Oral immunotherapy–induced gastrointestinal symptoms and peripheral blood eosinophil responses

Triggers for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): The intersection of food allergy and EoE

Eosinophilic esophagitis and IgE-mediated food allergy are both food-triggered diseases that are increasing in prevalence. They share many clinical links, including significant comorbidity and similar food triggers, and as atopic diseases, they likely share upstream mechanisms related to barrier function and signals leading to TH2 skewing. In this review, we focus on links between eosinophilic esophagitis and IgE-mediated food allergy with an emphasis on what insights may be derived from overlapping food triggers and immune phenotypes. Through further investigation of these connections, we may be able to better understand not only IgE-mediated food allergy and eosinophilic esophagitis but also general atopic response to food proteins and evolution of allergic response to food.

The Relationship Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy is a treatment approach based on the principle of incremental allergen exposure to achieve desensitization. Recently, oral immunotherapy has been introduced as a treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy. Some patients receiving oral immunotherapy for food allergy may develop eosinophilic esophagitis. Here, we summarize the literature examining this association, its treatment, and outcomes and discuss possible explanations for this clinical phenomenon. We further identify potential associations with aeroallergen sensitivity and other forms of immunotherapy including subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. Finally, we discuss management of immunotherapy-induced eosinophilic esophagitis. Epicutaneous immunotherapy is highlighted as an area of therapeutic investigation.

Eosinophil-Associated Gastrointestinal Manifestations During OIT

Gastrointestinal adverse events are common during oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy and range from immediate IgE-mediated reactions to non-anaphylactic clinical presentations. This review aims to summarize recent findings on non-anaphylactic eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal adverse events during OIT. Two clinical presentations of non-anaphylactic eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal adverse events during OIT are identified, each with a different paradigm for treatment, and distinguished by their time of onset. In the first clinical entity, characterized by its onset early in the course of treatment, patients present with abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. The symptoms become evident typically within weeks to months of starting OIT. These symptoms, however, are not temporally related to the time of dose administration, as in the case of immediate IgE-mediated anaphylactic reactions. While esophageal biopsies, when performed, can demonstrate eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), baseline esophageal eosinophilia has also been observed in food allergic patients prior to OIT. A potential non-invasive biomarker, the peripheral absolute eosinophil count (AEC), often rises during these reactions and subsides after dose reduction and subsequent resolution of symptoms. OIT can usually then be resumed, albeit at a slower pace, without a recurrence of symptoms. Risk factors for development of symptoms early during OIT include a high starting dose and a baseline AEC of greater than 600. The second, and much less frequently encountered, non-anaphylactic gastrointestinal adverse event related to OIT, presents months to years after initiating OIT. In this latter group, patients present with the classical clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings of EoE. In contrast to the acute onset group, peripheral eosinophilia is usually not observed in these cases. This OIT-associated EoE has shown good response to standard EoE treatment approaches of proton pump inhibitors or swallowed steroids. Most patients with eosinophil-associated adverse reactions are able to continue OIT and remain desensitized. Treatment approaches depend on the specific subtype of these reactions and relate to the stages of OIT treatment.

Ethical Implications of Continuing Oral Immunotherapy After the Development of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic allergic inflammatory disease requiring maintenance therapy. Traditionally, EoE has been a contraindication to oral immunotherapy (OIT) and a rationale for discontinuing treatment because OIT may induce EoE. Most, but not all patients with OIT-induced EoE experience symptom resolution and histologic remission after discontinuing OIT. Recent studies report OIT continuation even after EoE onset, despite the previously accepted standard of care. This creates clinical as well as ethical challenges for allergists treating these patients. Considering the published literature on EoE and OIT and the primary medical ethics principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, we discuss the ethical implications of pursuing desensitization despite the potential complications associated with EoE. When ethical principles are in opposition, shared decision-making should be employed to determine whether OIT should be continued after an EoE diagnosis. This article highlights the ethical dilemmas allergists face when determining whether patients with a diagnosis of EoE should continue OIT.

Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Tree Nut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Our group previously described preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in a real-world, multicenter setting, suggesting that this therapy is safe for most preschoolers.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and tolerability of tree nut (TN) OIT in preschoolers in the real world.

METHODS

As part of a Canada-wide quality improvement project, TN-OIT (cashew/pistachio, walnut/pecan, hazelnut, almond, and macadamia nut) was performed in preschoolers who had (1) a skin prick test wheal diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm or a specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L and a convincing objective IgE-mediated reaction or (2) no ingestion history and a specific IgE level greater than or equal to 5 kU/L. Dose escalations were performed every 2 to 4 weeks till a maintenance dose of 300 mg of TN protein was reached. Symptoms were recorded and classified using the modified World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Reaction Grading System (1, mildest; 5, fatal).

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients who started TN-OIT from 2018 to 2021, 79 (85.9%) underwent single-food TN-OIT and 13 (14.1%) underwent multifood TN-OIT to 2 (10.8%) or 3 (3.3%) TNs. Eighty-nine (96.7%) patients reached maintenance, and 4 (4.3%) dropped out. Sixty-five (70.7%) patients experienced reactions during buildup: 35 (38.0%) grade 1 reactions, 30 (32.6%) grade 2 reactions, no grade 3 or 4 reactions, and 2 (2.17%) received epinephrine.

CONCLUSIONS

Preschool TN-OIT in a real-world, multicenter setting appears safe and tolerable, with results comparable with our previously reported peanut OIT findings.

How We Manage Gastrointestinal Symptoms During Oral Immunotherapy Through a Shared Decision-Making Process-A Practical Guide for the Community Practitioner

Allergists addressing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during oral immunotherapy (OIT) may be biased toward diagnoses related to OIT; however, non-OIT causes may occur. Although there is currently a lack of robust data for evidence-based treatment recommendations, we provide 3 real-world illustrative cases along with a proposed management algorithm for GI symptoms encountered during OIT. This algorithm was developed because of a significant clinical need, given the number of new-to-OIT providers that include practicing allergists, trainees transitioning into practice, and allied health care providers who manage GI symptoms in OIT patients. We developed the algorithm based on the opinions of community and academic allergy clinics across Canada with significant clinical experience offering infant, preschool, and school-aged OIT patients, with gastroenterologist input. Further research is needed to fill the knowledge gaps in the management of GI symptoms during OIT before formal recommendations can be suggested.

Transitioning peanut oral immunotherapy to clinical practice

Peanut allergy is on the rise in industrialized countries, affecting 1%-4.5% of children and generally persisting into adulthood. It is associated with a risk of severe anaphylaxis and is one of the major causes of food allergy-induced deaths. Health-related quality of life is significantly impaired for patients and affected families due to food restrictions attributable to omnipresent precautionary allergen labeling, constant risk of potentially life-threatening reactions, and limitation of social activities. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as a valid treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated peanut allergy, with randomized controlled trials and real-life studies showing a high rate of desensitization and a favorable safety profile, especially in young children. Ultimately, the decision to initiate peanut OIT relies on a multidisciplinary shared decision-making process, involving open, personalized and evidence-based discussions with patients and their caregivers.

Mucosal Mast Cells as Key Effector Cells in Food Allergies

Mucosal mast cells (MMCs) localized in the intestinal mucosa play a key role in the development of IgE-mediated food allergies. Recent advances have revealed that MMCs are a distinctly different population from connective tissue mast cells localized in skin and other connective tissues. MMCs are inducible and transient cells that arise from bone marrow-derived mast cell progenitors, and their numbers increase rapidly during mucosal allergic inflammation. However, the mechanism of the dramatic expansion of MMCs and their cell functions are not well understood. Here, we review recent findings on the mechanisms of MMC differentiation and expansion, and we discuss the potential for the inducers of differentiation and expansion to serve as targets for food allergy therapy. In addition, we also discuss the mechanism by which oral immunotherapy, a promising treatment for food allergy patients, induces unresponsiveness to food allergens and the roles of MMCs in this process. Research focusing on MMCs should provide useful information for understanding the underlying mechanisms of food allergies in order to further advance the treatment of food allergies.

Advances, Practical Implementation, and Unmet Needs Regarding Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

Treatment of food allergy is a rapidly changing landscape, with arguably, the most significant advancement in recent years, the transition of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to clinical practice. As an innovation, OIT is a phase of rapidly increasing demand, particularly for some allergens such as peanut, egg, and milk, which have substantial evidence of efficacy. However, significant questions remain about how to best treat multiple food allergies and less common food allergies and how to optimize long-term safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the currently available resources for integrating food allergy OIT into clinical practice and focuses on the multiple remaining unmet needs such as providing an approach for OIT to food allergens for which there is no or limited evidence; practical issues related to food allergy treatment particularly when it is not going well; long-term outcomes and follow-up after OIT; and strategies to help meet the impending increase in demand.

Medical clown support is associated with better quality of life of children with food allergy starting oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

The start of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a critical period in the treatment process, with a potential to influence patient quality of life (QOL) and subsequently treatment outcome. The association of medical clowning with QOL at OIT initiation was examined.

METHODS

Children aged 4-12 years supported by a medical clown (MC) during the induction week of OIT for food allergy were studied. Children in the same age range starting OIT without the support of a MC served as controls. Parents of all children completed the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Form (FAQLQ-PF), and children aged 8-12 years completed the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Child Form (FAQLQ-CF). QOL scores of parents and children with and without a MC support were compared.

RESULTS

Children with (n = 88) and without (n = 212) the support of a MC were comparable in demographics and clinical characteristics. The study group had a significantly lower single highest tolerated dose compared to controls (57 ± 83 vs 162 ± 274 mg protein, respectively, P < .001). Parental perception of the QOL of children was not associated with a MC support (P = .81) but rather with previous reaction severity (P < .01). In contrast, the QOL of children aged 8-12 years (n = 119) was positively associated primarily with a MC support, total score 3.7 ± 1.1 vs 4.6 ± 1.3 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

While the perception of QOL of parents of children with food allergy at OIT initiation is mainly associated with previous reaction severity, the QOL of the children themselves is primarily positively associated with MC support.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and allergen immunotherapy: Lights and shadows

Allergic diseases, such as IgE-mediated food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, are relevant health problems worldwide and show an increasing prevalence. Therapies for food allergies are food avoidance and the prompt administration of intramuscular epinephrine in anaphylaxis occurring after accidental exposure. However, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is being investigated as a new potential tool for treating severe food allergies. Effective oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) induce desensitization and restore immune tolerance to the causal allergen. While immediate side effects are well known, the long-term effects of food AIT are still underestimated. In this regard, eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs), mainly eosinophilic esophagitis, have been reported as putative complications of OIT for food allergy and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic asthma and rhinitis. Fortunately, these complications are usually reversible and the patient recovers after AIT discontinuation. This review summarizes current knowledge on the possible causative link between eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and AIT, highlighting recent evidence and controversies.

The role of eosinophils in immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide a brief discussion on the differential diagnosis for peripheral eosinophilia. We will then focus on targeted immunotherapies for atopic disease, their effects on absolute peripheral eosinophil counts, and use of peripheral eosinophils as a predictor of treatment response.

RECENT FINDINGS

In atopic disease, lower absolute peripheral eosinophil counts are typically associated with improved outcomes. Much of the current evidence on eosinophils as a biomarker comes from post-hoc analyses in therapeutic immunotherapy. While changes in eosinophilia were not the primary outcome of interest in many studies, some patterns did emerge. Cytolytic mAbs AK002 and benralizumab completely reduce peripheral and tissue eosinophil numbers. Dupilumab may have paradoxical transient eosinophilia despite observed clinical efficacy.

SUMMARY

Atopic inflammation is complex largely due to the various cytokines which affect eosinophils activation, proliferation, differentiation, and survival. This demonstrates the challenges of using peripheral eosinophilia alone as a biomarker for atopic disease activity. More attention should spotlight how different immunotherapy modalities affect eosinophil-driven responses.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis as a Side Effect of Food Oral Immunotherapy

Food allergies (FAs) include a spectrum of immune-mediated serious and potentially life-threatening medical conditions with an overall estimated prevalence ranging from 4% to 8% in the U.S. and Europe. Significant progress in food allergen-specific immunotherapy has been accomplished over the past 10 years. The most studied strategy has been oral immunotherapy (OIT), also known as food desensitization, a treatment in which a child is slowly and deliberately given a small amount of the food to ingest (that previously was a food allergy trigger) with the ultimate goal of the child eating that food without a reaction. OIT is now recommended in the European guidelines for the treatment of milk, egg, and peanut allergies and was the first American Food Drug Administration (FDA) approved product for the prevention of severe reaction to peanuts in 4–17 year olds to be released on the market. The side effects associated with OIT treatment trials are mild to moderate, predominantly oropharyngeal, and easily treated. More severe reactions, such as generalized urticaria/angioedema, wheezing/respiratory distress, laryngeal edema, and repetitive emesis, have been reported. However systemic reactions are very rare. Low-dose immunotherapy is associated with significantly fewer side effects. Currently, its most limiting allergic side effect is that approximately 10–15% of subjects treated with OIT experience gastrointestinal symptoms, preventing the continuation of therapy. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has also been reported as a cause of persistent abdominal symptoms in OIT.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The Role of Eosinophils in Immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide a brief discussion on the differential diagnosis for peripheral eosinophilia. We will then focus on targeted immunotherapies for atopic disease, their effects on absolute peripheral eosinophil counts, and use of peripheral eosinophils as a predictor of treatment response.

RECENT FINDINGS

In atopic disease, lower absolute peripheral eosinophil counts are typically associated with improved outcomes. Much of the current evidence on eosinophils as a biomarker comes from post hoc analyses in therapeutic immunotherapy. While changes in eosinophilia were not the primary outcome of interest in many studies, some patterns did emerge. Cytolytic monoclonal antibodies AK002 and benralizumab completely reduce peripheral and tissue eosinophil numbers. Dupilumab may have paradoxical transient eosinophilia despite observed clinical efficacy. Atopic inflammation is complex largely due to the various cytokines which affect eosinophil activation, proliferation, differentiation, and survival. This demonstrates the challenges of using peripheral eosinophilia alone as a biomarker for atopic disease activity. More attention should spotlight how different immunotherapy modalities affect eosinophil-driven responses.

Safety of Food Oral Immunotherapy: What We Know, and What We Need to Learn

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy entails a risk of adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis. This safety concern is the major barrier for OIT to become a therapeutic option in clinical practice. The high heterogeneity in safety reporting of OIT studies prevents setting the safety profile accurately. An international consensus is needed to facilitate the analysis of large pooled clinical data with homogeneous safety reporting, that together with integrated omics, and patients/families' opinions, may help stratify the patients' risk and needs, and help developing safe(r) individualized care pathways. This will give OIT the right place in the food allergy therapy.

Risk Factors and Treatment Outcomes for Oral Immunotherapy-Induced Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Eosinophilic Responses (OITIGER)

BACKGROUND

We recently described that oral immunotherapy (OIT)-induced gastrointestinal symptoms were associated with peripheral eosinophilic responses (termed OITIGER).

OBJECTIVE

To identify treatment outcomes after dose modification and risk factors for developing OITIGER.

METHODS

Treatment modifications in patients with OITIGER (n = 65) including cumulative dose reductions or treatment suspension were individualized and based on the severity of symptoms and an associated absolute eosinophil count (AEC, eosinophils/μL) of more than 900. Multivariate analysis for risk factors associated with OITIGER was performed in milk-OIT subjects.

RESULTS

Treatment modifications reduced the cumulative daily dosage load by a median of 50% (interquartile range, 50%-67%) in 43 of 65 (66.1%) patients, deferred dose increases in 2 of 65 (3.1%) patients, or temporarily suspended treatment in 18 of 65 (27.7%) patients. Two patients (3.1%) had no treatment intervention. Symptoms and eosinophilia abated on dosage modification, allowing for resumption of dose increases (n = 34) or reinitiation of treatment (n = 9) after a median of 29 (interquartile range, 20-56) and 19 (interquartile range, 17-44) days, respectively. OITIGER reoccurred during treatment in 10 of 54 (18.5%) patients, which resolved after further dose modification. In long-term follow-up (>3-26 months), 31 of 32 patients were asymptomatic with stable AECs. Patients with OITIGER had a higher OIT failure rate (P = .004) and were less likely to reach full desensitization (P < .001), as compared with asymptomatic patients (n = 684). Multivariate analysis identified several risk factors for OITIGER: starting dose more than 120 mg (P < .001; odds ratio, 7.14), second-month dose more than 4-fold over the starting dose (P = .037; odds ratio, 2.18), and baseline AEC more than 600/μL (P = .002; odds ratio, 3.2).

CONCLUSIONS

OITIGER is transient or reversible in most subjects, and its occurrence is related to OIT starting dose, its rate of increase, and baseline AECs.

Efficacy and Safety of Sesame Oral Immunotherapy-A Real-World, Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

The presence of sesame in Western diet is increasing, making its avoidance by sesame-allergic patients more challenging.

OBJECTIVE

To report the efficacy and safety of sesame oral immunotherapy (OIT).

METHODS

Sixty patients aged 4 years or older, diagnosed as sesame-allergic on the basis of a positive oral food challenge, were consecutively enrolled into OIT between November 2014 and November 2017. Fifteen patients with sesame allergy, based on a positive oral food challenge or a recent immediate reaction, and a positive skin prick test result or specific IgE, continued sesame elimination and served as observational controls. Immunologic parameters were measured in a subset (OIT, n = 16; controls, n = 11) at the start and end of the study. Fully desensitized patients continued daily consumption of 1200 mg sesame protein and challenged with 4000 mg after more than 6 months.

RESULTS

Fifty-three OIT-treated patients (88.4%) were fully desensitized to sesame, compared with 0% of controls. Four additional patients (total 57 of 60 = 95%) were desensitized to more than 1000 mg protein. Reactions occurred in 4.7% of hospital doses and 1.9% of home doses. Epinephrine-treated reactions occurred in 16.7% of patients for hospital and 8.3% for home doses. Significant decreases in rSes i 1 IgE (P = .007) and basophil reactivity (P = .001) and increases in sesame and rSes i 1 IgG₄ (P = .001) occurred in OIT-treated patients but not in controls. Forty-seven patients desensitized to 4000 mg were evaluated more than 6 months after reaching maintenance. Only mild reactions were reported during maintenance, and all passed the 4000-mg challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Sesame-OIT is an effective alternative to sesame avoidance in allergic patients. The potential for adverse events necessitates its performance in specialized centers.

Walnut oral immunotherapy for desensitisation of walnut and additional tree nut allergies (Nut CRACKER): a single-centre, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of oral immunotherapy for tree nut allergy has not been demonstrated to date, and its effectiveness is complicated by the high prevalence of co-allergies to several nuts. This study aimed to investigate the use of walnut oral immunotherapy in the desensitisation of walnut and additional tree nuts in patients who are co-allergic to several nuts.

METHODS

In a single-centre, prospective cohort study (the Nut Co-Reactivity ACquiring Knowledge for Elimination Recommendations study) at the Institute of Allergy, Immunology, and Paediatric Pulmonology at the Yitzhak Shamir Medical Centre, we recruited patients aged 4 years or older who were allergic to walnut, with or without co-allergy to pecan, hazelnut, and cashew. The diagnosis of each food allergy was based on a positive skin prick test or specific serum IgE (≥0·35 kU_A/L) to the corresponding nut together with a positive oral food challenge, unless an immediate (within 2 h of exposure) reaction in the past year had been documented. Patients with uncontrolled asthma or a medical contraindication to receive adrenaline were excluded. Patients were assigned to walnut oral immunotherapy or the control group (observation and strict dietary exclusion) on the basis of the order of presentation to the clinic. Oral immunotherapy began with a 4-day dose-escalation phase to establish the single highest tolerated dose, which was consumed daily at home for 24 days; subsequent monthly dose escalations were repeated until 4000 mg walnut protein was achieved. Patients who were desensitised to walnut continued to consume 1200 mg walnut protein daily for 6 months as maintenance. The primary outcome was walnut desensitisation (passing an oral food challenge with 4000 mg of walnut protein) at the end of the study, analysed by intention to treat. In patients who were co-allergic to pecan, hazelnut, and cashew, the proportion who achieved cross-desensitisation to these nuts in addition to walnut desensitisation was examined.

FINDINGS

73 patients with a walnut allergy were enrolled between May 15, 2016, and Jan 14, 2018. 49 (89%) of 55 patients in the oral immunotherapy group were desensitised to walnut compared with none of 18 patients in the control group (odds ratio 9·2, 95% CI 4·3-19·5; p<0·0001). Following walnut desensitisation, all patients who were co-allergic to pecan (n=46) were also desensitised to pecan. Additionally, 18 (60%) of 30 patients who were co-allergic to hazelnut or cashew, and 14 (93%) of 15 patients who were co-allergic to hazelnut alone, were either fully desensitised or responded to treatment. 47 (85%) of 55 patients had an adverse reaction (mostly grade 1 or 2) during up-dosing in the clinic; eight patients required intramuscular epinephrine in response to a dose at home. Of 45 patients who had follow-up data for the maintenance phase, all maintained walnut desensitisation and one patient required epinephrine during this period.

INTERPRETATION

Walnut oral immunotherapy can induce desensitisation to walnut as well as cross-desensitisation to pecan and hazelnut in patients who have tree nut co-allergies, with a reasonable safety profile. A low daily dose of the allergen maintains desensitisation.

FUNDING

None.

Baseline Gastrointestinal Eosinophilia Is Common in Oral Immunotherapy Subjects With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy

Rationale: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging treatment for food allergy. While desensitization is achieved in most subjects, many experience gastrointestinal symptoms and few develop eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease. It is unclear whether these subjects have subclinical gastrointestinal eosinophilia (GE) at baseline. We aimed to evaluate the presence of GE in subjects with food allergy before peanut OIT.

Methods: We performed baseline esophagogastroduodenoscopies on 21 adults before undergoing peanut OIT. Subjects completed a detailed gastrointestinal symptom questionnaire. Endoscopic findings were assessed using the Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE) Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) and biopsies were obtained from the esophagus, gastric antrum, and duodenum. Esophageal biopsies were evaluated using the EoE Histologic Scoring System. Immunohistochemical staining for eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) was also performed. Hematoxylin and eosin and EPX stains of each biopsy were assessed for eosinophil density and EPX/mm² was quantified using automated image analysis.

Results: All subjects were asymptomatic. Pre-existing esophageal eosinophilia (>5 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]) was present in five participants (24%), three (14%) of whom had >15 eos/hpf associated with mild endoscopic findings (edema, linear furrowing, or rings; median EREFS = 0, IQR 0–0.25). Some subjects also demonstrated basal cell hyperplasia, dilated intercellular spaces, and lamina propria fibrosis. Increased eosinophils were noted in the gastric antrum (>12 eos/hpf) or duodenum (>26 eos/hpf) in 9 subjects (43%). EPX/mm² correlated strongly with eosinophil counts (r = 0.71, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Pre-existing GE is common in adults with IgE-mediated peanut allergy. Eosinophilic inflammation (EI) in these subjects may be accompanied by mild endoscopic and histologic findings. Longitudinal data collection during OIT is ongoing.

Long-term outcome of peanut oral immunotherapy-Real-life experience

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is currently recommended as a treatment option for peanut-allergic patients. Data regarding its long-term compliance and efficacy in real life are required.

METHODS

Peanut-allergic patients aged ≥4 years were enrolled in a single-center clinical OIT program. Buildup to 3000 mg peanut protein was performed. Patients reaching this dose before or after 12/2014 were instructed to consume 3000 or 1200 mg daily, respectively. Patients were followed ≥6 months after reaching maintenance and rechallenged to 3000 mg.

RESULTS

Of the 145 patients studied, 113 (77.9%) were fully desensitized to 3000 mg and 133 (91.7%) were desensitized to ≥300 mg. 21/145 patients (14.5%) required adrenaline for home-dose reactions during buildup. Non-anaphylactic gastrointestinal symptoms, experienced by 9 patients (6.2%), reversed with dose reduction. Of the 111 patients available for analysis 6 months after reaching 3000 mg, 97 (87.4%) continued regular peanut consumption. Only 2/111 patients (1.8%) required adrenaline over the long-term (median, range; 18, 6-75 months) follow-up. Adherence to treatment was significantly higher in patients consuming 1200 mg (73/76, 96.1%) vs those consuming 3000 mg (24/35, 72.2%), (P = .001). A higher maintenance dosage and home adrenaline requirement during buildup predicted adherence cessation (OR 12.5, P = .001; and OR 7.8, P = .02, respectively). 63/64 patients (98.4%) consuming 1200 mg maintenance dose were successfully rechallenged to 3000 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-life experience demonstrates the efficacy of peanut OIT long-term. A lower maintenance dose minimized treatment cessation while maintaining desensitization. OIT should be performed in qualified centers given the prevalence of adverse reactions, particularly during buildup.

Quality of Life of Food-Allergic Patients Before, During, and After Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is demanding but data on patients' quality of life (QOL) throughout the process are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize changes in QOL of food-allergic patients during and after OIT.

METHODS

In a prospective cohort study, the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parental Form (FAQLQ-PF) was administered to parents of 191 consecutive children aged 4 to 12 years undergoing OIT for food allergy. Questionnaires were administered at OIT initiation, mid up-dosing, upon reaching maintenance, and after 6 months of follow-up. Age- and sex-matched food-allergic children (n = 48) not undergoing OIT served as controls.

RESULTS

FAQLQ-PF scores had significantly improved (decreased) from OIT initiation to reaching full maintenance (emotional impact [EI], 3.66-3.32, P = .001; food anxiety [FA], 3.90-3.32, P < .001; social and dietary limitation [SDL], 3.50-2.94, P < .001; and total score, 3.69-3.19, P < .001) and partial maintenance, whereas no change was noted in control patients. Worse baseline QOL, single food allergy, and a younger age predicted greater QOL improvement. Of the 85 (88.5%) patients who completed the FAQLQ-PF at mid up-dosing and for whom QOL deteriorated, a significant improvement was noted upon reaching maintenance. Additional significant improvement in QOL was observed in the 95 (88.8%) patients who completed the FAQLQ-PF 6 months after reaching maintenance (EI, 3.414-2.993, P = 0.049; FA, 3.37-2.593, P = .001; SDL, 2.989-2.264, P = .001; and total score, 3.266-2.614, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

The QOL of food-allergic children improves significantly upon reaching OIT maintenance, with additional improvement 6 months later. The detrimental effect of OIT on some patients' QOL during up-dosing is reversed upon reaching maintenance.

Pathophysiology of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis is an emerging disease that is distinguished from gastroesophageal reflux disease by the expression of a unique esophageal transcriptome and the interplay of early life environmental factors with distinct genetic susceptibility elements at 5q22 (TSLP) and 2p23 (CAPN14). Rare genetic syndromes have uncovered the contribution of barrier disruption, mediated in part by defective desmosomes and dysregulated transforming growth factor beta production and signaling, to eosinophilic esophagitis pathophysiology. Experimental modeling has defined a cooperative role of activated eosinophils, mast cells, and the cytokines IL-5 and IL-13, mediated by allergic sensitization to multiple foods. Understanding these processes is opening the way to better treatment based on disrupting allergic inflammatory and type 2 cytokine-mediated responses, including anti-cytokine therapeutics and dietary therapy.

Eosinophils and eosinophil-associated diseases: An update

The goal of this series is to offer a survey of the latest literature for clinicians and scientists alike, providing a list of important recent advances relevant to the broad field of allergy and immunology. This particular assignment was to cover the topic of eosinophils. In an attempt to highlight major ideas, themes, trends, and advances relevant to basic and clinical aspects of eosinophil biology, a search of articles published since 2015 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and other high-impact journals was performed. Articles were then reviewed and organized, and then key findings were summarized. Given space limitations, many outstanding articles could not be included, but the hope is that what follows provides a succinct overview of recently published work that has significantly added to our knowledge of eosinophils and eosinophil-associated diseases.