Real-world adoption of FDA-approved peanut oral immunotherapy with palforzia

Addressing common questions on food oral immunotherapy: a practical guide for paediatricians

Food allergy has been increasing in prevalence in most westernised countries and poses a significant burden to patients and families; dietary and social limitations as well as psychosocial and economic burden affect daily activities, resulting in decreased quality of life. Food oral immunotherapy (food-OIT) has emerged as an active form of treatment, with multiple benefits such as increasing the threshold of reactivity to the allergenic food, decreasing reaction severity on accidental exposures, expanding dietary choices, reducing anxiety and generally improving quality of life. Risks associated with food immunotherapy mostly consist of allergic reactions during therapy. While the therapy is generally considered both safe and effective, patients and families must be informed of the aforementioned risks, understand them, and be willing to accept and hedge these risks as being worthwhile and outweighed by the anticipated benefits through a process of shared decision-making. Food-OIT is a good example of a preference-sensitive care paradigm, given candidates for this therapy must consider multiple trade-offs for what is considered an optional therapy for food allergy compared with avoidance. Additionally, clinicians who discuss OIT should remain increasingly aware of the growing impact of social media on medical decision-making and be prepared to counter misconceptions by providing clear evidence-based information during in-person encounters, on their website, and through printed information that families can take home and review.

The role of pediatricians in the diagnosis and management of IgE-mediated food allergy: a review

Importance

Food allergy can often cause a significant burden on patients, families, and healthcare systems. The complexity of food allergy management requires a multidisciplinary approach involving different types of healthcare providers, including allergists, dieticians, psychologists, nurses, family practitioners and, of particular relevance for this article, pediatric primary caretakers. Pediatricians may be the first-line healthcare providers for food allergy: strategies for management and guideline adherence have been highlighted.

Observations

This review article summarizes the up-to-date recommendations on the role of pediatricians in the diagnosis, management, and prevention of IgE-mediated food allergy. Early introduction of allergenic foods like peanut is known to be of importance to reduce the development of peanut allergy in infants, and pediatricians are essential for educating and supporting parents in this decision. In scenarios of limited allergist availability, as is often the case among rural, Medicaid and minority populations, pediatricians can assist in the evaluation and management of food allergy, and provide action plans, education and counselling for patients and families.

Conclusions and relevance

Pediatric primary caretakers play a key role in the diagnosis, management, and prevention of IgE-mediated food allergy. As more diagnostic tools and therapies in food allergy become available, the need for a multidisciplinary team is paramount to optimize patient care.

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.

Peanut allergy: risk factors, immune mechanisms, and best practices for oral immunotherapy success

INTRODUCTION

Peanut oral immunotherapy (pOIT) is the only FDA-approved treatment for food allergy and its adoption amongst allergist immunologists and their patients is growing. pOIT is the subject of numerous clinical trials, however, the focus is often on treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability, rather than identifying patients most likely to benefit from pOIT. Here, we review existing data on the clinical and immunological outcomes of pOIT that inform best practices for pOIT candidate selection.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we describe the natural history of peanut allergy, summarize immunological and clinical outcomes of pOIT at different ages, discuss the optimization of pOIT in key age groups, and finally suggest an ideal age range at which to initiate pOIT for best outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

pOIT is currently underutilized by patients and allergist-immunologists. Developing guidelines for selecting appropriate patients and optimizing treatment may help to increase access to pOIT. Many aspects of pOIT need additional study to further our understanding of the optimal timing to start pOIT, with careful consideration to clinical, immunological, and quality of life outcomes.

A clinical focus on oral tolerance in the development, prevention, and management of food allergy

Food allergy impacts up to 10 % of the population and can result in life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. The pathogenesis of food allergy is not entirely understood but the disruption in naturally occurring oral tolerance is presumed to be involved. Research has been directed not only toward prevention of food allergy but on the restoration of oral tolerance by various means including immunotherapy (oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous), as well as adjunctive therapies including biologicals and probiotics. This review paper briefly discusses the involvement of oral tolerance in the pathogenesis of food allergy and how food allergy might be prevented; however, the main focus is on the potential for restoration of oral tolerance with various treatment modalities (oral immunotherapy with and without adjunctive therapies).

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.

Real-world experience of pediatric patients treated with peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp

BACKGROUND

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) is the first oral immunotherapy indicated for children aged 4 to 17 years with peanut allergy. There are limited real-world data on patients treated with PTAH.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize pediatric patients treated with PTAH and associated treatment patterns in US clinical practice.

METHODS

US-based physicians with allergy and immunology training treating patients with peanut allergy aged 4 to 17 years with PTAH were recruited from an existing physician panel and completed an online case report form (October to December 2021) with data abstracted from patient medical charts. Physician practice circumstances, patient characteristics, and PTAH treatment patterns were reported. Time to reach the 300-mg dose and treatment persistence were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

A geographically balanced sample of 43 physicians contributed data for 118 demographically diverse pediatric patients. Patients had heterogeneous diagnostic test results, with a wide range of peanut-specific immunoglobulin E levels; 6.8% received an oral food challenge. During the updosing phase, there were no temporary interruptions and 5.1% of the patients required downdosing. Patients reached the 300-mg dose at a median of 21.3 weeks post-initiation. The rate of PTAH persistence at 24 weeks was 93.4%. Only 1 patient discontinued treatment because of treatment-related systemic allergic symptoms, and the remaining discontinuations were for reasons other than treatment-related symptoms. Prophylactic antihistamines were used by 33.9% of the patients to prevent PTAH adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

PTAH was prescribed in demographically diverse patients with a wide range of peanut-specific immunoglobulin E levels. Treatment persistence with PTAH was high in this study population, with a small number of patients experiencing treatment modification.

Endpoints and Outcomes After Immunotherapy for Food Allergy: What Is Meaningful for Patients?

Multiple novel interventions for food allergy are currently at various stages of development with the goal of reducing or eliminating allergic reactions. However, the relative success of these therapeutics in achieving meaningful, long-term improvements to patients' lives is difficult to determine as there is currently very limited understanding of the degree of alignment between clinical trial efficacy endpoints and patient-centered outcomes. Furthermore, outcome measures used in clinical trials of food allergy immunotherapies vary widely, are often misinterpreted, and not necessarily consistent with what patients expect to achieve through treatment. This review aims to assist clinicians in critically interpreting outcomes reported in clinical trials and accurately communicating risks and outcomes to patients when practicing shared decision-making.

Management of Anaphylaxis During Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) has emerged as an active management option for peanut allergy, with an FDA-approved product now available for therapy. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, can occur during therapy and their management is key in optimizing this treatment and patient outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this manuscript, we will review the rates of allergic reactions and anaphylaxis in seminal peanut oral immunotherapy research studies. We will examine factors that can alter the risk of anaphylaxis and describe various strategies, including adjunct therapies, that have the potential to mitigate anaphylaxis risk based on published evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rates of anaphylaxis and epinephrine administration vary in different research studies, but there is consensus that most POIT-related allergic reactions are mild or moderate and not severe. Certain external factors (for example, tiredness, exercise, viral illness) as well as uncontrolled allergic co-morbidities (asthma, allergic rhinitis) have been shown to increase the risk of anaphylaxis during OIT. The search of biomarkers who may predict who is at risk for severe allergic reactions is ongoing. Adjunct therapies have shown promise, but further studies are required to optimize their use alongside POIT. Our understanding of anaphylaxis during POIT has increased in recent years, resulting in better management strategies. However, future plans will need to involve all stakeholders, including physicians, patients and families, researchers, public health authorities, and the food, hospitality, and catering industries.

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.

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.

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.

Measuring the Impact of Food Immunotherapy on Health-Related Quality of Life in Clinical Trials

Food allergy is a common, and often lifelong, disorder with considerable negative impact on the quality of life of those affected and their families. While several promising immunotherapies for food allergy have either been approved or are in late-phase clinical trials based on demonstrated effectiveness at inducing desensitization, evidence of benefit in terms of improving patient-centered outcomes is inconsistent. Historically, health-related quality of life has not been prioritized as an endpoint in food immunotherapy trials and, even when included, findings have been undermined by methodological limitations of the measurement instruments used and issues with data interpretation. This review highlights the importance of measuring health-related quality of life as an endpoint in food immunotherapy trials and discusses the strengths and limitations of available evidence in this regard, with a focus on the appropriate use of assessment instruments and interpretation of findings. There remains much to learn regarding the impact of food immunotherapies on patient wellbeing, both during treatment and over the longer term. Our aim is to assist clinicians, researchers, policy makers and consumers in their interpretation of the existing literature, and to promote greater scientific rigor in the design and selection of outcome measurement frameworks for future studies evaluating the efficacy of immunotherapy treatments for food allergy.

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.