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

Age-Related Food Aversion and Anxiety Represent Primary Patient Barriers to Food Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Although oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a reasonable treatment option, barriers to this procedure's implementation have not been extensively evaluated from a patient perspective.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the barriers patients face during OIT administration, including anxiety and taste aversion, and the role of health care professionals, especially dietitians.

METHODS

A survey in Canada and the United States involved families currently enrolled in food OIT programs.

RESULTS

Of responses from 379 participants, fear of reaction was the most common barrier to OIT initiation, with 45.6% reporting it being a "very significant" barrier with other fears reported. However, taste aversion represented the prominent obstacle to continuation. Taste aversion was associated with a slower buildup (P = .02) and a reduction in dose (P = .002). Taste aversion was a strongly age-dependent barrier for initiation (P < .001) and continuation (P < .002), with older children over 6 years of age reporting it as a very significant barrier (P < .001). Boredom was reported as a concern for specific allergens such as peanut, egg, sesame, and hazelnuts (P < .05), emphasizing the need for diverse food options. Notably, 59.9% of respondents mixed OIT foods with sweet items. Despite these dietary concerns, dietitians were underutilized, with only 9.5% of respondents having seen a dietitian and the majority finding dietitian support helpful with greater certainty about the exact dose (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Taste aversion and anxiety represent primary patient-related barriers to OIT. Taste aversion was highly age dependent, with older patients being more affected. Dietitians and psychology support were underutilized, representing a critical target to improve adherence and OIT success.

Allergic Diseases and Mental Health

Neuropsychiatric symptoms have long been acknowledged as a common comorbidity for individuals with allergic diseases. The proposed mechanisms for this relationship vary by disease and patient population and may include neuroinflammation and/or the consequent social implications of disease symptoms and management. We review connections between mental health and allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, vocal cord dysfunction, urticaria, and food allergy. Many uncertainties remain and warrant further research, particularly with regard to how medications interact with pathophysiologic mechanisms of allergic disease in the neuroimmune axis. Proactive screening for mental health challenges, using tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire and Generalized Anxiety Disorder screening instruments among others, can aid clinicians in identifying patients who may need further psychiatric evaluation and support. Although convenient, symptom screening tools are limited by variable sensitivity and specificity and therefore require healthcare professionals to remain vigilant for other mental health "red flags." Ultimately, understanding the connection between allergic disease and mental health empowers clinicians to both anticipate and serve the diverse physical and mental health needs of their patient populations.

Decisions With Patients, Not for Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Allergy and Immunology

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an increasingly implemented patient-centered approach to navigating patient preferences regarding diagnostic and treatment options and supported decision-making. This therapeutic approach prioritizes the patient's perspectives, considering current medical evidence to provide a balanced approach to clinical scenarios. In light of numerous recent guideline recommendations that are conditional in nature and are clinical scenarios defined by preference-sensitive care options, there is a tremendous opportunity for SDM and validated decision aids. Despite the expansion of the literature on SDM, formal acceptance among clinicians remains inconsistent. Surprisingly, a significant disparity exists between clinicians' self-reported adherence to SDM principles and patients' perceptions of its implementation during clinical encounters. This discrepancy underscores a fundamental issue in the delivery of health care, where clinicians may overestimate their integration of SDM, while patients' experiences suggest otherwise. This review critically examines the factors contributing to this inconsistency, including barriers within the health care system, clinician attitudes and behaviors, and patient expectations and preferences. By elucidating these factors in the fields of food allergy, asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis, and other allergic diseases, this review aims to provide insights into bridging the gap between clinician perception and patient experience in SDM. Addressing this discordance is crucial for advancing patient-centered care and ensuring that SDM is not merely a theoretical concept but a tangible reality in the.

A practical guide for implementing omalizumab therapy for food allergy

The recent approval of omalizumab for the treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy is an important step forward for the millions of food allergy patients in the United States. Through the depletion of circulating IgE and the subsequent reduction of FcεR1 on key effector cells, patients increase their tolerance to food allergens. However, omalizumab does not permit patients to eat foods that they are allergic to with impunity. Rather, it protects them from most accidental exposures. In addition, omalizumab does not cure food allergy and has not demonstrated true immunomodulation. Thus, omalizumab might be a lifelong therapy for some patients. Furthermore, there are many important questions and issues surrounding the appropriate administration of omalizumab to treat food allergy, which we discuss. Managing treatment of patients with disease that falls outside the dosing range, assessing treatment response or nonresponse, addressing its appropriateness for patients older than 55, and determining whether immunotherapy plus omalizumab provides any advantage over omalizumab alone all need to be examined. Identifying appropriate patients for this therapy is critical given the cost of biologics. Indeed, not all food allergy patients are good candidates for this therapy. Also, when and how to stop omalizumab therapy in patients who may have outgrown their food allergy needs to be elucidated. Thus, although this therapy provides a good option for patients with food allergies, much information is needed to determine how best to use this therapy. Despite many unanswered questions and issues, we provide clinicians with some practical guidance on implementing this therapy in their patients.

Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent

BACKGROUND

Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process.

OBJECTIVE

We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form.

METHODS

We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed.

RESULTS

The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form.

CONCLUSION

We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Food Sublingual Immunotherapy: Safety and Simplicity of a Real Food Updosing Protocol

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) using food extracts is safe and effective in desensitizing patients with food allergy, yet not often used in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To propose a cost-effective, expedited SLIT protocol using real food.

METHODS

Patients with food allergy aged 5 to 50 years (median, 11 years) initiated food SLIT in a single-clinic setting. The daily maintenance dose was 4 to 11 mg protein in 0.1 to 0.5 mL volume, depending on the food. Some foods were available in liquid form at the local grocery (milk, egg white liquid, and cashew/walnut/sunflower/hazelnut milk), whereas others were prepared in the office using flour and 50% glycerin saline (peanut/sesame/wheat). The first cohort of 20 patients began dosing at a 1:1000 dilution, the next 30 patients at 1:100 dilution. An exercise challenge was performed in a subset of patients on maintenance dosing to evaluate the need for a predose or postdose rest period.

RESULTS

The 1:1000 and 1:100 cohorts both completed day 1 without adverse reactions beyond itchy mouth. There were no systemic reactions requiring epinephrine throughout the study period and 88% reached their maintenance dose. Skin testing of 6-month-old peanut flour solution was not diminished from fresh solution and similar to food extract. Exercise challenge test results in 12 patients were negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen extract food SLIT as used in published trials has limitations of cost and multiple office visits. Inexpensive real food, at the same or slightly higher protein dose, was well tolerated in 4 updose visits, a minimum of a week apart. Unlike food oral immunotherapy, a predose or postdose rest period may not be necessary.

Improving Clinical Practice Through Patient Registries in Allergy and Immunology

Patient registries are a mechanism for collecting data on allergic and immunologic diseases that provide important information on epidemiology and outcomes that can ultimately improve patient care. Key criteria for establishing effective registries include the use of a clearly defined purpose, identifying the target population and ensuring consistent data collection. Registries in allergic diseases include those for diseases such as inborn errors of immunity (IEI), food allergy, asthma and anaphylaxis, pharmacological interventions in vulnerable populations, and adverse effects of pharmacologic interventions including hypersensitivity reactions to drugs and vaccines. Important insights gained from patient registries in our field include contributions in phenotype and outcomes in IEI, the risk for adverse reactions in food-allergic patients in multiple settings, the benefits and risk of biologic medications for asthma during pregnancy, vaccine safety, and the categorization and genetic determination of risk for severe cutaneous adverse reactions to medications. Impediments to the development of clinically meaningful patient registries include the lack of funding resources for registry establishment and the quality, quantity, and consistency of available data. Despite these drawbacks, high-quality and successful registries are invaluable in informing clinical practice and improving outcomes in patients with allergic and immunological diseases.

Food allergies on a college campus

There are limited data on food allergies among college students. In this article, we review the most current available studies. These self-reported surveys and qualitative interviews reported overall poor avoidance of known allergens and low rates of carrying self-injectable epinephrine among students with food allergy. College students may exhibit risk-taking food behaviors due to a number of factors, including age-appropriate risk-taking predilection, strong social influences, and lack of experience in self-advocacy. Having to disclose an otherwise invisible condition repeatedly in a new environment may also lead to "disclosure fatigue," creating an additional barrier to self-advocacy. Common themes in the narrative include hypervigilance, stigma management, and concern about others' misunderstanding of food allergy. Although there is a paucity of data in this area, it is likely that having greater support at the institution level, along with support from peers and faculty, may help improve awareness, self-injectable epinephrine carriage, and allergen avoidance. This review also discusses strategies for preparedness at school, including specific steps to maximize safety.

Implementing Food Oral Immunotherapy Into Clinical Practice: Quality and Safety Perspectives From a US Academic Center

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an accessible procedure for practicing allergy/immunology providers, yet rigorous safety standards are limited in the clinical setting. By exploring the transition from research to clinical practice OIT, we review relevant safety considerations necessary for the clinical provider. We offer a perspective on clinical benefits and considerations at the individual, collaboration, and policy levels from the vantage of a large academic OIT program, and we propose several practical start-up checklists and clerical considerations for practicing providers. Awareness of the local population and front-end planning is necessary to improve the accessibility of this procedure in clinical practice among racial and socioeconomic minority populations. Sharing and merging OIT protocols, procedural methods, and electronic medical record order sets may increase harmonization among OIT-providing institutions and further our abilities to pool safety and outcomes data, ultimately enhancing the safety and efficacy of clinical OIT.

Initial updosing phase of oral immunotherapy improves quality of life and psychological burden in parents of children with food allergy

Background: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can impose psychological burdens on patients and their parents due to the necessary preparations and repeated adverse reactions. Objective: To investigate changes in quality of life (QoL) and psychological burden in parents of children receiving OIT for food allergy (FA). Methods: Children aged 3-13 years with FA were enrolled. Parents were asked to fill out the Korean versions of the Food Allergy Quality of Life-Parental Burden (FAQL-PB), the Korean versions of the Food Allergy Quality of Life-Parental Form (K-FAQLQ-PF), the Korean versions of the Beck Anxiety Inventory (K-BAI), and the Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression before OIT (T1), after 2 months of updosing (T2), and after the end of the updosing phase (T3). Results: A total of 111 parents were enrolled. The total FAQL-PB scores were decreased at T2 and T3 compared with those at T1 (all p < 0.001). Greater improvement in the total FAQL-PB score at T2 was noted in parents with a higher parental burden (FAQL-PB score ≥ 74 points) at baseline than in those with a lower parental burden (p = 0.001). Among the K-FAQLQ-PF domains, "food anxiety" scores were decreased at T2 and T3 compared with those at T1 (p = 0.049 and p = 0.030, respectively), whereas there was no change in "social and dietary limitation" and "emotional impact" scores between T1 and T2 and between T1 and T3. However, no differences were observed in K-BAI and PHQ-9 scores between T1 and T2 and between T1 and T3. Conclusion: Our results suggest that OIT improves parental burden and QoL in parents of children with FA.

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.

Practical issues of oral immunotherapy for egg or milk allergy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been recommended to reduce parental burden related to strict allergen avoidance and induce desensitization and immune tolerance for patients with long-lasting allergies to hen's eggs (HE) or cow's milk (CM). OIT should be monitored by pediatric allergists specializing in OIT and oral food challenge tests to manage allergic reactions. Although a previous history of anaphylaxis or multiple food allergies is not a contraindication to OIT, it is contraindicated if the patient has uncontrolled asthma, a malignancy, active systemic autoimmune disorders, or diseases requiring treatment with beta-blockers. A variety of OIT protocols have been de veloped to ensure better outcomes and safe up-dosing, including adjunctive therapies with biologics. This review provides insight into the practical issues of various immunotherapy options for children with HE or CM allergies.

Exploring novel approaches to food allergy management

ABSTRACT

Nurse practitioners are likely to encounter pediatric and adult patients with symptoms of food allergy who need an accurate diagnosis, emergency treatment plans, and options for management. The pathophysiology of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy, current and emerging diagnostics, treatment, and emergency management is briefly reviewed, and promising new and potential future treatment options are discussed. Currently, Food and Drug Administration-approved oral immunotherapy (OIT) treatment for peanut allergy, but clinical trials are underway to explore multiple-allergen OIT and alternate routes for IT such as sublingual and epicutaneous. Treatments that modulate the immune system are also potential treatments for food allergies (FAs), including biologic agents. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE therapy, dupilumab, an interleukin-4Ra receptor monoclonal antibody, and etokimab, an anti-IL-33, are all being studied for the treatment of food allergy. There is hope that these novel therapies for FAs will be a viable option translated to the practice setting in the near future, so that strict avoidance is not the only treatment plan for FAs. Nurse practitioners can support their patients with FAs and their families by keeping abreast of progress in food allergy research and assisting patients to consider novel treatment options, when appropriate, using shared decision making.

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.

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.

Provision of Food Allergy Care in the United Kingdom and United States: Current Issues and Future Directions

Food allergy (FA) is a growing issue worldwide. The United Kingdom and United States are high-income, industrialized countries with reported increases in FA prevalence over the past few decades. This review compares delivery of FA care in the United Kingdom and United States and each country's response to the heightened demand and disparities for FA services. In the United Kingdom, allergy specialists are scarce and general practitioners (GPs) provide most allergy care. Whereas the United States has more allergists per capita than the United Kingdom, there is still a shortage of allergy services owing to the greater reliance on specialist care for FA in America and wide geographic variation in access to allergist services. Currently, generalists in these countries lack the specialty training and equipment to diagnose and manage FA optimally. Moving forward, the United Kingdom aims to enhance training for GPs so they may provide better quality frontline allergy care. In addition, the United Kingdom is implementing a new tier of semi-specialized GPs and increasing cross-center collaboration through clinical networks. The United Kingdom and United States aim to increase the number of FA specialists, which is critical at a time of rapidly expanding management options for allergic and immunologic diseases requiring clinical expertise and shared decision-making to select appropriate therapies. While these countries aim to grow their supply of quality FA services actively, further efforts to build clinical networks and perhaps recruit international medical graduates and expand telehealth services are necessary to reduce disparities in access to care. For the United Kingdom in particular, increasing quality services will require additional support from the leadership of the centralized National Health Service, which remains challenging.

Viewing Pediatric Food Oral Immunotherapy Through an Ethical Lens-A Narrative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Food allergy remains a common problem and a lifelong condition for many children. In recent years, food allergy management has increasingly involved conversations about food oral immunotherapy (OIT). Although ethical considerations of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice implicitly inform these conversations, applying these principles can be complex, particularly in young children. Families of young children assume a role of surrogate decision-maker and must balance immediate risks with the hope of longer-term benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To explore implementation of OIT in children through an ethical lens.

METHODS

To evaluate OIT through an ethical lens, we conducted a literature search to explore currently published frameworks in this area.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the harm principle, the basic interest principle, and the best interest principle of parental decision-making can be informative. Shared decision-making continues to be central to the process of engaging with patient-family units to individualize the best care, at the right time, and minimize decisional discord. Although OIT is well-positioned to promote health and well-being, challenges to equity, sustainability, and organizational support must be considered to improve access for appropriate patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas approaches to food OIT may be tailored to the individual context of each patient-family unit, ethical principles must guide decisions to initiate and continue therapy. Traditional ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice remain cornerstones when considering the ethical context of OIT.

Are There Hidden Dangers Associated With Milk and Egg Dietary Advancement Therapy?

Dietary advancement therapies (DATs) constitute a continuum spanning extensively heated item ingestion, progressive milk or egg ladders, and oral immunotherapy (OIT). These represent an evolution in food allergy management from strict avoidance to an active therapy that may modulate the immune system to develop tolerance to particular forms of the allergen. Many egg or milk individuals are tolerant to baked egg or milk at baseline, and regular consumption (at home ingestion) of baked milk or egg is a safe process with potential quality of life and immunologic benefit. Milk and egg ladders, developed for non-IgE mediated allergy, are increasingly being adapted to IgE-mediated allergy as a potentially safe at-home option for gradual dietary advancement. However, data are limited regarding how safe and effective these approaches are or what patient is best suited for which DAT. It is also unclear whether extensively heated allergen consumption and ladders are susceptible to the same patient-specific factors that affect day-to-day tolerance and safety in OIT. Several recent events involving near-fatal or fatal reactions to milk or egg products (all among patients with asthma) have highlighted that DATs are not risk-free, and that physician guidance in these therapies is essential. Such guidance may include obtaining informed consent before starting any DAT and instituting the same safe dosing rules for OIT across any form of DAT. This rostrum discusses practical concerns about the safety of DAT, and considerations regarding how clinicians can maximize patient protection while defining the safety and efficacy of real-world implementation of these concepts.

Factors associated with home epinephrine-treated reactions during peanut and tree-nut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Home reactions requiring epinephrine administration, a marker of their severity, restrict the widespread use of oral immunotherapy (OIT), but their risk factors are largely not known.

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors for such reactions during OIT to most allergenic foods.

METHODS

All patients who began OIT for peanut, tree nuts, sesame, or egg allergy at the Shamir Medical Center between April 2010 and January 2020 were enrolled. The patients were instructed to use their epinephrine autoinjectors during reactions consisting of severe abdominal pain, significant shortness of breath, or lethargy, or whenever in uncertainty of reaction severity. Patients with and without home epinephrine-treated reactions (HETRs) were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 757 OIT treatments for peanut (n = 346), tree nuts (n = 221; walnut n = 147, cashew n = 57, hazelnut n = 16, almond n = 1), sesame (n = 115), and egg (n = 75) allergies were administered to 644 patients. Eighty-three (10.9%) patients experienced HETRs. The highest rate of HETRs was experienced during walnut (20.4%) or hazelnut (25%) OIT, followed by peanut (9.8%), sesame (6.1%), egg (6.7%), and cashew (5.3%) OIT. Risk factors for HETRs included a reaction treated in an emergency department (ER) (P = .005) before starting OIT and a reaction treated with epinephrine during in-clinic induction (P < .001). Significantly fewer patients with (73.6%) than without (88.3%) HETRs achieved full desensitization (P = .001), but only a few patients with HETRs (8.4%) failed treatment.

CONCLUSION

Previous reaction severity is the main predictor for HETRs during OIT. These reactions are more frequent during walnut and hazelnut OIT than during OIT for other foods studied. Most patients experiencing HETRs achieved desensitization.

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.

Towards an FDA-cleared basophil activation test

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

Information needs of patients considering oral immunotherapy for food allergy

While the historic management of food allergy includes avoidance strategies and allergic reaction treatment, oral immunotherapy (OIT) approaches have become more commonly integrated into therapeutic approaches. International guidelines, phase 3 trials and real-world experience have supported the implementation of this procedure. However, OIT is an elective, rarely curative procedure with inherent risks that necessitates an increased degree of health literacy for the patients and families. Families assume the responsibility of amateur healthcare providers to ensure the daily safe administration of the allergenic food. As such, it is incumbent upon physicians to ensure that families are prepared for this role. A thorough educational and shared decision-making approach is necessary during the counselling and consent process to adequately inform the families. Educated discussion about the efficacy and patient-centred effectiveness, therapeutic alternatives and family goals is required to align physician and patient expectations. A frank discussion about the struggles, practical challenges, risks and contraindications can help to develop an understanding of the risk mitigation strategies employed to maintain safety. Physicians should develop a proactive approach to educate families about this, at times, burdensome procedure. This educational approach should encourage ongoing support starting prior to consent through the maintenance visits. By preparing families for their unique management role, physicians can help ensure the safe and successful integration of OIT into the therapeutic offering for the management of food allergies.

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.

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.

Eight tips for the implementation of the first licenced peanut allergy oral immunotherapy into clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Shared learnings from the early use of novel therapies can aid in their optimization. The recent introduction of peanut oral immunotherapy (peanut OIT; Palforzia [Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp]) for peanut allergy addresses a significant unmet need but also highlights the requirement for consideration of several factors by both prescribers and patients.

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance for prescribers of licenced peanut OIT to facilitate treatment delivery and improve outcomes.

METHODS

Clinicians with experience of licenced peanut OIT (United States n = 6, United Kingdom n = 1) participated in a series of interviews and group discussions designed to elicit tips for successful implementation.

RESULTS

Clinicians identified 8 tips that were considered the most relevant, practical, and impactful for prescribers of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp: (1) preparing to provide treatment, (2) assessing the medical indication for treatment and (3) shared decision making, (4) staff education, (5) establishing office processes, (6) managing patient expectations and using anticipatory guidance, (7) optimising adherence and (8) maintaining flexibility throughout the treatment process. In addition, a range of supporting materials (e.g., checklists and action plans) are provided.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of a novel therapy often requires healthcare providers to modify or adopt practices to effectively employ the treatment. The provision of guidance based upon early real-world experiences of licenced peanut OIT may help inform clinical practice and improve treatment outcomes.

Triggers for Home Epinephrine-Treated Reactions During Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Home reactions requiring epinephrine treatment represent a significant obstacle to oral immunotherapy (OIT) and impair treatment outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To identify potential triggers for such reactions for improvement of patient safety.

METHODS

All patients aged older than 3.7 years who began an open-label OIT treatment program to milk, peanut, egg, sesame, or tree nuts in the Institute of Allergy, Immunology, and Pediatric Pulmonology at Shamir Medical Center between April 2010 and March 2018 were enrolled. Information on home epinephrine-treated reactions (HETRs) during the up-dosing phase of OIT was collected from the documentation in patients' files and the reports were transmitted by email and via a web reporting system.

RESULTS

A total 1,270 OIT treatments were included (milk 780; peanut 256; egg 63; sesame 72; and tree nuts 99). Home epinephrine was administered in 200 treatments (15.7%) and in 70 of them a second epinephrine-treated reaction occurred. The leading identified triggers for HETRs were physical exercise temporally associated with administration of home dose (20%), and dose consumption during infectious disease (16.7%), or when fatigued (13.8%). The rate of first HETRs was highest (10.1%) to doses of 500 mg protein or less and particularly to 300 mg or less. The occurrence of first HETRs was highest (35.5%) during the first and decreased to 13.8% by the last of the 4-week home-treatment phase. Second HETRs occurred in a similar rate throughout these 4 weeks. The incidence of HETRs was highest during pollen season and vacation months.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of factors, some protocol-dependent, that trigger HETRs should assist in improving OIT safety.

Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: A consensus report

BACKGROUND

Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility.

METHODS

We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale.

RESULTS

The panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis.

New and Emerging Concepts and Therapies for the Treatment of Food Allergy

Food allergy is an increasingly common disease that often starts in early childhood and lasts throughout life. Self-reported food allergy has risen at a rate of 1.2% per decade since 1988, and by 2018, the prevalence of food allergy in the United States was estimated to be 8% in children and 11% in adults.^- This prevalence has led to an economic burden of almost $25 billion annually. Despite these staggering statistics, as of the time of this writing, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only approved one treatment for food allergy, which is limited to use in children with peanut allergy. Fortunately, a new horizon of therapeutic interventions, in all stages of development, lay ahead and hold promise for the near future.

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.

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.