Community and academic allergists’ perspectives on integrating biologics into food allergy care

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
Jill A. Fisher PhD, Maral Erol PhD, Edwin H. Kim MD, MS
{"title":"Community and academic allergists’ perspectives on integrating biologics into food allergy care","authors":"Jill A. Fisher PhD,&nbsp;Maral Erol PhD,&nbsp;Edwin H. Kim MD, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.anai.2024.09.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Biologics are an important area of research and development, including for treatment of food allergy (FA). However, how allergists perceive the risks and benefits of biologics to treat FA remains largely unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To explore how US-based allergists perceive the use of biologics in FA treatment.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling, providers were recruited through direct solicitation by email to participate in a telephone or Zoom interview about their perceptions of the risks and benefits of current and future FA treatment options. Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and coded to conduct a thematic analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We conducted 60 interviews with providers from 34 states working either in community practice (53.3%) or academic medical centers (46.7%). Our sample was primarily non-Hispanic White (60.0%) and men (56.7%). The plurality was in their 40s (41.7%). Our findings clustered in the following 4 main themes: (1) perceived benefits of biologics, (2) ideal use of biologics, (3) concerns about biologics, and (4) biologics as the perceived future of FA. Community and academic providers had largely similar views, but academic providers more often emphasized the benefits of biologics, and community providers were, on the whole, more supportive of using biologics as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy rather than as monotherapy.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study indicates that providers hold mixed views about the use of biologics to treat FA. However, most were enthusiastic about prescribing biologics for FA while also being highly concerned about the cost to patients and the health care system.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50773,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology","volume":"134 1","pages":"Pages 70-78.e2"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1081120624015564","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Biologics are an important area of research and development, including for treatment of food allergy (FA). However, how allergists perceive the risks and benefits of biologics to treat FA remains largely unknown.

Objective

To explore how US-based allergists perceive the use of biologics in FA treatment.

Methods

Using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling, providers were recruited through direct solicitation by email to participate in a telephone or Zoom interview about their perceptions of the risks and benefits of current and future FA treatment options. Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and coded to conduct a thematic analysis.

Results

We conducted 60 interviews with providers from 34 states working either in community practice (53.3%) or academic medical centers (46.7%). Our sample was primarily non-Hispanic White (60.0%) and men (56.7%). The plurality was in their 40s (41.7%). Our findings clustered in the following 4 main themes: (1) perceived benefits of biologics, (2) ideal use of biologics, (3) concerns about biologics, and (4) biologics as the perceived future of FA. Community and academic providers had largely similar views, but academic providers more often emphasized the benefits of biologics, and community providers were, on the whole, more supportive of using biologics as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy rather than as monotherapy.

Conclusion

This study indicates that providers hold mixed views about the use of biologics to treat FA. However, most were enthusiastic about prescribing biologics for FA while also being highly concerned about the cost to patients and the health care system.
社区和学术过敏学家对将生物制剂纳入食物过敏护理的看法:定性研究。
背景:生物制剂是一个重要的研发领域,包括用于治疗食物过敏(FA)。然而,过敏症专家如何看待生物制剂治疗 FA 的风险和益处在很大程度上仍是未知数:目的:探讨美国过敏症专家如何看待生物制剂在 FA 治疗中的应用:方法:采用目的性抽样和滚雪球抽样相结合的方法,通过电子邮件直接邀请医疗服务提供者参加电话或 Zoom 访谈,了解他们对当前和未来 FA 治疗方案的风险和益处的看法。我们对访谈内容进行了转录、去标识和编码,以进行主题分析:我们对来自 34 个州的社区医疗机构(53.3%)或学术医疗中心(46.7%)的医疗服务提供者进行了 60 次访谈。我们的样本主要为非西班牙裔白人(60.0%)和男性(56.7%)。年龄大多在 40 多岁(41.7%)。我们的研究结果分为以下 4 个主题:(1) 认为生物制剂有益;(2) 理想使用生物制剂;(3) 对生物制剂的担忧;(4) 认为生物制剂是食物过敏的未来。社区和学术机构医疗服务提供者的观点大体相似,但学术机构医疗服务提供者更多强调生物制剂的益处,而社区医疗服务提供者总体上更支持将生物制剂作为 OIT 的辅助疗法,而非单一疗法:本研究表明,医疗服务提供者对使用生物制剂治疗 FA 的看法不一。然而,大多数医疗服务提供者对使用生物制剂治疗扁桃体炎充满热情,同时也高度关注患者和医疗系统的成本问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
6.80%
发文量
437
审稿时长
33 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology is a scholarly medical journal published monthly by the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The purpose of Annals is to serve as an objective evidence-based forum for the allergy/immunology specialist to keep up to date on current clinical science (both research and practice-based) in the fields of allergy, asthma, and immunology. The emphasis of the journal will be to provide clinical and research information that is readily applicable to both the clinician and the researcher. Each issue of the Annals shall also provide opportunities to participate in accredited continuing medical education activities to enhance overall clinical proficiency.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信