Efficacy and Safety of AR101 in Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: Results of ARC001, a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Clinical Trial

Contribution of the Commensal Microflora to the Immunological Homeostasis and the Importance of Immune-Related Drug Development for Clinical Applications

Not long ago, self-reactive immune activity was considered as pathological trait. A paradigm shift has now led to the recognition of autoimmune processes as part of natural maintenance of molecular homeostasis. The immune system is assigned further roles beneath the defense against pathogenic organisms. Regarding the humoral immune system, the investigation of natural autoantibodies that are frequently found in healthy individuals has led to further hypotheses involving natural autoimmunity in other processes as the clearing of cellular debris or decrease in inflammatory processes. However, their role and origin have not been entirely clarified, but accumulating evidence links their formation to immune reactions against the gut microbiome. Antibodies targeting highly conserved proteins of the commensal microflora are suggested to show self-reactive properties, following the paradigm of the molecular mimicry. Here, we discuss recent findings, which demonstrate potential links of the commensal microflora to the immunological homeostasis and highlight the possible implications for various diseases. Furthermore, specific components of the immune system, especially antibodies, have become a focus of attention for the medical management of various diseases and provide attractive treatment options in the future. Nevertheless, the development and optimization of such macromolecules still represents a very time-consuming task, shifting the need to more medical agents with simple structural properties and low manufacturing costs. Synthesizing only the biologically active sites of antibodies has become of great interest for the pharmaceutical industry and offers a wide range of therapeutic application areas as it will be discussed in the present review article.

[What is the role of allergen immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy?]

In food allergy, allergen avoidance and emergency treatment are still therapeutic hallmarks but, recently, allergen immunotherapy (AIT), with different application routes, has gained more attention. In primary food allergy, oral immunotherapy has been frequently used in clinical trials. This year, an oral immunotherapy preparation for treatment of peanut allergy was licensed in Europe. In secondary food allergy, sublingual and subcutaneous extracts have been used in clinical trials, mostly with cross-reactive pollen allergens. As there is no AIT preparation licensed for this indication, therapy should only be started when there also is a need for treating associated respiratory symptoms.

Using data from food challenges to inform management of consumers with food allergy: A systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Eliciting doses (EDs) (eg, ED01 or ED05 values, which are the amounts of allergen expected to cause objective symptoms in 1% and 5% of the population with an allergy, respectively) are increasingly being used to inform allergen labeling and clinical management. These values are generated from food challenge, but the frequency of anaphylaxis in response to these low levels of allergen exposure and their reproducibility are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to determine (1) the rate of anaphylaxis in response to low-level peanut exposure and (2) the reproducibility of reaction thresholds (and anaphylaxis) at food challenge.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that reported at least 50 individuals with peanut allergy reacting to peanut at double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) and were published between January 2010 and September 2020. Risk of bias was assessed by using National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodologic checklists.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies were included (covering a total of 3151 participants, 534 of whom subsequently underwent further peanut challenge). At individual participant data meta-analysis, 4.5% (95% CI, 1.9% to 10.1%) of individuals reacted to 5 mg or less of peanut protein with anaphylaxis (moderate heterogeneity [I2 = 57%]). Intraindividual thresholds varied by up to 3 logs, although this variation was limited to a half-log change in 71.2% (95% CI, 56.2% to 82.6%) of individuals. In all, 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1% to 5.0%) of patients initially tolerated 5 mg of peanut protein but then reacted to this dose at subsequent challenge (low heterogeneity [I2 = 16%]); none developed anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Around 5% of individuals reacting to an ED01 or ED05 level of exposure to peanut might develop anaphylaxis in response to that dose. This equates to 1 and 6 anaphylaxis events per 2500 patients exposed to an ED01 or ED05 dose, respectively, in the broader population of individuals with peanut allergy.

Nanoparticles Displaying Allergen and Siglec-8 Ligands Suppress IgE-FcεRI-Mediated Anaphylaxis and Desensitize Mast Cells to Subsequent Antigen Challenge

Siglec-8 is an inhibitory receptor expressed on eosinophils and mast cells. In this study, we took advantage of a novel Siglec-8 transgenic mouse model to assess the impact of modulating IgE-dependent mast cell degranulation and anaphylaxis using a liposomal platform to display an allergen with or without a synthetic glycan ligand for Siglec-8 (Sig8L). The hypothesis is that recruitment of Siglec-8 to the IgE-FcεRI receptor complex will inhibit allergen-induced mast cell degranulation. Codisplay of both allergen and Sig8L on liposomes profoundly suppresses IgE-mediated degranulation of mouse bone marrow-derived mast cells or rat basophilic leukemia cells expressing Siglec-8. In contrast, liposomes displaying only Sig8L have no significant suppression of antigenic liposome-induced degranulation, demonstrating that the inhibitory activity by Siglec-8 occurs only when Ag and Sig8L are on the same particle. In mouse models of anaphylaxis, display of Sig8L on antigenic liposomes completely suppresses IgE-mediated anaphylaxis in transgenic mice with mast cells expressing Siglec-8 but has no protection in mice that do not express Siglec-8. Furthermore, mice protected from anaphylaxis remain desensitized to subsequent allergen challenge because of loss of Ag-specific IgE from the cell surface and accelerated clearance of IgE from the blood. Thus, although expression of human Siglec-8 on murine mast cells does not by itself modulate IgE-FcεRI-mediated cell activation, the enforced recruitment of Siglec-8 to the FcεRI receptor by Sig8L-decorated antigenic liposomes results in inhibition of degranulation and desensitization to subsequent Ag exposure.

Novel application of a discrete time-to-event model for randomized oral immunotherapy clinical trials with repeat food challenges

The evaluation of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) generally focuses on a participant passing a challenge at a predetermined dose, and does not consider the dose of reaction for those who fail or are censored due to study discontinuation. Further, a number of food allergy trials have incorporated multiple DBPCFCs throughout the duration of the study in order to evaluate changes in reaction over time including sustained unresponsiveness from treatment. Outcomes arising from these trials are commonly modeled using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests at each time point. We propose applying time-to-event methodology to food allergy trials in order to exploit the inherent granularity of challenge outcomes that additionally accommodates repeated DBPCFCs. Specifically, we consider dose-to-failure for each study challenge and extend the cumulative tolerated dose across challenges to result in a dose-time axis. A discrete time-to-event framework is applied to the dose-time outcome to assess the efficacy of treatment across the entire study period. We illustrate ideas with data from the Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Study: Safety, Efficacy and Discovery (POISED) trial, conducted at Stanford University, which evaluated the efficacy of oral immunotherapy on desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness in peanut allergic children and adults. We demonstrate the advantages of time-to-event approaches for assessing the efficacy of treatment over time and incorporating information for those who failed or were lost to follow up. Further, we introduce a dose-time outcome that is interpretable to clinicians and allows for examination of such outcomes over time.

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.

How to Incorporate Oral Immunotherapy into Your Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss how to best incorporate oral immunotherapy into your clinical practice based on recent evidence and guidelines, and address controversies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Oral immunotherapy is the food immunotherapy treatment with the most literature supporting its use. Recent data from both randomized clinical trials and real-world studies show OIT is especially safe and effective in preschoolers, while avoidance may be less safe than previously thought. OIT guidelines support its use outside of research. Oral immunotherapy can be safely and effectively incorporated into your clinical practice, with careful planning and consideration of scenarios where benefits outweigh risks. Baseline oral food challenges are necessary in clinical trials, but in clinical practice, these are best done when the history is unclear due to resource limitations. There is a role for both regular food and FDA-approved products. Future research should focus on optimizing safety and adherence in the real-world setting.

Peanut oral immunotherapy in a pediatric allergy clinic: Patient factors associated with clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Additional information is needed to inform optimal patient selection, expected outcomes, and treatment end points for clinical peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT).

OBJECTIVE

To provide insight into the optimal patient selection, expected outcomes, and treatment end points for clinical peanut oral immunotherapy by analyzing a real-world peanut OIT cohort.

METHODS

Records were reviewed for 174 children undergoing peanut OIT at a pediatric allergy clinic. Patient age, peanut skin prick test results, and peanut-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) results, with inclusion of additional foods in OIT, were analyzed for correlations with OIT outcomes.

RESULTS

To date, 144 patients have achieved maintenance dosing, 50 of whom transitioned to ad lib twice-weekly peanut ingestion. A total of 30 discontinued OIT. In addition, 47 patients who underwent multifood OIT had no significant difference in reactions (FDR-adjusted P = .48) or time-to-reach maintenance (FDR-adjusted P = .48) compared with those on peanut OIT alone. Age at initiation inversely correlated with achievement of maintenance: 92% of patients 0.5 to less than 5 years, 81% of those 5 to less than 11 years, and 70% of those 11 to less than 18 years reached and continued maintenance (P = .01). Baseline peanut-sIgE level positively correlated with number of reactions during updosing (P < .001) and maintenance (P = .005), though it was not significantly different in patients achieving successful maintenance vs those who discontinued OIT (P = .09). Furthermore, 66% of patients experienced greater than or equal to 1 adverse reaction during OIT. Of those on ad lib peanut ingestion, 2 reported mild reactions after lapses in peanut consumption.

CONCLUSION

Clinical peanut OIT has similar outcomes to research protocols. OIT can be successful in older children and those with high peanut-sIgE levels, though these factors affect outcomes. Clinical and laboratory criteria can guide successful transition to intermittent ad lib peanut consumption.

Oral delivery of therapeutic proteins bioencapsulated in plant cells: preclinical and clinical advances

Oral delivery of protein drugs (PDs) made in plant cells could revolutionize current approaches of their production and delivery. Expression of PDs reduces their production cost by elimination of prohibitively expensive fermentation, purification, cold transportation/storage, and sterile injections and increases their shelf life for several years. Ability of plant cell wall to protect PDs from digestive acids/enzymes, commensal bacteria to release PDs in gut lumen after lysis of plant cell wall and role of GALT in inducing tolerance facilitate prevention or treatment allergic, autoimmune diseases or anti-drug antibody responses. Delivery of functional proteins facilitate treatment of inherited or metabolic disorders. Recent advances in making PDs free of antibiotic resistance genes in edible plant cells, long-term storage at ambient temperature maintaining their efficacy, production in cGMP facilities, IND enabling studies for clinical advancement and FDA approval of orally delivered PDs augur well for advancing this novel drug delivery platform technology.

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.

Use of biologics in food allergy management

Food allergies are a common medical problem, with children being the most affected patient group. The standard of care of food allergy consists of the acute treatment in case of a reaction and food avoidance in the long term, which influences the quality of life of patients. In this article, current developments for the causal treatment of food allergy including specific immunotherapy and biologics will be discussed. Epicutaneous and oral immunotherapy are currently in clinical development for the treatment of food allergy, and the results demonstrate good tolerability and efficacy with an increase in the oral threshold level. Biologics and, in particular, anti-IgE are currently investigated for their therapeutic use in food allergies. The results are promising, suggesting efficacy and tolerability.

Integrating oral immunotherapy into clinical practice

In 2020, the first food allergy treatment, an oral immunotherapy (OIT) product for peanut allergy, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and a peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy patch was under review. As food allergy therapies become available and widespread, allergy offices will need to adjust practices to be able to offer their patients these new treatments. OIT is an intensive therapy that requires commitment from patients and their families, and open communication with the practice is paramount. OIT may not be the right therapy for every patient, and although identifying good candidates is still an area rich for research opportunity, experience from cohorts and clinical trials provides some insight. It is important to understand the scope of practice for each member of the OIT team based on state regulations for a particular location. Staffing and space will likely dictate how many patients at an individual office could be on active OIT at one time. Emergency medications, supplies, and protocols must be in place. Screening, scheduling, visit procedures, monitoring, home dosing, dose modifications, safety precautions, adverse reactions, and maintenance will be addressed in this article. Finally, adjunct therapies under investigation will be reviewed.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis as a Side Effect of Food Oral Immunotherapy

Food allergies (FAs) include a spectrum of immune-mediated serious and potentially life-threatening medical conditions with an overall estimated prevalence ranging from 4% to 8% in the U.S. and Europe. Significant progress in food allergen-specific immunotherapy has been accomplished over the past 10 years. The most studied strategy has been oral immunotherapy (OIT), also known as food desensitization, a treatment in which a child is slowly and deliberately given a small amount of the food to ingest (that previously was a food allergy trigger) with the ultimate goal of the child eating that food without a reaction. OIT is now recommended in the European guidelines for the treatment of milk, egg, and peanut allergies and was the first American Food Drug Administration (FDA) approved product for the prevention of severe reaction to peanuts in 4–17 year olds to be released on the market. The side effects associated with OIT treatment trials are mild to moderate, predominantly oropharyngeal, and easily treated. More severe reactions, such as generalized urticaria/angioedema, wheezing/respiratory distress, laryngeal edema, and repetitive emesis, have been reported. However systemic reactions are very rare. Low-dose immunotherapy is associated with significantly fewer side effects. Currently, its most limiting allergic side effect is that approximately 10–15% of subjects treated with OIT experience gastrointestinal symptoms, preventing the continuation of therapy. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has also been reported as a cause of persistent abdominal symptoms in OIT.

Role of orally induced regulatory T cells in immunotherapy and tolerance

Oral antigen administration to induce regulatory T cells (Treg) takes advantage of regulatory mechanisms that the gastrointestinal tract utilizes to promote unresponsiveness against food antigens or commensal microorganisms. Recently, antigen-based oral immunotherapies (OITs) have shown efficacy as treatment for food allergy and autoimmune diseases. Similarly, OITs appear to prevent anti-drug antibody responses in replacement therapy for genetic diseases. Intestinal epithelial cells and microbiota possibly condition dendritic cells (DC) toward a tolerogenic phenotype that induces Treg via expression of several mediators, e.g. IL-10, transforming growth factor-β, retinoic acid. Several factors, such as metabolites derived from microbiota or diet, impact the stability and expansion of these induced Treg, which include, but are not limited to, FoxP3⁺ Treg, LAP⁺ Treg, and/or Tr1 cells. Here, we review various orally induced Treg, their plasticity and cooperation between the Treg subsets, as well as underlying mechanisms controlling their induction and role in oral tolerance.

Evaluation of oral immunotherapy efficacy and safety by maintenance dose dependency: A multicenter randomized study

Background

Generally, oral immunotherapy (OIT) aims for daily administration. Recently, the efficacy of treatment with OIT at a low dose has been reported. However, the optimal dose and the evaluation of dose-dependent OIT outcome have not been described.

Methods

A multicenter, parallel, open-labeled, prospective, non-placebo controlled, randomized study enrolled 101 Japanese patients for treatment with OIT. We hypothesized that target dose OIT would induce short-term unresponsiveness (StU) earlier than reduced dose OIT. StU was defined as no response to 6200 mg whole egg, 3400 mg milk, and 2600 mg wheat protein, as evaluated by oral food challenge after 2-week ingestion cessation. To compare the two doses of OIT efficacy, the maximum ingestion doses during the maintenance phase of OIT were divided into 100%-dose or 25%-dose groups against their target StU dose, respectively. A total of 51 patients were assigned to the 100%-dose group [hen's egg (HE) = 26, cow's milk (CM) = 13, wheat = 12] and 50 to the 25%-dose group (HE = 25, CM = 13, wheat = 12). Primary outcome was established by comparing StU at 1 year. Secondary outcome was StU at 2 years and established by comparing allergic symptoms and immunological changes.

Results

The year 1 StU rates (%) for the 100%- and 25%-dose groups were 26.9 vs. 20.0 (HE), 7.7 vs. 15.4 (CM), and 50.0 vs. 16.7 (wheat), respectively. The year 2 StU rates were 30.8 vs. 36.0 (HE), 7.7 vs. 23.1 (CM), and 58.3 vs. 58.3 (wheat), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in StU between years 1 and 2. The total allergic symptom rate in the 25%-dose group was lower than that in the 100%-dose group for egg, milk, and wheat. Antigen-specific IgE levels for egg-white, milk, and wheat decreased at 12 months.

Conclusions

Reduced maintenance dose of egg OIT showed similar therapeutic efficacy to the target dose. However, we were not able to clearly demonstrate the efficacy, particularly for milk and wheat. Reducing the maintenance dose for eggs, milk, and wheat may effectively lower the symptoms associated with their consumption compared to the target OIT dose. Furthermore, aggressive reduction of the maintenance dose might be important for milk and wheat, compared to the 25%-dose OIT.

Trial registration

UMIN000009373, Multicenter Oral Immunotherapy for Hen's Egg, Cow's Milk, and Wheat-Allergic Children at Outpatient Clinic.

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.

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: The pro argument

Food allergy (FA) is a growing public health problem with personal, social, nutritional, and economic consequences. In the United States, it is estimated that 8% of children and 10.8% of adults have food allergies. Allergies to peanuts are particularly worrisome as unlike allergies to other allergenic foods, such as milk and egg, which are commonly outgrown by 5 or 10 years of age, 80% of peanut allergies persist into adulthood. The first drug for peanut allergy, Palforzia, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2020. For other food allergies, the current standard of care for the management of FA is suboptimal and is limited to dietary elimination of the offending allergen, vigilance against accidental ingestion, and treatment of allergic reactions with antihistamines and epinephrine. However, dietary avoidance can be challenging, and it is estimated that approximately 40% of patients with food allergies report at least one food allergy-related emergency department in their lifetime. Reactions, even from minimal exposures, can be life-threatening.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been the best researched therapeutic approach for treating FA over the last decade, with clinical trials investigating its efficacy, safety, and ability to improve participants' quality of life (QoL). A number of studies and meta-analyses have shown that OIT treatment is effective in raising the threshold of reactivity to peanuts and other foods in addition to producing a measurable serum immune response to such therapy. Although OIT-related adverse events (AEs) are common during treatment, serious reactions are rare. In fact, while the majority of patients experience AEs related to dosing, most continue daily dosing in hopes of achieving protection against the culprit food. Moreover, the majority of participants report improvement of QoL after OIT and are positive about undergoing OIT. These results show patients’ commitment to OIT and their optimism regarding the benefits of treatment. As a first step in therapeutic options to protect from reactions to unintentional ingestion of allergenic foods, and importantly, to address the many psychosocial aspects of living with FA, OIT shows promise. Future research will focus on identifying optimal OIT regimens that maintain protection after therapy and allow for regular food consumption without allergic symptoms. Education and informed shared decision making between patients and providers are essential in optimizing current therapy regimens.

Food allergy oral immunotherapy

Food allergy oral immunotherapy (OIT) has demonstrated efficacy in promoting clinically relevant immunomodulation that leads to desensitization (reduced reactivity while on OIT) in the majority of treated individuals; however, sustained unresponsiveness after OIT cessation for a specified interval has only been observed in a subset. The potential therapeutic benefits of OIT must be balanced with the risk for adverse events. These adverse events may range from self-limited or easily treated oropharyngeal, respiratory, or gastrointestinal symptoms to persistent abdominal symptoms that lead to cessation of therapy and to anaphylaxis. To date, the majority of studies have evaluated single-allergen OIT approaches; however, multi-allergen OIT has demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy outcomes, and is the subject of ongoing investigation. Recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the first licensed OIT product for peanut allergy challenges the long-standing paradigm of dietary food avoidance as the sole option for individuals with food allergy. Yet, the limitations of this "first-generation" treatment support the need for continued research and development of next-generation therapies to improve efficacy, minimize risk, and allow for broad applicability to both individuals with single-food allergy and those with multifood allergies. Optimizing future therapies will require developing novel approaches that maximize both efficacy and safety and/or tolerability outcomes, potentially through the combination with biologic therapies or adjuvants. Shared decision-making among patients, physicians, and parents and/or caregivers is critical to select optimal candidates for treatment with OIT by balancing the potential therapeutic benefit and possible risk reduction with a realistic consideration of OIT treatment burden and the risk of treatment-related adverse events.

Oral food challenges

Oral food challenge (OFC) is a procedure that is conducted most commonly by allergist/immunologists in their office or in food allergy centers to confirm a food allergy or to confirm tolerance to the food. The procedure as conducted in clinical practice is mostly open food challenge and, in research, a double-blind, placebo controlled food challenge. OFC has associated risks that can be minimized by having the challenges conducted by trained personnel who are prepared to treat allergic reactions and who have rescue medications available. However, OFCs have tremendous benefits to the patients and their families, including the potential to determine that a food is no longer an allergen and can be introduced into the diet. Even OFCs that result in clinical reactions have the benefit of confirming the food allergy and demonstrating the therapeutic effect of the rescue medications. The study of the outcomes of OFC has shed light on food allergy reactions and characteristics of the patients with food allergy as well as on the value of other diagnostic tests compared with OFC. OFCs have helped establish food allergy thresholds, confirm that subjects enrolled in research studies have the allergy, and demonstrate the response to the therapies tested in terms of ameliorating the allergic response or raising the reaction threshold. OFCs have also been used to promote the recent guidelines for the prevention of peanut allergy by identifying the infants at risk for peanut allergy but who are not allergic yet.

Pharmacotherapy in allergy medicine: from 'ipse dixit' to the evidence-based medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of the article is to examine the contributions made in recent years by evidence-based medicine to the understanding, positioning, and use of drugs for the treatment of the main allergic conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several antiasthmatic drugs have been reappraised for their efficacy characteristics and drug interactions in Cochrane reviews. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines have been reformulated in evidence-based medicine (EBM) terms in 2017; over these years, new point of care instruments contributed to the approximation of the guidelines to real life by drawing from the patients themselves information that allows to finely modeling the pharmacological suggestions. Last, at the time of the emergence of new drugs for the treatment of peanut allergy, new systematic reviews have helped to focus on the most suitable reference outcomes with the aim to respond promptly and adherently to patients' needs.

SUMMARY

EBM has contributed to changes in the GINA guidelines in the last two years. It has been instrumental in translating the ARIA guidelines in real life. It has also contributed to profiling the potential and limitations of oral peanut immunotherapy. In allergy medicine, EBM is a formidable aid for the advancement of knowledge.

A novel patient-reported outcomes instrument assessing the side effects of peanut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Patients treated with peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) may experience adverse reactions, particularly during up-dosing.

OBJECTIVE

To develop the Side Effects of Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Diary (SEPOD), an electronic questionnaire assessing the daily side effects of peanut OIT in clinical trials.

METHODS

Content and design of the SEPOD were informed by empirical literature review and meetings with 3 allergy-immunology experts. Interviews to confirm content and inform revisions were conducted in 24 pediatric patients with peanut allergy (14 treated with peanut OIT) aged 6 to 17 years; children aged 6 to 11 years were interviewed with their caregiver.

RESULTS

The SEPOD was drafted after literature review and expert interviews; the initial measurement approach comprised 2 SEPOD versions, a patient-reported outcome (PRO) version for children aged 12 to 17 years, and a caregiver-administered PRO version for children aged 6 to 11 years with instructions for caregiver questionnaire administration. Pediatric patients were expected to respond independently on both versions. Patient interviews indicated that some younger children (ie, aged 6-8 years) had difficulty understanding questions, even when reading aloud; therefore, a caregiver-administered outcome version, identical in content to the caregiver-administered PRO version, was developed for this age group. The final electronic SEPOD covered 23 peanut OIT side effects within the following 7 domains: gastrointestinal, dermatologic, itching, nasal, and respiratory, swelling (eyelid or periorbital, lip, tongue, and throat), pain (tongue, mouth, and throat), and dizziness.

CONCLUSION

This study yielded the SEPOD, a new clinical outcome assessment instrument with various methods of administration that can be used to assess the side effects of peanut OIT experienced by pediatric patients in a clinical trial setting.

Peanut Allergen Powder-dnfp: A Novel Oral Immunotherapy to Mitigate Peanut Allergy

OBJECTIVE

To review data on efficacy and safety of peanut allergen powder-dnfp (PAP; Palforzia), a novel oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, a common food allergy.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed/CINAHL search in English was performed from inception to June 30, 2020, using the search words peanut allergy, desensitization, ARA101, and peanut oral immunotherapy.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION QUANTIFICATION

Published phase 2 and 3 clinical trials, documents presented to the Food and Drug Administration, and supplemental study documentation were reviewed. Articles evaluated PAP's pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety.

DATA SYNTHESIS

PAP was efficacious and safe for treatment of peanut allergy in mostly Caucasian children, 4 to 17 years old. A key phase III clinical trial showed a statistically significant difference (primary end point) between PAP 600 mg and placebo groups (67.2% vs 4%; P < 0.001). During initial dose escalation and updosing phases, gastrointestinal and respiratory tract allergic reactions (ARs) were more common in the PAP group. More epinephrine rescue was used in the PAP group.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Oral immunotherapy for desensitization of peanut allergy was shown to reduce the severity of reactions if accidental allergen exposure occurs. Risk evaluation and mitigation strategy certification is required for pharmacies, health care providers, and clinics. More data in real-world populations will enhance its effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients 4 to 17 years old, PAP mitigated ARs, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental peanut exposure. Although there are risks, it was efficacious in more than two-thirds of participants in phase 2 and phase 3 efficacy trials.

Oral immunotherapy for treatment of peanut allergy

The US Food and Drug Administration's approval of a peanut oral immunotherapy product in January 2020 is a landmark development in the field of food allergy therapy. While food allergy prevalence has been increasing, this product is the first approved therapy for food allergy. Oral immunotherapy has many similarities to subcutaneous immunotherapy and drug desensitization protocols, but does not lead to sustained unresponsiveness. The studies leading to approval of the Palforzia product demonstrated increase in the amount of peanut protein able to be consumed, with 67% of subjects randomized to the treatment arm able to consume 600 mg of peanut protein in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge at study exit. However, side effects are an important consideration, and dropout rates in studies of Palforzia ranged from 11% to 21%. Postmarketing surveillance of this product will be critical in assessing its long-term risks and benefits.

Production of allergen-specific immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of food allergy

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (IT) is emerging as a viable avenue for the treatment of food allergies. Clinical trials currently investigate raw or slightly processed foods as therapeutic agents, as trials using food-grade agents can be performed without the strict regulations to which conventional drugs are subjected. However, this limits the ability of standardization and may affect clinical trial outcomes and reproducibility. Herein, we provide an overview of methods used in the production of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of food allergies, including processed foods, allergen extracts, recombinant allergens, and synthetic peptides, as well as the physical and chemical processes for the reduction of protein allergenicity. Commercial interests currently favor producing standardized drug-grade allergen extracts for therapeutic use, and clinical trials are ongoing. In the near future, recombinant production could replace purification strategies since it allows the manufacturing of pure, native allergens or sequence-modified allergens with reduced allergenicity. A recurring issue within this field is the inadequate reporting of production procedures, quality control, product physicochemical characteristics, allergenicity, and immunological properties. This information is of vital importance in assessing therapeutic standardization and clinical safety profile, which are central parameters for the development of future therapeutic agents.

Food allergy immunotherapy: Oral immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy

IgE-mediated food allergy remains a significant and growing problem across the globe. Of the various treatment modalities, oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) have been the best studied. Across various studies of OIT for egg, milk, and peanut allergy, strong levels of desensitization have been shown. With egg and peanut OIT, a limited remission, or sustained unresponsiveness (SU), has further been demonstrated. These advances have been further validated by successful phase 2 and phase 3 studies of peanut OIT. EPIT, using daily administrations of a proprietary patch, demonstrated efficacy as well as safety and tolerability in parallel phase 2 studies; however, its phase 3 study did not meet its primary efficacy outcome. Despite its good track record of desensitization, the safety and tolerability of OIT has remained a question. EPIT, on the other hand, has proven safe and tolerable; however, the adequacy of its desensitization has remained to be determined. As OIT and EPIT continue their march toward regulatory review, optimizations for immunotherapy and novel therapies continue to be developed providing hope for food allergy patients everywhere.

Peanut Allergy: New Advances and Ongoing Controversies

Peanut allergy is one of the most common food allergies in children, with increasing prevalence over time. The dual-allergen exposure hypothesis now supports transcutaneous sensitization to peanut as a likely pathophysiologic mechanism for peanut allergy development. As a result, there is emerging evidence that early peanut introduction has a role in peanut allergy prevention. Current first-line diagnostic tests for peanut allergy have limited specificity, which may be enhanced with emerging tools such as component-resolved diagnostics. Although management of peanut allergy includes avoidance and carrying an epinephrine autoinjector, risk of fatal anaphylaxis is extremely low, and there is minimal risk related to cutaneous or inhalational exposure. Quality of life in children with peanut allergy requires significant focus. Moving forward, oral and epicutaneous immunotherapy are emerging and exciting tools that may have a role to play in desensitization to peanut.

Protocol for a double-blind, randomized controlled trial on the dose-related efficacy of omalizumab in multi-food oral immunotherapy

Background

Previous proof-of-concept studies have shown that a short course of omalizumab can safely accelerate the oral immunotherapy schedule for multiple allergens simultaneously. Considering the high cost of medication, the dose-related efficacy of omalizumab at decreasing the duration of oral immunotherapy up-dosing phase must be objectively quantified before cost–benefit analyses can be performed. The primary objective of this trial will be to compare the efficacy of 2 omalizumab dosages to placebo at decreasing time-to-maintenance dose during a symptom-driven multi-food OIT protocol.

Methods

A total of 90 participants aged 6 to 25 with multiple food allergies (3 or more) will be enrolled at four sites in Canada. Participants will be randomized to: (A) Omalizumab 8 mg/kg per month (n = 36); (B) Omalizumab 16 mg/kg per month (n = 36); or (C) Placebo (n = 18). Study drug will be administered at full dosage for 12 weeks, then progressively tapered at 50% dosage (8 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg vs placebo) for 4 weeks and at 25% dosage (4 mg/kg vs 2 mg/kg vs placebo) for another 4 weeks. After a pre-treatment period of 8 weeks, participants will undergo an initial food escalation (IFE) to an OIT mix containing 3 allergens and start daily home dosing with biweekly increases until a target daily maintenance of 1500 mg protein is achieved. The amount escalated at each visit will vary based on treatment tolerance according to a standardized up-dosing algorithm. Participants will be followed for at least 12 months following the initial food escalation. The primary endpoint will be time from IFE to the target maintenance dose of 1500 mg protein. Time-to-event analytic methods, including the log-rank test, will be used to compare the 3 arms.

Discussion

This trial uses a novel pragmatic approach to compare OIT with omalizumab to OIT without omalizumab in a blinded manner, which allows to single out the effect of this anti-IgE medication on treatment effectiveness speed without the recourse to predetermined schedules. The innovative patient-centered up-dosing algorithm allows to maximise treatment effectiveness speed without compromising patient safety, regardless of whether the patient is on omalizumab or not. This study will also provide novel prospective data to inform on the optimal and most cost-effective dosage for this indication.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04045301, Registered 5 August 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04045301

Intranasal nanoemulsion vaccine confers long-lasting immunomodulation and sustained unresponsiveness in a murine model of milk allergy

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy for food allergy requires prolonged treatment protocols and, in most cases, does not lead to durable modulation of the allergic immune response. We have demonstrated an intranasal (IN) nanoemulsion adjuvant that redirects allergen-specific Th2 responses toward Th1 and Th17 immunity, and protects from allergen challenge after only 2-4 monthly administrations. Here, we investigate the ability of this technology to provide long-term modulation of allergy in a murine model of cow's milk allergy.

METHODS

Six weeks after sensitization to bovine casein, mice received four, monthly IN immunizations with nanoemulsion formulated with casein. Protection from casein challenge was assessed at 4 and 16 weeks after the final vaccine administration.

RESULTS

The NE vaccine significantly blunted the physiological responses to allergen challenge, and this effect persisted for at least 16 weeks. The protection from challenge was associated with the suppression of casein-specific Th2 immunity and induced Th1 and Th17 cytokines as well as induction of IL-10. Of interest, while immunized animals showed significantly decreased Th2 cytokine responses, cow's milk-specific IgE remained elevated in the serum at levels associated with reactivity in control sensitized animals. Protection was associated with suppressed mast cell activation and markedly reduced mast cell infiltration into the small intestine.

CONCLUSION

The sustained unresponsiveness of at least 16 weeks after vaccination suggests that the nanoemulsion vaccine alters the allergic phenotype in a persistent manner different from traditional desensitization, and this leads to long-term suppressive effects on allergic disease without eliminating serum IgE.

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.

Sustained successful peanut oral immunotherapy associated with low basophil activation and peanut-specific IgE

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can successfully desensitize many peanut-allergic subjects, but clinical tolerance diminishes over time on discontinuation, or low-dose maintenance, of peanut. Therefore, to improve the efficacy and sustainability of such therapy, we sought to identify biomarkers and clinical tools that can predict therapeutic outcomes and monitor treatment responses.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether basophil activation in whole blood, and plasma levels of peanut-specific immunoglobulins, are useful biomarkers for peanut OIT.

METHODS

We longitudinally measured, before, during, and after OIT, basophil activation in whole blood ex vivo in response to peanut stimulation, and peanut-specific IgE (sIgE) and peanut-specific IgG4 (sIgG4), in a large, single-site, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 peanut OIT study. We compared basophil responsiveness and peanut-specific immunoglobulins between those who were clinically reactive and those who were tolerant to peanut oral challenges.

RESULTS

Peanut OIT significantly decreased basophil activation, peanut sIgE, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3 IgE levels, and sIgE/total IgE, but increased sIgG4/sIgE. Participants who became reactive to 4 g of peanut 13 weeks off active OIT exhibited higher peanut-induced basophil activation ex vivo and higher peanut sIgE levels and sIgE/total IgE, but lower sIgG4/sIgE. Notably, participants entering the study with low basophil responsiveness were more likely to achieve treatment success. Substantial suppression of basophil activation was required to maintain long-term clinical tolerance after peanut OIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessments of peanut-induced basophil activation and peanut-specific immunoglobulins can help to predict treatment outcomes, and to differentiate transient desensitization versus sustained unresponsiveness after OIT.

Evolution of Immune Responses in Food Immunotherapy

Food allergies are a growing public health concern affecting approximately 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States. Several immunotherapy approaches are under active investigation, including oral immunotherapy, epicutaneous immunotherapy, and sublingual immunotherapy. Each of these approaches uses a similar strategy of administering small, increasing amounts of allergen to the allergic subject. Immunologic studies have described changes in the T-cell compartment, serum and salivary immunoglobulin profile, and mast cell and basophil degranulation status in response to allergens. This review highlights the immunologic changes induced by food allergen-specific immunotherapy and discusses future directions in this field.

Food reactions during avoidance: Focus on peanut

OBJECTIVE

Peanut allergy has historically been difficult to manage, with most cases persisting into adulthood. Novel therapies for peanut allergy treatment are on the horizon, yet allergists must maintain a robust understanding of the risks and benefits of the current standard of therapy, avoidance diet.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search using PubMed of reviews and clinical articles was performed.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Articles discussing peanut or other food-related allergic reactions, accidental exposures or anaphylaxis pertinent to avoidance diet or comparative to oral immunotherapy trials were selected.

RESULTS

Peanut remains a leading allergen associated with accidental ingestions responsible for food-related reactions, both mild and severe. Fatal reactions, however, are rare and measures such as anaphylaxis plans can significantly decrease the risk of accidental anaphylaxis. Patients may over estimate situations thought to increase risk for reactions to peanut, such as inhalation or contact through skin. In oral immunotherapy trials, the rate of anaphylaxis secondary to treatment was significantly higher than avoidance practices.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should continue to discuss avoidance as a viable option for long-term peanut allergy management and empower patients to differentiate relevant situations in which accidental reactions might occur.

Adverse events associated with peanut oral immunotherapy in children - a systematic review and meta-analysis

While peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) represents a promising treatment for peanut allergies in children, safety concerns remain a common barrier to widespread adoption. We aimed to systematically assess available evidence to determine the risk and frequency of adverse events occurring during POIT, and examine study-level characteristics associated with their occurrence and severity. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted through April 2019. Controlled and non-controlled studies evaluating POIT were eligible. Twenty-seven studies, involving 1488 subjects, were included. Adverse events to POIT were common and led to treatment discontinuation in 6.6% of children (95% CI 4.4–9.0; 27 studies, I² = 48.7%). Adverse events requiring treatment with epinephrine occurred among 7.6% (4.5–11.4; 26 studies, I² = 75.5%) of participants, at a rate of 2.0 per 10,000 doses (0.8–3.7; 15 studies, I² = 64.4). Use of a rush treatment phase and targeting a higher maintenance dose were associated with a higher risk and frequency of epinephrine use, while using co-treatments in addition to POIT was associated with a lower risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. While adverse events to POIT are common, this study provides promising explorative evidence that certain modifications to existing treatment protocols could significantly improve treatment outcomes.

Safety of Food Oral Immunotherapy: What We Know, and What We Need to Learn

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy entails a risk of adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis. This safety concern is the major barrier for OIT to become a therapeutic option in clinical practice. The high heterogeneity in safety reporting of OIT studies prevents setting the safety profile accurately. An international consensus is needed to facilitate the analysis of large pooled clinical data with homogeneous safety reporting, that together with integrated omics, and patients/families' opinions, may help stratify the patients' risk and needs, and help developing safe(r) individualized care pathways. This will give OIT the right place in the food allergy therapy.

Sustained outcomes in oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (POISED study): a large, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Dietary avoidance is recommended for peanut allergies. We evaluated the sustained effects of peanut allergy oral immunotherapy (OIT) in a randomised long-term study in adults and children.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, we enrolled participants at the Sean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University (Stanford, CA, USA) with peanut allergy aged 7-55 years with a positive result from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC; ≤500 mg of peanut protein), a positive skin-prick test (SPT) result (≥5 mm wheal diameter above the negative control), and peanut-specific immunoglobulin (Ig)E concentration of more than 4 kU/L. Participants were randomly assigned (2·4:1·4:1) in a two-by-two block design via a computerised system to be built up and maintained on 4000 mg peanut protein through to week 104 then discontinued on peanut (peanut-0 group), to be built up and maintained on 4000 mg peanut protein through to week 104 then to ingest 300 mg peanut protein daily (peanut-300 group) for 52 weeks, or to receive oat flour (placebo group). DBPCFCs to 4000 mg peanut protein were done at baseline and weeks 104, 117, 130, 143, and 156. The pharmacist assigned treatment on the basis of a randomised computer list. Peanut or placebo (oat) flour was administered orally and participants and the study team were masked throughout by use of oat flour that was similar in look and feel to the peanut flour and nose clips, as tolerated, to mask taste. The statistician was also masked. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who passed DBPCFCs to a cumulative dose of 4000 mg at both 104 and 117 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02103270.

FINDINGS

Between April 15, 2014, and March 2, 2016, of 152 individuals assessed, we enrolled 120 participants, who were randomly assigned to the peanut-0 (n=60), peanut-300 (n=35), and placebo groups (n=25). 21 (35%) of peanut-0 group participants and one (4%) placebo group participant passed the 4000 mg challenge at both 104 and 117 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 12·7, 95% CI 1·8-554·8; p=0·0024). Over the entire study, the most common adverse events were mild gastrointestinal symptoms, which were seen in 90 of 120 patients (50/60 in the peanut-0 group, 29/35 in the peanut-300 group, and 11/25 in the placebo group) and skin disorders, which were seen in 50/120 patients (26/60 in the peanut-0 group, 15/35 in the peanut-300 group, and 9/25 in the placebo group). Adverse events decreased over time in all groups. Two participants in the peanut groups had serious adverse events during the 3-year study. In the peanut-0 group, in which eight (13%) of 60 participants passed DBPCFCs at week 156, higher baseline peanut-specific IgG4 to IgE ratio and lower Ara h 2 IgE and basophil activation responses were associated with sustained unresponsiveness. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Our study suggests that peanut OIT could desensitise individuals with peanut allergy to 4000 mg peanut protein but discontinuation, or even reduction to 300 mg daily, could increase the likelihood of regaining clinical reactivity to peanut. Since baseline blood tests correlated with week 117 treatment outcomes, this study might aid in optimal patient selection for this therapy.

FUNDING

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT): A Personalized Medicine

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT), a promising allergen-specific approach in the management of Food Allergies (FA), is based on the administration of increasing doses of the culprit food until reaching a maintenance dose. Each step should be adapted to the patient, and OIT should be considered an individualized treatment. Recent studies focused on the standardization and identification of novel biomarkers in order to correlate endotypes with phenotypes in the field of FA.

Identification of goals and barriers to treatment from 92 consecutive consultations with families considering peanut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy has become an important public health issue. It can be the cause of severe reactions and also the trigger of significant anxiety for the allergic individual, especially with regards to the risk of unintentional accidental exposures. Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is a newly developed treatment approach that has been shown to be highly effective in multiple research studies and has been associated with an acceptable safety profile. This treatment modality is likely to become more mainstream in the next few years with new commercial entities pursuing United States Food and Drug Administration approval for relevant products and multiple providers offering various forms of immunotherapy in their practices.

METHODS

The aim of our study was to obtain an accurate assessment of goals of treatment as well as concerns and barriers from families considering POIT in either the research or clinical setting. A single clinician allergist met with all the families and conducted semi-structured interviews on POIT. Families were provided with standardized written information on POIT prior to the consultation, which was used as a formalized instrument to communicate treatment protocols. Conversations were not recorded, but collected information was scribed by a second clinician who did not actively participate in the consultation. Scribed information was coded by the investigators. Thematic analysis identified common topics emerging from the discussions.

RESULTS

We report on the results of 92 consecutive family consultations on POIT conducted over a period of 1 year. Approximately 50% of the families had already researched POIT online, with 25% of families reported being part of Facebook parent groups. Groups identified the following areas as the most important considerations: efficacy, practical information, safety, benefits and goals, eligibility criteria and support in making the right decision. For all families pursuing POIT for their child, the initial goal was achieving protection from accidental exposure and cross-contamination and for approximately one-quarter, consumption of high peanut doses was the ultimate goal.

CONCLUSION

Our research adds to the limited available data in this area and provides information that may be used as an initial platform for clinical consultations and shared decision-making in POIT. Obtaining a better understanding of patients' expectations and concerns will hopefully facilitate this process, enabling more fruitful and engaging interactions between families and healthcare providers in the field of food allergy.

Plant cell-made protein antigens for induction of Oral tolerance

The gut associated lymphoid tissue has effective mechanisms in place to maintain tolerance to food antigens. These can be exploited to induce antigen-specific tolerance for the prevention and treatment of autoimmune diseases and severe allergies and to prevent serious immune responses in protein replacement therapies for genetic diseases. An oral tolerance approach for the prevention of peanut allergy in infants proved highly efficacious and advances in treatment of peanut allergy have brought forth an oral immunotherapy drug that is currently awaiting FDA approval. Several other protein antigens made in plant cells are in clinical development. Plant cell-made proteins are protected in the stomach from acids and enzymes after their oral delivery because of bioencapsulation within plant cell wall, but are released to the immune system upon digestion by gut microbes. Utilization of fusion protein technologies facilitates their delivery to the immune system, oral tolerance induction at low antigen doses, resulting in efficient induction of FoxP3⁺ and latency-associated peptide (LAP)⁺ regulatory T cells that express immune suppressive cytokines such as IL-10. LAP and IL-10 expression represent potential biomarkers for plant-based oral tolerance. Efficacy studies in hemophilia dogs support clinical development of oral delivery of bioencapsulated antigens to prevent anti-drug antibody formation. Production of clinical grade materials in cGMP facilities, stability of antigens in lyophilized plant cells for several years when stored at ambient temperature, efficacy of oral delivery of human doses in large animal models and lack of toxicity augur well for clinical advancement of this novel drug delivery concept.

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy.

METHODS

In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930.

RESULTS

12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I²=0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I²=0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I²=0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (p_interaction=0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I²=0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I²=0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I²=0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I²=0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I²=28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I²=0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I²=0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed.

FUNDING

None.