AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy

Treating allergies via skin - Recent advances in cutaneous allergen immunotherapy

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy has been practiced clinically for decades to treat airborne allergies. Recently, the cutaneous route, which exploits the immunocompetence of the skin has received attention, which is evident from attempts to use it to treat peanut allergy. Delivery of allergens into the skin is inherently impeded by the barrier imposed by stratum corneum, the top layer of the skin. While the stratum corneum barrier must be overcome for efficient allergen delivery, excessive disruption of this layer can predispose to development of allergic inflammation. Thus, the most desirable allergen delivery approach must provide a balance between the level of skin disruption and the amount of allergen delivered. Such an approach should aim to achieve high allergen delivery efficiency across various skin types independent of age and ethnicity, and optimize variables such as safety profile, allergen dosage, treatment frequency, application time and patient compliance. The ability to precisely quantify the amount of allergen being delivered into the skin is crucial since it can allow for allergen dose optimization and can promote consistency and reproducibility in treatment response. In this work we review prominent cutaneous delivery approaches, and offer a perspective on further improvisation in cutaneous allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Long-term IgE immunological tolerance to peanut allergens: An alternative to Noon's daily desensitization paradigm

Herein, we show that profound afferent long-term peanut-allergen-specific IgE immunological tolerance for 3 to 9 months induced sustained unresponsiveness (SU) in naïve or peanut-sensitized rodents after peanut allergen immunization. Rodents were vaccinated sublingually with a peanut allergen extract or recombinant peanut allergen in chenodeoxycholate (CDCA), a fanesoid X receptor (FXR, NR1H4) agonist that downregulates SREBP-1c (sterol regulatory element binding protein-1c) and upregulates SHP in bone marrow-derived tolerogenic dendritic cells (DCs). Approximately 90 ∼ 95 % of the total circulating PE-potentiated IgE and Ara h1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 6 peanut allergen-specific IgE responses were suppressed by recombinant peanut allergen-conjugated solid magnetic beads (sensitivity of 0.2 IU/ml). In contrast, peanut allergen-specific IgG production was not affected. Similarly, oleoylethanolamine (OEA), a peroxisome proliferator-activator receptor alpha (PPARα) agonist, and GW9662, a PPARγ antagonist, induced long-term peanut-specific IgE tolerance when administered via the sublingual, oral or i.p. route. Prophylactic Ara h2 DNA immunization with caNRF2 and IL-35 coexpression induced Ara h2 IgE tolerance. In summary, peanut allergen vaccination with select natural molecular ligands of nuclear receptors induced long-term peanut allergen-specific IgE tolerance via the afferent limb, which indicates that vaccination is an immune tolerance-promoting strategy that is effective at the DC level and that differs from Noon's daily desensitization program, which is effective at the mast cell level.

Kinetics of basophil hyporesponsiveness during short-course peanut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) leads to suppression of mast cell and basophil degranulation along with changes in the adaptive immune response.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine how rapidly these effects occur during OIT and more broadly, the kinetics of basophil and mast cell suppression throughout the course of therapy.

METHODS

Twenty participants, age 4 to 12 years, were enrolled in a peanut OIT trial and assessed for desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness after 9 months of therapy. Blood was collected 5 times in the first month and then intermittently throughout to quantify immunoglobulins and assess basophil activation by CD63, CD203c, and phosphorylated SYK (pSYK).

RESULTS

Twelve of 16 participants that completed the trial were desensitized after OIT, with 9 achieving sustained unresponsiveness after discontinuing OIT for 4 weeks. Basophil hyporesponsiveness, defined by lower CD63 expression, was detected as early as day 90. pSYK was correlated with CD63 expression, and there was a significant decrease in pSYK by day 250. CD203c expression remained unchanged throughout therapy. Interestingly, although basophil activation was decreased across the cohort during OIT, basophil activation did not correlate with individual clinical outcomes. Serum peanut-specific IgG4 and IgA increased throughout therapy, whereas IgE remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Suppression of basophil activation occurs within the first 90 days of peanut OIT, ultimately leading to suppression of signaling through pSYK.

Biologics as novel therapeutics for the treatment of allergy: Challenges and opportunities

Over the last 4 decades there has been a significant global increase in the incidence and prevalence of IgE-mediated allergy. Although much progress has been made in the management of allergy via patient education, pharmacotherapy and immunomodulatory treatment regimens, significant unmet need remains. Advancements in our knowledge base surrounding the type 2 immune response, production of IgE and maintenance of immunological memory has led the field to explore targeted intervention of allergic pathways using monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Intervention at various stages of the allergic cascade offers the opportunity to prevent initiation and/or maintenance of the type 2 immune response and effectively provide therapeutic benefit to patients. Furthermore, a better understanding of the protective mechanisms involved in allergen specific immunotherapy (AIT) has led us to appreciate the interplay of immunoglobulins in the allergic response, specifically the benefit in shifting the IgG:IgE ratio in favor of functionally relevant blocking IgG. Thus, treatments that lower IgE or boost IgG with the ability to outcompete IgE binding to allergen also present a favorable approach in the treatment of allergy. In this short review we discuss and highlight recent advances in the use of biologics to treat severe allergy, highlighting the key challenges but also the significant opportunities and advances to date.

Allergen immunotherapy: past, present and future

Allergen immunotherapy is a form of therapeutic vaccination for established IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to common allergen sources such as pollens, house dust mites and the venom of stinging insects. The classical protocol, introduced in 1911, involves repeated subcutaneous injection of increasing amounts of allergen extract, followed by maintenance injections over a period of 3 years, achieving a form of allergen-specific tolerance that provides clinical benefit for years after its discontinuation. More recently, administration through the sublingual route has emerged as an effective, safe alternative. Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy induces effective ‘desensitization’ but not long-term tolerance. Research and clinical trials over the past few decades have elucidated the mechanisms underlying immunotherapy-induced tolerance, involving a reduction of allergen-specific T helper 2 (T_H2) cells, an induction of regulatory T and B cells, and production of IgG and IgA ‘blocking’ antibodies. To better harness these mechanisms, novel strategies are being explored to achieve safer, effective, more convenient regimens and more durable long-term tolerance; these include alternative routes for current immunotherapy approaches, novel adjuvants, use of recombinant allergens (including hypoallergenic variants) and combination of allergens with immune modifiers or monoclonal antibodies targeting the T_H2 cell pathway.

Durham and Shamji review the history and future of allergen immunotherapy for established IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to common allergens. They describe the mechanisms of immunotherapy-induced tolerance and the new strategies being explored to achieve safer, more effective, long-term tolerance.

Manufacturing processes of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp

Background

Important components of drug safety, efficacy, and acceptability involve manufacturing and testing of the drug substance and drug product. Peanut flour sourcing/processing and manufacturing processes may affect final drug product allergen potency and contamination level, possibly impacting drug safety, quality, and efficacy. We describe key steps in the manufacturing processes of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH; Palforzia®), a drug used in oral immunotherapy (OIT) for the treatment of peanut allergy.

Methods

Established criteria for source material must be met for manufacturing PTAH drug product. Degree of roasting was determined with a Hunter colorimeter. Protein/allergen content, identity, potency, safety, and quality of each batch of PTAH drug substance were assessed with a combustion analyzer, allergen-specific Western blot (immunoblotting), ELISA, and HPLC. Contaminants (ie, aflatoxin) were measured by UPLC.

Results

Roasting degree beyond "light roast" was associated with variable degrees of protein allergen degradation, or potentially aggregation. Relative potency and amounts of protein allergens showed variability due in part to seasonal/manufacturing variability. Proportion of lots not meeting aflatoxin limits has increased in recent years. Up to 60% of peanut flour source material failed to meet screening selection acceptance criteria for proceeding to drug substance testing, mostly because of failure to meet potency acceptance criteria. Other lots were rejected due to safety (ie, aflatoxin) and quality. Influence of potency variation, within specification parameters, on safety/tolerability observed in trials was considered low, in part due to stringent controls placed at each step of manufacturing.

Conclusions

Extensive variability in allergen potency is a critical issue during immunotherapy, particularly during OIT initial dose escalation and up-dosing, as it may result in lack of efficacy or avoidable adverse allergic reactions. Based on EU and US regulatory requirements, the production of PTAH includes manufacturing controls to ensure drug product safety, potency, and quality. For example, although PTAH contains all peanut allergens, each lot has met strict criteria ensuring consistent allergenic potency of Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 6. The rigor of PTAH's manufacturing process ensures reliable dose consistency and stability throughout its shelf life.

Biomarkers and mechanisms of tolerance induction in food allergic patients drive new therapeutic approaches

Immunotherapy for food-allergic patients has been effective in inducing desensitization in some populations, but long-term tolerance has remained an elusive target. A challenge facing our field is how to differentiate immune markers that are impacted by immunotherapy from those that are critical biomarkers of tolerance. Data from recent clinical trials have identified several biomarkers and mechanisms for achieving tolerance. These biomarkers include younger age, lower food-specific IgE, lower food component-specific IgE, specific linear epitope profiles, and subsets of food-specific CD4+ T cells. Additional biomarkers under investigation for their relevance in tolerance induction include TCR repertoires, gastrointestinal and skin microbiome, and local tissue immunity. This mini-review highlights recent advances in understanding biomarkers and mechanisms of tolerance induction in food immunotherapy and how these are influencing clinical trial development.

Food allergy, mechanisms, diagnosis and treatment: Innovation through a multi-targeted approach

The incidence of food allergy (FA) has continued to rise over the last several decades, posing significant burdens on health and quality of life. Significant strides into the advancement of FA diagnosis, prevention, and treatment have been made in recent years. In an effort to lower reliance on resource-intensive food challenges, the field has continued work toward the development of highly sensitive and specific assays capable of high-throughput analysis to assist in the diagnosis FA. In looking toward early infancy as a critical period in the development of allergy or acquisition of tolerance, evidence has increasingly suggested that early intervention via the early introduction of food allergens and maintenance of skin barrier function may decrease the risk of FA. As such, large-scale investigations are underway evaluating infant feeding and the impact of emollient and steroid use in infants with dry skin for the prevention of allergy. On the other end of the spectrum, the past few years have been witness to an explosive increase in clinical trials of novel and innovative therapeutic strategies aimed at the treatment of FA in those whom the disease has already manifested. A milestone in the field, 2020 marked the approval of the first drug, oral peanut allergen, for the indication of peanut allergy. With a foundation of promising data supporting the safety and efficacy of single- and multi-allergen oral immunotherapy, current efforts have turned toward the use of probiotics, biologic agents, and modified allergens to optimize and improve upon existing paradigms. Through these advancements, the field hopes to gain footing in the ongoing battle against FA.

Biomarkers in oral immunotherapy

Food allergy (FA) is a global health problem that affects a large population, and thus effective treatment is highly desirable. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been showing reasonable efficacy and favorable safety in most FA subjects. Dependable biomarkers are needed for treatment assessment and outcome prediction during OIT. Several immunological indicators have been used as biomarkers in OIT, such as skin prick tests, basophil and mast cell reactivity, T cell and B cell responses, allergen-specific antibody levels, and cytokines. Other novel indicators also could be potential biomarkers. In this review, we discuss and assess the application of various immunological indicators as biomarkers for OIT.

Induction of food-specific IgG by Gene Gun-delivered DNA vaccines

Background

Shellfish and tree nut allergies are among the most prevalent food allergies, now affecting 2%–3% and 1% of the US population, respectively. Currently, there are no approved therapies for shellfish or tree nut allergies, with strict avoidance being the standard of care. However, oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy and subcutaneous immunotherapy for environmental allergens are efficacious and lead to the production of allergen-specific IgG, which causes suppression of allergen effector cell degranulation. Since allergen-specific IgG is a desired response to alleviate IgE-mediated allergies, we tested transcutaneously-delivered DNA vaccines targeting shellfish and tree nut allergens for their ability to induce antigen-specific IgG, which would have therapeutic potential for food allergies.

Methods

We assessed Gene Gun-delivered DNA vaccines targeting either crustacean shellfish or walnut/pecan allergens, with or without IL-12, in naïve mice. Three strains of mice, BALB/cJ, C3H/HeJ and CC027/GeniUnc, were evaluated for IgG production following vaccination. Vaccines were administered twice via Gene Gun, three weeks apart and then blood was collected three weeks following the final vaccination.

Results

Vaccination with shellfish allergen DNA led to increased shrimp-specific IgG in all three strains, with the highest production in C3H/HeJ from the vaccine alone, whereas the vaccine with IL-12 led to the highest IgG production in BALB/cJ and CC027/GeniUnc mice. Similar IgG production was also induced against lobster and crab allergens. For walnut/pecan vaccines, BALB/cJ and C3H/HeJ mice produced significantly higher walnut- and pecan-specific IgG with the vaccine alone compared to the vaccine with IL-12, while the CC027 mice made significantly higher IgG with the addition of IL-12. Notably, intramuscular administration of the vaccines did not lead to increased antigen-specific IgG production, indicating that Gene Gun administration is a superior delivery modality.

Conclusions

Overall, these data demonstrate the utility of DNA vaccines against two lifelong food allergies, shellfish and tree nuts, suggesting their potential as a food allergy therapy in the future.

The rationale for development of ligelizumab in food allergy

Food allergy (FA) is a growing healthcare problem worldwide and the rising prevalence in many countries can be attributed to lifestyle, environmental, and nutritional changes. Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated FA is the most common form of FA affecting approximately 3%-10% of adults and 8% of children across the globe. Food allergen-induced immediate hypersensitivity reactions mediated by IgE and high-affinity IgE receptor (FcεRI) complexes on mast cells and basophils are a major hallmark of the disease. FA can affect several aspects of health-related quality of life and impose a substantial financial burden on patients and healthcare systems. Although currently there is one United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved treatment for peanut allergy (Palforzia), the main treatment approaches are based on allergen avoidance and symptom management. Thus, there is an urgent need for more effective and ideally disease-modifying strategies. Given the crucial role of IgE in FA, anti-IgE monoclonal antibodies are considered promising therapeutic agents. Talizumab was the first humanized anti-IgE antibody to demonstrate substantial protection against allergic reactions from accidental peanut exposure by substantially increasing the peanut reactivity threshold on oral food challenge. However, development of talizumab was discontinued and further trials were performed using omalizumab. In double-blind, Phase 2, placebo-controlled trials in patients with multi-FAs, sustained dosing with omalizumab, or omalizumab in combination with oral immunotherapy, enabled rapid desensitization to multiple trigger foods. In this review, we describe the development of ligelizumab (a derivative of talizumab), a next generation, humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, its existing clinical evidence, and its potential in the management of FA. When compared with omalizumab, ligelizumab binds with ∼88-fold higher affinity for human IgE and recognizes a different epitope that substantially overlaps with the binding site of FcεRI. These properties translate into a high potency to block IgE/FcεRI signaling in both in vitro and in vivo studies. Given its efficient suppression of IgE levels, good safety and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile, ligelizumab clearly warrants further studies for the potential management of FA.

Transitioning peanut oral immunotherapy to clinical practice

Peanut allergy is on the rise in industrialized countries, affecting 1%-4.5% of children and generally persisting into adulthood. It is associated with a risk of severe anaphylaxis and is one of the major causes of food allergy-induced deaths. Health-related quality of life is significantly impaired for patients and affected families due to food restrictions attributable to omnipresent precautionary allergen labeling, constant risk of potentially life-threatening reactions, and limitation of social activities. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as a valid treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated peanut allergy, with randomized controlled trials and real-life studies showing a high rate of desensitization and a favorable safety profile, especially in young children. Ultimately, the decision to initiate peanut OIT relies on a multidisciplinary shared decision-making process, involving open, personalized and evidence-based discussions with patients and their caregivers.

Participant Characteristics and Safety Outcomes of Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in the RAMSES and ARC011 Trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials (PALISADE [ARC003], ARTEMIS [ARC010]) proving efficacy and safety of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) used double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) to screen for eligibility and to evaluate efficacy. In routine clinical practice, individuals with peanut allergy do not always undergo food challenges to confirm diagnosis or determine candidacy for treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To describe PTAH safety/tolerability in participants selected by clinical history and peanut sensitization parameters not undergoing DBPCFC during trails and to compare findings with previously published data.

METHODS

RAMSES (ARC007) was a 6-month, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in children aged 4 to 17 years with physician-confirmed peanut allergy. ARC011 was the subsequent 6-month follow-on maintenance PTAH study. The primary endpoint for RAMSES and ARC011 was frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). We descriptively compared baseline characteristics and safety outcomes from RAMSES/ARC011 to participants undergoing DBPCFCs in phase 3 PALISADE/ARTEMIS trials.

RESULTS

In 506 patients randomized to study treatment, baseline characteristics appeared balanced between groups. Proportion of participants with ≥1 AE was 55% for PTAH versus 33.9% for placebo during initial dose escalation and 98.8% versus 94.0%, respectively, during updosing. Most participants with AEs had mild/moderate events. The most common AEs were gastrointestinal. Comparisons to pooled PALISADE and ARTEMIS data showed higher baseline median peanut-specific immunoglobulin E and skin prick test values for RAMSES participants. Safety outcomes during trial periods were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Safety data from clinically selected children with peanut allergy receiving PTAH do not appear different from those in phase 3 trials requiring DBPCFC to enter trials.

Insights into Microbiome and Metabolic Signatures of Children Undergoing Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

Background: Peanut oral immunotherapy has emerged as a novel, active management approach for peanut-allergic sufferers, but limited data exist currently on the role of the microbiome in successful desensitization. Objective: We examined the oral and gut microbiome in a cohort of 17 children undergoing peanut oral immunotherapy with the aim to identify the microbiome signatures associated with successful desensitization. We also set out to characterize their fecal metabolic profiles after successful therapy. Methods: Participants gradually built up their daily dose from 2 mg (starting dose) to 300 mg (maintenance dose) within approximately 40 weeks. We collected a buccal and stool specimen from each subject at two different time points: at baseline and post-therapy (1 month after reaching maintenance). The oral (buccal) and gut (fecal) microbiome was characterized based on sequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicons with Illumina MiSeq. Fecal short chain fatty acid levels were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Results: We report increased alpha diversity of the oral microbiome post-therapy and have also identified a significant increase in the relative abundance of oral Actinobacteria, associated with the desensitized state. However, the baseline gut microbiome did not differ from the post-therapy. Additionally, fecal short chain fatty acids increased after therapy, but not significantly. Conclusion: Our research adds to the limited current knowledge on microbiome and metabolic signatures in pediatric patients completing oral immunotherapy. Post-therapy increased trends of fecal fatty acid levels support a role in modulating the allergic response and potentially exerting protective and anti-inflammatory effects alongside successful desensitization. A better understanding of the microbiome-related mechanisms underlying desensitization may allow development of smarter therapeutic approaches in the near future. Clinical implication: The oral microbiome composition is altered following successful peanut oral immunotherapy, with a significant increase in alpha diversity and the relative abundance of phylum Actinobacteria. Capsule summary: Significant microbiome changes in children completing peanut immunotherapy include increase in alpha-diversity and overrepresentation of Actinobacteria in the oral microbiome, and increased trends for fecal short chain fatty acids, suggesting a protective effect against the allergic response.

Qualitative interviews to understand health care providers' experiences of prescribing licensed peanut oral immunotherapy

Objective

This research sought to explore health care providers’ (HCPs) experiences of delivering the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Commission (EC) approved peanut oral immunotherapy (peanut OIT; Palforzia). Semi-structured qualitative interviews with HCPs who had initiated treatment with ≥ 3 patients in the first nine months following FDA approval sought to identify challenges faced and successful implementation strategies.

Results

Eight allergists and three nurse practitioners from eight sites based in the United States participated. The HCPs included in this research were motivated to implement this novel treatment, however, entered the process with some reservations. HCPs described how successful implementation of peanut OIT requires them to be thoughtful about their clinic’s abilities to integrate complex, time-consuming treatments into their daily practice. Prior experience of OIT was deemed beneficial, but not essential for implementation and learning from others’ experience was suggested as a way of helping new prescribers overcome perceived and actual implementation challenges. Delivering licensed peanut OIT during the COVID-19 pandemic posed both challenges and unexpected opportunities for implementation. The experiences described have the potential to benefit the wider allergy community by providing practical solutions, successful implementation strategies and opportunities to enhance training and resources.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13104-022-06161-6.

Oral desensitization therapy for peanut allergy induces dynamic changes in peanut-specific immune responses

BACKGROUND

The PALISADE study, an international, phase 3 trial of peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) with AR101, resulted in desensitization in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut. An improved understanding of the immune mechanism induced in response to food allergen immunotherapy would enable more informed and effective therapeutic strategies. Our main purpose was to examine the immunological changes in blood samples from a subset of peanut-allergic individuals undergoing oral desensitization immunotherapy with AR101.

METHODS

Blood samples obtained as part of enrollment screening and at multiple time points during PALISADE study were used to assess basophil and CD4+ T-cell reactivity to peanut.

RESULTS

The absence of clinical reactivity to the entry double-blinded placebo-controlled peanut challenge (DBPCFC) was accompanied by a significantly lower basophil sensitivity and T-cell reactivity to peanut compared with DBPCFC reactors. At baseline, peanut-reactive TH2A cells were observed in many but not all peanut-allergic patients and their level in peripheral blood correlates with T-cell reactivity to peanut and with serum peanut-specific IgE and IgG4 levels. POIT reshaped circulating peanut-reactive T-cell responses in a subset-dependent manner. Changes in basophil and T-cell responses to peanut closely paralleled clinical benefits to AR101 therapy and resemble responses in those with lower clinical sensitivity to peanut. However, no difference in peanut-reactive Treg cell frequency was observed between groups.

CONCLUSION

Oral desensitization therapy with AR101 leads to decreased basophil sensitivity to peanut and reshapes peanut-reactive T effector cell responses supporting its potential as an immunomodulatory therapy.

Long-term outcomes of oral immunotherapy for anaphylactic egg allergy in children

Background

Studies of long-term oral immunotherapy (OIT) in children with anaphylactic egg allergy are limited.

Objective

Our aim was to investigate the long-term outcomes of OIT for anaphylactic egg allergy.

Methods

The participants included children (aged ≥ 5 years) with a history of anaphylaxis in response to eggs and objective reactions to oral food challenge (OFC) with 250 mg of egg protein. In the OIT group, the home starting dose of egg protein set during 5 days of hospitalization was ingested once daily and gradually increased to 1000 mg. Over the next year, participants temporarily discontinued OIT for 2 weeks and underwent OFC with 3100 mg of egg protein annually until they passed. The historical control group comprised patients who did not receive OIT and repeated OFCs annually.

Results

In the OIT group (n = 20), the baseline median egg white- and ovomucoid-specific IgE levels were 45.5 and 38.5 kUA/L, respectively. The rate of passing OFC with 3100 mg of egg protein gradually increased in the OIT group, with rates of 20% at 1 year, 35% at 2 years, and 55% at 3 years, which were significantly higher than the rates in the historical control group at 3 years (5% [P < .001]). In the OIT group, 5 anaphylaxis events (0.04%) occurred at home, and 1 participant required intramuscular adrenaline. Furthermore, egg white- and ovomucoid-specific IgE levels decreased significantly after 3 years in both groups, whereas in the OIT group, these specific IgG and IgG4 levels increased significantly after a year.

Conclusion

Long-term OIT accelerated immunologic changes and enabled ingestion of 3100 mg of egg protein in half of the participants with anaphylactic egg allergy.

Socioeconomic Determinants of Food Allergy Burden-A clinical introduction

OBJECTIVE

This review characterizes what is currently known about how prevalence, severity, distribution, and management of food allergy (FA) differs across socioeconomic strata and provides guidance for practicing clinicians about how to improve equity in research participation, healthcare delivery, and patient outcomes through a deeper understanding of the socioeconomic determinants of FA.

DATA SOURCES

Epidemiological and biomedical literature published prior to April 2022.

RESULTS

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a complex concept that not only encompasses economic resources (e.g., income, wealth) but also a person's social, economic and political power and standing, each of which can impact health. However, in many studies of individuals and families with FA, assessment of SES has been limited and often a respondent's membership within a racial and ethnic group is utilized as a proxy for low SES. As a whole, findings from US-population-based studies indicate a consistent trend: those who self-identify as non-Hispanic Black, and to a lesser extent other subpopulations who identify as being of non-White race and ethnicity, experience a greater burden of food-allergic sensitization and disease including higher rates of emergency health care utilization and food-induced anaphylactic fatality as compared to those identifying as White.

CONCLUSION

Reports of FA management and outcomes highlight inequities among specific low SES populations in the US. Clinicians can and should act to reduce inequities by engaging more diverse populations in clinical research, equitably implementing FA risk screening and prevention, thoughtfully utilizing emerging technologies to ameliorate disparities based on SES in healthcare delivery and outcomes, and advocating for social change.

A practical focus on legume oral immunotherapy

Legumes other than peanut are an important source of protein and consist of a wide variety of species, such as soy, peas, chickpeas, lentils, and lupin. Due to their health benefits and the rising popularity of veganism, legume consumption has increased. Legume allergy, cross-sensitization, and cross-reactivity between different species have been reported in the literature and are increasingly recognized. Unlike peanut, oral immunotherapy (OIT) for nonpeanut legumes has not been well studied and published protocols are lacking. Future studies are needed to provide real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of nonpeanut legume OIT, and whether desensitization to one legume leads to desensitization to other legumes in patients with multiple legume allergy. Nevertheless, due to the abundance of clinical trial and real-world data for peanut OIT, it is reasonable to use protocols that substitute peanut protein with other legume protein when desensitizing individuals with nonpeanut legume allergy. Clinicians who are starting to offer legume OIT in their practices may consider starting with preschoolers, an age group for whom real-world data has shown the greatest safety and effectiveness.

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

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

Variations in protocol development during oral immunotherapy

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

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

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

Optimal patient selection for oral immunotherapy

Standard criteria for ideal patient selection with food oral immunotherapy (OIT) have yet to be determined. Although there are a handful of contraindications to consider before recommending OIT, most patients with confirmed immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergies are appropriate candidates. Success rates of OIT can vary widely and be influenced by several factors. Choosing the most appropriate candidate for an OIT program can mitigate risks and provide the best chance for patients to be successful.

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

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

Food allergy: History, definitions and treatment approaches

Allergen-specific immunotherapy for the treatment of immunoglobulin E mediated food allergies, specifically oral, epicutaneous, and sublingual immunotherapies, are promising options that may provide an alternative to strict avoidance of the dietary allergen. Of these potential therapies, oral immunotherapy is the furthest along in development, with strong evidence of efficacy in clinical trials, and has achieved regulatory approval. Nevertheless, oral immunotherapy may not be a suitable therapy for some patients due to the risk of adverse effects. In contrast to oral immunotherapy, epicutaneous and sublingual immunotherapies have demonstrated modest efficacy in clinical trials, with a favorable adverse effect profile, which suggests that these therapies may be possible contenders to oral immunotherapy in certain clinical situations. Familiarity with the various treatment approaches is vital for guiding patients and families as more therapeutic modalities become available for use outside of the research setting.

Long term oral immunotherapy management and assessment of success

There is limited data addressing the optimal dose, dosing frequency, and duration of OIT maintenance. Using higher maintenance doses, more frequent dosing, and a long dosing duration makes it more likely that sustained unresponsiveness will be achieved but also increases the burden of care on the OIT patient and family. The OIT maintenance regimen should be individualized based on the treatment goals of the patient and family.

A practical focus on peanut oral immunotherapy

A new era of active treatment for food allergy has arrived because patients with peanut allergy are increasingly able to access options for oral immunotherapy (OIT). This milestone is a culmination of years of clinical research and represents a major inflection point for the field because it will have dramatic impacts on allergy practice. In this review, we provide a brief review of the literature as well as practical guidance with concern for the use of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved peanut OIT as well as shelf-bought products.

A practical focus on multi-food oral immunotherapy

Approximately one-third of patients who present for oral immunotherapy (OIT) will be allergic to more than one food. Those patients with more than one food allergy have the option of sequential courses of single-food OIT or, in the right situation, combining several foods as part of multifood OIT. The time and cost savings can be substantial. Treatment protocols used with multiple foods are basically the same as with single-food courses, so clinics proficient with single-food OIT can easily transition to multifood OIT. Outcomes have been shown to be similar between the two approaches, so patients should be offered the opportunity to address their food allergies in one, more convenient OIT course.

Approaches to maintenance dosing during oral immunotherapy

Long term daily dosing for patients and families may be challenging due to food aversions, dosing protocols, and age of the patient. The few long term studies suggest that low quantity daily dosing is associated with passing higher dose challenges over the long term, whereas high dose maintenance may protect for longer avoidance intervals. We review the data for peanut and suggest several strategies for your patients.

Efficacy, effectiveness and other patient-centered outcomes of oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is the medically supervised ingestion of a food allergen. Understanding of the expected outcomes of OIT allow for risk-benefit assessments for patient-centered decisions. The efficacy of OIT to achieve desensitization in children has been confirmed in multiple meta-analyses, even with vastly disparate study populations and methodologies. Most children initiated on OIT will achieve the ability to eat more allergen before experiencing an allergic reaction than if they continue to avoid their allergen. This effect is diminished without regular ingestion. Previous meta-analyses showed increased allergic reactions on OIT versus avoidance or placebo due to the dosing itself; however, a recent meta-analysis showed that peanut OIT in children did not lead to an increase in allergic reactions. Analysis of emerging data suggests that OIT may reduce reactions to accidental exposures over time. Important patient-centered outcomes, including reaction avoidance or amelioration, and psychosocial impacts and/or quality of life, and studies of more demographically representative populations are also necessary.

Mast Cell Desensitization in Allergen Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only treatment with disease-transforming potential for allergic disorders. The immunological mechanisms associated with AIT can be divided along time in two phases: short-term, involving mast cell (MC) desensitization; and long-term, with a regulatory T cell (Treg) response with significant reduction of eosinophilia. This regulatory response is induced in about 70% of patients and lasts up to 3 years after AIT cessation. MC desensitization is characteristic of the initial phase of AIT and it is often related to its success. Yet, the molecular mechanisms involved in allergen-specific MC desensitization, or the connection between MC desensitization and the development of a Treg arm, are poorly understood. The major AIT challenges are its long duration, the development of allergic reactions during AIT, and the lack of efficacy in a considerable proportion of patients. Therefore, reaching a better understanding of the immunology of AIT will help to tackle these short-comings and, particularly, to predict responder-patients. In this regard, omics strategies are empowering the identification of predictive and follow-up biomarkers in AIT. Here, we review the immunological mechanisms underlying AIT with a focus on MC desensitization and AIT-induced adverse reactions. Also, we discuss the identification of novel biomarkers with predictive potential that could improve the rational use of AIT.

High-dimensional immune profiles correlate with phenotypes of peanut allergy during food-allergic reactions

BACKGROUND

Food challenges carry a burden of safety, effort and resources. Clinical reactivity and presentation, such as thresholds and symptoms, are considered challenging to predict ex vivo.

AIMS

To identify changes of peripheral immune signatures during oral food challenges (OFC) that correlate with the clinical outcome in patients with peanut allergy (PA).

METHODS

Children with a positive (OFC⁺ , n = 16) or a negative (OFC^- , n = 10) OFC-outcome were included (controls, n = 7). Single-cell mass cytometry/unsupervised analysis allowed unbiased immunophenotyping during OFC.

RESULTS

Peripheral immune profiles correlated with OFC outcome. OFC⁺ -profiles revealed mainly decreased Th2 cells, memory Treg and activated NK cells, which had an increased homing marker expression signifying immune cell migration into effector tissues along with symptom onset. OFC^- -profiles had also signs of ongoing inflammation, but with a signature of a controlled response, lacking homing marker expression and featuring a concomitant increase of Th2-shifted CD4⁺ T cells and Treg cells. Low versus high threshold reactivity-groups had differential frequencies of intermediate monocytes and myeloid dendritic cells at baseline. Low threshold was associated with increased CD8⁺ T cells and reduced memory cells (central memory [CM] CD4⁺ [Th2] T cells, CM CD8⁺ T cells, Treg). Immune signatures also discriminated patients with preferential skin versus gastrointestinal symptoms, whereby skin signs correlated with increased expression of CCR4, a molecule enabling skin trafficking, on various immune cell types.

CONCLUSION

We showed that peripheral immune signatures reflected dynamics of clinical outcome during OFC with peanut. Those immune alterations hold promise as a basis for predictive OFC biomarker discovery to monitor disease outcome and therapy of PA.

Patient selection for milk and egg ladders using a food ladder safety checklist

A food ladder is a form of home-based dietary advancement therapy that gradually increases exposure to an allergenic food through the gradual introduction of egg or milk containing food with increasing quantity and allergenicity from extensively heated forms, such as baked goods, to less processed products. While widely considered safe, the food ladder is not risk-free and most of the egg and milk ladder studies only included preschoolers with mild egg and milk allergies, and with no or well-controlled asthma. We propose a Food Ladder Safety Checklist to assist with patient selection using “4 A's” based on available evidence for food ladders, including Age, active or poorly controlled Asthma, history of Anaphylaxis, and Adherence.

Allergen immunotherapy and/or biologicals for IgE-mediated food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is substantial interest in immunotherapy and biologicals in IgE‐mediated food allergy.

Methods

We searched six databases for randomized controlled trials about immunotherapy alone or with biologicals (to April 2021) or biological monotherapy (to September 2021) in food allergy confirmed by oral food challenge. We pooled the data using random‐effects meta‐analysis.

Results

We included 36 trials about immunotherapy with 2126 mainly child participants. Oral immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 9.9, 95% CI 4.5.–21.4, high certainty); cow's milk (RR 5.7, 1.9–16.7, moderate certainty) and hen's egg allergy (RR 8.9, 4.4–18, moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to increase tolerance to a single dose of 300 mg or 1000 mg peanut protein was 2.

Oral immunotherapy did not increase adverse reactions (RR 1.1, 1.0–1.2, low certainty) or severe reactions in peanut allergy (RR 1,6, 0.7–3.5, low certainty), but may increase (mild) adverse reactions in cow's milk (RR 3.9, 2.1–7.5, low certainty) and hen's egg allergy (RR 7.0, 2.4–19.8, moderate certainty). Epicutaneous immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 2.6, 1.8–3.8, moderate certainty). Results were unclear for other allergies and administration routes.

There were too few trials of biologicals alone (3) or with immunotherapy (1) to draw conclusions.

Conclusions

Oral immunotherapy improves tolerance whilst on therapy and is probably safe in peanut, cow's milk and hen's egg allergy. More research is needed about quality of life, cost and biologicals.

Cashew oral immunotherapy for desensitizing cashew-pistachio allergy (NUT CRACKER study)

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a treatment option for patients with milk, egg, and peanut allergy, but data on the efficacy and safety of cashew OIT are limited.

METHODS

A cohort of 50 cashew-allergic patients aged ≥4 years, who were consecutively enrolled into cashew OIT (target dose 4000 mg protein) between 4/2016 and 12/2019. Fifteen cashew-allergic patients who continued cashew elimination served as observational controls. Co-allergy to pistachio and walnut was determined. Full desensitization rate and associated immunological changes in both groups were compared. Patients fully desensitized to cashew were instructed to consume a dose of 1200 mg cashew protein for 6 months and were then challenged to a full dose. Patients with co-allergy to pistachio or walnut were challenged to the respective nut.

RESULTS

Forty-four of 50 OIT-treated patients (88%) compared to 0% in controls tolerated a dose of 4000 mg cashew protein at the end of the study (odds ratio 8.3, 95% CI 3.9-17.7, p < 0.001). An additional three patients were desensitized to 1200 mg cashew protein, and three patients stopped treatment. Three patients (6%) were treated with injectable epinephrine for home reactions. Desensitized patients had decreased SPT, sIgE, basophil reactivity, and increased sIgG4, following treatment. Following cashew desensitization, all pistachio (n = 35) and four of eight walnut co-allergic patients were cross-desensitized to the respective nut. All (n = 44) patients consuming a low cashew dose for ≥6 months following desensitization passed a full-dose cashew OFC.

CONCLUSIONS

Cashew OIT desensitizes most cashew-allergic patients and cross-desensitizes to pistachio. Safety is similar to OIT for other foods.

Current insights: a systemic review of therapeutic options for peanut allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With increasing prevalence of peanut allergy (PA) globally and the greater risk of potential reactions occurring due to the leading role of nuts in food products, PA has become a significant public health concern over the past decade, affecting up to 5 million of the US adult population. This review details updates and advances in prevalence, diagnosis, and immunotherapies that have occurred over the past year.

RECENT FINDINGS

Therapeutic and diagnostic advances remain at the forefront of research and have continued to push the food allergy (FA) field forward to provide a promising role in the detection and treatment of PA. The FA field has researched significant advances in peanut immunotherapy, biomarker diagnosis, and quality of life (QoL) improvement.

SUMMARY

Given the burden and consequences for individuals with PA, these advances delivered in clinical practice can significantly improve the QoL of individuals with PA and their caregivers. Ongoing studies will continue to investigate long-term outcome measures of desensitisation and effective management plans tailored to the families' needs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Oral immunotherapy for children with a high-threshold peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Between 25% and 30% of children with peanut allergy (PA) have a relatively high-threshold peanut allergy (HTPA), with a single maximal tolerated dose (SMTD) higher than 100 mg of peanut protein (PP). However, this threshold may decrease with time, age, exercise, illness, sleep deprivation, and other covariates.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the feasibility of a simplified oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocol in a group of children with HTPA.

METHODS

Children with PA with an SMTD higher than 100 mg were placed on a 40-week OIT protocol of either 300 mg/d of PP or 100 mg/d for 20 weeks followed by 300 mg/d for 20 weeks. A repeat open peanut food challenge was performed after 40 weeks of treatment and at a 6-month follow-up visit. After the 40-week challenge, all children received a maintenance dosage of 2 gPP 3 times a week.

RESULTS

A total of 28 children with HTPA were enrolled, with 56% boys, 89% younger than 6 years old, and a mean SMTD of 304 mg (95% confidence interval 229-378). All were placed on the described OIT protocol. Overall, 2 children were not compliant and 3 had allergic reactions at home on the dose previously tolerated in clinic, 23 completed the 40-week protocol, and all were able to consume 2 g of PP. The mean tolerated dosage at the 6-month follow-up was 8 g. This enabled most children age-appropriate dietary inclusion of peanut-containing products.

CONCLUSION

In children with HTPA, a simple, fixed-dose OIT can be both safe and efficacious.

Eight tips for the implementation of the first licenced peanut allergy oral immunotherapy into clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Shared learnings from the early use of novel therapies can aid in their optimization. The recent introduction of peanut oral immunotherapy (peanut OIT; Palforzia [Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp]) for peanut allergy addresses a significant unmet need but also highlights the requirement for consideration of several factors by both prescribers and patients.

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for prescribers of licenced peanut OIT to facilitate treatment delivery and improve outcomes.

METHODS

Clinicians with experience of licenced peanut OIT (United States n = 6, United Kingdom n = 1) participated in a series of interviews and group discussions designed to elicit tips for successful implementation.

RESULTS

Clinicians identified 8 tips that were considered the most relevant, practical, and impactful for prescribers of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp: (1) preparing to provide treatment, (2) assessing the medical indication for treatment and (3) shared decision making, (4) staff education, (5) establishing office processes, (6) managing patient expectations and using anticipatory guidance, (7) optimising adherence and (8) maintaining flexibility throughout the treatment process. In addition, a range of supporting materials (e.g., checklists and action plans) are provided.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a novel therapy often requires healthcare providers to modify or adopt practices to effectively employ the treatment. The provision of guidance based upon early real-world experiences of licenced peanut OIT may help inform clinical practice and improve treatment outcomes.

Debulking SARS-CoV-2 in saliva using angiotensin converting enzyme 2 in chewing gum to decrease oral virus transmission and infection

To advance a novel concept of debulking virus in the oral cavity, the primary site of viral replication, virus-trapping proteins CTB-ACE2 were expressed in chloroplasts and clinical-grade plant material was developed to meet FDA requirements. Chewing gum (2 g) containing plant cells expressed CTB-ACE2 up to 17.2 mg ACE2/g dry weight (11.7% leaf protein), have physical characteristics and taste/flavor like conventional gums, and no protein was lost during gum compression. CTB-ACE2 gum efficiently (>95%) inhibited entry of lentivirus spike or VSV-spike pseudovirus into Vero/CHO cells when quantified by luciferase or red fluorescence. Incubation of CTB-ACE2 microparticles reduced SARS-CoV-2 virus count in COVID-19 swab/saliva samples by >95% when evaluated by microbubbles (femtomolar concentration) or qPCR, demonstrating both virus trapping and blocking of cellular entry. COVID-19 saliva samples showed low or undetectable ACE2 activity when compared with healthy individuals (2,582 versus 50,126 ΔRFU; 27 versus 225 enzyme units), confirming greater susceptibility of infected patients for viral entry. CTB-ACE2 activity was completely inhibited by pre-incubation with SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain, offering an explanation for reduced saliva ACE2 activity among COVID-19 patients. Chewing gum with virus-trapping proteins offers a general affordable strategy to protect patients from most oral virus re-infections through debulking or minimizing transmission to others.

Development and validation of the food allergy severity score

BACKGROUND

The heterogeneity and lack of validation of existing severity scores for food allergic reactions limit standardization of case management and research advances. We aimed to develop and validate a severity score for food allergic reactions.

METHODS

Following a multidisciplinary experts consensus, it was decided to develop a food allergy severity score (FASS) with ordinal (oFASS) and numerical (nFASS) formats. oFASS with 3 and 5 grades were generated through expert consensus, and nFASS by mathematical modeling. Evaluation was performed in the EuroPrevall outpatient clinic cohort (8232 food reactions) by logistic regression with request of emergency care and medications used as outcomes. Discrimination, classification, and calibration were calculated. Bootstrapping internal validation was followed by external validation (logistic regression) in 5 cohorts (3622 food reactions). Correlation of nFASS with the severity classification done by expert allergy clinicians by Best-Worst Scaling of 32 food reactions was calculated.

RESULTS

oFASS and nFASS map consistently, with nFASS having greater granularity. With the outcomes emergency care, adrenaline and critical medical treatment, oFASS and nFASS had a good discrimination (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC-AUC]>0.80), classification (sensitivity 0.87-0.92, specificity 0.73-0.78), and calibration. Bootstrapping over ROC-AUC showed negligible biases (1.0 × 10^-6 -1.23 × 10^-3 ). In external validation, nFASS performed best with higher ROC-AUC. nFASS was strongly correlated (R 0.89) to best-worst scoring of 334 expert clinicians.

CONCLUSION

FASS is a validated and reliable method to measure severity of food allergic reactions. The ordinal and numerical versions that map onto each other are suitable for use by different stakeholders in different settings.

Targeted allergen-specific immunotherapy within the skin improves allergen delivery to induce desensitization to peanut

Aim: Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) with peanut has been demonstrated to be safe but efficacy may be limited by allergen uptake through the skin barrier. To enhance allergen uptake into the skin, the authors used peanut-coated microneedles and compared them with EPIT in a peanut allergy mouse model. Methods: Sensitized mice were treated with peanut-coated microneedles or peanut-EPIT and then challenged with peanut to determine protection. Results: Treatment with peanut-coated microneedles was safe and showed enhanced desensitization to peanut compared with peanut-EPIT administered via a similar schedule. Protection was associated with reduced Th2 immune responses and mast cell accumulation in the intestine. Conclusion: Peanut-coated microneedles have the potential to present a safe method of improving allergen delivery for cutaneous immunotherapy.