Effect of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Ingestion Among Children With Peanut Allergy: The PEPITES Randomized Clinical Trial

Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: aligning clinical trials with patient priorities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the clinical outcomes used in immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy (FA) intervention studies, emphasizing unmet need for patient-centred outcomes. Standardizing outcome measurement is critical as research into FA treatments, particularly food immunotherapy, expands. Here we discuss how outcomes should reflect the multidimensional impact of FA on people's lives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence reveals a discrepancy between clinical trial outcomes and those most valued by patients and carers. While trials often prioritize changes in reactivity thresholds or immunological markers, patients and carers emphasize need in reducing severe reactions, improving quality of life, and enhancing confidence in disease management. This disparity highlights importance of harmonization efforts to guide FA research.The Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative recently identified two core outcomes - 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' - through an international consensus process involving patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. Outcomes like 'desensitization' and 'remission/sustained unresponsiveness' were considered important but were not seen as the most critical.

SUMMARY

Developing and implementing a COS for FA intervention studies is essential to align research with patient priorities, ensuring meaningful improvements in routine clinical care. Standardized outcome measurement will generate robust evidence, inform clinical practice, and empower patients and caregivers in decision-making about FA management.

Re-evaluating treatment success in trials of peanut oral-immunotherapy: impact of different definitions on efficacy outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is increasingly popular as a treatment strategy for food allergy. Unfortunately, there is significant heterogeneity in reported outcomes, specifically in the dose-thresholds selected for evaluation and the symptoms used to define a "tolerated dose". These considerations are often investigator-driven and do not consider patient perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

A systematic review by the EAACI CO-FAITH taskforce recently flagged the need to better standardize and harmonize outcomes used in clinical trials of food-AIT. Using less objective symptoms to define dose-limiting symptoms can underestimate the reaction threshold determined at baseline food challenge. As a consequence, this can overestimate the efficacy of food-AIT by 15%. In this review, we perform an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using data from three randomized-controlled trials and one real-world registry, to evaluate how the definition of dose "tolerance" impacts upon reported desensitization rates.

SUMMARY

This analysis provides insight into how clinical efficacy rates for food-AIT are impacted by using different dose thresholds and definitions for when a dose might be consider tolerated. Using more patient-centric outcomes may be a more useful metric to harmonize reporting of outcomes and inform clinical practice, paving the way towards reaching a consensus on outcome reporting in trials of food-AIT.

Microarray Patch Based Transdermal Allergen Immunotherapy Prevents Gliadin-induced Anaphylaxis in a Murine Model

PURPOSE

Gliadins are the primary triggers in wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis. Currently, there are no officially approved immune-modulating treatments for gliadin allergy. Recent in vivo studies have shown that hyaluronic acid based dissolving microarray patch (dMAP) could deliver house dust mite allergens through transdermal pathway and protect allergic asthma and atopic dermatitis in vivo. In this study, we explored the potential of dMAP for the transdermal delivery of gliadin proteins as a strategy to mitigate gliadin allergy.

METHODS

C3H/HeJ mice were sensitized to gliadin with cholera toxin via oral administration, followed by oral or intraperitoneal gliadin challenge. To evaluate the protective effects of transdermal immunotherapy (TDIT), gliadin-loaded dMAPs were applied twice a week to gliadin-sensitized mice for 4 weeks. Afterward, the mice were challenged with gliadin.

RESULTS

The manufacturing process of dMAP did not alter the allergenicity of gliadin. TDIT significantly improved the anaphylaxis clinical score and stabilized core body temperature in the gliadin anaphylaxis model. It reduced mast cell protease-1 and gliadin-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), and increased specific IgG₁, IgG2a and IgG2b levels. Ex vivo splenocyte study revealed that TDIT enhanced T helper type 1 (Th₁) cell population, interferon-γ expression, regulatory T cell population, and interleukin (IL)-10 expression, as well as suppressed Th₂ cell population and associated cytokines (IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13). Furthermore, this TDIT preserved the structural integrity of small intestinal villi and reduced eosinophil and mast cell infiltration.

CONCLUSIONS

Gliadin TDIT using dMAP mitigates gliadin-induced anaphylaxis in a murine model, offering a promising novel immune modulating treatment for gliadin-induced anaphylaxis.

Long-Term Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Peanut-Allergic Children: An Open-Label Active Treatment (REALISE Study)

BACKGROUND

Owing to limited treatment options for peanut allergy, patients remain at risk for allergic reactions due to accidental exposure. Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) is a novel treatment being investigated for peanut allergy.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed long-term safety of EPIT with VIASKIN peanut patch 250 μg (VP250) via an open-label extension of the REAL Life Use and Safety of EPIT (REALISE) trial.

METHODS

REALISE was a phase 3 trial in peanut-allergic children aged 4 through 11 years that included a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase, followed by an open-label, single-arm, active treatment period for up to 36 months.

RESULTS

Of the 392 participants (male 54.8%; median age 7.2 y) who received at least 1 dose of treatment, 77.8% completed the 36-month active treatment. Mean adherence to treatment was high at 96.4%. Most participants (98.7%) experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); the majority were mild or moderate and decreased in frequency and severity over time. Most participants (94.6%) experienced at least 1 treatment-related TEAE. Local skin reactions were the most common treatment-related TEAE with the incidence decreasing from year 1 (87.8%) to year 3 (19.2%). Serious treatment-related TEAEs were reported in 2 participants. No specific safety signals were identified in the 14 participants enrolled with a history of severe anaphylaxis (Anaphylaxis Staging System grade 3).

CONCLUSION

Consistent with previous phase 3 studies, long-term EPIT with VIASKIN peanut patch 250 μg was well tolerated with high adherence in peanut-allergic children aged 4 through 11 years (clinicaltrials.gov; NCT: NCT02916446).

Scientific developments in understanding food allergy prevention, diagnosis, and treatment

Food allergies (FAs) are adverse immune reactions to normally innocuous foods. Their prevalence has been increasing in recent decades. They can be IgE-mediated, non-IgE mediated, or mixed. Of these, the mechanisms underlying IgE-mediated FA are the best understood and this has assisted in the development of therapeutics. Currently there are two approved drugs for the treatment of FA, Palforzia and Omalizumab. Palfornia is a characterized peanut product used as immunotherapy for peanut allergy. Immunotherapy, involves exposure of the patient to small but increasing doses of the allergen and slowly builds immune tolerance to the allergen and increases a patient's allergic threshold. Omalizumab, a biologic, is an anti-IgE antibody which binds to IgE and prevents release of proinflammatory allergenic mediators on exposure to allergen. Other biologics, investigational vaccines, nanoparticles, Janus Kinase and Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or DARPins are also being evaluated as potential therapeutics. Oral food challenges (OFC) are the gold standard for the diagnosis for FA. However, they are time-consuming and involve risk of anaphylaxis; therefore, alternative diagnostic methods are being evaluated. This review will discuss how the immune system mediates an allergic response to specific foods, as well as FA risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and treatments for FA.

Efficacy and Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Peanut-allergic Children with Atopic Comorbidities

BACKGROUND

There is a high prevalence rate of atopic comorbidities, including atopic dermatitis (AD), asthma, and concomitant food allergy (CFA), in children with peanut allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether concomitant atopic comorbidities affect the safety and efficacy of VIASKIN® peanut patch (VP250).

METHODS

EPITOPE was a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to assess treatment response to VP250, as measured by eliciting dose at 12 months, in peanut-allergic children aged 1 through 3 years. This subgroup analysis assessed response rates for prespecified subgroups, including children with asthma, AD/eczema, and CFA. The safety profile of VP250 was evaluated by atopic condition in all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose.

RESULTS

Responder rates were significantly greater with VP250 vs placebo, irrespective of the presence of atopic conditions. There was no significant interaction effect between participants with an atopic comorbidity vs those without. The safety profile was generally similar across subgroups without any additional safety signals. There was no clinically meaningful change in severity of AD in those receiving VP250, regardless of baseline AD status. Rates of anaphylaxis were higher in those with AD or CFA receiving VP250 vs those without; however, these imbalances were also observed in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that 12 months of treatment with VP250 was effective in desensitizing peanut-allergic children aged 1 through 3 years, with no difference in efficacy and a favorable safety profile, regardless of the presence of atopic comorbidities.

Evolving Food Allergy Clinical Trials to Become More Patient-Centered

The current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) paradigm may not fully capture important patient-centered outcomes or measure a primary outcome that is truly meaningful to patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized tools measuring the patient's experience in food allergy clinical trials, which can help support shared decision-making (SDM) and further our understanding of treatment impact. Food allergy PROMs include quality of life (QoL), health state utility (HSU), severity, and self-efficacy measures. Currently, FDA registration trials for product approval only consider a fixed increase in allergen threshold from pre-to-post intervention as a primary outcome (vs a more flexible "X-fold" increase not accounting for an upper and lower specific threshold), though many use QoL as a secondary outcome for patient-centered assessment of treatment impact. Currently used QoL PROMs were not designed to measure change on therapy nor measure HSU (eg, quantitative risk a patient may be willing to take to improve their current health), which can be used to determine therapy value. Although the current paradigm for primary and secondary outcomes in food allergy clinical trials was appropriate at the early stages of food allergy therapy development when conceived in the late 2000s and early 2010s, in the 2020s, these outcome choices risk being stagnant and outdated. As such, the current paradigm for food allergy outcomes should evolve to incorporate more patient-centered primary outcome measures that patient data indicate are meaningful, so outcomes more realistically reflect a therapy's impact. This evolution will better support SDM discussions as patients consider their therapy options and can inform new product development.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy: A review of safety and efficacy

Epcutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) is a novel, non-oral route of allergen immunotherapy, utilizing the skin and its robust density of epidermal Langerhans cells (LC) for antigen presentation. This space is non-vascularized and impermeable, which limits allergen exposure into the bloodstream but preserves antigen presentation to regional lymph nodes to generate gut-homing regulatory T cells. The EPIT patch utilizes natural water loss from the skin to absorb electrosprayed allergen through condensation. EPIT represents an alternative, non-oral route of immunotherapy for food allergy, with good efficacy and strong safety profiles across multiple phase 2 and 3 studies for milk and peanut. Efficacy appears the best in very young children (1-3 years old), which has been shown to continue to enhance with extended treatment duration up to 36 months. Efficacy in slightly older children ages 4-11 years of age is less clear, but appears to be better in children ages 4-7 years of age. In clinical trials of milk and peanut EPIT, most subjects experienced adverse effects, mainly mild-to-moderate skin reactions localized around the patch placement site, which improve with continued duration of wear. Rates of treatment-related anaphylaxis have been very low across all studies and ages, ranging from 1.6% to 4%, and were lowest in the infant and toddler population. While further studies of safety (1- to 3-year-olds) and efficacy (4- to 7-year-olds) are ongoing, EPIT is a potentially valuable addition to the current landscape of food allergy therapies, in particular for infants and toddlers where families may be seeking a non-oral route of treatment.

Immunotherapeutic Approaches to Peanut Allergy Treatment-Pre-Clinical and Clinical Studies: A Comprehensive Review

Peanut allergy is a prevalent and potentially life-threatening condition affecting millions of people worldwide, necessitating strict dietary vigilance. Despite its widespread impact, current treatment options are predominantly limited to allergen avoidance and emergency management of allergic reactions. This review explores contemporary immunotherapeutic strategies aimed at achieving long-term relief for individuals with peanut allergy. We conducted a comprehensive literature review to discuss different treatment approaches, such as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), oral immunotherapy (OIT), and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), focusing on their mechanisms, efficacy, and safety profiles. Additionally, the review delves into novel approaches such as monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE and other critical immune pathways, adjuvanted therapies utilizing nanoparticles and gut microbiota, and advances in adoptive cell therapy including CAR-T cells and regulatory T cells. Furthermore, we highlight some clinical trials that test the efficacy and safety of these novel immunotherapeutic approaches in patients with peanut allergy. Collectively, we provide an overview of advancements in immunotherapeutic interventions for peanut allergy and recommendations for personalized immunotherapy regimens, ultimately paving the way for more effective treatment strategies.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Food allergies pose a global healthcare challenge, underscoring the need for effective interventions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergen desensitisation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials by searching Ovid EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus in April 2024. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the clinical effectiveness and harms of EPIT, reporting results as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

After screening 460 abstracts and 35 full reports, 11 were included: nine on peanuts and two on cow's milk (CM). Peanut EPIT had a 51.2% treatment response versus 22.4% for placebo (RR 2.16, CI 1.49-3.12; four studies; moderate certainty). The RR for milk EPIT response rate was 1.78 (CI 1.06-3.00; one study). Five peanut studies (1396 patients) reported EPIT-related adverse events (RR 1.39, CI 0.94-2.05; low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

EPIT offers a moderate treatment response with a favourable safety profile and significant improvements in quality of life. Current knowledge of EPIT remains limited, with evidence confined to peanut and CM allergies. There is a lack of research on sustained unresponsiveness achieved through food EPIT.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children with High-Threshold Peanut Allergy

BACKGROUND

Approved therapeutics for peanut allergy are not designed for the many patients with allergic reactions to more than one peanut.

METHODS

We randomly assigned (1:1) participants 4 to 14 years of age reacting to a challenge of between 443 mg and 5043 mg of peanut protein to peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) using home-measured peanut butter versus peanut avoidance. The primary end point was the difference between groups in the proportion tolerating a two-dose-level increase or 9043 mg of peanut protein. For ingestion participants tolerating 9043 mg, sustained unresponsiveness (tolerance off treatment) was tested after 16 weeks of ad lib ingestion followed by 8 weeks of abstinence.

RESULTS

Of 73 participants, 38 were randomly assigned to P-OIT and 35 to avoidance. Thirty-two of 38 participants in the ingestion group (84.2%) and 30 of 35 in the avoidance group (85.7%) underwent the primary outcome food challenge. The primary analysis with prespecified multiple imputation for missing values showed 100% success for ingestion versus 21.0% for avoidance (between-group difference, 79.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.6 to 93.5; P<0.001). All 32 treated and 3 out of 30 avoiders (10%) tolerated 9043 mg. In the intention-to-treat analysis, sustained unresponsiveness occurred in 68.4% (26/38) on P-OIT versus 8.6% (3/35) tolerating 9043 mg among those avoiding (between-group difference, 59.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 42.4 to 77.3). No dosing reactions were greater than grade 1 severity, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial of P-OIT using store-bought, home-measured peanut versus peanut avoidance in high-threshold peanut allergy, those treated achieved significantly higher rates of desensitization with a durable response off treatment. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1TR004419] and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious [U19AI136053]; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03907397.).

Challenges in designing interventions for food insecure families with food allergy in a Californian latinx cohort

Food allergy poses substantial social, economic, and quality of life burdens which are even heavier for families that are struggling with food insecurity. In the United States (US), food insecurity disproportionately affects vulnerable and historically marginalized communities, such as Latino/a/x and Black households. Targeting these disparities via our recent Food Equality Initiative (FEI) research intervention was challenging due to the barriers faced by the target underserved populations, which included poor digital literacy, language barriers, and limited access to necessary resources. These barriers hindered our efforts to promote access to nutritious and safe food options for food-insecure families, potentially further exacerbating health disparities. Here we discuss common challenges and opportunities associated with conducting research interventions in underserved communities in the US-leveraging our experiences designing and implementing an intervention to improve food allergy management through supplemental nutrition assistance in a predominantly Spanish-speaking, lower-income neighborhood in Northern California. We also provide recommendations for other researchers regarding how to tailor research strategies to address these challenges, and in so doing reduce health disparities and promote positive health outcomes for vulnerable and historically marginalized communities.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate about the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) in treating food allergies. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EPIT.

METHODS

We systematically searched international trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov), PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science from the inception of the database until June 25, 2023. Two authors independently screened potential studies based on the following criteria: food allergy, epidermal immunotherapy, and randomized controlled trials(RCTs). The risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. The primary outcomes included desensitization, local adverse events, systemic adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included epinephrine utilization, topical medication utilization, and severe adverse events. We assessed certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1970 participants were included. Ten high-quality RCTs focusing on peanut allergy and cow's milk allergy were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that EPIT promoted desensitization in patients with food allergy (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.72-2.58; I 2 = 0%, high certainty), particularly in aged ≤ 11 years (RR 3.84, 95% CI 2.39-6.26; I 2 = 34%). Additionally, treatment duration ≥ 52 weeks was found to increase immune tolerance (RR 3.37, 95% CI 2.39-4.75; I 2 = 13%). Patients who undergo EPIT treatment not only raised the local adverse reactions (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.10-2.41; I 2 = 82%, low certainty) but also raised systemic adverse reactions (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01-2.28; I 2 = 0%, high certainty).

CONCLUSION

After EPIT treatment, patients with food allergy can effectively increase their immune tolerance to food. However, it also significantly increases mild-to-moderate anaphylaxis. There is limited data on the impact of EPIT on quality of life and other food allergic diseases, indicating a need for further research.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy

Peanut allergy treatment options remain limited, but novel approaches are being studied, including epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). EPIT uses the cutaneous immune system to promote tolerance to food allergens. Viaskin™ Peanut, an approach to EPIT in late-stage clinical development uses an occlusive patch with a condensation chamber that enables natural epidermal water loss to solubilize dry antigen on the patch, which is then absorbed and captured by skin Langerhans cells. This form of EPIT does not require disruption of the skin barrier, thus avoiding a proinflammatory cytokine response by targeting the nonvascularized epidermis and limiting systemic allergen exposure. Extensive preclinical research suggests that Viaskin Peanut has a distinct mechanism of desensitization, including the potential for disease modification, driven by a unique population of regulatory T cells. Numerous clinical studies of Viaskin Peanut have demonstrated desensitization and reductions in reaction severity, particularly in children aged 1 through 11 years, as well as a favorable safety profile with mostly mild-to-moderate skin reactions that were observed to decrease over time. EPIT with Viaskin Peanut may be a potential therapeutic option for peanut allergy that is clinically practical with long-term efficacy and tolerability.

Food allergy yardstick: Where does omalizumab fit?

Food allergy management has greatly evolved in the last several years, moving from passive approaches, such as strict food allergen avoidance, to more active treatments, including regulatory approval of the first specifically indicated immunotherapy product (for peanut) in 2020. In 2024, a second therapy, omalizumab, received regulatory approval for the treatment of 1 or more IgE-mediated food allergies, providing clinicians with multiple treatment options to offer patients and families. With this expanded armamentarium of food allergy treatment options, the practicing clinician requires detailed knowledge of benefits and risks of omalizumab, how omalizumab fits into the management landscape, and how to use shared decision-making to optimize therapy. This yardstick aims to provide the clinician with a review of data leading to omalizumab's food allergy indication and an evidence-based expert opinion approach regarding on how best to use this and other therapies available to optimize patient management.

The conformational epitope of Ara h 5 was crucial to the severe reactivity of peanut allergy

Conformational epitopes are associated with the development of food allergic tolerance and the severity of food allergy. Peanut can trigger severe anaphylactic reactions, however, the reason behind the severe allergic reactions caused by peanut remains unexplained. The purpose of this article was to provide an explanation for the severe allergy caused by peanut, focusing on the conformational epitopes of Ara h 5 and Ara h 8 allergens that exhibit cross-reactivity with asthma reactions. Ara h 5 and Ara h 8 proteins were prepared by an Escherichia coli expression system. IgE reactivity of 37 patients with allergy toward Ara h 5 and Ara h 8 allergens was assessed by using IgE-binding assays, dot blot and western blot. The allergenicity of Ara h 5 and Ara h 8 protein was analysed in mouse model. Conformational IgE epitopes of Ara h 5 was identified using phage peptide library and the Pepitope Server. Compared to Ara h 8, the conformational epitope of Ara h 5 protein was crucial in the process of sensitization. Ara h 5 showed a stronger IgE reactivity and the ability to induce β-hexosaminidase release. Ara h 5 caused more severe lung inflammation than Ara h 8 protein. While Ara h 8 caused more severe intestinal inflammation than Ara h 5. The results showed that the conformational epitope sequences of Ara h 5 were WETIYSR and FHWWYLK. The results provide a theoretical basis for the production of hypoallergenic peanut protein and the immunotherapy of peanut allergy.

Comparing Two Peanut Desensitization Protocols in Preschool Children: A Real-World Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

Peanut allergy is the main food allergy in childhood and poses significant health concerns. This study aimed to critically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral immune therapy (OIT) using crushed peanuts versus peanut puffs.

METHODS

Children with an allergist diagnosed peanut allergy based on a history of an IgE-mediated reaction and a positive skin prick test for peanuts were recruited at the Montreal Children's Hospital and the Children's Clinic located in Montreal. Based on age and personal preference, initial doses of peanut were given in either puff (Bamba) or crushed peanut form. Patients continued the same dose for 2-5 weeks at home, filled out a symptom diary, and returned to the clinic for up-dosing until maintenance was reached (2 teaspoons of peanut butter). A continuation ratio regression model was used to evaluate the effect of the allergen type on the severity of anaphylactic and allergic reactions (ARs) during OIT while adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Between October 2020 and June 2023, 191 children (59.6% male; median age 1.95 years) were recruited. Most patients (75.1%) had eczema, and 12.7% had asthma. Oral desensitization was performed using one of two strategies according to the allergist: crushed peanut (n = 60 [31.4%]) and peanut puff (n = 131 [68.6%]). Of the participants, the consumption of puff lowered reaction severity by a factor of 3.94 (95% CI, 1.6-9.6), in comparison to crushed peanuts. Older age markedly elevates the adjusted odds of reacting to a particular severity level as compared to a lower level by 1.20 (95% CI, 1-1.4).

CONCLUSION

Modified peanut desensitization using peanut puffs has shown potential in reducing the severity of ARs in younger children. Older children may experience a higher risk of severe reactions, indicating the need for age-specific approaches to desensitization protocols.

Dendritic cells in food allergy, treatment, and tolerance

Food allergy is a growing problem with limited treatment options. It is important to understand the mechanisms of food tolerance and allergy to promote the development of directed therapies. Dendritic cells (DCs) are specialized antigen-presenting cells (APCs) that prime adaptive immune responses, such as those involved in the development of oral tolerance and food allergies. The DC subsets in the gut and skin are defined by their surface markers and function. The default response to an ingested innocuous antigen is oral tolerance, which requires either gut DCs or a subset of newly identified RORγt+ APCs to induce the development of gut peripheral regulatory T cells. However, DCs in the skin, gut, and lung can also promote allergic sensitization when they are activated under certain inflammatory conditions, such as with alarmin release or gut dysbiosis. DCs also play a role in the responses to the various modalities of food immunotherapy. Langerhans cells in the skin appear to be necessary for the response to epicutaneous immunotherapy. It will be important to determine which real-world stimuli activate the DCs that prime allergic sensitization and discover methods to selectively initiate a tolerogenic program in APCs.

Immunotherapy and biologics in the management of IgE-mediated food allergy: Systematic review and meta-analyses of efficacy and safety

Food allergy (FA) is a potentially life-threatening chronic condition that is becoming an increasing public health problem worldwide. This systematic review (SR) was carried out to inform the development of clinical recommendations on the treatment of IgE-mediated FA with biologics and/or IT for the update of the EAACI guidelines. A SR of randomized-controlled trials or quasi-controlled trials was carried out. Studies were identified via comprehensive search strategies in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library, up to April 2022.

POPULATION

Human adults, children, and adolescents with IgE-mediated FA.

INTERVENTION

IT and/or biologics.

COMPARATOR

Placebo or standard-of-care (allergen avoidance).

OUTCOME

Efficacy (desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness (SU), remission), quality of life, and safety (systemic and local adverse reactions (AR)). The Cochrane RoB tool was used to assess the risk of bias. It was reported according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO CRD4202229828. After screening, 121 studies were included (111 for IT and 10 for biologics). Most studies had a high risk of bias and showed high heterogeneity in design and results. Metanalysis showed a positive effect of biologics and IT in terms of relative risk (RR) for achieving tolerance to the culprit food compared to avoidance or placebo. Omalizumab for any FA showed a RR of 2.17 [95% confidence interval: 1.22, 3.85]. For peanut allergy, oral IT (OIT) had a RR of 11.94 [1.76, 80.84] versus avoidance or placebo, sublingual IT (SLIT) had a RR of 3.00 [1.04, 8.66], and epicutaneous IT (EPIT) of 2.16 [1.56, 3.00]. OIT had a RR of 5.88 [2.27, 15.18] for cow's milk allergy, and of 3.43 [2.24, 5.27] for egg allergy. There was insufficient data on SLIT or EPIT for the treatment of egg and milk allergies. Most ARs reported were mild. For OIT the most common AR involved the gastrointestinal system and for EPIT, AR's most commonly affected the skin. There was limited data on severe or life-threatening ARs. There was limited evidence for long term efficacy and quality of life. In conclusion, biologics and IT, alone or in combination, are effective in achieving desensitization while on active treatment but more evidence is needed on long-term tolerance as current evidence is not of high quality. Adverse events while on therapy are generally mild to moderate but a long-term comprehensive safety profile is missing. There is a critical need to optimize and standardize desensitization protocols and outcome measures to facilitate our understanding of the efficacy and safety as well as to allow for comparison between interventions.

Safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy with DBV712 (peanut patch) in peanut allergy

INTRODUCTION

DBV712 250 µg (also referred to as Viaskin Peanut or peanut patch; Viaskin is a trademark of DBV Technologies) is an innovative approach to epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). The patch-based technology system facilitates peanut protein (allergen) absorption into the intact non-vascularized epidermis to promote desensitization to peanut while limiting systemic allergen exposure.

AREAS COVERED

Efficacy and safety in children have been evaluated in four completed phase 3 studies. Overall, the results from these studies have demonstrated the peanut patch to be superior in desensitization compared with placebo and safe for daily use over multiple years.

EXPERT OPINION

These findings, as well as supportive evidence from phase 2 studies, confirm the potential for an effective treatment of peanut allergy in children. The purpose of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy of the peanut patch in the treatment of peanut allergy.

Role of biologics in severe food allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examine the dynamic landscape of food allergy treatment within the context of emerging biologics. Our purpose is to comprehensively evaluate the potential benefits, challenges, and transformative impact associated with the utilization of biologics in comparison to conventional therapeutic modalities.

RECENT FINDINGS

This document synthesizes recent scientific investigations to various biologics, such as omalizumab, ligelizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, providing a nuanced understanding of their roles in oral immunotherapy, rapid desensitization, and overall food allergy management. Recent studies and clinical trials highlight the impact of anti-IgE treatment on food allergies, revealing critical findings such as dose-related efficacy, facilitation of rapid desensitization in peanut allergies, and the sustained positive outcomes observed in individuals with multifood allergies.

SUMMARY

The use of biologics presents a groundbreaking approach in the treatment of food allergies. The multifaceted action of these agents, along with their potential to overcome the challenges associated with traditional therapies, marks a significant advancement. Despite the persisting challenges of economic constraints and the need for further safety studies, biologics offer a promising avenue for improving the quality of life for individuals with food allergies. Ongoing research and collaborative efforts are imperative to fully realize the transformative potential inherent in these emerging therapeutic frontiers.

Current state and advances in desensitization for peanut allergy in pediatric age

Peanut allergy affects about 1%-3% of the pediatric population in the world, with an important increase in the last decades. Nowadays, international guidelines recommend the early introduction of peanuts in the infant diet, with poor information about the quantity and the frequency of the intake. Allergen immunotherapy may represent the only therapeutic strategy able to modify the natural history of peanut allergy. In particular, oral immunotherapy showed the most promising results in terms of efficacy, but with significant rates of adverse reactions, mostly gastrointestinal. In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency approved Palforzia®, an oral drug for patients aged 4-17 years. Several studies are ongoing to improve the tolerability of oral immunotherapy and standardize the desensitization protocols. Sublingual immunotherapy permits to offer much lower doses than oral immunotherapy, but fewer adverse events are shown. Subcutaneous immunotherapy is associated with the greatest systemic adverse effects. Epicutaneous immunotherapy, for which Viaskin® patch was approved, has the highest safety profile. Innovative studies are evaluating the use of biological drugs, such as omalizumab or dupilumab, and probiotics, such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus, in monotherapy or associated with oral immunotherapy. Therapy for peanut allergy is constantly evolving, and new perspectives are ongoing to develop.

From Skin to Solution: Exploring Epicutaneous Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peanut allergy is a leading cause of severe food reactions. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) compared to placebo for peanut-allergic individuals. After prospectively registering on PROSPERO, we searched three databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and 2 trial registries till September 2023. Analysis was conducted via RevMan where data was computed using risk ratios (RR). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE criteria were used to appraise and evaluate the evidence. From 4927 records, six multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trials comprising 1453 participants were included. The 250 µg EPIT group had a significant increase in successful desensitization compared to placebo (RR: 2.13 (95% C.I: 1.72, 2.64), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), while the 100 µg EPIT group did not (RR: 1.54 (95% C.I: 0.92, 2.58), P = 0.10, I2 = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence). Moreover, there was a significant increase in local (RR: 1.69 (95% C.I: 1.06, 2.68), P = 0.03, I2 = 89%) and systemic adverse events (RR: 1.75 (95% C.I: 1.14, 2.69), P = 0.01, I2 = 0%) with EPIT. Additionally, individuals administered EPIT have an increased probability of requiring rescue medications like epinephrine (RR: 1.91 (95% C.I: 1.12, 3.28), P = 0.02, I2 = 0%) and topical corticosteroids (RR: 1.49 (95% C.I: 1.29, 1.73), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%) to treat adverse events. The association of adverse events post-treatment including anaphylaxis (RR: 2.31 (95% C.I: 1.00, 5.33), P = 0.05, I2 = 36%), skin/subcutaneous disorders like erythema or vesicles (RR: 0.93 (95% C.I: 0.79, 1.08), P = 0.33, I2 = 0%), and respiratory disorders like dyspnea or wheezing (RR: 0.94 (95% C.I: 0.77, 1.15), P = 0.55, I2 = 0%) with EPIT is inconclusive. EPIT, although effective in desensitization, is linked to an increased risk of adverse events. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023466600.

The Future of Food Allergy Management: Advancements in Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review current and future treatment options for IgE-mediated food allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent years have seen major developments in both allergen-specific and allergen-non-specific treatment options, with the first FDA-approved peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) product becoming available in 2020. In addition to OIT, other immunotherapy modalities, biologics, adjunct therapies, and novel therapeutics are under investigation. Food allergy is a potentially life-threatening condition associated with a significant psychosocial impact. Numerous products and protocols are under investigation, with most studies focusing on OIT. A high rate of adverse events, need for frequent office visits, and cost remain challenges with OIT. Further work is needed to unify outcome measures, develop treatment protocols that minimize adverse events, establish demographic and clinical factors that influence candidate selection, and identify patient priorities.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials, COFAITH EAACI task force

Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.

Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy With Viaskin Milk vs Placebo in Children With Cow's Milk Allergy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

No approved treatment exists for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk allergy (CMA), a common childhood food allergy.

Objective

To assess dose, efficacy, and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin milk in children with IgE-mediated CMA.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A phase 1/2, 2-part, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging clinical trial in children aged 2 to 17 years with IgE-mediated CMA was conducted between November 2014 through December 2017. It took place at 17 trial sites in the US and Canada. Current CMA was confirmed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at study entry. Part A assessed the short-term safety of 150 μg, 300 μg, or 500 μg of Viaskin milk; part B evaluated the efficacy and safety of the 3 doses vs placebo over 12 months of treatment. Of the 308 screened participants with physician-diagnosed CMA, 198 met eligibility criteria (including an eliciting dose 300 mg or less) and were randomized.

Intervention

Safety of Viaskin milk (150-μg, 300-μg, or 500-μg doses) was evaluated over a 3-week period (part A). In part B, 180 additional participants were randomized to receive Viaskin milk at doses of 150 μg, 300 μg, or 500 μg or placebo (1:1:1:1) for 12 months.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as a 10-fold or more increase in the cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein (reaching at least 144 mg) or a cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein at 1444 mg or more at the month 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge.

Results

A total of 95.5% of the randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 8 [4.17] years; 124 of 198 were male [62.6%]) completed treatment. The highest response rate was observed in participants who received Viaskin milk at the 300-μg dose with 24 of 49 responders (49.0%) overall vs 16 of 53 responders (30.2%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.91-5.41; P = .09), highest in the 2 to 11 years age group (22 of 38 [57.9%] vs 13 of 40 [32.5%]; P = .04). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate application-site reactions. One participant in the 500-μg Viaskin milk dose group experienced treatment-related anaphylaxis.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, 12 months of daily epicutaneous immunotherapy with a dose of Viaskin milk at 300 μg was associated with a statistically significant treatment response in 2- to 11-year-old children with IgE-mediated CMA. Treatment-related anaphylaxis and treatment-related discontinuation rates were low. Further research is needed to explore Viaskin milk as a viable treatment option for children with IgE-mediated CMA.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02223182.

New Approaches to Food Allergy Immunotherapy

Food allergy is an increasing public health problem in children and adults. In addition to the risk of potentially severe reactions, food allergy can have a significant burden on quality of life, nutrition, cost of living, and social activities. Traditionally, treatment has primarily included strict food allergen avoidance and use of emergency medications to treat an allergic reaction. However, in recent years, there have been significant strides in the advancement of food allergy treatment, including the approval of the first and only approved therapy (peanut oral immunotherapy) for food allergy in 2020. Clinical trials have primarily focused on food allergen immunotherapy (oral, epicutaneous, sublingual). Building off of a foundation of promising data supporting the efficacy of food oral immunotherapy and our greater understanding of the underlying mechanism of immunotherapy, newer approaches, including alternative routes of delivery, adjuncts to therapy, modified allergens, and utilization in younger patients, aim to provide safer and more effective treatment approaches to the millions of patients burdened by food allergy.

The Role of Biologics in the Treatment of Food Allergy

The landscape of food allergy (FA) treatment is poised for a paradigm shift with the emergence of biologic therapies. The Food and Drug Administration approval of a standardized peanut powder for oral immunotherapy in 2020 marked a milestone, signaling a departure from allergen avoidance toward proactive treatment strategies. Although oral immunotherapy has been proven effective in desensitizing patients to specific allergens, there are several limitations such as lacking standardization, a long-time commitment to achieve maintenance, and adverse events. Biologics, including omalizumab, dupilumab, and antialarmins, have shown promise in treating various allergic diseases, including FA. These biologics target the underlying immunologic pathways driving allergic reactions, offering an antigen-agnostic approach. Omalizumab (anti-IgE) has been the most studied biologic in this space and can be used both as an adjunct therapy with oral immunotherapy and as monotherapy. Dupilumab targeting IL-4 and IL-13 also shows promise as an adjunct therapy. The emergence of antialarmins further broadens the spectrum of FA treatment possibilities. Biologics represent a transformative approach to FA treatment, directly addressing the underlying mechanisms. Future research should focus on patient selection criteria, personalized biomarker panels, optimal timing of intervention, and treatment durations.

Phase 1 trial supports safety and mechanism of action of peptide immunotherapy for peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Food allergy is a leading cause of anaphylaxis worldwide. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only treatment shown to modify the natural history of allergic disease, but application to food allergy has been hindered by risk of severe allergic reactions and short-lived efficacy. Allergen-derived peptides could provide a solution. PVX108 comprises seven short peptides representing immunodominant T-cell epitopes of major peanut allergens for treatment of peanut allergy.

METHODS

Pre-clinical safety of PVX108 was assessed using ex vivo basophil activation tests (n = 185). Clinical safety and tolerability of single and repeat PVX108 doses were evaluated in a first-in-human, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in peanut-allergic adults (46 active, 21 placebo). The repeat-dose cohort received six doses over 16 weeks with safety monitored to 21 weeks. Exploratory immunological analyses were performed at pre-dose, Week 21 and Month 18 after treatment.

RESULTS

PVX108 induced negligible activation of peanut-sensitised basophils. PVX108 was safe and well tolerated in peanut-allergic adults. There were no treatment-related hypersensitivity events or AEs of clinical concern. The only events occurring more frequently in active than placebo were mild injection site reactions. Exploratory immunological analyses revealed a decrease in the ratio of ST2+ Th2A:CCR6+ Th17-like cells within the peanut-reactive Th pool which strengthened following treatment.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the concept that PVX108 could provide a safe alternative to whole peanut immunotherapies and provides evidence of durable peanut-specific T-cell modulation. Translation of these findings to clinical efficacy in ongoing Phase 2 trials would provide important proof-of-concept for using peptides to treat food allergy.

Food Allergen Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Patients with IgE-Mediated Food Allergy

The prevalence of allergic diseases, including food allergy, is increasing, especially in developed countries. Implementation of an elimination diet is not a sufficient therapeutic strategy in patients with food allergy, whose quality of life is significantly impaired. In recent years, new effective therapeutic strategies have been developed, such as the application of oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy. Oral immunotherapy is the most often applied strategy because of its effectiveness and ease of application, with an acceptable safety profile. The effectiveness of oral immunotherapy in patients with egg, cow's milk, and peanut allergy has been proven both in terms of raising of the threshold and the development of tolerance, and in some patients, the development of sustainable unresponsiveness. Although oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for food allergy, several limitations, including a long duration and a significant rate of reported adverse events, reduces its success. Therefore, new therapeutic options, such as treatment with biologicals, either as combinations with food allergen immunotherapy or as monotherapy with the aim of improving the efficacy and safety of treatment, are being investigated.

A Review on Novel Therapeutic Modalities and Evidence-based Drug Treatments against Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated atopic disease that occurs due to inhaled antigens in the immediate phase. Misdiagnosis, insufficient treatment, or no treatment at all are frequent problems associated with the widespread condition known as chronic allergic rhinitis. AR symptoms include runny, itchy, stuffy, and sneezing noses. Asthma and nasal polyps, for example, sometimes occur simultaneously in patients. In order for people living with AR to be as comfortable and productive as possible, treatment should center on reducing their symptoms. The online sources and literature, such as Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and Medline, were reviewed to gather information regarding therapeutic modalities of AR and evidence-based treatments for the disease as the objectives of the present study. An increasing number of people are suffering from AR, resulting in a heavy financial and medical burden on healthcare systems around the world. Undertreating AR frequently results in a decline in quality of life. Treatment compliance is a critical challenge in the administration of AR. Innovative therapies are needed for RA to provide patients with symptom alleviation that is less expensive, more effective, and longer duration of action. Evidence-based guidelines are helpful for managing AR illness. Treating AR according to evidence-based standards can help in disease management. AR treatment includes allergen avoidance, drug therapy, immunotherapy, patient education, and follow-up. However, AR treatment with intranasal corticosteroids is more popular. Hence, in this review article, treatment options for AR are discussed in depth. We also discussed the incidence, causes, and new treatments for this clinical condition.

Updates in food allergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergies are on the rise. Though allergen avoidance and management of acute reactions have been the backbone of therapy, complete avoidance and timely acute care is often not feasible. Food allergen immunotherapy (FAIT) is a novel and evolving treatment option intended to induce desensitization and potential sustained unresponsiveness (SU) to food allergens. This review addresses the methods, mechanisms, efficacy, and adverse effects of oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergens in the published literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Single FAIT has been most extensively studied in peanut, milk, and hen's egg allergic patients and has been successful in achieving desensitization in treated individuals through various modalities. Long-term data regarding SU is limited; however, current data suggests subsets of patients may be more likely to achieve SU compared to others. Other studies are actively assessing multifood AIT and novel FAIT protocols with adjunctive therapies.

SUMMARY

Food allergy constitutes a prevalent problem with far-reaching consequences. The emergence of FAIT may mitigate the burden of food allergy. Current evidence is promising for specific allergens and pediatric patient populations. Future studies are needed to further assess efficacy between different modalities of immunotherapy for food allergens across an age continuum.

Exploring novel approaches to food allergy management

ABSTRACT

Nurse practitioners are likely to encounter pediatric and adult patients with symptoms of food allergy who need an accurate diagnosis, emergency treatment plans, and options for management. The pathophysiology of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy, current and emerging diagnostics, treatment, and emergency management is briefly reviewed, and promising new and potential future treatment options are discussed. Currently, Food and Drug Administration-approved oral immunotherapy (OIT) treatment for peanut allergy, but clinical trials are underway to explore multiple-allergen OIT and alternate routes for IT such as sublingual and epicutaneous. Treatments that modulate the immune system are also potential treatments for food allergies (FAs), including biologic agents. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE therapy, dupilumab, an interleukin-4Ra receptor monoclonal antibody, and etokimab, an anti-IL-33, are all being studied for the treatment of food allergy. There is hope that these novel therapies for FAs will be a viable option translated to the practice setting in the near future, so that strict avoidance is not the only treatment plan for FAs. Nurse practitioners can support their patients with FAs and their families by keeping abreast of progress in food allergy research and assisting patients to consider novel treatment options, when appropriate, using shared decision making.

The updated Structural Database of Allergenic Proteins (SDAP 2.0) provides 3D models for allergens and incorporated bioinformatics tools

Background

Allergenic proteins can cause IgE-mediated adverse reactions in sensitized individuals. Although the sequences of many allergenic proteins have been identified, bioinformatics data analysis with advanced computational methods and modeling is needed to identify the basis for IgE binding and cross-reactivity.

Objective

We aim to present the features and use of the updated Structural Database of Allergenic Proteins 2.0 (SDAP 2.0) webserver, a unique, publicly available resource to compare allergens using specially designed computational tools and new high-quality 3-D models for most known allergens.

Methods

Previously developed and novel software tools for identifying cross-reactive allergens using sequence and structure similarity are implemented in SDAP 2.0. A comprehensive set of high-quality 3-D models of most allergens was generated with the state-of-the-art AlphaFold 2 software. A graphics tool enables the interactive visualization of IgE epitopes on experimentally determined and modeled 3-D structures.

Results

A user can search for allergens similar to a given input sequence with the FASTA algorithm or the window-based World Health Organization/International Union of Immunological Societies (WHO/IUIS) guidelines on safety concerns of novel food products. Peptides similar to known IgE epitopes can be identified with the property distance tool and conformational epitopes by the Cross-React method. The updated database contains 1657 manually curated sequences including all allergens from the IUIS database, 334 experimentally determined X-ray or NMR structures, and 1565 3-D models. Each allergen/isoallergen is classified according to its protein family.

Conclusions

SDAP provides access to the steadily increasing information on allergenic structures and epitopes with integrated bioinformatics tools to identify and analyze their similarities. In addition to serving the research and regulatory community, it provides clinicians with tools to identify potential coallergies in a sensitive patient and can help companies to design hypoallergenic foods and immunotherapies.

Recent advances in epicutaneous immunotherapy and potential applications in food allergy

Given the potent immunological properties of the skin, epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) emerges as a promising treatment approach for inducing immune tolerance, particularly for food allergies. Targeting the highly immunocompetent, non-vascularized epidermis allows for the application of microgram amounts of allergen while significantly reducing the risk of allergen passage into the bloodstream, thus limiting systemic allergen exposure and distribution. This makes EPIT highly suitable for the treatment of potentially life-threatening allergies such as food allergies. Multiple approaches to EPIT are currently under investigation for the treatment of food allergy, and these include the use of allergen-coated microneedles, application of allergen on the skin pretreated by tape stripping, abrasion or laser-mediated microperforation, or the application of allergen on the intact skin using an occlusive epicutaneous system. To date, the most clinically advanced approach to EPIT is the Viaskin technology platform. Viaskin is an occlusive epicutaneous system (patch) containing dried native allergen extracts, without adjuvants, which relies on frequent application for the progressive passage of small amounts of allergen to the epidermis through occlusion of the intact skin. Numerous preclinical studies of Viaskin have demonstrated that this particular approach to EPIT can induce potent and long-lasting T-regulatory cells with broad homing capabilities, which can exert their suppressive effects in multiple organs and ameliorate immune responses from different routes of allergen exposure. Clinical trials of the Viaskin patch have studied the efficacy and safety for the treatment of life-threatening allergies in younger patients, at an age when allergic diseases start to occur. Moreover, this treatment approach is designed to provide a non-invasive therapy with no restrictions on daily activities. Taken together, the preclinical and clinical data on the use of EPIT support the continued investigation of this therapeutic approach to provide improved treatment options for patients with allergic disorders in the near future.

Food Immunotherapy: Dissecting Current Guidelines and Navigating the Gray Zone

Food allergy is a common, chronic disease that is burdensome for patients and families, with multiple dietary and social limitations and a significant psychological impact stemming from the fear of accidental exposures and potentially severe, life-threatening reactions. Until recently, the only management option consisted of strict food avoidance. Food allergen immunotherapy (food AIT) has emerged as an alternative, active intervention to strict food avoidance, with a multitude of research studies supporting its efficacy and good safety profile. Food AIT results in a raise of allergenic threshold, which provides several benefits to food-allergic patients, including protection from accidental exposures, potentially decreased severity of allergic reactions on unintentional exposures, and improvement in quality of life. In the last few years, multiple independent reports have been published proposing strategies to implement food oral immunotherapy in U.S. clinics, although formal guidelines are currently lacking. Because food immunotherapy is gaining traction, popularity, and interest among both patients and health care providers, many physicians look for guidance on how to implement this intervention in their daily practice. In other parts of the world, use of this treatment has prompted the development of various guidelines from allergy societies. This rostrum discusses currently available guidelines on food AIT from different areas of the world, describes and comments on their similarities and differences, and highlights unmet needs in this area of therapy.

Immune response evolution in peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children

BACKGROUND

Epicutaneous immunotherapy with investigational Viaskin™ Peanut 250 μg (DBV712) has demonstrated statistically superior desensitization versus placebo in peanut-allergic children in clinical trials. It is unclear whether serologic biomarkers predict response.

METHODS

Serum-specific IgG4 and IgE (whole peanut and components) from subjects enrolled in the phase 3 Efficacy and Safety of Viaskin Peanut in Children With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy study were examined by exploratory univariate and multivariate analyses to determine trajectories and predictors of treatment response, based upon peanut protein eliciting dose (ED) at Month (M) 12 double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge.

RESULTS

Among Viaskin Peanut-treated subjects, peanut sIgG4 significantly increased from baseline through M12 and peanut sIgE peaked at M3 and fell below baseline by M12, with sIgG4 and sIgE peanut components mirroring these trajectories. Placebo subjects had no significant changes. By univariate analysis, M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE was higher in treatment responders (p < 0.001) and had highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ED ≥300 mg and ≥1000 mg (AUC 69.5% and 69.9%, respectively). M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE >20.1 predicted M12 ED ≥300 mg (80% positive predictive value). The best performing component was Ara h 1 sIgE <15.7 kUA /L (AUC 66.5%). A multivariate model combining Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had an AUC of 68.2% (ED ≥300 mg) and 67.8% (ED ≥1000 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut sIgG4 rise most clearly differentiated Viaskin Peanut versus placebo subjects. sIgG4/sIgE ratios >20.1 and the combination of Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had moderate ability to predict treatment response and could potentially be useful for clinical monitoring. Additional data are needed to confirm these relationships.

An update on recent developments and highlights in food allergy

While both the incidence and general awareness of food allergies is increasing, the variety and clinical availability of therapeutics remain limited. Therefore, investigations into the potential factors contributing to the development of food allergy (FA) and the mechanisms of natural tolerance or induced desensitization are required. In addition, a detailed understanding of the pathophysiology of food allergies is needed to generate compelling, enduring, and safe treatment options. New findings regarding the contribution of barrier function, the effect of emollient interventions, mechanisms of allergen recognition, and the contributions of specific immune cell subsets through rodent models and human clinical studies provide novel insights. With the first approved treatment for peanut allergy, the clinical management of FA is evolving toward less intensive, alternative approaches involving fixed doses, lower maintenance dose targets, coadministration of biologicals, adjuvants, and tolerance-inducing formulations. The ultimate goal is to improve immunotherapy and develop precision-based medicine via risk phenotyping allowing optimal treatment for each food-allergic patient.

Update on In Vitro Diagnostic Tools and Treatments for Food Allergies

Food allergy (FA) is an adverse immunological reaction to a specific food that can trigger a wide range of symptoms from mild to life-threatening. This adverse reaction is caused by different immunological mechanisms, such as IgE-mediated, non-IgE-mediated and mixed IgE-mediated reactions. Its epidemiology has had a significant increase in the last decade, more so in developed countries. It is estimated that approximately 2 to 10% of the world's population has FA and this number appears to be increasing and also affecting more children. The diagnosis can be complex and requires the combination of different tests to establish an accurate diagnosis. However, the treatment of FA is based on avoiding the intake of the specific allergenic food, thus being very difficult at times and also controlling the symptoms in case of accidental exposure. Currently, there are other immunomodulatory treatments such as specific allergen immunotherapy or more innovative treatments that can induce a tolerance response. It is important to mention that research in this field is ongoing and clinical trials are underway to assess the safety and efficacy of these different immunotherapy approaches, new treatment pathways are being used to target and promote the tolerance response. In this review, we describe the new in vitro diagnostic tools and therapeutic treatments to show the latest advances in FA management. We conclude that although significant advances have been made to improve therapies and diagnostic tools for FA, there is an urgent need to standardize both so that, in their totality, they help to improve the management of FA.

Innovative delivery systems for epicutaneous immunotherapy

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) describes the establishment of peripheral tolerance through repeated allergen exposure, which qualifies as the only curative treatment for allergic diseases. Although conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have been approved to treat respiratory allergies clinically, the progress made is far from satisfactory. Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) exploits the skin's immune properties to modulate immunological response, which is emerging as a promising alternative and has shown effectiveness in many preclinical and clinical studies for both respiratory and food allergies. It is worth noting that the stratum corneum (SC) barrier impedes the effective delivery of allergens, while disrupting the SC layer excessively often triggers unexpected Th2 immune responses. This work aims to comprehend the immunological mechanisms of EPIT, and summarize the innovative system for sufficient delivery of allergens as well as tolerogenic adjuvants. Finally, the safety, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness of these innovative delivery systems are discussed, which directs the development of future immunotherapies with all desirable characteristics.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Treatment of food allergy: Oral immunotherapy, biologics, and beyond

The prevalence of food allergy (FA) has been increasing globally and comes with a heavy burden not just economically, but also on quality of life. Although oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective at inducing desensitization to food allergens, it has several limitations that weaken its success. Limitations include a long duration of build-up, especially when used for multiple allergens, and a high rate of reported adverse events. Furthermore, OIT may not be effective in all patients. Efforts are underway to identify additional treatment options, either as monotherapy or in combination, to treat FA or enhance the safety and efficacy of OIT. Biologics such as omalizumab and dupilumab, which already have US Food and Drug Administration approval for other atopic conditions have been the most studied, but additional biologics and novel strategies are emerging. In this review, we discuss therapeutic strategies including immunoglobulin E inhibitors, immunoglobulin E disruptors, interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 inhibitors, antialarmins, JAK1 and BTK inhibitors, and nanoparticles, and the data surrounding their application in FA and highlighting their potential.

Impact of using less objective symptoms to define tolerated dose during food challenges: A data-driven approach

BACKGROUND

Food challenges (FCs) form the basis for assessing efficacy outcomes in interventional studies of food allergy; however, different studies have used a variety of similar but not identical criteria to define a challenge reaction, including subjective (nonobjective) symptoms occurring in a single-organ system as dose limiting.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to undertake a secondary analysis of 4 interventional studies to assess the impact of using less objective criteria to determine challenge-stop on reaction thresholds and their reproducibility.

METHODS

We analyzed individual participant data, including individual participant data meta-analysis, by using 3 different published challenge-stop criteria: (1) PRACTALL consesus criteria; (2) Consortium for Food Allergy Research version 3 (CoFAR v3) with at least 1 moderate- or severe-grade symptom; or (3) CoFAR v3 with at least 2 mild symptoms occurring in different organ systems. Reproducibility of challenge threshold was also assessed in participants undergoing subsequent repeat FCs.

RESULTS

Four studies, with detailed challenge data from a total of 592 participants, were included. Applying CoFAR v3 definitions for dose-limiting symptoms resulted in an underestimate of reaction thresholds compared with those in PRACTALL (P < .001) that is equivalent to almost a single dosing increment when using a semi-log dosing regimen. Reproducibility was also reduced when applying CoFAR v3 (P < .001 [n = 223]). Using the least conservative interpretation of CoFAR v3 (≥2 mild symptoms occurring in different systems) resulted in a significant overestimate of 15% when assessing oral immunotherapy efficacy. Applying a data-driven minor modification to CoFAR v3 resulted in a new set of challenge-stop criteria with validity similar to that of PRACTALL but one that is simpler to implement and in which significant gastrointestinal discomfort with observable decreased activity remains a dose-limiting symptom.

CONCLUSION

The use of less objective symptoms to define challenge-stop compromises the reproducibility of the FC as a tool to assess efficacy outcomes in interventional studies, and potentially overestimates the efficacy of the intervention tested.

Mechanisms of desensitization with oral immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) are emerging therapies for food allergy. With several recently published exploratory trials and randomized controlled clinical trials that support these procedures, there is a clear progress and interest toward making these treatment options available for allergist/immunologists and patients with food allergies entrusted to their care. However, there still remain many questions and concerns to be addressed before these procedures can be fully understood.

Objective

The purpose of the present report is to trace some of the important historical milestones in the development of OIT and EPIT that have contributed to their evolving clinical application to the treatment of food allergy, to describe some of the current understandings of the immunologic mechanisms by which these procedures elicit desensitization, and to provide some areas for future inquiry and research.

Methods

An extensive research was conducted in the medical literature data bases by applying terms such as food allergy, desensitization, tolerance, unresponsiveness, Treg cells, allergen immunotherapy (AIT), oral immunotherapy (OIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT).

Results

OIT and EPIT take their origins from AIT (also called desensitization), a procedure first reported for the treatment of hay fever over a 100 years ago in which slowly increasing doses of a specifically relevant allergen were administered until a maintenance dosage was achieved when the patient was free of symptoms. OIT and EPIT differ from AIT in certain aspects including the route of administration of the allergen as well as their relative shorter period of sustained unresponsiveness.

Conclusion

The origins and important historical landmarks that have been made in the field of food allergy immunotherapy are presented in the context of the immunologic mechanisms that contribute to the pathogenesis of these disorders. Although considerable progress has been made in recent years toward making these treatment options available for allergist/immunologists and patients with food allergies, there still remain many questions and concerns to be addressed before these procedures can be fully understood, which can be illuminated by future research.

Phase 3 Trial of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Toddlers with Peanut Allergy

BACKGROUND

No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo.

RESULTS

Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).

Food Allergen Immunotherapy in Preschool Children: Do We Have the Evidence?

Standard care for the management of food allergies previously centered on allergen avoidance and the treatment of adverse reactions after allergen exposure. An increase in the development of immunotherapy treatments for food allergy has occurred over the past 2 decades, with many centers now offering immunotherapy. Previous studies mainly focused on school-age children in whom food allergies are likely to be persistent. However, there is increasing evidence that delivering immunotherapy for food allergy to preschool-age children may deliver higher rates of success, and that peanut allergen immunotherapy leads the way. Conversely, the natural resolution of food allergies occurs primarily in these younger age groups, resulting in challenges to selecting patients who will ultimately benefit from these treatments. Both immunotherapy and natural history studies reveal the inherent plasticity of the immune system in early life, which may be more amenable to intervention, but this raises a delicate yet unknown balance between the optimal timing of intervention versus waiting for natural resolution of the food allergy. Here we review the evidence for early food allergen immunotherapy in preschoolers, and present the pros and cons of this approach while acknowledging important research gaps in this age group.

Advances and potential of omics studies for understanding the development of food allergy

The prevalence of food allergy continues to rise globally, carrying with it substantial safety, economic, and emotional burdens. Although preventative strategies do exist, the heterogeneity of allergy trajectories and clinical phenotypes has made it difficult to identify patients who would benefit from these strategies. Therefore, further studies investigating the molecular mechanisms that differentiate these trajectories are needed. Large-scale omics studies have identified key insights into the molecular mechanisms for many different diseases, however the application of these technologies to uncover the drivers of food allergy development is in its infancy. Here we review the use of omics approaches in food allergy and highlight key gaps in knowledge for applying these technologies for the characterization of food allergy development.

Peanut allergy burden survey: Factors associated with health-related quality of life in adolescents

BACKGROUND

Patients with peanut allergy (PA) experience significant burden of illness, which impacts health-related quality of life (HRQoL), particularly in adolescence. There is a paucity of research evaluating drivers of HRQoL scores.

METHODS

A prospective, online survey of adolescents with self-reported, provider-diagnosed PA completed from November 2018 to January 2019 was used to explore drivers of the real-world impact of PA on HRQoL using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 (PedsQL) and other measures. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify potential factors associated with PedsQL scores and to understand the level of association.

RESULTS

A total of 102 adolescents were included. The final model included 10 variables: race, reported strict peanut avoidance, satisfaction with prophylaxis, moderate-to-severe reaction within the past 12 months, touching peanut as cause of most severe reaction, fear of reaction, age, gender, comorbidities, and daily life limitations. In total, three items were shown to be strong predictors of the PedsQL total score including cause of severe reaction was touching peanut (yes), level of agreement with avoiding peanut (completely agree), and satisfaction with prophylaxis (not very much/not at all).

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial heterogeneity in the impact of the burden of PA on PedsQL scores across patients. This indicates the importance of shared and individualized decision making for PA management to optimize outcomes and improve HRQoL.