Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports

19-04-2024 | Review

Evaluation and Modification of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Peanut Allergy Management

Authors: Aikaterini Anagnostou, Andrew Yaworsky, Monica Brova, Nazifa Ibrahim, Siddharth Kakked, Sasha Spite, Linette Duluc, Alan L. Shields, Tricia Lee, Stephanie Leonard, Kathy Przywara, Amelia Smith

Published in: Current Allergy and Asthma Reports

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Based on shared decision-making (SDM) principles, a decision aid was previously developed to help patients, their caregivers, and physicians decide which peanut allergy management approach best suits them. This study refined the decision aid’s content to better reflect patients’ and caregivers’ lived experience.

Recent Findings

Current standard of care for peanut allergy is avoidance, although peanut oral immunotherapy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients 4–17 years old.

Summary

An advisory board of allergy therapy experts (n = 3) and patient advocates (n = 3) informed modifications to the decision aid. The revised tool underwent cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) among adolescents (12–17 years old) with peanut allergy and caregivers of patients 4–17 years old with peanut allergy to evaluate its relevance, understandability, and usefulness. The 20 CDI participants understood the information presented in the SDM tool and reported it was important and relevant. Some revisions were made based on participant feedback. Results support content validity of the Peanut Allergy Treatment SDM Tool.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Chan ES, Dinakar C, Gonzales-Reyes E, et al. Unmet needs of children with peanut allergy: aligning the risks and the evidence. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;124(5):479–86.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Sicherer SH, Burks AW, Sampson HA. Clinical features of acute allergic reactions to peanut and tree nuts in children. Pediatrics. 1998;102(1):e6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hourihane JO, Kilburn SA, Dean P, Warner JO. Clinical characteristics of peanut allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 1997;27(6):634–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
6.
• Tedner SG, Asarnoj A, Thulin H, Westman M, Konradsen JR, Nilsson C. Food allergy and hypersensitivity reactions in children and adults-a review. J Intern Med. 2022;291(3):283–302. This paper highlights the prevalence and etiology of peanut allergy, and describes current strategies in food allergy treatment and management, including oral immunotherapy (OIT). The authors articulate factors that patients and caregivers should consider when deciding whether or not to puruse OIT treatment including time, cost, and motivation.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy: a review and update on epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and management. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141(1):41–58.CrossRefPubMed
8.
DunnGalvin A, Blumchen K, Timmermans F, et al. APPEAL-1: a multiple-country European survey assessing the psychosocial impact of peanut allergy. Allergy. 2020;75(11):2899–908.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Lieberman JA, Gupta RS, Knibb RC, et al. The global burden of illness of peanut allergy: a comprehensive literature review. Allergy. 2021;76(5):1367–84.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Venter C, Sicherer SH, Greenhawt M. Management of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(2):345–355.e342.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Poirot E, He F, Gould LH, Hadler JL. Deaths, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits from food-related anaphylaxis, New York City, 2000–2014: implications for fatality prevention. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2020;26(6):548–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Vickery BP, Vereda A, Casale TB, et al. AR101 oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(21):1991–2001.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Hourihane JO, Beyer K, Abbas A, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy with AR101 in European children with a peanut allergy (ARTEMIS): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4(10):728–39.CrossRef
14.
Ciaccio C, Goldsobel AB, Anagnostou A, et al. Participant characteristics and safety outcomes of peanut oral immunotherapy in the RAMSES and ARC011 trials. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2022;129(6):758–768.e754.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Vickery BP, Vereda A, Nilsson C, et al. Continuous and daily oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: results from a 2-year open-label follow-on study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(5):1879–1889.e1813.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Fernandez-Rivas M, Vereda A, Vickery BP, et al. Open-label follow-on study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and quality of life with extended daily oral immunotherapy in children with peanut allergy. Allergy. 2022;77(3):991–1003.CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Brown KR, Baker J, Vereda A, et al. Safety of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp in children and teenagers with peanut allergy: pooled summary of phase 3 and extension trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;149(6):2043–2052.e2049.CrossRefPubMed
19.
•• Portnoy J, Shroba J, Tilles S, et al. Real-world experience of pediatric patients treated with peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2023;130(5):649–56. This real-world study (conducted in a sample of patients age 4-17 years of age treated with PALFORZIA), characterizes a sample of patients with peanut allergy taking PALFORZIA in US clinical practice. The authors concludes that PALFORZIA was prescribed in a diverse set of patients and that these patients had high treatment persistence. The authors also describe the importance of shared decision-making between clinicians, the patient, and the patient's family for PALFORZIA treatment decisions, and describe the need for a shared decision-making tool to facilitate this process.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bird JA, Spergel JM, Jones SM, et al. Efficacy and safety of AR101 in oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: results of ARC001, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018;6(2):476–485.e473.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Bajzik V, DeBerg HA, Garabatos N, et al. Oral desensitization therapy for peanut allergy induces dynamic changes in peanut-specific immune responses. Allergy. 2022;77(8):2534–48.CrossRefPubMed
22.
•• Casale TB, Irani AM. Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp for the mitigation of allergic reactions to peanuts in children and adolescents. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2023;19(3):253–65. This article provides an overview of the current landscape of peanut allergy management, including treatment with PALFORZIA.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Blaiss MS, Meadows JA, Yu S, et al. Economic burden of peanut allergy in pediatric patients with evidence of reactions to peanuts in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2021;27(4):516–27.PubMed
24.
Anagnostou A, Lawrence C, Tilles SA, et al. Qualitative interviews to understand health care providers’ experiences of prescribing licensed peanut oral immunotherapy. BMC Res Notes. 2022;15(1):273.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Portnoy J, Ciaccio CE, Beausoleil J, et al. Eight tips for the implementation of the first licenced peanut allergy oral immunotherapy into clinical practice. AACI. 2022;18(1):37.
26.
Anagnostou A. A practical, stepwise approach to peanut oral immunotherapy in clinical practice: benefits and risks. J Asthma Allergy. 2021;14:277–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
28.
29.
Blaiss MS, Steven GC, Bender B, Bukstein DA, Meltzer EO, Winders T. Shared decision making for the allergist. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019;122(5):463–70.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Keirns CC, Goold SD. Patient-centered care and preference-sensitive decision making. JAMA. 2009;302(16):1805–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Greenhawt M, Shaker M, Winders T, et al. Development and acceptability of a shared decision-making tool for commercial peanut allergy therapies. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;125(1):90–6.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2005.CrossRef
35.
Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1993.CrossRef
36.
Friese S. ATLAS.ti 9 windows - user manual. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH; 2021.
37.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications; 1994.
38.
Lewins A, Silver C. Using software in qualitative research: a step-by-step guide. London: Sage Publications; 2007.CrossRef
39.
Anagnostou A, Hourihane JO, Greenhawt M. The role of shared decision making in pediatric food allergy management. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(1):46–51.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation and Modification of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Peanut Allergy Management
Authors
Aikaterini Anagnostou
Andrew Yaworsky
Monica Brova
Nazifa Ibrahim
Siddharth Kakked
Sasha Spite
Linette Duluc
Alan L. Shields
Tricia Lee
Stephanie Leonard
Kathy Przywara
Amelia Smith
Publication date
19-04-2024
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Allergy and Asthma Reports
Print ISSN: 1529-7322
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6315
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-024-01146-w