Successful oral tolerance induction in severe peanut allergy

Transitioning peanut oral immunotherapy to clinical practice

Peanut allergy is on the rise in industrialized countries, affecting 1%-4.5% of children and generally persisting into adulthood. It is associated with a risk of severe anaphylaxis and is one of the major causes of food allergy-induced deaths. Health-related quality of life is significantly impaired for patients and affected families due to food restrictions attributable to omnipresent precautionary allergen labeling, constant risk of potentially life-threatening reactions, and limitation of social activities. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as a valid treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated peanut allergy, with randomized controlled trials and real-life studies showing a high rate of desensitization and a favorable safety profile, especially in young children. Ultimately, the decision to initiate peanut OIT relies on a multidisciplinary shared decision-making process, involving open, personalized and evidence-based discussions with patients and their caregivers.

Insights into Microbiome and Metabolic Signatures of Children Undergoing Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

Background: Peanut oral immunotherapy has emerged as a novel, active management approach for peanut-allergic sufferers, but limited data exist currently on the role of the microbiome in successful desensitization. Objective: We examined the oral and gut microbiome in a cohort of 17 children undergoing peanut oral immunotherapy with the aim to identify the microbiome signatures associated with successful desensitization. We also set out to characterize their fecal metabolic profiles after successful therapy. Methods: Participants gradually built up their daily dose from 2 mg (starting dose) to 300 mg (maintenance dose) within approximately 40 weeks. We collected a buccal and stool specimen from each subject at two different time points: at baseline and post-therapy (1 month after reaching maintenance). The oral (buccal) and gut (fecal) microbiome was characterized based on sequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicons with Illumina MiSeq. Fecal short chain fatty acid levels were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Results: We report increased alpha diversity of the oral microbiome post-therapy and have also identified a significant increase in the relative abundance of oral Actinobacteria, associated with the desensitized state. However, the baseline gut microbiome did not differ from the post-therapy. Additionally, fecal short chain fatty acids increased after therapy, but not significantly. Conclusion: Our research adds to the limited current knowledge on microbiome and metabolic signatures in pediatric patients completing oral immunotherapy. Post-therapy increased trends of fecal fatty acid levels support a role in modulating the allergic response and potentially exerting protective and anti-inflammatory effects alongside successful desensitization. A better understanding of the microbiome-related mechanisms underlying desensitization may allow development of smarter therapeutic approaches in the near future. Clinical implication: The oral microbiome composition is altered following successful peanut oral immunotherapy, with a significant increase in alpha diversity and the relative abundance of phylum Actinobacteria. Capsule summary: Significant microbiome changes in children completing peanut immunotherapy include increase in alpha-diversity and overrepresentation of Actinobacteria in the oral microbiome, and increased trends for fecal short chain fatty acids, suggesting a protective effect against the allergic response.

A three-stage design for allergen immunotherapy trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) may require up to 5 years to complete. These lengthy trials may be complicated by high and potentially differential dropouts, especially among participants who perceive that they are receiving placebo. We propose a three-stage design in which the placebo group in Stage 1 crosses over to receive active treatment in Stage 2. In Stage 3, AIT is discontinued to determine whether benefit is maintained post-treatment. We apply inferential statistics to support the three-stage design for clinical trials to determine clinical efficacy, treatment response over time, and sustained response to AIT.

METHODS

The proposed framework constitutes a series of hypothesis tests for comparing treatment responses at the end of each stage. A simulation study was performed to illustrate the statistical properties under varying statistical missing mechanisms and effect sizes.

RESULTS

The statistical properties in terms of bias and statistical power were consistent with what are expected from conventional analyses. Specifically, the extent of bias depended on the missing mechanism and magnitude. The statistical powers were largely driven by effect and sample sizes as well as prespecified success margins. As an illustration, assuming relative treatment differences of 25% and stagewise dropout rate of 15%, a sample size of 200 per group may achieve 93% power to demonstrate a treatment effect and 60% power to demonstrate a maintained response post-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Inferential statistics support our proposed study design for evaluating benefits of AIT over time and inform clinical understanding and decisions.

Oral tolerance: an updated review

Oral tolerance (OT) has classically been defined as the specific suppression of cellular and/or humoral immune responses to an antigen by prior administration of the antigen through the oral route. Multiple mechanisms have been proposed to explain the induction of OT including T cell clonal depletion and anergy when high doses of antigens are fed, and regulatory T (Treg) cell generation following oral administration of low and repeated doses of antigens. Oral antigen administration suppresses the immune response in several animal models of autoimmune disease, including experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, uveitis, thyroiditis, myasthenia, arthritis and diabetes, but also non-autoimmune inflammatory conditions such as asthma, atherosclerosis, graft rejection, allergy and stroke. However, human trials have given mixed results and a great deal remains to be learned about the mechanisms of OT before it can be successfully applied to people. One of the possible mechanisms relates to the gut microbiota and in this review, we will explore the cellular components involved in the induction of OT and the role of the gut microbiota in contributing to OT development.

Immunotherapy Effectiveness in Treating Peanut Hypersensitivity: A Systemic Review

Peanut hypersensitivity is one of the top causes of food-related allergic responses and death in high-income countries. As a result, the goal of this study was to see if various forms of immunotherapies can help reduce the severity of peanut hypersensitivity reactions.

From 2019 to 2021, a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley online library, and Science Direct was done. Peanut immunotherapy (PIT) clinical trials were considered. There were 19 trials with a total of 1565 participants. Twelve were on oral immunotherapy (OIT), two on sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), two on subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), two on epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), and one was a comparison of SLIT and OIT.

Desensitization was achieved by 74.3% of those who received OIT, 11% of those who received SLIT, 61% of those who received SCIT, and 49% of those who received EPIT. The majority of adverse events (AE) were mild to moderate. Those requiring epinephrine, on the other hand, were moderate to severe and were more common in the therapy groups.

This systematic review showed that the current PIT regimens can accomplish desensitization regardless of the route of administration, with an acceptable safety profile.

Oral tolerance as antigen-specific immunotherapy

Oral tolerance is a physiological phenomenon described more than a century ago as a suppressive immune response to antigens that gain access to the body by the oral route. It is a robust and long-lasting event with local and systemic effects in which the generation of mucosally induced regulatory T cells (iTreg) plays an essential role. The idea of using oral tolerance to inhibit autoimmune and allergic diseases by oral administration of target antigens was an important development that was successfully tested in 1980s. Since then, several studies have shown that feeding specific antigens can be used to prevent and control chronic inflammatory diseases in both animal models and clinically. Therefore, oral tolerance can be classified as an antigen-specific form of oral immunotherapy (OIT). In the light of novel findings on mechanisms, sites of induction and factors affecting oral tolerance, this review will focus on specific characteristics of oral tolerance induction and how they impact in its therapeutic application.

Food allergy oral immunotherapy

Food allergy oral immunotherapy (OIT) has demonstrated efficacy in promoting clinically relevant immunomodulation that leads to desensitization (reduced reactivity while on OIT) in the majority of treated individuals; however, sustained unresponsiveness after OIT cessation for a specified interval has only been observed in a subset. The potential therapeutic benefits of OIT must be balanced with the risk for adverse events. These adverse events may range from self-limited or easily treated oropharyngeal, respiratory, or gastrointestinal symptoms to persistent abdominal symptoms that lead to cessation of therapy and to anaphylaxis. To date, the majority of studies have evaluated single-allergen OIT approaches; however, multi-allergen OIT has demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy outcomes, and is the subject of ongoing investigation. Recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the first licensed OIT product for peanut allergy challenges the long-standing paradigm of dietary food avoidance as the sole option for individuals with food allergy. Yet, the limitations of this "first-generation" treatment support the need for continued research and development of next-generation therapies to improve efficacy, minimize risk, and allow for broad applicability to both individuals with single-food allergy and those with multifood allergies. Optimizing future therapies will require developing novel approaches that maximize both efficacy and safety and/or tolerability outcomes, potentially through the combination with biologic therapies or adjuvants. Shared decision-making among patients, physicians, and parents and/or caregivers is critical to select optimal candidates for treatment with OIT by balancing the potential therapeutic benefit and possible risk reduction with a realistic consideration of OIT treatment burden and the risk of treatment-related adverse events.

Oral immunotherapy with peach juice in patients allergic to LTPs

Introduction

To assess the safety and efficacy of an oral immunotherapy regimen in patients with allergy to lipid transfer proteins (LTPs).

Materials and methods

Prospective study of 24 patients allergic to LTP with positive skin test and a history of anaphylaxis. All patients underwent a desensitization protocol with commercial peach juice. Rising doses of peach juice were administered, starting with an initial dose of seven drops of a 1/1000 dilution and finishing with a dose of 5 ml at visit 17. At visit 18, all patients performed an open challenge with whole juice at a cumulative dose of 200 ml. All adverse reactions occurring during the administration of the different doses were recorded. Levels of rPru p 3 in the juice were quantified.

Results

There were no severe reactions during the desensitization process in the 24 patients. Seven patients (29%) reported mild oral symptoms, and two patients (8%) had urticaria associated with co-factors (one due to exercise and another due to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Nineteen patients were able to swallow 5 ml of juice and five withdrew from the study. In two pregnant patients the final challenge was not performed. In all, 17/24 patients were able to consume 200 ml peach juice without developing symptoms.

Conclusions

Oral immunotherapy with the regimen used in this study is an effective and safe short-term therapeutic option for patients with allergy to LTPs. Commercial peach juice appears to be suitable for this treatment.

Identification of goals and barriers to treatment from 92 consecutive consultations with families considering peanut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy has become an important public health issue. It can be the cause of severe reactions and also the trigger of significant anxiety for the allergic individual, especially with regards to the risk of unintentional accidental exposures. Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is a newly developed treatment approach that has been shown to be highly effective in multiple research studies and has been associated with an acceptable safety profile. This treatment modality is likely to become more mainstream in the next few years with new commercial entities pursuing United States Food and Drug Administration approval for relevant products and multiple providers offering various forms of immunotherapy in their practices.

METHODS

The aim of our study was to obtain an accurate assessment of goals of treatment as well as concerns and barriers from families considering POIT in either the research or clinical setting. A single clinician allergist met with all the families and conducted semi-structured interviews on POIT. Families were provided with standardized written information on POIT prior to the consultation, which was used as a formalized instrument to communicate treatment protocols. Conversations were not recorded, but collected information was scribed by a second clinician who did not actively participate in the consultation. Scribed information was coded by the investigators. Thematic analysis identified common topics emerging from the discussions.

RESULTS

We report on the results of 92 consecutive family consultations on POIT conducted over a period of 1 year. Approximately 50% of the families had already researched POIT online, with 25% of families reported being part of Facebook parent groups. Groups identified the following areas as the most important considerations: efficacy, practical information, safety, benefits and goals, eligibility criteria and support in making the right decision. For all families pursuing POIT for their child, the initial goal was achieving protection from accidental exposure and cross-contamination and for approximately one-quarter, consumption of high peanut doses was the ultimate goal.

CONCLUSION

Our research adds to the limited available data in this area and provides information that may be used as an initial platform for clinical consultations and shared decision-making in POIT. Obtaining a better understanding of patients' expectations and concerns will hopefully facilitate this process, enabling more fruitful and engaging interactions between families and healthcare providers in the field of food allergy.

Microbial Adjuncts for Food Allergen Immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergen immunotherapy may benefit from adjunct therapies to enhance safety and efficacy. We review preclinical studies investigating the effects of probiotics and other microbial-based interventions on oral tolerance, describe the human clinical trial evidence thus far for microbial adjuncts, and discuss steps for translating research findings in this area to clinical therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Murine studies support that microbial-based interventions confer protection against sensitization and may augment treatment efficacy for food allergy. Microbial adjunct therapies can promote regulatory T cells and modulate Th1 vs. Th2 responses. There is a wide array of novel modalities utilizing microbial components. Ongoing efforts are focused on translating preclinical data into potential treatments. Probiotics, prebiotics, and microbial components have all been examined as microbial adjunct therapies in murine models of food allergy. The effects of probiotics appear to be strain-specific. Prebiotics and bacterial components are innovative modalities to modulate oral tolerance. Better characterization of dysbiosis in human cohorts with food allergy, deeper mechanistic understanding of microbial adjunct therapies, safety evaluation, and careful clinical trial design will be crucial for the development of microbial adjuncts for food allergen immunotherapy. Microbial adjunct therapies have the potential to enhance the efficacy, safety, and durability of food allergen immunotherapy.

Feasibility of desensitizing children highly allergic to peanut by high-dose oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the feasibility, efficacy and safety of high-dose oral immunotherapy (OIT) in children highly allergic to peanuts.

OBJECTIVE

In children highly allergic to peanut, we primarily aimed to determine the feasibility of reaching the maximum maintenance dose (MMD) of 5000 mg peanut protein or, alternatively, a lower individual maintenance dose (IMD), by OIT up-dosing. Secondarily, we aimed to identify adverse events (AEs) and determine factors associated with reaching a maintenance dose.

METHODS

The TAKE-AWAY peanut OIT trial enrolled 77 children 5-15 years old, with a positive oral peanut challenge. Fifty-seven were randomized to OIT with biweekly dose step-up until reaching MMD or IMD and 20 to observation only. Demographic and biological characteristics, AEs, medication and protocol deviations were explored for associations with reaching maintenance dose.

RESULTS

All children had anaphylaxis defined by objective symptoms in minimum two organ systems during baseline challenge. The MMD was reached by 21.1%, while 54.4% reached an IMD of median (minimum, maximum) 2700 (250, 4000) mg peanut protein, whereas 24.5% discontinued OIT. During up-dosing, 19.4% experienced anaphylaxis. Not reaching the MMD was caused by distaste for peanuts (66.7%), unacceptable AEs (26.7%) and social reasons (6.7%). Increased peanut s-IgG₄ /s-IgE ratio (OR [95% CI]: 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]) was associated with reaching MMD.

CONCLUSION

Although 75.5% of children with peanut anaphylaxis reached a maintenance dose of 0.25-5 g, only 21.1% reached the MMD. Distaste for peanuts and AEs, including high risk of anaphylaxis, limited the feasibility of reaching MMD.

Oral and Sublingual Immunotherapy for Treatment of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy

Development of active therapies for IgE-mediated food allergy is a critical action step toward alleviating the adverse medical, psychosocial, and economic burdens on affected patients and families. Significant progress has been observed specifically in the application of single-allergen oral and sublingual immunotherapy for treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy, with emphasis on milk, egg, and peanut as the primary allergens. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has demonstrated efficacy in promoting immunomodulatory effects that lead to the clinical outcome of desensitization, defined as reduced reactivity while on active OIT, in the majority of treated individuals; however, achievement of sustained unresponsiveness following cessation of therapy has been observed in a smaller subset of treated subjects. The potential therapeutic benefits of OIT must be carefully considered in light of the significant potential for adverse events ranging from self-limited or easily treated oropharyngeal, respiratory or gastrointestinal symptoms, to persistent abdominal complaints that lead to cessation of therapy in an estimated 10-15% of treated individuals. To date, the majority of studies have focused on single-allergen OIT approaches; however, multi-allergen OIT has shown promise in initial trials and is the subject of ongoing investigation to address the complex needs of multi-food allergic individuals. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been utilized for the treatment of food allergy and pollen-food allergy syndrome, demonstrating moderate efficacy, a favorable safety profile and variable tolerability, with oropharyngeal symptoms most commonly observed. Although studies directly comparing OIT and SLIT are limited, in general, the favorable safety profile associated with SLIT comes at the expense of reduced efficacy, while the more robust clinical effects observed with OIT come at the risk of potentially intolerable, treatment-limiting side effects. Future investigation to address specific knowledge gaps including optimal dose, duration, age of initiation, maintenance schedule, mechanisms, predictors of risk and therapeutic response will be important to maximize efficacy, minimize risk and develop personalized, effective approaches to targeting food allergy.

Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of Life in a Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Low-Dose Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children with Peanut Allergy

BACKGROUND

Only 2 small placebo-controlled trials on peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been published.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the efficacy, safety, immunologic parameters, quality of life (QOL), and burden of treatment (BOT) of low-dose peanut OIT in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS

A total of 62 children aged 3 to 17 years with IgE-mediated, challenge-proven peanut allergy were randomized (1:1) to receive peanut OIT with a maintenance dose of 125 to 250 mg peanut protein or placebo. The primary outcome was the proportion of children tolerating 300 mg or more peanut protein at oral food challenge (OFC) after 16 months of OIT. We measured the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), immunologic changes, and QOL before and after OIT and BOT during OIT.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 31 (74.2%) children of the active group tolerated at least 300 mg peanut protein at final OFC compared with 5 of 31 (16.1%) in the placebo group (P < .001). Thirteen of 31 (41.9%) children of the active versus 1 of 31 (3.2%) of the placebo group tolerated the highest dose of 4.5 g peanut protein at final OFC (P < .001). There was no significant difference between the groups in the occurrence of AE-related dropouts or in the number, severity, and treatment of objective AEs. In the peanut-OIT group, we noted a significant reduction in peanut-specific IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, and IL-2 production by PBMCs compared with the placebo group, as well as a significant increase in peanut-specific IgG₄ levels and a significant improvement in QOL; 86% of children evaluated the BOT positively.

DISCUSSION

Low-dose OIT is a promising, effective, and safe treatment option for peanut-allergic children, leading to improvement in QOL, a low BOT, and immunologic changes showing tolerance development.

Food-Induced Anaphylaxis: an Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to provide an update of recent advances in the epidemiology, clinical features and diagnosis, and management of food-induced anaphylaxis (FIA).

RECENT FINDINGS

Food allergy prevalence and FIA rates continue to rise, but FIA fatalities are stable. Basophil and mast cell activation tests promise more accurate identification of food triggers. Oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy can desensitize a significant portion of subjects. Epinephrine use for FIA remains sub-optimal. As the burden of food allergy continues to increase, it appears that the corresponding increase in research focused on this epidemic is beginning to bear fruit. The stable number of FIA fatalities in the face of an ongoing epidemic indicates lives have already been saved. The emergence of new diagnostic tests and interventional therapies may transform the management of FIA in the coming years.

Peanut gastrointestinal delivery oral immunotherapy in adolescents: Results of the build-up phase of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PITA study)

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy to peanut is effective in desensitizing patients but has significant side effects including anaphylaxis and gastrointestinal symptoms. In most protocols, peanut is administered in a vehicle food.

OBJECTIVE

In an exclusively adolescent population, we tested a new approach using sealed capsules of peanut (gastrointestinal delivery oral immunotherapy or GIDOIT) to bypass the upper gastrointestinal tract. The primary aim was to assess the efficacy of the oral build-up phase of GIDOIT and the secondary aim to analyse its safety.

METHODS

Adolescents with a history of a clinical allergic reaction after peanut ingestion were included in a 2-armed, parallel-design, individually randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial after a positive double-blind placebo-controlled oral food challenge (DBPCFC1). A central randomization centre used computer-generated tables to allocate treatments. Peanut (or placebo) capsules were ingested daily over a period of 24 weeks with increments every 2 weeks from 2 to 400 mg of peanut protein (pp). Primary outcome was tolerance of 400 mg of pp at DBPCFC2.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included between September 2013 and May 2014. At DBPCFC2, unresponsiveness to 400 mg of pp was achieved in 17/21 peanut group patients (2 withdrawn patients) and 1/9 in the placebo group (Intention-to-treat analysis, P < .001, absolute difference = 0.7, 95%IC 0.43 0.96). Oropharyngeal symptoms were equally frequent in both groups. No dysphagia or other signs of eosinophilic oesophagitis occurred. Digestive adverse events (AE) were more frequent in the treated group (P = .02), but mild and without compliance issues. Only one severe advent event led to withdrawal in a patient who ingested twice the investigated treatment. Peanut-specific humoral immune responses were modulated.

CONCLUSION

The GIDOIT protocol demonstrated clinical and immunological efficacy and had an acceptable level of safety with weak oropharyngeal symptoms, no dysphagia, mild digestive events and few severe systemic AE.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of peanut and tree nut allergy

Peanut nut and tree nut allergy are characterised by IgE mediated reactions to nut proteins. Nut allergy is a global disease. Limited epidemiological data suggest varying prevalence in different geographical areas. Primary nut allergy affects over 2% of children and 0.5% of adults in the UK. Infants with severe eczema and/or egg allergy have a higher risk of peanut allergy. Primary nut allergy presents most commonly in the first five years of life, often after the first known ingestion with typical rapid onset IgE-mediated symptoms. The clinical diagnosis of primary nut allergy can be made by the combination of a typical clinical presentation and evidence of nut specifc IgE shown by a positive skin prick test (SPT) or specific IgE (sIgE) test. Pollen food syndrome is a distinct disorder, usually mild, with oral/pharyngeal symptoms, in the context of hay fever or pollen sensitisation, which can be triggered by nuts. It can usually be distinguish clinically from primary nut allergy. The magnitude of a SPT or sIgE relates to the probability of clinical allergy, but does not relate to clinical severity. SPT of ≥ 8 mm or sIgE ≥ 15 KU/L to peanut is highly predictive of clinical allergy. Cut off values are not available for tree nuts. Test results must be interpreted in the context of the clinical history. Diagnostic food challenges are usually not necessary but may be used to confirm or refute a conflicting history and test result. As nut allergy is likely to be a long-lived disease, nut avoidance advice is the cornerstone of management. Patients should be provided with a comprehensive management plan including avoidance advice, patient specific emergency medication and an emergency treatment plan and training in administration of emergency medication. Regular re-training is required.

Efficacy and Safety of AR101 in Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: Results of ARC001, a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy, using a variety of approaches, has been previously shown to induce desensitization in peanut-allergic subjects, but no products have been approved for clinical use by regulatory agencies.

OBJECTIVE

We performed the first phase 2 multicentered study to assess the safety and efficacy of AR101, a novel oral biologic drug product.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 8 US centers. Eligible subjects were 4 to 26 years old, sensitized to peanut, and had dose-limiting symptoms to ≤143 mg of peanut protein in a screening double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Subjects were randomized 1:1 to daily AR101 or placebo and gradually up-dosed from 0.5 to 300 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each arm able to tolerate ≥443 mg (cumulative peanut protein) at exit DBPCFC with no or mild symptoms.

RESULTS

Fifty-five subjects (29 AR101, 26 placebo) were enrolled. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 23 of 29 (79%) and 18 of 29 (62%) AR101 subjects tolerated ≥443 mg and 1043 mg at exit DBPCFC, respectively, versus 5 of 26 (19%) and 0 of 26 (0%) placebo subjects (both P < .0001). Compared with placebo, AR101 significantly reduced symptom severity during exit DBPCFCs and modulated peanut-specific cellular and humoral immune responses. Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were the most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in both groups, with 6 AR101 subjects (21%) withdrawing, 4 of those due primarily to recurrent GI AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, AR101 demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated clinical activity as a potential immunomodulatory treatment option in peanut-allergic children over the age of 4, adolescents, and young adults.

Novel approaches and perspectives in allergen immunotherapy

In this review, we report on relevant current topics in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) which were broadly discussed during the first Aarhus Immunotherapy Symposium (Aarhus, Denmark) in December 2015 by leading clinicians, scientists and industry representatives in the field. The aim of this symposium was to highlight AIT-related aspects of public health, clinical efficacy evaluation, mechanisms, development of new biomarkers and an overview of novel therapeutic approaches. Allergy is a public health issue of high socioeconomic relevance, and development of evidence-based action plans to address allergy as a public health issue ought to be on national and regional agendas. The underlying mechanisms are in the focus of current research that lays the ground for innovative therapies. Standardization and harmonization of clinical endpoints in AIT trials as well as current knowledge about potential biomarkers have substantiated proof of effectiveness of this disease-modifying therapeutic option. Novel treatments such as peptide immunotherapy, intralymphatic immunotherapy and use of recombinant allergens herald a new age in which AIT may address treatment of allergy as a public health issue by reaching a large fraction of patients.

Novel baseline predictors of adverse events during oral immunotherapy in children with peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Though peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising investigational therapy, its potential is limited by substantial adverse events (AEs), which are relatively understudied.

OBJECTIVE

A retrospective analysis was conducted, pooling data from 3 pediatric peanut OIT trials, comprising the largest analysis of peanut OIT safety to date.

METHODS

We pooled data from 104 children with peanut allergy from 3 peanut OIT studies. We catalogued AEs from parental reports, daily symptom diaries, and dose escalations. We included events that were considered likely related to OIT and identified potential baseline predictors of higher AE rates using generalized linear regression models.

RESULTS

Eighty percent of subjects experienced likely related AEs during OIT (72% during buildup and 47% during maintenance). Of these AEs, over 90% occurred while at home. Approximately 42% of subjects experienced systemic reactions, and 49% experienced gastrointestinal symptoms. Twenty percent of subjects dropped out, with half (10% of the overall group) due to persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. Baseline allergic rhinitis (AR) and peanut SPT wheal size were significant predictors of higher overall AE rates. SPT wheal size predicted increased gastrointestinal AEs, and AR predicted increased systemic reactions. Over the course of OIT, 61% of subjects received treatment for likely related AEs, 59% with antihistamines and 12% with epinephrine.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut OIT is associated with frequent AEs, with rates declining over time, and most graded mild. However, systemic reactions and intolerable gastrointestinal AEs do occur and are significantly associated with AR and peanut SPT wheal size, respectively. Further study is needed of predictive biomarkers and the overall risks and benefits of OIT.

Improvement of Therapeutic Efficacy of Oral Immunotherapy in Combination with Regulatory T Cell-Inducer Kakkonto in a Murine Food Allergy Model

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been considered a promising approach for food allergies (FAs). However, the current OIT strategy is limited in terms of the long-term efficacy and safety. We have previously demonstrated that kakkonto, a traditional Japanese herbal medicine, suppresses the occurrence of allergic symptoms in a murine model of ovalbumin (OVA)-induced FA, which is attributed to the induction of the Foxp3⁺ CD4⁺ regulatory T cells. In this study, we established an OIT model using the FA mice with already established allergic symptoms and determined whether kakkonto could improve the efficacy of OIT. The OIT method consisted of initially administrating a very small amount of OVA and slowly increasing the amount. Allergic symptoms decreased in the OIT-treated FA mice. OIT significantly downregulated Th2 immune response-related gene expression in the FA mouse colon, and decreased the level of mouse mast cell protease-1, a marker of mast cell degranulation in the FA mouse plasma. Moreover, the concomitant use of kakkonto significantly enhanced the effectiveness of OIT on the allergic symptoms, and the combination therapy further suppressed the Th2 immune responses and the mast cell degranulation. In addition, OIT significantly increased the population of Foxp3⁺ CD4⁺ regulatory T cells in the FA mouse colon, and this population was further increased by OIT in combination with kakkonto. Furthermore, the combined therapy with kakkonto reduced the expression of RA-degrading enzyme CYP26B1 mRNA in the FA mouse colon. These findings indicated that the combination of OIT with kakkonto represents a promising approach for FA treatment.

The Prevalence of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Pediatric Patients with IgE-Mediated Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an allergic inflammatory disease that is triggered by food allergens and characterized by progressive esophageal dysfunction. Recently, EoE has been identified in patients who underwent oral immunotherapy (OIT) for IgE-mediated food allergy, suggesting an association.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to ascertain whether significant associations exist between IgE-mediated food allergies and EoE.

METHODS

Using the analysis of electronic medical record data and manual chart review, we examined our subspecialty care network of 35,528 children and adolescents to identify and characterize patients with IgE-mediated and EoE food allergy. The most common food allergens were defined, and the prevalence of EoE in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy was determined. Logistic regression was used to measure the extent to which IgE-mediated food allergy to specific foods is associated with EoE.

RESULTS

The most common causes of EoE were milk, soy, egg, grains, and meats, an allergen pattern that is distinct from that of IgE-mediated food allergy. The prevalence of EoE in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy was higher than that reported in the general population (4.7% vs 0.04%). The distribution of IgE-mediated food allergens in patients with EoE was similar to that of the general population, and IgE-mediated allergy to egg (2.27; 1.91-2.64), milk (4.19; 3.52-4.97), or shellfish (1.55; 1.24-1.92) was significantly associated with an EoE diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support a clinical association between these conditions that has implications for the management of children with food allergy, and particular relevance to patients undergoing OIT.

Specific oral tolerance induction in childhood

Food allergy continues to be a significant public health concern for which there are no approved treatments and management strategies primarily include allergen avoidance and pharmacological measures for accidental exposures. Food allergy is thought to result from either a failure to establish oral tolerance or the breakdown of existing oral tolerance, and therefore, experimental preventative and treatment strategies are now aimed at inducing specific oral tolerance. This may occur in infancy prior to the development of food allergy through the optimal timing of dietary exposure (primary oral tolerance induction) or as a treatment for established food allergy through oral immunotherapy (secondary oral tolerance induction). Trials examining the effectiveness of early dietary allergen exposure to prevent food allergy have yielded promising results for peanut allergy but not so for other allergens, although the results of several trials are yet to be published. Although infant feeding guidelines no longer advise to avoid allergenic foods and exposure to food allergens orally is an important step in inducing food tolerance by the immune system, evidence regarding the optimal timing, dose and form of these foods into the infant's diet is lacking. Likewise, oral immunotherapy trials appear promising for inducing desensitization; however, the long-term efficacy in achieving sustained desensitization and optimal protocols to achieve this is unknown. More research is needed in this emerging field.

Markers of tolerance development to food allergens

IgE-mediated reactions to food allergens are the most common cause of anaphylaxis in childhood. Although allergies to cow's milk, egg, or soy proteins, in contrast to peanut and tree nut allergens, resolve within the first 6 years of life in up to 60% due to natural tolerance development, this process is not well understood. At present, there is no cure or treatment for food allergy that would result in an induction of tolerance to the symptom-eliciting food. Avoidance, providing an emergency plan and education, is the standard of treatment. Oral immunotherapeutic approaches have been proven reasonable efficacy; however, they are associated with high rates of side-effects and low numbers of patients achieving tolerance. Nevertheless, mechanisms that take place during oral immunotherapy may help to understand tolerance development. On the basis of these therapeutic interventions, events like loss of basophil activation and induction of regulatory lymphocyte subsets and of blocking antibodies have been described. Their functional importance at a clinical level, however, remains to be investigated in detail. Consequently, there is eminent need to understand the process of tolerance development to food allergens and define biomarkers to develop and monitor new treatment strategies for food allergy.

Dietary management of peanut and tree nut allergy: what exactly should patients avoid?

Peanut and tree nut allergies are the commonest cause of life-threatening food-allergic reactions and significantly affect quality of life in children and their families. Dietary nut avoidance and provision of emergency medication is currently the mainstay of treatment. Nut avoidance has consequences on both quality of life and nutrition. We review the terminology that may cause confusion and lead to unnecessary dietary restrictions. In peanut or tree nut-allergic children, introduction of specific nuts to which the child is not allergic may improve quality of life and should be considered in patients with multiple foods allergies, vegan or ethnic-specific diets, in whom nuts are an important source of protein. Nut-allergic consumers do not just need to avoid foods containing nuts as an ingredient, but also contend with pre-packed foods which frequently have precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) referring to possible nut contamination. Although the published rate of peanut contamination in 'snack' foods with PAL (see Box ) ranges from 0.9-32.4%, peanut contamination in non-snack items with PAL is far less common. We propose that in some peanut-allergic patients (depending on history of reactivity to trace levels of peanut, reaction severity, other medical conditions, willingness to always carry adrenaline, etc.), consideration may be given to allow the consumption of non-snack foods containing PAL following discussion with the patient's (and their family's) specialist. More work is needed to provide consumers with clearer information on the risk of potential nut contamination in pre-packed food. We also draw attention to the change in legislation in December 2014 that require mandatory disclosure of allergens in non-pre-packed foods.

Immunotherapy for food allergies: a myth or a reality?

Food allergy is a worldwide issue, with an estimated prevalence of 2-10%. An effective treatment is not available for people affected and the only management is the avoidance of the allergen. Oral immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy have been tested by several authors, in particular for milk, egg and peanuts allergy, with significant results in term of desensitization induction. The achievement of tolerance is by the contrary doubtful, with different results obtained. In this review, we reviewed protocols of oral and sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy published in literature, mainly against milk, egg and peanut. At present, immunotherapy does not represent the gold standard in the treatment of food allergy, even if it can desensitize patients.

Immunotherapy (oral and sublingual) for food allergy to fruits

BACKGROUND

Food allergy is an abnormal immunological response following exposure (usually ingestion) to a food. Elimination of the allergen is the principle treatment for food allergy, including allergy to fruit. Accidental ingestion of allergenic foods can result in severe anaphylactic reactions. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is a specific treatment, when the avoidance of allergenic foods is problematic. Recently, studies have been conducted on different types of immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergy, including oral (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual immunotherapy in children and adults with food allergy to fruits, when compared with placebo or an elimination strategy.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and AMED were searched for published results along with trial registries and the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine for grey literature. The date of the most recent search was July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OIT or SLIT with placebo or an elimination diet were included. Participants were children or adults diagnosed with food allergy who presented immediate fruit reactions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We assessed treatment effect through risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two RCTs (N=89) eligible for inclusion. These RCTs addressed oral or sublingual immunotherapy, both in adults, with an allergy to apple or peach respectively. Both studies enrolled a small number of participants and used different methods to provide these differing types of immunotherapy. Both studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, the quality of evidence was judged to be very low due to the small number of studies and participants and possible bias. The studies were clinically heterogeneous and hence we did not pool the results. A study comparing SLIT with placebo for allergy to peach did not detect a significant difference between the number of patients desensitised at six months following a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (RR 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.74). The second study, comparing OIT versus no treatment for apple allergy, found an effect on desensitisation in favour of the intervention using an oral provocation test at eight months, but results were imprecise (RR 17.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 270.19). Neither study reported data on evidence of immunologic tolerance. In both studies, the incidence of mild and moderate adverse events was higher in the intervention groups than in the controls. In the study comparing SLIT with placebo, patients in the intervention group experienced significantly more local adverse reactions than participants in the control group (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.51 to 6.82), though there was not a significant difference in the number of participants experiencing systemic adverse reactions (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.02). In the study of OIT, two of the 25 participants in the intervention group reported relevant side effects, whereas no participants in the control group reported relevant side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for using OIT or SLIT to treat allergy to fruit, specifically related to peach and apple. Mild or moderate adverse reactions were reported more frequently in people receiving OIT or SLIT. However, these reactions could be treated successfully with medications.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy: mechanisms and role in management

With the emergence of food allergy as an important public health problem, it has become clear that there is an unmet need in regard to treatment. In particular, IgE-mediated food allergy that is associated with risk of fatal anaphylaxis has been the subject of multiple studies in the past decade. The growing body of evidence derived from multiple centres and various study designs indicates that for IgE-mediated food allergy, immunomodulation through food immunotherapy is possible; however, the extent of protection afforded by such treatment is highly variable. At this time, the capacity for food immunotherapy to restore permanent tolerance to food has not been demonstrated conclusively. This review will discuss these topics as they apply to the most important studies of food oral immunotherapy.

Current opinion and review on peanut oral immunotherapy

In the last decade, peanut oral immunotherapy research has shown promise as an alternative treatment to avoidance in peanut-allergic patients. Research has not only focused on desensitization, but also on immunologic changes and sustained-tolerance. This article reviews the current literature and the historical background of oral immunotherapy as well as immune mechanisms in oral immunotherapy and other therapies being explored in food allergic individuals.

Oral immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging new therapy for food allergy. With multiple small exploratory trials and some large randomized-controlled phase 2 trials recently published and under way, there is a clear progress and interest toward making this a treatment option for patients suffering from food allergies. However, there are still many questions to be answered and parameters to fine-tune before OIT becomes an accepted option outside of the research setting. This review covers the main milestones in the development of OIT for food allergy and further discusses important specific issues that will have direct impact on its clinical application. More specifically, previous publications showing evidence for the induction of tolerance are specifically reviewed and varying safety, tolerability and efficacy parameters from previous reports are also discussed.

Current developments for improving efficacy of allergy vaccines

Allergic diseases are prevalent worldwide. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a current treatment for allergy, leading to modification of the natural course of disease. Mechanisms of efficacy include Treg through release of IL-10 and TGF-β and specific IgG4 blocking antibodies. Subcutaneous and sublingual routes are popular, but uptake is limited by inconvenience and safety concerns. Inclusion criteria limit application to a small proportion of allergic patients. New forms of immunotherapy are being investigated for more efficacious, convenient and safer options with promising advances in recent years. The rationale of reducing vaccine allergenicity to increase safety while improving immunogenicity led to investigation of T-cell epitope-based peptides and recombinant allergen derivatives. Additionally, different routes of administration and adjuvants and adjunct therapies are being explored. This review discusses the current status of AIT and recent advances to improve clinical efficacy, safety and long-term immune tolerance.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Although promising results have emerged regarding oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of peanut allergy (PA), direct comparisons of these approaches are limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to compare the safety, efficacy, and mechanistic correlates of peanut OIT and SLIT.

METHODS

In this double-blind study children with PA were randomized to receive active SLIT/placebo OIT or active OIT/placebo SLIT. Doses were escalated to 3.7 mg/d (SLIT) or 2000 mg/d (OIT), and subjects were rechallenged after 6 and 12 months of maintenance. After unblinding, therapy was modified per protocol to offer an additional 6 months of therapy. Subjects who passed challenges at 12 or 18 months were taken off treatment for 4 weeks and rechallenged.

RESULTS

Twenty-one subjects aged 7 to 13 years were randomized. Five discontinued therapy during the blinded phase. Of the remaining 16, all had a greater than 10-fold increase in challenge threshold after 12 months. The increased threshold was significantly greater in the active OIT group (141- vs 22-fold, P = .01). Significant within-group changes in skin test results and peanut-specific IgE and IgG4 levels were found, with overall greater effects with OIT. Adverse reactions were generally mild but more common with OIT (P < .001), including moderate reactions and doses requiring medication. Four subjects had sustained unresponsiveness at study completion.

CONCLUSION

OIT appeared far more effective than SLIT for the treatment of PA but was also associated with significantly more adverse reactions and early study withdrawal. Sustained unresponsiveness after 4 weeks of avoidance was seen in only a small minority of subjects.

Development of a hypoallergenic recombinant parvalbumin for first-in-man subcutaneous immunotherapy of fish allergy

BACKGROUND

The FAST (food allergy-specific immunotherapy) project aims at developing safe and effective subcutaneous immunotherapy for fish allergy, using recombinant hypoallergenic carp parvalbumin, Cyp c 1.

OBJECTIVES

Preclinical characterization and good manufacturing practice (GMP) production of mutant Cyp (mCyp) c 1.

METHODS

Escherichia coli-produced mCyp c 1 was purified using standard chromatographic techniques. Physicochemical properties were investigated by gel electrophoresis, size exclusion chromatography, circular dichroism spectroscopy, reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Allergenicity was assessed by ImmunoCAP inhibition and basophil histamine release assay, immunogenicity by immunization of laboratory animals and stimulation of patients' peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Reference molecules were purified wild-type Cyp c 1 (natural and/or recombinant). GMP-compliant alum-adsorbed mCyp c 1 was tested for acute toxicity in mice and rabbits and for repeated-dose toxicity in mice. Accelerated and real-time protocols were used to evaluate stability of mCyp c 1 as drug substance and drug product.

RESULTS

Purified mCyp c 1 behaves as a folded and stable molecule. Using sera of 26 double-blind placebo-controlled food-challenge-proven fish-allergic patients, reduction in allergenic activity ranged from 10- to 5,000-fold (1,000-fold on average), but with retained immunogenicity (immunization in mice/rabbits) and potency to stimulate human PBMCs. Toxicity studies revealed no toxic effects and real-time stability studies on the Al(OH)3-adsorbed drug product demonstrated at least 20 months of stability.

CONCLUSION

The GMP drug product developed for treatment of fish allergy has the characteristics targeted for in FAST: i.e. hypoallergenicity with retained immunogenicity. These results have warranted first-in-man immunotherapy studies to evaluate the safety of this innovative vaccine.

Diagnosis and treatment of pediatric food allergy: an update

The prevalence of pediatric food allergy and anaphylaxis has increased in the last decades, especially in westernized countries where this emerging phenomenon was marked as a "second wave" of the allergic epidemic. Over recent years great advances have been achieved in the field of in vitro allergy testing and component-resolved diagnosis has increasingly entered clinical practice. Testing for allergen components can contribute to a more precise diagnosis by discriminating primary from cross-reactive sensitizations and assessing the risk of severe allergic reactions.The basic concept of the management of food allergy in children is also changing. Avoidance of the offending food is still the mainstay for disease management, especially in primary health care settings, but it severely affects the patients' quality of life without reducing the risk of accidental allergic reactions. There is a growing body of evidence to show that specific oral tolerance induction can represent a promising treatment option for food allergic patients. In parallel, education of food allergic patients and their caregivers as well as physicians about anaphylaxis and its treatment is becoming recognized a fundamental need. International guidelines have recently integrated these new evidences and their broad application all over Europe represents the new challenge for food allergy specialists.

IgG4 inhibits peanut-induced basophil and mast cell activation in peanut-tolerant children sensitized to peanut major allergens

Background

Most children with detectable peanut-specific IgE (P-sIgE) are not allergic to peanut. We addressed 2 non–mutually exclusive hypotheses for the discrepancy between allergy and sensitization: (1) differences in P-sIgE levels between children with peanut allergy (PA) and peanut-sensitized but tolerant (PS) children and (2) the presence of an IgE inhibitor, such as peanut-specific IgG₄ (P-sIgG₄), in PS patients.

Methods

Two hundred twenty-eight children (108 patients with PA, 77 PS patients, and 43 nonsensitized nonallergic subjects) were studied. Levels of specific IgE and IgG₄ to peanut and its components were determined. IgE-stripped basophils or a mast cell line were used in passive sensitization activation and inhibition assays. Plasma of PS subjects and patients submitted to peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) were depleted of IgG₄ and retested in inhibition assays.

Results

Basophils and mast cells sensitized with plasma from patients with PA but not PS patients showed dose-dependent activation in response to peanut. Levels of sIgE to peanut and its components could only partially explain differences in clinical reactivity between patients with PA and PS patients. P-sIgG₄ levels (P = .023) and P-sIgG₄/P-sIgE (P < .001), Ara h 1–sIgG₄/Ara h 1–sIgE (P = .050), Ara h 2–sIgG₄/Ara h 2–sIgE (P = .004), and Ara h 3–sIgG₄/Ara h 3–sIgE (P = .016) ratios were greater in PS children compared with those in children with PA. Peanut-induced activation was inhibited in the presence of plasma from PS children with detectable P-sIgG₄ levels and POIT but not from nonsensitized nonallergic children. Depletion of IgG₄ from plasma of children with PS (and POIT) sensitized to Ara h 1 to Ara h 3 partially restored peanut-induced mast cell activation (P = .007).

Conclusions

Differences in sIgE levels and allergen specificity could not justify the clinical phenotype in all children with PA and PS children. Blocking IgG₄ antibodies provide an additional explanation for the absence of clinical reactivity in PS patients sensitized to major peanut allergens.

Prolonged ingestion of ovalbumin diet by sensitized mice improves the metabolic consequences induced by experimental food allergy

The prevalence of food allergy is rising in the western world. Allergen restriction is the chosen treatment in this condition, but continuous ingestion of the antigen has shown positive results in clinical trials. In a previous study, we have shown several allergic and metabolic alterations after 7 days of ovalbumin (OVA) ingestion by sensitized mice. The aim of this study was to investigate whether prolonged ingestion of antigen by sensitized mice would reverse the metabolic consequences caused by experimental food allergy. For this, allergic and metabolic parameters were analysed after prolonged ingestion of an OVA diet by OVA-sensitized mice. As shown previously, after 7 days of OVA consumption, sensitized mice showed increased serum levels of anti-OVA immunoglobulin (Ig)E and IgG1, aversion to the antigen ingestion, marked body and adipose tissue weight loss, followed by adipose tissue inflammation and decreased serum levels of adipokines, glucose and triglycerides. However, after 14 days of oral challenge, sensitized mice showed an anti-OVA IgE level similar to the mice that were only sensitized, but the specific IgG1 did not change. With this prolonged ingestion of OVA, sensitized mice were protected from OVA-induced anaphylaxis when the antigen was given systemically at a dose of 2 mg/animal. Moreover, various parameters analysed were significantly ameliorated, including adipose tissue inflammation, body and adipose tissue loss, as well as serum levels of adipokines and triglycerides. Therefore, our data suggest that prolonged ingestion of OVA by sensitized mice results in an improvement of the metabolic consequences caused by experimental food allergy.