Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: Multipractice Experience With Epinephrine-treated Reactions

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.

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.

Retail Food Equivalents for Post-Oral Immunotherapy Dosing in the Omalizumab as Monotherapy and as Adjunct Therapy to Multi-Allergen Oral Immunotherapy in Food-Allergic Children and Adults (OUtMATCH) Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with food allergy may be advised to introduce specific foods into their diets, both to increase tolerance gradually and as next steps after completing oral immunotherapy or other therapeutic interventions. However, the safe use of retail foods depends on the ability to establish the specific allergen protein content of these foods.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a systematic approach to estimate the protein content of peanut, milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, and walnut in a variety of retail food equivalents for each allergen and associated patient education materials.

METHOD

We created an algorithm that used a multistep process with information from product food labels, nutrient databases, independent weighing and measuring of foods, and information provided by manufacturers, including certificates of analysis, and e-mail communication to estimate the allergen protein content of multiple retail foods for each of seven allergens. Once a variety of retail food equivalents for each allergen and allergen serving size was determined, we developed participant education handouts, which were reviewed by study teams at 10 food allergy centers, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Consortium for Food Allergy Research coordinating center. After 1 year of use, multiple queries were addressed and the retail food equivalents and educational materials were reviewed and edited.

RESULTS

We identified a variety of retail food equivalents for seven allergens at six serving sizes, and created 48 unique patient education materials.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide extensive guidance on a variety of retail equivalents for seven foods, and a method to estimate retail food protein equivalents systematically with ongoing reassessment.

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.

Oral immunotherapy for children with a high-threshold peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Between 25% and 30% of children with peanut allergy (PA) have a relatively high-threshold peanut allergy (HTPA), with a single maximal tolerated dose (SMTD) higher than 100 mg of peanut protein (PP). However, this threshold may decrease with time, age, exercise, illness, sleep deprivation, and other covariates.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the feasibility of a simplified oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocol in a group of children with HTPA.

METHODS

Children with PA with an SMTD higher than 100 mg were placed on a 40-week OIT protocol of either 300 mg/d of PP or 100 mg/d for 20 weeks followed by 300 mg/d for 20 weeks. A repeat open peanut food challenge was performed after 40 weeks of treatment and at a 6-month follow-up visit. After the 40-week challenge, all children received a maintenance dosage of 2 gPP 3 times a week.

RESULTS

A total of 28 children with HTPA were enrolled, with 56% boys, 89% younger than 6 years old, and a mean SMTD of 304 mg (95% confidence interval 229-378). All were placed on the described OIT protocol. Overall, 2 children were not compliant and 3 had allergic reactions at home on the dose previously tolerated in clinic, 23 completed the 40-week protocol, and all were able to consume 2 g of PP. The mean tolerated dosage at the 6-month follow-up was 8 g. This enabled most children age-appropriate dietary inclusion of peanut-containing products.

CONCLUSION

In children with HTPA, a simple, fixed-dose OIT can be both safe and efficacious.

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.

The global burden of illness of peanut allergy: A comprehensive literature review

Peanut allergy (PA) currently affects approximately 2% of the general population of Western nations and may be increasing in prevalence. Patients with PA and their families/caregivers bear a considerable burden of self‐management to avoid accidental peanut exposure and to administer emergency medication (adrenaline) if needed. Compared with other food allergies, PA is associated with higher rates of accidental exposure, severe reactions and potentially fatal anaphylaxis. Approximately 7%–14% of patients with PA experience accidental peanut exposure annually, and one‐third to one‐half may experience anaphylaxis, although fatalities are rare. These risks impose considerably high healthcare utilization and economic costs for patients with PA and restrictions on daily activities. Measures to accommodate patients with PA are often inadequate, with inconsistent standards for food labelling and inadequate safety policies in public establishments such as restaurants and schools. Children with PA are often bullied, resulting in sadness, humiliation and anxiety. These factors cumulatively contribute to significantly reduced health‐related quality of life for patients with PA and families/caregivers. Such factors also provide essential context for risk/benefit assessments of new PA therapies. This narrative review comprehensively assessed the various factors comprising the burden of PA.

How to Incorporate Oral Immunotherapy into Your Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss how to best incorporate oral immunotherapy into your clinical practice based on recent evidence and guidelines, and address controversies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Oral immunotherapy is the food immunotherapy treatment with the most literature supporting its use. Recent data from both randomized clinical trials and real-world studies show OIT is especially safe and effective in preschoolers, while avoidance may be less safe than previously thought. OIT guidelines support its use outside of research. Oral immunotherapy can be safely and effectively incorporated into your clinical practice, with careful planning and consideration of scenarios where benefits outweigh risks. Baseline oral food challenges are necessary in clinical trials, but in clinical practice, these are best done when the history is unclear due to resource limitations. There is a role for both regular food and FDA-approved products. Future research should focus on optimizing safety and adherence in the real-world setting.

A Practical, Stepwise Approach to Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Clinical Practice: Benefits and Risks

Food allergies are common, affecting 6–8% of the children in the United States. There is a significant burden on the quality of life of allergic children and their caregivers, due to multiple dietary, social and psychological restrictions. Peanut allergy affects approximately 2–5% of the school-age children. Despite the recommended dietary avoidance, reactions tend to occur due to unintentional exposures and the fear of accidental ingestions potentially resulting in anaphylaxis and death, which creates a lot of anxiety in peanut-allergic individuals. Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) has emerged as a form of active treatment and has shown high efficacy in research trials with the majority of participants achieving desensitization and protection from trace exposures. An improved quality of life has also been noted following successful POIT. The risks of POIT should be balanced against the benefits resulting from successful treatment for each individual. Rates of allergic reactions and anaphylaxis are reported to be higher in individuals pursuing therapy, but most subjects will experience mild or moderate reactions during treatment. The landscape of peanut allergy management is changing and the future offers more options for patients than were previously available. Shared decision-making, which is the process of how to choose between different available options, becomes an ongoing discussion between the clinician and the patient, which will ensure achievement of the best possible outcome for the peanut-allergic child. This is a multistep process that evaluates the benefits and risks of therapy or no therapy, as well as patient and family preferences and we review it in detail in this manuscript with the aim to provide clinicians with a practical approach.

Practical challenges in oral immunotherapy resolved through patient-centered care

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is now widely recognized as a valid option for the management of IgE-mediated food allergies. However, in real-life practice, OIT can lead to a variety of unique situations where the best course of action is undetermined. In patient-centered care, individual patient preferences, needs and values, should guide all clinical decisions. This can be achieved by using shared-decision making and treatment customization to navigate areas of uncertainty in a way that is responsive to patient’s needs and preferences. However, in the context of OIT, lack of awareness of potential protocol adaptability or alternatives can become a barrier to treatment personalization. The purpose of this article is to review the theoretical bases of patient-centered care and shared decision-making and their practical implication for the patient-centered delivery of OIT. Clinical cases highlighting common challenges in real-life OIT practice are presented along with a discussion of potential personalized management options to be considered. While the practice of OIT is bound to evolve as additional scientific and experiential knowledge is gained, it should always remain rooted in the general principles of patient-centered care.

An Approach to the Office-Based Practice of Food Oral Immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) provides an active treatment option for patients with food allergies. OIT may improve quality of life and raise the threshold at which a patient with food allergy may react to an allergen, but it is a rigorous therapy that requires a high degree of commitment by the clinician, patients, and families. Recent guidelines from the Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology have provided a framework for the ethical, evidence-based, and patient-oriented clinical practice of OIT, and the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology guidelines have also recommended that OIT can be used as a potential treatment. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of an OIT pharmaceutical has accelerated the adoption of OIT. This review provides a summary of the recent Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines and a consensus of practical experience of clinicians across the United States and Canada related to patient selection, office and staff preparation, the general OIT process, OIT-related reaction management, and treatment outcomes.

Integrating oral immunotherapy into clinical practice

In 2020, the first food allergy treatment, an oral immunotherapy (OIT) product for peanut allergy, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and a peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy patch was under review. As food allergy therapies become available and widespread, allergy offices will need to adjust practices to be able to offer their patients these new treatments. OIT is an intensive therapy that requires commitment from patients and their families, and open communication with the practice is paramount. OIT may not be the right therapy for every patient, and although identifying good candidates is still an area rich for research opportunity, experience from cohorts and clinical trials provides some insight. It is important to understand the scope of practice for each member of the OIT team based on state regulations for a particular location. Staffing and space will likely dictate how many patients at an individual office could be on active OIT at one time. Emergency medications, supplies, and protocols must be in place. Screening, scheduling, visit procedures, monitoring, home dosing, dose modifications, safety precautions, adverse reactions, and maintenance will be addressed in this article. Finally, adjunct therapies under investigation will be reviewed.

A High Proportion of Canadian Allergists Offer Oral Immunotherapy but Barriers Remain

BACKGROUND

Limited data on clinical implementation of oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been reported with incomplete evaluation of barriers.

OBJECTIVE

To survey Canadian allergists on their current practice of OIT and barriers to implementation and expansion of OIT.

METHODS

A survey investigating current practice and logistical and clinical barriers to offering or expanding OIT was distributed to all Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology allergists.

RESULTS

Of 90 responding allergists, 52.2% reported offering OIT, most commonly to peanut. Food sublingual immunotherapy was offered by 7% of allergists. Having received training for OIT was associated with currently performing OIT (P = .008); 44.7% of allergists offering OIT had received training on OIT, and 81.4% not offering OIT had no training. A total of 87% of allergists performing OIT reported lack of efficacy data and lack of support staff and clinic space, and concerns about increased oral challenges (84%) were "moderately" to "extremely" important barriers to expanding OIT. For clinicians not offering OIT, concerns about safety (95%), after-hours support (95%), efficacy (93%), medicolegal risk (93%), and long-term practice implications (93%) were prioritized as significant barriers. Qualitative assessment suggested concerns about the practical challenges associated with OIT, the need for increased safety and efficacy data, and a desire for OIT guidelines and training.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of OIT faces many barriers, both clinical and logistical. Increasing high-quality safety and efficacy data may support those hesitant to offer OIT, and improving funding may address the practical infrastructure challenges. In addition, training will help expand access for allergists interested in performing OIT.

First Real-World Effectiveness Analysis of Preschool Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

We previously described safety of preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) in a real-world setting; 0.4% of patients experienced a severe reaction, and 4.1% received epinephrine, during build-up.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of preschool P-OIT after 1 year of maintenance.

METHODS

Preschoolers (9-70 months) with at least 1 objective reaction to peanut (during baseline oral food challenge (OFC) or P-OIT build-up) received a follow-up OFC to cumulative 4000 mg protein after 1 year on 300 mg peanut daily maintenance. Effectiveness of desensitization was defined as proportion of patients with a negative follow-up OFC. Symptoms and treatment at follow-up OFC were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 117 patients who successfully completed 1 year of P-OIT and subsequently underwent a cumulative 4000-mg follow-up OFC, 92 (78.6%) had a negative OFC and 115 (98.3%) tolerated a cumulative dose of greater than or equal to 1000 mg. For the 25 (21.4%) who reacted, their threshold increased by 3376 mg (95% CI, 2884-3868) from baseline to follow-up; 17 (14.5%) patients experienced grade 1 reactions, 7 (6.00%) grade 2, and 1 (0.85%) grade 3. Two patients (1.71%) received epinephrine associated with P-OIT, and 1 (0.85%) went to the emergency department.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate that real-world preschool P-OIT is effective after 1 year of maintenance for those who received a follow-up OFC. For those who reacted, their threshold increased sufficiently to protect against accidental exposures. P-OIT should be considered for preschoolers as an alternative to current recommendations to avoid peanut.

Community Private Practice Clinical Experience with Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for desensitizing peanut-allergic patients, but the frequency of adverse reactions has limited its widespread use.

OBJECTIVE

To review the frequency of adverse reactions that patients on peanut oral immunotherapy experience during build-up and maintenance phases and explore factors that may contribute to adverse events.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of children and adults with peanut allergy undergoing peanut oral immunotherapy at the New England Food Allergy Treatment Center in West Hartford, Conn was performed. Data on patient demographics, allergic profile, peanut allergy testing, and details of reactions in build-up and maintenance phases were collected. A systemic reaction was defined as one of the following: (1) severe reaction involving 1 system, such as generalized hives and/or angioedema; (2) 2 or more of the following symptoms: cutaneous or oral, respiratory, or gastrointestinal symptoms; (3) drop in blood pressure; or (4) need for epinephrine.

RESULTS

Data were available on 783 patients aged 3.5 to 48.3 years. During buildup, 78 patients (10%) experienced at least 1 systemic reaction, 660 (84%) at least 1 gastrointestinal adverse event, 369 (47%) at least 1 cutaneous adverse event, and 157 (20%) at least 1 respiratory adverse event. Thirty-four patients (4%) required epinephrine during buildup. Six hundred ninety-seven patients (89%) completed buildup and progressed to maintenance. During maintenance, 131 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 systemic reaction, 190 (27%) at least 1 gastrointestinal adverse event, 104 (15%) at least 1 cutaneous adverse event, and 50 (7%) at least 1 respiratory adverse event. Seventy-four patients (11%) required epinephrine during maintenance. None of the adverse events required hospitalizations, and there were no mortalities. Nine patients (1%) were diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis during buildup or maintenance. Increasing pretreatment peanut specific IgE levels were associated with increased odds of a systemic reaction during buildup. Increasing age, pretreatment peanut specific IgE level, and a systemic reaction in buildup were associated with increased odds of a systemic reaction during maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut oral immunotherapy may be an effective and safe treatment for carefully selected peanut-allergic patients under the guidance of experienced providers. Specific patient characteristics and immunologic factors may help predict adverse events.

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.

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.

Peanut allergy reduction in high-risk pediatric patients

The prevalence of food allergies has doubled in the past 10 years. Peanut allergies are a significant public health issue and are the primary reason for food-related anaphylactic reactions that result in death. Evidence supports that early introduction of the peanut protein (or in combination with immunotherapy) to the highly allergic may safely desensitize patients, which could lead to less adverse allergic reactions and alter allergy management overall.

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT): A Personalized Medicine

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT), a promising allergen-specific approach in the management of Food Allergies (FA), is based on the administration of increasing doses of the culprit food until reaching a maintenance dose. Each step should be adapted to the patient, and OIT should be considered an individualized treatment. Recent studies focused on the standardization and identification of novel biomarkers in order to correlate endotypes with phenotypes in the field of FA.

Treatment for food allergy

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

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.

First Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

In 2017, a clinical trial of 37 subjects demonstrated that preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) was safe, with predominantly mild symptoms reported and only 1 moderate reaction requiring epinephrine.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to examine whether these findings would be applicable in a real-world setting.

METHODS

As part of a Canada-wide quality improvement project, community and academic allergists administered P-OIT to preschool-age children who had (1) skin prick test wheal diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm or specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L and history of reaction and/or positive baseline oral food challenge, or (2) no ingestion history and specific IgE level greater than or equal to 5 kU/L. Over 16 to 22 weeks, patients had biweekly clinic visits for updosing, and consumed the dose daily at home between visits. Target maintenance dose was 300 mg peanut protein. Symptoms were classified using a modified World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Reaction Grading System (1 mildest, 5 fatal).

RESULTS

Of 270 patients who started P-OIT in the period 2017 to 2018, 243 reached maintenance, and 27 dropped out (10.0%); 67.8% of patients experienced reactions during buildup: 36.3% grade 1, 31.1% grade 2, and 0.40% grade 4. Eleven patients (4.10%) received epinephrine (10 patients received 1 dose, 1 patient received epinephrine on 2 separate days), representing 2.23% of reactions (12 of 538) and 0.029% of doses (12 of 41,020).

CONCLUSIONS

We are the first group to describe preschool P-OIT in a real-world multicenter setting. The treatment appears to be safe for the vast majority of patients because symptoms were generally mild and very few reactions received epinephrine; however, life-threatening reactions in a minority of patients (0.4%) can still occur.

Microbial Adjuncts for Food Allergen Immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergen immunotherapy may benefit from adjunct therapies to enhance safety and efficacy. We review preclinical studies investigating the effects of probiotics and other microbial-based interventions on oral tolerance, describe the human clinical trial evidence thus far for microbial adjuncts, and discuss steps for translating research findings in this area to clinical therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Murine studies support that microbial-based interventions confer protection against sensitization and may augment treatment efficacy for food allergy. Microbial adjunct therapies can promote regulatory T cells and modulate Th1 vs. Th2 responses. There is a wide array of novel modalities utilizing microbial components. Ongoing efforts are focused on translating preclinical data into potential treatments. Probiotics, prebiotics, and microbial components have all been examined as microbial adjunct therapies in murine models of food allergy. The effects of probiotics appear to be strain-specific. Prebiotics and bacterial components are innovative modalities to modulate oral tolerance. Better characterization of dysbiosis in human cohorts with food allergy, deeper mechanistic understanding of microbial adjunct therapies, safety evaluation, and careful clinical trial design will be crucial for the development of microbial adjuncts for food allergen immunotherapy. Microbial adjunct therapies have the potential to enhance the efficacy, safety, and durability of food allergen immunotherapy.

Changing Patient Mindsets about Non-Life-Threatening Symptoms During Oral Immunotherapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can lead to desensitization to food allergens, but patients can experience treatment-related symptoms of allergic reactions that cause anxiety and treatment dropout. Interventions to improve OIT for patients are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether fostering the mindset that non-life-threatening symptoms during OIT can signal desensitization improves treatment experience and outcomes.

METHODS

In a randomized, blinded, controlled phase II study, 50 children/adolescents (28% girls, aged 7-17 years, M = 10.82, standard deviation = 3.01) completed 6-month OIT for peanut allergies. Patients and their parent(s) had monthly clinic visits at the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research between January 5, 2017, and August 3, 2017. All families received identical symptom management training. In a 1:1 approach, 24 patients and their families were informed that non-life-threatening symptoms during OIT were unfortunate side effects of treatment, and 26 patients and their families were informed that non-life-threatening symptoms could signal desensitization. Families participated in activities to reinforce these symptom mindsets.

RESULTS

Compared with families informed that symptoms are side effects, families informed that symptoms can signal desensitization were less anxious (B = -0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.76 to -0.16; P = .003), less likely to contact staff about symptoms (5/24 [9.4%] vs 27/154 [17.5%] instances; P = .036), experienced fewer non-life-threatening symptoms as doses increased (B_Interaction = -0.54, 95% CI: -0.83 to -0.27; P < .001), less likely to skip/reduce doses (1/26 [4%] vs 5/24 [21%] patients; P = .065), and showed a greater increase in patient peanut-specific blood IgG4 levels (B_Interaction = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.17; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Fostering the mindset that symptoms can signal desensitization improves OIT experience and outcomes. Changing how providers inform patients about non-life-threatening symptoms is a promising avenue for improving treatment.

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

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

Recent developments and highlights in allergen immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated inhalant allergies. Though used in clinical practice for more than 100 years, most innovations in AIT efficacy and safety have been developed in the last two decades. This expert review aimed to highlight the recent progress in AIT for both application routes, the sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT) forms. As such, it covers recent aspects regarding efficacy and safety in clinical trials and real-life data and outlines new concepts in consensus and position papers as well as in guidelines for AIT. Potential clinical and nonclinical biomarkers are discussed. This review also focuses on potential future perspectives in AIT, such as alternative application routes, immune-modulating adjuvants, and recombinant vaccines. In conclusion, this state of the art review provides a comprehensive overview of AIT and highlights unmet needs for the future.

Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of Life in a Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Low-Dose Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children with Peanut Allergy

BACKGROUND

Only 2 small placebo-controlled trials on peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been published.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the efficacy, safety, immunologic parameters, quality of life (QOL), and burden of treatment (BOT) of low-dose peanut OIT in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS

A total of 62 children aged 3 to 17 years with IgE-mediated, challenge-proven peanut allergy were randomized (1:1) to receive peanut OIT with a maintenance dose of 125 to 250 mg peanut protein or placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion of children tolerating 300 mg or more peanut protein at oral food challenge (OFC) after 16 months of OIT. We measured the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), immunologic changes, and QOL before and after OIT and BOT during OIT.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 31 (74.2%) children of the active group tolerated at least 300 mg peanut protein at final OFC compared with 5 of 31 (16.1%) in the placebo group (P < .001). Thirteen of 31 (41.9%) children of the active versus 1 of 31 (3.2%) of the placebo group tolerated the highest dose of 4.5 g peanut protein at final OFC (P < .001). There was no significant difference between the groups in the occurrence of AE-related dropouts or in the number, severity, and treatment of objective AEs. In the peanut-OIT group, we noted a significant reduction in peanut-specific IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, and IL-2 production by PBMCs compared with the placebo group, as well as a significant increase in peanut-specific IgG₄ levels and a significant improvement in QOL; 86% of children evaluated the BOT positively.

DISCUSSION

Low-dose OIT is a promising, effective, and safe treatment option for peanut-allergic children, leading to improvement in QOL, a low BOT, and immunologic changes showing tolerance development.

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.

One Child's Food Fight: A Case Study of Oral Immunotherapy Treatment for Food Allergies

The prevalence of food allergy has risen dramatically in the last two decades. Primary care providers encounter food-allergic children on a daily basis. Although the standard of care has traditionally been strict avoidance of the allergen and advisement to carry an epinephrine autoinjector in case of an accidental exposure resulting in a severe reaction, food allergy research has progressed in the past decade concerning various immunotherapies that may provide an alternate treatment strategy. Oral immunotherapy (OIT), performed under the supervision of an allergist, is the most widely studied of these therapies. In the past, OIT has been available in the realm of clinical trials, but it is now being offered by a small but increasing number of allergists in private practice throughout the United States. Pediatric primary care clinicians should be aware of both the risks and possible benefits of this treatment, because they are likely to encounter patients who may inquire about OIT in their practices. In this case report, use of OIT will be reviewed in the treatment of a food-allergic child.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Current Status of Potential Therapies for IgE-Mediated Food Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to provide the reader with an updated summary of published trial data regarding the use of oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for treatment of IgE-mediated food allergies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data from phase 2 trials for treatment of peanut allergy with OIT and EPIT reveal an increase in the threshold of reactivity for peanut-allergic children. Compared to EPIT, OIT promotes a greater increase in the threshold of reactivity; however, adverse events are more common with OIT. OIT, EPIT, and SLIT appear to modulate the immune response for some food-allergic individuals. Data regarding utility for treatment of food allergies regardless of modality is limited to few foods, as is investigation into treatment of food-allergic infants, young children, and adults. Future trials are likely to focus on young children, food allergies other than peanut, and treatment of multifood-allergic individuals.