Long-term sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: Clinical and immunologic evidence of desensitization

New Insights in Therapy for Food Allergy

Food allergy is an increasing problem worldwide, with strict avoidance being classically the only available reliable treatment. The main objective of this review is to cover the latest information about the tools available for the diagnosis and treatment of food allergies. In recent years, many efforts have been made to better understand the humoral and cellular mechanisms involved in food allergy and to improve the strategies for diagnosis and treatment. This review illustrates IgE-mediated food hypersensitivity and provides a current description of the diagnostic strategies and advances in different treatments. Specific immunotherapy, including different routes of administration and new therapeutic approaches, such as hypoallergens and nanoparticles, are discussed in detail. Other treatments, such as biologics and microbiota, are also described. Therefore, we conclude that although important efforts have been made in improving therapies for food allergies, including innovative approaches mainly focusing on efficacy and safety, there is an urgent need to develop a set of basic and clinical results to help in the diagnosis and treatment of food allergies.

Food Sublingual Immunotherapy Using Consistent, Cheaper and Customizable Oral Immunotherapy Solutions

Food SLIT (sublingual immunotherapy) is a food desensitization method with a daily maintenance dose of <10 mg for up to 5 years. Many protocols use commercially available skin test extracts. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) treatment solutions have consistent protein concentrations, are comparatively cheaper and customizable and therefore were adapted for use in a published SLIT dosing schedule.

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.

Update on food allergy

Food allergy is a major public health issue with growing prevalence in the urbanized world and significant impact on the lives of allergic patients and their families. Research into the risk factors that have contributed to this increase and their underlying immune mechanisms could lead us to definitive ways for treatment and prevention of food allergy. For the time being, introduction of peanut and other allergenic foods in the diet at the time of weaning seems to be an effective way to prevent the development of food allergy. Improved diagnosis and appropriate management and support of food allergic patients are central to patient care with food immunotherapy and biologics making the transition to clinical practice. With the new available treatments, it is becoming increasingly important to include patients' and family preferences to provide a management plan tailored to their needs.

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.

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.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for treatment of peanut allergy: Follow-up from the Consortium for Food Allergy Research

BACKGROUND

Consortium for Food Allergy Research investigators previously reported 52-week outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy, observing modest and statistically significant induction of desensitization, highest in children ages 4 to 11 years.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate changes in efficacy, safety, and mechanistic parameters following extended open-label peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy.

METHODS

Peanut-allergic participants (4-25 years) received 52 weeks of placebo (PLB), Viaskin Peanut 100 μg (VP100) or 250 μg (VP250), and then crossed over to VP250 for PLB (PLB-VP250) and VP100 (VP100-VP250) participants and continued treatment for VP250 participants (total = 130 weeks of active epicutaneous immunotherapy). Efficacy was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (5044 mg peanut protein), and adherence, safety, and mechanistic parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

At week 130, desensitization success was achieved in 1 of 20 (5%) PLB-VP250, 5 of 24 (20.8%) VP100-VP250, and 9 of 25 (36%) VP250 participants, with median successfully consumed dose change from baseline of 11.5 mg, 141.5 mg, and 400 mg, respectively. Median age (years) for week 130 desensitization success was 6.2 years (interquartile range, 5.2-9.1) versus 9.4 years (interquartile range, 7.6-12.8) for failures (P < .001). Adherence was 96%. Adverse reactions were predominantly local patch-site reactions. Significant increases in peanut- and Ara h2-specific IgG4 observed at week 52 persisted to week 130. By a post hoc analysis, there were no statistically significant increases from week 52 to week 130 in either desensitization success or successfully consumed dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended treatment with VP250 was well tolerated, and desensitization observed at week 52 persisted between weeks 52 and 130. Treatment success was observed predominantly in younger participants, with younger age at initiation of active therapy an important predictor of success.

Current Insights into Immunotherapy Approaches for Food Allergy

In the last decade, there has been increasing research dedicated to food immunotherapy to induce clinical desensitization and provide protection by increasing clinical reaction thresholds. Results from recent food immunotherapy studies with differing routes of administration (oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous) suggest that food immunotherapy can induce clinical desensitization with varying levels of safety, however lasting tolerance has not been demonstrated. Furthermore, treatment side effects and dosing logistics may make the therapies difficult for some supporting the need for alternative treatment approaches. Peptide immunotherapy and DNA vaccine approaches should in theory allow for safer administration by decreasing allergenicity but proof of their clinical efficacy and immunogenicity remains to be proven. Biologic agents may allow for increased safety and rapid up-dosing of immunotherapy with the added benefit of treating multiple allergens simultaneously.

A High Proportion of Canadian Allergists Offer Oral Immunotherapy but Barriers Remain

BACKGROUND

Limited data on clinical implementation of oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been reported with incomplete evaluation of barriers.

OBJECTIVE

To survey Canadian allergists on their current practice of OIT and barriers to implementation and expansion of OIT.

METHODS

A survey investigating current practice and logistical and clinical barriers to offering or expanding OIT was distributed to all Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology allergists.

RESULTS

Of 90 responding allergists, 52.2% reported offering OIT, most commonly to peanut. Food sublingual immunotherapy was offered by 7% of allergists. Having received training for OIT was associated with currently performing OIT (P = .008); 44.7% of allergists offering OIT had received training on OIT, and 81.4% not offering OIT had no training. A total of 87% of allergists performing OIT reported lack of efficacy data and lack of support staff and clinic space, and concerns about increased oral challenges (84%) were "moderately" to "extremely" important barriers to expanding OIT. For clinicians not offering OIT, concerns about safety (95%), after-hours support (95%), efficacy (93%), medicolegal risk (93%), and long-term practice implications (93%) were prioritized as significant barriers. Qualitative assessment suggested concerns about the practical challenges associated with OIT, the need for increased safety and efficacy data, and a desire for OIT guidelines and training.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of OIT faces many barriers, both clinical and logistical. Increasing high-quality safety and efficacy data may support those hesitant to offer OIT, and improving funding may address the practical infrastructure challenges. In addition, training will help expand access for allergists interested in performing OIT.

Oral Immunotherapy and Basophil and Mast Cell Reactivity in Food Allergy

Basophil activation tests (BATs) can closely monitor, in vitro, a patient's propensity to develop type I hypersensitivity reactions. Because of their high specificity and sensitivity, BATs have become promising diagnostic tools, especially in cases with equivocal clinical histories, skin prick test results, and/or levels of specific IgE to allergen extracts. BATs also are useful as tools for monitoring the effects of treatment, since oral immunotherapy (OIT) studies report a diminution in patients' basophil responsiveness over the course of OIT. This review will discuss the BAT findings obtained before, during, and after OIT for food allergy. We will mainly focus on the association of basophil responsiveness, and alterations in basophil surface markers, with clinical outcomes and other clinical features, such as blood levels of specific IgG and IgE antibodies. The detailed analysis of these correlations will ultimately facilitate the use of BATs, along with other blood biomarkers, to differentiate short-term desensitization versus sustained unresponsiveness and to improve treatment protocols. Given the critical anatomic location of mast cells adjacent to the many IgE+ plasma cells found in the gastrointestinal tissues of allergic individuals, we will also discuss the role of gastrointestinal mast cells in manifestations of food allergies.

Biomarkers for diagnosis and prediction of therapy responses in allergic diseases and asthma

Modern health care requires a proactive and individualized response to diseases, combining precision diagnosis and personalized treatment. Accordingly, the approach to patients with allergic diseases encompasses novel developments in the area of personalized medicine, disease phenotyping and endotyping, and the development and application of reliable biomarkers. A detailed clinical history and physical examination followed by the detection of IgE immunoreactivity against specific allergens still represents the state of the art. However, nowadays, further emphasis focuses on the optimization of diagnostic and therapeutic standards and a large number of studies have been investigating the biomarkers of allergic diseases, including asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, food allergy, urticaria and anaphylaxis. Various biomarkers have been developed by omics technologies, some of which lead to a better classification of distinct phenotypes or endotypes. The introduction of biologicals to clinical practice increases the need for biomarkers for patient selection, prediction of outcomes and monitoring, to allow for an adequate choice of the duration of these costly and long‐lasting therapies. Escalating healthcare costs together with questions about the efficacy of the current management of allergic diseases require further development of a biomarker‐driven approach. Here, we review biomarkers in diagnosis and treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, viral infections, chronic rhinosinusitis, food allergy, drug hypersensitivity and allergen immunotherapy with a special emphasis on specific IgE, the microbiome and the epithelial barrier. In addition, EAACI guidelines on biologicals are discussed within the perspective of biomarkers.

Emerging Therapies for Peanut Allergy

Peanut allergy (PA) is a food allergy that causes an IgE-mediated type I hypersensitivity reaction. PA has become an increasing public health burden, with 2% of American children reported to have this condition in 2010. Current guidelines recommend allergen avoidance, patient education, and administration of H1 antihistamines, β2-agonists, or epinephrine based on the severity of reaction. In this review article, emerging therapies for PA are evaluated for their potential role in treating PA. Oral, epicutaneous, and sublingual immunotherapies have completed clinical trials with promising efficacy. In particular, Palforzia (AR101) is an oral immunotherapy that received Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approval in January 2020 and Viaskin Peanut is an epicutaneous immunotherapy with an anticipated FDA decision date by August 5, 2020. Furthermore, adjuvant combinations with either probiotics or anti-IgE receptor antagonists have shown an improved efficacy and safety profile compared to oral immunotherapy alone. However, immunotherapy-induced adverse reaction rates are high due to the risks associated with intentional allergen exposure. These results suggest that peanut immunotherapy has a promising role in the treatment of PA, although further studies are needed before its incorporation into standard of care.

Immunological Outcomes of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Food Allergy

IgE-mediated food allergies are caused by adverse immunologic responses to food proteins. Allergic reactions may present locally in different tissues such as skin, gastrointestinal and respiratory tract and may result is systemic life-threatening reactions. During the last decades, the prevalence of food allergies has significantly increased throughout the world, and considerable efforts have been made to develop curative therapies. Food allergen immunotherapy is a promising therapeutic approach for food allergies that is based on the administration of increasing doses of culprit food extracts, or purified, and sometime modified food allergens. Different routes of administration for food allergen immunotherapy including oral, sublingual, epicutaneous and subcutaneous regimens are being evaluated. Although a wealth of data from clinical food allergen immunotherapy trials has been obtained, a lack of consistency in assessed clinical and immunological outcome measures presents a major hurdle for evaluating these new treatments. Coordinated efforts are needed to establish standardized outcome measures to be applied in food allergy immunotherapy studies, allowing for better harmonization of data and setting the standards for the future research. Several immunological parameters have been measured in food allergen immunotherapy, including allergen-specific immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation, cytokines, and other soluble biomarkers, T cell and B cell responses and skin prick tests. In this review we discuss different immunological parameters and assess their applicability as potential outcome measures for food allergen immunotherapy that may be included in such a standardized set of outcome measures.

Novel Approaches to Food Allergy Management During COVID-19 Inspire Long-Term Change

The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has prompted a re-evaluation of our current practice of medicine. The seemingly abrupt worldwide spread of this disease resulted in immediate changes and a reduction in many allergy-focussed services and procedures. The reality of the long-term circulation of this virus in our communities requires us to evolve as a specialty. In this article, we outline current and future challenges in the management of food allergy in light of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We focus on infant food allergy prevention, management of anaphylaxis, accurate diagnosis with oral food challenges, and active management of food allergy with oral immunotherapy. This article identifies the challenges of conflicting guidelines, shortcomings of acute management approaches, and inherent system deficiencies. We offer perspectives and strategies that can be implemented now, including an evaluation of virtual care and telemedicine for the management of food allergy. The use of a shared decision-making model results in novel approaches that can benefit our patients and our specialty for years to come. COVID-19 has forced us to re-evaluate our current way of thinking about food allergy management to better treat our patients.

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: The con argument

Background

In some countries of the world, peanut allergy represents an important source of anaphylactic reactions. Traditionally treated with the avoidance of responsible allergens, this condition can also be targeted by oral peanut immunotherapy.

Methods

In this study, we review the beneficial and side effects of currently available forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT). We report the discussions resulting from the publication of a meta-analysis that brought to light the downsides of oral immunotherapy for peanuts.

Results

In some clinical situations, the risk-benefit ratio can favor peanut oral immunotherapy over avoidance. In many other situations, this is not the case. The decision must be based on the values and preferences of clinicians and patients. Those not ready to accept serious adverse effects from POIT are likely to continue the elimination diet; those motivated to achieving desensitization, and prepared to accept serious adverse effects, may choose to undergo POIT.

Conclusions

Without being prejudiced against peanut oral immunotherapy, we indicate the possible evolution of treatment for this condition is in a rapidly evolving broader scenario. Among the future options, sublingual immunotherapy, parenteral immunotherapy with modified allergens, transcutaneous immunotherapy, and the use of biologics will become important options.

[Allergic immunotherapy in children and adolescents]

L’immunothérapie spécifique allergénique nécessite l’administration répétée d’allergènes dans le but de provoquer une tolérance clinique et immunologique. C’est la seule thérapeutique à visée étiologique qui permet de modifier l’évolution de la maladie en assurant une rémission après l’interruption de la procédure. La prévention de nouvelles sensibilisations par l’immunothérapie reste discutée. Nous envisagerons dans cette revue les principaux mécanismes immunologiques et les indications de l’immunothérapie chez l’enfant et l’adolescent.

Emerging Food Allergy Biomarkers

The management of food allergy is complicated by the lack of highly predictive biomarkers for diagnosis and prediction of disease course. The measurement of food-specific IgE is a useful tool together with clinical history but is an imprecise predictor of clinical reactivity. The gold standard for diagnosis and clinical research is a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. Improvement in our understanding of immune mechanisms of disease, development of high-throughput technologies, and advances in bioinformatics have yielded a number of promising new biomarkers of food allergy. In this review, we will discuss advances in immunoglobulin measurements, the utility of the basophil activation test, T-cell profiling, and the use of -omic technologies (transcriptome, epigenome, microbiome, and metabolome) as biomarker tools in food allergy.

Basophil Activation as Marker of Clinically Relevant Allergy and Therapy Outcome

For some years now the basophil activation test (BAT) using flow cytometry has emerged as a powerful tool and sensitive marker that can be used to detect clinically relevant allergies, provide information on the severity of an allergic reaction, and monitor therapies. Compared to other in vitro diagnostic tests, BAT seems to have a better informative value in terms of clinical relevance. In general, the BAT can be used for the diagnosis of the most common forms of IgE-mediated allergy such as hymenoptera venom allergy, inhalant allergy, food allergy, and drug allergy. Various basophil markers and parameters have been established which, depending on the trigger of the respective allergy, can provide information on the clinical relevance of sensitization, on the development of natural tolerance, on trigger thresholds, and on the severity of the allergic reaction. The BAT also serves as a suitable follow-up instrument for various therapeutic approaches such as specific immunotherapy, desensitization protocols, or use of anti-IgE-antibodies for the various diseases. Quality controls for routine use, standardization, and automatization are expected to expand the range of applications for the above-mentioned indications.

Risk of shared equipment in restaurants for consumers with peanut allergy: a simulation for preparing Asian foods: A simulation for preparing Asian foods

BACKGROUND

Allergic reactions to meals consumed outside the home are common and can be severe and sometimes fatal.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the risk reduction potentially achieved by increasing an individual's threshold sensitivity to peanut (such as by means of immunotherapy) in scenarios of peanut exposure through shared kitchen materials in a restaurant setting.

METHODS

Three versions of popular peanut-containing sauces were selected to represent common ingredients used in Asian cooking. Different combinations of utensils, equipment, sauces, and test conditions were prepared by a professional chef, with or without common cleaning procedures, to represent normal daily practice. Residue amounts of peanut-containing material on kitchen equipment and utensils were measured and used for quantitative risk assessment to model the risk reduction associated with increasing an individual's threshold.

RESULTS

Shared utensils had mean residue amounts of 23 to 1519 mg peanut protein (no cleaning) and 3 to 82 mg peanut protein (after water rinse). Shared woks and pans had up to 20 mg peanut protein after rinsing. Individuals who reach a threshold of 300 mg peanut protein have a predicted relative risk reduction of 94.9% to greater than 99.99% with brief cleaning. With no cleaning, relative risk reductions were 63.5% to 91.1% for individuals with a baseline threshold of less than or equal to 100 mg peanut protein who reach a threshold of 300 mg peanut protein, increasing to 91% to 99.7% when reaching a threshold value of 1000 mg peanut protein.

CONCLUSION

In all shared kitchen material scenarios that we studied, achieving an eliciting dose of 300 or 1000 mg peanut protein seems clinically relevant for the peanut-allergic population.

Therapeutic perspectives in food allergy

BACKGROUND

In the last twenty years, several studies have been conducted in the search for new therapeutic strategies in patients with food allergy; in particular, after the failure of injection immunotherapy, three different routes of administration, oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), have been tested. The aim of this manuscript is to review OIT, SLIT, and EPIT clinical trials on food allergies and to suggest advantages and limits of the different routes of immunotherapy administration.

MAIN BODY

Of the three different routes of immunotherapy used in the treatment of food allergy, OIT is, at present, the only one actually able to induce an increase in tolerance in the majority of patients. However, its use is affected by serious secondary effects, such as major abdominal symptoms and anaphylaxis. The combination with omalizumab reduces the percentage of serious side effects. There are not many studies with SLIT for food allergy, but they have nevertheless shown that it is possible to obtain an increase in tolerance; however, this increase is modest in comparison with that obtained by OIT. EPIT, performed through the diffusion of allergens on intact skin, is the most recent form of immunotherapy. Although there are many works on EPIT carried out in laboratory animals, only few clinical studies have been published in humans. EPIT, unlike OIT and SLIT, is not responsible for systemic secondary effects such as anaphylaxis and eosinophilic oesophagitis but only for local and mild effects in areas where the devices are applied. Moreover, EPIT is characterized by high patient adherence.

CONCLUSION

OIT seems to have a prevalent application in patients who do not report previous symptoms of systemic or gastroenteric anaphylaxis, while SLIT and EPIT, in particular, could be more preferentially used in patients with a risk of anaphylaxis.

Oral and sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To critically appraise the recent most relevant studies in the rapidly advancing field of food oral and sublingual immunotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Food allergen-specific immunotherapy via oral (OIT) and sublingual route (SLIT) increases the threshold of reactivity to peanut, cow's milk, egg, wheat, and many other foods in the majority of the treated individuals. This desensitized state is contingent upon the continued ingestion of the maintenance doses of the food. Permanent oral tolerance is achievable in a smaller subset of the treated individuals. The optimal duration of therapy has not been firmly established but is likely dependent on the phenotype (severity and persistence). Efficacy of food-OIT is superior compared with SLIT, whereas the safety of OIT is less favorable. Standardization of treatment protocols, maintenance dosing, duration of therapy, target populations and harmonization of the outcomes are top priorities at this stage.

SUMMARY

OIT and SLIT represent two different routes of food allergen-specific immunotherapy. Although significant progress has been made in the last decade, both treatment modalities are still in the very early stages of development and further investigations are necessary to optimize the protocols and improve safety while maximizing efficacy.

Sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy and its future directions

Food allergy is an important medical problem with increasing prevalence throughout the world. Different approaches of food immunotherapy are being investigated including oral, epicutaneous and sublingual routes. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy involves placement of glycerinated allergen under the tongue daily to achieve allergen-specific desensitization. SLIT has been studied in the treatment of hazelnut, peach, apple, milk and peanut allergies with substantial focus on the treatment of peanut allergy. Phase II studies have shown SLIT for treatment of peanut allergy increases the tolerated dose of peanut by a substantial margin with fewer and less severe side effects than other modalities. This review discusses the mechanisms of SLIT, early studies of its use in food allergy and larger randomized controlled trials for treatment of peanut allergy. Future directions using the mechanisms involved in SLIT include oral mucosal immunotherapy for peanut allergy.

Food Allergy Management at School in the Era of Immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergy is increasing in prevalence, and management focuses on strict avoidance of known allergens and appropriately treating reactions. Any reaction has the potential to result in anaphylaxis, which can be fatal. Children spend a significant amount of time in the childcare or school setting, and interactions between families, school personnel, and clinicians are important to ensure the health and safety of children with allergies and asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review examines current food allergy guidelines and legislation, an assessment of allergen-free schools, the importance of written anaphylaxis action plans, training and education of school personnel, emerging treatment options, and the social implications of having food allergies. As the clinical use and research into food allergen immunotherapy continues to expand, an additional level of education and management is required of school personnel and caregivers. Food allergy has both medical and social implications, which are magnified in the school setting.

Sagacity in antibody humanization for therapeutics, diagnostics and research purposes: considerations of antibody elements and their roles

The humanization of antibodies for therapeutics is a critical process that can determine the success of antibody drug development. However, the science underpinning this process remains elusive with different laboratories having very different methods. Well-funded laboratories can afford automated high-throughput screening methods to derive their best binder utilizing a very expensive initial set of equipment affordable only to a few. Often within these high-throughput processes, only standard key parameters, such as production, binding and aggregation are analyzed. Given the lack of suitable animal models, it is only at clinical trials that immunogenicity and allergy adverse effects are detected through anti-human antibodies as per FDA guidelines. While some occurrences that slip through can be mitigated by additional desensitization protocols, such adverse reactions to grafted humanized antibodies can be prevented at the humanization step. Considerations such as better antibody localization, avoidance of unspecific interactions to superantigens and the tailoring of antibody dependent triggering of immune responses, the antibody persistence on cells, can all be preemptively considered through a holistic sagacious approach, allowing for better outcomes in therapy and for research and diagnostic purposes.

CSACI guidelines for the ethical, evidence-based and patient-oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging approach to the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy and is in the process of transitioning to clinical practice.

Objective

To develop patient-oriented clinical practice guidelines on oral immunotherapy based on evidence and ethical imperatives for the provision of safe and efficient food allergy management.

Materials and methods

Recommendations were developed using a reflective patient-centered multicriteria approach including 22 criteria organized in five dimensions (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociopolitical). Data was obtained from: (1) a review of scientific and ethic literature; (2) consultations of allergists, other healthcare professionals (pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, registered dieticians, psychologists, peer supporters), patients and caregivers; and patient associations through structured consultative panels, interviews and on-line questionnaire; and (3) organizational and economic data from the milieu of care. All data was synthesized by criteria in a multicriteria deliberative guide that served as a platform for structured discussion and development of recommendations for each dimension, based on evidence, ethical imperatives and other considerations.

Results

The deliberative grid included 162 articles from the literature and media reviews and data from consultations involving 85 individuals. Thirty-eight (38) recommendations were made for the practice of oral immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE mediated food allergy, based on evidence and a diversity of ethical imperatives. All recommendations were aimed at fostering a context conducive to achieving objectives identified by patients and caregivers with food allergy. Notably, specific recommendations were developed to promote a culture of shared responsibility between patients and healthcare system, equity in access, patient empowerment, shared decision making and personalization of OIT protocols to reflect patients' needs. It also provides recommendations to optimize organization of care to generate capacity to meet demand according to patient choice, e.g. OIT or avoidance. These recommendations were made acknowledging the necessity of ensuring sustainability of the clinical offer in light of various economic considerations.

Conclusions

This innovative CPG methodology was guided by patients' perspectives, clinical evidence as well as ethical and other rationales. This allowed for the creation of a broad set of recommendations that chart optimal clinical practice and define the conditions required to bring about changes to food allergy care that will be sustainable, equitable and conducive to the well-being of all patients in need.

Current Controversies and Future Prospects for Peanut Allergy Prevention, Diagnosis and Therapies

Peanut allergy has increased substantially in the past few decades, both in developed and developing countries. Peanut allergy has become a major public health concern, affecting up to 1 in 50 children, with repercussions for school and airline policies. Recent research findings have shown that, contrary to the long-standing teaching of "delayed" introduction of allergens, early introduction of peanut protein is of benefit as an allergy prevention strategy, especially in high-risk cases. Ideal dose, frequency and duration of "proactive" peanut therapy for maximum protection remain to be determined in order for it to become acceptable and practical on a large scale. Logistics around widespread screening of high-risk patients remain complex. The correct diagnosis of peanut allergy is crucial and diagnostic tests have been fine-tuned in the past 2 decades in order to help differentiate true allergy from false-positive sensitization through cross-reactivity. Component-resolved diagnostics have become routinely available, and the use of basophil activation tests has increased, although standardization and availability remain issues. Future tests, including epitope testing and histamine-release assays, promise to be even more specific in ruling out false positives and reducing the need for incremental food challenges. Stringent peanut avoidance and prompt treatment of reactions remain the cornerstone of treatment. The concept of exposing the allergic body to small amounts of peanut protein in a cautious, orderly, escalating fashion in the form of desensitization has been widely applied in the past 10-15 years, mainly in the research domain, but of late spilling over into every-day practice. However, desensitization does not equate to a cure, and has significant safety concerns and practical ramifications; probably requiring lifelong-controlled peanut ingestion for ongoing protection. Further strategies to enhance the safety and efficacy of immunotherapy are under exploration, many with a non-specific immune-modifying effect. Despite recent advances in peanut allergy, we still need to go back to basics with accurate diagnosis, nutritional counselling, well-organized allergy action plans and accessible emergency kits.

Biomarkers in Food Allergy Immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Investigational allergen immunotherapies (AITs) including oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) have proven to increase allergen thresholds required to elicit an allergic reaction in a majority of subjects. However, these studies lack consistent biomarkers to predict therapy outcomes. Here, we will review biomarkers that are currently being investigated for AIT.

RECENT FINDINGS

The mechanisms underlying the therapeutic benefit of AIT involve various cell types, including mast cells, basophils, T cells, and B cells. Skin prick and basophil activation tests assess effector cell sensitivity to allergen and are decreased in subjects on AIT. Allergen-specific IgE increases initially and decreases with continued therapy, while allergen-specific IgG and IgA increase throughout therapy. Allergen-induced regulatory T cells (Tregs) increase throughout therapy and were found to be associated with sustained unresponsiveness after OIT. Subjects on OIT and SLIT have decreased Th2 cytokine production during therapy. Although trends have been reported, a common limitation of these biomarkers is that none are able to reproducibly predict prognosis during AIT. Further studies are needed to expand the currently available biomarker repertoire to provide personalized approaches to AIT.

Sublingual Immunotherapy for Other Indications: Venom Large Local, Latex, Atopic Dermatitis, and Food

There is some evidence to support the use of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in food allergy, although its role is unclear. One randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial supports the safe and efficacious use of dust mite SLIT in children with mild to moderate atopic dermatitis, but these data have not been confirmed. Although there are several randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to support the use of SLIT-LATEX, this product is not available in the United States and extrapolation of these effects to latex extracts is unsubstantiated. There is also insufficient evidence to support the use of SLIT for venom hypersensitivity at this time.