First Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

Oral food immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the main risk factors for infants in the development of food allergy. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) in early childhood has been found to be highly effective and safe in preschoolers with and without AD, especially in young infants. Delays in initiation of OIT in infants and children due to uncontrolled AD risk expansion of the number of foods children develop allergy to through unnecessary avoidance of multiple foods. Parents and caregivers may attribute eczema flares to OIT doses, which physicians usually ascribe to non-food triggers such as weather changes, psychological stress, and infection. There is a lack of published literature confirming OIT as a trigger of AD flares, and the degree to which OIT may be associated with AD flares needs to be further studied. We describe 8 case scenarios with varying degrees of AD flare before and during OIT. We propose management algorithms for children with preexisting concurrent AD and food allergy who are being considered for starting OIT and children with AD flares during OIT. Optimizing AD control strategies and providing adequate AD care education before starting OIT can reduce confusion for both parents and allergists if rashes arise during OIT, thus improving adherence to OIT.

Safety and Effectiveness of Bypassing Oral Immunotherapy Buildup With an Initial Phase of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Higher-Risk Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Because of its favorable safety, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy has been proposed as an alternative treatment for those in whom oral immunotherapy (OIT) is of higher risk-older children, adolescents, adults, and those with a history of severe reactions. Although safe, SLIT has been shown to be less effective than OIT.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety of multifood SLIT in pediatric patients aged 4 to 18 years and the effectiveness of bypassing OIT buildup with an initial phase of SLIT.

METHODS

Patients aged 4 to 18 years were offered (multi)food SLIT. Patients built up to 2 mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of 3 to 5 visits under nurse supervision. After 1 to 2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC) (cumulative dose, 300 mg protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

RESULTS

Between summer 2020 and winter 2023, 188 patients were enrolled in SLIT (median age, 11 years). Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department, but none experienced grade 4 (severe) reaction. A subset of 20 patients had 50 low-dose OFCs to 300 mg protein and 35 (70%) OFCs were successful, thereby bypassing OIT buildup.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with very favorable safety of SLIT, with no life-threatening reactions and few reactions requiring epinephrine, we propose that an initial phase of SLIT to bypass supervised OIT buildup be considered for children in whom OIT is considered to be of higher risk.

Peanut oral immunotherapy using an extensively heated and baked novel composition of peanuts

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an increasingly acceptable therapeutic option for peanut-allergic (PA) children, despite significant side effects. Major peanut allergenic proteins are heat-resistant and are not rendered hypoallergenic after baking or cooking. Lyophilized peanut protein-MH (LPP-MH) is a novel composition from developing peanuts, enabling cooking-induced reduction in allergenicity. We aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of OIT, with extensively heated and baked (EHEB) LPP-MH in PA children.

METHODS

In a single-arm, single-center, pilot study, PA children with a single highest tolerated dose of <100 mg peanut protein were placed on a 40-week OIT protocol with 300 mg daily of heat-treated LPP-MH. A repeat open peanut food challenge was performed after 40 weeks of treatment and at a 6-12 months of follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Thirty-three children with PA were enrolled, with a mean cumulative tolerated dose (MCTD) of 71.2 mg PP (95% CI 45-100 mg). After 40 weeks, 32/33 patients were able to consume more than 300 mg of natural PP, with MCTD of 1709 mg (CI 365-3675 mg). There were no severe allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, during any of the observed LPP-MH challenges or any treatment related doses at home. After 6-12 months on daily maintenance, the MCTD was 8821 mg (95% CI 1930-13,500 mg). This enabled most children age-appropriate dietary inclusion of peanuts.

CONCLUSION

An OIT protocol with heat-treated LPP-MH, a novel composition from developing peanuts, seems a potentially safe and efficacious OIT modality for PA children, enabling the introduction of dietary levels of peanut proteins in highly allergic PA children. Validation in randomized controlled studies is mandated.

Optimising the management of peanut allergy by targeting immune plasticity

Randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of oral tolerance induction to peanut have enabled detailed comparison of their clinical and immunological success. They have demonstrated that the regular consumption of peanut for at least 2 years by babies who are not allergic enables protection from developing peanut allergy. The LEAP study intervention tested the impact of regular peanut consumption for 4 years and demonstrated a sustained protection against the development of peanut allergy even after 12 months of peanut avoidance from 5 to 6 years of age. The PreventADALL trial introduced multiple allergens into babies' diets from early infancy and reduced the prevalence of food allergy at 3 years, especially by protecting against peanut allergy. Immunological studies from the LEAP cohort demonstrated that regular peanut consumption was associated with a prompt induction of peanut-specific IgG4 and reduced manufacture of peanut and Ara h 2-specific IgE. Even after stopping peanut consumption for 5 years, there continued to be a significant fall in peanut-specific Ara h 2 IgE in the consumption group from 5 to 6 years of age (p < .01). Children who developed peanut allergy by 5 years started to develop increasing sensitisation to linear sequential peanut epitopes from 2.5 years of age, suggesting that putative disease-modifying interventions should commence before 3 years. Data comparing clinical outcomes between children undergoing peanut immunotherapy from infancy suggest that younger children can consume higher portions of peanut without reaction on challenge whilst taking immunotherapy, have fewer side effects and are more likely to enjoy remission of PA. Peanut oral immunotherapy modulates T-cell populations in order to bring about hypo-responsiveness of allergy effector cells. Studies are now needed to characterise and compare different states of immunological tolerance. This will accelerate the design of interventions which can promote primary, secondary and tertiary levels of PA prevention across a range of age groups.

New Approaches to Food Allergy Immunotherapy

Food allergy is an increasing public health problem in children and adults. In addition to the risk of potentially severe reactions, food allergy can have a significant burden on quality of life, nutrition, cost of living, and social activities. Traditionally, treatment has primarily included strict food allergen avoidance and use of emergency medications to treat an allergic reaction. However, in recent years, there have been significant strides in the advancement of food allergy treatment, including the approval of the first and only approved therapy (peanut oral immunotherapy) for food allergy in 2020. Clinical trials have primarily focused on food allergen immunotherapy (oral, epicutaneous, sublingual). Building off of a foundation of promising data supporting the efficacy of food oral immunotherapy and our greater understanding of the underlying mechanism of immunotherapy, newer approaches, including alternative routes of delivery, adjuncts to therapy, modified allergens, and utilization in younger patients, aim to provide safer and more effective treatment approaches to the millions of patients burdened by food allergy.

Flex-IT! Applying "Platform Trials" Methodology to Immunotherapy for Food Allergy in Research and Clinical Practice

There is an increasing trend in the management of food allergy toward active treatment using allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Although AIT is efficacious, treatment-related adverse events are common, particularly with oral immunotherapy in those with high levels of allergen-specific IgE sensitization. In clinical practice, these adverse events inevitably create challenges: clinicians and patients routinely face decisions whether to alter the dose itself, the frequency of dosing, and the pace of escalation, or indeed discontinue AIT altogether. Flexibility is therefore needed to adapt treatment, particularly in clinical practice, so that participants are "treated-to-target." For example, this may entail a significant change in the dosing protocol or even switching from one route of administration to another in response to frequent adverse events. We refer to this approach as flexible immunotherapy. However, there is little evidence to inform clinicians as to what changes to treatment are most likely to result in treatment success. Classical clinical trials rely, by necessity, on relatively rigid updosing protocols. To provide an evidence base to optimize AIT, the food allergy community should adopt adaptive platform trials, where a "master protocol" facilitates more efficient evaluation, including longer-term outcomes of multiple interventions. Within a single clinical trial, participants are able to switch between different treatment arms; interventions can be added or dropped without compromising the integrity of the trial. Developing platform trials for food AIT may initially be costly, but they represent a significant opportunity to grow the evidence base (with respect to both treatment outcomes and biomarker discovery) at scale. In addition, they could help understand longitudinal disease trajectories that are difficult to study in clinical trials for food allergy due to the time needed to demonstrate changes in efficacy. Finally, their adoption would achieve greater collaboration and consistency in approaches to proactive management of food allergy in routine clinical practice. As a community, we need to actively pursue this with funders and established research collaborations to deliver the very best outcomes for our patients and their families.

Oral immunotherapy with sunflower seed butter and a review of seed allergy

Food allergy to seeds is increasingly more common, with sesame being the most prevalent. Allergy to other seeds, including sunflower, pumpkin, poppy, mustard, and flaxseed, have been reported. Diagnosing a seed allergy is challenging, with many seeds being hidden additives in processed foods and cross-reactive testing. Food labels in the United States are now required to indicate the presence of sesame but other seeds are not required. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols for peanut, milk, and egg are clinically being extrapolated to other foods, including sesame and sunflower seed. This article highlights a case of a patient in whom sunflower seed OIT was administered in a clinical setting.

Bypassing the build-up phase for oral immunotherapy in shrimp-allergic children

Background

Oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for food allergies; however, its use in clinical practice is limited by resources and lack of standardized protocols for foods other than peanut. Previous studies have suggested that shrimp has a higher threshold for reaction than other allergenic foods, suggesting it may be safe to directly administer maintenance doses of immunotherapy.

Methods

Children aged 3-17 years who had 1) skin prick test ≥3 mm and/or specific IgE level ≥0.35 kU/L and convincing objective IgE-mediated reaction to shrimp, or 2) no ingestion history and specific IgE level ≥5 kU/L, underwent a low-dose oral food challenge to 300 mg shrimp protein, with the goal of continuing daily ingestion of the 300 mg maintenance dose as oral immunotherapy.

Results

Between January 2020 and April 2023, 17 children completed the low-dose oral food challenge. Nine (53%) tolerated this amount with no reaction, and 8 (47%) had a mild reaction (isolated oral pruritis or redness on chin). Sixteen (94%) continued maintenance low-dose oral immunotherapy eating 300 mg shrimp protein daily. None of the patients developed anaphylaxis related to the immunotherapy.

Conclusion

Our case series suggests that some shrimp allergic patients being considered for oral immunotherapy should be offered a low-dose oral food challenge, to potentially bypass the build-up phase of immunotherapy.

Real-world safety and effectiveness analysis of low-dose preschool sesame oral immunotherapy

Background

Previous studies support the effectiveness of sesame oral immunotherapy (S-OIT) in patients >4 years old using maintenance doses of 1200 mg protein. However, tahini is often not palatable to children, and high-maintenance doses may not be possible for preschoolers.

Objective

We studied the safety and effectiveness outcomes of preschoolers with sesame allergy who underwent low-dose S-OIT of 200 mg protein.

Methods

Preschoolers with sesame allergy, with a history of objective reaction to sesame, and with either a positive skin prick test result (wheal diameter ≥3 mm) or sesame-specific IgE level ≥0.35 kU/L were included. Doses were escalated every 2 to 4 weeks until the maintenance dose of 200 mg of sesame protein was reached. The maintenance dose was continued daily for 1 year, followed by exit oral food challenge (OFC). Primary safety outcomes included allergic reactions grade 2 or higher and the need for epinephrine therapy during buildup. The primary effectiveness outcome was proportion of patients tolerating a minimum of 2000 mg sesame protein at exit OFC.

Results

Twenty-eight preschoolers (median age, 33.5 months) were enrolled to receive S-OIT. During the buildup phase, 9 subjects (32.1%) had no reaction, and 8 (28.6%) and 11 (39.3%) had grade 1 and 2 reactions, respectively. One patient (3.57%) received epinephrine for a grade 2 reaction. Twenty-one (91.3%) of 23 eligible subjects underwent exit OFC; 18 (85.7%) of these 21 patients successfully completed exit OFC. One (4.8%) and 2 (9.5%) subjects had grade 1 and 2 reactions, respectively, during OFC.

Conclusions

A lower and age-appropriate maintenance dose is safe and effective in desensitizing preschoolers with sesame allergy.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Safety and effectiveness of the Canadian food ladders for children with IgE-mediated food allergies to cow's milk and/or egg

BACKGROUND

Food ladders are tools designed to facilitate home-based dietary advancement in children with food allergies through stepwise exposures to increasingly allergenic forms of milk and egg. Several studies have now documented safety and efficacy of food ladders. In 2021, we published a Canadian adaptation of the previously existing milk and egg ladders originating in Europe using foods more readily available/consumed in Canada. Our study adds to the growing body of evidence supporting food ladder use and provides safety and effectiveness data for our Canadian adaptation of the milk and egg ladders.

METHODS

Surveys were distributed to families of children using the Canadian Milk Ladder and/or the Canadian Egg Ladder at baseline, with follow up surveys at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Data were analyzed using REDCap and descriptive and inferential statistics are presented.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine participants were started on milk/egg ladders between September 2020 and June 2022. 53 participants responded to follow up surveys. Only 2 of 53 (3.8%) participants reported receiving epinephrine during the study. Severe grade 4 reactions (defined according to the modified World Allergy Organization grading system) were not reported by any participants. Minor cutaneous adverse reactions were common, with about 71% (n = 10/14) of respondents reporting cutaneous adverse reactions by 1 year of food ladder use. An increasing proportion of participants could tolerate most foods from steps 2-4 foods after 3, 6, and 12 months of the food ladder compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

The Canadian food ladders are safe tools for children with cow's milk and/or egg allergies, and participants tolerated a larger range of foods with food ladder use compared to baseline.

Food Immunotherapy: Dissecting Current Guidelines and Navigating the Gray Zone

Food allergy is a common, chronic disease that is burdensome for patients and families, with multiple dietary and social limitations and a significant psychological impact stemming from the fear of accidental exposures and potentially severe, life-threatening reactions. Until recently, the only management option consisted of strict food avoidance. Food allergen immunotherapy (food AIT) has emerged as an alternative, active intervention to strict food avoidance, with a multitude of research studies supporting its efficacy and good safety profile. Food AIT results in a raise of allergenic threshold, which provides several benefits to food-allergic patients, including protection from accidental exposures, potentially decreased severity of allergic reactions on unintentional exposures, and improvement in quality of life. In the last few years, multiple independent reports have been published proposing strategies to implement food oral immunotherapy in U.S. clinics, although formal guidelines are currently lacking. Because food immunotherapy is gaining traction, popularity, and interest among both patients and health care providers, many physicians look for guidance on how to implement this intervention in their daily practice. In other parts of the world, use of this treatment has prompted the development of various guidelines from allergy societies. This rostrum discusses currently available guidelines on food AIT from different areas of the world, describes and comments on their similarities and differences, and highlights unmet needs in this area of therapy.

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.

Food Oral Immunotherapy: A Survey Among US Practicing Allergists Conducted as a AAAAI Leadership Institute Project and Work Group Report

BACKGROUND

Food oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an active form of treatment for food allergies. Although research in this area has been ongoing for many years, the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved product for peanut allergy treatment became available only in January 2020. Limited data exist on OIT services offered by physicians in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

This workgroup report was developed to evaluate OIT practices among allergists practicing in the United States.

METHODS

The authors developed an anonymous 15-question survey and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Practices, Diagnostics and Therapeutics Committee before distribution to the membership. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology electronically distributed the survey to a random sample of 780 members in November 2021. In addition to questions specific to food OIT, the survey included questions on demographics and professional characteristics of the responders.

RESULTS

A total of 78 members completed the survey, yielding a 10% response rate. Fifty percent of responders were offering OIT in their practice. There was a significant difference in experience in OIT originating from research trials in academic versus nonacademic centers. Generally, OIT practices were similar in both settings for the number of foods offered, the performance of oral food challenges before initiating treatment, the number of new patients to whom OIT was offered to per month, and age groups OIT to whom was offered. Almost all of the reported barriers to OIT were similar between settings: staff and time limitations, concerns about safety and anaphylaxis, the need for more education on how to perform, inadequate compensation, and that it was not a significant demand from patients. Clinic space limitations were significantly different and more prominent in academic settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey revealed interesting trends in the practice of OIT across the United States, with some significant differences arising when academic and nonacademic settings were compared.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Assessment of multiple-opinion referrals and consults at the BC Children's Hospital Allergy Clinic

BACKGROUND

Allergic disease is on the rise. Waitlists for specialists are long, and many referred patients have already received prior allergic assessment, either by a certified Allergist, Primary Care Provider, or other Specialist. It is important to understand the prevalence and motivating factors for multiple-opinion referrals, to deliver timely assessment for patients with allergic disease.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of demographic information, number of previous consultations, and motivation for new consults and multiple-opinion referrals, of pediatric patients aged 8 months-17 years to BC Children's Hospital Allergy Clinic from September 1, 2016-August 31, 2017, was performed. Referral data including reason for referral or multiple-opinion, primary allergic concerns, and others, from referral forms and consult notes were accessed through local Electronic Medical Records and subsequently analyzed for trends in categorical variables to assess the rationale for and impact of multiple-opinion referrals to our clinic.

RESULTS

Of 1029 new referrals received, 210 (20.4%) were multiple-opinion referrals. Food allergy was the predominant allergic concern prompting further opinion (75.7%). The main rationale for seeking further opinions was wanting an assessment by a certified allergist in cases where prior consultation was performed by non-allergist specialist, primary care provider, or alternative health care provider. Of second-opinion referrals generated, 70 (33.3%) initial consultations were performed by an Allergist, whereas 140 (66.7%) were performed by a non-allergist.

CONCLUSIONS

Many new consults at the BCCH Allergy Clinic are multiple-opinion assessments, contributing to long waitlists. Advocacy at the systems level through standardized referral guidelines, centralized triaging systems, and stronger support for Primary Care Providers is needed to provide better access in Canada for children needing a specialized Allergist. Trial registration UBC/BCCH Research Ethics Board.

Clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Risk factors associated with safety of preschool peanut oral immunotherapy

Background

An understanding of how patient characteristics such as age, baseline peanut-specific IgE, and atopic comorbidities may influence potential safety outcomes during peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) could aid in shared decision making between clinicians and patient families.

Objective

This study explored the relationship between baseline patient characteristics and reactions during P-OIT using a large sample size to better understand potential risk factors influencing P-OIT safety.

Methods

Data were obtained from the Food Allergy Immunotherapy (FAIT) registry, which collects real-world OIT data from community and academic allergy clinics across Canada. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was performed to examine the relationship between baseline patient characteristics and reactions during P-OIT. Multiple imputation was applied to reduce potential bias caused by missingness and to maximize the use of available information to preserve statistical power.

Results

Between April 2017 and June 2021, a total of 653 eligible patients initiated P-OIT. Multivariable regression analysis showed pre-OIT grade 2+ initial reaction (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10, 1.61), allergic rhinitis (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.08, 2.38), older age (OR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00, 1.02), and higher baseline peanut-specific IgE (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.02, 1.03) were associated with grade 2+ reaction during P-OIT after adjusting for potential risk factors.

Conclusion

Our study identified several clinically important risk factors for grade 2+ reactions during P-OIT: pre-OIT grade 2+ initial reaction, allergic rhinitis, older age, and higher baseline peanut-specific IgE. These results highlight the need for individualized risk stratification for OIT.

Comparing the risk of anaphylaxis requiring epinephrine in oral immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy: A review of recent Canadian real-world literature

Background

The safety of pediatric food oral immunotherapy (Ped-OIT) has been depicted by some as less favorable than subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) owing to the increased number of serious adverse events requiring epinephrine. A review of real-world data comparing Ped-OIT and SCIT safety is necessary to guide shared decision making.

Objectives

Our aim was to compare the safety and adverse event profiles of peanut Ped-OIT and SCIT using Canadian real-word literature.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of recent Canadian real-world literature on peanut Ped-OIT and SCIT safety and adverse events.

Results

The incidences of systemic reactions requiring epinephrine were 11 in 270 patients (4.07%) and 12 in 41,020 doses (0.029%) in a multicenter study in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia studying 270 preschool-age children treated with peanut OIT. Similarly, a multicenter study in South-Western Ontario examining 160 patients between the ages of 1 and 17 years who were treated with peanut OIT showed that the incidences of systemic reactions requiring epinephrine were 5 in 160 patients (3.1%) and 8 in 52,751 doses (0.015%). A single-center retrospective review of 380 patients receiving aeroallergen SCIT showed that the incidences of systemic reactions requiring epinephrine were 28 in 380 patients (7.4%) and 1 in 1047 injection visits (0.095%). These findings are comparable to those of a review of 860 patients in Ontario who received either aeroallergen or venom SCIT, in which the incidence of systemic reaction requiring epinephrine was 10 in 4242 injections (0.24%).

Conclusion

Despite differences in the OIT protocols used and age groups studied, recent real-world data suggest that the safety of preschool peanut OIT or peanut OIT using a slower buildup schedule is comparable to that of SCIT.

Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Tree Nut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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.

Value-Based, Cost-Effective Care: The Role of the Allergist-Immunologist

Asthma and allergic disease impact millions of patients and are associated with high costs. Up to 30% of all medical care involves wasted spending. Across the spectrum of care provided by the allergist-immunologist, there are opportunities to improve value and reduce medical waste. Several examples highlight this reality. Evidence suggests that most patients may receive cost-effective care in the management of chronic spontaneous urticaria without the need for laboratory testing. For patients with asthma, although a single maintenance and reliever therapy approach may be cost-effective, insurance-mandated therapy changes are not, and may harm patients. Biologics may be very effective in improving asthma control but are too expensive for this indication-as demonstrated by cost-effectiveness analyses and highlighted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review, which concluded that the value-based price for asthma biologics ranges between $6500 and 14,3000 per year. Early introduction may prevent food allergy, but screening before first introduction is neither necessary nor cost-effective, although early salvage food oral immunotherapy may result in improved quality of life and cost savings. Evidence does not support the presence of allergic disease as a risk factor for anaphylaxis to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, and risk-stratified vaccination approaches do not appear cost-effective. Allergen immunotherapy is a very cost-effective treatment option. The practice of allergy-immunology has continued to evolve in recent years and can provide a leading example of high-value practice.

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

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

The Case for Prompt Salvage Infant Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Following Failed Primary Prevention

Recent guideline recommendations have shifted from recommending prolonged avoidance of allergenic foods in the first 3 years of life to a primary prevention approach involving the deliberate early introduction to infants at risk of developing food allergy. Despite this, some infants, especially those with severe eczema who are at highest risk for developing peanut allergy, fail to receive the preventative benefits of early peanut introduction due to hesitancy and other factors. Difficulty adhering to regular ingestion after introduction further reduces the effectiveness of primary prevention. As emerging real-world evidence has demonstrated that performing peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) among infants is effective and safe, peanut OIT could be a treatment option for infants with peanut allergy. This review discusses the benefits, risks, and barriers to offering peanut OIT to infants who fail primary prevention strategies. We propose the novel concept that infants with peanut allergy be offered peanut OIT as soon as possible after failed peanut introduction through a shared decision-making process with the family, where there is a preference for active management rather than avoidance.

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.

A practical focus on legume oral immunotherapy

Legumes other than peanut are an important source of protein and consist of a wide variety of species, such as soy, peas, chickpeas, lentils, and lupin. Due to their health benefits and the rising popularity of veganism, legume consumption has increased. Legume allergy, cross-sensitization, and cross-reactivity between different species have been reported in the literature and are increasingly recognized. Unlike peanut, oral immunotherapy (OIT) for nonpeanut legumes has not been well studied and published protocols are lacking. Future studies are needed to provide real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of nonpeanut legume OIT, and whether desensitization to one legume leads to desensitization to other legumes in patients with multiple legume allergy. Nevertheless, due to the abundance of clinical trial and real-world data for peanut OIT, it is reasonable to use protocols that substitute peanut protein with other legume protein when desensitizing individuals with nonpeanut legume allergy. Clinicians who are starting to offer legume OIT in their practices may consider starting with preschoolers, an age group for whom real-world data has shown the greatest safety and effectiveness.

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.

Optimal patient selection for oral immunotherapy

Standard criteria for ideal patient selection with food oral immunotherapy (OIT) have yet to be determined. Although there are a handful of contraindications to consider before recommending OIT, most patients with confirmed immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergies are appropriate candidates. Success rates of OIT can vary widely and be influenced by several factors. Choosing the most appropriate candidate for an OIT program can mitigate risks and provide the best chance for patients to be successful.

A practical focus on multi-food oral immunotherapy

Approximately one-third of patients who present for oral immunotherapy (OIT) will be allergic to more than one food. Those patients with more than one food allergy have the option of sequential courses of single-food OIT or, in the right situation, combining several foods as part of multifood OIT. The time and cost savings can be substantial. Treatment protocols used with multiple foods are basically the same as with single-food courses, so clinics proficient with single-food OIT can easily transition to multifood OIT. Outcomes have been shown to be similar between the two approaches, so patients should be offered the opportunity to address their food allergies in one, more convenient OIT course.

Risk factors for reactions and adverse effects during oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) involves the potential for a variety of adverse events, which range from serious systemic reactions that require epinephrine to minimal oral reactions that require no treatment. This chapter describes common types of reactions seen in the course of OIT, reviews the frequency of and risk factors for different types of events as reported in recent literature (with a focus on real-world reports from private practice), and discusses treatment strategies for these adverse events. As the availability of OIT expands, it is paramount to ensure that allergists who offer OIT have a robust understanding of these reactions and mechanisms, with the overarching goal being the safety and tolerability of the therapy for the individual patient.

A practical focus on oral immunotherapy to tree nuts

Tree nut (TN) allergy is common, with a global prevalence of up to 4.9%. TN allergy is persistent in most patients, and accidental reactions are common. There is considerable clinical cross-reactivity between cashew and pistachio, and between walnut and pecan. A diagnosis of TN allergy is based on a history of clinical reaction on ingestion, along with confirmed sensitization through either skin-prick or serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing. Component testing and food challenges may be required in patients with birch pollinosis to distinguish between IgE-mediated allergy to a heat-stable protein and pollen food allergy syndrome. There is available evidence that TN oral immunotherapy (OIT) is reasonably safe and effective. There are numerous nonpharmaceutical food products to facilitate TN-OIT dosing. TN OIT should be offered as a treatment option for patients with TN allergy.

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.

Phase 2, randomized multi oral immunotherapy with omalizumab 'real life' study

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is frequently discontinued due to adverse events (AEs) and current data suggests that lowering OIT doses can minimize severity and frequency of AEs. However, the minimum daily dose that can enable desensitization and induce immune responses in multi-food OIT (mOIT) is unknown.

METHODS

Participants aged 2-25 years with multi-food allergies were pretreated with fixed-dose omalizumab (150 mg, 3 doses, every 4 weeks), and randomized 1:1 to receive mOIT to a total maintenance dose of either 300 or 1200 mg total protein, (total dose includes at least two and up to a max of five allergens) and then transitioned to real-food protein equivalents after 18 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with increases in IgG4/IgE ratio of at least 2 allergens by ≥25% from baseline after 18 weeks of therapy. The primary efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Sixty participants were enrolled across two sites. Seventy percent of participants in both arms showed changes in sIgG4/sIgE ratio in at least 2 allergens with no difference between the treatment groups (OR [95% CI] = 1.00 [0.29, 3.49]). Overall, there were no differences in AEs between the 300 and 1200 mg groups (19% vs. 17%, p = .69), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that plasma marker changes are induced early, even at a total protein dose of 300 mg inclusive of multiple allergens when mOIT is combined with fixed-dose omalizumab. Identification of optimal mOIT dosing with adjunct omalizumab is needed for the long-term success of OIT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03181009).

Current insights: a systemic review of therapeutic options for peanut allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With increasing prevalence of peanut allergy (PA) globally and the greater risk of potential reactions occurring due to the leading role of nuts in food products, PA has become a significant public health concern over the past decade, affecting up to 5 million of the US adult population. This review details updates and advances in prevalence, diagnosis, and immunotherapies that have occurred over the past year.

RECENT FINDINGS

Therapeutic and diagnostic advances remain at the forefront of research and have continued to push the food allergy (FA) field forward to provide a promising role in the detection and treatment of PA. The FA field has researched significant advances in peanut immunotherapy, biomarker diagnosis, and quality of life (QoL) improvement.

SUMMARY

Given the burden and consequences for individuals with PA, these advances delivered in clinical practice can significantly improve the QoL of individuals with PA and their caregivers. Ongoing studies will continue to investigate long-term outcome measures of desensitisation and effective management plans tailored to the families' needs.

Food immunotherapy practice: Nation differences across Europe, the FIND project

BACKGROUND

Food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) practice is known to vary globally. This project aims to identify and characterize European centres performing FA-AIT.

METHODS

An EAACI task force conducted an online survey to gather relevant information regarding FA-AIT practice and setting-specific resources after reviewing the published literature and congress abstracts throughout Europe.

RESULTS

We identified 102 FA-AIT centres in 18 countries; only Spain (n = 39) and France (n = 16) had ≥10 such centres. Overall, most facilities were hospital-based (77.5%), publicly funded (80.4%) and delivered FA-AIT as routine clinical care (80.4%). On average, departments had 3 allergists/paediatric allergists and 2 nurses. Surveyed centres had provided FA-AIT for a median of 9 years [1-24] to a median of 105 [5-2415] patients. The estimated total number of treated patients was 24875, of whom 41.3% received AIT for milk, 34.2% egg, 12.8% peanut and 11.7% other foods. Anaphylaxis to AIT doses requiring over 4-6 h of observation was reported by 70.6% of centres, ICU admissions by 10.8% and eosinophilic esophagitis by 45.1%. Quality of life and sustained unresponsiveness were evaluated in 20.6% and 54.9% of centres, respectively. The main contraindications for food AIT were severe asthma (57%-63%), eosinophilic esophagitis (56%-48%) and age below 5 years (47%-41%).

CONCLUSIONS

In Europe, FA-AIT is provided mostly in clinical practice. Significant variation is seen in the number of centres per country, facility characteristics and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and in certain aspects of protocols. Potential inequality in access to AIT has been identified as well as the need for education and guidance for treatment standardization.

Efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy in children aged 1-3 years with peanut allergy (the Immune Tolerance Network IMPACT trial): a randomised placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

For young children with peanut allergy, dietary avoidance is the current standard of care. We aimed to assess whether peanut oral immunotherapy can induce desensitisation (an increased allergic reaction threshold while on therapy) or remission (a state of non-responsiveness after discontinuation of immunotherapy) in this population.

METHODS

We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in five US academic medical centres. Eligible participants were children aged 12 to younger than 48 months who were reactive to 500 mg or less of peanut protein during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Participants were randomly assigned by use of a computer, in a 2:1 allocation ratio, to receive peanut oral immunotherapy or placebo for 134 weeks (2000 mg peanut protein per day) followed by 26 weeks of avoidance, with participants and study staff and investigators masked to group treatment assignment. The primary outcome was desensitisation at the end of treatment (week 134), and remission after avoidance (week 160), as the key secondary outcome, were assessed by DBPCFC to 5000 mg in the intention-to-treat population. Safety and immunological parameters were assessed in the same population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03345160.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 13, 2013, and Oct 1, 2015, 146 children, with a median age of 39·3 months (IQR 30·8-44·7), were randomly assigned to receive peanut oral immunotherapy (96 participants) or placebo (50 participants). At week 134, 68 (71%, 95% CI 61-80) of 96 participants who received peanut oral immunotherapy compared with one (2%, 0·05-11) of 50 who received placebo met the primary outcome of desensitisation (risk difference [RD] 69%, 95% CI 59-79; p<0·0001). The median cumulative tolerated dose during the week 134 DBPCFC was 5005 mg (IQR 3755-5005) for peanut oral immunotherapy versus 5 mg (0-105) for placebo (p<0·0001). After avoidance, 20 (21%, 95% CI 13-30) of 96 participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy compared with one (2%, 0·05-11) of 50 receiving placebo met remission criteria (RD 19%, 95% CI 10-28; p=0·0021). The median cumulative tolerated dose during the week 160 DBPCFC was 755 mg (IQR 0-2755) for peanut oral immunotherapy and 0 mg (0-55) for placebo (p<0·0001). A significant proportion of participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy who passed the 5000 mg DBPCFC at week 134 could no longer tolerate 5000 mg at week 160 (p<0·001). The participant receiving placebo who was desensitised at week 134 also achieved remission at week 160. Compared with placebo, peanut oral immunotherapy decreased peanut-specific and Ara h2-specific IgE, skin prick test, and basophil activation, and increased peanut-specific and Ara h2-specific IgG4 at weeks 134 and 160. By use of multivariable regression analysis of participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy, younger age and lower baseline peanut-specific IgE was predictive of remission. Most participants (98% with peanut oral immunotherapy vs 80% with placebo) had at least one oral immunotherapy dosing reaction, predominantly mild to moderate and occurring more frequently in participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy. 35 oral immunotherapy dosing events with moderate symptoms were treated with epinephrine in 21 participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy.

INTERPRETATION

In children with a peanut allergy, initiation of peanut oral immunotherapy before age 4 years was associated with an increase in both desensitisation and remission. Development of remission correlated with immunological biomarkers. The outcomes suggest a window of opportunity at a young age for intervention to induce remission of peanut allergy.

FUNDING

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, Immune Tolerance Network.

Oral Immunotherapy in Children: Clinical Considerations and Practical Management

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) in pediatric patients provides an alternative option to the current standard of care in food allergy, which is allergen avoidance and reactive treatment. Because patients are exposed to one or more food allergens during treatment, OIT is associated with adverse events and can be a cumbersome process for children, their caregivers, and clinicians. However, there have been an overwhelming number of studies that show high efficacy in both single- and multi-allergen OIT, and that quality of life is greatly improved for both patients and their families after undergoing immunotherapy. This review discusses clinical considerations for OIT in pediatrics, including efficacy and safety, practical management, and future directions of treatment.

Management of Anaphylaxis in Infants and Toddlers

Anaphylaxis is a systemic allergic reaction that can be caused by food, drugs, insect bites, or unknown triggers in infants and toddlers. Anaphylaxis rates are increasing. Infants and toddlers may have increased exposure to known and unknown allergens, decreased ability to describe their symptoms, and an expanded differential diagnosis for consideration on presentation. The most common symptoms in these age groups are cutaneous and gastrointestinal. Age-specific language may be helpful for caregivers to identify and describe the symptoms of anaphylaxis in infants and toddlers. Long-term management of anaphylaxis includes allergy evaluation to guide avoidance and assess prognosis and education on allergic reaction management; this incorporates the prescription of epinephrine autoinjector and provision of an allergy emergency plan.

Elevated Cow's Milk-Specific IgE Levels Prior to Oral Immunotherapy Decrease the Likelihood of Reaching the Maintenance Dose

BACKGROUND

Food desensitization via oral immunotherapy (OIT) is gaining acceptance in clinical practice. Owing to adverse reactions, the duration of the buildup phase until a maintenance dose is achieved may be prolonged, and in a minority of cases, OIT is stopped.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess factors associated with the probability of reaching the maintenance dose in cow's milk (CM) OIT.

METHODS

We collected data from patients undergoing CM OIT at the Montreal Children's Hospital, BC Children's Hospital, and Hospital for Sick Children. We compared univariable and multivariable Cox regressions to evaluate sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, clinical characteristics, and biomarkers at study entry associated with the likelihood of reaching a maintenance dose of 200 mL of CM.

RESULTS

Among 69 children who reached 4 mL of milk, the median age was 12 years (interquartile range, 9-15 years); 59% were male. Median duration of buildup phase from 4 to 200 mL was 24.0 weeks (interquartile range, 17.7-33.4 weeks). After adjusting for age and sex, higher baseline levels of specific IgE antibodies for α-lactalbumin (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.95), β-lactoglobulin (HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98), casein (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94), and total CM (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.97) were associated with a decreased probability of reaching maintenance. In addition, for every 10-mL increase in CM tolerated at entry challenge, the probability of reaching maintenance increased by 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that higher levels of CM-specific IgE decreased the likelihood of reaching maintenance, whereas an increased cumulative CM dose at entry challenge increased the likelihood. Assessing these factors before therapy may assist in predicting the success of CM OIT.

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.

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.

Canadian food ladders for dietary advancement in children with IgE-mediated allergy to milk and/or egg

Food ladders are clinical tools already widely used in Europe for food reintroduction in milk- and egg-allergic children. Previously developed milk and egg ladders have limited applicability to Canadian children due to dietary differences and product availability. Herein we propose a Canadian version of cow’s milk and egg food ladders and discuss the potential role that food ladders may have in the care of children with IgE-mediated allergies to cow’s milk and/or egg, as either a method of accelerating the acquisition of tolerance in those who would outgrow on their own, or as a form of modified oral immunotherapy in those with otherwise persistent allergy.

A severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions to avoid the delay of epinephrine administration

BACKGROUND

Substantial discrepancies among anaphylaxis severity scores may delay epinephrine administration.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to develop a transparent severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions with a decision model for epinephrine use.

METHODS

The natural course of 315 acute food-induced allergic reactions in children hospitalized at the Allergology department between May 2016 and July 2019 owing to follow-up treatment and allergy diagnostics was evaluated. The severity of episodes was classified according to the 5 most accepted grading systems. The interrater reliability of classification between anaphylaxis severity scores was assessed. All symptoms were grouped into a heat map according to their real-life incidence and clinical relevance. Based on the heat map analysis, a severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions in children with the epinephrine administration decision model was created.

RESULTS

Data from 259 food-induced anaphylaxis episodes in 157 children were included in the analysis. Comparing the grading systems, we observed a 24.7% to 70.2% disagreement between severity scores. The heat map illustrated a strong association between 29 symptoms and their categorization. A new severity grading system was developed and a 2-stage decision model was proposed: "epinephrine yes" (any rapidly progressing symptoms, even mild ones or from 1 organ system; any symptoms from more than 1 organ system; or every grade of anaphylaxis), and "epinephrine available and prepared to use" (nonprogressing mild systemic allergic reaction from 1 system area only; no anaphylaxis).

CONCLUSION

A new severity grading system of food-induced acute allergic reactions in children could serve as a clinical tool for health care professionals to avoid epinephrine administration delay.