The Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR): The first generation

Two-year post-treatment outcomes following peanut oral immunotherapy in the Probiotic and Peanut Oral Immunotherapy-003 Long-Term (PPOIT-003LT) study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined long-term outcomes following oral immunotherapy (OIT); none have examined long-term risks and benefits associated with distinct clinical outcomes (desensitization, remission).

METHODS

Participants completing the probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) -003 randomized trial were enrolled in a follow-on study, PPOIT-003LT. Peanut ingestion, reactions, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were monitored prospectively. Outcomes at 1-year and 2-years post-treatment were examined by treatment group and by post-OIT clinical outcome (remission, desensitization without remission [DWR], allergic).

RESULTS

86% (151/176) of eligible children enrolled. Post-treatment peanut ingestion at 2-years post-treatment were similar for PPOIT (86.7%) and OIT (78.7%) groups, both higher than placebo (10.3%). Reactions reduced over time for all treatment and clinical outcome groups (PPOIT 31.7% to 23.3%, OIT 37.7% to 19.7%, placebo 13.8% to 6.9%; remission 27.5% to 15.9%; DWR 57.9% to 36.8%; allergic 11.6% to 7%). At 2-years post-treatment, similar proportions of remission and allergic participants reported reactions (RD 0.09 (95%CI -0.03, 0.20), p = .127), whereas more DWR participants reported reactions than remission (remission vs DWR: RD -0.21 (95%CI -0.39; -0.03), p = .02) and allergic (DWR vs allergic: RD 0.30 (95%CI 0.13, 0.47), p = .001) participants. At 2-years post-treatment, 0% remission versus 5.3% DWR versus 2.3% allergic participants reported adrenaline injector usage. Remission participants had significantly greater HRQOL improvement (adjusted for baseline) compared with both DWR (MD -0.54 (95%CI -0.99, -0.10), p = .017) and allergic (MD -0.82 (95%CI -1.25, -0.38), p < .001).

CONCLUSION

By 2-years post-treatment, remission participants reported fewer reactions, less severe reactions and greater HRQOL improvement compared with DWR and allergic participants, indicating that remission is the patient-preferred treatment outcome over desensitization or remaining allergic.

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.

TreEAT trial: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of early introduction of tree nuts for the prevention of tree nut allergy in infants with peanut allergy

INTRODUCTION

Children with peanut allergy are at increased risk of developing tree nut allergies, which can be severe and for most lifelong. Introduction of peanut in the first year of life can reduce the risk of peanut allergy; however, prevention strategies for tree nut allergies have not been established. We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of a novel strategy, a supervised multi-nut oral food challenge (OFC) compared with standard care for tree nut allergy prevention in infants at high risk of developing tree nut allergy, TreEAT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

TreEAT is a 2-armed, open-label, randomized, controlled trial (RCT). Infants (n = 212) aged 4-11 months with peanut allergy will be randomized 1:1 at peanut allergy diagnosis to either a hospital-based multi-tree nut (almond, cashew, hazelnut, and walnut) OFC using multi-nut butter or standard care (home introduction of individual tree nuts). All infants will be assessed at age 18 months, with questionnaires and SPT to peanut and tree nuts. Peanut and tree nut OFCs will be performed as required to determine the allergy status for each nut. The primary outcome is tree nut allergy at age 18 months. Secondary outcomes include peanut allergy resolution, proportion, and severity of adverse events related to tree nut ingestion, number and frequency of tree nuts ingested, quality of life and parental anxiety, and allergy-related healthcare visits from randomization to 18 months of age. Analyses will be performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

TreEAT was approved by the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (#70489). Outcomes will be presented at scientific conferences and disseminated through publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04801823.

Towards an FDA-cleared basophil activation test

Food allergy is a global health problem affecting up to 10% of the world population. Accurate diagnosis of food allergies, however, is still a major challenge in medical offices and for patients seeking alternative avenues of diagnosis. A flawless test to confirm or rule out a food allergy does not exist. The lack of optimum testing methods to establish precise clinical correlations remains a major obstacle to effective treatment. Certain IgE measurement methods, including component testing, have received FDA clearance, but they have been used primarily as an analytical tool and not to establish clinical correlations. Most allergy tests are still carried out within the laboratory, and skin tests outside a laboratory setting that are used for food allergy diagnosis rely on non-standardized allergens, according to the FDA definition. Epitope mapping and basophil activation test (BAT) have recently been proposed as a means of establishing better clinical correlations. Yet neither have received FDA clearance for widespread distribution. Of the two methods, the BAT has the advantage of being a functional assay. Over the past few years, several large private practice groups in the United States, have developed BAT as a clinical assay and have started using it in patient care. Given this clinical experience, the vast number of papers published on BAT (more than 1,400 as of 2022) and the trend toward increasing FDA regulation, it is essential to understand the roadmap for regulatory clearance of this assay.

Improving epinephrine autoinjector usability and carriage frequency among patients at risk of anaphylaxis: a quality improvement initiative

Although epinephrine autoinjectors (EAIs) are crucial for the management of anaphylaxis, patient carriage frequency of EAI is as low as 57% and usage of EAIs is erroneous 35%–43% of the time. Our objective was to improve patient carrying frequency of EAI and understanding of EAI usage.

We implemented a quality improvement initiative using consistent closed-loop education, redesigned clinic workflow, electronic medical record reminder-based interventions, and educational materials to improve patient EAI carriage compliance and understanding of EAI indications and proper technique.

The percentage of our patients who carried the EAI at all times increased from 55% to 93% in 6 months. Participants knowledge of EAI indications also improved from 22% to 91%. Patient demonstration scores of the EAI device improved from 21% to 91% as well.

Our quality improvement interventions demonstrated a significant improvement>80% in EAI carriage frequency, knowledge of indications, and proper device technique.

Peanut oral immunotherapy – current trends in clinical trials

Immunotherapy for allergy has been practised for over 100 years. Low-dose repeated exposure to specific allergen extracts over several months to years can successfully induce clinical tolerance in patients with allergy to insect venoms, pollen, house dust mite and domestic animals. Different regimens and routes for immunotherapy include subcutaneous, sublingual, oral and intralymphatic. Food allergies have been difficult to treat in this way due to high anaphylactic potential and only recently the first immunotherapy for peanut allergy has received regulatory approval. Several clinical trials have indicated high efficacy in desensitisation of peanut-allergic individuals using oral immunotherapy, which allows for safer administration of relatively high allergen concentrations. Still, the risk of adverse events including serious allergic reactions and high anxiety levels for patients remains, demonstrating the need for further optimisation of treatment protocols. Here we discuss the design and outcomes of recent clinical trials with traditional oral immunotherapy, and consider alternative protocols and formulations for safer and more effective oral treatment strategies for peanut allergy.

Oral Immunotherapy in Food Allergy: A Critical Pediatric Perspective

There is evidence that in children with persistent IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) to cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut, oral allergen-specific immunotherapy (OIT) may increase the reaction threshold to the culprit food allergen(s). OIT may protect patients from the occurrence of severe reactions in case of accidental ingestion of the culprit food during treatment. Notwithstanding, many gaps are still unsolved, including safety issues, identification of predictive biomarkers, and post-desensitization efficacy. In this perspective, the use of omalizumab (Anti-IgE monoclonal antibody) has been proposed as an adjunctive treatment to OIT in order to reduce the risk of allergic reactions related to OIT. This review aims to summarize the current evidence and unmet needs on OIT in children with FA to enhance the development of longitudinal, prospective, and well-designed studies able to fill the current gaps soon.

Oral Immunotherapy for Children with Cow's Milk Allergy

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common IgE-dependent food allergies in children. Some children develop severe and persistent CMA, with near-fatal reactions after exposure to trace amounts of cow's milk (CM). Because milk and dairy products are included in various processed food products, it is difficult to completely remove milk, which negatively affects the quality of life of children with CMA. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can alleviate food allergen-induced anaphylaxis under continuous ingestion of a little of the causative food. Children with severe CMA may benefit from OIT, but the treatment requires a long time and poses a risk of anaphylaxis. Moreover, in recent years, new therapies, including omalizumab, sublingual immunotherapy, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, have played the role of optional OIT. In this review, we present the current methods of and other attempts at OIT, and discuss OIT for safely treating CMA.

BSACI 2021 guideline for the management of egg allergy

This guideline advises on the management of patients with egg allergy. Most commonly egg allergy presents in infancy, with a prevalence of approximately 2% in children and 0.1% in adults. A clear clinical history will confirm the diagnosis in most cases. Investigation by measuring egg-specific IgE (by skin prick testing or specific IgE assay) is useful in moderate-severe cases or where there is diagnostic uncertainty. Following an acute allergic reaction, egg avoidance advice should be provided. Egg allergy usually resolves, and reintroduction can be achieved at home if reactions have been mild and there is no asthma. Patients with a history of severe reactions or asthma should have reintroduction guided by a specialist. All children with egg allergy should receive the MMR vaccine. Most adults and children with egg allergy can receive the influenza vaccine in primary care, unless they have had anaphylaxis to egg requiring intensive care support. Yellow Fever vaccines should only be considered in egg-allergic patients under the guidance of an allergy specialist. This guideline was prepared by the Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and is intended for allergists and others with a special interest in allergy. The recommendations are evidence based. Where evidence was lacking, consensus was reached by the panel of specialists on the committee. The document encompasses epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and co-morbid associations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Advancing Food Allergy Through Omics Sciences

Since the publication of the first draft of the human genome, there has been an explosion of new technologies with increasing power to interrogate the totality of biological molecules (eg, DNA, RNA, proteins, metabolites) and their modifications (eg, DNA methylation, histone modifications). These technologies, collectively called omics, have been widely applied in the last 2 decades to study biological systems to gain deeper insight into mechanisms driving the physiology and pathophysiology of human health and disease. Because of its complex, multifactorial nature, food allergy is especially well suited to be investigated using omics approaches. In this rostrum, we review how omic technologies have been applied to explore diverse aspects of food allergy, including adaptive and innate immune processes in food-allergic responses, the role of the microbiome in food allergy risk, metabolic changes in the gut and blood associated with food allergy, and the identification of biomarkers and potential therapeutic targets for the condition. We discuss the strengths and limitations of the studies performed thus far and the need to adopt systems biology approaches that integrate data from multiple omics to fully leverage the potential of these technologies to advance food allergy research and care.

Biologicals in the Treatment of Pediatric Atopic Diseases

The management of atopic diseases such as severe asthma, severe atopic dermatitis, and severe food allergy in childhood is challenging. In particular, there are safety concerns regarding the use of high-dose corticosteroids. The recent development of biologicals and their approval for the treatment of children offer a new, very promising, and more personalized therapy option. Omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab are currently approved as add-on treatments of severe asthma in children and have been shown to be effective in improvement of asthma control and reduction of exacerbations. Dupilumab is the only biological approved for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in adolescents so far. It has been demonstrated to significantly improve symptoms of atopic dermatitis.However, safety data for biologicals used in atopic diseases in children and adolescents are still very limited. Biologicals are generally considered to be safe in adults. These data are often extrapolated to children. Additionally, data for long-term use are lacking. Thus, the safety profiles of those biologicals cannot yet be conclusively assessed.

Epidemiology of Cow's Milk Allergy

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common food allergies in infants and young children. CMA can result in anaphylactic reactions, and has long term implications on growth and nutrition. There are several studies in diverse populations assessing the epidemiology of CMA. However, assessment is complicated by the presence of other immune-mediated reactions to cow's milk. These include non-IgE and mixed (IgE and non-IgE) reactions and common non-immune mediated reactions, such as lactose intolerance. Estimates of prevalence and population-level patterns are further complicated by the natural history of CMA (given its relatively high rate of resolution) and variation in phenotype (with a large proportion of patients able to tolerate baked cow's milk). Prevalence, natural history, demographic patterns, and long-term outcomes of CMA have been explored in several disparate populations over the past 30 to 40 years, with differences seen based on the method of outcome assessment, study population, time period, and geographic region. The primary aim of this review is to describe the epidemiology of CMA. The review also briefly discusses topics related to prevalence studies and specific implications of CMA, including severity, natural course, nutritional impact, and risk factors.