Early oral immunotherapy in peanut-allergic preschool children is safe and highly effective

Mechanisms for initiation of food allergy by skin pre-disposed to atopic dermatitis

Food allergy can be life-threatening and often develops early in life. In infants and children, loss-of-function mutations in skin barrier genes associate with food allergy. In a mouse model with skin barrier mutations (Flakey Tail, FT+/- mice), topical epicutaneous sensitization to a food allergen peanut extract (PNE), an environmental allergen Alternaria alternata (Alt) and a detergent induce food allergy and then an oral PNE-challenge induces anaphylaxis. Exposures to these allergens and detergents can occur for infants and children in a household setting. From the clinical and preclinical studies of neonates and children with skin barrier mutations, early oral exposure to allergenic foods before skin sensitization may induce tolerance to food allergens and thus protect against development of food allergy. In the FT+/- mice, oral food allergen prior to skin sensitization induce tolerance to food allergens. However, when the skin of FT+/- pups are exposed to a ubiquitous environmental allergen at the time of oral consumption of food allergens, this blocks the induction of tolerance to the food allergen and the mice can then be skin sensitized with the food allergen. The development of food allergy in neonatal FT+/- mice is mediated by altered skin responses to allergens with increases in skin expression of interleukin 33, oncostatin M and amphiregulin. The development of neonate food allergy is enhanced when born to an allergic mother, but it is inhibited by maternal supplementation with α-tocopherol. Moreover, preclinical studies suggest that food allergen skin sensitization can occur before manifestation of clinical features of atopic dermatitis. Thus, these parameters may impact design of clinical studies for food allergy, when stratifying individuals by loss of skin barrier function or maternal atopy before offspring development of atopic dermatitis.

Oral Immunotherapy: An Overview

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an alternative treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy that has been shown to increase tolerance threshold to many of the top food allergens, although this effect may be dependent on age, dose, frequency, and duration. OIT has been shown to be effective and safe in infants, and early initiation can improve rates of desensitization even for those foods whose natural history favors loss of allergy. Studies looking at protocol modification to improve OIT success are ongoing as is the evaluation of clinical tools to help monitor OIT effects.

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.

Food Sublingual Immunotherapy: Safety and Simplicity of a Real Food Updosing Protocol

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) using food extracts is safe and effective in desensitizing patients with food allergy, yet not often used in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To propose a cost-effective, expedited SLIT protocol using real food.

METHODS

Patients with food allergy aged 5 to 50 years (median, 11 years) initiated food SLIT in a single-clinic setting. The daily maintenance dose was 4 to 11 mg protein in 0.1 to 0.5 mL volume, depending on the food. Some foods were available in liquid form at the local grocery (milk, egg white liquid, and cashew/walnut/sunflower/hazelnut milk), whereas others were prepared in the office using flour and 50% glycerin saline (peanut/sesame/wheat). The first cohort of 20 patients began dosing at a 1:1000 dilution, the next 30 patients at 1:100 dilution. An exercise challenge was performed in a subset of patients on maintenance dosing to evaluate the need for a predose or postdose rest period.

RESULTS

The 1:1000 and 1:100 cohorts both completed day 1 without adverse reactions beyond itchy mouth. There were no systemic reactions requiring epinephrine throughout the study period and 88% reached their maintenance dose. Skin testing of 6-month-old peanut flour solution was not diminished from fresh solution and similar to food extract. Exercise challenge test results in 12 patients were negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen extract food SLIT as used in published trials has limitations of cost and multiple office visits. Inexpensive real food, at the same or slightly higher protein dose, was well tolerated in 4 updose visits, a minimum of a week apart. Unlike food oral immunotherapy, a predose or postdose rest period may not be necessary.

High Degree of Desensitization After 1 Year of Early-Life Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: Small Children Oral Immunotherapy (SmaChO) Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of peanut allergy is about 2% and mostly lifelong. Studies of oral immunotherapy (OIT) with peanut (the daily oral intake of an initially low and then increasing dose of peanut) often show problematic side effects, but there are indications of better safety and effect in younger children compared with older children and adults.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and effectiveness of peanut OIT with a slow up-dosing strategy and low maintenance dose in children aged 1 to 3 years who were allergic to peanut, through a 1-year interim analysis.

METHOD

In a randomized controlled trial (2:1 ratio), 75 children, median age 31 months (interquartile range [IQR], 23-40 months) were assigned to receive peanut OIT (n = 50) or peanut avoidance (n = 25).

RESULTS

In the OIT and avoidance groups, 43 of 50 and 20 of 25 children, respectively, performed the 1-year open oral peanut challenge. A cumulative dose of 750 mg peanut protein after 1 year was tolerated by 72% (36 of 50 children) in the OIT group compared with 4% (1 of 25) in the avoidance group (P < .001). Median tolerated cumulative dose was 2,750 mg (IQR, 275-5,000 mg) peanut protein in the OIT group compared with 2.8 mg (IQR, 0.3-27.8 mg) in the avoidance group (P < .001). Of the doses administered at home during the first year of OIT, 1.4% resulted in adverse events and 79% were mild, and three doses of epinephrine were given at home to two individuals.

CONCLUSION

In children aged 1 to 3 years, peanut OIT with the combination of slow up-dosing and low maintenance dose seems safe and effective after 1 year.

Safety and Effectiveness of Bypassing Oral Immunotherapy Buildup With an Initial Phase of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Higher-Risk Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Because of its favorable safety, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy has been proposed as an alternative treatment for those in whom oral immunotherapy (OIT) is of higher risk-older children, adolescents, adults, and those with a history of severe reactions. Although safe, SLIT has been shown to be less effective than OIT.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety of multifood SLIT in pediatric patients aged 4 to 18 years and the effectiveness of bypassing OIT buildup with an initial phase of SLIT.

METHODS

Patients aged 4 to 18 years were offered (multi)food SLIT. Patients built up to 2 mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of 3 to 5 visits under nurse supervision. After 1 to 2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC) (cumulative dose, 300 mg protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

RESULTS

Between summer 2020 and winter 2023, 188 patients were enrolled in SLIT (median age, 11 years). Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department, but none experienced grade 4 (severe) reaction. A subset of 20 patients had 50 low-dose OFCs to 300 mg protein and 35 (70%) OFCs were successful, thereby bypassing OIT buildup.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with very favorable safety of SLIT, with no life-threatening reactions and few reactions requiring epinephrine, we propose that an initial phase of SLIT to bypass supervised OIT buildup be considered for children in whom OIT is considered to be of higher risk.

Peanut oral immunotherapy using an extensively heated and baked novel composition of peanuts

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an increasingly acceptable therapeutic option for peanut-allergic (PA) children, despite significant side effects. Major peanut allergenic proteins are heat-resistant and are not rendered hypoallergenic after baking or cooking. Lyophilized peanut protein-MH (LPP-MH) is a novel composition from developing peanuts, enabling cooking-induced reduction in allergenicity. We aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of OIT, with extensively heated and baked (EHEB) LPP-MH in PA children.

METHODS

In a single-arm, single-center, pilot study, PA children with a single highest tolerated dose of <100 mg peanut protein were placed on a 40-week OIT protocol with 300 mg daily of heat-treated LPP-MH. A repeat open peanut food challenge was performed after 40 weeks of treatment and at a 6-12 months of follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Thirty-three children with PA were enrolled, with a mean cumulative tolerated dose (MCTD) of 71.2 mg PP (95% CI 45-100 mg). After 40 weeks, 32/33 patients were able to consume more than 300 mg of natural PP, with MCTD of 1709 mg (CI 365-3675 mg). There were no severe allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, during any of the observed LPP-MH challenges or any treatment related doses at home. After 6-12 months on daily maintenance, the MCTD was 8821 mg (95% CI 1930-13,500 mg). This enabled most children age-appropriate dietary inclusion of peanuts.

CONCLUSION

An OIT protocol with heat-treated LPP-MH, a novel composition from developing peanuts, seems a potentially safe and efficacious OIT modality for PA children, enabling the introduction of dietary levels of peanut proteins in highly allergic PA children. Validation in randomized controlled studies is mandated.

Interaction Between Baseline Participant Factors and Treatment Effects Following Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

The Probiotic Peanut Oral Immunotherapy-003 multicenter randomized trial found that both probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) and peanut OIT alone (OIT) were effective compared with placebo in inducing clinical remission after 18 months of treatment, and improving health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 12 months after treatment. Understanding treatment effect modifiers can optimize outcomes through precision care.

OBJECTIVES

This post hoc study examined baseline clinical and demographic participant factors that modified treatment effects.

METHODS

The study sample included 201 children (aged 1-10 years) with challenge-confirmed peanut allergy. Exposure variables were baseline clinical and demographic factors. Outcomes were remission (double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, cumulative 4,950-mg peanut protein at 8 weeks after treatment) and HRQL (change in Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Form score). Interactions between baseline factors and treatment effects on remission and HRQL were explored with regression models.

RESULTS

A higher degree of peanut sensitivity (large peanut skin prick test, high peanut specific IgE, and low reaction-eliciting dose at study entry challenge) and other concurrent allergic conditions (multiple food allergies, asthma, or wheeze) were associated with the decreased likelihood of attaining remission after both PPOIT and OIT treatment. History of anaphylaxis was associated with the reduced likelihood of remission after PPOIT compared with OIT. For the HRQL outcome, there was evidence that sex, history of anaphylaxis, and age modified treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline participant factors modify PPOIT and OIT effects on remission and HRQL. Considering modifiers of treatment effect during participant selection may optimize treatment success and clinical trial design toward specific outcomes, such as the achievement of remission.

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.

A Review of Shared Decision-Making, Published Protocols, and Post-desensitization Strategies in Oral Immunotherapy (OIT)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use.

RECENT FINDINGS

With food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients.

Primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of food allergy: current practices and future directions

The incidence of food allergies has risen around the globe, and experts have been exploring methods of preventing such allergies in young children to ease the burden of disease and reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by anaphylaxis to food allergens. Such preventative measures can be categorised as primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, which are discussed in detail in this review. Primary prevention is defined as the prevention of becoming sensitised towards specific allergens. The evidence suggests that avoiding common allergenic foods during pregnancy and breastfeeding is not protective against food allergies, and guidelines recommend weaning from 4 to 6 months of age, with recent studies supporting the early introduction of peanuts at 4 months to prevent peanut allergy. Secondary prevention targets patients who are already sensitised and aims to halt the progression of sensitisation, with evidence for high rates of success and safety in trials of early introduction to milk and peanuts using oral immunotherapy in sensitised infants. Tertiary allergy prevention focuses on reducing the risk of a patient having anaphylaxis, with oral immunotherapy being the most common method of promoting tolerance in allergic children. Several studies have demonstrated successful reintroduction for milk, egg and peanut; however, no such guidelines are recommended for other foods. Finally, dietary advancement therapy in the form of milk and egg ladders has been employed as a method of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of allergies, particularly in Ireland, the UK and Canada.

The Natural History and Risk Factors for the Development of Food Allergies in Children and Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review explores food allergy prevalence and natural history stratified by life stages, especially in context of evolving knowledge over the last few decades.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of food allergy remains highest in early childhood with common food triggers being cow's milk, soy, hen's egg, wheat, peanut, tree nuts, sesame, fish, and shellfish. This correlates with certain risk factors especially pertinent in the postnatal period which appear to predispose an individual to developing a food allergy. Some allergies (such as milk and egg) were previously thought to be easily outgrown in early life; however, recent studies suggest increasing rates of persistence of these allergies into young adulthood; the reason behind this is unknown. Despite this, there is also evidence demonstrating that food allergies can be outgrown in adolescents and adults. An understanding of the paradigm shifts in the natural history of food allergy allows clinicians to provide updated, age-appropriate, and tailored advice for patients on the management and prognosis of food allergy.

Optimising the management of peanut allergy by targeting immune plasticity

Randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of oral tolerance induction to peanut have enabled detailed comparison of their clinical and immunological success. They have demonstrated that the regular consumption of peanut for at least 2 years by babies who are not allergic enables protection from developing peanut allergy. The LEAP study intervention tested the impact of regular peanut consumption for 4 years and demonstrated a sustained protection against the development of peanut allergy even after 12 months of peanut avoidance from 5 to 6 years of age. The PreventADALL trial introduced multiple allergens into babies' diets from early infancy and reduced the prevalence of food allergy at 3 years, especially by protecting against peanut allergy. Immunological studies from the LEAP cohort demonstrated that regular peanut consumption was associated with a prompt induction of peanut-specific IgG4 and reduced manufacture of peanut and Ara h 2-specific IgE. Even after stopping peanut consumption for 5 years, there continued to be a significant fall in peanut-specific Ara h 2 IgE in the consumption group from 5 to 6 years of age (p < .01). Children who developed peanut allergy by 5 years started to develop increasing sensitisation to linear sequential peanut epitopes from 2.5 years of age, suggesting that putative disease-modifying interventions should commence before 3 years. Data comparing clinical outcomes between children undergoing peanut immunotherapy from infancy suggest that younger children can consume higher portions of peanut without reaction on challenge whilst taking immunotherapy, have fewer side effects and are more likely to enjoy remission of PA. Peanut oral immunotherapy modulates T-cell populations in order to bring about hypo-responsiveness of allergy effector cells. Studies are now needed to characterise and compare different states of immunological tolerance. This will accelerate the design of interventions which can promote primary, secondary and tertiary levels of PA prevention across a range of age groups.

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.

Flex-IT! Applying "Platform Trials" Methodology to Immunotherapy for Food Allergy in Research and Clinical Practice

There is an increasing trend in the management of food allergy toward active treatment using allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Although AIT is efficacious, treatment-related adverse events are common, particularly with oral immunotherapy in those with high levels of allergen-specific IgE sensitization. In clinical practice, these adverse events inevitably create challenges: clinicians and patients routinely face decisions whether to alter the dose itself, the frequency of dosing, and the pace of escalation, or indeed discontinue AIT altogether. Flexibility is therefore needed to adapt treatment, particularly in clinical practice, so that participants are "treated-to-target." For example, this may entail a significant change in the dosing protocol or even switching from one route of administration to another in response to frequent adverse events. We refer to this approach as flexible immunotherapy. However, there is little evidence to inform clinicians as to what changes to treatment are most likely to result in treatment success. Classical clinical trials rely, by necessity, on relatively rigid updosing protocols. To provide an evidence base to optimize AIT, the food allergy community should adopt adaptive platform trials, where a "master protocol" facilitates more efficient evaluation, including longer-term outcomes of multiple interventions. Within a single clinical trial, participants are able to switch between different treatment arms; interventions can be added or dropped without compromising the integrity of the trial. Developing platform trials for food AIT may initially be costly, but they represent a significant opportunity to grow the evidence base (with respect to both treatment outcomes and biomarker discovery) at scale. In addition, they could help understand longitudinal disease trajectories that are difficult to study in clinical trials for food allergy due to the time needed to demonstrate changes in efficacy. Finally, their adoption would achieve greater collaboration and consistency in approaches to proactive management of food allergy in routine clinical practice. As a community, we need to actively pursue this with funders and established research collaborations to deliver the very best outcomes for our patients and their families.

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.

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.

Bypassing the build-up phase for oral immunotherapy in shrimp-allergic children

Background

Oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for food allergies; however, its use in clinical practice is limited by resources and lack of standardized protocols for foods other than peanut. Previous studies have suggested that shrimp has a higher threshold for reaction than other allergenic foods, suggesting it may be safe to directly administer maintenance doses of immunotherapy.

Methods

Children aged 3-17 years who had 1) skin prick test ≥3 mm and/or specific IgE level ≥0.35 kU/L and convincing objective IgE-mediated reaction to shrimp, or 2) no ingestion history and specific IgE level ≥5 kU/L, underwent a low-dose oral food challenge to 300 mg shrimp protein, with the goal of continuing daily ingestion of the 300 mg maintenance dose as oral immunotherapy.

Results

Between January 2020 and April 2023, 17 children completed the low-dose oral food challenge. Nine (53%) tolerated this amount with no reaction, and 8 (47%) had a mild reaction (isolated oral pruritis or redness on chin). Sixteen (94%) continued maintenance low-dose oral immunotherapy eating 300 mg shrimp protein daily. None of the patients developed anaphylaxis related to the immunotherapy.

Conclusion

Our case series suggests that some shrimp allergic patients being considered for oral immunotherapy should be offered a low-dose oral food challenge, to potentially bypass the build-up phase of immunotherapy.

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.

Clinical outcome and component-specific antibody levels in egg allergic children after lightened oral immunotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical outcome of lightened version of egg oral immunotherapy (OIT) and to analyze egg allergen component-specific antibody levels during short up-dosing with egg white powder and maintenance by egg in daily diet.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighteen egg-allergic children received egg powder with short up--dosing and they maintained tolerance using egg in daily diet. Seventeen egg-allergic children served as a control group. Component-resolved analysis of serum immunoglobulin E (IgE), IgA1, IgA2, and IgG4 levels were determined at inclusion, after up-dosing and after 1 year of immunotherapy. Skin-prick tests were performed at inclusion and after 1 year of therapy.

RESULTS

All 18 patients in the egg OIT group were successfully desensitized. Desensitization was achieved on average in 4.5 months. In the control group, only two children tolerated egg in oral food challenge after 1 year. Of the measured immune markers, smaller wheal diameters in skin-prick testing, reduction in component-specific IgE levels, and increase in component-specific IgA1, IgA2, and IgG4 levels were associated with desensitization.

CONCLUSION

A lightened egg OIT is effective and safe in children with egg allergy. Increase in all egg component-specific IgA1, IgA2 and IgG4 levels and decrease in all egg component--specific IgE levels were observed after 12 months of OIT.

Desensitization and remission after peanut sublingual immunotherapy in 1- to 4-year-old peanut-allergic children: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prior studies of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have suggested a potential advantage with younger age at treatment initiation.

OBJECTIVE

We studied the safety and efficacy of SLIT for peanut allergy in 1- to 4-year-old children.

METHODS

Peanut-allergic 1- to 4-year-old children were randomized to receive 4 mg peanut SLIT versus placebo. Desensitization was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 36 months of treatment. Participants desensitized to at least 443 mg peanut protein discontinued therapy for 3 months and then underwent DBPCFC to assess for remission. Biomarkers were measured at baseline and longitudinally during treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty participants (25 peanut SLIT, 25 placebo) with a median age of 2.4 years were enrolled across 2 sites. The primary end point of desensitization was met with actively treated versus placebo participants having a significantly greater median cumulative tolerated dose (4443 mg vs 143 mg), higher likelihood of passing the month 36 DBPCFC (60% vs 0), and higher likelihood of demonstrating remission (48% vs 0). The highest rate of desensitization and remission was seen in 1- to 2-year-olds, followed by 2- to 3-year-olds and 3- to 4-year-olds. Longitudinal changes in peanut skin prick testing, peanut-specific IgG4, and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio were seen in peanut SLIT but not placebo participants. Oropharyngeal itching was more commonly reported by peanut SLIT than placebo participants. Skin, gastrointestinal, upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and multisystem adverse events were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Peanut SLIT safely induces desensitization and remission in 1- to 4-year-old children, with improved outcomes seen with younger age at initiation.

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.

Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy in Children 1 to Less Than 4 Years of Age

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is a common childhood allergy, and the only approved treatment for children 4 to 17 years of age is peanut allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) oral immunotherapy. METHODS: For this phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled peanut-allergic children 1 to <4 years of age who experienced dose-limiting symptoms from ≤300 mg peanut protein during a screening double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Participants received PTAH or placebo, randomized in a 2:1 ratio, for approximately 12 months. At the trial conclusion, all participants underwent an exit BDPCFC. The primary end point was desensitization (i.e., tolerating a ≥600-mg single dose of peanut protein with only mild allergy symptoms). RESULTS: In the PTAH-treated group (n=98), 73.5% of participants tolerated a single dose of ≥600 mg peanut protein at exit DBPCFC compared with 6.3% in the placebo group (n=48). Most participants experienced an adverse event (98.0% of PTAH-treated and 97.9% of placebo-treated participants), which was mild or moderate in grade for 93.2% of participants (92.9% in PTAH-treated and 93.8% in placebo-treated participants). Treatment-related adverse events, which were mild to moderate, were experienced by 75.5% of PTAH-treated and 58.3% of placebo-treated participants. Three treatment-related systemic allergic reactions, none of which were severe or serious in grade, were noted in two PTAH-treated participants (2%). CONCLUSIONS: In peanut-allergic children 1 to <4 years of age treated with PTAH for approximately 12 months, the majority tolerated all peanut protein dose levels assessed. PTAH-treated patients had more treatment-related adverse events, which were mild to moderate severity. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03736447.)

Doing More with Less

Peanut allergy affects 1 to 3% of children in Western countries and is increasing in prevalence in Africa and Asia. In most patients, peanut allergy develops early in life and continues into adulthood. Peanut allergy is the most common cause of food-related anaphylaxis and death and creates significant medical, financial, and psychosocial burdens on patients and their families.1-3 Until recently, the mainstay of treatment for peanut and other food allergies was strict avoidance of peanut and carrying injectable epinephrine in case of accidental exposure.

Oral immunotherapy as a curative treatment for food-allergic preschool children: Current evidence and potential underlying mechanisms

The worldwide rising prevalence of food allergy is a major public health concern. Standard care consists of allergen avoidance and rescue medication upon accidental exposure. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is increasingly being studied as a treatment option. Although desensitization (an increased reaction threshold) is often achieved during OIT, sustained unresponsiveness (SU; clinical nonreactivity after finishing OIT) is not achieved in most patients. A few studies have investigated the effectiveness of OIT in children younger than 4 years of age (early = e-OIT) and have shown a much more favorable outcome in terms of SU development. Together with food allergy prevention studies, which have demonstrated high efficacy of early oral allergen exposure, the outcomes of e-OIT studies indicate an early-life window of opportunity to achieve SU, allowing unrestricted dietary intake. However, the underlying mechanism of the high effectiveness of e-OIT is not understood yet. Both cohort and OIT studies indicate early-life immune plasticity. An immature food-allergic response in the first years of life seems to be a major driver of this immune plasticity, along with a higher tolerogenic immunological state. Allergy maturation can likely be disrupted effectively by early intervention, preventing the development of persistent food allergy. Upcoming studies will provide important additional data on the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of e-OIT. Combined with immune mechanistic studies, this should inform the implementation of e-OIT.

Early Peanut Immunotherapy in Children (EPIC) trial: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of peanut oral immunotherapy in children under 5 years of age

INTRODUCTION

Food allergy is a major public health challenge in Australia. Despite widespread uptake of infant feeding and allergy prevention guidelines the incidence of peanut allergy in infants has not fallen, and prevalence of peanut allergy in school-aged children continues to rise. Therefore, effective and accessible treatments for peanut allergy are required. There is high-quality evidence for efficacy of oral immunotherapy in children aged 4-17 years old; however, few randomised trials have investigated peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in young children. Furthermore, the use of food products for OIT with doses prepared and administered by parents without requiring pharmacy compounding has the potential to reduce costs associated with the OIT product.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Early Peanut Immunotherapy in Children is an open-label randomised controlled trial of peanut OIT compared with standard care (avoidance) to induce desensitisation in children aged 1-4 years old with peanut allergy. n=50 participants will be randomised 1:1 to intervention (daily peanut OIT for 12 months) or control (peanut avoidance). The primary outcome is the proportion of children in each group with a peanut eliciting dose >600 mg peanut protein as assessed by open peanut challenge after 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes include safety as assessed by frequency and severity of treatment-related adverse events, quality of life measured using age-appropriate food allergy-specific questionnaires and immunological changes during OIT.

ETHICS

The trial is approved by the Child and Adolescent Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee and prospectively registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

DISSEMINATION

Trial outcomes will be published in a peer-review journal and presented and local and national scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621001001886.

Immune signatures predicting the clinical outcome of peanut oral immunotherapy: where we stand

Peanut allergy is a growing health concern that can cause mild to severe anaphylaxis as well as reduced quality of life in patients and their families. Oral immunotherapy is an important therapeutic intervention that aims to reshape the immune system toward a higher threshold dose reactivity and sustained unresponsiveness in some patients. From an immunological point of view, young patients, especially those under 3 years old, seem to have the best chance for therapy success. To date, surrogate markers for therapy duration and response are evasive. We provide a comprehensive overview of the current literature state regarding immune signatures evolving over the course of oral immunotherapy as well as baseline immune conditions prior to the initiation of treatment. Although research comparing clinical and immune traits in the first years of life vs. later stages across different age groups is limited, promising insights are available on immunological endotypes among peanut-allergic patients. The available data call for continued research to fill in gaps in knowledge, possibly in an integrated manner, to design novel precision health approaches for advanced therapeutic interventions in peanut allergy.

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.

Epitope-Based IgE Assays and Their Role in Providing Diagnosis and Prognosis of Food Allergy

With advances in molecular and computational science, epitope-specific IgE antibody profiling has been developed and recently brought into clinical practice. Epitope-based testing detects IgE antibodies that directly bind to antigenic sites of an allergen, providing increased resolution specificity and fewer false-positive results for diagnosing food allergy. Epitope-binding profiles may also serve as prognostic markers of food allergy and help predict quantities of allergen that would provoke a reaction (ie, eliciting dose, possible severity of a reaction after allergen ingestion, and outcomes of treatment options such as oral immunotherapy [OIT]). Future studies are under way to discover additional applications of epitope-specific antibodies for multiple food allergens.

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.

Development of an Oral Immunotherapy-Related Parental Burden Scale

INTRODUCTION

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) imposes a burden on parents and their children with food allergies (FAs). We already developed a questionnaire for OIT-related Parental Burden (OIT-PB) scale. However, the previous questionnaire had some problems. This study modified OIT-PB and verified its reliability and validity.

METHODS

A 20-item draft covering the physical and mental burdens caused by OIT was prepared jointly with multiple allergists. The Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parental Burden (FAQLQ-PB) and Stress Response Scale-18 (SRS-18) were used to verify concurrent validity. A questionnaire survey was administered during treatment to parents of FA children who had started OIT for the first time. An additional OIT-PB survey was performed at one specific institution 1 week after the posttreatment survey.

RESULTS

The responses of 64 of the 76 recruited parents were analyzed. Of the 20 questions, 1 item was excluded owing to the floor effect, 1 was excluded because its commonality was less than 0.2, and 2 were excluded because their factor loading values were less than 0.4. Factor analysis was used to classify the OIT-PB into the following 4 subscales: "burden caused by adherence to treatment plan," "anxiety about symptom-induced risk," "burden due to patient's eating behavior," and "anxiety about treatment effect." The Cronbach's α for all 16 items of the OIT-PB was 0.893; Cronbach's α for each subscale was 0.876, 0.898, 0.874, and 0.717. The re-test reliability coefficient was 0.864 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.720-0.937, p < 0.001). A significant positive correlation was found between the OIT-PB and FAQLQ-PB (R = 0.610 [95% CI: 0.422-0.747], p < 0.001) and the SRS-18 (R = 0.522 [95% CI: 0.306-0.687], p < 0.001). A significant negative correlation was found between the rate of increase in OIT food intake and the "anxiety about treatment effect" score (R = -0.355 [95% CI: -0.558-0.112], p < 0.001). Parents of children on the hen's egg OIT treatment scored higher on the "burden due to patient's eating behavior" subscale than did parents of children on the milk and wheat OIT treatment.

CONCLUSION

The burden of OIT experienced by parents can be broadly classified into four categories. The modified OIT-PB was able to evaluate them individually and was shown to have reliability and validity. This scale is expected to be useful in the development of OIT that considers not only therapeutic effect but also the burden experienced by FA children and their parents.

Food Oral Immunotherapy: A Survey Among US Practicing Allergists Conducted as a AAAAI Leadership Institute Project and Work Group Report

BACKGROUND

Food oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an active form of treatment for food allergies. Although research in this area has been ongoing for many years, the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved product for peanut allergy treatment became available only in January 2020. Limited data exist on OIT services offered by physicians in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

This workgroup report was developed to evaluate OIT practices among allergists practicing in the United States.

METHODS

The authors developed an anonymous 15-question survey and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Practices, Diagnostics and Therapeutics Committee before distribution to the membership. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology electronically distributed the survey to a random sample of 780 members in November 2021. In addition to questions specific to food OIT, the survey included questions on demographics and professional characteristics of the responders.

RESULTS

A total of 78 members completed the survey, yielding a 10% response rate. Fifty percent of responders were offering OIT in their practice. There was a significant difference in experience in OIT originating from research trials in academic versus nonacademic centers. Generally, OIT practices were similar in both settings for the number of foods offered, the performance of oral food challenges before initiating treatment, the number of new patients to whom OIT was offered to per month, and age groups OIT to whom was offered. Almost all of the reported barriers to OIT were similar between settings: staff and time limitations, concerns about safety and anaphylaxis, the need for more education on how to perform, inadequate compensation, and that it was not a significant demand from patients. Clinic space limitations were significantly different and more prominent in academic settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey revealed interesting trends in the practice of OIT across the United States, with some significant differences arising when academic and nonacademic settings were compared.

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.

Abatacept to induce remission of peanut allergy during oral immunotherapy (ATARI): protocol for a phase 2a randomized controlled trial

Context

While oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been shown to promote the remission of mild peanut allergy in young children, there is still an unmet need for a disease-modifying intervention for older patients and those with severe diseases. In mice models, abatacept, a cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) immunoglobulin fusion protein, has been shown to promote immune tolerance to food when used as an adjuvant to allergen immunotherapy. The goal of this study is to explore the potential efficacy of abatacept in promoting immune tolerance to food allergens during OIT in humans.

Methods

In this phase 2a proof-of-concept study (NCT04872218), 14 peanut-allergic participants aged from 14 to 55 years will be randomized at a 1:1 ratio to abatacept vs. placebo for the first 24 weeks of a peanut OIT treatment (target maintenance dose of 300 mg peanut protein). The primary outcome will be the suppression of the OIT-induced surge in peanut-specific IgE/total IgE at 24 weeks, relative to the baseline. Sustained unresponsiveness will be assessed as a secondary outcome starting at 36 weeks by observing incremental periods of peanut avoidance followed by oral food challenges.

Discussion

This is the first study assessing the use of abatacept as an adjuvant to allergen immunotherapy in humans. As observed in preclinical studies, the ability of abatacept to modulate the peanut-specific immune response during OIT will serve as a proxy outcome for the development of clinical tolerance, given the small sample size. The study will also test a new patient-oriented approach to sustained tolerance testing in randomized controlled trials.

Viewing Pediatric Food Oral Immunotherapy Through an Ethical Lens-A Narrative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Food allergy remains a common problem and a lifelong condition for many children. In recent years, food allergy management has increasingly involved conversations about food oral immunotherapy (OIT). Although ethical considerations of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice implicitly inform these conversations, applying these principles can be complex, particularly in young children. Families of young children assume a role of surrogate decision-maker and must balance immediate risks with the hope of longer-term benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To explore implementation of OIT in children through an ethical lens.

METHODS

To evaluate OIT through an ethical lens, we conducted a literature search to explore currently published frameworks in this area.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the harm principle, the basic interest principle, and the best interest principle of parental decision-making can be informative. Shared decision-making continues to be central to the process of engaging with patient-family units to individualize the best care, at the right time, and minimize decisional discord. Although OIT is well-positioned to promote health and well-being, challenges to equity, sustainability, and organizational support must be considered to improve access for appropriate patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas approaches to food OIT may be tailored to the individual context of each patient-family unit, ethical principles must guide decisions to initiate and continue therapy. Traditional ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice remain cornerstones when considering the ethical context of OIT.

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.).

Peanut allergy: risk factors, immune mechanisms, and best practices for oral immunotherapy success

INTRODUCTION

Peanut oral immunotherapy (pOIT) is the only FDA-approved treatment for food allergy and its adoption amongst allergist immunologists and their patients is growing. pOIT is the subject of numerous clinical trials, however, the focus is often on treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability, rather than identifying patients most likely to benefit from pOIT. Here, we review existing data on the clinical and immunological outcomes of pOIT that inform best practices for pOIT candidate selection.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we describe the natural history of peanut allergy, summarize immunological and clinical outcomes of pOIT at different ages, discuss the optimization of pOIT in key age groups, and finally suggest an ideal age range at which to initiate pOIT for best outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

pOIT is currently underutilized by patients and allergist-immunologists. Developing guidelines for selecting appropriate patients and optimizing treatment may help to increase access to pOIT. Many aspects of pOIT need additional study to further our understanding of the optimal timing to start pOIT, with careful consideration to clinical, immunological, and quality of life outcomes.

Risk factors associated with safety of preschool peanut oral immunotherapy

Background

An understanding of how patient characteristics such as age, baseline peanut-specific IgE, and atopic comorbidities may influence potential safety outcomes during peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) could aid in shared decision making between clinicians and patient families.

Objective

This study explored the relationship between baseline patient characteristics and reactions during P-OIT using a large sample size to better understand potential risk factors influencing P-OIT safety.

Methods

Data were obtained from the Food Allergy Immunotherapy (FAIT) registry, which collects real-world OIT data from community and academic allergy clinics across Canada. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to examine the relationship between baseline patient characteristics and reactions during P-OIT. Multiple imputation was applied to reduce potential bias caused by missingness and to maximize the use of available information to preserve statistical power.

Results

Between April 2017 and June 2021, a total of 653 eligible patients initiated P-OIT. Multivariable regression analysis showed pre-OIT grade 2+ initial reaction (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 1.61), allergic rhinitis (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.08, 2.38), older age (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.02), and higher baseline peanut-specific IgE (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.02, 1.03) were associated with grade 2+ reaction during P-OIT after adjusting for potential risk factors.

Conclusion

Our study identified several clinically important risk factors for grade 2+ reactions during P-OIT: pre-OIT grade 2+ initial reaction, allergic rhinitis, older age, and higher baseline peanut-specific IgE. These results highlight the need for individualized risk stratification for OIT.

Targeting type 2 immunity and the future of food allergy treatment

IgE-mediated food allergy affects 6-8% of the population in the United States. Type 2 immune responses are central to the pathogenesis of food allergy, but type 2 CD4+ T cell responses have been found to be heterogeneous in food allergy suggesting a division of labor between Tfh13 and peTH2 cells in promotion of IgE class switching, modulation of intestinal barrier function, and regulation of mast cell expansion. Oral immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergy incompletely targets subsets of type 2 immunity in a transient manner, but new therapeutics targeting different levels of type 2 immunity are in current or planned trials for food allergy. These new treatments and the basis for their use are the focus of this review.

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.

The role of biologics in pediatric food allergy and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders

Continuing insight into the molecular mechanisms of atopic disorders has enabled the development of biologics to precisely target these diseases. Food allergy (FA) and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are driven by similar inflammatory molecular mechanisms and exist along the same atopic disease spectrum. Therefore, many of the same biologics are being investigated to target key drivers of mechanisms shared across the disease states. The enormous potential of biologics for the treatment of FA and EGIDs is highlighted by the significant increases in the number of ongoing clinical trials (more than 30) evaluating their use in these disease states, as well as by the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of dupilumab for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Here we discuss past and current research into the use of biologics in FA and EGIDs and their potential role in improving treatment options in the future, with the need to have biologics widely clinically available.