Safety of Peanut Oral Immunotherapy (OIT)

Hofmann, Alison; Steele, Pamela H.; Kamilaris, J.; Jones, Stacie M.; Palmer, Kricia P.; Perry, Tamara T.; Scurlock, Amy M.; Althage, K.A.; Burks, A. Wesley

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.12.547

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6 Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is a newly developed treatment approach for patients with peanut allergies that has been shown to be highly effective with an acceptable safety profile in research studies. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] There are a variety of research protocols, but most POIT protocols include an initial escalation phase, a slow up-dosing phase and a long-term maintenance phase. An entry food challenge to peanut (also known as 'baseline challenge'), occurring prior to POIT initiation, may also be required in some, but not all, research studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of goals and barriers to treatment from 92 consecutive consultations with families considering peanut oral immunotherapy

Blackman

Anagnostou

2019

Therapeutic Advances in Vaccines and Immunotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peanut allergy has become an important public health issue. It can be the cause of severe reactions and also the trigger of significant anxiety for the allergic individual, especially with regards to the risk of unintentional accidental exposures. Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is a newly developed treatment approach that has been shown to be highly effective in multiple research studies and has been associated with an acceptable safety profile. This treatment modality is likely to become more mainstream in the next few years with new commercial entities pursuing United States Food and Drug Administration approval for relevant products and multiple providers offering various forms of immunotherapy in their practices. Methods: The aim of our study was to obtain an accurate assessment of goals of treatment as well as concerns and barriers from families considering POIT in either the research or clinical setting. A single clinician allergist met with all the families and conducted semi-structured interviews on POIT. Families were provided with standardized written information on POIT prior to the consultation, which was used as a formalized instrument to communicate treatment protocols. Conversations were not recorded, but collected information was scribed by a second clinician who did not actively participate in the consultation. Scribed information was coded by the investigators. Thematic analysis identified common topics emerging from the discussions. Results: We report on the results of 92 consecutive family consultations on POIT conducted over a period of 1 year. Approximately 50% of the families had already researched POIT online, with 25% of families reported being part of Facebook parent groups. Groups identified the following areas as the most important considerations: efficacy, practical information, safety, benefits and goals, eligibility criteria and support in making the right decision. For all families pursuing POIT for their child, the initial goal was achieving protection from accidental exposure and cross-contamination and for approximately one-quarter, consumption of high peanut doses was the ultimate goal. Conclusion: Our research adds to the limited available data in this area and provides information that may be used as an initial platform for clinical consultations and shared decision-making in POIT. Obtaining a better understanding of patients’ expectations and concerns will hopefully facilitate this process, enabling more fruitful and engaging interactions between families and healthcare providers in the field of food allergy.

show abstract