Extrapolating Evidence-Based Medicine of AIT Into Clinical Practice in the United States
Moisés A Calderon,Thomas B Casale,Harold S Nelson,Leonard B Bacharier,Priya Bansal,David I Bernstein,Michael Blaiss,Jonathan Corren,Lawrence DuBuske,Shahnez Fatteh,Rémi Gagnon,Justin Greiwe,Hunter Hoover,Nicholas C Kolinsky,Jennifer A Namazy,Wanda Phipatanakul,Greg Plunkett,Marcus Shaker,Susan Waserman,Tonya Winders,Karen Rance,Hendrik Nolte
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2022.10.033
Abstract:Allergy/immunology specialists in the United States prescribing allergy immunotherapy (AIT) have placed a heavy value on practical experience and anecdotal evidence rather than research-based evidence. With the extensive research on AIT conducted in the last few decades, the time has come to better implement evidence-based medicine (EBM) for AIT. The goal of this review was to critically assess EBM for debated concepts in US AIT practice for respiratory allergies in the context and quality of today's regulatory standards. Debated topics reviewed were the efficacy and safety of AIT in various subgroups (eg, polyallergic patients, older patients, patients with asthma, and pregnant women), diagnosis topics (eg, skin prick test vs allergen-specific serum IgE, factors affecting skin prick tests, use of nasal or conjunctival allergen challenges, and telemedicine for diagnosis), and dosing topics (eg, optimal dosing for subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy tablets, US liquid allergen extract history, duration of treatment, and biomarkers of efficacy). In addition, EBM for patient-centered AIT issues (eg, adherence, use of practice guidelines, and pharmacoeconomics) and the approach to implementation of AIT EBM in future clinical practice were addressed. The EBM for each concept was briefly summarized, and when possible, a practical, concise recommendation was given.