AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy

Dietary and Microbial Determinants in Food Allergy

The steep rise in food allergy (FA) has evoked environmental factors involved in disease pathogenesis, including the gut microbiota, diet, and their metabolites. Early introduction of solid foods synchronizes with the "weaning reaction," a time during which the microbiota imprints durable oral tolerance. Recent work has shown that children with FA manifest an early onset dysbiosis with the loss of Clostridiales species, which promotes the differentiation of ROR-γt+ regulatory T cells to suppress FA. This process can be reversed in pre-clinical mouse models by targeted bacteriotherapy. Here, we review the dominant tolerance mechanisms enforced by the microbiota to suppress FA and discuss therapeutic intervention strategies that act to recapitulate the early life window of opportunity in stemming the FA epidemic.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Therapeutic perspectives in food allergy

BACKGROUND

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

MAIN BODY

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

CONCLUSION

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

Oral and sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Recent advances in mechanisms of food allergy and anaphylaxis

Food allergens are innocuous proteins that promote tolerogenic adaptive immune responses in healthy individuals yet in other individuals induce an allergic adaptive immune response characterized by the presence of antigen-specific immunoglobulin E and type-2 immune cells. The cellular and molecular processes that determine a tolerogenic versus non-tolerogenic immune response to dietary antigens are not fully elucidated. Recently, there have been advances in the identification of roles for microbial communities and anatomical sites of dietary antigen exposure and presentation that have provided new insights into the key regulatory steps in the tolerogenic versus non-tolerogenic decision-making processes. Herein, we will review and discuss recent findings in cellular and molecular processes underlying food sensitization and tolerance, immunological processes underlying severity of food-induced anaphylaxis, and insights obtained from immunotherapy trials.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION QUANTIFICATION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy with AR101 in European children with a peanut allergy (ARTEMIS): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is the leading cause of food-related anaphylaxis. Current management options can negatively affect food allergy-related quality of life. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of an investigational oral biologic drug (AR101).

METHODS

The AR101 Trial in Europe Measuring Oral Immunotherapy Success in peanut-allergic children (ARTEMIS) trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial done at 18 hospitals in Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Children and adolescents with peanut allergy, aged 4-17 years, who developed dose-limiting symptoms to 300 mg or less peanut protein (equivalent to approximately one peanut kernel) during a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test at study entry were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive daily doses of either AR101 oral immunotherapy (AR101 group) or a taste-masked placebo (placebo group). All participants, investigators, and care providers were masked to treatment allocation until the study was completed. Doses were increased every 2 weeks over 6 months until a dose of 300 mg was reached and maintained for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in the intention-to-treat or safety population (defined as those participants who had been randomly assigned and had received at least one dose of the assigned drug) who could consume a single dose of 1000 mg (cumulative dose 2043 mg) peanut protein without developing dose-limiting allergic symptoms at an exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge after 9 months of treatment. Additional endpoints included safety (ie, the frequency and severity of adverse events) and changes in food allergy-related quality of life, assessed by use of age-appropriate Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQs) and the Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03201003, and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between June 12, 2017, and Feb 15, 2018, 227 patients were screened, of whom 175 were randomly assigned to the AR101 group (n=132) and the placebo group (n=43). All primary and secondary endpoints were met. 77 (58%) of 132 participants in the AR101 group tolerated 1000 mg peanut protein at the exit food challenge versus one (2%) of 43 participants in the placebo group (AR101-placebo treatment difference 56·0% [95% CI 44·1-65·2], p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported by almost all participants. The maximum severity of adverse events reported was mild or moderate for most participants who received AR101 (mild, 66 [50%] of 132 participants; moderate, 63 [48%]; and severe, one [1%]) or placebo (mild, 24 [56%] of 43 participants; moderate, 18 [42%]; severe, none). Participants aged 8-12 years in the AR101 group reported improvements that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference between the two groups across all FAQLQ domains. Additionally, participants in the AR101 group and their caregivers reported improvements that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference in FAIM domains related to the perceived likelihood and outcomes of a severe allergic reaction.

INTERPRETATION

AR101 oral immunotherapy treatment led to rapid desensitisation to peanut protein, with a predictable safety profile that improved with treatment, and an associated improvement in self-reported and caregiver-reported food allergy-related quality of life. These patient-oriented outcomes provide invaluable data to help physicians, patients, and caregivers make informed, shared decisions on the management of peanut allergy.

FUNDING

Aimmune Therapeutics.

Oral immunotherapy for treatment of peanut allergy

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

Long-term, open-label extension study of the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: PEOPLE 3-year results

BACKGROUND

The PEPITES (Peanut EPIT Efficacy and Safety) trial, a 12-month randomized controlled study of children with peanut allergy and 4 to 11 years old, previously reported the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy (250 μg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250 μg).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess interim safety and efficacy of an additional 2 years of EPIT from the ongoing (5-year treatment) PEOPLE (PEPITES Open-Label Extension) study.

METHODS

Subjects who completed PEPITES were offered enrollment in PEOPLE. Following an additional 2 years of daily DBV712 250 μg, subjects who had received DBV712 250 μg in PEPITES underwent month-36 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge with an optional month-38 sustained unresponsiveness assessment.

RESULTS

Of 213 eligible subjects who had received DBV712 250 μg in PEPITES, 198 (93%) entered PEOPLE, of whom 141 (71%) had assessable double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at month 36. At month 36, 51.8% of subjects (73 of 141) reached an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg, compared with 40.4% (57 of 141) at month 12; 75.9% (107 of 141) demonstrated increased eliciting dose compared with baseline; and 13.5% (19 of 141) tolerated the full double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge of 5444 mg. Median cumulative reactive dose increased from 144 to 944 mg. Eighteen subjects underwent an optional sustained unresponsiveness assessment; 14 of those (77.8%) maintained an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg at month 38. Local patch-site skin reactions were common but decreased over time. There was no treatment-related epinephrine use in years 2 or 3. Compliance was high (96.9%), and withdrawals due to treatment-related adverse events were low (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that daily EPIT treatment for peanut allergy beyond 1 year leads to continued response from a well-tolerated, simple-to-use regimen.

A counseling video with pre- and posttesting and checklist for oral immunotherapy consent improves participant knowledge

BACKGROUND

The use of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies has been expanding in North America. Although families are interested in this therapeutic approach, misconceptions are common; therefore, education of these families is essential before obtaining informed consent.

OBJECTIVE

To improve parent and patient knowledge about OIT by investigating the use of a counseling video (CV) and checklist.

METHODS

This retrospective review was conducted in a pediatric outpatient clinic. After consultation and review of the information package, 467 parents and patients (>12 years old) performed pre- and posttests in conjunction with a CV during a checklist-based 2-hour counseling session for OIT.

RESULTS

The evaluation of pre- and posttest performance suggested an improvement in the ability of patients to answer relevant questions pertaining to OIT. This was statistically significant for all groups, including mothers, fathers, and children (P < .001). Mothers performed better than fathers and patients in mean number of correct responses in both pre- and posttest scores and in posttest scores after adjustment for pretest scores. Fathers performed better than patients in both pre- and posttest scores but not on posttest scores after adjustment for pretest scores. A checklist-based format resulted in 100% of all major topics being discussed in a 1-hour discussion. Reported satisfaction was high among the participants.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to evaluate the use of a CV in conjunction with pre- and posttesting to educate families about the key principles of OIT. We suggest that as part of extensive counseling for OIT, an educational video is beneficial in a pediatric outpatient clinic.

Pediatric Allergic Diseases, Food Allergy, and Oral Tolerance

Pediatric allergic disease is a significant health concern worldwide, and the prevalence of childhood eczema, asthma, allergic rhinitis, and food allergy continues to increase. Evidence to support specific interventions for the prevention of eczema, asthma, and allergic rhinitis is limited, and no consensus on prevention strategies has been reached. Randomized controlled trials investigating the prevention of food allergy via oral tolerance induction and the early introduction of allergenic foods have been successful in reducing peanut and egg allergy prevalence. Infant weaning guidelines in the United Sates were recently amended to actively encourage the introduction of peanut for prevention of peanut allergy.

Recombinant allergens for immunotherapy: state of the art

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

More than 30 years ago, the first molecular structures of allergens were elucidated and defined recombinant allergens became available. We review the state of the art regarding molecular AIT with the goal to understand why progress in this field has been slow, although there is huge potential for treatment and allergen-specific prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

On the basis of allergen structures, several AIT strategies have been developed and were advanced into clinical evaluation. In clinical AIT trials, promising results were obtained with recombinant and synthetic allergen derivatives inducing allergen-specific IgG antibodies, which interfered with allergen recognition by IgE whereas clinical efficacy could not yet be demonstrated for approaches targeting only allergen-specific T-cell responses. Available data suggest that molecular AIT strategies have many advantages over allergen extract-based AIT.

SUMMARY

Clinical studies indicate that recombinant allergen-based AIT vaccines, which are superior to existing allergen extract-based AIT can be developed for respiratory, food and venom allergy. Allergen-specific preventive strategies based on recombinant allergen-based vaccine approaches and induction of T-cell tolerance are on the horizon and hold promise that allergy can be prevented. However, progress is limited by lack of resources needed for clinical studies, which are necessary for the development of these innovative strategies.

Eosinophilic esophagitis during sublingual and oral allergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to discuss the current evidence regarding the development of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in individuals undergoing oral and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for both food and environmental allergens. Cumulative incidence of EoE in patients on allergen immunotherapy for peanut, milk, and egg is estimated.

RECENT FINDINGS

De novo development of EoE in patients undergoing oral and SLIT has been demonstrated on the scale of case reports and prospective randomized trials. However, few individuals with EoE-like symptoms during immunotherapy undergo endoscopy, and the long-term outcomes of immunotherapy-associated EoE are unknown.

SUMMARY

Evidence exists to suggest that allergen immunotherapy could place individuals at risk for the development of EoE, the true incidence of which may vary depending on antigen exposure and methods used to define the condition.

Sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy and its future directions

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

Outcomes for clinical trials of food allergy treatments

OBJECTIVE

Food allergy is a common condition that can have a significant impact on the quality of life of affected individuals and their caregivers. Recent years have witnessed an increased effort to identify new treatments for food allergy. Here, we review the need to identify core outcomes for measurement in clinical trials of food allergy treatments.

DATA SOURCES

We reviewed the literature regarding core outcome set development, the important role that these play in prioritizing patient-relevant outcomes, and the potential for core outcomes to accelerate the path to product marketing by allowing prompt and reliable evidence synthesis after trial publication.

STUDY SELECTIONS

We reviewed recent clinical trials of food allergy treatments to understand which outcomes have previously been measured, and also reviewed available core outcome set initiatives for other allergic conditions to understand which other outcomes might be explored in future trials.

RESULTS

Clinical trials of food allergy treatments have largely focused on outcomes that are relevant to investigators and commercial investors, especially the threshold of reactivity and immunologic changes. Future trials should consider addressing patient-important outcomes and should report the experiences of both adult and child participants and their caregivers.

CONCLUSION

There is a pressing need for core outcome set development for food allergy treatment trials.

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

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

Food Allergy Management at School in the Era of Immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Consensus report from the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) 2019 Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy Summit

Food allergy is a major health problem affecting 5% to 10% of the population in developed nations, including an estimated 32 million Americans. Despite the large number of patients suffering from food allergies, up until the end of January 2020, no treatment for food allergies had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The only options were avoidance of food allergen triggers and acute management of allergic reactions. A considerable body of data exists supporting oral immunotherapy (OIT) as a promising, novel treatment option, including that for the now Food and Drug Administration-approved peanut OIT product Palforzia (Aimmune Therapeutics, Brisbane, Calif). However, data for long-term quality-of-life improvement with OIT varies, depending on the measures used for analysis. Like many therapies, OIT is not without potential harms, and burdens, and the evaluation of patient-specific risk-benefit ratio of food OIT produces challenges for clinicians and patients alike, with many unanswered questions. Food Allergy Research & Education organized the Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy Summit on November 6, 2019, modeled after the PRACTALL sessions between the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology to address these critical issues. Health care providers, patient representatives, researchers, regulators, and food allergy advocates came together to discuss OIT and identify areas of common ground as well as gaps in existing research and areas of uncertainty and disagreement. The purpose of this article was to summarize that discussion and facilitate collaboration among clinicians and patients to help them make better-informed decisions about offering and accepting OIT, respectively, as a therapeutic option.

Shared decision-making in the care of a patient with food allergy

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making is a patient-centered approach that involves a mutual discussion about management or treatment options, which account for the patient's underlying values and preferences for therapy. Little is known about the role of shared decision-making in the care of patients with food allergy.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review of the shared decision-making and food allergy outcomes literature in the past 20 years was performed.

RESULTS

In shared decision-making, care must be taken to help clarify the patient's values regarding their care options, but not instill the clinician's values or preferences into that choice. It is essential to understand the mutual roles of the clinician in the process of providing evidence-based options for care, advocating for treatments that are aligned with their goals and preferences, and allowing patients to make fully informed decisions within this paradigm. Decision support tools such as decision aids can assist patients in the values clarification process, particularly in which preference-sensitive care exists, in which options hold significant tradeoffs and varying outcomes, and the decision is reflective of personal values and preferences. There are multiple potential preference-sensitive care scenarios in food allergy in which shared decision-making could be optimized, including the development of decision aids. These areas include early allergenic solid introduction, preemptive epinephrine use in which there is allergen exposure but no symptoms, automatic activation of EMS after using epinephrine, and choices of food allergy treatment. Only one decision aid in food allergy exists.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision-making is an approach that could greatly enhance food allergy care and improve patient-reported outcomes.

Food allergy immunotherapy: Oral immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy

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

Exercise-induced allergic reactions on desensitization to wheat after rush oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

The effect of oral immunotherapy (OIT) on wheat allergy is promising in terms of the potential to obtain desensitization; however, the frequency of exercise-induced allergic reactions on desensitization (EIARDs) and the associated risk factors remain to be determined.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients underwent rush OIT for wheat allergy, and 21 achieved the full-dose intake of wheat products (5 g of wheat protein). Exercise-provocation tests were repeatedly performed after the ingestion of a full-dose wheat product. The time-course of the levels of the specific IgEs (sIgE) to wheat extract, total gliadin, deamidated gliadin, recombinant gliadin components (α/β-, γ- and ω-5-), and glutenin (high and low molecular weight) components was analyzed using ImmunoCAP^® , ELISA, or IgE immunoblotting.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (66.7%) were diagnosed as EIARD+, which remained 5 years after rush OIT in 11 patients (52.4%). There were no differences in the clinical backgrounds of the EIARD+ and EIARD- patients. However, EIARD+ patients showed significantly higher sIgE levels to all gliadin and glutenin components than EIARD- patients before OIT. The sIgE levels to each component decreased equally after 1 and 2 years of OIT. On IgE immunoblotting, sera from all patients reacted to the multiple gluten bands, and some reacted to the water-soluble bands. The intensity of all IgE-reactive bands also became equally lighter after OIT.

CONCLUSIONS

EIARDs were frequently observed and remained for a long period after successful OIT for wheat allergy. None of the specific wheat components were found to contribute to EIARDs.

Can food allergy be cured? What are the future prospects?

Food allergies have become a significant heath burden as prevalence continues to rise, affecting 6%-13% of the global population. In the absence of drugs approved by regulatory agencies, the current standard of care remains avoidance of allergenic foods and management of acute allergic reactions with antihistamines and epinephrine autoinjectors. Allergen immunotherapy has been shown to increase the threshold of reactivity in the majority of food-allergic individuals. However, challenges include long treatment periods, high rates of adverse reactions, and lack of permanence of desensitization and established protocols. To address these limitations, adjunctive allergen-specific immunotherapy, vaccines, and non-allergen-specific therapies (eg, monoclonal antibodies) are being explored. The future of food allergy treatment is promising with a number of clinical trials in progress. Currently, although desensitization can be achieved for the majority of individuals with food allergy through immunotherapy, continued ingestion of allergen is needed for most individuals to maintain desensitization. Further understanding of the mechanisms of food allergy and identification of biomarkers to distinguish between temporary and permanent resolution of allergies is needed before a cure, where reactivity to the allergen is permanently lost enabling the individual to consume the allergen in any amount at any time, can be envisioned.

A Comprehensive Review on Natural Bioactive Compounds and Probiotics as Potential Therapeutics in Food Allergy Treatment

Food allergy is rising at an alarming rate and is a major public health concern. Globally, food allergy affects over 500 million people, often starting in early childhood and increasingly reported in adults. Commercially, only one approved oral immunotherapy-based treatment is currently available and other allergen-based immunotherapeutic are being investigated in clinical studies. As an alternative approach, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on natural compounds and probiotics, focusing on the immune modes of action, and therapeutic uses of such sources to tackle various immune-related diseases. Food allergy is primarily mediated by IgE antibodies and the suppression of allergic symptoms seems to be mostly modulated through a reduction of allergen-specific IgE antibodies, upregulation of blocking IgG, and downregulation of effector cell activation (e.g., mast cells) or expression of T-helper 2 (Th-2) cytokines. A wide variety of investigations conducted in small animal models or cell-based systems have reported on the efficacy of natural bioactive compounds and probiotics as potential anti-allergic therapeutics. However, very few lead compounds, unlike anti-cancer and anti-microbial applications, have been selected for clinical trials in the treatment of food allergies. Natural products or probiotic-based approaches appear to reduce the symptoms and/or target specific pathways independent of the implicated food allergen. This broad range therapeutic approach essentially provides a major advantage as several different types of food allergens can be targeted with one approach and potentially associated with a lower cost of development. This review provides a brief overview of the immune mechanisms underlying food allergy and allergen-specific immunotherapy, followed by a comprehensive collection of current studies conducted to investigate the therapeutic applications of natural compounds and probiotics, including discussions of their mode of action and immunological aspects of their disease-modifying capabilities.

Unmet needs of children with peanut allergy: Aligning the risks and the evidence

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is a potentially severe and lifelong allergy, with few effective treatments or preventive measures.

OBJECTIVE

To convene an expert panel of allergists, pediatricians, and advocates to discuss and highlight unmet needs in the prevention and management of peanut allergies.

METHODS

Literature searches of PubMed were performed. The panel evaluated published data on the prevention of peanut allergy, treatment of existing peanut allergy, and management of reactions after unintentional peanut exposures.

RESULTS

The following key unmet needs in the prevention and management of peanut allergy were identified: (1) enhancing and optimizing implementation of early peanut introduction as a means of preventing the development of peanut allergy, (2) developing knowledge translation strategies regarding the safety and efficacy data for current and emerging immunotherapies for peanut-allergic children to support their use in clinical practice, and (3) promoting understanding of true exposure risk in allergic individuals and ensuring access to epinephrine for unintentional exposures that provoke severe reactions. Practitioners should help educate caregivers about the actual risks associated with peanut allergy and its prevention and management so that treatment decisions can be evidence based rather than fear based. Support tools are needed to help address caregiver goals, expectations, and psychological barriers, as well as identify facilitators for prevention and treatment strategies.

CONCLUSION

There are significant unmet needs in our understanding of peanut allergy; addressing these needs will help to enhance understanding of how to most effectively prevent and treat peanut allergy, as well as educate the food-allergic and nonallergic community regarding current evidence-based practices.

The Effectiveness and Value of Oral Immunotherapy and Viaskin Peanut for Peanut Allergy

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Herron-Smith and Pearson are employed by ICER, which has a contract with the University of California, San Francisco, to perform work for these analyses. Segal was employed by ICER at the time of this review. Tice and Walsh are employed by the University of California, San Francisco. Gazauskas and Hansen have nothing to disclose.

Peanut Immunotherapy: Stepping Towards Desensitization for Peanut Allergy

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported the writing of this commentary. Hsu reports research support from Vedanta Biosciences and consulting fees from EBSCO, outside the submitted work.

Peanut Allergy: New Advances and Ongoing Controversies

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

Mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and food allergies

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is currently the only potential treatment for allergies including allergic rhinitis (AR) and food allergies (FA) that can modify the underlying course of the diseases. Although AIT has been performed for over a century, the precise and detailed mechanism for AIT is still unclear. Previous clinical trials have reported that successful AIT induces the reinstatement of tolerance against the specific allergen. In this review, we aim to provide an updated summary of the knowledge on the underlying mechanisms of IgE-mediated AR and FA as well as the immunological changes observed after AIT and discuss on how better understanding of these can lead to possible identification of biomarkers and novel strategies for AIT.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: a Current Perspective

Purpose of the Review

Peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is one of the most studied experimental therapies for food allergy. With the recently FDA-approved peanut product, Palforzia, the goal of this article is to review the most recent data from clinical trials, discuss recent trends, and anticipate future developments.

Recent Findings

The latest research suggests that peanut OIT could be a promising option for peanut-allergic patients, with the majority of participants in research studies achieving the primary efficacy endpoint of desensitization, as well as sustained unresponsiveness in select populations. Some studies also showed improvements in food allergy-related quality of life. However, peanut OIT is not without risk or side effects, including potentially serious allergic reactions.

Summary

Future research will need to evaluate the short- and long-term effectiveness of the therapy in the real-world setting, predictors of important treatment outcomes, and the use of adjunctive therapies that may mitigate some of these allergic reactions.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Discussion

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

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

Quality of life improves significantly after real-world oral immunotherapy for children with peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is a novel and active form of treatment for patients with peanut allergy, with multiple research studies supporting its efficacy and safety. However, there are limited data available on changes in patients' quality of life (QoL) after successful desensitization. The Food and Drug Administration in the United States recently approved the first POIT drug for commercial use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the QoL of patients with peanut allergy receiving POIT in a real-world academic setting.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients aged 4 to 17 years with a physician-established diagnosis of peanut allergy were offered POIT. Quality-of-life scores were assessed with the use of a validated Food Allergy Quality of Life questionnaire. Changes in quality-of-life scores were measured for each patient before and after POIT. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the distributions of scores before and after therapy.

RESULTS

We noted a statistically significant drop (reflecting improvement in the QoL) in the overall Food Allergy Quality of Life score (median 3.70 vs 2.97, P = .049) between baseline and successful desensitization to 300-mg peanut protein. In addition, the Social and Dietary Limitations subscale score (median 4.33 vs 2.89, P = .02) and the Food Allergy Independent Measure score (median 3.17 vs 2.22, P = .001) also improved significantly after therapy.

CONCLUSION

We report a significant improvement in the overall QoL before and after POIT treatment, with fewer concerns about accidental exposures and severity of allergic reactions as well as fewer limitations in dietary choices and social interactions.

Community Private Practice Clinical Experience with Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for desensitizing peanut-allergic patients, but the frequency of adverse reactions has limited its widespread use.

OBJECTIVE

To review the frequency of adverse reactions that patients on peanut oral immunotherapy experience during build-up and maintenance phases and explore factors that may contribute to adverse events.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of children and adults with peanut allergy undergoing peanut oral immunotherapy at the New England Food Allergy Treatment Center in West Hartford, Conn was performed. Data on patient demographics, allergic profile, peanut allergy testing, and details of reactions in build-up and maintenance phases were collected. A systemic reaction was defined as one of the following: (1) severe reaction involving 1 system, such as generalized hives and/or angioedema; (2) 2 or more of the following symptoms: cutaneous or oral, respiratory, or gastrointestinal symptoms; (3) drop in blood pressure; or (4) need for epinephrine.

RESULTS

Data were available on 783 patients aged 3.5 to 48.3 years. During buildup, 78 patients (10%) experienced at least 1 systemic reaction, 660 (84%) at least 1 gastrointestinal adverse event, 369 (47%) at least 1 cutaneous adverse event, and 157 (20%) at least 1 respiratory adverse event. Thirty-four patients (4%) required epinephrine during buildup. Six hundred ninety-seven patients (89%) completed buildup and progressed to maintenance. During maintenance, 131 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 systemic reaction, 190 (27%) at least 1 gastrointestinal adverse event, 104 (15%) at least 1 cutaneous adverse event, and 50 (7%) at least 1 respiratory adverse event. Seventy-four patients (11%) required epinephrine during maintenance. None of the adverse events required hospitalizations, and there were no mortalities. Nine patients (1%) were diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis during buildup or maintenance. Increasing pretreatment peanut specific IgE levels were associated with increased odds of a systemic reaction during buildup. Increasing age, pretreatment peanut specific IgE level, and a systemic reaction in buildup were associated with increased odds of a systemic reaction during maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut oral immunotherapy may be an effective and safe treatment for carefully selected peanut-allergic patients under the guidance of experienced providers. Specific patient characteristics and immunologic factors may help predict adverse events.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Vaccine against peanut allergy based on engineered virus-like particles displaying single major peanut allergens

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is a severe and increasingly frequent disease with high medical, psychosocial, and economic burden for affected patients and wider society. A causal, safe, and effective therapy is not yet available.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to develop an immunogenic, protective, and nonreactogenic vaccine candidate against peanut allergy based on virus-like particles (VLPs) coupled to single peanut allergens.

METHODS

To generate vaccine candidates, extracts of roasted peanut (Ara R) or the single allergens Ara h 1 or Ara h 2 were coupled to immunologically optimized Cucumber Mosaic Virus-derived VLPs (CuMVtt). BALB/c mice were sensitized intraperitoneally with peanut extract absorbed to alum. Immunotherapy consisted of a single subcutaneous injection of CuMVtt coupled to Ara R, Ara h 1, or Ara h 2.

RESULTS

The vaccines CuMVtt-Ara R, CuMVtt-Ara h 1, and CuMVtt-Ara h 2 protected peanut-sensitized mice against anaphylaxis after intravenous challenge with the whole peanut extract. Vaccines did not cause allergic reactions in sensitized mice. CuMVtt-Ara h 1 was able to induce specific IgG antibodies, diminished local reactions after skin prick tests, and reduced the infiltration of the gastrointestinal tract by eosinophils and mast cells after oral challenge with peanut. The ability of CuMVtt-Ara h 1 to protect against challenge with the whole extract was mediated by IgG, as shown via passive IgG transfer. FcγRIIb was required for protection, indicating that immune complexes with single allergens were able to block the allergic response against the whole extract, consisting of a complex allergen mixture.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that vaccination using single peanut allergens displayed on CuMVtt may represent a novel therapy against peanut allergy with a favorable safety profile.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Oral food challenges: Special considerations

OBJECTIVE

To reinforce special considerations when offering and conducting oral food challenges (OFCs).

DATA SOURCES

Published studies and reviews.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies concerning OFCs and their conduct.

RESULTS

Multiple OFC protocols for various clinical situations and foods were reviewed.

CONCLUSION

OFCs are used for the definitive diagnosis of food allergy. Risk and benefit assessment guide the OFC procedure. The conduct of OFCs is influenced by multiple factors, including age, food, and goal of the challenge.

Development and acceptability of a shared decision-making tool for commercial peanut allergy therapies

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is the process through which patients and their medical provider mutually explore therapy goals, risk/benefit, and treatment options regarding medical care. Decision aids are tools that aid in the process of values clarification and help assess decisional needs and potential decisional conflicts.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and assess acceptability of a decision aid for commercial peanut allergy therapies.

METHODS

The creation of this decision aid occurred in 3 stages, including a qualitative study to assess decisional needs, development of a draft decision aid through multiple iterations in accordance with international guidelines and decision aid experts, and assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy related to using the decision aid.

RESULTS

The decision aid went through 9 iterations, resulting in a 4-page aid with 7 parts, explaining the therapies, key risks and benefits of therapy choices, relative importance of key attributes of the therapies, and a self-check assessment regarding informational adequacy and how to take the next steps. A total of 24 subjects assessed the decision aid, noting it had good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 91.9/100), and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.2/100). Respondents rated the information content as adequate and sufficient and the information regarding the therapy choices as fair and balanced without a clear bias or presenting a "best choice."

CONCLUSION

We have developed this decision aid as a tool to help caregivers navigate the complexity of decision making for peanut allergy treatment options. The decision aid was noted to have good acceptability, with scores reflective of the instrument enhancing decisional self-efficacy and reducing decisional conflict.

Evolution of Immune Responses in Food Immunotherapy

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

The severity of reaction after food challenges depends on the indication: A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

There are expanding indications for oral food challenges (OFCs). Although several studies have examined the risk of OFCs, little has been reported on allergic reactions during OFCs depending on the indication. This study assessed the prevalence, severity, and treatment of allergic reactions depending on the indication for OFCs.

METHODS

We performed a prospective multicenter study between March 2012 and May 2013. Severity of symptoms elicited by OFCs was classified according to grading of anaphylaxis that ranges from grade 1 (most mild) to grade 5 (most severe).

RESULTS

A total of 5062 cases (median age, 3.8 years; males, 65.2%) were analyzed. Allergic reactions were elicited in 2258 (44.6%) OFCs, of which 991 (43.9%) were classified as grade 1, 736 (32.6%) were classified as grade 2, 340 (15.1%) were classified as grade 3, and 191 (8.5%) were classified as grade 4-5. Epinephrine was administered in 7.1% (n = 160) of positive OFCs. Among the top three most common food allergens (hen's egg, cow's milk, and wheat), severity differed significantly depending on the indication for OFC, and adjusted standardized residuals indicated that severity of allergic reactions was higher for the indication to assess threshold level for oral immunotherapy. In addition, the prevalence of epinephrine use was highest for the indication to determine safe intake quantity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggested that prevalence, severity, and treatment of allergic reactions differ depending on the indication for OFC. Further studies are needed to determine differences in risks depending on the indication for OFC.