Evaluating primary end points in peanut immunotherapy clinical trials

The Future of Food Allergy Management: Advancements in Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

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

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

Core Outcome Set for IgE-mediated food allergy clinical trials and observational studies of interventions: International Delphi consensus study 'COMFA'

BACKGROUND

IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) is a global health concern with substantial individual and societal implications. While diverse intervention strategies have been researched, inconsistencies in reported outcomes limit evaluations of FA treatments. To streamline evaluations and promote consistent reporting, the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative aimed to establish a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FA clinical trials and observational studies of interventions.

METHODS

The project involved a review of published clinical trials, trial protocols and qualitative literature. Outcomes found as a result of review were categorized and classified, informing a two-round online-modified Delphi process followed by hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the COS.

RESULTS

The literature review, taxonomy mapping and iterative discussions with diverse COMFA group yielded an initial list of 39 outcomes. The iterative online and in-person meetings reduced the list to 13 outcomes for voting in the formal Delphi process. One more outcome was added based on participant suggestions after the first Delphi round. A total of 778 participants from 52 countries participated, with 442 participating in both Delphi rounds. No outcome met a priori criteria for inclusion, and one was excluded as a result of the Delphi. Thirteen outcomes were brought to the hybrid consensus meeting as a result of Delphi and two outcomes, 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' achieved consensus for inclusion as 'core' outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In addition to the mandatory reporting of adverse events for FA clinical trials or observational studies of interventions, allergic symptoms and quality of life should be measured as core outcomes. Future work by COMFA will define how best to measure these core outcomes.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With food allergy affecting millions of children worldwide, the consolidation of food allergen immunotherapy represents an encouraging therapeutic option, that might expand in the next few years to reach greater number of candidates. This review aims at providing a critical overview of the efficacy outcomes employed in food allergen immunotherapy trials (AIT).

RECENT FINDINGS

Understanding efficacy endpoints rely on identifying what and how these are being measured. Desensitization, as the efficacy of the therapy to increase the patient's reactivity threshold to the food during therapy, and Sustained Unresponsiveness, withholding such efficacy even if the therapy is withdrawn, are nowadays considered the main parameters of efficacy evaluation. Quality of life is a promising variable to capture food AIT impact from the patient's perspective.There is a relevant degree of heterogeneity across studies in outcomes definitions and also in oral food challenges design, the tool that is more spread to assess results, hampering study comparison.

SUMMARY

Interpreting the results of a clinical trial, and comparing data from different studies is an important task, both for the researcher and the clinician, that should be done after a careful analysis of the outcomes and the evaluation tools used.

Endpoints and Outcomes After Immunotherapy for Food Allergy: What Is Meaningful for Patients?

Multiple novel interventions for food allergy are currently at various stages of development with the goal of reducing or eliminating allergic reactions. However, the relative success of these therapeutics in achieving meaningful, long-term improvements to patients' lives is difficult to determine as there is currently very limited understanding of the degree of alignment between clinical trial efficacy endpoints and patient-centered outcomes. Furthermore, outcome measures used in clinical trials of food allergy immunotherapies vary widely, are often misinterpreted, and not necessarily consistent with what patients expect to achieve through treatment. This review aims to assist clinicians in critically interpreting outcomes reported in clinical trials and accurately communicating risks and outcomes to patients when practicing shared decision-making.

Current and future treatments for peanut allergy

Peanut allergy (PA) is a common, burdensome childhood disease that in most patients continues into adulthood and has historically been untreatable. However, peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is increasingly being incorporated into allergy practices, using both the first FDA-approved product, PTAH (previously AR101; Palforzia™, Aimmune Therapeutics), as well as store-bought peanut products. POIT in preschoolers continues to gain more acceptance as evidence accrues that it is a safe and feasible approach that may have distinct advantages. There are many new therapeutic interventions currently under study with a variety of different approaches and potential mechanisms. With respect to other forms of immunotherapy, none are currently approved, but the epicutaneous approach is the most well-studied and others are being actively investigated, including sublingual, subcutaneous, and intralymphatic. Biologics are gaining evidence both as adjunctive treatments to POIT and as monotherapy. Omalizumab is the most widely studied biologic for PA but others also have potential. Looking ahead to a future therapeutic landscape of choice, allergists will need to understand each patient's goal of treatment through shared decision-making and fully evaluate the risks, benefits, and alternatives of each new therapy.

Food Allergy and Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases-The Next 10 Years

The first report of food allergy desensitization was in 1908, at least a few years before the first published description of a diagnostic test for food allergy. It has taken almost 100 years for food allergy to move from passive management of avoidance to a more proactive approach including prevention and treatment. In parallel, this has been matched by recognition of eosinophil gastrointestinal diseases, which were first described in the 1980s (although eosinophilic esophagitis was itself described in 1978). As we celebrate 10 years of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, we take the opportunity to look into the future and speculate how our practice may develop over the next decade.

Measuring the Impact of Food Immunotherapy on Health-Related Quality of Life in Clinical Trials

Food allergy is a common, and often lifelong, disorder with considerable negative impact on the quality of life of those affected and their families. While several promising immunotherapies for food allergy have either been approved or are in late-phase clinical trials based on demonstrated effectiveness at inducing desensitization, evidence of benefit in terms of improving patient-centered outcomes is inconsistent. Historically, health-related quality of life has not been prioritized as an endpoint in food immunotherapy trials and, even when included, findings have been undermined by methodological limitations of the measurement instruments used and issues with data interpretation. This review highlights the importance of measuring health-related quality of life as an endpoint in food immunotherapy trials and discusses the strengths and limitations of available evidence in this regard, with a focus on the appropriate use of assessment instruments and interpretation of findings. There remains much to learn regarding the impact of food immunotherapies on patient wellbeing, both during treatment and over the longer term. Our aim is to assist clinicians, researchers, policy makers and consumers in their interpretation of the existing literature, and to promote greater scientific rigor in the design and selection of outcome measurement frameworks for future studies evaluating the efficacy of immunotherapy treatments for food allergy.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy in children: is it worth it?

INTRODUCTION

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective at inducing desensitization in food-allergic individuals, and is a valid therapeutic option for those allergic to peanut, cow's milk and egg. However, there is a high rate of dose-related adverse events, and at least one fatality to OIT has been reported.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an update on the broader framework of issues which will impact on the availability and uptake of OIT.

EXPERT OPINION

The need for standardized products remains controversial. A licensed product exists for peanut-OIT, but OIT can also be safely achieved using peanut-containing foods at much lower cost. For other allergens, OIT can only be done with non-pharma products - something which has been done safely for over 2 decades. There is a need to develop personalized protocols for OIT, particularly for the 20% of patients unable to tolerate standard OIT. Cost-effectiveness is dependent on improved quality of life, but evidence for this is currently lacking, and is a key evidence gap. OIT is likely to be cost-effective, particularly if noncommercial products are used. There may be a trade-off: in patients with lower reaction thresholds, a commercial product may be needed for initial updosing, until a level of desensitization is achieved when they can be switched to natural food products.

Oral Immunotherapy for Food-Allergic Children: A Pro-Con Debate

The prevalence of food allergy has increased in recent years, especially in children. Allergen avoidance, and drugs in case of an allergic reaction, remains the standard of care in food allergy. Nevertheless, increasing attention has been given to the possibility to treat food allergy, through immunotherapy, particularly oral immunotherapy (OIT). Several OIT protocols and clinical trials have been published. Most of them focus on children allergic to milk, egg, or peanut, although recent studies developed protocols for other foods, such as wheat and different nuts. OIT efficacy in randomized controlled trials is usually evaluated as the possibility for patients to achieve desensitization through the consumption of an increasing amount of a food allergen, while the issue of a possible long-term sustained unresponsiveness has not been completely addressed. Here, we evaluated current pediatric OIT knowledge, focusing on the results of clinical trials and current guidelines. Specifically, we wanted to highlight what is known in terms of OIT efficacy and effectiveness, safety, and impact on quality of life. For each aspect, we reported the pros and the cons, inferable from published literature. In conclusion, even though many protocols, reviews and meta-analysis have been published on this topic, pediatric OIT remains a controversial therapy and no definitive generalized conclusion may be drawn so far. It should be an option provided by specialized teams, when both patients and their families are prone to adhere to the proposed protocol. Efficacy, long-term effectiveness, possible role of adjuvant therapies, risk of severe reactions including anaphylaxis or eosinophilic esophagitis, and impact on the quality of life of both children and caregivers are all aspects that should be discussed before starting OIT. Future studies are needed to provide firm clinical and scientific evidence, which should also consider patient reported outcomes.

Changes in epidemiology and clinical practice in IgE-mediated Allergy in children

In the last decades, allergic diseases have increased exponentially and although pediatric asthma prevalence is stabilizing, it is estimated around 10% in Spain. Not the same with food allergy and anaphylaxis which are clearly increasing, becoming a significant public health problem. Taking into account epidemiological trends, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) estimates that in less than 15 years more than half of the European population will suffer from some type of allergic disorder. The advances in diagnostic methods in food allergy, especially component resolved diagnosis, allow us to know the patient's sensitization profile and explain possible cross reactivity, anticipate potential risk of food trangressions, and prescribe correct avoidance diet in each patient. Thus, the development of molecular biology and nanotechnology have led to the appearance of new technologies (microarrays) which facilitate the study, specially of the polysensitized patients, allowing allergen immunotherapy (AIT) to be more personalized. The latest advances in the use of biologics are having an impact, not only in disease evolution, but also in quality of life.

[Changes in epidemiology and clinical practice in IgE-mediated allergy in children]

In the last decades, allergic diseases have increased exponentially and although pediatric asthma prevalence is stabilizing, in Spain is estimated around 10%. Not the same with food allergy and anaphylaxis which are clearly increasing, becoming a public health problem of the first magnitude. Considering epidemiological trends, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) estimates that in less than 15 years more than half of European population will suffer from some type of allergy. The advances in diagnostic methods in food allergy, especially component resolved diagnosis, allow us to know the patient's sensitization profile and explain the possible cross reactivity, anticipate potential risk of food transgressions, and prescribe the correct avoidance diet in each patient. Thus, the development of molecular biology and nanotechnology have led to the appearance of new technologies (microarrays) which facilitate the study, specially of the polysensitized patients, allowing allergen immunotherapy (AIT) to be more personalized. The latest advances in the use of biologics are having an impact, not only in disease evolution, but also in patients quality of life.

Oral and sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To critically appraise the recent most relevant studies in the rapidly advancing field of food oral and sublingual immunotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Food allergen-specific immunotherapy via oral (OIT) and sublingual route (SLIT) increases the threshold of reactivity to peanut, cow's milk, egg, wheat, and many other foods in the majority of the treated individuals. This desensitized state is contingent upon the continued ingestion of the maintenance doses of the food. Permanent oral tolerance is achievable in a smaller subset of the treated individuals. The optimal duration of therapy has not been firmly established but is likely dependent on the phenotype (severity and persistence). Efficacy of food-OIT is superior compared with SLIT, whereas the safety of OIT is less favorable. Standardization of treatment protocols, maintenance dosing, duration of therapy, target populations and harmonization of the outcomes are top priorities at this stage.

SUMMARY

OIT and SLIT represent two different routes of food allergen-specific immunotherapy. Although significant progress has been made in the last decade, both treatment modalities are still in the very early stages of development and further investigations are necessary to optimize the protocols and improve safety while maximizing efficacy.

Outcomes for clinical trials of food allergy treatments

OBJECTIVE

Food allergy is a common condition that can have a significant impact on the quality of life of affected individuals and their caregivers. Recent years have witnessed an increased effort to identify new treatments for food allergy. Here, we review the need to identify core outcomes for measurement in clinical trials of food allergy treatments.

DATA SOURCES

We reviewed the literature regarding core outcome set development, the important role that these play in prioritizing patient-relevant outcomes, and the potential for core outcomes to accelerate the path to product marketing by allowing prompt and reliable evidence synthesis after trial publication.

STUDY SELECTIONS

We reviewed recent clinical trials of food allergy treatments to understand which outcomes have previously been measured, and also reviewed available core outcome set initiatives for other allergic conditions to understand which other outcomes might be explored in future trials.

RESULTS

Clinical trials of food allergy treatments have largely focused on outcomes that are relevant to investigators and commercial investors, especially the threshold of reactivity and immunologic changes. Future trials should consider addressing patient-important outcomes and should report the experiences of both adult and child participants and their caregivers.

CONCLUSION

There is a pressing need for core outcome set development for food allergy treatment trials.

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy.

METHODS

In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930.

RESULTS

12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I²=0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I²=0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I²=0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (p_interaction=0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I²=0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I²=0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I²=0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I²=0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I²=28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I²=0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I²=0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed.

FUNDING

None.

GRADE-ing the Benefit/Risk Equation in Food Immunotherapy

Purpose of Review

We reviewed the existing evidence base to desensitisation for food allergy, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to discuss whether desensitisation is likely to become part of routine treatment for patients with food allergy.

Recent Findings

Desensitisation for food allergy to peanut, egg and cow’s milk is efficacious, but whether such interventions are cost-effective is less clear, due to the issues over a sustained desensitisation effect and the increase in allergic reactions occurring in patients on treatment. Few studies have assessed the change in health-related quality of life associated with treatment, and most have not considered discordance between parent-reported changes in health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes compared to those of the patients themselves; none to date have controlled for the improvement in HRQL occurring after initial challenge which will confound outcomes.

Summary

The lack of longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness data, as well as an absence of current consensus in the reporting of patient-relevant outcomes, must be addressed in order to be able to recommend the introduction of desensitisation as a routine treatment in healthcare systems.