ArticleAnnals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology2025
Community and academic allergists' perspectives on integrating biologics into food allergy care: A qualitative study.
Article in Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging innovation and risk: the missing role of validated risk-stratification in IgE-mediated food allergy management.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
- Omalizumab in food allergy: Risks and benefits.Journal of food allergy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiologics 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.
objectiveTo explore how US-based allergists perceive the use of biologics in FA treatment.
methodsUsing 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.
resultsWe 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.
conclusionThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.