Sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children: a retrospective comparison

Sublingual immunotherapy as an option for effective food allergy treatment

Food allergy sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has demonstrated efficacy in inducing desensitization with lower rates of systemic adverse effects than oral immunotherapy (OIT). Long-term SLIT has been shown to induce sustained unresponsiveness, and there is evidence that high-dose SLIT protocols can achieve tolerance that approximates that of OIT. However, the cost of allergenic extract may make long-term, high-dose SLIT prohibitive. Consequently, some allergists have used food allergy SLIT as a temporary bridge to OIT. Other allergists have developed SLIT protocols by using suspensions prepared from whole foods instead of commercially available extracts. Because long-term maintenance dosing regimens for food allergy SLIT have not been standardized, studies are needed to determine the minimum effective doses and duration of food allergy SLIT for various foods. Clarity on these questions may open the door to establishing food allergy SLIT as a viable treatment option.

The Road Toward Transformative Treatments for Food Allergy

A series of landmark studies have provided conclusive evidence that the early administration of food allergens dramatically prevents the emergence of food allergy. One of the greatest remaining challenges is whether patients with established food allergy can return to health. This challenge is particularly pressing in the case of allergies against peanut, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish which are lifelong in most patients and may elicit severe reactions. The standard of care for food allergy is allergen avoidance and the timely administration of epinephrine upon accidental exposure. Epinephrine, and other therapeutic options like antihistamines provide acute symptom relief but do not target the underlying pathology of the disease. In principle, any transformative treatment for established food allergy would require the restoration of a homeostatic immunological state. This may be attained through either an active, non-harmful immune response (immunological tolerance) or a lack of a harmful immune response (e.g., anergy), such that subsequent exposures to the allergen do not elicit a clinical reaction. Importantly, such a state must persist beyond the course of the treatment and exert its protective effects permanently. In this review, we will discuss the immunological mechanisms that maintain lifelong food allergies and are, consequently, those which must be dismantled or reprogrammed to instate a clinically non-reactive state. Arguably, the restoration of such a state in the context of an established food allergy would require a reprogramming of the immune response against a given food allergen. We will discuss existing and experimental therapeutic strategies to eliminate IgE reactivity and, lastly, will propose outstanding questions to pave the road to the development of novel, transformative therapeutics in food allergy.

Use of a Liver-targeting Nanoparticle Platform to Intervene in Peanut-induced anaphylaxis through delivery of an Ara h2 T-cell Epitope

To address the urgent need for safe food allergen immunotherapy, we have developed a liver-targeting nanoparticle platform, capable of intervening in allergic inflammation, mast cell release and anaphylaxis through the generation of regulatory T-cells (Treg). In this communication, we demonstrate the use of a poly (lactide-co-glycolide acid) (PLGA) nanoparticle platform for intervening in peanut anaphylaxis through the encapsulation and delivery of a dominant protein allergen, Ara h 2 and representative T-cell epitopes, to liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs). These cells have the capacity to act as natural tolerogenic antigen-presenting cells (APC), capable of Treg generation by T-cell epitope presentation by histocompatibility (MHC) type II complexes on the LSEC surface. This allowed us to address the hypothesis that the tolerogenic nanoparticles platform could be used as an effective, safe, and scalable intervention for suppressing anaphylaxis to crude peanut allergen extract. Following the analysis of purified Ara h 2 and representative MHC-II epitopes Treg generation in vivo, a study was carried out to compare the best-performing Ara h 2 T-cell epitope with a purified Ara h 2 allergen, a crude peanut protein extract (CPPE) and a control peptide in an oral sensitization model. Prophylactic as well as post-sensitization administration of the dominant encapsulated Ara h 2 T-cell epitope was more effective than the purified Ara h2 in eliminating anaphylactic manifestations, hypothermia, and mast cell protease release in a frequently used peanut anaphylaxis model. This was accompanied by decreased peanut-specific IgE blood levels and increased TGF-β release in the abdominal cavity. The duration of the prophylactic effect was sustained for two months. These results demonstrate that targeted delivery of carefully selected T-cell epitopes to natural tolerogenic liver APC could serve as an effective platform for the treatment of peanut allergen anaphylaxis.

Novel Approaches in the Inhibition of IgE-Induced Mast Cell Reactivity in Food Allergy

Allergy is an IgE-dependent type-I hypersensitivity reaction that can lead to life-threatening systemic symptoms such as anaphylaxis. In the pathogenesis of the allergic response, the common upstream event is the binding of allergens to specific IgE, inducing cross-linking of the high-affinity FcεRI on mast cells, triggering cellular degranulation and the release of histamine, proteases, lipids mediators, cytokines and chemokines with inflammatory activity. A number of novel therapeutic options to curb mast cell activation are in the pipeline for the treatment of severe allergies. In addition to anti-IgE therapy and allergen-specific immunotherapy, monoclonal antibodies targeted against several key Th2/alarmin cytokines (i.e. IL-4Rα, IL-33, TSLP), active modification of allergen-specific IgE (i.e. inhibitory compounds, monoclonal antibodies, de-sialylation), engagement of inhibitory receptors on mast cells and allergen-specific adjuvant vaccines, are new promising options to inhibit the uncontrolled release of mast cell mediators upon allergen exposure. In this review, we critically discuss the novel approaches targeting mast cells limiting allergic responses and the immunological mechanisms involved, with special interest on food allergy treatment.

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.

Emerging Food Allergy Treatments

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy affects up to 8% of the pediatric population and occurs when a person develops antibodies to specific food proteins resulting in immediate reaction upon ingestion of the food in question. Current treatment revolves around strict allergen avoidance and prompt treatment of systemic, anaphylactic reactions with injectable epinephrine. However, despite strict avoidance, unexpected reactions are a significant problem. Therefore, therapeutic options for treatment of food allergy are in high demand. This article focuses on emerging therapies including oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy, epicutaneous immunotherapy, and possible adjunct therapies for the treatment and desensitization of IgE-mediated food allergy. [Pediatr Ann. 2019;48(12):e468-e472.].

Could This Be IT? Epicutaneous, Sublingual, and Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Food Allergies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the last decade, there has been a spark in innovation in the development of therapies for food allergy. Herein, we describe the background and recent advances for food-specific immunotherapies including epicutaneous (EPIT), sublingual (SLIT), and subcutaneous (SCIT).

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have progressed most quickly for the treatment of peanut allergy. Data from the phase 3 EPIT trial add to the accumulating evidence that this will be a viable therapy for peanut allergy. Studies for SLIT and SCIT remain in earlier phases with promising results. This is an exciting era for the treatment of food allergy. Multiple therapies are under investigation, each with their own potential advantages. Specific strengths and limitations of each of these therapies may provide an opportunity to personalize the choice of therapy for individual patients.

Co-delivery of allergen epitope fragments and R848 inhibits food allergy by inducing tolerogenic dendritic cells and regulatory T cells

BACKGROUND

Food allergy (FA) is a significant public health problem. The therapeutic efficacy for FA is unsatisfactory currently. The breakdown of intestinal immune tolerance is associated with the pathogenesis of FA. Therefore, it is of great significance to develop novel therapeutic methods to restore immune tolerance in treating FA.

METHODS

We proposed an oral administration strategy to treat FA by co-delivering food allergen epitope fragment (peptide: IK) and adjuvant R848 (TLR7 ligand) in the mPEG-PDLLA nanoparticles (PPLA-IK/R848 NPs). The generation of tolerogenic dendritic cells (DCs) and regulatory T cells (Tregs) induced by PPLA-IK/R848 NPs were evaluated in vitro and in vivo. The therapeutic effects of PPLA-IK/R848 NPs were also assessed in an OVA-induced FA model.

RESULTS

PPLA-IK/R848 NPs could efficiently deliver IK to DCs to drive DCs into the tolerogenic phenotypes and promote the differentiation of Tregs in vitro and in vivo, significantly inhibited FA responses through the recovery of intestinal immune tolerance.

CONCLUSION

Oral administration of PPLA-IK/R848 NPs could efficiently deliver IK and R848 to intestinal DCs and stimulate DCs into allergen tolerogenic phenotype. These tolerogenic DCs could promote the differentiation of Tregs, which significantly protected mice from food allergic responses. This study provided an efficient formulation to alleviate FA through the recovery of immune tolerance.

Treatment for food allergy

The prevalence of IgE-mediated food allergy is an increasing public health concern effecting millions of persons worldwide. The current standard of treatment is strict avoidance of the offending food or foods, and to date, there are no regulatory approved treatments for food allergy. A significant amount of research has been directed at various forms of food immunotherapy, including oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous delivery routes. Although oral immunotherapy has shown the greatest promise for efficacy in terms of the amount of protein that can be ingested, it has also demonstrated less tolerability and a less favorable safety profile compared with sublingual immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy, which offers the least protection but has the best safety and tolerability profile. Studies have been conducted with adding adjuvants and anti-IgE to enhance either the efficacy or safety of food immunotherapy. Multiple concepts of food immunotherapy beyond these first-generation treatments are in either animal or early phase 1 studies.

Next-Generation Approaches for the Treatment of Food Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

IgE-mediated food allergies are an increasing health concern, and current management includes food avoidance and use of emergency medications. Effective treatment of food allergy is highly desirable. Next generation approaches for the treatment of food allergy aim to improve both safety and efficacy, potentially including long-term tolerance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) will likely be integrated into clinical practice as part of food allergy management in the near future. Newer approaches, such as sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), modified proteins, lysosomal-associated membrane protein DNA (LAMP DNA) vaccines, and the use of immunomodulatory agents, are early in development and depending on results, could also become important treatment options. This is a review of novel approaches to the treatment of food allergy that are currently under investigation, including the use of SLIT, modified proteins, probiotics, Chinese herbal supplements, biologic therapies, and DNA vaccines, as well as a summary of the current status of OIT and EPIT.

Psychosocial Mediators of Change and Patient Selection Factors in Oral Immunotherapy Trials

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is influenced by physiological, psychological, and environmental variables and can be best understood by considering the interactions of factors that cut across multiple levels. One of the most important issues relating to treatment in food allergy is to identify, describe, and define predictors that may contribute to modify HRQL outcomes. The research presented demonstrates that measures of HRQL are able to distinguish key features of known groups (e.g. relating to reaction severity, treatment, allergen type/number, expectation of outcome) and delineate impact on hitherto unknown groups (e.g. relating to personality types and coping styles). This heterogeneity may explain why HRQL or other patient-related outcomes may differ in individuals during, or following any treatment or intervention. Patient-reported outcomes are relatively poorly defined to date. Since HRQL has only been studied in relatively few oral immunotherapy trials to date, primarily looking at caregiver HRQL, it is unclear which factors, measures, or subscales are most predictive of short- and/or long-term treatment outcomes for which type of patient, and which time points for measurement are most informative. A standardised protocol that incorporates HRQL and other relevant patient-related outcome measures and agreed definitions of outcomes would allow for the comparison of efficacy of food allergy treatments between centres, trials, or countries. Further evidence-based research aimed at exploring the effects of interventions on outcomes in food allergy is needed, including the influence of patient and parent factors on protocol design. To this end, it is vital that patient-related outcomes such as improved HRQL are seen as a primary outcome and are measured at multiple intervals during the trial duration and beyond. The creative use of methods and designs (both qualitative and quantitative) to better understand the role of HRQL in immunotherapy treatment trials will enable improved modelling of the costs, risks, and benefits of any treatment. Systematic analysis and modelling of antecedent factors, mediators, and outcomes will be important to boost intervention effects and to maximise the overall benefits of treatment.

Oral and Sublingual Immunotherapy for Treatment of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy

Development of active therapies for IgE-mediated food allergy is a critical action step toward alleviating the adverse medical, psychosocial, and economic burdens on affected patients and families. Significant progress has been observed specifically in the application of single-allergen oral and sublingual immunotherapy for treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy, with emphasis on milk, egg, and peanut as the primary allergens. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has demonstrated efficacy in promoting immunomodulatory effects that lead to the clinical outcome of desensitization, defined as reduced reactivity while on active OIT, in the majority of treated individuals; however, achievement of sustained unresponsiveness following cessation of therapy has been observed in a smaller subset of treated subjects. The potential therapeutic benefits of OIT must be carefully considered in light of the significant potential for adverse events ranging from self-limited or easily treated oropharyngeal, respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms, to persistent abdominal complaints that lead to cessation of therapy in an estimated 10-15% of treated individuals. To date, the majority of studies have focused on single-allergen OIT approaches; however, multi-allergen OIT has shown promise in initial trials and is the subject of ongoing investigation to address the complex needs of multi-food allergic individuals. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been utilized for the treatment of food allergy and pollen-food allergy syndrome, demonstrating moderate efficacy, a favorable safety profile and variable tolerability, with oropharyngeal symptoms most commonly observed. Although studies directly comparing OIT and SLIT are limited, in general, the favorable safety profile associated with SLIT comes at the expense of reduced efficacy, while the more robust clinical effects observed with OIT come at the risk of potentially intolerable, treatment-limiting side effects. Future investigation to address specific knowledge gaps including optimal dose, duration, age of initiation, maintenance schedule, mechanisms, predictors of risk and therapeutic response will be important to maximize efficacy, minimize risk and develop personalized, effective approaches to targeting food allergy.

The Use of Biomarkers to Predict Aero-Allergen and Food Immunotherapy Responses

The incidence of allergic conditions has continued to rise over the past several decades, with a growing body of research dedicated toward the treatment of such conditions. By driving a complex range of changes in the underlying immune response, immunotherapy is the only therapy that modulates the immune system with long-term effects and is presently utilized for the treatment of several atopic conditions. Recent efforts have focused on identifying biomarkers associated with these changes that may be of use in predicting patients with the highest likelihood of positive clinical outcomes during allergen immunotherapy (AIT), providing guidance regarding AIT discontinuation, and predicting symptomatic relapse and the need for booster AIT after therapy. The identification of such biomarkers in food allergy has the additional benefit of replacing oral food challenges, which are presently the gold standard for diagnosing food allergies. While several markers have shown early promise, research has yet to identify a marker that can invariably predict clinical response to AIT. Skin prick testing (SPT) and specific IgE have commonly been used as inclusion criteria for the initiation of AIT and prediction of reactions during subsequent allergen challenge; however, existing data suggests that changes in these markers are not always associated with clinical improvement and can be widely variable, reducing their utility in predicting clinical response. Similar findings have been described for the use of allergen-specific functional IgG4 antibodies, basophil activation and histamine release, and type 2 innate lymphoid cells. There appears to be a promising association between changes in the expression of dendritic cell-associated markers, as well as the use of DNA promoter region methylation patterns in the prediction of allergy status following therapy. The cellular and molecular changes brought about by immunotherapy are still under investigation, but major strides in our understanding are being made.

Blocking antibodies induced by peanut oral and sublingual immunotherapy suppress basophil activation and are associated with sustained unresponsiveness

BACKGROUND

Oral and sublingual immunotherapies for peanut allergy have demonstrated efficacy in small clinical trials; however, mechanisms and biomarkers correlating with clinical outcomes remain elusive. Previous studies have demonstrated a role for IgG in post-OIT plasma in the suppression of IgE-mediated mast cell reactions.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to characterize the role that peanut oral and sublingual immunotherapy-induced plasma factors play in the inhibition of ex vivo basophil activation and whether inhibitory activity is associated with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Plasma samples from subjects on placebo, peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) or peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and IgG-depleted plasma or the IgG fraction were incubated with sensitized basophils, and the inhibition of basophil activation following stimulation with peanut extract was measured. Basophil inhibition results were compared between the two routes of immunotherapy, time on treatment and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Plasma from subjects after 12 months of active peanut OIT, but not placebo, inhibits basophil activation ex vivo. Depletion of IgG abrogated the blocking effect of OIT plasma, while the IgG fraction substantially blocked basophil activation. Basophils are inhibited to a similar extent by undiluted OIT and SLIT plasma; however, diluted OIT plasma from the time of desensitization challenge inhibited basophils more than diluted SLIT plasma from time of desensitization challenge. Plasma from subjects who experienced sustained unresponsiveness following OIT inhibited basophils to a greater extent than plasma from subjects who were desensitized, but this was not true for SLIT.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Peanut immunotherapy induces IgG-dependent functional changes in plasma that are associated with OIT but not SLIT clinical outcomes. Understanding the mechanisms of peanut OIT and SLIT may help derive informative biomarkers.

Comparison of sublingual immunotherapy and oral immunotherapy in peanut allergy

The prevalence of food allergy has been increasing over the past few decades at an alarming rate with peanut allergy affecting about 2% of children. Both oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have shown promise as a treatment option for peanut allergy. Immunotherapy induces desensitization and reduces the risk of reaction during accidental ingestion and may also enable those who are successfully desensitized to include the food allergen in their diet. OIT has been very well studied and has been found to be more efficacious that SLIT with an acceptable safety profile. However, SLIT is associated with fewer side effects. Studies indicate that a combination of SLIT and OIT may together induce a significant increase in challenge thresholds with fewer adverse events. More head-to-head clinical trials that direct compare OIT and SLIT as well as SLIT and OIT combination studies are warranted.

Peanut gastrointestinal delivery oral immunotherapy in adolescents: Results of the build-up phase of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PITA study)

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy to peanut is effective in desensitizing patients but has significant side effects including anaphylaxis and gastrointestinal symptoms. In most protocols, peanut is administered in a vehicle food.

OBJECTIVE

In an exclusively adolescent population, we tested a new approach using sealed capsules of peanut (gastrointestinal delivery oral immunotherapy or GIDOIT) to bypass the upper gastrointestinal tract. The primary aim was to assess the efficacy of the oral build-up phase of GIDOIT and the secondary aim to analyse its safety.

METHODS

Adolescents with a history of a clinical allergic reaction after peanut ingestion were included in a 2-armed, parallel-design, individually randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial after a positive double-blind placebo-controlled oral food challenge (DBPCFC1). A central randomization centre used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. Peanut (or placebo) capsules were ingested daily over a period of 24 weeks with increments every 2 weeks from 2 to 400 mg of peanut protein (pp). Primary outcome was tolerance of 400 mg of pp at DBPCFC2.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included between September 2013 and May 2014. At DBPCFC2, unresponsiveness to 400 mg of pp was achieved in 17/21 peanut group patients (2 withdrawn patients) and 1/9 in the placebo group (Intention-to-treat analysis, P < .001, absolute difference = 0.7, 95%IC 0.43 0.96). Oropharyngeal symptoms were equally frequent in both groups. No dysphagia or other signs of eosinophilic oesophagitis occurred. Digestive adverse events (AE) were more frequent in the treated group (P = .02), but mild and without compliance issues. Only one severe advent event led to withdrawal in a patient who ingested twice the investigated treatment. Peanut-specific humoral immune responses were modulated.

CONCLUSION

The GIDOIT protocol demonstrated clinical and immunological efficacy and had an acceptable level of safety with weak oropharyngeal symptoms, no dysphagia, mild digestive events and few severe systemic AE.

Food allergy: A review and update on epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and management

This review provides general information to serve as a primer for those embarking on understanding food allergy and also details advances and updates in epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment that have occurred over the 4 years since our last comprehensive review. Although firm prevalence data are lacking, there is a strong impression that food allergy has increased, and rates as high as approximately 10% have been documented. Genetic, epigenetic, and environmental risk factors are being elucidated increasingly, creating potential for improved prevention and treatment strategies targeted to those at risk. Insights on pathophysiology reveal a complex interplay of the epithelial barrier, mucosal and systemic immune response, route of exposure, and microbiome among other influences resulting in allergy or tolerance. The diagnosis of food allergy is largely reliant on medical history, tests for sensitization, and oral food challenges, but emerging use of component-resolved diagnostics is improving diagnostic accuracy. Additional novel diagnostics, such as basophil activation tests, determination of epitope binding, DNA methylation signatures, and bioinformatics approaches, will further change the landscape. A number of prevention strategies are under investigation, but early introduction of peanut has been advised as a public health measure based on existing data. Management remains largely based on allergen avoidance, but a panoply of promising treatment strategies are in phase 2 and 3 studies, providing immense hope that better treatment will be imminently and widely available, whereas numerous additional promising treatments are in the preclinical and clinical pipeline.

Emerging Approaches to Food Desensitization in Children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to highlight the recent advances in food desensitization in children with food allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent advancements in epicutaneous, sublingual, and oral immunotherapy for food allergy in the future may offer children with food allergy and their families a viable option to reduce risk or severity of anaphylaxis with phase III trials ongoing for two of these treatment modalities. Food allergy prevalence in children is estimated to be up to 8%. These children are at risk of significant allergic reactions and anaphylaxis. Food avoidance and use of antihistamines or epinephrine has been the standard of care for these patients. This approach also has a significant socioeconomic effects on patients and their families. Recent advancements in understanding food allergy have allowed for exploring new methods of treatment. There is an increasing interest in oral immunotherapy, epicutaneous immunotherapy, or sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy. There have been also innovative approaches to immunotherapy by modification of food allergens (to make them less allergenic while maintain their immunogenicity) or adding adjunctive treatments (probiotics, anti-IgE, etc.) to increase efficacy or safety.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy: A Spanish guideline. Egg and milk immunotherapy Spanish guide (ITEMS GUIDE). Part 2: Maintenance phase of cow milk (CM) and egg oral immunotherapy (OIT), special treatment dosing schedules. Models of dosing schedules of OIT with CM and EGG

INTRODUCTION

Cow's milk and egg are the most frequent causes of food allergy in the first years of life. Treatments such as oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been investigated as an alternative to avoidance diets. No clinical practice guides on the management of OIT with milk and egg are currently available.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a clinical guide on OIT based on the available scientific evidence and the opinions of experts.

METHODS

A review was made of studies published in the period between 1984 and June 2016, Doctoral Theses published in Spain, and summaries of communications at congresses (SEAIC, SEICAP, EAACI, AAAAI), with evaluation of the opinion consensus established by a group of experts pertaining to the scientific societies SEICAP and SEAIC.

RESULTS

Recommendations have been established regarding the indications, requirements and practical aspects of the different phases of OIT, as well as special protocols for patients at high risk of suffering adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical practice guide is presented for the management of OIT with milk and egg, based on the opinion consensus of Spanish experts.

Differences and similarities between sublingual immunotherapy of allergy and oral tolerance

Allergen immunotherapy is the only treatment altering the natural course of IgE-mediated allergies. Whereas the subcutaneous route for immunotherapy (SCIT) has been historically considered as a reference, we discuss herein the relative advantages of the sublingual and oral routes as alternatives to SCIT in order to elicit allergen-specific tolerance. The buccal and gut immune systems are similarly organized to favor immune tolerance to antigens/allergens, due to the presence of tolerogenic dendritic cells and macrophages promoting the differentiation of CD4⁺ regulatory T cells. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is now established as a valid treatment option, with clinical efficacy demonstrated in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (to either grass, tree, weed pollens or mite allergens) and encouraging results obtained in the management of mild/moderate allergic asthma. While still exploratory, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has shown promising results in the desensitization of patients with food allergies. We review at both biological and clinical levels the perspectives currently pursued for those two mucosal routes.

Preparation and Analysis of Peanut Flour Used in Oral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an investigational therapeutic approach for the treatment of food allergies. Characterization of the drug product used in oral immunotherapy trials for peanut allergy has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify relative amounts of the major peanut allergens and microbial load present in peanut flour used in OIT trials and assess whether these parameters change over a 12-month period. We also anticipate that this report will serve as a guide for investigators seeking to conduct OIT trials under Food and Drug Administration-approved Investigational New Drug applications.

METHODS

Densitometric scanning of Ara h 1 and Ara h 2 resolved on SDS-PAGE gels was used to assess allergen content in peanut flour extracts. Microbial testing was conducted on peanut flour under US Pharmacopeia guidelines for the presence of Escherichia coli, salmonella, yeast, mold, and total aerobic bacteria. In addition, aflatoxin was quantified in peanut flour. Reported results were obtained from 4 unique lots of peanut flour.

RESULTS

Relative amounts of the major peanut allergens were similar between different lots of peanut flour and remained stable over a 12-month period. E coli and salmonella were absent from all lots of flour. Yeast, mold, total aerobic bacteria, and aflatoxin were within established US Pharmacopeia guidelines on all lots tested and remained within the criteria over a 12-month period.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut flour used as a drug product contains the major peanut allergens and has low levels of potentially harmful microbes. Both these parameters remain stable over a 12-month period.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy in children and young adults

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is common, life-threatening, and without therapeutic options. We evaluated peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) by using Viaskin Peanut for peanut allergy treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the clinical, safety, and immunologic effects of EPIT for the treatment of peanut allergy.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 74 participants with peanut allergy (ages 4-25 years) were treated with placebo (n = 25), Viaskin Peanut 100 μg (VP100; n = 24) or Viaskin Peanut 250 μg (VP250; n = 25; DBV Technologies, Montrouge, France). The primary outcome was treatment success after 52 weeks, which was defined as passing a 5044-mg protein oral food challenge or achieving a 10-fold or greater increase in successfully consumed dose from baseline to week 52. Adverse reactions and mechanistic changes were assessed.

RESULTS

At week 52, treatment success was achieved in 3 (12%) placebo-treated participants, 11 (46%) VP100 participants, and 12 (48%) VP250 participants (P = .005 and P = .003, respectively, compared with placebo; VP100 vs VP250, P = .48). Median change in successfully consumed doses were 0, 43, and 130 mg of protein in the placebo, VP100, and VP250 groups, respectively (placebo vs VP100, P = .014; placebo vs VP250, P = .003). Treatment success was higher among younger children (P = .03; age, 4-11 vs >11 years). Overall, 14.4% of placebo doses and 79.8% of VP100 and VP250 doses resulted in reactions, predominantly local patch-site and mild reactions (P = .003). Increases in peanut-specific IgG₄ levels and IgG₄/IgE ratios were observed in peanut EPIT-treated participants, along with trends toward reduced basophil activation and peanut-specific T_H2 cytokines.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut EPIT administration was safe and associated with a modest treatment response after 52 weeks, with the highest responses among younger children. This, when coupled with a high adherence and retention rate and significant changes in immune pathways, supports further investigation of this novel therapy.

Active treatment for food allergy

Food allergy has grown in rapidly in prevalence, currently affecting 5% of adults and 8% of children. Management strategy is currently limited to 1) food avoidance and 2) carrying and using rescue intramuscular epinephrine/adrenaline and oral antihistamines in the case of accidental ingestion; there is no FDA approved treatment. Recently, oral, sublingual and epicutaneous immunotherapy have been developed as active treatment of food allergy, though none have completed phase 3 study. Efficacy and safety studies of immunotherapy have been variable, though there is clearly signal that immunotherapy will be a viable option to desensitize patients. The use of bacterial adjuvants, anti-IgE monoclonal antibodies, and Chinese herbal formulations either alone or in addition to immunotherapy may hold promise as future options for active treatment. Active prevention of food allergy through early introduction of potentially offending foods in high-risk infants will be an important means to slow the rising incidence of sensitization.

Omalizumab facilitates rapid oral desensitization for peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy is a promising approach to peanut allergy, but reactions are frequent, and some patients cannot be desensitized. The anti-IgE medication omalizumab (Xolair; Genentech, South San Francisco, Calif) might allow more rapid peanut updosing and decrease reactions.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate whether omalizumab facilitated rapid peanut desensitization in highly allergic patients.

METHODS

Thirty-seven subjects were randomized to omalizumab (n = 29) or placebo (n = 8). After 12 weeks of treatment, subjects underwent a rapid 1-day desensitization of up to 250 mg of peanut protein, followed by weekly increases up to 2000 mg. Omalizumab was then discontinued, and subjects continued on 2000 mg of peanut protein. Subjects underwent an open challenge to 4000 mg of peanut protein 12 weeks after stopping study drug. If tolerated, subjects continued on 4000 mg of peanut protein daily.

RESULTS

The median peanut dose tolerated on the initial desensitization day was 250 mg for omalizumab-treated subjects versus 22.5 mg for placebo-treated subject. Subsequently, 23 (79%) of 29 subjects randomized to omalizumab tolerated 2000 mg of peanut protein 6 weeks after stopping omalizumab versus 1 (12%) of 8 receiving placebo (P < .01). Twenty-three subjects receiving omalizumab versus 1 subject receiving placebo passed the 4000-mg food challenge. Overall reaction rates were not significantly lower in omalizumab-treated versus placebo-treated subjects (odds ratio, 0.57; P = .15), although omalizumab-treated subjects were exposed to much higher peanut doses.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab allows subjects with peanut allergy to be rapidly desensitized over as little as 8 weeks of peanut oral immunotherapy. In the majority of subjects, this desensitization is sustained after omalizumab is discontinued. Additional studies will help clarify which patients would benefit most from this approach.

Advances in the Treatment of Food Allergy: Sublingual and Epicutaneous Immunotherapy

Food allergies continue to increase in prevalence. Standard care is a strict elimination diet, but life-threatening reactions still occur. Allergen immunotherapy has the most potential in treating food allergy. Subcutaneous immunotherapy has not been adopted into food allergy therapy. Oral immunotherapy has a high rate of adverse reactions. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) uses the tolerogenic environment of the oral mucosa and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) uses the immune cells of the epidermis to transport antigens to afferent lymph nodes to activate immune responses. SLIT and EPIT can successfully desensitize patients. More research is needed to define optimal doses and administration protocols.

Desensitization for Peanut Allergies in Children

Immunotherapy for peanut allergy has been an exploding topic of study within the last few years. Sublingual, epicutaneous, and oral immunotherapy are being investigated and show promise in the treatment of peanut allergy. Oral immunotherapy has shown the most clinical benefit; however, sublingual and epicutaneous immunotherapy appear to have the most favorable safety profiles. Most studies to date suggest that only a minority of subjects achieve sustained unresponsiveness to peanut after discontinuation of immunotherapy. Recent efforts have been focused on identifying adjunct therapies, such as omalizumab, that may assist patients in achieving peanut desensitization more quickly and with greater success. Several underlying immunologic mechanisms, including a switch from IgE to IgG4 production and induction of T regulatory cells, have been studied although more research is needed to identify reliable biomarkers. This article will describe the immunotherapy approaches that are being investigated to induce peanut desensitization, and highlight the benefits and risks of these therapies that need to be considered before they are ready for routine clinical practice.

A practical view of immunotherapy for food allergy

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

Current Options for the Treatment of Food Allergy

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

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy as a novel pathway for oral tolerance induction

Epicutaneous immunotherapy is a developing technique, aiming at desensitizing patients with food allergy with less risks that oral ingestion or injection could generate. Several clinical trials have been performed and are currently running, in milk and peanut allergy, assessing the safety of the technique and its efficacy. Preclinical models indicate a major role in the mechanisms of desensitization, for example, Tregs and epigenetic modifications.

Immunotherapy for food allergies: a myth or a reality?

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

Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy in children

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is currently the only available disease-modifying and aetiological treatment of IgE-mediated diseases. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) constitutes the preferred route of administration of AIT for respiratory allergies in Europe. Recently it has also been approved in the US. Further applications are currently under evaluation, such as IgE-mediated food allergy and IgE-mediated atopic dermatitis. The SLIT safety profile is overall favourable, although local adverse events, usually mild, are described. Most of the meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy of SLIT in reducing symptoms and medication intake in children with allergic diseases. AIT, as an immune-modulating treatment, can modify the natural history of the allergic diseases: reduction of the risk of development of asthma and bronchial hyperreactivity in patients with allergic rhinitis, and reduction of the onset of new sensitizations. A great interest is now devoted to the preventive effects of AIT and, consequently, to the optimal time of initiation.

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

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

Is clinical tolerance possible after allergen immunotherapy?

There is a growing evidence that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) can provide significant and long-lasting clinical benefit for a number of allergic individuals. However, it is less clear if AIT results in clinical tolerance, which is characterized by a persistent state of clinical non-reactivity to allergens after therapy is finished. Addressing this knowledge gap is particularly relevant for patients undergoing AIT for food allergies, as anything less than complete tolerance could have potentially devastating consequences. An increasing number of studies, in particular those involving oral immunotherapy, are attempting to assess tolerance induction following AIT. Clinical tolerance does appear to be achievable in a subset of patients undergoing AIT, but whether this is equivalent to the type of tolerance observed in nonallergic individuals remains unknown. Developing established criteria for assessing tolerance induction, as well as the use of consistent terminology when describing clinical tolerance, will be important for determining the disease-modifying potential of AIT.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy: mechanisms and role in management

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

Current opinion and review on peanut oral immunotherapy

In the last decade, peanut oral immunotherapy research has shown promise as an alternative treatment to avoidance in peanut-allergic patients. Research has not only focused on desensitization, but also on immunologic changes and sustained-tolerance. This article reviews the current literature and the historical background of oral immunotherapy as well as immune mechanisms in oral immunotherapy and other therapies being explored in food allergic individuals.

The Role of Skin Barrier in the Pathogenesis of Food Allergy

Food allergy is a serious public health problem with an increasing prevalence. Current management is limited to food avoidance and emergency treatment. Research into the pathogenesis of food allergy has helped to shape our understanding of how patients become sensitized to an allergen. Classically, food sensitization was thought to occur through the gastrointestinal tract, but alternative routes of sensitization are being explored, specifically through the skin. Damaged skin barrier may play a crucial role in the development of food sensitization. Better understanding of how patients initially become sensitized may help lead to the development of a safe and effective treatment for food allergies or better prevention strategies.

Pharmacologic options for the treatment and management of food allergy

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

New developments in immunotherapies for food allergy

Food allergy affects around 10% of the population. As the prevalence of food allergy continues to increase, disproportionately in children, new therapies for food allergy are being investigated. While there are no approved treatments for food allergy, immunotherapy facilitates significant desensitization and protection from accidental exposure. Nevertheless, current immunotherapies do not entirely nor permanently eliminate sensitivity to the food allergen. Since the rates of sustained unresponsiveness are significantly lower than desensitization, future therapies that enhance the rates of long-term tolerance in patients will catalyze progress in this field over the next 5–10 years.

Diagnosis, management, and investigational therapies for food allergies

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