Managing Food Allergy When the Patient Is Not Highly Allergic

Food allergy yardstick: Where does omalizumab fit?

Food allergy management has greatly evolved in the last several years, moving from passive approaches, such as strict food allergen avoidance, to more active treatments, including regulatory approval of the first specifically indicated immunotherapy product (for peanut) in 2020. In 2024, a second therapy, omalizumab, received regulatory approval for the treatment of 1 or more IgE-mediated food allergies, providing clinicians with multiple treatment options to offer patients and families. With this expanded armamentarium of food allergy treatment options, the practicing clinician requires detailed knowledge of benefits and risks of omalizumab, how omalizumab fits into the management landscape, and how to use shared decision-making to optimize therapy. This yardstick aims to provide the clinician with a review of data leading to omalizumab's food allergy indication and an evidence-based expert opinion approach regarding on how best to use this and other therapies available to optimize patient management.

Identifying thresholds of reaction for different foods

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

Perspectives and gaps in the management of food allergy and anaphylaxis in the Asia-Pacific Region

Background

Food allergy (FA), which is a condition that has no effective cure and can result in severe life-threatening allergic reactions, remains a global public health concern; however, little is known about how FAs are currently managed in the Asia-Pacific region.

Objective

The main objective of this survey was to evaluate the epidemiology of FA, as well as the availability of resources and practices for management of FA and anaphylaxis by health care providers across Asia.

Methods

From June 2022 to September 2022, a questionnaire-based survey comprising 66 questions was electronically sent to member societies of the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology by using Survey Monkey.

Results

A total of 20 responses were received from 15 member countries and territories. Compared with the pediatric data, there was a lack of prevalence data for FA in adults. Except for Australia and Japan, most regions had between 0.1 and 0.5 allergists per 100,000 population and some had fewer than 0.1 allergists per 100,000 population. The perceived rate of FA in regions with a short supply of allergists was high. Although specific IgE tests and oral food challenges were available in all regions, the median wait time for oral food challenges at government facilities was 37 days (interquartile range = 10.5-60 days). Seven regions still relied on prescriptions of ampules and syringes of injectable adrenaline, and adrenaline autoinjectors were not accessible in 4 regions. Oral immunotherapy as FA treatment was available in half of the surveyed countries and territories.

Conclusions

Our study offers a cross-sectional evaluation of the management practices for FA in each Asia Pacific Association of Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology member country or territory. Urgent actions are required to enhance allergy services, improve the accessibility and affordability of adrenaline autoinjectors, and conduct robust epidemiologic studies.

Challenge-verified thresholds for allergens mandatory for labeling: How little is too much for the most sensitive patient?

BACKGROUND

It is mandatory to label food products with the 14 main allergens in the EU. Reasonable allergen labeling requires knowledge of population-based thresholds derived from food challenges. The aim of this study was to evaluate the threshold-distribution in clinically verified food allergic patients for allergens mandatory for labeling.

METHODS

All positive open oral food challenges and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) performed at the Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital, Denmark (2000-2022) were included. For each included challenge, the cumulative threshold (LOAEL) was obtained and NOAEL estimated. Data were modelled as an interval censored log-normal distribution.

RESULTS

Overall, 38 of all 2612 challenges (1.5%) in 1229 patients (717 male, 986 children) reacted to <5 mg protein. The majority of the most sensitive patients reacted with a Sampson severity score of 2-3. Using interval censored log-normal models only five groups (hens´ egg, fish, peanut, milk, tree-nuts) elicited reactions after ingestion of 0.5 mg protein and in low frequencies of the population. Hen's egg was the most potent allergen, with reactivity to <0.5 mg protein in 0.24% [0.13-0.44%] of egg allergic patients while the estimated fraction of allergic patients reacting to a eliciting dose on 0.5 mg protein for most other allergens were below 0.04%.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrates that the majority of food allergic patients as expected tolerating traces of allergenic foods without developing severe allergic symptoms and signs. Hen's egg appears to be the food most likely to elicit reactions in the most sensitive individuals at very low doses.

Comprehensive Diagnosis, Management, and Treatment of Sesame Allergy

Sesame allergy prevalence varies regionally and by age, in the range of 0.1% to 0.9%. Reactions can be severe and potentially fatal. Resolution rates are in the range of 20% to 50%. The diagnosis requires a careful history and the use of tests, such as skin prick tests and serum sesame-specific IgE. The availability of serum IgE testing for the sesame protein Ses i 1 has improved diagnostic accuracy. The emerging potential for sesame basophil activation tests and additional new tests will likely improve diagnosis in coming years, further reducing the need for diagnostic oral food challenges. Although sesame proteins share homology with those in many foods, clinically relevant cross-reactivity appears uncommon. Nevertheless, sesame is a prominent allergen for those with multiple food allergies. Management may include strict avoidance, but sesame products vary dramatically in protein content. Many people with sesame allergy tolerate forms that are low in protein, such as scattered seeds, rather than sesame paste that is protein-dense. Thus, options in the approach to avoidance are possible. Studies suggest that sesame oral immunotherapy may be safe and effective, and this and additional treatment options are emerging. Here, we review the current comprehensive diagnosis, management, and treatment for sesame allergy.

Precautionary Allergen Labeling: Avoidance for All?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) suggests the risk of unintended allergen presence (UAP) in food but is unregulated in most countries and inconsistently applied by food manufacturers. This review evaluates the current use of PAL, its relevance to allergic consumers, and weighs possible advantages and disadvantages of avoiding products with PAL.

RECENT FINDINGS

In most countries, manufacturers are free to decide whether, when, and how to apply PAL resulting in inconsistencies and consumer confusion. Patients with food allergy often interpret PAL incorrectly and without guidance from their health care providers. Health care providers are also prone to misinterpreting PAL, indicating a need for better education. Consumers desire guidance on whether to avoid products with PAL or not. Until further regulatory guidance is available, shared decision-making between patient and provider is required to offer individualized, rather than one-size-fits-all, approaches to PAL.

An ESPGHAN Position Paper on the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Cow's Milk Allergy

A previous guideline on cow's milk allergy (CMA) developed by the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) was published in 2012. This position paper provides an update on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of CMA with focus on gastrointestinal manifestations. All systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding prevalence, pathophysiology, symptoms, and diagnosis of CMA published after the previous ESPGHAN document were considered. Medline was searched from inception until May 2022 for topics that were not covered in the previous document. After reaching consensus on the manuscript, statements were formulated and voted on each of them with a score between 0 and 9. A score of ≥6 was arbitrarily considered as agreement. Available evidence on the role of dietary practice in the prevention, diagnosis, and management of CMA was updated and recommendations formulated. CMA in exclusively breastfed infants exists, but is uncommon and suffers from over-diagnosis. CMA is also over-diagnosed in formula and mixed fed infants. Changes in stool characteristics, feeding aversion, or occasional spots of blood in stool are common and in general should not be considered as diagnostic of CMA, irrespective of preceding consumption of cow's milk. Over-diagnosis of CMA occurs much more frequently than under-diagnosis; both have potentially harmful consequences. Therefore, the necessity of a challenge test after a short diagnostic elimination diet of 2-4 weeks is recommended as the cornerstone of the diagnosis. This position paper contains sections on nutrition, growth, cost, and quality of life.

Asthma and food allergy: A nuanced relationship

Asthma is one of the most common chronic health conditions that affect children and adults. It is associated with many comorbid conditions, particularly those along the allergic spectrum, such as atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, and food allergy. The relationship between asthma and food allergies involves prognosis, management, and understanding of risk for severe reactions. Both conditions are heterogeneous and can change over time, which necessitates an individualized approach toward counseling and management. Long-standing associations of an increased risk for food allergy fatality in individuals who have asthma is not as straightforward or concrete as previously believed. It is important for clinicians to have a current understanding of the evidence about the relationship between asthma and food allergy to participate in shared decision-making and counseling with patients. This review will offer background and new perspective surrounding the nuanced relationship of asthma and food allergy.

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.

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.

Will Oral Food Challenges Still Be Part of Allergy Care in 10 Years' Time?

Oral food challenges (OFCs) are currently the definitive diagnostic procedure in food allergy. Their design has evolved over the decades to maximize safety, optimize convenience, and address several specific clinical questions. However, they are a resource-intensive investigation that carry a risk for severe allergic reaction in which fatal outcomes, although rare, have been reported. In this review, we explore the many roles that OFC fulfil in the clinical and research settings. We also discuss progress that has been made in developing alternative diagnostic tools and how far these have reached in offering a viable replacement to OFC in clinical practice. Finally, we discuss the ongoing importance of research OFC to improve the future diagnostic capabilities of novel diagnostic tools.

Varying Approaches to Management of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy in Children Around the World

Food allergy is a chronic disease that affects individuals of all ages and is a significant public health problem globally. This narrative overview examines clinical management strategies for IgE-mediated food allergy in children around the world to understand variations in practice. Information was drawn from clinical practice guidelines, recent research, the websites of professional and governmental bodies with expertise in food allergy, and clinical experts from a broad cross-section of geographical regions. The structure and delivery of clinical services, allergen avoidance and food labeling, and resources to support the management of allergic reactions in the community are discussed in detail. The adoption of emerging food immunotherapies is also explored. Wide variations in clinical management of food allergy were apparent across the different countries. Common themes were continuing issues with access to specialist care and recognition of the need to balance risk reduction with dietary and social restrictions to avoid unnecessary detrimental impacts on the quality of life of food allergy sufferers. Findings highlight the need for standardized presentation of practice and priorities, and may assist clinicians and researchers when engaging with government and funding agencies to address gaps.

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

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

[Frequency of food allergy in students of human medicine of a private university]

OBJECTIVE

Determine the frequency of total food allergy, and to Peruvian products, in Human Medicine students.

METHODS

A study design is observational, descriptive and retrospective was made. Human medicine students, aged 18-25 from a private Peruvian university were included in a type of snowball sampling via electronic messaging. The sample size was calculated using the OpenEpi v3.0 program and the prevalence formula.

RESULTS

We registered 355 students, with a mean age of 20.87 years (SD ± 5.01). A frequency of food allergy was also found in 9.3% of the total participants in terms of native products and common in other countries, the highest percentage are seafood 2.24%, spices and condiments 2.24%, allergy to fruits 1.4%, milk 1.4%, red meat 0.84%.

CONCLUSIONS

The frequencies of self-reported food allergy produced was 9.3% by native Peruvian products and commonly consumed nationwide.

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

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

Food Allergy and Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases-The Next 10 Years

The first report of food allergy desensitization was in 1908, at least a few years before the first published description of a diagnostic test for food allergy. It has taken almost 100 years for food allergy to move from passive management of avoidance to a more proactive approach including prevention and treatment. In parallel, this has been matched by recognition of eosinophil gastrointestinal diseases, which were first described in the 1980s (although eosinophilic esophagitis was itself described in 1978). As we celebrate 10 years of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, we take the opportunity to look into the future and speculate how our practice may develop over the next decade.

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.

Oral immunotherapy for children with a high-threshold peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The year in food allergy

Research into food allergy continues to rapidly evolve, accompanying and driving real changes in the clinical approach to these diseases. The past year has seen the rollout of the first treatment approved for active management of food allergy, more data on alternative methods of treatment, the continued evolution of strategies for prevention of food allergy, a renewed interest in phenotyping food allergy subtypes, and, importantly, key new insights into the pathophysiology of food allergy. We expect that in the coming years, the therapies that are in preclinical or early clinical evaluation now will make their way to the clinic, finally allowing the possibility of safe and effective treatments for food allergy.

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.