Practical challenges in oral immunotherapy resolved through patient-centered care

Decisions With Patients, Not for Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Allergy and Immunology

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an increasingly implemented patient-centered approach to navigating patient preferences regarding diagnostic and treatment options and supported decision-making. This therapeutic approach prioritizes the patient's perspectives, considering current medical evidence to provide a balanced approach to clinical scenarios. In light of numerous recent guideline recommendations that are conditional in nature and are clinical scenarios defined by preference-sensitive care options, there is a tremendous opportunity for SDM and validated decision aids. Despite the expansion of the literature on SDM, formal acceptance among clinicians remains inconsistent. Surprisingly, a significant disparity exists between clinicians' self-reported adherence to SDM principles and patients' perceptions of its implementation during clinical encounters. This discrepancy underscores a fundamental issue in the delivery of health care, where clinicians may overestimate their integration of SDM, while patients' experiences suggest otherwise. This review critically examines the factors contributing to this inconsistency, including barriers within the health care system, clinician attitudes and behaviors, and patient expectations and preferences. By elucidating these factors in the fields of food allergy, asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis, and other allergic diseases, this review aims to provide insights into bridging the gap between clinician perception and patient experience in SDM. Addressing this discordance is crucial for advancing patient-centered care and ensuring that SDM is not merely a theoretical concept but a tangible reality in the.

Peanut Allergy in Children-Is Prevention Better than Cure?

Peanut allergy, one of the most frequently occurring allergies, usually starts in childhood and rarely subsides-often persisting throughout adult life. Accidental exposure to peanuts can often result in adverse reactions ranging from mild to life-threatening, such as anaphylactic shock. Historically, food avoidance and the use of rescue drugs have remained a fundamental management mechanism for dealing with food allergy. However, prevention of adverse reactions to food allergy is playing an increasing role. This is possible through the early introduction of peanuts into the diet, especially in infants at risk of this allergy. In recent years, specific immunotherapy has been used to develop desensitisation and, in some patients, tolerance-defined as a persistent state of clinical non-reactivity to the allergen after therapy is finished. The aim of this article is to summarise the current state of knowledge on the prevention and treatment of peanut allergy, with a focus on clinical trials, current guidelines, and recent experimental studies. This review may be particularly useful for paediatricians and general practitioners.

Flex-IT! Applying "Platform Trials" Methodology to Immunotherapy for Food Allergy in Research and Clinical Practice

There is an increasing trend in the management of food allergy toward active treatment using allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Although AIT is efficacious, treatment-related adverse events are common, particularly with oral immunotherapy in those with high levels of allergen-specific IgE sensitization. In clinical practice, these adverse events inevitably create challenges: clinicians and patients routinely face decisions whether to alter the dose itself, the frequency of dosing, and the pace of escalation, or indeed discontinue AIT altogether. Flexibility is therefore needed to adapt treatment, particularly in clinical practice, so that participants are "treated-to-target." For example, this may entail a significant change in the dosing protocol or even switching from one route of administration to another in response to frequent adverse events. We refer to this approach as flexible immunotherapy. However, there is little evidence to inform clinicians as to what changes to treatment are most likely to result in treatment success. Classical clinical trials rely, by necessity, on relatively rigid updosing protocols. To provide an evidence base to optimize AIT, the food allergy community should adopt adaptive platform trials, where a "master protocol" facilitates more efficient evaluation, including longer-term outcomes of multiple interventions. Within a single clinical trial, participants are able to switch between different treatment arms; interventions can be added or dropped without compromising the integrity of the trial. Developing platform trials for food AIT may initially be costly, but they represent a significant opportunity to grow the evidence base (with respect to both treatment outcomes and biomarker discovery) at scale. In addition, they could help understand longitudinal disease trajectories that are difficult to study in clinical trials for food allergy due to the time needed to demonstrate changes in efficacy. Finally, their adoption would achieve greater collaboration and consistency in approaches to proactive management of food allergy in routine clinical practice. As a community, we need to actively pursue this with funders and established research collaborations to deliver the very best outcomes for our patients and their families.

Ethical Implications of Continuing Oral Immunotherapy After the Development of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic allergic inflammatory disease requiring maintenance therapy. Traditionally, EoE has been a contraindication to oral immunotherapy (OIT) and a rationale for discontinuing treatment because OIT may induce EoE. Most, but not all patients with OIT-induced EoE experience symptom resolution and histologic remission after discontinuing OIT. Recent studies report OIT continuation even after EoE onset, despite the previously accepted standard of care. This creates clinical as well as ethical challenges for allergists treating these patients. Considering the published literature on EoE and OIT and the primary medical ethics principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, we discuss the ethical implications of pursuing desensitization despite the potential complications associated with EoE. When ethical principles are in opposition, shared decision-making should be employed to determine whether OIT should be continued after an EoE diagnosis. This article highlights the ethical dilemmas allergists face when determining whether patients with a diagnosis of EoE should continue OIT.

An update on recent developments and highlights in food allergy

While both the incidence and general awareness of food allergies is increasing, the variety and clinical availability of therapeutics remain limited. Therefore, investigations into the potential factors contributing to the development of food allergy (FA) and the mechanisms of natural tolerance or induced desensitization are required. In addition, a detailed understanding of the pathophysiology of food allergies is needed to generate compelling, enduring, and safe treatment options. New findings regarding the contribution of barrier function, the effect of emollient interventions, mechanisms of allergen recognition, and the contributions of specific immune cell subsets through rodent models and human clinical studies provide novel insights. With the first approved treatment for peanut allergy, the clinical management of FA is evolving toward less intensive, alternative approaches involving fixed doses, lower maintenance dose targets, coadministration of biologicals, adjuvants, and tolerance-inducing formulations. The ultimate goal is to improve immunotherapy and develop precision-based medicine via risk phenotyping allowing optimal treatment for each food-allergic patient.

Viewing Pediatric Food Oral Immunotherapy Through an Ethical Lens-A Narrative Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Food allergy remains a common problem and a lifelong condition for many children. In recent years, food allergy management has increasingly involved conversations about food oral immunotherapy (OIT). Although ethical considerations of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice implicitly inform these conversations, applying these principles can be complex, particularly in young children. Families of young children assume a role of surrogate decision-maker and must balance immediate risks with the hope of longer-term benefits.

OBJECTIVE

To explore implementation of OIT in children through an ethical lens.

METHODS

To evaluate OIT through an ethical lens, we conducted a literature search to explore currently published frameworks in this area.

RESULTS

Evaluation of the harm principle, the basic interest principle, and the best interest principle of parental decision-making can be informative. Shared decision-making continues to be central to the process of engaging with patient-family units to individualize the best care, at the right time, and minimize decisional discord. Although OIT is well-positioned to promote health and well-being, challenges to equity, sustainability, and organizational support must be considered to improve access for appropriate patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas approaches to food OIT may be tailored to the individual context of each patient-family unit, ethical principles must guide decisions to initiate and continue therapy. Traditional ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice remain cornerstones when considering the ethical context of OIT.

Geographical discrepancy in oral food challenge utilization based on Canadian billing data

BACKGROUND

Oral food challenges (OFC) confer the highest sensitivity and specificity in diagnosis; however, uptake has been variable across clinical settings. Numerous barriers were identified in literature from inadequate training to resource access. OFC utilization patterns using billing data have not been previously studied.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to explore the geographic differences in utilization of OFCs across Ontario and Québec using anonymized billing data from 2013 to 2017.

METHODS

Anonymized OFC billing data were obtained between 2013 and 2017 from Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) and Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec (RAMQ). The number of OFCs was extracted by location, billings, and physician demographics for clinic and hospital-based challenges.

RESULTS

Over the period studied, the number of OFCs increased by 92% and 85% in Ontario clinics and Québec hospitals, respectively. For Ontario hospitals, the number of OFCs increased by 194%. While Québec performed exclusively hospital-based OFCs, after controlling for the population, the number of OFCs per 100,000 residents annually were similar to Ontario at 50 and 49 OFCs, respectively. The number of OFCs varied across the regions studied with an annual rate reaching up to 156 OFCs per 100,000 residents in urban regions and as low as 0.1 in regions furthest from city centers.

CONCLUSION

OFC utilization has steadily increased over the last decade. There has been marked geographical discrepancies in OFC utilization which could be driven by the location of allergists and heterogeneity in their practices. More research is needed to identify barriers and propose solutions to them.

How We Manage Gastrointestinal Symptoms During Oral Immunotherapy Through a Shared Decision-Making Process-A Practical Guide for the Community Practitioner

Allergists addressing gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms during oral immunotherapy (OIT) may be biased toward diagnoses related to OIT; however, non-OIT causes may occur. Although there is currently a lack of robust data for evidence-based treatment recommendations, we provide 3 real-world illustrative cases along with a proposed management algorithm for GI symptoms encountered during OIT. This algorithm was developed because of a significant clinical need, given the number of new-to-OIT providers that include practicing allergists, trainees transitioning into practice, and allied health care providers who manage GI symptoms in OIT patients. We developed the algorithm based on the opinions of community and academic allergy clinics across Canada with significant clinical experience offering infant, preschool, and school-aged OIT patients, with gastroenterologist input. Further research is needed to fill the knowledge gaps in the management of GI symptoms during OIT before formal recommendations can be suggested.

Information needs of patients considering oral immunotherapy for food allergy

While the historic management of food allergy includes avoidance strategies and allergic reaction treatment, oral immunotherapy (OIT) approaches have become more commonly integrated into therapeutic approaches. International guidelines, phase 3 trials and real-world experience have supported the implementation of this procedure. However, OIT is an elective, rarely curative procedure with inherent risks that necessitates an increased degree of health literacy for the patients and families. Families assume the responsibility of amateur healthcare providers to ensure the daily safe administration of the allergenic food. As such, it is incumbent upon physicians to ensure that families are prepared for this role. A thorough educational and shared decision-making approach is necessary during the counselling and consent process to adequately inform the families. Educated discussion about the efficacy and patient-centred effectiveness, therapeutic alternatives and family goals is required to align physician and patient expectations. A frank discussion about the struggles, practical challenges, risks and contraindications can help to develop an understanding of the risk mitigation strategies employed to maintain safety. Physicians should develop a proactive approach to educate families about this, at times, burdensome procedure. This educational approach should encourage ongoing support starting prior to consent through the maintenance visits. By preparing families for their unique management role, physicians can help ensure the safe and successful integration of OIT into the therapeutic offering for the management of food allergies.

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.

Optimal patient selection for oral immunotherapy

Standard criteria for ideal patient selection with food oral immunotherapy (OIT) have yet to be determined. Although there are a handful of contraindications to consider before recommending OIT, most patients with confirmed immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergies are appropriate candidates. Success rates of OIT can vary widely and be influenced by several factors. Choosing the most appropriate candidate for an OIT program can mitigate risks and provide the best chance for patients to be successful.

Approaches to maintenance dosing during oral immunotherapy

Long term daily dosing for patients and families may be challenging due to food aversions, dosing protocols, and age of the patient. The few long term studies suggest that low quantity daily dosing is associated with passing higher dose challenges over the long term, whereas high dose maintenance may protect for longer avoidance intervals. We review the data for peanut and suggest several strategies for your patients.

Patient selection for milk and egg ladders using a food ladder safety checklist

A food ladder is a form of home-based dietary advancement therapy that gradually increases exposure to an allergenic food through the gradual introduction of egg or milk containing food with increasing quantity and allergenicity from extensively heated forms, such as baked goods, to less processed products. While widely considered safe, the food ladder is not risk-free and most of the egg and milk ladder studies only included preschoolers with mild egg and milk allergies, and with no or well-controlled asthma. We propose a Food Ladder Safety Checklist to assist with patient selection using “4 A's” based on available evidence for food ladders, including Age, active or poorly controlled Asthma, history of Anaphylaxis, and Adherence.

Real-life experience with hazelnut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Hazelnut oral immunotherapy (H-OIT), a promising alternative to hazelnut-free diet for patients with hazelnut allergy, has not been extensively studied.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness of H-OIT for children with hazelnut allergy.

METHODS

Retrospective medical record review of children treated by H-OIT in the University Hospital of Lyon (France) was reported. Clinical and laboratory data were collected, and the satisfaction of the children treated by H-OIT was evaluated using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients treated by H-OIT for an immunoglobulin E-mediated hazelnut allergy (94.3%) or an immunoglobulin E sensitization to hazelnut (5.7%) were included. Among these, 22.9% entered the maintenance phase at 1-year consultation and 60.0% entered the maintenance phase during the study period. At home, 57.1% of the patients experienced at least 1 adverse effect and 2.9% experienced severe systemic allergic reactions. Among the 212 oral food challenges conducted at hospital, 3.3% led to severe systemic reactions and epinephrine was used 4 times. A total of 21.4% of children discontinued treatment; aversion to hazelnut was the main reason. There were 42 children aged 8 years or more and their parents who answered the questionnaire. H-OIT was considered a strain for children but effective and was recommended to other children with allergy.

CONCLUSION

H-OIT seemed to be effective and well accepted by children. This is counterbalanced by a high rate of H-OIT discontinuation, mainly owing to aversion to hazelnut, and an important rate of adverse reactions, which are however mostly mild.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04841850.

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.

Advances, Practical Implementation, and Unmet Needs Regarding Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

Treatment of food allergy is a rapidly changing landscape, with arguably, the most significant advancement in recent years, the transition of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to clinical practice. As an innovation, OIT is a phase of rapidly increasing demand, particularly for some allergens such as peanut, egg, and milk, which have substantial evidence of efficacy. However, significant questions remain about how to best treat multiple food allergies and less common food allergies and how to optimize long-term safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the currently available resources for integrating food allergy OIT into clinical practice and focuses on the multiple remaining unmet needs such as providing an approach for OIT to food allergens for which there is no or limited evidence; practical issues related to food allergy treatment particularly when it is not going well; long-term outcomes and follow-up after OIT; and strategies to help meet the impending increase in demand.