Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Tree Nut Oral Immunotherapy

Oral food immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis

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

Current options in the management of tree nut allergy: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Tree nut allergy is a lifelong and potentially life-threatening condition. The standard of care is strictly avoiding the culprit nut and treating accidental reactions symptomatically. To evaluate potential therapeutic options for desensitizing patients with IgE-mediated tree nut allergy, we systematically searched three bibliographic databases for studies published until January 2024. We looked for active treatments of IgE-mediated allergy to tree nuts (walnut, hazelnut, pistachio, cashew, almond, pecan, macadamia nut, and brazil nut). We focused on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) using oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), epicutaneous (EPIT), or subcutaneous (SCIT) delivery, or other disease-modifying treatments. We found 19 studies that met our criteria: 3 studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, 5 studied oral immunotherapy to a single tree nut, and 6 used multi-food oral immunotherapy with or without omalizumab. The remaining studies investigated the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies or IgE-immunoadsorption in multi-food allergic patients, including patients with tree nut allergy. The heterogeneity of the studies prevented pooling and meta-analysis. Oral immunotherapy, single or multi-nut, with or without omalizumab, was the most studied approach and appears effective in conferring protection from accidental exposures. Omalizumab monotherapy is the only approved alternative management for reducing allergic reactions that may occur with accidental exposure.

The Future of Food Allergy Management: Advancements in Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review current and future treatment options for IgE-mediated food allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent years have seen major developments in both allergen-specific and allergen-non-specific treatment options, with the first FDA-approved peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) product becoming available in 2020. In addition to OIT, other immunotherapy modalities, biologics, adjunct therapies, and novel therapeutics are under investigation. Food allergy is a potentially life-threatening condition associated with a significant psychosocial impact. Numerous products and protocols are under investigation, with most studies focusing on OIT. A high rate of adverse events, need for frequent office visits, and cost remain challenges with OIT. Further work is needed to unify outcome measures, develop treatment protocols that minimize adverse events, establish demographic and clinical factors that influence candidate selection, and identify patient priorities.

A Review of Shared Decision-Making, Published Protocols, and Post-desensitization Strategies in Oral Immunotherapy (OIT)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use.

RECENT FINDINGS

With food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Oral immunotherapy as a curative treatment for food-allergic preschool children: Current evidence and potential underlying mechanisms

The worldwide rising prevalence of food allergy is a major public health concern. Standard care consists of allergen avoidance and rescue medication upon accidental exposure. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is increasingly being studied as a treatment option. Although desensitization (an increased reaction threshold) is often achieved during OIT, sustained unresponsiveness (SU; clinical nonreactivity after finishing OIT) is not achieved in most patients. A few studies have investigated the effectiveness of OIT in children younger than 4 years of age (early = e-OIT) and have shown a much more favorable outcome in terms of SU development. Together with food allergy prevention studies, which have demonstrated high efficacy of early oral allergen exposure, the outcomes of e-OIT studies indicate an early-life window of opportunity to achieve SU, allowing unrestricted dietary intake. However, the underlying mechanism of the high effectiveness of e-OIT is not understood yet. Both cohort and OIT studies indicate early-life immune plasticity. An immature food-allergic response in the first years of life seems to be a major driver of this immune plasticity, along with a higher tolerogenic immunological state. Allergy maturation can likely be disrupted effectively by early intervention, preventing the development of persistent food allergy. Upcoming studies will provide important additional data on the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of e-OIT. Combined with immune mechanistic studies, this should inform the implementation of e-OIT.