Phenotype consensus is required to enable large-scale genetic consortium studies of food allergy

Safety and Effectiveness of Bypassing Oral Immunotherapy Buildup With an Initial Phase of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Higher-Risk Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Because of its favorable safety, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy has been proposed as an alternative treatment for those in whom oral immunotherapy (OIT) is of higher risk-older children, adolescents, adults, and those with a history of severe reactions. Although safe, SLIT has been shown to be less effective than OIT.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety of multifood SLIT in pediatric patients aged 4 to 18 years and the effectiveness of bypassing OIT buildup with an initial phase of SLIT.

METHODS

Patients aged 4 to 18 years were offered (multi)food SLIT. Patients built up to 2 mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of 3 to 5 visits under nurse supervision. After 1 to 2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC) (cumulative dose, 300 mg protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

RESULTS

Between summer 2020 and winter 2023, 188 patients were enrolled in SLIT (median age, 11 years). Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department, but none experienced grade 4 (severe) reaction. A subset of 20 patients had 50 low-dose OFCs to 300 mg protein and 35 (70%) OFCs were successful, thereby bypassing OIT buildup.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with very favorable safety of SLIT, with no life-threatening reactions and few reactions requiring epinephrine, we propose that an initial phase of SLIT to bypass supervised OIT buildup be considered for children in whom OIT is considered to be of higher risk.

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective for preventing eczema or food allergy.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess the effects of skin care interventions such as emollients for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants. Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an updated search of the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in September 2021. We searched two trials registers in July 2021. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews, and scanned conference proceedings to identify further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (≤ 12 months) without pre-existing eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition. Eligible comparisons were standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions could include moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured at the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 RCTs comprising 25,827 participants. Of these, 17 studies randomising 5823 participants reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review.  We included 11 studies, randomising 5217 participants, in one or more meta-analyses (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis), with 10 of these studies providing IPD; the remaining 6 studies were included in the narrative results only.   Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although the definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to three years. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported information on our prespecified outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. We assessed most of the evidence in the review as low certainty and had some concerns about risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. We assessed the evidence for the primary food allergy outcome as high risk of bias due to the inclusion of only one trial, where findings varied based on different assumptions about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change the risk of eczema by one to three years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; risk difference 5 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI 28 less to 47 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) or time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may increase the risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to three years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.49; low-certainty evidence; 976 participants, 1 trial) but may not change risk of allergic sensitisation to a food allergen by age one to three years (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71; low-certainty evidence; 1794 participants, 3 trials). Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial); however, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to over-reporting of milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.75; risk difference 17 more cases per 1000 infants, 95% CI one more to 38 more; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase the risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) and stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although CIs for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions were wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses showed that the effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, filaggrin (FLG) mutation, chromosome 11 intergenic variant rs2212434, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and eczema or food allergy development.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low- to moderate-certainty evidence, skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema; may increase risk of food allergy; and probably increase risk of skin infection. Further study is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might prevent eczema or food allergy.

Scientific Opinion on development needs for the allergenicity and protein safety assessment of food and feed products derived from biotechnology

This Scientific Opinion addresses the formulation of specific development needs, including research requirements for allergenicity assessment and protein safety, in general, which is urgently needed in a world that demands more sustainable food systems. Current allergenicity risk assessment strategies are based on the principles and guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius for the safety assessment of foods derived from 'modern' biotechnology initially published in 2003. The core approach for the safety assessment is based on a 'weight-of-evidence' approach because no single piece of information or experimental method provides sufficient evidence to predict allergenicity. Although the Codex Alimentarius and EFSA guidance documents successfully addressed allergenicity assessments of single/stacked event GM applications, experience gained and new developments in the field call for a modernisation of some key elements of the risk assessment. These should include the consideration of clinical relevance, route of exposure and potential threshold values of food allergens, the update of in silico tools used with more targeted databases and better integration and standardisation of test materials and in vitro/in vivo protocols. Furthermore, more complex future products will likely challenge the overall practical implementation of current guidelines, which were mainly targeted to assess a few newly expressed proteins. Therefore, it is timely to review and clarify the main purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment and the vital role it plays in protecting consumers' health. A roadmap to (re)define the allergenicity safety objectives and risk assessment needs will be required to inform a series of key questions for risk assessors and risk managers such as 'what is the purpose of the allergenicity risk assessment?' or 'what level of confidence is necessary for the predictions?'.

It is no skin off my nose: The relationship between the skin and allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Evidence supports the relationship between the skin barrier and allergic conditions. This narrative review evaluates what role the cutaneous barrier may play in the pathogenesis, disease course, and management of allergic rhinitis (AR).

DATA SOURCES

A literature review of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane, and SCOPUS Sciverse databases was conducted to identify available evidence. Reference lists of pertinent papers were searched using a snowball technique.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Papers published in English from all years until December 2020 were included. Papers that did not address the relationship between AR and the skin and hypothesis papers were excluded.

RESULTS

The cutaneous barrier shares histologic characteristics with the sinonasal epithelial barrier, which may explain commonalities between AR and atopic dermatitis. A disruption in the epithelial barrier could be a common pathway in the development of multiple allergic conditions. The skin is a common target for the treatment of AR. Available data that look at the relationship between the skin and AR often include other topics such as other atopic disorders and the role of the epithelial barrier. Increased understanding of how the cutaneous barrier affects AR may lead to new innovations in its management.

CONCLUSION

The connection between the cutaneous barrier and AR holds possibilities for further investigation, and these may lead to a better understanding and future innovations for all atopic diseases.

Modeling the conversion between specific IgE test platforms for nut allergens in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

Multiplex tests allow for measurement of allergen-specific IgE responses to multiple extracts and molecular allergens and have several advantages for large cohort studies. Due to significant methodological differences, test systems are difficult to integrate in meta-analyses/systematic reviews since there is a lack of datasets with direct comparison. We aimed to create models for statistical integration of allergen-specific IgE to peanut/tree nut allergens from three IgE test platforms.

METHODS

Plasma from Canadian and Austrian children/adolescents with peanut/tree nut sensitization and a cohort of sensitized, high-risk, pre-school asthmatics (total n = 166) were measured with three R&D multiplex IgE test platforms: Allergy Explorer version 1 (ALEX) (Macro Array Dx), MeDALL-chip (Mechanisms of Development of Allergy) (Thermo Fisher), and EUROLINE (EUROIMMUN). Skin prick test (n = 51) and ImmunoCAP (Thermo Fisher) (n = 62) results for extracts were available in a subset. Regression models (Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines, local polynomial regression) were applied if >30% of samples were positive to the allergen. Intra-test correlations between PR-10 and nsLTP allergens were assessed.

RESULTS

Using two regression methods, we demonstrated the ability to model allergen-specific relationships with acceptable measures of fit (r²  = 94%-56%) for peanut and tree nut sIgE testing at the extract and molecular-level, in order from highest to lowest: Ara h 2, Ara h 6, Jug r 1, Ana o 3, Ara h 1, Jug r 2, and Cor a 9.

CONCLUSION

Our models support the notion that quantitative conversion is possible between sIgE multiplex platforms for extracts and molecular allergens and may provide options to aggregate data for future meta-analysis.

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy

BACKGROUND

Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.

MAIN RESULTS

This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation,  or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.