Home-based induction of sustained unresponsiveness in children with mild reactions to high doses of peanut

Identifying thresholds of reaction for different foods

Current food allergy management universally treats all patients with food allergy as being at risk for anaphylaxis (with the exception perhaps of pollen food allergy syndrome). Thus, patients are told to avoid the allergenic food in all potentially allergic forms and amounts. However, research over the past 2 decades has shown that many patients will tolerate small amounts of the allergen without any allergic reaction. Thus, if one were able to identify the threshold of reactivity, this could change management. At the population level, establishing levels at which the vast majority of patients (e.g., 95%) do not react could have public health ramifications, such as altering labeling laws. At the individual patient level, personal threshold levels could determine avoidance strategies, affect quality of life, and alter treatment decisions, e.g., oral immunotherapy starting doses. In this review, threshold data for various allergens and their potential effect on the management of the patient with food allergy are examined.

Management of food allergy based on oral food challenge

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergy is a growing health problem that affects both patients and society in multiple ways. Despite the emergence of novel diagnostic tools, such as component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) and basophil activation tests (BAT), oral food challenge (OFC) still plays an indispensable role in the management of food allergies. This review aimed to highlight the indications and safety concerns of conducting an OFC and to provide insights into post-OFC management based on recent findings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Standardized OFC protocols have regional diversification, especially in Japan and Western countries. Recent studies suggested that the interval between doses should be at least more than an hour. Furthermore, applying a stepwise method tailored to the patient's specific immunoglobulin E level and history of anaphylaxis seems to mitigate these risks. Recent surveys have shown that, following a positive OFC, options other than strict avoidance are also selected.

SUMMARY

OFC serves diverse purposes, yet the risks it carries warrant caution. The stepwise protocol appears promising for its safety. Subthreshold consumption following OFC shows potential; however, further research on its efficacy and safety is required. Management following OFC should be tailored and well discussed between clinicians and patients.

Utility of food allergy thresholds

Food allergy is a prevalent disease worldwide that is a significant quality-of-life burden, and accidental exposures to food allergens may elicit severe, life-threatening reactions such as anaphylaxis. The threshold level, or the dose that triggers an allergic reaction determined by oral food challenges, varies considerably among individuals suffering from food allergies. Moreover, IgE concentration, diversity, or function can only partially explain this variation in threshold; pathogenic effector TH2 cells have also been found to contribute to the eliciting dose. Though very sensitive to cofactors such as physical activity/stress, the threshold is a stable and reproducible feature of an individual's allergy over periods of many months, made clear in the past several years from treatment studies in which repeated threshold determination has been used as a treatment outcome; however, there also seem to be age-related changes at a population level. More routine determination of food allergy thresholds may help patients stratify risk to improve the management of their food allergy. Precautionary allergen labeling, such as "may contain" labels, often causes confusion since they are inconsistent and regularly contain little to trace allergen residues; thus, food products with such labeling may be unnecessarily avoided. Population-based eliciting dose levels have been determined in the literature; patients at lower risk with higher thresholds may be more confident with introducing foods with precautionary allergen labels. Understanding a patient's threshold level could aid in shared decision-making to determine the most suitable treatment options for patients, including the starting dose for oral immunotherapy and/or the use of biologics.

Food Allergen Immunotherapy in Preschool Children: Do We Have the Evidence?

Standard care for the management of food allergies previously centered on allergen avoidance and the treatment of adverse reactions after allergen exposure. An increase in the development of immunotherapy treatments for food allergy has occurred over the past 2 decades, with many centers now offering immunotherapy. Previous studies mainly focused on school-age children in whom food allergies are likely to be persistent. However, there is increasing evidence that delivering immunotherapy for food allergy to preschool-age children may deliver higher rates of success, and that peanut allergen immunotherapy leads the way. Conversely, the natural resolution of food allergies occurs primarily in these younger age groups, resulting in challenges to selecting patients who will ultimately benefit from these treatments. Both immunotherapy and natural history studies reveal the inherent plasticity of the immune system in early life, which may be more amenable to intervention, but this raises a delicate yet unknown balance between the optimal timing of intervention versus waiting for natural resolution of the food allergy. Here we review the evidence for early food allergen immunotherapy in preschoolers, and present the pros and cons of this approach while acknowledging important research gaps in this age group.

Food Allergy Management Practices Utilizing Individual Patient Thresholds: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee

The paradigm for food allergy management has been strict avoidance of the food allergen. There is literature supporting a "high-threshold" phenotype, those who tolerate a small-to-modest amount of allergen but react to larger amounts. There is no consensus for best practice for these "high-threshold" individuals. We sought to understand management practices of "high-threshold" reactors using a survey that was distributed to a random sample of fellows and members of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. There were 89 respondents from the United States and Canada (11% response rate), with 64 (72%) answering all questions. Participants worked in private (52%) and academic practice (38%) and saw a median of 30 food allergic patients monthly. Eighty-one percent of respondents reported management strategies other than strict avoidance. When threshold was known, strategies ranged from allowing ingestion up to a specified amount (57%), proactively advising ingestion to a certain amount (56%), or oral immunotherapy (47%). Participants were more likely to choose a permissive approach for a mild reaction in a high-threshold milk-allergic patient compared with a peanut-allergic patient (83% vs 71%, p=.01). Important factors that influenced the approach included severity of reaction (52%), comfort with family/patient using emergency medications (42%), and family/patient preferences (41%). These survey results suggest that food allergy management recommendations are no longer binary in nature, with clinicians solely recommending avoidance for those who are allergic and ingestion for those who may not be.

Precautionary Allergen Labeling: What Advice Is Available for Health Care Professionals, Allergists, and Allergic Consumers?

In most countries, the use of precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) is not governed by regulation. PAL was initially identified as a judicious risk management measure to address instances of "unavoidable" cross-contact with priority food allergens during food processing. However, PAL has gradually been devalued in part due to overuse and inconsistent application by the food industry. Currently, most food products do not contain detectable allergen residue or contain only low concentrations of residue of the allergens declared using PAL; however, occasionally, high concentrations of allergen residue are reported, rendering it an ineffective risk communication tool for allergic consumers. In this context, several reasons exist that make the consumption of products bearing a PAL statement not advisable for people with food allergies. The main reason is that the risk is generally not correlated with the statement used by manufacturers. Because of the increased use of PAL on prepackaged food products, and to maximize food choices for allergic individuals, health care professionals increasingly advise some patients considered to be "not highly allergic" to consume products bearing a PAL statement. This article explains why the consumption of products with PAL is not advisable without having a full clinical evaluation and knowledge that an allergen risk assessment has been conducted. It also discusses the perspectives for a better use of PAL on the basis of the recent Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization recommendations on food allergens.

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.

Variations in protocol development during oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols are not standardized, and a wide heterogeneity exists in the literature. OIT protocol variables include the initiation approach (fixed dose versus oral food challenge), buildup speed (slow versus fast), target maintenance dose (low versus high target dose), type of food used, and use of adjuvants among other variables. Most protocols start with an initial escalation day, which is a series of extremely low doses to safely identify the patients who are most allergic, followed by a buildup period over several months to years until the final target maintenance dose is achieved. Doses are generally increased every 1-2 weeks by a factor of 1.25 to 2 and are adapted based on the patient's symptoms. Protocols are increasingly favoring low-maintenance doses over traditional high maintenance doses, although this needs to be discussed and adapted based on the patient's preferences. Accelerated OIT schedules with using a short treatment of omalizumab can be considered in severe food allergy cases.

Patient selection for milk and egg ladders using a food ladder safety checklist

A food ladder is a form of home-based dietary advancement therapy that gradually increases exposure to an allergenic food through the gradual introduction of egg or milk containing food with increasing quantity and allergenicity from extensively heated forms, such as baked goods, to less processed products. While widely considered safe, the food ladder is not risk-free and most of the egg and milk ladder studies only included preschoolers with mild egg and milk allergies, and with no or well-controlled asthma. We propose a Food Ladder Safety Checklist to assist with patient selection using “4 A's” based on available evidence for food ladders, including Age, active or poorly controlled Asthma, history of Anaphylaxis, and Adherence.

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.

Tolerance induction through non-avoidance to prevent persistent food allergy (TINA) in children and adults with peanut or tree nut allergy: rationale, study design and methods of a randomized controlled trial and observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Peanuts (PN) and tree nuts (TN) are among the most frequent elicitors of food allergy and can lead to life-threatening reactions. The current advice for allergic patients is to strictly avoid the offending food independently of their individual threshold level, whereas sensitized patients without allergic symptoms should frequently consume the food to avoid (re-)development of food allergy. The aim of this trial is to investigate (I) whether the consumption of low allergen amounts below the individual threshold may support natural tolerance development and (II) to what extent regular allergen consumption in sensitized but tolerant subjects prevents the (re-)development of PN or TN allergy.

METHODS

The TINA trial consisting of (part I) a randomized, controlled, open, parallel group, single-center, superiority trial (RCT), and (part II) a prospective observational exploratory cohort study. Children and adults (age 1-67 years) with suspected or known primary PN and/or TN allergy will undergo an oral food challenge (OFC) to determine their clinical reactivity and individual threshold. In the RCT, 120 PN or TN allergic patients who tolerate ≥100 mg of food protein will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to consumption of products with low amounts of PN or TN on a regular basis or strict avoidance for 1 year. The consumption group will start with 1/100 of their individual threshold, increasing the protein amount to 1/50 and 1/10 after 4 and 8 months, respectively. The primary endpoint is the clinical tolerance to PN or TN after 1 year assessed by OFC. In the cohort study, 120 subjects sensitized to PN and/or TN but tolerant are advised to regularly consume the food and observed for 1 year. The primary endpoint is the maintenance of clinical tolerance to PN and/or TN after 1 year assessed by challenging with the former tolerated cumulative dose.

DISCUSSION

This clinical trial will help to determine the impact of allergen consumption versus avoidance on natural tolerance development and whether the current dietary advice for PN or TN allergic patients with higher threshold levels is still valid.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register; ID: DRKS00016764 (RCT), DRKS00020467 (cohort study). Registered on 15 January 2020, http://www.drks.de .

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

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

Mass food challenges in a vacant COVID-19 stepdown facility: Exceptional opportunity provides a model for the future

BACKGROUND

Internationally, the COVID-19 pandemic severely curtailed access to hospital facilities for those awaiting elective/semi-elective procedures. For allergic children in Ireland, already waiting up to 4 years for an elective oral food challenge (OFC), the restrictions signified indefinite delay. At the time of the initiative, there were approx 900 children on the Children's Health Ireland (CHI) waiting list. In July 2020, a project was facilitated by short-term (6 weeks) access to an empty COVID stepdown facility built, in a hotel conference centre, commandeered by the Health Service Executive (HSE), Ireland. The aim of this study was to achieve the rapid roll-out of an offsite OFC service, delivering high throughput of long waiting patients, while aligning with existing hospital policies and quality standards, international allergy guidelines and national social distancing standards.

METHODS

The working group engaged key stakeholders to rapidly develop an offsite OFC facility. Consultant paediatric allergists, consultant paediatricians, trainees and allergy clinical nurse specialists were seconded from other duties. The facility was already equipped with hospital beds, bedside monitors (BP, pulse and oxygen saturation) and bedside oxygen. All medication and supplies had to be brought from the base hospital. Daily onsite consultant anaesthetic cover was resourced and a resuscitation room equipped. Standardized food challenge protocols were created. Access to the onsite hotel chef facilitated food preparation. A risk register was established.

RESULTS

After 6 weeks of planning, the remote centre became operational on 7/9/2020, with the capacity of 27 OFC/day. 474 challenges were commenced: 465 (98%) were completed and 9 (2%) were inconclusive. 135 (29%) OFCs were positive, with 25 (5%) causing anaphylaxis. No child required advanced airway intervention. 8 children were transferred to the base hospital. The CHI allergy waiting list was reduced by almost 60% in only 24 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral food challenges remain a vital tool in the care of allergic children, with their cost saving and quality-of-life benefits negatively affected by a delay in their delivery. This project has shown it is possible to have huge impacts on a waiting list efficiently, effectively and safely with good planning and staff buy-in-even in a pandemic. Adoption of new, flexible and efficient models of service delivery will be important for healthcare delivery in the post-COVID-19 era.

Home-Based Peanut Oral Immunotherapy for Low-Risk Peanut-Allergic Preschoolers During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the deprioritization of non-emergency services, such as oral food challenges and the initiation of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food-allergic children. Recent studies have suggested that home-based peanut OIT could be a safe and effective option for low-risk peanut-allergic children. In the period between September 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021, nine preschoolers with a history of mild allergic reactions to peanut underwent home-based peanut OIT. Eight of them (88.9%) completed the build-up phase at home in 11–28 weeks, tolerating a daily maintenance dose of 320 mg peanut protein. During the build-up, six patients (75.0%) reported urticaria, three (33.3%) reported gastrointestinal tract symptoms, and one (14.3%) reported oral pruritis. None of the patients developed anaphylaxis, required epinephrine, or attended emergency services related to OIT. One or two virtual follow-up visits were completed per patient during the build-up phase. Our case series shows that home-based OIT could be offered to the low-risk preschoolers during the COVID-19 pandemic when non-emergency services are limited and could be considered beyond the pandemic, especially for the families living in the rural or remote areas that may otherwise be unable to access OIT.

Managing Food Allergy When the Patient Is Not Highly Allergic

Few patients with food allergy are "highly allergic," meaning they always have severe reactions and always react to very small amounts of allergen. Standard medical approaches for allergy management have focused on the safety and lifestyle modifications this group truly needs, but consequently families with food allergy are typically advised to strictly avoid any exposure to their implicated allergens. Most food-allergic subjects are actually not reactive to very low doses, and many never experience severe reactions. There are also notable conditions where a different care plan is already commonly offered: patients with pollen-related food allergy syndrome, with food-associated exercise-induced anaphylaxis, and with resolving or mild milk or egg allergy might be advised to ingest the allergens in specific circumstances with detailed instructions. Because oral immunotherapy and allergy prevention by early exposure have emphasized alternatives to strict avoidance, there is increasing interest in prospects to forego strict avoidance in those with food allergy. For patients with a high threshold of reactivity (low-dose tolerant, high-dose mildly reactive), there may be options such as allowing the ingestion of products with precautionary allergen labels, allowing dietary indiscretions with small amounts of the allergen, or even encouraging ingestion of subthreshold amounts with therapeutic intent. These practices have not been extensively studied and could be considered controversial. If these approaches are considered, shared decision making is needed in discussing them with patients and families. This review considers the potential approaches to those who are "not highly allergic": the risks, benefits, shared decision making, and research needs.

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.

Novel Approaches to Food Allergy Management During COVID-19 Inspire Long-Term Change

The SARS-CoV2 pandemic has prompted a re-evaluation of our current practice of medicine. The seemingly abrupt worldwide spread of this disease resulted in immediate changes and a reduction in many allergy-focussed services and procedures. The reality of the long-term circulation of this virus in our communities requires us to evolve as a specialty. In this article, we outline current and future challenges in the management of food allergy in light of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We focus on infant food allergy prevention, management of anaphylaxis, accurate diagnosis with oral food challenges, and active management of food allergy with oral immunotherapy. This article identifies the challenges of conflicting guidelines, shortcomings of acute management approaches, and inherent system deficiencies. We offer perspectives and strategies that can be implemented now, including an evaluation of virtual care and telemedicine for the management of food allergy. The use of a shared decision-making model results in novel approaches that can benefit our patients and our specialty for years to come. COVID-19 has forced us to re-evaluate our current way of thinking about food allergy management to better treat our patients.

Peanut Allergy: New Advances and Ongoing Controversies

Peanut allergy is one of the most common food allergies in children, with increasing prevalence over time. The dual-allergen exposure hypothesis now supports transcutaneous sensitization to peanut as a likely pathophysiologic mechanism for peanut allergy development. As a result, there is emerging evidence that early peanut introduction has a role in peanut allergy prevention. Current first-line diagnostic tests for peanut allergy have limited specificity, which may be enhanced with emerging tools such as component-resolved diagnostics. Although management of peanut allergy includes avoidance and carrying an epinephrine autoinjector, risk of fatal anaphylaxis is extremely low, and there is minimal risk related to cutaneous or inhalational exposure. Quality of life in children with peanut allergy requires significant focus. Moving forward, oral and epicutaneous immunotherapy are emerging and exciting tools that may have a role to play in desensitization to peanut.

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.

Severity and threshold of peanut reactivity during hospital-based open oral food challenges: An international multicenter survey

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is classically managed by food avoidance. Immunotherapy programs are available at some academic centers for selected patients reacting to small amounts of peanut during food challenge. We aimed to determine and compare reaction thresholds and prevalence of anaphylaxis during peanut oral challenges at multiple specialist allergy centers.

METHODS

A retrospective, international survey of anonymized case records from seven specialist pediatric allergy centers from the UK and Ireland, as well as the Australian HealthNuts study. Demographic information, allergy test results, reaction severity and threshold during open oral peanut challenges were collated and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 1634 children aged 1-18 years old included, 525 (32%) failed their peanut challenge. Twenty-eight percent reacted to 25 mg, while 38% only reacted after consuming 1 g or more of whole peanut. Anaphylaxis (55 [11%]) was 3 times more common in teenagers than younger children and the likelihood increased at all ages as children consuming more peanut at the challenge. Children who developed anaphylaxis to 25-200 mg of whole peanut were significantly older. Previous history of reaction did not predict reaction threshold or severity.

CONCLUSIONS

More than a third of the children in this large international cohort tolerated the equivalent of one peanut in an oral challenge. Anaphylaxis, particularly to small amounts of peanut, was more common in older children. Tailored immunotherapy programs might be considered not only for children with low, but also higher reaction thresholds. Whether these programs could prevent heightened sensitivity and anaphylaxis to peanut with age also deserves further study.

Advances in the approach to the patient with food allergy

Advances in food allergy diagnosis, management, prevention, and therapeutic interventions have been significant over the past 2 decades. Evidence-based national and international guidelines have streamlined food allergy diagnosis and management, whereas paradigm-shifting work in primary prevention of peanut allergy has resulted in significant modifications in the approach to early food introduction in infants and toddlers. Innovative investigation of food allergy epidemiology, systems biology, effect, and management has provided important insights. Although active therapeutic approaches to food allergy remain experimental, progress toward licensed therapies has been substantial. Mechanistic understanding of the immunologic processes underlying food allergy and immunotherapy will inform the future design of therapeutic approaches targeting the food-induced allergic response. Global strategies to mitigate the substantial medical, economic, and psychosocial burden of food allergy in affected subjects and families will require engagement of stakeholders across multiple sectors in research, health care, public health, government, educational institutions, and industry. However, the relationship between the well-informed allergy care provider and the patient and family remains fundamental for optimizing the care of the patient with food allergy.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2017 Year in Review

An impressive number of clinically impactful studies and reviews were published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2017. As a service to our readers, the editors provide this Year in Review article to highlight and contextualize the advances published over the past year. We include information from articles on asthma, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, immunotherapy, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, drug hypersensitivity, urticarial/angioedema, eosinophilic disorders, and immunodeficiency. Within each topic, epidemiologic findings are presented, relevant aspects of prevention are described, and diagnostic and therapeutic advances are enumerated. Treatments discussed include behavioral therapy, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of patients.