Sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy: clinical and immunologic evidence of desensitization

Current and Emerging Therapies for IgE-Mediated Food Allergy

Food allergies are a growing clinical problem leading to increased health care utilization and decreases in patient quality of life. Current treatment recommendations include strict dietary avoidance of the offending food as well as use of self-injectable epinephrine in case of accidental exposure with allergic reaction. Although many individuals will eventually outgrow their food allergies, a substantial number will not. Significant effort has been made to find novel treatments that protect patients from food-triggered reactions as well as to develop immune-modulating therapies that could lead to tolerance. In this review, three therapies that have shown the most promise for the treatment of food allergies are highlighted: oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy, and epicutaneous immunotherapy.

[Allergen-specific immunotherapy for food allergies in childhood. Current options and future perspectives]

During recent years increasing research has been conducted on casual treatment options for food allergy, with focus on oral immunotherapy (OIT) for hen's egg, cow's milk and peanut allergy. Several studies could show that OIT leads to desensitization or an increase of threshold. However, severe adverse events during this treatment are not uncommon. Whether OIT leads to a sustained, 'robust' development of tolerance in patients has not yet been thoroughly investigated. Besides OIT, some studies on sublingual (SLIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) were performed, aiming to improve the safety profile. Furthermore, there are some pilot studies investigating a combined treatment of SLIT and OIT or a combined use of anti-IgE treatment or probiotic supplementation with OIT. Further placebo-controlled trials with larger sample size are needed in order to develop standardized protocols before immunotherapy may be used as a therapeutic option for food allergy outside of clinical trials.

The expression of CD123 can decrease with basophil activation: implications for the gating strategy of the basophil activation test

Background

Basophil activation test (BAT) reproduces IgE-mediated allergic reactions in vitro and has been used as a diagnostic test. Different markers can be used to identify basophils in whole blood and have implications for the outcome of the test. We aimed to assess changes in the expression of CD123 and HLA-DR following basophil activation and to select the best gating strategy for BAT using these markers.

Methods

BAT was performed in whole blood from 116 children. Peanut extract, anti-IgE, anti-FcεRI or formyl-methionyl-leucyl-phenylalanin (fMLP) was used for stimulation. Surface expression of CD123, HLA-DR, CD63 and CD203c was evaluated by flow cytometry.

Results

In some cases, gating on CD123+/HLA-DR− led to the loss-to-analysis of basophils in conditions where basophils were activated. Adding CD203c as an identification marker restored the cell number. Basophils remained HLA-DR-negative with activation. CD123 expression decreased following stimulation with fMLP (n = 116, p < 0.001), anti-IgE (n = 104, p < 0.001) and peanut (n = 42, p < 0.001). The decrease in the mean fluorescence intensity of CD123 correlated with the up-regulation of basophil activation markers, CD63 (r_s = −0.31, p < 0.001) and CD203c (r_s = −0.35, p < 0.001). BAT to peanut gating basophils on CD203c+/CD123+/HLA-DR− reduced the false-negatives (1 vs. 5 %) and showed a higher diagnostic accuracy compared to using CD123+/HLA-DR− (97 vs. 91 %). CD203c+ appeared as an alternative gating strategy allowing two-colour BAT.

Conclusions

Basophils of a subset of patients down-regulate CD123 with activation. The use of CD203c before gating on CD123+/HLA-DR− cells or in isolation ensures the identification of the entire basophil population and accurate assessment of basophil activation, with important diagnostic implications.

Basophil activation test: food challenge in a test tube or specialist research tool?

Oral food challenge (OFC) is the gold-standard to diagnose food allergy; however, it is a labour and resource-intensive procedure with the risk of causing an acute allergic reaction, which is potentially severe. Therefore, OFC are reserved for cases where the clinical history and the results of skin prick test and/or specific IgE do not confirm or exclude the diagnosis of food allergy. This is a significant proportion of patients seen in Allergy clinics and results in a high demand for OFC. The basophil activation test (BAT) has emerged as a new diagnostic test for food allergy. With high diagnostic accuracy, it can be particularly helpful in the cases where skin prick test and specific IgE are equivocal and may allow reducing the need for OFC. BAT has high specificity, which confers a high degree of certainty in confirming the diagnosis of food allergy and allows deferring the performance of OFC in patients with a positive BAT. The diagnostic utility of BAT is allergen-specific and needs to be validated for different allergens and in specific patient populations. Standardisation of the laboratory methodology and of the data analyses would help to enable a wider clinical application of BAT.

Revisiting Desensitization and Allergen Immunotherapy Concepts for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11

Allergy and hypersensitivity intervention management procedures, such as desensitization and/or tolerance induction and immunotherapy, have not been pondered up to now in the content of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) context because the focus has been on prioritizing the condition implementations. Tremendous efforts have been devoted to implementing allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the forthcoming ICD-11. However, we consider that it is crucial now to have nomenclature and classification universally accepted for these procedures to be able to provide scientifically consistent proposals into the new ICD-11 platform for the best practice parameters of our specialty. With the aim of promoting a harmonized comprehension and aligning it with the ICD-11 revision, we have reviewed the definitions and concepts currently used for desensitization and/or tolerance induction and immunotherapy. We strongly believe that this review is a key instrument to support the allergy specialty identity into the ICD-11 framework and serves as a platform to perform positive quality improvement in clinical practice.

A practical view of immunotherapy for food allergy

Food allergy is common and sometimes life threatening for Korean children. The current standard treatment of allergen avoidance and self-injectable epinephrine does not change the natural course of food allergy. Recently, oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapies have been studied for their effectiveness against food allergy. While various rates of desensitization (36% to 100%) and tolerance (28% to 75%) have been induced by immunotherapies for food allergy, no single established protocol has been shown to be both effective and safe. In some studies, immunologic changes after immunotherapy for food allergy have been revealed. Adverse reactions to these immunotherapies have usually been localized, but severe systemic reactions have been observed in some cases. Although immunotherapy cannot be recommended for routine practice yet, results from recent studies demonstrate that immunotherapies are promising for the treatment of food allergy.

Utility of component analyses in subjects undergoing sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with peanut changes clinical and immune responses in most peanut-allergic individuals, but the response is highly variable.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the component-specific effects of peanut SLIT and determine whether peanut component testing could predict the outcome of a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 12 months of peanut SLIT.

METHODS

We included 33 subjects who underwent peanut SLIT with a DBPCFC of 2500 mg of peanut protein performed after 12 months of therapy. Plasma samples from baseline and after 12 months of peanut SLIT were assayed using ImmunoCAP for IgE and IgG4 against whole peanut, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, Ara h 3, Ara h 8, and Ara h 9.

RESULTS

Following 12 months of SLIT, 10 subjects (30%) passed the DBPCFC without symptoms and were considered desensitized. Subjects that failed the DBPCFC tolerated a median of 460 mg peanut protein (range: 10-1710 mg). The desensitized group had significantly lower baseline levels of IgE against peanut (median 40.8 vs. 231 kUA /L, P = 0.0082), Ara h 2 (median 17 vs. 113 kUA /L, P = 0.0082), and Ara h 3 (median 0.3 vs. 8.5 kUA /L, P = 0.0396). ROC curves indicated that baseline IgE against peanut and Ara h 2 were equally effective at discriminating between the two groups (AUC = 0.7957, P = 0.007752 for both).

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In this cohort of subjects undergoing SLIT for peanut allergy, lower baseline levels of IgE against Ara h 2, Ara h 3, and peanut were associated with successful desensitization.

Current Options for the Treatment of Food Allergy

Food allergy is increasing in prevalence; as a result, there is intense focus on developing safe and effective therapies. Current methods of specific immunotherapy include oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous, while nonspecific methods that have been investigated include: Chinese herbal medicine, probiotics, and anti-IgE antibodies. Although some studies have demonstrated efficacy in inducing desensitization, questions regarding safety and the potential for achieving immune tolerance remain. Although some of these therapies demonstrate promise, further investigation is required before their incorporation into routine clinical practice.

Immunotherapy for food allergies: a myth or a reality?

Food allergy is a worldwide issue, with an estimated prevalence of 2-10%. An effective treatment is not available for people affected and the only management is the avoidance of the allergen. Oral immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy have been tested by several authors, in particular for milk, egg and peanuts allergy, with significant results in term of desensitization induction. The achievement of tolerance is by the contrary doubtful, with different results obtained. In this review, we reviewed protocols of oral and sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy published in literature, mainly against milk, egg and peanut. At present, immunotherapy does not represent the gold standard in the treatment of food allergy, even if it can desensitize patients.

Immunotherapy (oral and sublingual) for food allergy to fruits

BACKGROUND

Food allergy is an abnormal immunological response following exposure (usually ingestion) to a food. Elimination of the allergen is the principle treatment for food allergy, including allergy to fruit. Accidental ingestion of allergenic foods can result in severe anaphylactic reactions. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is a specific treatment, when the avoidance of allergenic foods is problematic. Recently, studies have been conducted on different types of immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergy, including oral (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual immunotherapy in children and adults with food allergy to fruits, when compared with placebo or an elimination strategy.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and AMED were searched for published results along with trial registries and the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine for grey literature. The date of the most recent search was July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OIT or SLIT with placebo or an elimination diet were included. Participants were children or adults diagnosed with food allergy who presented immediate fruit reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We assessed treatment effect through risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two RCTs (N=89) eligible for inclusion. These RCTs addressed oral or sublingual immunotherapy, both in adults, with an allergy to apple or peach respectively. Both studies enrolled a small number of participants and used different methods to provide these differing types of immunotherapy. Both studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, the quality of evidence was judged to be very low due to the small number of studies and participants and possible bias. The studies were clinically heterogeneous and hence we did not pool the results. A study comparing SLIT with placebo for allergy to peach did not detect a significant difference between the number of patients desensitised at six months following a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (RR 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.74). The second study, comparing OIT versus no treatment for apple allergy, found an effect on desensitisation in favour of the intervention using an oral provocation test at eight months, but results were imprecise (RR 17.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 270.19). Neither study reported data on evidence of immunologic tolerance. In both studies, the incidence of mild and moderate adverse events was higher in the intervention groups than in the controls. In the study comparing SLIT with placebo, patients in the intervention group experienced significantly more local adverse reactions than participants in the control group (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.51 to 6.82), though there was not a significant difference in the number of participants experiencing systemic adverse reactions (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.02). In the study of OIT, two of the 25 participants in the intervention group reported relevant side effects, whereas no participants in the control group reported relevant side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for using OIT or SLIT to treat allergy to fruit, specifically related to peach and apple. Mild or moderate adverse reactions were reported more frequently in people receiving OIT or SLIT. However, these reactions could be treated successfully with medications.

The Future of Sublingual Immunotherapy in the United States

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a safe and effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has approved three SLIT tablets for the treatment of AR and ARC in relation to pollen. Specifically, Grastek® and Oralair® are two formulations approved to treat patients suffering with AR/ARC to grass pollen, and Ragwitek™ is a formulation approved to treat patients suffering with AR/ARC to ragweed pollen. Although these approvals provide support for physicians to prescribe SLIT, barriers to prescribing SLIT still remain such as FDA approval for additional formulations, a standard dose and dosing schedule, and cost/insurance coverage. In order to further support the use of SLIT, research is currently being conducted to expand the indication for SLIT to other common comorbidities to AR/ARC. For example, allergic asthma, food allergies, and atopic dermatitis are other diseases which are being explored. The future of SLIT in the USA is unknown; however, education will be necessary for both providers and patients.

An Examination of Clinical and Immunologic Outcomes in Food Allergen Immunotherapy by Route of Administration

Allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergy has been a subject of intensive study within the last 10 years. After an unsuccessful attempt with subcutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy, other routes with varying degrees of safety and efficacy have been tested for peanut, milk, and egg allergies. In this review, we summarize the results to date with oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy, and epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergy. While results of immunotherapy trials are promising, increases in efficacy are commonly associated with an increased side effect profile. There is a need for additional research beginning at the preclinical level to develop safe and effective treatments for food allergy.

Safety, clinical, and immunologic efficacy of a Chinese herbal medicine (Food Allergy Herbal Formula-2) for food allergy

BACKGROUND

Food Allergy Herbal Formula-2 (FAHF-2) is a 9-herb formula based on traditional Chinese medicine that blocks peanut-induced anaphylaxis in a murine model. In phase I studies FAHF-2 was found to be safe and well tolerated.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of FAHF-2 as a treatment for food allergy.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study 68 subjects aged 12 to 45 years with allergies to peanut, tree nut, sesame, fish, and/or shellfish, which were confirmed by baseline double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenges (DBPCFCs), received FAHF-2 (n = 46) or placebo (n = 22). After 6 months of therapy, subjects underwent DBPCFCs. For those who demonstrated increases in the eliciting dose, a repeat DBPCFC was performed 3 months after stopping therapy.

RESULTS

Treatment was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events. By using intent-to-treat analysis, the placebo group had a higher eliciting dose and cumulative dose (P = .05) at the end-of-treatment DBPCFC. There was no difference in the requirement for epinephrine to treat reactions (P = .55). There were no significant differences in allergen-specific IgE and IgG4 levels, cytokine production by PBMCs, or basophil activation between the active and placebo groups. In vitro immunologic studies performed on subjects' baseline PBMCs incubated with FAHF-2 and food allergen produced significantly less IL-5, greater IL-10 levels, and increased numbers of regulatory T cells than untreated cells. Notably, 44% of subjects had poor drug adherence for at least one third of the study period.

CONCLUSION

FAHF-2 is a safe herbal medication for subjects with food allergy and shows favorable in vitro immunomodulatory effects; however, efficacy for improving tolerance to food allergens is not demonstrated at the dose and duration used.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy: mechanisms and role in management

With the emergence of food allergy as an important public health problem, it has become clear that there is an unmet need in regard to treatment. In particular, IgE-mediated food allergy that is associated with risk of fatal anaphylaxis has been the subject of multiple studies in the past decade. The growing body of evidence derived from multiple centres and various study designs indicates that for IgE-mediated food allergy, immunomodulation through food immunotherapy is possible; however, the extent of protection afforded by such treatment is highly variable. At this time, the capacity for food immunotherapy to restore permanent tolerance to food has not been demonstrated conclusively. This review will discuss these topics as they apply to the most important studies of food oral immunotherapy.

FoxP3 Tregs Response to Sublingual Allergen Specific Immunotherapy in Children Depends on the Manifestation of Allergy

Over the last decades allergic diseases has become a major health problem worldwide. The only specific treatment to date is allergen specific immunotherapy (ASIT). Although it was shown that ASIT generates allergen-tolerant T cells, detailed mechanism underlying its activity is still unclear and there is no reliable method to monitor its effectiveness. The aim of our study was to evaluate ASIT influence on the frequency of forkhead box P3 (FoxP3) Tregs in allergic children with various clinical manifestations. The relative number of FoxP3 Tregs in 32 blood samples from allergic children at baseline and/or after 1 year of ASIT was assessed by flow cytometry. In the entire studied group, the percentage of FoxP3 Tregs did not increase 1 year after ASIT. Nevertheless, the percentage of FoxP3 Tregs after ASIT significantly increased in children with respiratory allergy (conjunctivitis, asthma, and rhinitis) coexisting with nonrespiratory manifestations (food allergy and/or atopic dermatitis), whereas, in patients with respiratory allergy only, the percentage of FoxP3 Tregs decreased. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report showing various differential FoxP3 Tregs response to ASIT in allergic children. FoxP3 Tregs number could be useful in treatment monitoring. Further studies are warranted to confirm these observations.

Recent advances in immunotherapy and vaccine development for peanut allergy

Peanut allergy is a common problem and can be the cause of severe, life-threatening allergic reactions. It rarely resolves, with the majority of patients carrying the disease onto adulthood. Peanut allergy poses a significant burden on the quality of life of sufferers and their families, which results mainly from the fear of accidental peanut ingestion, but is also due to dietary and social restrictions. Current standard management involves avoidance, patient education and provision of emergency medication, for use in allergic reactions, when they occur. Efforts have been made to develop a vaccine for peanut allergy. Recent developments have also highlighted the use of immunotherapy, which has shown promise as an active form of treatment and may present a disease-modifying therapy for peanut allergy. So far, results, especially from oral immunotherapy studies, have shown good efficacy in achieving desensitization to peanut with a good safety profile. However, the capacity to induce long-term tolerance has not been demonstrated conclusively yet and larger, phase III studies are required to further investigate safety and efficacy of this intervention. Peanut immunotherapy is not currently recommended for routine clinical use or outside specialist allergy units.

Pharmacologic options for the treatment and management of food allergy

Food allergy affects approximately 5% of adults and 8% of children in developed countries, and there is currently no cure. Current pharmacologic management is limited to using intramuscular epinephrine or oral antihistamines in response to food allergen exposure. Recent trials have examined the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous, oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, with varying levels of efficacy and safety demonstrated. Bacterial adjuvants, use of anti-IgE monoclonal antibodies, and Chinese herbal formulations represent exciting potential for development of future pharmacotherapeutic agents. Ultimately, immunotherapy may be a viable option for patients with food allergy, although efficacy and safety are likely to be less than ideal.

Peanut oral immunotherapy transiently expands circulating Ara h 2-specific B cells with a homologous repertoire in unrelated subjects

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy (PNOIT) induces persistent tolerance to peanut in a subset of patients and induces specific antibodies that might play a role in clinical protection. However, the contribution of induced antibody clones to clinical tolerance in PNOIT is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that PNOIT induces a clonal, allergen-specific B-cell response that could serve as a surrogate for clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We used a fluorescent Ara h 2 multimer for affinity selection of Ara h 2-specific B cells and subsequent single-cell immunoglobulin amplification. The diversity of related clones was evaluated by means of next-generation sequencing of immunoglobulin heavy chains from circulating memory B cells with 2x250 paired-end sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform.

RESULTS

Expression of class-switched antibodies from Ara h 2-positive cells confirms enrichment for Ara h 2 specificity. PNOIT induces an early and transient expansion of circulating Ara h 2-specific memory B cells that peaks at week 7. Ara h 2-specific sequences from memory cells have rates of nonsilent mutations consistent with affinity maturation. The repertoire of Ara h 2-specific antibodies is oligoclonal. Next-generation sequencing-based repertoire analysis of circulating memory B cells reveals evidence for convergent selection of related sequences in 3 unrelated subjects, suggesting the presence of similar Ara h 2-specific B-cell clones.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel affinity selection approach to identify antigen-specific B cells, we demonstrate that the early PNOIT-induced Ara h 2-specific B-cell receptor repertoire is oligoclonal and somatically hypermutated and shares similar clonal groups among unrelated subjects consistent with convergent selection.

Sublingual immunotherapy in children: the recent experiences

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is indicated for the use in pediatric patients suffering from allergic rhinitis or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused by environmental allergens, such as ragweed pollen, grass pollen, and dust mite. This review focuses on recent and relevant studies associated with the use of SLIT for these allergens in children by examining efficacy, safety, and immunological data in comparison to subcutaneous immunotherapy, therapeutic treatments, and placebo.

RECENT FINDINGS

In several of the case studies examined in this article, involving mainly grass and dust mite allergic patients, SLIT has been shown to have similar efficacy to subcutaneous immunotherapy. SLIT has been proven as a safer therapy. In comparing the adverse events related to both therapies, SLIT has fewer cases of anaphylaxis and fewer incidents of local reactions of mild-to-moderate severity. In comparison to therapeutic treatments and placebo, SLIT significantly improved symptom and medication scores. In addition to allergic rhinitis and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, additional uses for SLIT in pediatric patients, such as asthma, atopic dermatitis, and food allergies, are under development.

SUMMARY

SLIT treatment is a well tolerated and effective approach to treat allergic rhinitis and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in pediatric patients. Three SLIT tablets are currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat grass and ragweed allergies. The research discussed in this review will further the knowledge of physicians searching for an alternative treatment for their pediatric patients.

Diagnosis, management, and investigational therapies for food allergies

Food allergies have increased in prevalence over the past 20 years, now becoming an important public health concern. Although there are no therapies currently available for routine clinical care, recent reports have indicated that immunotherapies targeting the mucosal immune system may be effective. Oral immunotherapy is conducted by administering small, increasing amounts of food allergen; it has shown promise for desensitizing individuals with peanut, egg, or milk allergies. Sublingual immunotherapy also desensitizes allergic patients to foods-2 major studies have examined the effects of sublingual immunotherapy in subjects with peanut allergies. We review the complex nature of IgE-mediated food allergies and the therapies being evaluated in clinical trials. We focus on the diagnosis and management of food allergies and investigational therapies.

Sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy: Long-term follow-up of a randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

We previously reported the initial results of the first multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), observing a favorable safety profile associated with modest clinical and immunologic effects in the first year.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to provide long-term (3-year) clinical and immunologic outcomes for our peanut SLIT trial. Key end points were (1) percentage of responders at 2 years (ie, could consume 5 g of peanut powder or a 10-fold increase from baseline), (2) percentage reaching desensitization at 3 years, (3) percentage attaining sustained unresponsiveness after 3 years, (4) immunologic end points, and (5) assessment of safety parameters.

METHODS

Response to treatment was evaluated in 40 subjects aged 12 to 40 years by performing a 10-g peanut powder oral food challenge after 2 and 3 years of daily peanut SLIT therapy. At 3 years, SLIT was discontinued for 8 weeks, followed by another 10-g oral food challenge and an open feeding of peanut butter to assess sustained unresponsiveness.

RESULTS

Approximately 98% of the 18,165 doses were tolerated without adverse reactions beyond the oropharynx, with no severe symptoms or uses of epinephrine. A high rate (>50%) discontinued therapy. By study's end, 4 (10.8%) of 37 SLIT-treated participants were fully desensitized to 10 g of peanut powder, and all 4 achieved sustained unresponsiveness. Responders at 2 years showed a significant decrease in peanut-specific basophil activation and skin prick test titration compared with nonresponders.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut SLIT induced a modest level of desensitization, decreased immunologic activity over 3 years in responders, and had an excellent long-term safety profile. However, most patients discontinued therapy by the end of year 3, and only 10.8% of subjects achieved sustained unresponsiveness.

Suppression of the immunologic response to peanut during immunotherapy is often transient

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest that oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy hold promise; however, the immunologic mechanisms underlying these therapies are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to generate insights into the mechanisms and duration of suppression of immune responses to peanut during immunotherapy.

METHODS

Blood was obtained from subjects at baseline and at multiple time points during a placebo-controlled trial of peanut OIT and SLIT. Immunologic outcomes included measurement of spontaneous and stimulated basophil activity by using automated fluorometry (histamine) and flow cytometry (activation markers and IL-4), measurement of allergen-induced cytokine expression in dendritic cell (DC)-T-cell cocultures by using multiplexing technology, and measurement of MHC II and costimulatory molecule expression on DCs by using flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Spontaneous and allergen-induced basophil reactivity (histamine release, CD63 expression, and IL-4 production) were suppressed during dose escalation and after 6 months of maintenance dosing. Peanut- and dust mite-induced expression of TH2 cytokines was reduced in DC-T-cell cocultures during immunotherapy. This was associated with decreased levels of CD40, HLA-DR, and CD86 expression on DCs and increased expression of CD80. These effects were most striking in myeloid DC-T-cell cocultures from subjects receiving OIT. Many markers of immunologic suppression reversed after withdrawal from immunotherapy and in some cases during ongoing maintenance therapy.

CONCLUSION

OIT and SLIT for peanut allergy induce rapid suppression of basophil effector functions, DC activation, and TH2 cytokine responses during the initial phases of immunotherapy in an antigen-nonspecific manner. Although there was some interindividual variation, in many patients suppression appeared to be temporary.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Although promising results have emerged regarding oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of peanut allergy (PA), direct comparisons of these approaches are limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to compare the safety, efficacy, and mechanistic correlates of peanut OIT and SLIT.

METHODS

In this double-blind study children with PA were randomized to receive active SLIT/placebo OIT or active OIT/placebo SLIT. Doses were escalated to 3.7 mg/d (SLIT) or 2000 mg/d (OIT), and subjects were rechallenged after 6 and 12 months of maintenance. After unblinding, therapy was modified per protocol to offer an additional 6 months of therapy. Subjects who passed challenges at 12 or 18 months were taken off treatment for 4 weeks and rechallenged.

RESULTS

Twenty-one subjects aged 7 to 13 years were randomized. Five discontinued therapy during the blinded phase. Of the remaining 16, all had a greater than 10-fold increase in challenge threshold after 12 months. The increased threshold was significantly greater in the active OIT group (141- vs 22-fold, P = .01). Significant within-group changes in skin test results and peanut-specific IgE and IgG4 levels were found, with overall greater effects with OIT. Adverse reactions were generally mild but more common with OIT (P < .001), including moderate reactions and doses requiring medication. Four subjects had sustained unresponsiveness at study completion.

CONCLUSION

OIT appeared far more effective than SLIT for the treatment of PA but was also associated with significantly more adverse reactions and early study withdrawal. Sustained unresponsiveness after 4 weeks of avoidance was seen in only a small minority of subjects.

The future of biologics: applications for food allergy

Allergic diseases affect millions worldwide, with growing evidence of an increase in allergy occurrence over the past few decades. Current treatments for allergy include corticosteroids to reduce inflammation and allergen immunotherapy; however, some subjects experience treatment-resistant inflammation or adverse reactions to these treatments, and there are currently no approved therapeutics for the treatment of food allergy. There is a dire need for new therapeutic approaches for patients with poorly controlled atopic diseases and a need to improve the safety and effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy. Improved understanding of allergy through animal models and clinical trials has unveiled potential targets for new therapies, leading to the development of several biologics to treat allergic diseases. This review focuses on the mechanisms that contribute to allergy, with an emphasis on future targets for biologics for the treatment of food allergy. These biologics include immunotherapy with novel anti-IgE antibodies and analogs, small-molecule inhibitors of cell signaling, anti-type 2 cytokine mAbs, and TH1-promoting adjuvants.

Developing therapies for peanut allergy

Peanut allergy is an IgE-mediated, persisting immune disorder that is of major concern worldwide. Currently, no routine immunotherapy is available to treat this often severe and sometimes fatal food allergy. Traditional subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy with crude peanut extracts has proven not feasible due to the high risk of severe systemic side effects. The allergen-specific approaches under preclinical and clinical investigation comprise subcutaneous, oral, sublingual and epicutaneous immunotherapy with whole-peanut extracts as well as applications of hypoallergenic peanut allergens or T cell epitope peptides. Allergen-nonspecific approaches include monoclonal anti-IgE antibodies, TCM herbal formulations and Toll-like receptor 9-based immunotherapy. The potential of genetically engineered plants with reduced allergen levels is being explored as well as the beneficial influence of lactic acid bacteria and soybean isoflavones on peanut allergen-induced symptoms. Although the underlying mechanisms still need to be elucidated, several of these strategies hold great promise. It can be estimated that individual strategies or a combination thereof will result in a successful immunotherapy regime for peanut-allergic individuals within the next decade.

Novel approaches to food allergy

Food allergies have increased in recent decades. However, they cannot be effectively treated by the current management, which is limited to the identification and avoidance of foods that induce allergies and to the use of medicines for symptoms relief. To meet the medical need of prevention and cure of food allergies, several therapeutic strategies are under investigation. Some newly developed biologics such as anti-IgE antibody and anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibody directed against significant molecules in the allergic process have shown their potential for the treatment of food allergies. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the therapy that induces immune tolerance and may reduce the need for conventional medication, severity of allergic symptoms and eliminate hypersensitivity. In this article, clinical studies of immunotherapy via subcutaneous, oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous routes are extensively reviewed for their safety and effectiveness on various food allergies. In addition, to reduce the risk of anaphylaxis and increase toleragenic immunity, many studies are focusing on the modification of traditional allergens used for immunotherapy. Moreover, a Chinese herbal formulation with potential anti-allergic effects is being evaluated for its efficacy in patients with peanut allergy. Although more studies are needed, accumulated data of current studies represent compelling evidence of curative effects of some strategies and give a hope that food allergies are likely to be successfully treated in the future.

Sublingual (SLIT) versus oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy

Food allergy is a common condition for which the only currently approved treatments are avoidance of the allergenic food and the administration of emergency medications upon accidental exposure. Over the past 10 years, significant advances have been made in the field of food immunotherapy, with efforts focusing on allergen exposure via the oral mucosa. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are the two modalities that have been most extensively studied, and this article will review recent advances in our knowledge of the efficacy and safety of these treatments.

Immune mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-established allergen-specific immunotherapy and a safe and effective strategy to reorient inappropriate immune responses in allergic patients. SLIT takes advantage of the tolerogenic environment of the oral mucosa to promote tolerance to the allergen. Several clinical studies have investigated the complex interplay of innate and adaptive immune responses that SLIT exploits. The oral immune system is composed of tolerogenic dendritic cells that, following uptake of allergen during SLIT, support the differentiation of T helper cell type 1 (Th1) and the induction of IL-10-producing regulatory T cells. Following SLIT, allergic disease-promoting T helper cell type 2 (Th2) responses shift to a Th1 inflammatory response, and IL-10 and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β production by regulatory T cells and tolerogenic dendritic cells suppress allergen-specific T cell responses. These immune changes occur both in the sublingual mucosa and in the periphery of a patient following SLIT. SLIT also promotes the synthesis of allergen-specific IgG and IgA antibodies that block allergen-IgE complex formation and binding to inflammatory cells, thus encouraging an anti-inflammatory environment. Several of these revealing findings have also paved the way for the identification of biomarkers of the clinical efficacy of SLIT. This review presents the emerging elucidation of the immune mechanisms mediated by SLIT.

Peanut immunotherapy

Peanut allergy is common and can be a cause of severe, life-threatening reactions. It is rarely outgrown like other food allergies, such as egg and milk. Peanut allergy has a significant effect on the quality of life of sufferers and their families, due to dietary and social restrictions, but mainly stemming from fear of accidental peanut ingestion. The current management consists of strict avoidance, education and provision of emergency medication, but a disease- modifying therapy is needed for peanut allergy. Recent developments involve the use of immunotherapy, which has shown promise as an active form of treatment. Various routes of administration are being investigated, including subcutaneous, oral, sublingual and epicutaneous routes. Other forms of treatment, such as the use of vaccines and anti-IgE molecules, are also under investigation. So far, results from immunotherapy studies have shown good efficacy in achieving desensitisation to peanut with a good safety profile. However, the issue of long-term tolerance has not been fully addressed yet and larger, phase III studies are required to further investigate safety and efficacy. An assessment of cost/benefit ratio is also required prior to implementing this form of treatment. The use of immunotherapy for peanut allergy is not currently recommended for routine clinical use and should not be attempted outside specialist allergy units.

Food allergy: a practice parameter update-2014

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, representing the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (JCAAI). The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing "Food Allergy: A practice parameter update-2014." This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is a changing one, and not all recommendations will be appropriate for all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including those who served on the Joint Task Force, is authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information about or an interpretation of these practice parameters by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, ACAAI, and JCAAI. These parameters are not designed for use by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotion.

Modulation of dendritic cell innate and adaptive immune functions by oral and sublingual immunotherapy

Sublingual (SLIT) and oral immunotherapy (OIT) are promising treatments for food allergy, but underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Dendritic cells (DCs) induce and maintain Th2-type allergen-specific T cells, and also regulate innate immunity through their expression of Toll-like receptors (TLRs). We examined how SLIT and OIT influenced DC innate and adaptive immune responses in children with IgE-mediated cow's milk (CM) allergy. SLIT, but not OIT, decreased TLR-induced IL-6 secretion by myeloid DCs (mDCs). SLIT and OIT altered mDC IL-10 secretion, a potent inhibitor of FcεRI-dependent pro-inflammatory responses. OIT uniquely augmented IFN-α and decreased IL-6 secretion by plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs), which was associated with reduced TLR-induced IL-13 release in pDC-T cell co-cultures. Both SLIT and OIT decreased Th2 cytokine secretion to CM in pDC-T, but not mDC-T, co-cultures. Therefore, SLIT and OIT exert unique effects on DC-driven innate and adaptive immune responses, which may inhibit allergic inflammation and promote tolerance.

Sublingual immunotherapy: recent advances

The practice of administering sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy is gaining more and more diffusion worldwide as a consequence of the robust demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety provided by recent high-powered and well-designed studies, confirming for individual seasonal allergens the results of previous metanalyses in adult and pediatric populations. Preliminary evidence derives from recent rigorous trials on perennial allergens, like house dust mites, and specifically designed studies addressed the benefits on asthma. Emerging research suggests that SLIT may have a future role in other allergic conditions such as atopic dermatitis, food, latex and venom allergy. Efforts to develop a safer and more effective SLIT for inhalant allergens have led to the development of allergoids, recombinant allergens and formulations with adjuvants and substances targeting antigens to dendritic cells that possess a crucial role in initiating immune responses. The high degree of variation in the evaluation of clinical effects and immunological changes requires further studies to identify the candidate patients to SLIT and biomarkers of short and long term efficacy. Appropriate management strategies are urgently needed to overcome the barriers to SLIT compliance.

Oral immunotherapy induces IgG antibodies that act through FcγRIIb to suppress IgE-mediated hypersensitivity

BACKGROUND

Food-induced anaphylaxis is triggered by specific IgE antibodies. Paradoxically, some subjects with significant IgE levels can ingest allergenic foods without incident. Similarly, subjects completing oral immunotherapy (OIT) tolerate food challenges despite persistent high-titer food-specific IgE.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to test whether IgG antibodies induced by food immunotherapy prevent food-induced anaphylaxis and whether this occurs through the inhibitory receptor FcγRIIb.

METHODS

Food allergy-susceptible Il4raF709 mice were enterally sensitized to ovalbumin (OVA). Similarly sensitized IgE-deficient (IgE(-/-)) Il4raF709 mice, which can ingest OVA without anaphylaxis, were subjected to a high-dose enteral OVA desensitization protocol (OIT). Sera from both groups were tested for the ability to activate or inhibit bone marrow mast cells (BMMCs) exposed to allergen or to passively transfer allergy to naive hosts. In parallel experiments sera obtained from patients with peanut allergy before and after undergoing OIT were interrogated for their ability to enhance or suppress peanut-induced activation in an indirect assay by using basophils from nonallergic donors.

RESULTS

Il4raF709 mice exhibited strong OVA-specific IgE responses. Their sera efficiently sensitized BMMCs for activation by antigen challenge. Sera from Il4raF709/IgE(-/-) mice subjected to OVA OIT suppressed BMMC responses. This inhibition was IgG mediated and FcγRIIb dependent. Similarly, pre-OIT but not post-OIT sera from patients efficiently sensitized basophils for peanut-induced activation. IgG antibodies in post-OIT sera suppressed basophil activation by pre-OIT sera. This inhibition was blocked by antibodies against FcγRII.

CONCLUSION

Food-specific IgG antibodies, such as those induced during OIT, inhibit IgE-mediated reactions. Strategies that favor IgG responses might prove useful in the management of food allergy.

Highlights on the EAACI-WAO Congress 2013

European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and World Allergy Organization. World Allergy and Asthma Congress. Milano, Italy, 22-26 June 2013 The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and World Allergy Organization congress provided a meeting for researchers and clinicians interested in allergy and clinical immunology from all over the world and a unique opportunity to exchange experience with other professionals in this fields.

Food allergy: diagnosis, management & emerging therapies

IgE-mediated food allergy is an important health concern with increasing prevalence worldwide. Manifestations of IgE-mediated food allergy include urticaria, angioedema, pruritus, difficulty in breathing, laryngeal oedema, vomiting, diarrhoea and/or hypotension within minutes to two hours of the offending food's ingestion. Diagnosis requires both a careful history and supportive testing with laboratory studies and possibly oral food challenges. Current treatment of food allergy focuses on avoidance of the allergen and prompt emergency management of reactions. Epinephrine autoinjectors are provided to patients for the treatment of severe reactions. More research is needed to determine the optimal timing with which to introduce common allergens into a child's diet to possibly prevent the development of food allergy. Novel therapies are under investigation given the difficulty of allergen avoidance and the potentially fatal nature of reactions. Both allergen specific therapies such as oral, sublingual and epicutaneous immunotherapy and allergen non-specific therapies such the Chinese herbal formula FAHF-2 and omalizumab show promise though more data on efficacy and long-term safety are needed before these therapies become mainstream.