Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: The con argument

From Skin to Solution: Exploring Epicutaneous Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peanut allergy is a leading cause of severe food reactions. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) compared to placebo for peanut-allergic individuals. After prospectively registering on PROSPERO, we searched three databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and 2 trial registries till September 2023. Analysis was conducted via RevMan where data was computed using risk ratios (RR). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE criteria were used to appraise and evaluate the evidence. From 4927 records, six multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trials comprising 1453 participants were included. The 250 µg EPIT group had a significant increase in successful desensitization compared to placebo (RR: 2.13 (95% C.I: 1.72, 2.64), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), while the 100 µg EPIT group did not (RR: 1.54 (95% C.I: 0.92, 2.58), P = 0.10, I2 = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence). Moreover, there was a significant increase in local (RR: 1.69 (95% C.I: 1.06, 2.68), P = 0.03, I2 = 89%) and systemic adverse events (RR: 1.75 (95% C.I: 1.14, 2.69), P = 0.01, I2 = 0%) with EPIT. Additionally, individuals administered EPIT have an increased probability of requiring rescue medications like epinephrine (RR: 1.91 (95% C.I: 1.12, 3.28), P = 0.02, I2 = 0%) and topical corticosteroids (RR: 1.49 (95% C.I: 1.29, 1.73), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%) to treat adverse events. The association of adverse events post-treatment including anaphylaxis (RR: 2.31 (95% C.I: 1.00, 5.33), P = 0.05, I2 = 36%), skin/subcutaneous disorders like erythema or vesicles (RR: 0.93 (95% C.I: 0.79, 1.08), P = 0.33, I2 = 0%), and respiratory disorders like dyspnea or wheezing (RR: 0.94 (95% C.I: 0.77, 1.15), P = 0.55, I2 = 0%) with EPIT is inconclusive. EPIT, although effective in desensitization, is linked to an increased risk of adverse events. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023466600.

Omalizumab in IgE-Mediated Food Allergy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.

METHODS

An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy in children: is it worth it?

INTRODUCTION

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective at inducing desensitization in food-allergic individuals, and is a valid therapeutic option for those allergic to peanut, cow's milk and egg. However, there is a high rate of dose-related adverse events, and at least one fatality to OIT has been reported.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an update on the broader framework of issues which will impact on the availability and uptake of OIT.

EXPERT OPINION

The need for standardized products remains controversial. A licensed product exists for peanut-OIT, but OIT can also be safely achieved using peanut-containing foods at much lower cost. For other allergens, OIT can only be done with non-pharma products - something which has been done safely for over 2 decades. There is a need to develop personalized protocols for OIT, particularly for the 20% of patients unable to tolerate standard OIT. Cost-effectiveness is dependent on improved quality of life, but evidence for this is currently lacking, and is a key evidence gap. OIT is likely to be cost-effective, particularly if noncommercial products are used. There may be a trade-off: in patients with lower reaction thresholds, a commercial product may be needed for initial updosing, until a level of desensitization is achieved when they can be switched to natural food products.

The use of biologics in food allergy

BACKGROUND

Food allergy continues to pose problems due to its increased frequency and its increasingly high severity. In this context, alongside the traditional avoidance strategies of allergenic foods and desensitization through the cautious progression of exposure to foods in the context of oral immunotherapy (OIT), alternative strategies have made their way in the last decades. We review the possibilities of intervention in food allergy with the use of biological drugs capable of interfering with the synthesis of IgE, with their mechanisms of action, or with complex biological mechanisms that lead to the establishment of a food allergy.

METHODS

Repeated Entrez PubMed searches using the template algorithm "Food allergy" and "biologics" or "Omalizumab" or "Dupilumab" or "milk desensitization" or "oral tolerance induction" or "oral immunotherapy" or "Etokimab" or "Tezepelumab" or "Quilizumab" or "Ligelizumab" or "Tralokinumab" or "Nemolizumab" or "Mepolizumab" or "Reslizumab" or "Benralizumab". The authors' clinical experience in paediatric allergy units of University hospitals was also drawn upon.

RESULTS

The landscape in this context has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. We have acquired knowledge mainly on the effect of different types of anti-IgE treatments in poliallergic patients with food allergy, and in patients treated with OIT. However, other mediators are being targeted by specific biologic treatments. Among them, the alarmins Il-33 and TSLP, IL-4 and IL-13, eosinophil-related molecules as IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, and mostly IL-5, and integrins involved in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs), as SIGLEC-8.

CONCLUSIONS

The ever-better knowledge of the mechanisms of food allergy allowing these developments will improve not only the perspective of patients with the most serious immediate food allergies such as anaphylaxis, but also those of patients with related diseases such as atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and EGIDs. Biologics are also intended to complement OIT strategies that have developed over the years.