Fisher Jill A, Erol Maral, Kim Edwin H
Department of Social Medicine & Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Department of Social Medicine & Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2025 Jan;134(1):70-78.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2024.09.020. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
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.
To explore how US-based allergists perceive the use of biologics in FA treatment.
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.
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.
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.
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，过敏症专科医生如何看待生物制剂治疗FA的风险和益处，在很大程度上仍不为人知。
探讨美国过敏症专科医生如何看待生物制剂在FA治疗中的应用。
采用目的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与电话或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。访谈内容被转录、去识别化并编码，以进行主题分析。
我们对来自34个州的医疗服务提供者进行了60次访谈，他们分别在社区诊所（53.3%）或学术医疗中心工作（46.7%）。我们的样本主要是非西班牙裔白人（60.0%）和男性（56.7%）。大多数人年龄在40多岁（41.7%）。我们的研究结果集中在以下4个主要主题：（1）生物制剂的感知益处；（2）生物制剂的理想使用方式；（3）对生物制剂的担忧；（4）生物制剂被视为FA的未来。社区和学术医疗服务提供者的观点基本相似，但学术医疗服务提供者更常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口服免疫疗法的辅助手段，而非单一疗法。
这项研究表明，医疗服务提供者对使用生物制剂治疗FA持有不同观点。然而，大多数人热衷于为FA患者开生物制剂处方，同时也高度关注患者和医疗保健系统的成本。
