The Economic Burden of Food Allergy: What We Know and What We Need to Learn

Purpose of Review Food allergy management and treatment require dietary modification, are associated with significant burdens, and affect food choices and behaviours. Emerging therapies, such as oral immunotherapy (OIT), provide a glimmer of hope for those living with the condition. Some burdens have received substantial focus, whereas many knowledge gaps on the significance of other impacts, including economic burden, remain. Recent Findings Evidence from many countries, but disproportionately from the United States, supports that food allergy carries significant healthcare and societal costs. Early introduction for the prevention of food allergies is theoretically cost-effective, but remains largely undescribed. Unique considerations, such as those to cow's milk protein allergy, which affects a substantial proportion of infants, and adrenaline autoinjectors, which have a high cost-per-use, require a balance between cost-effectiveness to the healthcare system and adverse outcomes. Household costs have largely been explored in two countries, but owing to different healthcare structures and costs of living, comparisons are difficult, as are generalisations to other countries. Stock epinephrine in schools may present a cost-effective strategy, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. Costs relating to OIT must be examined within both immediate benefits, such as protection from anaphylaxis, and long-term benefits, such as sustained unresponsiveness. Summary Although the absolute costs differ by region/country and type of food allergy, a consistent pattern persists: food allergy is a costly condition, to those who live with it, and the multiple stakeholders with which they interact.