poverty. “We have to keep in mind how much additional stress they may be dealing with. This can make it harder for them to cope. Bullies also are shown to be at higher risk for psychological and legal trouble into adulthood, so we should be trying to help them too. We have to keep in mind that these are all developing kids.”
 

Cyberbullying

In Dr. Raffalli’s clinical experience, cyberbullying has become the bully’s weapon of choice. “I call it the stealth bomber of bullying,” he said. “Cyberbullying can start as early as the second or third grade. Most parents are not giving phones to second-graders. I’m worried that it’s going to get worse, though, with the excuse that ‘I feel safer if they have a cell phone so they can call me.’ I tell parents that they still make flip phones. You don’t have to get a smartphone for a second- or third-grader, or even for a sixth-grader.”

By the time kids reach fourth and fifth grade, he continued, they begin to form their opinion “about what they believe is cool and not cool, and they begin to get into cliques that have similar beliefs, and support each other, and may break off from old friends.” He added that, while adult predation “makes the news and is certainly something we should all be concerned about, the incidence of being harassed and bullied by someone in your own age group at school is actually much higher and still has serious outcomes, including the possibility of death.”

The Massachusetts antibullying law stipulates that all teachers and all school personnel have to participate in mandatory bullying training. Schools also are required to draft and follow a bullying investigative protocol.

“Apparently the schools have all done this, yet the number of times that schools use interventions that are not advisable, such as mediation, is incredible to me,” Dr. Raffalli said. “Bringing the bully and the victim together for a ‘cup of coffee and a handshake’ is not advisable. Mediation has been shown in a number of studies to be detrimental in bullying situations. Things can easily get worse.”

Often, family members who bring their child to the BACPAC “feel that their child’s school is not helping them,” he said. “We should try to figure out why those schools are having such a hard time and see if we can help them.”

Dr. Raffalli reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – After Massachusetts passed antibullying legislation in 2009, Peter C. Raffalli, MD, saw an opportunity to improve care for the increasing numbers of children presenting to his neurology practice at Boston Children’s Hospital who were victims of bullying – especially those with developmental disabilities.

omgimages/thinkstockphotos.com

“I had been thinking of a clinic to help kids with these issues, aside from just helping them deal with the fallout: the depression, anxiety, et cetera, that comes with being bullied,” Dr. Raffalli recalled at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “I wanted to do something to help present to families the evidence-based strategies regarding bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that might help to stop the bullying.”

This led him to launch the Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention and Advocacy Collaborative (BACPAC) at Boston Children’s Hospital, which began in 2009 as an educational resource for families, medical colleagues, and schools. Dr. Raffalli also formed an alliance with the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University (Ann Neurol. 2016;79[2]:167-8).

Two years later in 2011, BACPAC became a formal clinic at Boston Children’s that serves as a subspecialty consult service for victims of bullying and their families. The clinic team consists of a child neurologist, a social worker, and an education resource specialist who meet with the bullying victim and his/her family in initial consultation for 90 minutes. The goal is to develop an evidence-based plan for bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that is individualized to the patient’s developmental and social needs.

“We tell families that bullying is recognized medically and legally as a form of abuse,” said Dr. Raffalli. “The medical and psychological consequences are similar to other forms of abuse. In the clinic, I explain to families that bullying is never the victim’s fault, and they should not blame themselves for the bullying. You’d be surprised how often patients do think the bullying is their fault.”
 

The extent of the problem

Researchers estimate that 25%-30% of children will experience some form of bullying between kindergarten and grade 12, and about 8% will engage in bullying themselves. When BACPAC began in 2009, Dr. Raffalli conducted an informal search of peer-reviewed literature on bullying in children with special needs; it yielded just four articles. “Since then, there’s been an exponential explosion of literature on various aspects of bullying,” he said. Now there is ample evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to show the increased risk for bullying/cyberbullying in children/teens, not just with neurodevelopmental disorders, but also for kids with other medical disorders such as obesity, asthma, and allergies.

“We’ve had a good number of kids over the years with peanut allergy who were literally threatened physically with peanut butter at school,” he said. “It’s incredible how callous some kids can be. Kids with oppositional defiant disorder, impulse control disorder, and callous/unemotional traits from a psychological standpoint are hardest to reach when it comes to getting them to stop bullying. You’d be surprised how frequently bullies use the phrase [to their victims], ‘You should kill yourself.’ They don’t realize the damage they’re doing to people. Bullying can lead to severe psychological but also long-term medical problems, including suicidal ideation.”

Published studies show that the highest incidences of bullying occur in children with neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, autistic spectrum disorders, Tourette syndrome, and other learning disabilities (Eur J Spec Needs Ed. 2010;25[1]:77-91). This population of children is overrepresented in bullying “because the services they receive at school make their disabilities more visible,” explained Dr. Raffalli, who is also an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They stand out, and they have social information–processing deficits or distortions that exacerbate bullying involvement. They also have difficulty interpreting social cues or attributing hostile characteristics to their peer’s behavior.”
 

The consequences of bullying

The psychological and educational consequences of bullying among children in general include being more likely to develop depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, alcohol and drug abuse, sleeping difficulties, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and attempts. “We’re social creatures, and when we don’t have those social connections, we get very depressed.”

Bullying victims also are more likely to develop school avoidance and absence, decreased school performance, poor concentration, high anxiety, and social withdrawal – all of which limit their opportunities to learn. “The No. 1 thing you can do to help these kids is to believe their story – to explain to them that it’s not their fault, and to explain that you are there for them and that you support them,” he said. “When a kid gets the feeling that someone is willing to listen to them and believe them, it does an enormous good for their emotional state.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Dr. Raffalli added that a toxic stress response can occur when a child experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity – such as physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, and/or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship – without adequate adult support. This kind of prolonged activation of the stress response systems can disrupt the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and increase the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into the adult years.

In the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, researchers set out to investigate what’s known about the long-term health effects of childhood bullying. They found that bullying can induce “aspects of the stress response, via epigenetic, inflammatory, and metabolic mediators [that] have the capacity to compromise mental and physical health, and to increase the risk of disease.” The researchers advised clinicians who care for children to assess the mental and physical health effects of bullying (Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2017;25[2]:89-95).

Additional vulnerabilities for bullying victims include parents and children whose primary language is not English, as well as parents with mental illness or substance abuse and families living in poverty. “We have to keep in mind how much additional stress they may be dealing with. This can make it harder for them to cope. Bullies also are shown to be at higher risk for psychological and legal trouble into adulthood, so we should be trying to help them too. We have to keep in mind that these are all developing kids.”
 

Cyberbullying

In Dr. Raffalli’s clinical experience, cyberbullying has become the bully’s weapon of choice. “I call it the stealth bomber of bullying,” he said. “Cyberbullying can start as early as the second or third grade. Most parents are not giving phones to second-graders. I’m worried that it’s going to get worse, though, with the excuse that ‘I feel safer if they have a cell phone so they can call me.’ I tell parents that they still make flip phones. You don’t have to get a smartphone for a second- or third-grader, or even for a sixth-grader.”

By the time kids reach fourth and fifth grade, he continued, they begin to form their opinion “about what they believe is cool and not cool, and they begin to get into cliques that have similar beliefs, and support each other, and may break off from old friends.” He added that, while adult predation “makes the news and is certainly something we should all be concerned about, the incidence of being harassed and bullied by someone in your own age group at school is actually much higher and still has serious outcomes, including the possibility of death.”

The Massachusetts antibullying law stipulates that all teachers and all school personnel have to participate in mandatory bullying training. Schools also are required to draft and follow a bullying investigative protocol.

“Apparently the schools have all done this, yet the number of times that schools use interventions that are not advisable, such as mediation, is incredible to me,” Dr. Raffalli said. “Bringing the bully and the victim together for a ‘cup of coffee and a handshake’ is not advisable. Mediation has been shown in a number of studies to be detrimental in bullying situations. Things can easily get worse.”

Often, family members who bring their child to the BACPAC “feel that their child’s school is not helping them,” he said. “We should try to figure out why those schools are having such a hard time and see if we can help them.”

Dr. Raffalli reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – After Massachusetts passed antibullying legislation in 2009, Peter C. Raffalli, MD, saw an opportunity to improve care for the increasing numbers of children presenting to his neurology practice at Boston Children’s Hospital who were victims of bullying – especially those with developmental disabilities.

omgimages/thinkstockphotos.com

“I had been thinking of a clinic to help kids with these issues, aside from just helping them deal with the fallout: the depression, anxiety, et cetera, that comes with being bullied,” Dr. Raffalli recalled at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “I wanted to do something to help present to families the evidence-based strategies regarding bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that might help to stop the bullying.”

This led him to launch the Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention and Advocacy Collaborative (BACPAC) at Boston Children’s Hospital, which began in 2009 as an educational resource for families, medical colleagues, and schools. Dr. Raffalli also formed an alliance with the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University (Ann Neurol. 2016;79[2]:167-8).

Two years later in 2011, BACPAC became a formal clinic at Boston Children’s that serves as a subspecialty consult service for victims of bullying and their families. The clinic team consists of a child neurologist, a social worker, and an education resource specialist who meet with the bullying victim and his/her family in initial consultation for 90 minutes. The goal is to develop an evidence-based plan for bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that is individualized to the patient’s developmental and social needs.

“We tell families that bullying is recognized medically and legally as a form of abuse,” said Dr. Raffalli. “The medical and psychological consequences are similar to other forms of abuse. In the clinic, I explain to families that bullying is never the victim’s fault, and they should not blame themselves for the bullying. You’d be surprised how often patients do think the bullying is their fault.”
 

The extent of the problem

Researchers estimate that 25%-30% of children will experience some form of bullying between kindergarten and grade 12, and about 8% will engage in bullying themselves. When BACPAC began in 2009, Dr. Raffalli conducted an informal search of peer-reviewed literature on bullying in children with special needs; it yielded just four articles. “Since then, there’s been an exponential explosion of literature on various aspects of bullying,” he said. Now there is ample evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to show the increased risk for bullying/cyberbullying in children/teens, not just with neurodevelopmental disorders, but also for kids with other medical disorders such as obesity, asthma, and allergies.

“We’ve had a good number of kids over the years with peanut allergy who were literally threatened physically with peanut butter at school,” he said. “It’s incredible how callous some kids can be. Kids with oppositional defiant disorder, impulse control disorder, and callous/unemotional traits from a psychological standpoint are hardest to reach when it comes to getting them to stop bullying. You’d be surprised how frequently bullies use the phrase [to their victims], ‘You should kill yourself.’ They don’t realize the damage they’re doing to people. Bullying can lead to severe psychological but also long-term medical problems, including suicidal ideation.”

Published studies show that the highest incidences of bullying occur in children with neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, autistic spectrum disorders, Tourette syndrome, and other learning disabilities (Eur J Spec Needs Ed. 2010;25[1]:77-91). This population of children is overrepresented in bullying “because the services they receive at school make their disabilities more visible,” explained Dr. Raffalli, who is also an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They stand out, and they have social information–processing deficits or distortions that exacerbate bullying involvement. They also have difficulty interpreting social cues or attributing hostile characteristics to their peer’s behavior.”
 

The consequences of bullying

The psychological and educational consequences of bullying among children in general include being more likely to develop depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, alcohol and drug abuse, sleeping difficulties, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and attempts. “We’re social creatures, and when we don’t have those social connections, we get very depressed.”

Bullying victims also are more likely to develop school avoidance and absence, decreased school performance, poor concentration, high anxiety, and social withdrawal – all of which limit their opportunities to learn. “The No. 1 thing you can do to help these kids is to believe their story – to explain to them that it’s not their fault, and to explain that you are there for them and that you support them,” he said. “When a kid gets the feeling that someone is willing to listen to them and believe them, it does an enormous good for their emotional state.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Dr. Raffalli added that a toxic stress response can occur when a child experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity – such as physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, and/or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship – without adequate adult support. This kind of prolonged activation of the stress response systems can disrupt the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and increase the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into the adult years.

In the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, researchers set out to investigate what’s known about the long-term health effects of childhood bullying. They found that bullying can induce “aspects of the stress response, via epigenetic, inflammatory, and metabolic mediators [that] have the capacity to compromise mental and physical health, and to increase the risk of disease.” The researchers advised clinicians who care for children to assess the mental and physical health effects of bullying (Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2017;25[2]:89-95).

Additional vulnerabilities for bullying victims include parents and children whose primary language is not English, as well as parents with mental illness or substance abuse and families living in poverty. “We have to keep in mind how much additional stress they may be dealing with. This can make it harder for them to cope. Bullies also are shown to be at higher risk for psychological and legal trouble into adulthood, so we should be trying to help them too. We have to keep in mind that these are all developing kids.”
 

Cyberbullying

In Dr. Raffalli’s clinical experience, cyberbullying has become the bully’s weapon of choice. “I call it the stealth bomber of bullying,” he said. “Cyberbullying can start as early as the second or third grade. Most parents are not giving phones to second-graders. I’m worried that it’s going to get worse, though, with the excuse that ‘I feel safer if they have a cell phone so they can call me.’ I tell parents that they still make flip phones. You don’t have to get a smartphone for a second- or third-grader, or even for a sixth-grader.”

By the time kids reach fourth and fifth grade, he continued, they begin to form their opinion “about what they believe is cool and not cool, and they begin to get into cliques that have similar beliefs, and support each other, and may break off from old friends.” He added that, while adult predation “makes the news and is certainly something we should all be concerned about, the incidence of being harassed and bullied by someone in your own age group at school is actually much higher and still has serious outcomes, including the possibility of death.”

The Massachusetts antibullying law stipulates that all teachers and all school personnel have to participate in mandatory bullying training. Schools also are required to draft and follow a bullying investigative protocol.

“Apparently the schools have all done this, yet the number of times that schools use interventions that are not advisable, such as mediation, is incredible to me,” Dr. Raffalli said. “Bringing the bully and the victim together for a ‘cup of coffee and a handshake’ is not advisable. Mediation has been shown in a number of studies to be detrimental in bullying situations. Things can easily get worse.”

Often, family members who bring their child to the BACPAC “feel that their child’s school is not helping them,” he said. “We should try to figure out why those schools are having such a hard time and see if we can help them.”

Dr. Raffalli reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com