Successful oral desensitization in children with cow's milk anaphylaxis: Clinical and laboratory evaluation up to nine-years follow-up

Low-dose oral immunotherapy in immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergies

Nowadays, the management of food allergies has increasingly moved from conventional oral immunotherapy (OIT) to low-dose OIT or low-dose OIT utilizing hypoallergenic foods. This shift is largely because the latter appears to induce oral tolerance with fewer adverse effects than the former. However, the mechanisms underpinning such differences remain unclear. To better understand these mechanisms, we conducted a comparative study scrutinizing the mechanisms of OIT, especially those of low-dose desensitization. We also summarized articles on low-dose OIT and low-dose OIT using hypoallergenic foods. We examined the efficacy, safety, and immunological parameters of low-dose OIT and those of low-dose OIT with hypoallergenic foods with the aim of shedding some light on low-dose OIT and its therapeutic application in inducing oral tolerance for individuals with food allergies.

Tolerance development in cow's milk-allergic infants receiving amino acid-based formula: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tolerance development is an important clinical outcome for infants with cow's milk allergy.

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study (NTR3725) evaluated tolerance development to cow's milk (CM) and safety of an amino acid-based formula (AAF) including synbiotics (AAF-S) comprising prebiotic oligosaccharides (oligofructose, inulin) and probiotic Bifidobacterium breve M-16V in infants with confirmed IgE-mediated CM allergy.

METHODS

Subjects aged ≤13 months with IgE-mediated CM allergy were randomized to receive AAF-S (n = 80) or AAF (n = 89) for 12 months. Stratification was based on CM skin prick test wheal size and study site. After 12 and 24 months, CM tolerance was evaluated by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. A logistic regression model used the all-subjects randomized data set.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean ± SD age was 9.36 ± 2.53 months. At 12 and 24 months, respectively, 49% and 62% of subjects were CM tolerant (AAF-S 45% and 64%; AAF 52% and 59%), and not differ significantly between groups. During the 12-month intervention, the number of subjects reporting at least 1 adverse event did not significantly differ between groups; however, fewer subjects required hospitalization due to serious adverse events categorized as infections in the AAF-S versus AAF group (9% vs 20%; P = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

After 12 and 24 months, CM tolerance was not different between groups and was in line with natural outgrowth. Results suggest that during the intervention, fewer subjects receiving AAF-S required hospitalization due to infections.

Immunological Outcomes of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Food Allergy

IgE-mediated food allergies are caused by adverse immunologic responses to food proteins. Allergic reactions may present locally in different tissues such as skin, gastrointestinal and respiratory tract and may result is systemic life-threatening reactions. During the last decades, the prevalence of food allergies has significantly increased throughout the world, and considerable efforts have been made to develop curative therapies. Food allergen immunotherapy is a promising therapeutic approach for food allergies that is based on the administration of increasing doses of culprit food extracts, or purified, and sometime modified food allergens. Different routes of administration for food allergen immunotherapy including oral, sublingual, epicutaneous and subcutaneous regimens are being evaluated. Although a wealth of data from clinical food allergen immunotherapy trials has been obtained, a lack of consistency in assessed clinical and immunological outcome measures presents a major hurdle for evaluating these new treatments. Coordinated efforts are needed to establish standardized outcome measures to be applied in food allergy immunotherapy studies, allowing for better harmonization of data and setting the standards for the future research. Several immunological parameters have been measured in food allergen immunotherapy, including allergen-specific immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation, cytokines, and other soluble biomarkers, T cell and B cell responses and skin prick tests. In this review we discuss different immunological parameters and assess their applicability as potential outcome measures for food allergen immunotherapy that may be included in such a standardized set of outcome measures.

Oral Immunotherapy for Cow’s Milk Allergy: Five Years’ Experience from a Single Center in Turkey

Background:

Oral immunotherapy for cow’s milk allergy is an effective treatment option because of its ability to increase the threshold for clinical reactions.

Aims:

To present our experience of oral immunotherapy for cow’s milk allergy in the pediatric allergy outpatient clinic, and to evaluate the long-term efficacy of oral immunotherapy and risk factors for adverse reactions during oral immunotherapy.

Study Design:

Single-center retrospective cohort study.

Methods:

Forty-two patients with Immunoglobulin-E-mediated cow’s milk allergy who complied with the oral immunotherapy protocol were evaluated in this study. The treatment consisted of a rapid escalation phase with an oral food challenge step that included milk doses. During the build-up phase, increasing quantities of cow’s milk were administered until the patient was able to consume 200 mL of cow’s milk daily.

Results:

The mean age of starting the oral immunotherapy was 40.2±3.2 (range, 36-156) months, and 54.8% (n=23) of the patients were males. The mean duration of the build-up phase was 18.1±5.6 (range, 9-41) weeks, and the mean maintenance phase was 29.1±11.6 (range, 12-63) months. During the oral immunotherapy, 36 adverse reactions (78% mild and 22% moderate) occurred in 16 (38%) patients. There were no differences in the age of starting the oral immunotherapy (p=0.19), cow’s milk-specific Immunoglobulin-E levels (p=0.17), and cumulative provocative doses of oral food challenges (p=0.78) between the two groups of patients with and without adverse reactions. The wheal diameters to cow’s milk were higher in the group with adverse reactions (p=0.03). There was no difference in the oral immunotherapy onset age between patients with and without a history of anaphylaxis (p=0.38). The patients with a history of anaphylaxis had more adverse reactions (p=0.04) and a higher number of reactions during the oral immunotherapy (p=0.01), and a higher mean duration of the up-dosing phase (p=0.04) compared with patients without anaphylaxis.

Conclusion:

Oral immunotherapy is a treatment option in patients with cow’s milk allergy because of its high efficacy. Adverse reactions occur in about 40% of cases and are mostly mild. It should be administered with caution to patients with a history of anaphylaxis and a higher wheal diameter to cow’s milk in the skin prick test.