Policy solutions to eliminate racial and ethnic child health disparities in the USA

A practical guide for implementing omalizumab therapy for food allergy

The recent approval of omalizumab for the treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy is an important step forward for the millions of food allergy patients in the United States. Through the depletion of circulating IgE and the subsequent reduction of FcεR1 on key effector cells, patients increase their tolerance to food allergens. However, omalizumab does not permit patients to eat foods that they are allergic to with impunity. Rather, it protects them from most accidental exposures. In addition, omalizumab does not cure food allergy and has not demonstrated true immunomodulation. Thus, omalizumab might be a lifelong therapy for some patients. Furthermore, there are many important questions and issues surrounding the appropriate administration of omalizumab to treat food allergy, which we discuss. Managing treatment of patients with disease that falls outside the dosing range, assessing treatment response or nonresponse, addressing its appropriateness for patients older than 55, and determining whether immunotherapy plus omalizumab provides any advantage over omalizumab alone all need to be examined. Identifying appropriate patients for this therapy is critical given the cost of biologics. Indeed, not all food allergy patients are good candidates for this therapy. Also, when and how to stop omalizumab therapy in patients who may have outgrown their food allergy needs to be elucidated. Thus, although this therapy provides a good option for patients with food allergies, much information is needed to determine how best to use this therapy. Despite many unanswered questions and issues, we provide clinicians with some practical guidance on implementing this therapy in their patients.

Racial and ethnic inequities in the quality of paediatric care in the USA: a review of quantitative evidence

Racial and ethnic inequities in paediatric care have received increased research attention over the past two decades, particularly in the past 5 years, alongside an increased societal focus on racism. In this Series paper, the first in a two-part Series focused on racism and child health in the USA, we summarise evidence on racial and ethnic inequities in the quality of paediatric care. We review studies published between Jan 1, 2017 and July 31, 2022, that are adjusted for or stratified by insurance status to account for group differences in access, and we exclude studies in which differences in access are probably driven by patient preferences or the appropriateness of intervention. Overall, the literature reveals widespread patterns of inequitable treatment across paediatric specialties, including neonatology, primary care, emergency medicine, inpatient and critical care, surgery, developmental disabilities, mental health care, endocrinology, and palliative care. The identified studies indicate that children from minoritised racial and ethnic groups received poorer health-care services relative to non-Hispanic White children, with most studies drawing on data from multiple sites, and accounting for indicators of family socioeconomic position and clinical characteristics (eg, comorbidities or condition severity). The studies discussed a range of potential causes for the observed disparities, including implicit biases and differences in site of care or clinician characteristics. We outline priorities for future research to better understand and address paediatric treatment inequities and implications for practice and policy. Policy changes within and beyond the health-care system, discussed further in the second paper of this Series, are essential to address the root causes of treatment inequities and to promote equitable and excellent health for all children.