A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of omalizumab combined with oral immunotherapy for the treatment of cow's milk allergy

A practical focus on milk oral immunotherapy

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is a common childhood food allergy associated with a significant burden for those children who are affected and their families, including unintentional exposures that result in allergic reactions, severe allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis. In young children, cow's milk is one of the most frequent food triggers in anaphylactic episodes, and fatalities have also been described as a result of unintentional exposures, which reinforces the notion that milk allergy can be severe in some individuals. The natural history of CMA is favorable, with the allergy resolving over time in the majority of individuals, although some will have persistent allergy that does not resolve. The standard management approach for CMA consists of strict avoidance of milk and carriage of emergency medication for use in accidental exposures. Recently, a novel approach has emerged as an alternative option for management in patients with CMA in the form of oral immunotherapy (OIT). The aim of milk OIT is to protect patients from accidental exposures to milk-containing foods and allow patients to introduce larger amounts of milk into their diet. The goal of this article was to review the available evidence, discuss key studies that focused on milk OIT, and provide practical information and useful tips related to this novel treatment.

The use of adjunctive therapies during oral immunotherapy: A focus on biologics

Oral immunotherapy (OIT), thus far, is the most evaluated therapeutic approach for food allergy. However, OIT is not known to lead to a cure, and it carries a risk for allergic reactions. Adjunct therapies to OIT are currently being investigated to evaluate their effect on safety and outcome. Of these therapies, omalizumab is the most evaluated biologic. There is mounting evidence that omalizumab is effective in inducing rapid desensitization of OIT in both single-food and multiallergen OIT, while diminishing the rate of adverse reactions. Evaluation of other adjunct biologics, such as dupilumab and bacterial therapy, is underway.

Variations in protocol development during oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols are not standardized, and a wide heterogeneity exists in the literature. OIT protocol variables include the initiation approach (fixed dose versus oral food challenge), buildup speed (slow versus fast), target maintenance dose (low versus high target dose), type of food used, and use of adjuvants among other variables. Most protocols start with an initial escalation day, which is a series of extremely low doses to safely identify the patients who are most allergic, followed by a buildup period over several months to years until the final target maintenance dose is achieved. Doses are generally increased every 1-2 weeks by a factor of 1.25 to 2 and are adapted based on the patient's symptoms. Protocols are increasingly favoring low-maintenance doses over traditional high maintenance doses, although this needs to be discussed and adapted based on the patient's preferences. Accelerated OIT schedules with using a short treatment of omalizumab can be considered in severe food allergy cases.

A review of the safety of oral immunotherapy in clinical trial and real-world studies

Safety concerns are a barrier to oral immunotherapy (OIT). This review aims to describe OIT safety events and explore potential risk factors and mitigating factors. Published clinical and real-world OIT studies were reviewed for data on safety outcomes in OIT. Gastrointestinal symptoms are one of the most common adverse reactions associated with OIT, and persistent symptoms can be associated with an eosinophilic response. Allergic reactions are increased in OIT compared with avoidance; however, these symptoms tend not to be severe and to decrease over time. Despite OIT, epinephrine usage persists in studies and life-threatening reactions (though rare) have occurred. High baseline food specific immunoglobulin E levels, aggressive dosing, uncontrolled atopic comorbidities, and poor adherence to protocols may contribute to the severity of adverse events. OIT remains a shared decision that incorporates best medical evidence and appropriate patient selection. It requires individualized care and action plans to ensure safe outcomes.

Considerations for a shared decision-making conversation when initiating food oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an office-based procedure that offers potential treatment of immunoglobulin E mediated food allergy. OIT has multiple benefits, e.g., the ability to desensitize the individual with food allergy, which shifts the eliciting dose threshold required in that individual to trigger an allergic reaction, and also potentially to decrease the severity of any resulting reactions. However, OIT is not a cure and has distinct risks, including the risk of allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis) from the therapy itself, the potential risk of developing eosinophilic esophagitis (or similar clinical symptoms without a formal biopsy), and logistical issues in coordinating when to give the daily dose, and there are still uncertain intermediate-to-long-term outcomes with regard to OIT. The decision to start OIT is complex and potentially nuanced. Shared decision-making is a process that allows the patient and family and the clinician to undergo a mutual discussion of the risks, benefits, alternatives, and other considerations with regard to a medical decision (such as starting OIT) whereby there is an exchange of information that allows the patient and family to formally clarify and express their values and preferences with regard to facets of the decision in this particular context. The goal is for the patient to be able to make a fully informed decision that is reflective of his or her goals, values, preferences, and desires. This article outlined some of the key considerations to discuss with parents and patients before enrolling in an OIT program with regard to the risks and benefits, to assist in engaging in shared decision-making and obtaining informed consent.

Cow's milk allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To highlight the most recent insights on cow's milk allergy (CMA), its treatment, and management.

RECENT FINDINGS

CMA is one of the most common food allergies among children. Burdened by the risk for fatal reaction, CMA may imply also a severe impairment of health-related quality of life at individual and family level as well as well as individual and societal costs. The updated Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow's Milk Allergy series is going to provide a series of manuscripts that will offer a comprehensive state-of-the-art specifically on CMA, including international evidence-based recommendations. The current results from randomized clinical trials highlight that oral immunotherapy may be effective by itself in providing desensitization. Preliminary data suggest that biologicals such as omalizumab may be able to increase the threshold of reactivity to milk or several foods (if multiple food allergies) without requiring allergen exposure. Breastfeeding is the first choice for infants with CMA. Extensively hydrolyzed formula and amino-acid formula are valid alternatives and may be particularly helpful when eliminating multiple foods, with severe complex gastrointestinal food allergies, eosinophilic esophagitis, severe eczema, or symptoms while exclusively breastfeeding. Heed is needed to ensure the formula is nutritionally sufficient. Due to a high degree of cross-reactivity with cow's milk proteins and risk for allergic reactions, goats' milk or other mammals' milk should not be used.

SUMMARY

The adoption and implementation of evidence-based recommendations may guide a proper diagnostics and management and awaited advances in knowledge will allow the development of a personalized treatment tailored on the specific CMA patient's profile.

Phase 2, randomized multi oral immunotherapy with omalizumab 'real life' study

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is frequently discontinued due to adverse events (AEs) and current data suggests that lowering OIT doses can minimize severity and frequency of AEs. However, the minimum daily dose that can enable desensitization and induce immune responses in multi-food OIT (mOIT) is unknown.

METHODS

Participants aged 2-25 years with multi-food allergies were pretreated with fixed-dose omalizumab (150 mg, 3 doses, every 4 weeks), and randomized 1:1 to receive mOIT to a total maintenance dose of either 300 or 1200 mg total protein, (total dose includes at least two and up to a max of five allergens) and then transitioned to real-food protein equivalents after 18 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with increases in IgG4/IgE ratio of at least 2 allergens by ≥25% from baseline after 18 weeks of therapy. The primary efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Sixty participants were enrolled across two sites. Seventy percent of participants in both arms showed changes in sIgG4/sIgE ratio in at least 2 allergens with no difference between the treatment groups (OR [95% CI] = 1.00 [0.29, 3.49]). Overall, there were no differences in AEs between the 300 and 1200 mg groups (19% vs. 17%, p = .69), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that plasma marker changes are induced early, even at a total protein dose of 300 mg inclusive of multiple allergens when mOIT is combined with fixed-dose omalizumab. Identification of optimal mOIT dosing with adjunct omalizumab is needed for the long-term success of OIT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03181009).

Updating the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy is promising as an efficacious treatment for food allergy. Other food allergy treatments are also under development. However, adverse allergic events during treatment, as well as during oral food challenges, are common and reporting is not standardized.

OBJECTIVE

A more nuanced grading scale is needed to create a comprehensive and universal system to categorize adverse events and their severity for food allergy clinical trials.

METHODS

Starting with the 2012 Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale and the World Allergy Organization Grading System, we developed the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions, Version 3.0, in collaboration with industry partners with expert opinion.

RESULTS

The revised CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions has 5 levels of increasing severity, ranging from generalized urticaria, localized angioedema, rhinitis, and abdominal pain (grade 1) to death (grade 5). Systemic reactions are further categorized within each grade by relevant organ system. Mild, single-system reactions are differentiated from mild, multisystem reactions. Lower respiratory tract symptoms are graded on the basis of response to therapy; those that are refractory to standard treatment (eg, requiring >3 doses of intramuscular epinephrine, continuous intravenous epinephrine infusion, and continuous albuterol nebulization) and respiratory compromise requiring mechanical ventilation are classified as grade 4, life-threatening reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal and consistent use of the revised CoFAR Grading Scale beyond the CoFAR centers would allow for better data aggregation and safety comparisons in clinical trials for food allergy.

Food allergy in children—the current status and the way forward

Food allergy in children is a major health concern, and its prevalence is rising. It is often over-diagnosed by parents, resulting occasionally in unnecessary exclusion of some important food. It also causes stress, anxiety, and even depression in parents and affects the family’s quality of life. Current diagnostic tests are useful when interpreted in the context of the clinical history, although cross-sensitivity and inability to predict the severity of the allergic reactions remain major limitations. Although the oral food challenge is the current gold standard for making the diagnosis, it is only available to a small number of patients because of its requirement in time and medical personnel. New diagnostic methods have recently emerged, such as the Component Resolved Diagnostics and the Basophil Activation Test, but their use is still limited, and the latter lacks standardisation. Currently, there is no definite treatment available to induce life-long natural tolerance and cure for food allergy. Presently available treatments only aim to decrease the occurrence of anaphylaxis by enabling the child to tolerate small amounts of the offending food, usually taken by accident. New evidence supports the early introduction of the allergenic food to infants to decrease the incidence of food allergy. If standardised and widely implemented, this may result in decreasing the prevalence of food allergy.

An Overview of Off-Label Use of Humanized Monoclonal Antibodies in Paediatrics

In recent years, off-label and unlicensed drug use has extensively developed in the paediatric population. For a long time, clinical trials in the paediatric population were considered complicated to perform because of ethical problems, causing frequent off-label use. Off-label drug use remains an important public health issue, especially for children with rare conditions or with diseases not responsive to conventional treatments. The present paper is a narrative review of the literature of off-label drug use in children. The aim of our study is to summarize the main works dealing with the off-label use of biological drugs in paediatrics. Further studies analyzing their efficacy, safety, and cost-benefit ratios are needed to extend the use of biological therapies to the paediatric population.

Acute Urticaria and Anaphylaxis: Differences and Similarities in Clinical Management

Acute urticaria is a common condition that presents with wheals and/or angioedema. However, these symptoms are also frequent in anaphylaxis, a life-threatening reaction that should be immediately diagnosed and treated. In both, mast cells play a central role in the physiopathology. Causes and triggers of acute urticaria and anaphylaxis are similar in general, but some peculiarities can be observed. The diagnostic approach may differ, accordingly to the condition, suspicious causes, age groups and regions. Adrenaline is the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis, but not for acute urticaria, where H1-antihistamines are the first choice. In this paper, we review the main aspects, similarities and differences regarding definitions, mechanisms, causes, diagnosis and treatment of acute urticaria and anaphylaxis.

Life-threatening anaphylaxis in children with cow's milk allergy during oral immunotherapy and after treatment failure

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising therapeutic approach for children with persistent IgE‐mediated cow's milk allergy (CMA) but data are still limited.

Objective

To analyze the prevalence of life‐threatening anaphylaxis in children with persistent CMA undergoing OIT and to evaluate potential risk factors.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study among children with persistent CMA undergoing OIT over a 20‐year period, following a specific Oral Tolerance Induction protocol. Adverse reactions during the whole period and data on long‐term outcome were registered. Descriptive and nondescriptive statistics were used to describe data.

Results

Three hundred forty‐two children were evaluated. During OIT, 12 children (3.5%) presented severe anaphylactic reactions that needed an adrenaline injection. None required intubation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or showed a fatal outcome. Five of them abandoned OIT, five reached unrestricted diet and the others are still undergoing OIT. As far as outcome is concerned, 51.2% reached an unrestricted diet; 13.5% are at the build‐up stage; and 28.0% (97 patients) stopped the OIT. Among these 96 children, 6.3% experienced a severe reaction induced by accidental ingestion of milk with two fatal outcomes.

Conclusions

The risk of life‐threatening reactions was nearly two times lower (3.5% vs. 6.3%) among patients assuming milk during OIT than in those who stopped the protocol. A trend in favor of more severe reactions, requiring ICU admission, or fatal, was shown in patients who stopped OIT.

New and Emerging Concepts and Therapies for the Treatment of Food Allergy

Food allergy is an increasingly common disease that often starts in early childhood and lasts throughout life. Self-reported food allergy has risen at a rate of 1.2% per decade since 1988, and by 2018, the prevalence of food allergy in the United States was estimated to be 8% in children and 11% in adults.^- This prevalence has led to an economic burden of almost $25 billion annually. Despite these staggering statistics, as of the time of this writing, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only approved one treatment for food allergy, which is limited to use in children with peanut allergy. Fortunately, a new horizon of therapeutic interventions, in all stages of development, lay ahead and hold promise for the near future.

Oral Immunotherapy in Food Allergy: A Critical Pediatric Perspective

There is evidence that in children with persistent IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) to cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut, oral allergen-specific immunotherapy (OIT) may increase the reaction threshold to the culprit food allergen(s). OIT may protect patients from the occurrence of severe reactions in case of accidental ingestion of the culprit food during treatment. Notwithstanding, many gaps are still unsolved, including safety issues, identification of predictive biomarkers, and post-desensitization efficacy. In this perspective, the use of omalizumab (Anti-IgE monoclonal antibody) has been proposed as an adjunctive treatment to OIT in order to reduce the risk of allergic reactions related to OIT. This review aims to summarize the current evidence and unmet needs on OIT in children with FA to enhance the development of longitudinal, prospective, and well-designed studies able to fill the current gaps soon.

Efficacy and Safety of Omalizumab for the Treatment of Severe or Poorly Controlled Allergic Diseases in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of omalizumab in the treatment of severe or uncontrolled allergic diseases in children.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov databases up to 23rd July 2021, with no language limitations. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing omalizumab with other treatments or placebo in children with severe or inadequately controlled allergic diseases were considered. The primary outcomes of interest were asthma exacerbation rate, allergic symptom score, desensitisation achievement for food allergy (FA), and incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). The study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two researchers. Quality assessments were conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and data were pooled using a random-effects model if I ² was 50% or greater in the Cochrane Review Manager.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 RCTs [six on severe asthma, one on atopic dermatitis (AD), one on seasonal allergic rhinitis [SAR], and one on FA] consisting of 2,376 participants met the inclusion criteria. For severe asthma, omalizumab may reduce exacerbations at 12 weeks [risk ratio (RR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.89], 24 weeks (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence), and 52 weeks (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94; GRADE: moderate-quality evidence) and reduce the dose of inhalation corticosteroid compared with placebo. For severe AD, the association between omalizumab and allergic symptom improvement [i.e., SCORing Atopic Dermatitis or Paediatric Allergic Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (PADQLQ)] was not confirmed. For severe SAR, omalizumab showed greater improvement in symptom load scores and saved rescue medication days. For FA, omalizumab demonstrated superiority in desensitisation compared with placebo. To date, no clinically significant drug-related SAEs have been reported.

CONCLUSION

For severe or uncontrolled asthma, AD, SAR, and FA, omalizumab may be associated with improved allergic symptoms and safety in children. Future studies should focus on the benefits and pharmacoeconomic evaluation of omalizumab in multiple allergic diseases compared with other treatments.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42021271863].

Advances, Practical Implementation, and Unmet Needs Regarding Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

Treatment of food allergy is a rapidly changing landscape, with arguably, the most significant advancement in recent years, the transition of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to clinical practice. As an innovation, OIT is a phase of rapidly increasing demand, particularly for some allergens such as peanut, egg, and milk, which have substantial evidence of efficacy. However, significant questions remain about how to best treat multiple food allergies and less common food allergies and how to optimize long-term safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the currently available resources for integrating food allergy OIT into clinical practice and focuses on the multiple remaining unmet needs such as providing an approach for OIT to food allergens for which there is no or limited evidence; practical issues related to food allergy treatment particularly when it is not going well; long-term outcomes and follow-up after OIT; and strategies to help meet the impending increase in demand.

Immunologic and pathologic characterization of a novel swine biomedical research model for eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic allergy-mediated condition with an increasing incidence in both children and adults. Despite EoE's strong impact on human health and welfare, there is a large unmet need for treatments with only one recently FDA-approved medication for EoE. The goal of this study was to establish swine as a relevant large animal model for translational biomedical research in EoE with the potential to facilitate development of therapeutics. We recently showed that after intraperitoneal sensitization and oral challenge with the food allergen hen egg white protein (HEWP), swine develop esophageal eosinophilia-a hallmark of human EoE. Herein, we used a similar sensitization and challenge treatment and evaluated immunological and pathological markers associated with human EoE. Our data demonstrate that the incorporated sensitization and challenge treatment induces (i) a systemic T-helper 2 and IgE response, (ii) a local expression of eotaxin-1 and other allergy-related immune markers, (iii) esophageal eosinophilia (>15 eosinophils/0.24 mm²), and (iv) esophageal endoscopic findings including linear furrows and white exudates. Thereby, we demonstrate that our sensitization and oral challenge protocol not only induces the underlying immune markers but also the micro- and macro-pathological hallmarks of human EoE. This swine model for EoE represents a novel relevant large animal model that can drive translational biomedical research to develop urgently needed treatment strategies for EoE.

Oral Immunotherapy in Children: Clinical Considerations and Practical Management

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) in pediatric patients provides an alternative option to the current standard of care in food allergy, which is allergen avoidance and reactive treatment. Because patients are exposed to one or more food allergens during treatment, OIT is associated with adverse events and can be a cumbersome process for children, their caregivers, and clinicians. However, there have been an overwhelming number of studies that show high efficacy in both single- and multi-allergen OIT, and that quality of life is greatly improved for both patients and their families after undergoing immunotherapy. This review discusses clinical considerations for OIT in pediatrics, including efficacy and safety, practical management, and future directions of treatment.

Update on omalizumab in allergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the most relevant studies in the advancing field of omalizumab in allergen immunotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Omalizumab has been used in combination with inhalant, venom, and food allergen immunotherapy. These studies suggest that omalizumab can decrease the time required to reach maintenance dosing and adverse events. However, severe adverse events do still occur. Limited long-term data suggests that there is a risk for increased reactivity after stopping omalizumab.

SUMMARY

Omalizumab in conjunction with immunotherapy has shown promising results for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, venom hypersensitivity, and food allergy, especially in the reduction of adverse events. Larger randomized, placebo-controlled trials are needed to better understand optimal dosing and duration, cost--benefit analysis, ideal patients, and long-term benefits. This combination therapy has the potential to improve treatment, particularly for high-risk patients.

Oral immunotherapy in children with a food allergy-Where do we stand? - Review

The number of hospitalisations due to an anaphylactic reaction to food is continuously increasing. Therefore, there is an urgent need to seek effective therapy. Currently, the only way to treat food allergies is to avoid allergens and to administer intramuscular adrenaline if an accidental allergen intake occurs. The only causal therapeutic strategy is specific oral immunotherapy. An increasing amount of data confirms this therapy's effectiveness and safety, but the results remain inconclusive due to the lack of long-term follow-up. In this state-of-the-art review, we briefly summarise the latest placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials on oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergy. During the paper's review, we asked the following questions: does the therapy permanently increase the amount of allergen consumed without symptoms? Does it significantly increase or decrease the occurrence of severe systemic reactions - requiring the administration of adrenaline or hospitalisation? Many authors describe outcomes such as an increase in the amount of allergen that can be safely ingested; however, significant clinical benefits such as decreased hospitalisations or anaphylaxis incidence are rarely included in the results. To date, there is no unified protocol of therapy, which makes comparisons between studies difficult because of significant differences in types, doses, and routes of administration of the allergen, timeline for up-dosing and maintenance, duration of the therapy, and primary outcomes of OIT.

Oral Immunotherapy for Food-Allergic Children: A Pro-Con Debate

The prevalence of food allergy has increased in recent years, especially in children. Allergen avoidance, and drugs in case of an allergic reaction, remains the standard of care in food allergy. Nevertheless, increasing attention has been given to the possibility to treat food allergy, through immunotherapy, particularly oral immunotherapy (OIT). Several OIT protocols and clinical trials have been published. Most of them focus on children allergic to milk, egg, or peanut, although recent studies developed protocols for other foods, such as wheat and different nuts. OIT efficacy in randomized controlled trials is usually evaluated as the possibility for patients to achieve desensitization through the consumption of an increasing amount of a food allergen, while the issue of a possible long-term sustained unresponsiveness has not been completely addressed. Here, we evaluated current pediatric OIT knowledge, focusing on the results of clinical trials and current guidelines. Specifically, we wanted to highlight what is known in terms of OIT efficacy and effectiveness, safety, and impact on quality of life. For each aspect, we reported the pros and the cons, inferable from published literature. In conclusion, even though many protocols, reviews and meta-analysis have been published on this topic, pediatric OIT remains a controversial therapy and no definitive generalized conclusion may be drawn so far. It should be an option provided by specialized teams, when both patients and their families are prone to adhere to the proposed protocol. Efficacy, long-term effectiveness, possible role of adjuvant therapies, risk of severe reactions including anaphylaxis or eosinophilic esophagitis, and impact on the quality of life of both children and caregivers are all aspects that should be discussed before starting OIT. Future studies are needed to provide firm clinical and scientific evidence, which should also consider patient reported outcomes.

Oral Immunotherapy for Children with Cow's Milk Allergy

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common IgE-dependent food allergies in children. Some children develop severe and persistent CMA, with near-fatal reactions after exposure to trace amounts of cow's milk (CM). Because milk and dairy products are included in various processed food products, it is difficult to completely remove milk, which negatively affects the quality of life of children with CMA. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can alleviate food allergen-induced anaphylaxis under continuous ingestion of a little of the causative food. Children with severe CMA may benefit from OIT, but the treatment requires a long time and poses a risk of anaphylaxis. Moreover, in recent years, new therapies, including omalizumab, sublingual immunotherapy, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, have played the role of optional OIT. In this review, we present the current methods of and other attempts at OIT, and discuss OIT for safely treating CMA.

Strategies for choosing a biologic for your patient with allergy or asthma

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the therapeutic effects and safety of biologics either approved or in clinical development for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, urticaria, nasal polyps, atopic dermatitis, and eosinophilic esophagitis. This review attempts to provide some guidance when choosing among agents.

DATA SOURCES

Recently published articles obtained through PubMed database searches including research articles, review articles, and case reports.

STUDY SELECTIONS

PubMed database searches were conducted using the following keywords: biologics, asthma, COPD, urticaria, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, nasal polyps, and eosinophilic esophagitis.

RESULTS

The approval of omalizumab by the Food and Drug Administration in 2003 for patients with asthma paved the way for the development of multiple biologics for a variety of respiratory and allergic diseases. Agents approved by the Food and Drug Administration include mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, and several more are in the late stages of clinical development. Owing to the overlap in the pathogenesis of respiratory and allergic diseases, many of these biologics target multiple respiratory and allergic diseases simultaneously.

CONCLUSION

The numerous biologic options have made the selection of the best biologic for each patient a potential conundrum for clinicians. Adequate point of care biomarkers to facilitate personalized medical therapy are generally lacking. Furthermore, although clinically effective and generally safe, none of the biologics discussed in this review have induced long-standing disease remission. Nevertheless, these agents have given us the opportunity to treat the most severe patients and to better understand the biology of respiratory and allergic diseases. As knowledgeable physicians, we should embrace and be educated on these novel therapies and the pathways they target.

Omalizumab effectiveness in patients with a previously failed oral immunotherapy for severe milk allergy

Background

Some studies addressed the issue of omalizumab (OML) effectiveness in children starting their first oral immunotherapy (OIT) attempt but no study investigated the possible role of OML in the setting of patients with persisting milk allergy after a failed OIT attempt.

Methods

Single‐center, prospective, observational study in a selected group of patients with a persisting and severe cow milk (CM) allergy associated with moderate allergic asthma, in which a previous OIT attempt had already failed. We performed an open oral food challenge (OFC) to identify patients who tolerated less than 173 mg of cow's milk protein. At the end of the recruitment, we have found four patients with a mean age of 16.25 years (8–24) who had suspended a previous OIT attempt and still reacted to an amount of CM equal or below 173 mg. Enrolled patients, after an 8‐week course of OML along with a CM avoiding diet, underwent again an open OFC with CM to re‐evaluate their threshold. Eventually, a new OIT course was started using the same OIT protocol of the previous attempt, maintaining cotreatment with OML for the first 12 months. For each patient, we documented: the threshold of CM at OFC, level of specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgG4 for milk, and quality of life (QoL).

Results

During OIT the four patients experienced no reactions or extremely mild ones (oral itching, transient mild abdominal pain). All increased their threshold of CM in OML if compared with the baseline and maintained it long after that biologic therapy had discontinued. Specific milk proteins IgG4 levels significantly increased in all.

Conclusion

In this series, OML was effective in patients with severe CM allergy who had previously failed OIT, allowing milk intake without adverse reactions and improving the QoL.

Biologics as treatment options for anaphylaxis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide the most recent insights in the use of biologicals in the treatment of patients with anaphylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is evidence that biologics such as omalizumab may be safe and effective in preventing anaphylactic reactions in patients at high risk mainly because of severe food allergy or desensitization procedures to food, airborne allergen, drugs, or hymenoptera venom.

SUMMARY

Further knowledge will guide the adoption and implementation of any new therapy including biologics for anaphylaxis according to the stratification of risk/benefits.

Pathogenesis of IgE-mediated food allergy and implications for future immunotherapeutics

Our understanding of the immune basis of food allergy has grown rapidly in parallel with the development of new immune-targeted interventions for the treatment of food allergy. Local tissue factors, including the composition of skin and gastrointestinal microbiota and production of Th2-inducing cytokines (TSLP, IL-33, and IL-25) from barrier sites, have been shown not only to contribute to the development of food allergy, but also to act as effective targets for treatment in mice. Ongoing clinical trials are testing the targeting of these factors in human disease. There is a growing understanding of the contribution of IL-13 to the induction of high-affinity IgE and the need for continual T-cell help in the maintenance of long-lived IgE. This provides a strong rationale to test biologics targeting both IL-4 and IL-13 in the treatment of established food allergy. Various forms of allergen immunotherapy for food allergy have clearly shown that low specific IgE and elevated specific IgG4 are predictive of sustained treatment effect. Treatments that mimic that immune response, for example, lowering IgE, with monoclonal antibodies such as omalizumab, or administering allergen-specific IgG, are in various stages of investigation. As we gain more opportunities to use immune-modifying treatments for the treatment of food allergy, studies of the immune and clinical response to those interventions will continue to rapidly advance our understanding of the immune basis of food allergy and tolerance.

Combining Anti-IgE Monoclonal Antibodies and Oral Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Food Allergy

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy is a real public health problem worldwide. The prevalence of food allergy is particularly high in children. Patients with food allergy experience high morbidity with a change in quality of life due to the risk of severe anaphylaxis. Current treatment options are poor. Allergen avoidance is widely recommended but exposes patients to accidental ingestion. Oral immunotherapy is also used in patients with food allergies to the most common allergens. Oral immunotherapy consists of a daily administration of small, gradually increasing amounts of allergens to induce desensitisation. This procedure aims at inducing immune tolerance to the ingested food allergens. However, some patients experience adverse reactions and discontinue oral immunotherapy.Given that IgE plays a crucial role in food allergy and anti-IgE are effective in allergic asthma, the use of anti-IgE therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) such as omalizumab has been assessed in food allergy patients. The use of omalizumab as a monotherapy in food allergy has not been extensively studied but looks promising. There is more published evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab and oral immunotherapy in food allergy. Given the promising results of oral immunotherapy regarding sustained tolerance in clinical trials and the potential capacity of omalizumab to reduce symptoms in case of accidental exposure, a strategy combining oral immunotherapy with omalizumab pre-treatment has been suggested as a safer option in patients with severe food allergy compared to isolated therapy. Omalizumab seems useful in ensuring safer administration of oral immunotherapy with the oral immunotherapy maintenance dose being reached more rapidly. Quality-of-life improvement is greater with oral immunotherapy + omalizumab compared to oral immunotherapy alone. Moreover, sustained unresponsiveness is achieved more frequently with omalizumab. Considering that precision medicine and personalised therapy are major goals for allergic diseases, predictive biomarkers are crucial in order to identify food allergy patients more likely to benefit from anti-IgE therapies.

Clinical Manifestations of Pediatric Food Allergy: a Contemporary Review

Food allergies (FAs) are an emerging health care issue, and a "second wave of the allergy epidemic" was named. There are extensive data that documented the prevalence rate as high as approximately 10%. FAs are immunological adverse reactions, including IgE-mediated mechanisms, cell-mediated mechanisms, or mixed IgE- and cell-mediated mechanisms. A diagnosis of FA is made by specific symptoms encounter with food, detailed past history, sensitization tests, and oral food challenges (OFCs) if necessary. The component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) test can distinguish true or cross-reaction. "Minimal elimination" from the results of CRD and OFC could avoid unnecessary food restriction. Strict food limitation is harsh and stressful on patients and their families. Children with FAs experience a higher rate of post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and bullying than others. In the last 20 years, oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) are treatment strategies. OIT and EPIT are the most two encouraging treatments for FA. This review aims to introduce FAs in diverse clinical disorders, new perspectives, and their practical implications in diagnosing and treating FA.

Bringing the Next Generation of Food Allergy Diagnostics into the Clinic

Food allergy diagnosis has a massive impact on the lives of patients and their families. Despite recent developments with specific IgE to component allergens, a significant proportion of patients assessed for possible food allergy require oral food challenge to ensure an accurate diagnosis. More precise diagnostic methods are required to reduce the need for oral food challenges. Bead-based epitope assays and cellular tests, such as basophil activation and mast cell tests are the most novel and promising tests on the horizon. There is a pathway to pursue to enable their incorporation in clinical practice, including standardization, technical validation, clinical validation, external validation, overcoming practical and logistical issues, and regulatory approval. Valuable clinical application of these tests goes beyond diagnosis and includes risk assessment to identify allergic patients who are most sensitive and at risk for severe allergic reactions, and to define prognosis and assess clinical response to immunomodulatory treatments.

Immune changes beyond Th2 pathways during rapid multifood immunotherapy enabled with omalizumab

BACKGROUND

Multifood oral immunotherapy (mOIT) with adjunctive anti-IgE (omalizumab, XOLAIR^® ) treatment affords safe, effective, and rapid desensitization to multiple foods, although the specific immune mechanisms mediating this desensitization remain to be fully elucidated.

METHODS

Participants in our phase 2 mOIT trial (NCT02643862) received omalizumab from baseline to week 16 and mOIT from week 8 to week 36. We compared the immune profile of PBMCs and plasma taken at baseline, week 8, and week 36 using high-dimensional mass cytometry, component-resolved diagnostics, the indirect basophil activation test, and Luminex.

RESULTS

We found (i) decreased frequency of IL-4⁺ peanut-reactive CD4⁺ T cells and a marked downregulation of GPR15 expression and CXCR3 frequency among γδ and CD8⁺ T-cell subsets at week 8 during the initial, omalizumab-alone induction phase; (ii) significant upregulation of the skin-homing receptor CCR4 in peanut-reactive CD4⁺ T and Th2 effector memory (EM) cells and of cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen (CLA) in peanut-reactive CD8⁺ T and CD8⁺ EM cells; (iii) downregulation of CD86 expression among antigen-presenting cell subsets; and (iv) reduction in pro-inflammatory cytokines, notably IL-17, at week 36 post-OIT. We also observed significant attenuation of the Th2 phenotype post-OIT, defined by downregulation of IL-4 peanut-reactive T cells and OX40 in Th2EM cells, increased allergen component-specific IgG4/IgE ratio, and decreased allergen-driven activation of indirectly sensitized basophils.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study provides novel comprehensive insight into the immune underpinnings of desensitization through omalizumab-facilitated mOIT. Moreover, this study provides encouraging results to support the complex immune changes that can be induced by OIT.

Novel Approaches in the Inhibition of IgE-Induced Mast Cell Reactivity in Food Allergy

Allergy is an IgE-dependent type-I hypersensitivity reaction that can lead to life-threatening systemic symptoms such as anaphylaxis. In the pathogenesis of the allergic response, the common upstream event is the binding of allergens to specific IgE, inducing cross-linking of the high-affinity FcεRI on mast cells, triggering cellular degranulation and the release of histamine, proteases, lipids mediators, cytokines and chemokines with inflammatory activity. A number of novel therapeutic options to curb mast cell activation are in the pipeline for the treatment of severe allergies. In addition to anti-IgE therapy and allergen-specific immunotherapy, monoclonal antibodies targeted against several key Th2/alarmin cytokines (i.e. IL-4Rα, IL-33, TSLP), active modification of allergen-specific IgE (i.e. inhibitory compounds, monoclonal antibodies, de-sialylation), engagement of inhibitory receptors on mast cells and allergen-specific adjuvant vaccines, are new promising options to inhibit the uncontrolled release of mast cell mediators upon allergen exposure. In this review, we critically discuss the novel approaches targeting mast cells limiting allergic responses and the immunological mechanisms involved, with special interest on food allergy treatment.

Oral immunotherapy in severe cow's milk allergic patients treated with omalizumab: Real life survey from a Spanish registry

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy is a frequent treatment for the management of food allergies, but adverse events (AE) are common. This study assessed the outcome of cow's milk oral immunotherapy (MOIT) in severe cow`s milk-allergic patients treated with omalizumab in a real-life setting.

METHODS

OmaBASE was a national, multicenter, open, and observational registry that collected clinical, immunologic, and treatment from patients with food allergy receiving omalizumab.

RESULTS

Data derived from 58 patients aged 10.3 years (IQR 6.3-13.2) and median milk-specific IgE 100 kU_A /L at the start of omalizumab treatment. Most had experienced anaphylaxis by accidental exposures (70.7%) and had asthma (81.0%). Omalizumab in monotherapy induced tolerance to ≥6000 mg of cow's milk protein (CMP) to 34.8% of patients tested by oral food challenge. Omalizumab combined with MOIT conferred desensitization to ≥6000 mg of CMP to 83.0% of patients. Omalizumab withdrawal triggered more AE (P = .013) and anaphylaxis (P = .001) than no discontinuation. Anaphylaxis was observed in 36.4% of patients who discontinued omalizumab, and more in those with sudden (50.0%) rather than progressive (12.5%) discontinuation. At database closure, 40.5% of patients who had completed follow-up tolerated CMP without omalizumab (7.2% 1500-4500 mg; 33.3% ≥6000 mg).

CONCLUSION

Milk oral immunotherapy initiated under omalizumab allows the desensitization of subjects with severe cow's milk allergy even after omalizumab discontinuation. However, discontinuation of omalizumab can lead to severe AE and should be carefully monitored.

Precision medicine for cow's milk immunotherapy in clinical practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several novel immunotherapies have recently been reported for the treatment of cow's milk allergy (CMA). However, systematic methods for the selection of immunotherapy in clinical practice have not been investigated. In this review, we have provided suggestions for safe and effective immunotherapy for patients with CMA.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies on cow's milk immunotherapy, using lower target doses, heated or baked cow's milk, combination treatment with adjuvants, or various routes of immunotherapy, included school-aged children with severe allergies, infants, and patients with mild CMA. These patients were administered various maintenance doses for various time periods. In the selection of immunotherapy, it would be useful to consider the patient's age and CMA severity at baseline: threshold dose, history of cow's milk anaphylaxis, and cow's milk-specific IgE levels.

SUMMARY

Considering the risks and benefits for patients with CMA, appropriate treatment should be selected based on the current evidence. Low-dose oral immunotherapy may be useful in clinical practice for school-aged children with severe CMA. Additional studies are needed to assess the indications for immunotherapy to select appropriate treatments in real-life settings.

Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis During Oral Immunotherapy

Food allergies are antigen-driven diseases that can lead to IgE-mediated reactions of immediate hypersensitivity (eg, anaphylaxis triggered by a single food) or non-IgE reactions of delayed hypersensitivity such as eosinophilic esophagitis (eg, inability to eat multiple foods manifesting as abdominal pain, choking, dysphagia, vomiting, reflux, food impaction). Although both types of disease have their own unique set of challenges in diagnosis and management, it is a particularly vexing problem when a patient is afflicted by both conditions. This situation can happen when individuals with IgE-mediated food allergy undergo desensitization using currently available forms of oral immunotherapy. In this Grand Rounds Review, we review diagnostic approaches to oral immunotherapy-associated eosinophilic esophagitis, potential relationships between primary and secondary eosinophilic esophagitis, potential management approaches, areas of uncertainty, and upcoming research. Optimally supporting patients in their journey with food allergy requires shared decision making regarding alternative management strategies and the stimulation of robust research.

Immunonutrition for Pediatric Patients With Cow's Milk Allergy: How Early Interventions Could Impact Long-Term Outcomes

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common food allergies and one of the main causes of food-induced anaphylaxis in the pediatric age. Moreover, up to 45% of CMA children develop other atopic manifestations later in life, a phenomenon commonly named atopic march. Thus, CMA imposes a significant cost to health care systems as well as to families, and has emerged as one of the most expensive allergic diseases. The immunonutrition strategy builds its foundation on the ability of selected dietary factors to modulate immune system development and function. Recent studies highlighted the potential of immunonutrition in the management of CMA. This review is focused on the mechanisms and long-term clinical outcomes of the immunonutrition approach in children with CMA.

Monoclonal Antibodies in Treating Food Allergy: A New Therapeutic Horizon

Food allergy (FA) is a pathological immune response, potentially deadly, induced by exposure to an innocuous and specific food allergen. To date, there is no specific treatment for FAs; thus, dietary avoidance and symptomatic medications represent the standard treatment for managing them. Recently, several therapeutic strategies for FAs, such as sublingual and epicutaneous immunotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, have shown long-term safety and benefits in clinical practice. This review summarizes the current evidence on changes in treating FA, focusing on monoclonal antibodies, which have recently provided encouraging data as therapeutic weapons modifying the disease course.

Tolerance development in cow's milk-allergic infants receiving amino acid-based formula: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tolerance development is an important clinical outcome for infants with cow's milk allergy.

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study (NTR3725) evaluated tolerance development to cow's milk (CM) and safety of an amino acid-based formula (AAF) including synbiotics (AAF-S) comprising prebiotic oligosaccharides (oligofructose, inulin) and probiotic Bifidobacterium breve M-16V in infants with confirmed IgE-mediated CM allergy.

METHODS

Subjects aged ≤13 months with IgE-mediated CM allergy were randomized to receive AAF-S (n = 80) or AAF (n = 89) for 12 months. Stratification was based on CM skin prick test wheal size and study site. After 12 and 24 months, CM tolerance was evaluated by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. A logistic regression model used the all-subjects randomized data set.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean ± SD age was 9.36 ± 2.53 months. At 12 and 24 months, respectively, 49% and 62% of subjects were CM tolerant (AAF-S 45% and 64%; AAF 52% and 59%), and not differ significantly between groups. During the 12-month intervention, the number of subjects reporting at least 1 adverse event did not significantly differ between groups; however, fewer subjects required hospitalization due to serious adverse events categorized as infections in the AAF-S versus AAF group (9% vs 20%; P = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

After 12 and 24 months, CM tolerance was not different between groups and was in line with natural outgrowth. Results suggest that during the intervention, fewer subjects receiving AAF-S required hospitalization due to infections.

The use of biologics in food allergy

BACKGROUND

Food allergy continues to pose problems due to its increased frequency and its increasingly high severity. In this context, alongside the traditional avoidance strategies of allergenic foods and desensitization through the cautious progression of exposure to foods in the context of oral immunotherapy (OIT), alternative strategies have made their way in the last decades. We review the possibilities of intervention in food allergy with the use of biological drugs capable of interfering with the synthesis of IgE, with their mechanisms of action, or with complex biological mechanisms that lead to the establishment of a food allergy.

METHODS

Repeated Entrez PubMed searches using the template algorithm "Food allergy" and "biologics" or "Omalizumab" or "Dupilumab" or "milk desensitization" or "oral tolerance induction" or "oral immunotherapy" or "Etokimab" or "Tezepelumab" or "Quilizumab" or "Ligelizumab" or "Tralokinumab" or "Nemolizumab" or "Mepolizumab" or "Reslizumab" or "Benralizumab". The authors' clinical experience in paediatric allergy units of University hospitals was also drawn upon.

RESULTS

The landscape in this context has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. We have acquired knowledge mainly on the effect of different types of anti-IgE treatments in poliallergic patients with food allergy, and in patients treated with OIT. However, other mediators are being targeted by specific biologic treatments. Among them, the alarmins Il-33 and TSLP, IL-4 and IL-13, eosinophil-related molecules as IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, and mostly IL-5, and integrins involved in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs), as SIGLEC-8.

CONCLUSIONS

The ever-better knowledge of the mechanisms of food allergy allowing these developments will improve not only the perspective of patients with the most serious immediate food allergies such as anaphylaxis, but also those of patients with related diseases such as atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and EGIDs. Biologics are also intended to complement OIT strategies that have developed over the years.

Omalizumab as monotherapy for food allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To familiarize the reader with the most recent insights in the use of Omalizumab (monoclonal anti-immunoglobulin E) monotherapy in the treatment of patients with severe food allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current data from early stage clinical trials show that Omalizumab may be safe and effective by itself in providing desensitization to one or several foods without requiring allergen exposure.

SUMMARY

In the near future, advances in knowledge will guide the adoption and implementation of any new therapy for food allergy and allow the development of a personalized treatment tailored on the specific patient's profile.

One Hundred Ten Years of Allergen Immunotherapy: A Broad Look Into the Future

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment option for patients with type 1-mediated allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis with/without allergic asthma. Although many innovations have been developed since the first clinical report of Noon et al in 1911, the improvement of clinical efficacy and tolerability of this treatment is still an important unmet need. Hence, much progress has been made in the characterization of the cell types, cytokines, and intracellular signaling events involved in the development, maintenance, and regulation of allergic reactions, and also in the understanding of the mechanisms of tolerance induction in AIT. This comprehensive review aims to summarize the current innovative approaches in AIT, but also gives an outlook on promising candidates of the future. On the basis of an extensive literature review, integrating a clinical point of view, this article focuses on recent and future innovations regarding biologicals, allergen-derived peptides, recombinant allergens, "Toll"-like receptor agonists and other adjuvants, and novel application routes being developed for future AIT.

Food Allergy: Catering for the Needs of the Clinician

The practice of food allergy (FA) for clinicians has boomed, with a dramatic rise in the number of patients and families seeking care and with many advances on several fronts. The practice itself sometimes is evidence-based science and sometimes an art of pattern and phenotype recognition. This article examines the tools for diagnosis and management and therapy options available to physicians providing care for patients with FA. The article touches on pressing needs of clinicians and highlights the rapid and important movements in national and international support and advances that will have a positive impact on the field of FA.

Oral immunotherapy in food allergies: A practical update for pediatricians

Food oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising treatment for persistent and severe food allergies (FAs) in children, but also for accelerating tolerance to cow's milk and cooked egg in young children. In the near future, pediatricians will increasingly encounter severely allergic children undergoing FA-OIT. FA-OIT consists in daily ingestion of increasing doses of the allergen during the up-dosing phase, and ingestion of a constant dose during the maintenance phase. The global aim is to increase the reactive threshold of allergic patients, and finally enable them to ingest a target quantity of allergen without any reaction throughout the treatment (desensitization). Many studies showed the efficacy of FA-OIT in desensitization, and some of them in sustained unresponsiveness. This corresponds to tolerance after FA-OIT discontinuation, especially for cow's milk and hen's egg allergy. However, there is an ongoing debate about the safety of the treatment. Side effects are frequent, notably aversion to the allergen and oral syndromes as well as systemic allergic symptoms. These reactions occur mainly during the up-dosing phase and become less frequent with time, but they are common causes of FA-OIT discontinuation. Patients and their families must be trained to manage these reactions at home. Long-term side effects can also occur, such as eosinophilic esophagitis. Pediatricians play an important role in maintaining patient motivation; they also provide knowledge on possible allergic reactions and the reactogenic cofactors (mainly fever and viral infection, anti-inflammatory intake, physical activity), and refer the patient to the relevant specialists in the case of long-term care. Other routes of administration for food immunotherapy (epicutaneous and sublingual) and different adjuvant treatments (probiotics, anti-IgE molecule) are currently under study. This will allow us to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy and reduce the risk of any side effects, in order to provide a more favorable risk-benefit ratio.

Effect of oral immunotherapy in children with milk allergy: The ORIMA study

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy (OIT) in children with severe cow's milk allergy.

METHODS

The subjects comprised 28 children (aged 3-12 years) with allergic symptoms that were induced by ≤ 10 mL of cow's milk in an oral food challenge test (OFC). The subjects were randomly allocated to the treatment group (n = 14) and control group (n = 14); the former received rush immunotherapy for 2 weeks, followed by a gradual increase of cow's milk volume to 100 mL for 1 year, and the latter completely eliminated cow's milk for 1 year. Both groups underwent an OFC with 100 mL of cow's milk after 1 year.

RESULTS

The treatment group had significantly higher rates of a negative OFC [7/14 (50%) vs. 0/14 (0%), p < 0.01] compared with the control group. The cow's milk-specific IgE level significantly decreased in the treatment group (p < 0.01) but not in the control group (p = 0.63). During the study period, adrenaline was required in 6/14 patients (43%) of the treatment group and in 0/14 patients (0%) of the control group. Long follow-up data were available at the 2-year point after the study for 8 in the treatment group and 7 (87.5%) of these continued to ingest milk (>100 mL).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of immunotherapy was 50%, but the incidence of adverse events was not low. Further studies focusing on safety is necessary to standardize OIT for cow's milk allergy.

Biologics in food allergy: up-to-date

Introduction: In recent years, the advent of immunotherapy has remarkably improved the management of IgE-mediated food allergy. However, some barriers still exist. Therefore, the effort of researchers aims to investigate new perspectives in the field of non-allergen specific therapy, also based on the current knowledge of the pathogenesis of this disease.Areas covered: This review aims to focus on the role of biologics as a treatment option in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. These agents are characterized by their ability to inactivate the Th2 pro-inflammatory pathways. Biologics can be used both alone and in association with immunotherapy. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE, the IL-4/IL-13 axis, IL-5, and alarmins have been proposed and investigated for treating food allergy.Expert opinion: The clinical efficacy and safety of biologics have been demonstrated in several preclinical studies and randomized controlled trials. Future studies are still required to address current unmet needs, including the identification of the optimal dose to be used by ensuring the effectiveness of therapy.

Biologics and Novel Therapies for Food Allergy

Food allergy is a significant public health burden affecting around 10% of adults and 8% of children. Although the first peanut oral immunotherapy product received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2020, there is still an unmet need for more effective therapeutic options that minimize the risk of anaphylaxis, nutritional deficiencies, and patient's quality of life. Biologics are promising modalities, as they may improve compliance, target multiple food allergies, and treat other concomitant atopic diseases. Although omalizumab has been evaluated extensively, most biologics are more novel and have broader immunologic impact. Careful evaluation of their safety profile should therefore be conducted.

Delivery of Orally Administered Digestible Antibodies Using Nanoparticles

Oral administration of medications is highly preferred in healthcare owing to its simplicity and convenience; however, problems of drug membrane permeability can arise with any administration method in drug discovery and development. In particular, commonly used monoclonal antibody (mAb) drugs are directly injected through intravenous or subcutaneous routes across physical barriers such as the cell membrane, including the epithelium and endothelium. However, intravenous administration has disadvantages such as pain, discomfort, and stress. Oral administration is an ideal route for mAbs. Nonetheless, proteolysis and denaturation, in addition to membrane impermeability, pose serious challenges in delivering peroral mAbs to the systemic circulation, biologically, through enzymatic and acidic blocks and, physically, through the small intestinal epithelium barrier. A number of clinical trials have been performed using oral mAbs for the local treatment of gastrointestinal diseases, some of which have adopted capsules or tablets as formulations. Surprisingly, no oral mAbs have been approved clinically. An enteric nanodelivery system can protect cargos from proteolysis and denaturation. Moreover, mAb cargos released in the small intestine may be delivered to the systemic circulation across the intestinal epithelium through receptor-mediated transcytosis. Oral Abs in milk are transported by neonatal Fc receptors to the systemic circulation in neonates. Thus, well-designed approaches can establish oral mAb delivery. In this review, I will introduce the implementation and possibility of delivering orally administered mAbs with or without nanoparticles not only to the local gastrointestinal tract but also to the systemic circulation.

An Approach to the Office-Based Practice of Food Oral Immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) provides an active treatment option for patients with food allergies. OIT may improve quality of life and raise the threshold at which a patient with food allergy may react to an allergen, but it is a rigorous therapy that requires a high degree of commitment by the clinician, patients, and families. Recent guidelines from the Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology have provided a framework for the ethical, evidence-based, and patient-oriented clinical practice of OIT, and the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology guidelines have also recommended that OIT can be used as a potential treatment. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of an OIT pharmaceutical has accelerated the adoption of OIT. This review provides a summary of the recent Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines and a consensus of practical experience of clinicians across the United States and Canada related to patient selection, office and staff preparation, the general OIT process, OIT-related reaction management, and treatment outcomes.