Asthma

Almost all patients who develop gastrointestinal side effects from oral immunotherapy for severe food allergies develop some degree of esophageal eosinophilia, but that eventually resolves in most of them after a year of treatment, according to results of a pilot study that was to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings may help identify biomarkers of persistent eosinophilia despite oral immunotherapy.

In January of this year the Food and Drug Administration approved oral immunotherapy (OIT), known as peanut allergen powder-dnfp, or peanut OIT (POIT), for severe food allergies. In an interview, lead study author Benjamin Wright, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, said OIT is a “promising proactive” treatment for food allergies. “But questions regarding the safety of immunotherapy remain,” he said. “About 30% of patients can develop GI side effects, including abdominal pain and vomiting; most concerning is that some patients develop eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).”

The pilot study was a mechanistic substudy of 20 adult patients with immunoglobulin E–mediated peanut allergies enrolled in the phase 2 Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Safety, Efficacy and Discovery trial (POISED), with 15 randomized to treatment and the remainder to placebo. They had serial gastrointestinal biopsies at baseline (n = 20), 1 year (n = 7 treatment, 3 placebo) and 2 years (n = 7 treatment, 4 placebo) to evaluate eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).

Baseline characteristics between the treatment and placebo groups were similar, with some having signs of preexisting disease. About 14% of them had clinically significant EoE, represented as a measure of more than 15 eos/hpf, Dr. Wright said. “One of the findings that was really fascinating to us was that all of the subjects had evidence of dilated intercellular spaces at baseline,” he said. “This indicates that all the subjects have some degree of epithelial barrier dysfunction before they start OIT.” Dilated intercellular spaces are a marker of inflammation.

Four patients in the treatment group had mild endoscopic findings at weeks 52 and 104, as did one patient on placebo, Dr. Wright said. A plot of eosinophil counts showed a peak at 52 weeks but near resolution at 104 weeks for all but one patient on OIT. “One of the most interesting trends that we noted was that, for most of patients, OIT-induced eosinophilia was transient and not fixed,” he said. “We noted a triangle pattern where tissue eosinophilia peaks and then resolves with the continuation of therapy.” EoE Histologic scoring system results followed a similar pattern in these patients, he added.

Also, results of the comprehensive GI Symptom Questionnaire, which assessed symptoms such as abdominal pain, difficulty swallowing, refusal to eat, and vomiting, showed that patient-reported GI symptoms did not correlate with tissue eosinophilia, Dr. Wright said. “To us, that suggests that perhaps eosinophils are not central to disease pathology or symptom development in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings validate that, in a small number of patients, OIT induces EoE, Dr. Wright said. He used a treadmill analogy to explain how OIT influences epithelial remodeling in some patients. “We’re constantly renewing our esophageal epithelium every 2 weeks, and when you challenge it with an antigen (i.e., OIT), the treadmill speeds up,” he said. “There may be some patients who will fall if the treadmill gets too fast, and they develop disease.”

He added, “Distinguishing someone’s fitness before they get on the treadmill is really going be a key moving forward in determining which subjects are good participants for OIT or how to dose OIT.”

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from the Arizona Biomedical Research Consortium and Phoenix Children’s Hospital Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Consortium for Food Allergy Research, as well as relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Consortium for Food Allergy Research, DBV Technologies, Astellas, AnaptysBio, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Wright B et al. AAAAI, Session 2605, Abstract No. 259.

Almost all patients who develop gastrointestinal side effects from oral immunotherapy for severe food allergies develop some degree of esophageal eosinophilia, but that eventually resolves in most of them after a year of treatment, according to results of a pilot study that was to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings may help identify biomarkers of persistent eosinophilia despite oral immunotherapy.

In January of this year the Food and Drug Administration approved oral immunotherapy (OIT), known as peanut allergen powder-dnfp, or peanut OIT (POIT), for severe food allergies. In an interview, lead study author Benjamin Wright, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, said OIT is a “promising proactive” treatment for food allergies. “But questions regarding the safety of immunotherapy remain,” he said. “About 30% of patients can develop GI side effects, including abdominal pain and vomiting; most concerning is that some patients develop eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).”

The pilot study was a mechanistic substudy of 20 adult patients with immunoglobulin E–mediated peanut allergies enrolled in the phase 2 Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Safety, Efficacy and Discovery trial (POISED), with 15 randomized to treatment and the remainder to placebo. They had serial gastrointestinal biopsies at baseline (n = 20), 1 year (n = 7 treatment, 3 placebo) and 2 years (n = 7 treatment, 4 placebo) to evaluate eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).

Baseline characteristics between the treatment and placebo groups were similar, with some having signs of preexisting disease. About 14% of them had clinically significant EoE, represented as a measure of more than 15 eos/hpf, Dr. Wright said. “One of the findings that was really fascinating to us was that all of the subjects had evidence of dilated intercellular spaces at baseline,” he said. “This indicates that all the subjects have some degree of epithelial barrier dysfunction before they start OIT.” Dilated intercellular spaces are a marker of inflammation.

Four patients in the treatment group had mild endoscopic findings at weeks 52 and 104, as did one patient on placebo, Dr. Wright said. A plot of eosinophil counts showed a peak at 52 weeks but near resolution at 104 weeks for all but one patient on OIT. “One of the most interesting trends that we noted was that, for most of patients, OIT-induced eosinophilia was transient and not fixed,” he said. “We noted a triangle pattern where tissue eosinophilia peaks and then resolves with the continuation of therapy.” EoE Histologic scoring system results followed a similar pattern in these patients, he added.

Also, results of the comprehensive GI Symptom Questionnaire, which assessed symptoms such as abdominal pain, difficulty swallowing, refusal to eat, and vomiting, showed that patient-reported GI symptoms did not correlate with tissue eosinophilia, Dr. Wright said. “To us, that suggests that perhaps eosinophils are not central to disease pathology or symptom development in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings validate that, in a small number of patients, OIT induces EoE, Dr. Wright said. He used a treadmill analogy to explain how OIT influences epithelial remodeling in some patients. “We’re constantly renewing our esophageal epithelium every 2 weeks, and when you challenge it with an antigen (i.e., OIT), the treadmill speeds up,” he said. “There may be some patients who will fall if the treadmill gets too fast, and they develop disease.”

He added, “Distinguishing someone’s fitness before they get on the treadmill is really going be a key moving forward in determining which subjects are good participants for OIT or how to dose OIT.”

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from the Arizona Biomedical Research Consortium and Phoenix Children’s Hospital Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Consortium for Food Allergy Research, as well as relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Consortium for Food Allergy Research, DBV Technologies, Astellas, AnaptysBio, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Wright B et al. AAAAI, Session 2605, Abstract No. 259.

Almost all patients who develop gastrointestinal side effects from oral immunotherapy for severe food allergies develop some degree of esophageal eosinophilia, but that eventually resolves in most of them after a year of treatment, according to results of a pilot study that was to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

The findings may help identify biomarkers of persistent eosinophilia despite oral immunotherapy.

In January of this year the Food and Drug Administration approved oral immunotherapy (OIT), known as peanut allergen powder-dnfp, or peanut OIT (POIT), for severe food allergies. In an interview, lead study author Benjamin Wright, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, said OIT is a “promising proactive” treatment for food allergies. “But questions regarding the safety of immunotherapy remain,” he said. “About 30% of patients can develop GI side effects, including abdominal pain and vomiting; most concerning is that some patients develop eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).”

The pilot study was a mechanistic substudy of 20 adult patients with immunoglobulin E–mediated peanut allergies enrolled in the phase 2 Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Safety, Efficacy and Discovery trial (POISED), with 15 randomized to treatment and the remainder to placebo. They had serial gastrointestinal biopsies at baseline (n = 20), 1 year (n = 7 treatment, 3 placebo) and 2 years (n = 7 treatment, 4 placebo) to evaluate eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf).

Baseline characteristics between the treatment and placebo groups were similar, with some having signs of preexisting disease. About 14% of them had clinically significant EoE, represented as a measure of more than 15 eos/hpf, Dr. Wright said. “One of the findings that was really fascinating to us was that all of the subjects had evidence of dilated intercellular spaces at baseline,” he said. “This indicates that all the subjects have some degree of epithelial barrier dysfunction before they start OIT.” Dilated intercellular spaces are a marker of inflammation.

Four patients in the treatment group had mild endoscopic findings at weeks 52 and 104, as did one patient on placebo, Dr. Wright said. A plot of eosinophil counts showed a peak at 52 weeks but near resolution at 104 weeks for all but one patient on OIT. “One of the most interesting trends that we noted was that, for most of patients, OIT-induced eosinophilia was transient and not fixed,” he said. “We noted a triangle pattern where tissue eosinophilia peaks and then resolves with the continuation of therapy.” EoE Histologic scoring system results followed a similar pattern in these patients, he added.

Also, results of the comprehensive GI Symptom Questionnaire, which assessed symptoms such as abdominal pain, difficulty swallowing, refusal to eat, and vomiting, showed that patient-reported GI symptoms did not correlate with tissue eosinophilia, Dr. Wright said. “To us, that suggests that perhaps eosinophils are not central to disease pathology or symptom development in these patients,” he said.

However, the findings validate that, in a small number of patients, OIT induces EoE, Dr. Wright said. He used a treadmill analogy to explain how OIT influences epithelial remodeling in some patients. “We’re constantly renewing our esophageal epithelium every 2 weeks, and when you challenge it with an antigen (i.e., OIT), the treadmill speeds up,” he said. “There may be some patients who will fall if the treadmill gets too fast, and they develop disease.”

He added, “Distinguishing someone’s fitness before they get on the treadmill is really going be a key moving forward in determining which subjects are good participants for OIT or how to dose OIT.”

Dr. Wright reported receiving grants from the Arizona Biomedical Research Consortium and Phoenix Children’s Hospital Foundation. Coauthors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Consortium for Food Allergy Research, as well as relationships with Aimmune Therapeutics, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Consortium for Food Allergy Research, DBV Technologies, Astellas, AnaptysBio, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Wright B et al. AAAAI, Session 2605, Abstract No. 259.

A small-molecule kinase inhibitor that targets a gene mutation complicit in systemic mastocytosis has been found to reduce symptoms by about 30%, according to early results of a clinical trial scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“This correlates with reduction from very severe to moderate or from moderate to mild category, and all the reductions in symptoms were statistically significant,” Cem Akin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. He reported on part 1 of the phase 2 PIONEER trial of the kinase inhibitor avapritinib, described as a potent and highly selective inhibitor of the KIT D816V mutation that affects 90% of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

Currently, Dr. Akin noted, patients with indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis must rely on over-the-counter antihistamines used for seasonal allergies. “These patients use antihistamines in higher doses because mastocytosis patients have higher counts of mast cells that release histamines that cause a variety of symptoms,” he said. Symptoms, which can occur suddenly, include flushing and reactions that resemble allergic or anaphylactic reactions.

The purpose of the part 1 study was to evaluate three different dosing levels of avapritinib vs. placebo: 25, 50, and 100 mg. Ten patients were in each dosing group and nine were in the placebo group. The primary outcome was reduction in total symptom scores at 16 weeks as measured by the Indolent SM Symptom Assessment Form. “All three dose groups showed significant reductions in total symptom scores as well as specific symptoms that were most bothersome to the patient, whether skin symptoms or GI or neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. “All three doses were effective; the average reduction was about 30% compared to baseline.” Specifically, 25-mg dosing showed an average 30% reduction, 50-mg dosing showed an average 19% reduction, and 100-mg dosing showed an average 35% reduction.

The researchers determined that the 25-mg daily dose was the most effective and safest, with no patients on the dose reporting grade 3 adverse events, Dr. Akin said. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 AEs, according to study results.* The 25-mg daily dose will be evaluated in part 2 of the trial. The trial is estimated to enroll 112 total patients, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov filing. In part 3, patients who complete parts 1 or 2, including those initially randomized to placebo, may participate in a long-term open-label extension, receiving 25 mg avapritinib plus best supportive care.

“This is targeting a population whose symptoms are not controlled by antihistamines, based on a minimum total symptom score according to diaries they fill out, and they have to be on at least two different systemic medications – antihistamine or proton-pump inhibitor and leukotriene inhibitor – and they still have significant symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. He estimated that this describes about two-thirds of his patients with indolent or smoldering systematic mastocytosis.

“This is a disease that also takes a psychological toll,” he said. “This is a problem that starts in the bone marrow; it is similar to a hematological stem-cell disorder that affects the mast cell progenitor and it’s caused by a mutation that has not been particularly targeted until this drug,” he said. While most of these patients live with a benign mastocytosis their entire lives, the symptoms can be debilitating to the point where the disease disrupts and restricts social activities and comprises their quality of life, he said.

“This is a groundbreaking therapy that will change the way we think about mastocytosis treatment going forward,” Dr. Akin said. “It’s the first time we are actually targeting the underlying mutation that’s causing the disease, in terms of reducing directly that mutation as opposed to just treating the symptoms in indolent disease.”

Scheduled session moderator Anil Nanda, MD, of the Asthma and Allergy Center in Lewisville, Texas, said the findings are encouraging. “As a practicing allergist and immunologist in the community, it is very exciting to have a potential new treatment option for indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis,” he said via email. “Patients appreciate new options in therapy.”

Dr. Akin, the primary investigator, receives funding from and serves as a consultant for Blueprint Medicines, which sponsored the trial. He also disclosed a financial relationship with Novartis.

SOURCE: Akin C et al. AAAAI 2020, Presentation L5.

*Correction, 4/6/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of grade 3 adverse events. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 adverse events.  

A small-molecule kinase inhibitor that targets a gene mutation complicit in systemic mastocytosis has been found to reduce symptoms by about 30%, according to early results of a clinical trial scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“This correlates with reduction from very severe to moderate or from moderate to mild category, and all the reductions in symptoms were statistically significant,” Cem Akin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. He reported on part 1 of the phase 2 PIONEER trial of the kinase inhibitor avapritinib, described as a potent and highly selective inhibitor of the KIT D816V mutation that affects 90% of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

Currently, Dr. Akin noted, patients with indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis must rely on over-the-counter antihistamines used for seasonal allergies. “These patients use antihistamines in higher doses because mastocytosis patients have higher counts of mast cells that release histamines that cause a variety of symptoms,” he said. Symptoms, which can occur suddenly, include flushing and reactions that resemble allergic or anaphylactic reactions.

The purpose of the part 1 study was to evaluate three different dosing levels of avapritinib vs. placebo: 25, 50, and 100 mg. Ten patients were in each dosing group and nine were in the placebo group. The primary outcome was reduction in total symptom scores at 16 weeks as measured by the Indolent SM Symptom Assessment Form. “All three dose groups showed significant reductions in total symptom scores as well as specific symptoms that were most bothersome to the patient, whether skin symptoms or GI or neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. “All three doses were effective; the average reduction was about 30% compared to baseline.” Specifically, 25-mg dosing showed an average 30% reduction, 50-mg dosing showed an average 19% reduction, and 100-mg dosing showed an average 35% reduction.

The researchers determined that the 25-mg daily dose was the most effective and safest, with no patients on the dose reporting grade 3 adverse events, Dr. Akin said. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 AEs, according to study results.* The 25-mg daily dose will be evaluated in part 2 of the trial. The trial is estimated to enroll 112 total patients, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov filing. In part 3, patients who complete parts 1 or 2, including those initially randomized to placebo, may participate in a long-term open-label extension, receiving 25 mg avapritinib plus best supportive care.

“This is targeting a population whose symptoms are not controlled by antihistamines, based on a minimum total symptom score according to diaries they fill out, and they have to be on at least two different systemic medications – antihistamine or proton-pump inhibitor and leukotriene inhibitor – and they still have significant symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. He estimated that this describes about two-thirds of his patients with indolent or smoldering systematic mastocytosis.

“This is a disease that also takes a psychological toll,” he said. “This is a problem that starts in the bone marrow; it is similar to a hematological stem-cell disorder that affects the mast cell progenitor and it’s caused by a mutation that has not been particularly targeted until this drug,” he said. While most of these patients live with a benign mastocytosis their entire lives, the symptoms can be debilitating to the point where the disease disrupts and restricts social activities and comprises their quality of life, he said.

“This is a groundbreaking therapy that will change the way we think about mastocytosis treatment going forward,” Dr. Akin said. “It’s the first time we are actually targeting the underlying mutation that’s causing the disease, in terms of reducing directly that mutation as opposed to just treating the symptoms in indolent disease.”

Scheduled session moderator Anil Nanda, MD, of the Asthma and Allergy Center in Lewisville, Texas, said the findings are encouraging. “As a practicing allergist and immunologist in the community, it is very exciting to have a potential new treatment option for indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis,” he said via email. “Patients appreciate new options in therapy.”

Dr. Akin, the primary investigator, receives funding from and serves as a consultant for Blueprint Medicines, which sponsored the trial. He also disclosed a financial relationship with Novartis.

SOURCE: Akin C et al. AAAAI 2020, Presentation L5.

*Correction, 4/6/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of grade 3 adverse events. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 adverse events.  

A small-molecule kinase inhibitor that targets a gene mutation complicit in systemic mastocytosis has been found to reduce symptoms by about 30%, according to early results of a clinical trial scheduled to be presented at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology annual meeting. The AAAAI canceled the meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage.

“This correlates with reduction from very severe to moderate or from moderate to mild category, and all the reductions in symptoms were statistically significant,” Cem Akin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. He reported on part 1 of the phase 2 PIONEER trial of the kinase inhibitor avapritinib, described as a potent and highly selective inhibitor of the KIT D816V mutation that affects 90% of patients with systemic mastocytosis.

Currently, Dr. Akin noted, patients with indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis must rely on over-the-counter antihistamines used for seasonal allergies. “These patients use antihistamines in higher doses because mastocytosis patients have higher counts of mast cells that release histamines that cause a variety of symptoms,” he said. Symptoms, which can occur suddenly, include flushing and reactions that resemble allergic or anaphylactic reactions.

The purpose of the part 1 study was to evaluate three different dosing levels of avapritinib vs. placebo: 25, 50, and 100 mg. Ten patients were in each dosing group and nine were in the placebo group. The primary outcome was reduction in total symptom scores at 16 weeks as measured by the Indolent SM Symptom Assessment Form. “All three dose groups showed significant reductions in total symptom scores as well as specific symptoms that were most bothersome to the patient, whether skin symptoms or GI or neurocognitive symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. “All three doses were effective; the average reduction was about 30% compared to baseline.” Specifically, 25-mg dosing showed an average 30% reduction, 50-mg dosing showed an average 19% reduction, and 100-mg dosing showed an average 35% reduction.

The researchers determined that the 25-mg daily dose was the most effective and safest, with no patients on the dose reporting grade 3 adverse events, Dr. Akin said. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 AEs, according to study results.* The 25-mg daily dose will be evaluated in part 2 of the trial. The trial is estimated to enroll 112 total patients, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov filing. In part 3, patients who complete parts 1 or 2, including those initially randomized to placebo, may participate in a long-term open-label extension, receiving 25 mg avapritinib plus best supportive care.

“This is targeting a population whose symptoms are not controlled by antihistamines, based on a minimum total symptom score according to diaries they fill out, and they have to be on at least two different systemic medications – antihistamine or proton-pump inhibitor and leukotriene inhibitor – and they still have significant symptoms,” Dr. Akin said. He estimated that this describes about two-thirds of his patients with indolent or smoldering systematic mastocytosis.

“This is a disease that also takes a psychological toll,” he said. “This is a problem that starts in the bone marrow; it is similar to a hematological stem-cell disorder that affects the mast cell progenitor and it’s caused by a mutation that has not been particularly targeted until this drug,” he said. While most of these patients live with a benign mastocytosis their entire lives, the symptoms can be debilitating to the point where the disease disrupts and restricts social activities and comprises their quality of life, he said.

“This is a groundbreaking therapy that will change the way we think about mastocytosis treatment going forward,” Dr. Akin said. “It’s the first time we are actually targeting the underlying mutation that’s causing the disease, in terms of reducing directly that mutation as opposed to just treating the symptoms in indolent disease.”

Scheduled session moderator Anil Nanda, MD, of the Asthma and Allergy Center in Lewisville, Texas, said the findings are encouraging. “As a practicing allergist and immunologist in the community, it is very exciting to have a potential new treatment option for indolent or smoldering systemic mastocytosis,” he said via email. “Patients appreciate new options in therapy.”

Dr. Akin, the primary investigator, receives funding from and serves as a consultant for Blueprint Medicines, which sponsored the trial. He also disclosed a financial relationship with Novartis.

SOURCE: Akin C et al. AAAAI 2020, Presentation L5.

*Correction, 4/6/2020: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of grade 3 adverse events. In total 20% and 40% of the 50- and 100-mg dose groups, respectively, reported grade 3 adverse events.  

Infants who are hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis and receive acid-suppressant medications may be at risk of developing allergic disease by age 3 years, according to recent research released as an abstract for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

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

“Among children with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy, exposure to acid-suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years,” Lacey B. Robinson, MD, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Bronchiolitis is a risk factor in infants for developing conditions such as recurrent wheeze and childhood asthma in early childhood. Acid-suppressant medications like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) may further increase the risk of allergic disease. One study by Mitre et al. published in JAMA Pediatrics showed use of acid-suppressant medications in infants up to 6 months raised the risk of allergic disease (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[6]:e180315). Some studies suggest between 30% and 50% of infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis requiring hospitalization will develop asthma by age 5 years (J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Jan - Feb;5[1]:92-6).

“Children with severe bronchiolitis during infancy are at a high risk of developing recurrent wheeze and subsequent asthma. There is limited evidence to suggest that exposure to acid suppressant medications [such as proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists] prenatally and during early childhood increases the risk of childhood asthma,” Dr. Robinson said. “It is not known if exposure to acid suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze among high-risk children, such as in those with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy.”

Dr. Robinson and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 921 infants who were hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis between 2011 and 2014. The investigators reviewed the medical records of the infants for acid suppressant medication use, as well as parent report of acid suppressant medication use, during an infant’s first 12 months. Overall, 879 children were analyzed after excluding for patients who developed recurrent wheeze prior to receiving acid suppressant medications, as well as patients with incomplete data. The investigators used the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3) to define recurrent wheeze. A Cox-proportional hazard model was used to analyze the time to event, which was stratified by age and adjusted for confounders.

Infants with a history of severe bronchiolitis were at greater risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years after being exposed to acid-suppressant medications, compared with infants who were not exposed, Dr. Robinson said. Of the 879 infants in the final analysis, 159 (18%) received acid-suppressant medications, and 68 of 159 patients (43%) went on to develop recurrent wheeze, compared with 206 of 720 infants (29%) who were not exposed (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.14).

After adjustment for confounders such as gender, race and ethnicity; gestational age; delivery type; severity of bronchiolitis; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection status; maternal atopy; use of acid-suppressant medications during pregnancy; median household income; and insurance status, the association between recurrent wheeze and acid-suppressant medication use during infancy remained (adjusted HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.07).

“More research is needed on this important topic including studies in other populations,” such as in healthy children, Dr. Robinson said. “We encourage future research on this important and understudied topic, including further research on the potential underlying mechanisms of this association.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson L. AAAAI 2020, Abstract L1

Infants who are hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis and receive acid-suppressant medications may be at risk of developing allergic disease by age 3 years, according to recent research released as an abstract for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

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

“Among children with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy, exposure to acid-suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years,” Lacey B. Robinson, MD, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Bronchiolitis is a risk factor in infants for developing conditions such as recurrent wheeze and childhood asthma in early childhood. Acid-suppressant medications like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) may further increase the risk of allergic disease. One study by Mitre et al. published in JAMA Pediatrics showed use of acid-suppressant medications in infants up to 6 months raised the risk of allergic disease (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[6]:e180315). Some studies suggest between 30% and 50% of infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis requiring hospitalization will develop asthma by age 5 years (J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Jan - Feb;5[1]:92-6).

“Children with severe bronchiolitis during infancy are at a high risk of developing recurrent wheeze and subsequent asthma. There is limited evidence to suggest that exposure to acid suppressant medications [such as proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists] prenatally and during early childhood increases the risk of childhood asthma,” Dr. Robinson said. “It is not known if exposure to acid suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze among high-risk children, such as in those with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy.”

Dr. Robinson and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 921 infants who were hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis between 2011 and 2014. The investigators reviewed the medical records of the infants for acid suppressant medication use, as well as parent report of acid suppressant medication use, during an infant’s first 12 months. Overall, 879 children were analyzed after excluding for patients who developed recurrent wheeze prior to receiving acid suppressant medications, as well as patients with incomplete data. The investigators used the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3) to define recurrent wheeze. A Cox-proportional hazard model was used to analyze the time to event, which was stratified by age and adjusted for confounders.

Infants with a history of severe bronchiolitis were at greater risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years after being exposed to acid-suppressant medications, compared with infants who were not exposed, Dr. Robinson said. Of the 879 infants in the final analysis, 159 (18%) received acid-suppressant medications, and 68 of 159 patients (43%) went on to develop recurrent wheeze, compared with 206 of 720 infants (29%) who were not exposed (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.14).

After adjustment for confounders such as gender, race and ethnicity; gestational age; delivery type; severity of bronchiolitis; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection status; maternal atopy; use of acid-suppressant medications during pregnancy; median household income; and insurance status, the association between recurrent wheeze and acid-suppressant medication use during infancy remained (adjusted HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.07).

“More research is needed on this important topic including studies in other populations,” such as in healthy children, Dr. Robinson said. “We encourage future research on this important and understudied topic, including further research on the potential underlying mechanisms of this association.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson L. AAAAI 2020, Abstract L1

Infants who are hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis and receive acid-suppressant medications may be at risk of developing allergic disease by age 3 years, according to recent research released as an abstract for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

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

“Among children with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy, exposure to acid-suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years,” Lacey B. Robinson, MD, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Bronchiolitis is a risk factor in infants for developing conditions such as recurrent wheeze and childhood asthma in early childhood. Acid-suppressant medications like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) may further increase the risk of allergic disease. One study by Mitre et al. published in JAMA Pediatrics showed use of acid-suppressant medications in infants up to 6 months raised the risk of allergic disease (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[6]:e180315). Some studies suggest between 30% and 50% of infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis requiring hospitalization will develop asthma by age 5 years (J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Jan - Feb;5[1]:92-6).

“Children with severe bronchiolitis during infancy are at a high risk of developing recurrent wheeze and subsequent asthma. There is limited evidence to suggest that exposure to acid suppressant medications [such as proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists] prenatally and during early childhood increases the risk of childhood asthma,” Dr. Robinson said. “It is not known if exposure to acid suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze among high-risk children, such as in those with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy.”

Dr. Robinson and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 921 infants who were hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis between 2011 and 2014. The investigators reviewed the medical records of the infants for acid suppressant medication use, as well as parent report of acid suppressant medication use, during an infant’s first 12 months. Overall, 879 children were analyzed after excluding for patients who developed recurrent wheeze prior to receiving acid suppressant medications, as well as patients with incomplete data. The investigators used the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3) to define recurrent wheeze. A Cox-proportional hazard model was used to analyze the time to event, which was stratified by age and adjusted for confounders.

Infants with a history of severe bronchiolitis were at greater risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years after being exposed to acid-suppressant medications, compared with infants who were not exposed, Dr. Robinson said. Of the 879 infants in the final analysis, 159 (18%) received acid-suppressant medications, and 68 of 159 patients (43%) went on to develop recurrent wheeze, compared with 206 of 720 infants (29%) who were not exposed (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.14).

After adjustment for confounders such as gender, race and ethnicity; gestational age; delivery type; severity of bronchiolitis; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection status; maternal atopy; use of acid-suppressant medications during pregnancy; median household income; and insurance status, the association between recurrent wheeze and acid-suppressant medication use during infancy remained (adjusted HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.07).

“More research is needed on this important topic including studies in other populations,” such as in healthy children, Dr. Robinson said. “We encourage future research on this important and understudied topic, including further research on the potential underlying mechanisms of this association.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson L. AAAAI 2020, Abstract L1

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were both linked to an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in a recent large, prospective cohort study, researchers have reported, which adds to a growing body of evidence that airway inflammation is implicated in the development of this disease.

RA risk was increased by about 50% among asthma patients, even when excluding those who had ever smoked, according to the study’s results, which were based on more than 200,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study I and II.

Risk of RA nearly doubled among those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with an even stronger association seen in older ever-smokers, according to authors of the study.

The findings not only strengthen the case for the potential role of obstructive lung diseases in RA development, according to the study’s authors, but also suggest that health care providers need to lower the bar for evaluation of patients with lung diseases and inflammatory joint symptoms.

“If these patients develop arthralgias, then the clinicians taking care of them should have a low threshold to consider RA, and perhaps refer, or check these patients with a diagnostic test for RA,” said researcher Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

What’s perhaps not as clear now is whether screening obstructive lung disease patients in the absence of early RA signs would be warranted: “I don’t know if we’re quite at the point where we would need to screen these patients if they’re not symptomatic,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview.

The study by Dr. Sparks and colleagues is, by far, not the first study to implicate asthma or other lung conditions in RA development. However, most previous studies are retrospective, and interpretation of the findings has been subject to limitations such as inadequate power to detect an increased risk or lack of adjustment for important confounding factors, such as smoking.

As such, the study by Dr. Sparks and colleagues is believed to be the first-ever prospective study to evaluate asthma and COPD as risk factors for RA, study authors reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Researchers were able to identify 1,060 incident RA cases that developed in 15,148 women with asthma and 3,573 with COPD in the study with more than 4 million person-years of follow-up.

The association between asthma and increased RA risk was seen not only for the asthma population as a whole (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.88), but also for the subset of women who had never smoked, to a similar degree (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14-2.05), the report shows.

COPD’s association with RA risk was apparent overall (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.31-2.75) and even more so in the subgroup of ever-smokers 55 years of age and older (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.38-3.51), the data further show.

Findings of studies looking at the inflammation of airways and other mucosal sites are “critically important to understand” when it comes to trying to prevent RA, said Kevin Deane, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver at Aurora.

“If we indeed are trying to prevent rheumatoid arthritis in terms of the joint disease, we may need to look at these mucosal sites in individuals who don’t yet have joint disease as potential sites to target for prevention, or at least areas to study to understand how prevention may work,” said Dr. Deane, principal investigator on the National Institutes of Health–funded Strategy for the Prevention of RA (StopRA) trial.

With that in mind, it’s conceivable targeting a lung process might prevent joint disease in a patient with asthma or airway inflammation and blood markers that indicate a risk of RA, Dr. Deane said in an interview.

Blood markers of RA have been evaluated in some recent studies, with findings that provide further evidence of a link between lung diseases and RA, and vice versa.

In particular, anti–citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) are clearly central to RA pathogenesis. And while asthma is increasingly linked to RA risk, there have been relatively little data on any potential links between ACPA and asthma.

That research gap led to a case-control study of the Nurses’ Health Study I and II (on which Dr. Sparks was senior author) showing that asthma was strongly linked to elevated ACPA in blood drawn from patients prior to a diagnosis of RA.

Results, published last year in Arthritis Research & Therapy, showed a significant association between asthma and pre-RA ACPA elevation (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.58-8.04), after adjustment for smoking and other potentially confounding factors. Investigators said the findings provided evidence that chronic mucosal airway inflammation is a factor in the development of ACPA and in the pathogenesis of RA.

In a follow-up study published more recently in Arthritis Care & Research, investigators showed that, among women in the Nurses Health Study I and II, pre-RA ACPA elevation was linked to increased risk of COPD, compared with controls (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.33-7.00), while the risk for development of asthma was similar in women with or without elevated pre-RA ACPA.

That study was in part an attempt to establish a “timeline” related to antibodies, lung diseases, and RA onset, Dr. Sparks said in the interview.

“We think that probably the asthma is more important in developing the antibody, but that once you have the antibody, if you didn’t have asthma by then, you’re unlikely to develop it,” he said. “So asthma seems to be something that could happen before the antibody production, whereas COPD seems to happen after – but ACPA seems to be the common link in both of these obstructive lung diseases.”

The study in Arthritis & Rheumatology linking asthma and COPD to risk of incident RA was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sparks reported grant support from Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb and consulting fees from Inova and Optum. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck, Neutrolis, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Ford JA et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/art.41194.

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were both linked to an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in a recent large, prospective cohort study, researchers have reported, which adds to a growing body of evidence that airway inflammation is implicated in the development of this disease.

RA risk was increased by about 50% among asthma patients, even when excluding those who had ever smoked, according to the study’s results, which were based on more than 200,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study I and II.

Risk of RA nearly doubled among those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with an even stronger association seen in older ever-smokers, according to authors of the study.

The findings not only strengthen the case for the potential role of obstructive lung diseases in RA development, according to the study’s authors, but also suggest that health care providers need to lower the bar for evaluation of patients with lung diseases and inflammatory joint symptoms.

“If these patients develop arthralgias, then the clinicians taking care of them should have a low threshold to consider RA, and perhaps refer, or check these patients with a diagnostic test for RA,” said researcher Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

What’s perhaps not as clear now is whether screening obstructive lung disease patients in the absence of early RA signs would be warranted: “I don’t know if we’re quite at the point where we would need to screen these patients if they’re not symptomatic,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview.

The study by Dr. Sparks and colleagues is, by far, not the first study to implicate asthma or other lung conditions in RA development. However, most previous studies are retrospective, and interpretation of the findings has been subject to limitations such as inadequate power to detect an increased risk or lack of adjustment for important confounding factors, such as smoking.

As such, the study by Dr. Sparks and colleagues is believed to be the first-ever prospective study to evaluate asthma and COPD as risk factors for RA, study authors reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Researchers were able to identify 1,060 incident RA cases that developed in 15,148 women with asthma and 3,573 with COPD in the study with more than 4 million person-years of follow-up.

The association between asthma and increased RA risk was seen not only for the asthma population as a whole (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.88), but also for the subset of women who had never smoked, to a similar degree (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14-2.05), the report shows.

COPD’s association with RA risk was apparent overall (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.31-2.75) and even more so in the subgroup of ever-smokers 55 years of age and older (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.38-3.51), the data further show.

Findings of studies looking at the inflammation of airways and other mucosal sites are “critically important to understand” when it comes to trying to prevent RA, said Kevin Deane, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver at Aurora.

“If we indeed are trying to prevent rheumatoid arthritis in terms of the joint disease, we may need to look at these mucosal sites in individuals who don’t yet have joint disease as potential sites to target for prevention, or at least areas to study to understand how prevention may work,” said Dr. Deane, principal investigator on the National Institutes of Health–funded Strategy for the Prevention of RA (StopRA) trial.

With that in mind, it’s conceivable targeting a lung process might prevent joint disease in a patient with asthma or airway inflammation and blood markers that indicate a risk of RA, Dr. Deane said in an interview.

Blood markers of RA have been evaluated in some recent studies, with findings that provide further evidence of a link between lung diseases and RA, and vice versa.

In particular, anti–citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) are clearly central to RA pathogenesis. And while asthma is increasingly linked to RA risk, there have been relatively little data on any potential links between ACPA and asthma.

That research gap led to a case-control study of the Nurses’ Health Study I and II (on which Dr. Sparks was senior author) showing that asthma was strongly linked to elevated ACPA in blood drawn from patients prior to a diagnosis of RA.

Results, published last year in Arthritis Research & Therapy, showed a significant association between asthma and pre-RA ACPA elevation (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.58-8.04), after adjustment for smoking and other potentially confounding factors. Investigators said the findings provided evidence that chronic mucosal airway inflammation is a factor in the development of ACPA and in the pathogenesis of RA.

In a follow-up study published more recently in Arthritis Care & Research, investigators showed that, among women in the Nurses Health Study I and II, pre-RA ACPA elevation was linked to increased risk of COPD, compared with controls (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.33-7.00), while the risk for development of asthma was similar in women with or without elevated pre-RA ACPA.

That study was in part an attempt to establish a “timeline” related to antibodies, lung diseases, and RA onset, Dr. Sparks said in the interview.

“We think that probably the asthma is more important in developing the antibody, but that once you have the antibody, if you didn’t have asthma by then, you’re unlikely to develop it,” he said. “So asthma seems to be something that could happen before the antibody production, whereas COPD seems to happen after – but ACPA seems to be the common link in both of these obstructive lung diseases.”

The study in Arthritis & Rheumatology linking asthma and COPD to risk of incident RA was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sparks reported grant support from Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb and consulting fees from Inova and Optum. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck, Neutrolis, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Ford JA et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/art.41194.

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were both linked to an increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis in a recent large, prospective cohort study, researchers have reported, which adds to a growing body of evidence that airway inflammation is implicated in the development of this disease.

RA risk was increased by about 50% among asthma patients, even when excluding those who had ever smoked, according to the study’s results, which were based on more than 200,000 women in the Nurses’ Health Study I and II.

Risk of RA nearly doubled among those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with an even stronger association seen in older ever-smokers, according to authors of the study.

The findings not only strengthen the case for the potential role of obstructive lung diseases in RA development, according to the study’s authors, but also suggest that health care providers need to lower the bar for evaluation of patients with lung diseases and inflammatory joint symptoms.

“If these patients develop arthralgias, then the clinicians taking care of them should have a low threshold to consider RA, and perhaps refer, or check these patients with a diagnostic test for RA,” said researcher Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

What’s perhaps not as clear now is whether screening obstructive lung disease patients in the absence of early RA signs would be warranted: “I don’t know if we’re quite at the point where we would need to screen these patients if they’re not symptomatic,” Dr. Sparks said in an interview.

The study by Dr. Sparks and colleagues is, by far, not the first study to implicate asthma or other lung conditions in RA development. However, most previous studies are retrospective, and interpretation of the findings has been subject to limitations such as inadequate power to detect an increased risk or lack of adjustment for important confounding factors, such as smoking.

As such, the study by Dr. Sparks and colleagues is believed to be the first-ever prospective study to evaluate asthma and COPD as risk factors for RA, study authors reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

Researchers were able to identify 1,060 incident RA cases that developed in 15,148 women with asthma and 3,573 with COPD in the study with more than 4 million person-years of follow-up.

The association between asthma and increased RA risk was seen not only for the asthma population as a whole (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.88), but also for the subset of women who had never smoked, to a similar degree (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14-2.05), the report shows.

COPD’s association with RA risk was apparent overall (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.31-2.75) and even more so in the subgroup of ever-smokers 55 years of age and older (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.38-3.51), the data further show.

Findings of studies looking at the inflammation of airways and other mucosal sites are “critically important to understand” when it comes to trying to prevent RA, said Kevin Deane, MD, of the University of Colorado at Denver at Aurora.

“If we indeed are trying to prevent rheumatoid arthritis in terms of the joint disease, we may need to look at these mucosal sites in individuals who don’t yet have joint disease as potential sites to target for prevention, or at least areas to study to understand how prevention may work,” said Dr. Deane, principal investigator on the National Institutes of Health–funded Strategy for the Prevention of RA (StopRA) trial.

With that in mind, it’s conceivable targeting a lung process might prevent joint disease in a patient with asthma or airway inflammation and blood markers that indicate a risk of RA, Dr. Deane said in an interview.

Blood markers of RA have been evaluated in some recent studies, with findings that provide further evidence of a link between lung diseases and RA, and vice versa.

In particular, anti–citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) are clearly central to RA pathogenesis. And while asthma is increasingly linked to RA risk, there have been relatively little data on any potential links between ACPA and asthma.

That research gap led to a case-control study of the Nurses’ Health Study I and II (on which Dr. Sparks was senior author) showing that asthma was strongly linked to elevated ACPA in blood drawn from patients prior to a diagnosis of RA.

Results, published last year in Arthritis Research & Therapy, showed a significant association between asthma and pre-RA ACPA elevation (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.58-8.04), after adjustment for smoking and other potentially confounding factors. Investigators said the findings provided evidence that chronic mucosal airway inflammation is a factor in the development of ACPA and in the pathogenesis of RA.

In a follow-up study published more recently in Arthritis Care & Research, investigators showed that, among women in the Nurses Health Study I and II, pre-RA ACPA elevation was linked to increased risk of COPD, compared with controls (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.33-7.00), while the risk for development of asthma was similar in women with or without elevated pre-RA ACPA.

That study was in part an attempt to establish a “timeline” related to antibodies, lung diseases, and RA onset, Dr. Sparks said in the interview.

“We think that probably the asthma is more important in developing the antibody, but that once you have the antibody, if you didn’t have asthma by then, you’re unlikely to develop it,” he said. “So asthma seems to be something that could happen before the antibody production, whereas COPD seems to happen after – but ACPA seems to be the common link in both of these obstructive lung diseases.”

The study in Arthritis & Rheumatology linking asthma and COPD to risk of incident RA was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Sparks reported grant support from Amgen and Bristol Myers Squibb and consulting fees from Inova and Optum. Coauthors provided disclosures related to GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck, Neutrolis, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Ford JA et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Mar 4. doi: 10.1002/art.41194.

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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 [email protected].

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.