Baseline Gastrointestinal Eosinophilia Is Common in Oral Immunotherapy Subjects With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy

Triggers for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): The intersection of food allergy and EoE

Eosinophilic esophagitis and IgE-mediated food allergy are both food-triggered diseases that are increasing in prevalence. They share many clinical links, including significant comorbidity and similar food triggers, and as atopic diseases, they likely share upstream mechanisms related to barrier function and signals leading to TH2 skewing. In this review, we focus on links between eosinophilic esophagitis and IgE-mediated food allergy with an emphasis on what insights may be derived from overlapping food triggers and immune phenotypes. Through further investigation of these connections, we may be able to better understand not only IgE-mediated food allergy and eosinophilic esophagitis but also general atopic response to food proteins and evolution of allergic response to food.

Associations of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders with Other Gastrointestinal and Allergic Diseases

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are becoming more common causing significant suffering and reduced quality of life. These conditions can affect different parts of the digestive system, either individually or in combination. Recognition of their link to allergic disorders or other gastrointestinal (GI) diseases has raised questions about their shared underlying mechanisms, which has had implications for diagnosis and management. The authors critically examine the current understanding of the connection between EGIDs and allergic conditions (ie, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, asthma, and food allergy) and GI diseases (ie, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and motility disorders).

The Relationship Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy is a treatment approach based on the principle of incremental allergen exposure to achieve desensitization. Recently, oral immunotherapy has been introduced as a treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy. Some patients receiving oral immunotherapy for food allergy may develop eosinophilic esophagitis. Here, we summarize the literature examining this association, its treatment, and outcomes and discuss possible explanations for this clinical phenomenon. We further identify potential associations with aeroallergen sensitivity and other forms of immunotherapy including subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. Finally, we discuss management of immunotherapy-induced eosinophilic esophagitis. Epicutaneous immunotherapy is highlighted as an area of therapeutic investigation.

Clinical Evaluation of the Child with Eosinophilic Esophagitis

The diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is based on clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil predominant esophageal inflammation. Clinical symptoms in children with EoE vary based on age and may be nonspecific. EoE has a male predominance with the majority having comorbid atopic disorders. At present, treatment options include medications (proton pump inhibition, swallowed topical steroids), dietary therapy or biologic therapy (dupilumab, approved for those ≥12 years of age). Outside of EoE in the context of oral immunotherapy, EoE is typically chronic requiring lifelong therapy. Long-term complications including feeding difficulties, malnutrition, and fibrostenotic disease.

Joint ESPGHAN/NASPGHAN Guidelines on Childhood Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders Beyond Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders beyond eosinophilic esophagitis (non-EoE EGIDs) are rare chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Diagnosis is based on clinical symptoms and histologic findings of eosinophilic inflammation after exclusion of a secondary cause or systemic disease. Currently, no guidelines exist for the evaluation of non-EoE EGIDs. Therefore, the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) formed a task force group to provide consensus guidelines for childhood non-EoE EGIDs.

METHODS

The working group was composed of pediatric gastroenterologists, adult gastroenterologists, allergists/immunologists, and pathologists. An extensive electronic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted up to February 2022. General methodology was used in the formulation of recommendations according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to meet current standards of evidence assessment.

RESULTS

The guidelines provide information on the current concept of non-EoE EGIDs, disease pathogenesis, epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnostic and disease surveillance procedures, and current treatment options. Thirty-four statements based on available evidence and 41 recommendations based on expert opinion and best clinical practices were developed.

CONCLUSION

Non-EoE EGIDs literature is limited in scope and depth, making clear recommendations difficult. These consensus-based clinical practice guidelines are intended to assist clinicians caring for children affected by non-EoE EGIDs and to facilitate high-quality randomized controlled trials of various treatment modalities using standardized, uniform disease definitions.

Eosinophil-Associated Gastrointestinal Manifestations During OIT

Gastrointestinal adverse events are common during oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy and range from immediate IgE-mediated reactions to non-anaphylactic clinical presentations. This review aims to summarize recent findings on non-anaphylactic eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal adverse events during OIT. Two clinical presentations of non-anaphylactic eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal adverse events during OIT are identified, each with a different paradigm for treatment, and distinguished by their time of onset. In the first clinical entity, characterized by its onset early in the course of treatment, patients present with abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. The symptoms become evident typically within weeks to months of starting OIT. These symptoms, however, are not temporally related to the time of dose administration, as in the case of immediate IgE-mediated anaphylactic reactions. While esophageal biopsies, when performed, can demonstrate eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), baseline esophageal eosinophilia has also been observed in food allergic patients prior to OIT. A potential non-invasive biomarker, the peripheral absolute eosinophil count (AEC), often rises during these reactions and subsides after dose reduction and subsequent resolution of symptoms. OIT can usually then be resumed, albeit at a slower pace, without a recurrence of symptoms. Risk factors for development of symptoms early during OIT include a high starting dose and a baseline AEC of greater than 600. The second, and much less frequently encountered, non-anaphylactic gastrointestinal adverse event related to OIT, presents months to years after initiating OIT. In this latter group, patients present with the classical clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings of EoE. In contrast to the acute onset group, peripheral eosinophilia is usually not observed in these cases. This OIT-associated EoE has shown good response to standard EoE treatment approaches of proton pump inhibitors or swallowed steroids. Most patients with eosinophil-associated adverse reactions are able to continue OIT and remain desensitized. Treatment approaches depend on the specific subtype of these reactions and relate to the stages of OIT treatment.

A case of food and aeroallergen sublingual immunotherapy inducing eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been reported secondary to aeroallergen sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and food allergen oral immunotherapy. Gastrointestinal symptoms with food allergen SLIT are uncommon, with no prior reports of cases of food allergen SLIT inducing EoE. Here we report a patient who developed EoE secondary to food and aeroallergen SLIT therapy that resolved with SLIT cessation.

The role of biologics in pediatric food allergy and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders

Continuing insight into the molecular mechanisms of atopic disorders has enabled the development of biologics to precisely target these diseases. Food allergy (FA) and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are driven by similar inflammatory molecular mechanisms and exist along the same atopic disease spectrum. Therefore, many of the same biologics are being investigated to target key drivers of mechanisms shared across the disease states. The enormous potential of biologics for the treatment of FA and EGIDs is highlighted by the significant increases in the number of ongoing clinical trials (more than 30) evaluating their use in these disease states, as well as by the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of dupilumab for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Here we discuss past and current research into the use of biologics in FA and EGIDs and their potential role in improving treatment options in the future, with the need to have biologics widely clinically available.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy: Translation from studies to clinical practice?

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is now recognized as an alternative active treatment to strict food avoidance in certain patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. Studies have confirmed the efficacy of OIT to desensitize children with allergy to cow's milk, eggs, and peanuts. The benefits, risks, and constraints of OIT are becoming increasingly well understood. However, there is no consensual criteria to select patients to whom OIT could be proposed, and many issues remain to address including the definitions of desensitization and long-term efficacy, the assessment of patient's experience in real life, the optimization of buildup and maintenance protocols, and the utility of multiple food OIT. The recent authorization by medical agency concerning the first medicine for peanut OIT is a step forward towards higher standardization in the practice of OIT. This article summarizes in comprehensive narrative format data on efficacy, tolerance, impact on quality of life and adverse effects of OIT and discuss elements to consider in clinical practice before starting OIT.

Oral Immunotherapy and Risk of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children: 15 Years' Experience

OBJECTIVES

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an effective treatment for children with persistent food allergy, and has concerns about its safety, including eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of EoE in a large cohort of children who underwent OIT in our center, and to determine if there were any clinical, endoscopic, or histologic differences depending on the food employed for the OIT.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed over a 15-year period (2005-2020). Children who underwent cow's milk (CM), egg, and/or peanut OIT and developed EoE were included.

RESULTS

Six hundred and seven OIT were carried out (277 CM-OIT, 322 egg-OIT, and 8 peanut-OIT). Seventeen patients (2.8%) had a confirmed histologic diagnosis of EoE with a higher prevalence for patients who underwent CM-OIT (3.9%) than egg-OIT (2.2%). Symptoms suggestive of EoE and a confirmed diagnosis occurred at median times of 25 and 36 months, respectively, after the build-up phase of the OIT was completed. Choking, abdominal pain, and dysphagia were the most frequent symptoms and lamina propria fibrosis was observed in 41.2% of patients. No significant differences in clinical symptoms, endoscopic, or histologic findings between patients under CM or egg-OIT were found. One-third of patients reported mild symptoms suggestive of EoE before the OIT.

CONCLUSIONS

EoE appears to be a rare but important adverse event that can occur even years after OIT. Validated questionnaires to screen EoE before the OIT and in the follow-up of these patients may be the main tool for an early diagnosis.

Breaking down the complex pathophysiology of eosinophilic esophagitis

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic and progressive immune-mediated disease of the esophagus associated with antigen-driven type 2 inflammation and symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. Our understanding of EoE pathophysiology has evolved since its initial recognition more than 20 years ago and has translated into diagnostic and novel therapeutic approaches that are affecting patient care. The mechanisms underlying disease development and progression are influenced by diverse factors, such as genetics, age, allergic comorbidities, and allergen exposures. Central to EoE pathophysiology is a dysregulated feed-forward cycle that develops between the esophageal epithelium and the immune system. Allergen-induced, type 2-biased immune activation by the esophageal epithelium propagates a cycle of impaired mucosal barrier integrity and allergic inflammation, eventually leading to tissue remodeling and progressive organ dysfunction. Herein, we review the current understanding of fundamental pathophysiological mechanisms contributing to EoE pathogenesis.

Eosinophil Peroxidase Staining Enhances the Diagnostic Utility of the Cytosponge in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to assess the diagnostic utility of eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) staining on Cytosponge (CS) samples in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

METHODS

Esophageal biopsy (BX) samples from adult subjects with EoE were assessed using peak eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf), EPX, and the EoE histologic scoring system. EPX staining and eos/hpf were compared (BX vs CS).

RESULTS

CS EPX positivity correlated with eos/hpf (CS [ r = 0.82, P < 0.0001]; BX [ r = 0.65, P < 0.0001]) and EoE histologic scoring system (grade [ r = 0.62, P < 0.00001]; stage [ r = 0.61, P < 0.0001]). CS EPX identified subjects with active EoE (area under the curve = 0.86, P < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

The correlation of CS EPX with eosinophilic inflammation and histologic disease severity supports its diagnostic utility in EoE.

Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and allergy: Clinical and therapeutic implications

Primary eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGID) are increasingly prevalent, immune‐mediated, chronic conditions which primarily affect pediatric and young adult patients, leading to substantial disease burden, and poor quality of life. EGID may either involve single portions of the gastrointestinal tract (i.e., esophagus, stomach, small bowel, and colon) or a combination. Their strong association with allergic disorders has been recently recognized, and although their shared pathophysiological basis remains partly elusive, this feature greatly impacts the diagnostic and treatment work‐up. We herein critically discuss the current knowledge on the association of EGID and allergic disorders, including atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, and food or drug allergy. In particular, we reviewed the literature focusing on their epidemiology, pathophysiological basis and mechanisms, and diagnostic strategies. Finally, we discuss the currently ongoing clinical trials targeting EGID and allergic diseases, including, among others the monoclonal antibodies dupilumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and lirentelimab.

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.

Safety of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp in Children and Teenagers With Peanut Allergy: A Pooled Summary of Phase 3 and Extension Trials

BACKGROUND

Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH; previously known as AR101) is a daily oral immunotherapy approved to mitigate allergic reactions following accidental peanut exposure in peanut-allergic individuals aged 4-17 years.

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively summarize the PTAH safety profile for up to ∼2 years of treatment.

METHODS

Safety and adverse event (AE) data from participants aged 4-17 years from three controlled, phase 3 and two open-label extension trials were pooled and assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 944 individuals receiving ≥1 PTAH dose, median exposure was ∼49 weeks; most participants experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE (TRAE; n=853; 90.4%). A total of 829 participants experienced TRAEs with a maximum severity of mild (n=497; 52.6%) or moderate (n=332; 35.2%); 24 participants (2.5%) experienced TRAEs graded as severe. Overall, 80 (9.5%) participants discontinued due to AEs; most experienced gastrointestinal symptoms and discontinued during the first 6 months. When adjusted for exposure, AEs and TRAEs occurred at a rate of 76.4 and 58.7 events/participant-year of exposure (PYE), respectively, during updosing; AEs and TRAEs decreased to 23.0 and 14.2, respectively, during 300-mg maintenance. Overall, exposure-adjusted rates of systemic allergic reactions were 0.12 events/PYE (mild), 0.11 events/PYE (moderate), and 0.01 events/PYE (severe [anaphylaxis]).

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of PTAH was consistent across trials, manageable, and improved over time. AEs were predominantly mild to moderate and all grades declined in frequency with continued treatment. These data can be used to facilitate shared decision-making discussions with patients and families considering treatment with PTAH.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

During treatment with PTAH, the majority of children and teenagers experienced allergic symptoms that decreased in frequency and severity over time. These symptoms were consistent across PTAH trials, comparable with other allergen immunotherapies, and are familiar to allergists who practice allergen immunotherapy.

Oral Immunotherapy in Children: Clinical Considerations and Practical Management

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) in pediatric patients provides an alternative option to the current standard of care in food allergy, which is allergen avoidance and reactive treatment. Because patients are exposed to one or more food allergens during treatment, OIT is associated with adverse events and can be a cumbersome process for children, their caregivers, and clinicians. However, there have been an overwhelming number of studies that show high efficacy in both single- and multi-allergen OIT, and that quality of life is greatly improved for both patients and their families after undergoing immunotherapy. This review discusses clinical considerations for OIT in pediatrics, including efficacy and safety, practical management, and future directions of treatment.

Asymptomatic Eosinophilic Infiltration with Endoscopic and Histological Findings Consistent with Eosinophilic Gastritis

Eosinophilic gastritis often presents with gastrointestinal symptoms in the absence of abnormal endoscopic findings. On the other hand, endoscopic changes due to eosinophilic infiltration in an asymptomatic patient are rare. A 29-year-old woman with a history of asthma on steroid inhalers presented for an annual medical checkup. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed diffuse white granular patches in the body of the stomach, suggestive of eosinophilic gastritis. Histology showed over 100 eosinophils per high-power field, also consistent with eosinophilic gastritis. As the absence of symptoms precluded the diagnosis of eosinophilic gastritis, the patient was diagnosed with asymptomatic eosinophilic infiltration of the stomach.

Eosinophilic Gastritis/Gastroenteritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Eosinophilic gastritis/gastroenteritis (EG/EGE) are rare eosinophilic infiltrative disorders in children and adults that fall under the umbrella term eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs). EGIDs also include eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and eosinophilic colitis. In this article, we present the current literature regarding the clinical presentation, diagnostic criteria, and management of EG/EGE.

RECENT FINDINGS

The underlying complex pathophysiology remains unknown, yet hypersensitivity response is a central component. Unlike EoE, standardized diagnostic criteria are lacking but, promising research employing tissue-based and blood-based methods of diagnosis have been reported. Non-EoE EGIDs are more challenging to treat than EoE. More than a third of patients may achieve spontaneous remission. Still, most will require dietary elimination and/or pharmaceutical interventions, mainly corticosteroids, but also biologics (monoclonal antibodies against IL-4, IL-5, TNFα, integrin α4β7, and IgE), mast-cell stabilizers, leukotriene (LT)-receptor antagonists, and antihistamines. Promising research suggests the role of AK002, an anti-siglec antibody, in clinical and histological improvement. Given the rarity and underdiagnosis of EG/EGE, different natural progression compared to EoE, heterogeneous clinical manifestations, and probable normal endoscopic appearance, it is vital to maintain a high suspicion index in atopic patients, obtain at least 5-6 random biopsies from each site for gastro/duodenal eosinophilic infiltrate with the subsequent exclusion of inflammatory, allergic and infectious differential diagnoses to increase the yield of an accurate diagnosis. Corticosteroids remain the mainstay of treatment, often requiring long-term use. Steroid-sparing agents remain experimental. Goals of therapy move beyond clinical remission but lack evidence to support histological remission.

Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis During Oral Immunotherapy

Food allergies are antigen-driven diseases that can lead to IgE-mediated reactions of immediate hypersensitivity (eg, anaphylaxis triggered by a single food) or non-IgE reactions of delayed hypersensitivity such as eosinophilic esophagitis (eg, inability to eat multiple foods manifesting as abdominal pain, choking, dysphagia, vomiting, reflux, food impaction). Although both types of disease have their own unique set of challenges in diagnosis and management, it is a particularly vexing problem when a patient is afflicted by both conditions. This situation can happen when individuals with IgE-mediated food allergy undergo desensitization using currently available forms of oral immunotherapy. In this Grand Rounds Review, we review diagnostic approaches to oral immunotherapy-associated eosinophilic esophagitis, potential relationships between primary and secondary eosinophilic esophagitis, potential management approaches, areas of uncertainty, and upcoming research. Optimally supporting patients in their journey with food allergy requires shared decision making regarding alternative management strategies and the stimulation of robust research.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and allergen immunotherapy: Lights and shadows

Allergic diseases, such as IgE-mediated food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, are relevant health problems worldwide and show an increasing prevalence. Therapies for food allergies are food avoidance and the prompt administration of intramuscular epinephrine in anaphylaxis occurring after accidental exposure. However, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is being investigated as a new potential tool for treating severe food allergies. Effective oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) induce desensitization and restore immune tolerance to the causal allergen. While immediate side effects are well known, the long-term effects of food AIT are still underestimated. In this regard, eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs), mainly eosinophilic esophagitis, have been reported as putative complications of OIT for food allergy and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic asthma and rhinitis. Fortunately, these complications are usually reversible and the patient recovers after AIT discontinuation. This review summarizes current knowledge on the possible causative link between eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and AIT, highlighting recent evidence and controversies.

The role of the allergist in the management of eosinophilic esophagitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide the current understanding of the role of allergens/antigens, the use of allergy testing, and to elucidate the role of the allergist in the management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

RECENT FINDINGS

EoE is a T2 immune disorder that is part of the atopic march. EoE patients commonly have multiple concurrent allergic disorders. Recent studies demonstrate that, like other allergic diseases, epithelial barrier dysfunction plays a key role in EoE pathogenesis. Aero- and food allergens have been identified as EoE triggers. EoE management includes the assessment and avoidance of its instigating antigens. Due to the integrated T2 immune response in an allergic individual, proper EoE care should include the control of underlying atopic disorders. EoE is a complex disease that is optimally managed by a multidisciplinary approach.

SUMMARY

This review provides an update on the role of the allergist in the clinical management of EoE.

Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Responses in a Longitudinal, Randomized Trial of Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Gastrointestinal side effects are common during oral immunotherapy (OIT) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a potential complication. We aimed to characterize eosinophilic gastrointestinal responses to peanut OIT, in which peanut protein is given orally, with incremental increases in dose over time.

METHODS

Twenty adults with IgE-mediated peanut allergy were randomly assigned to groups given peanut OIT (n = 15) or placebo (n = 5); 1 additional subject withdrew before randomization. Serial gastrointestinal biopsies were collected at baseline (n = 21, 0 weeks), following dose escalation (n = 10, 52 weeks), and during the maintenance phase (n = 11, 104 weeks). Endoscopic findings were characterized using the EoE endoscopic reference score. Biopsies were assessed for eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) and other pathology features using EoE histologic scoring system scores. We performed immunohistochemical analyses of eosinophil peroxidase deposition, quantified using automated image analysis.

RESULTS

At baseline, no subjects reported current gastrointestinal symptoms. However, 3 of the 21 subjects (14%) had esophageal peak eosinophil counts ≥15 eos/hpf and all subjects had dilated intercellular spaces (DIS). OIT induced or exacerbated esophageal eosinophilia (EE) at 52 weeks in most subjects (peak eosinophil counts >5 eos/hpf in 6 of 7 patients [86%]; peak eosinophil counts ≥15 eos/hpf in 4 of 7 patients [57%]). One subject met clinicopathologic criteria for EoE and withdrew; no significant changes in esophageal peak eosinophil counts were observed in the placebo group. EE in the OIT group corresponded with significant increases in EoE histologic scoring system scores and deposition of eosinophil peroxidase. In 4 of 6 participants (67%), OIT-induced EE and gastrointestinal eosinophilia resolved by the end of the maintenance phase. Gastrointestinal symptoms were not clearly associated with EE or gastrointestinal eosinophilia.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, we found that peanut OIT-induced EE and gastrointestinal eosinophilia are usually transient and are not always associated with gastrointestinal symptoms. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02103270.

Image Analysis of Eosinophil Peroxidase Immunohistochemistry for Diagnosis of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires manual quantification of tissue eosinophils. Eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) is an eosinophil-specific, cytoplasmic granule protein released during degranulation.

AIMS

The objective of this study was to evaluate image analysis of EPX immunohistochemistry as an automated method for histologic diagnosis of EoE.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of prospectively collected esophageal biopsies obtained from adult subjects with EoE and controls. Tissue sections were stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and evaluated for peak eosinophils per high power field (eos/hpf). The same slides were de-stained and re-stained to detect EPX for direct comparison. Slides were digitized, and EPX staining area/mm² was quantified using image analysis. Paired samples were compared for changes in EPX staining in treatment responders and non-responders.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight EoE cases and 49 controls were analyzed. Among EoE subjects, matched post-treatment biopsies were available for 21 responders and 10 non-responders. Baseline EPX/mm² was significantly increased in EoE subjects and decreased in treatment responders. EPX quantification correlated strongly with eos/hpf (r = 0.84, p < 0.0001) and identified EoE subjects with high diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.95, p < 0.0001). The optimal diagnostic EPX-positive pixel/area threshold was 17,379 EPX/mm². Several controls (5/49) with < 15 eos/hpf on H&E staining exceeded this cutoff.

CONCLUSIONS

EPX/mm² correlates strongly with eos/hpf, accurately identifies subjects with EoE, and decreases in treatment responders. Automated quantification of intact eosinophils and their degranulation products may enhance pathologic assessment. Future studies are needed to correlate EPX/mm² with symptoms, endoscopic findings, and esophageal distensibility.

Integrating oral immunotherapy into clinical practice

In 2020, the first food allergy treatment, an oral immunotherapy (OIT) product for peanut allergy, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and a peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy patch was under review. As food allergy therapies become available and widespread, allergy offices will need to adjust practices to be able to offer their patients these new treatments. OIT is an intensive therapy that requires commitment from patients and their families, and open communication with the practice is paramount. OIT may not be the right therapy for every patient, and although identifying good candidates is still an area rich for research opportunity, experience from cohorts and clinical trials provides some insight. It is important to understand the scope of practice for each member of the OIT team based on state regulations for a particular location. Staffing and space will likely dictate how many patients at an individual office could be on active OIT at one time. Emergency medications, supplies, and protocols must be in place. Screening, scheduling, visit procedures, monitoring, home dosing, dose modifications, safety precautions, adverse reactions, and maintenance will be addressed in this article. Finally, adjunct therapies under investigation will be reviewed.

The Role of Food Allergy in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Food allergy is often understood as an IgE-mediated hypersensitivity, characterized by allergic symptoms which occur “immediately” after the ingestion of a relevant food allergen. Increasingly, however, other food-related immune-mediated disorders are recognized in which symptoms can have a delayed onset and IgE does not play a central role. One of the described examples of the latter is eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) – a disease defined pathologically by local eosinophilic inflammation in the esophagus in the setting of symptoms of esophageal dysfunction. The evidence that EoE is a food-mediated allergic disease includes i) almost all patients respond to an elemental diet and many respond to a diet in which dairy, wheat, eggs and/or soy are eliminated, ii) the presence of food-specific IgE and Th2 cells are consistent with a loss of tolerance to trigger foods and iii) many EoE patients have concomitant IgE-mediated food allergy and other allergic co-morbidities. This narrative review focuses on the hypothesis that EoE is a form of chronic food allergy. The goal is to describe similarities and differences in EoE and IgE-mediated food allergy, and to consider ways that these two increasingly common forms of food allergy are related to each other.

Eosinophils in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: The Road to Fibrostenosis is Paved With Good Intentions

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an antigen-driven disease associated with epithelial barrier dysfunction and chronic type 2 inflammation. Eosinophils are the defining feature of EoE histopathology but relatively little is known about their role in disease onset and progression. Classically defined as destructive, end-stage effector cells, eosinophils (a resident leukocyte in most of the GI tract) are increasingly understood to play roles in local immunity, tissue homeostasis, remodeling, and repair. Indeed, asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia is observed in IgE-mediated food allergy. Interestingly, EoE is a potential complication of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy. However, we recently found that patients with peanut allergy may have asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia at baseline and that peanut OIT induces transient esophageal eosinophilia in most subjects. This is seemingly at odds with multiple studies which have shown that EoE disease severity correlates with tissue eosinophilia. Herein, we review the potential role of eosinophils in EoE at different stages of disease pathogenesis. Based on current literature we suggest the following: (1) eosinophils are recruited to the esophagus as a homeostatic response to epithelial barrier disruption; (2) eosinophils mediate barrier-protective activities including local antibody production, mucus production and epithelial turnover; and (3) when type 2 inflammation persists, eosinophils promote fibrosis.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis as a Side Effect of Food Oral Immunotherapy

Food allergies (FAs) include a spectrum of immune-mediated serious and potentially life-threatening medical conditions with an overall estimated prevalence ranging from 4% to 8% in the U.S. and Europe. Significant progress in food allergen-specific immunotherapy has been accomplished over the past 10 years. The most studied strategy has been oral immunotherapy (OIT), also known as food desensitization, a treatment in which a child is slowly and deliberately given a small amount of the food to ingest (that previously was a food allergy trigger) with the ultimate goal of the child eating that food without a reaction. OIT is now recommended in the European guidelines for the treatment of milk, egg, and peanut allergies and was the first American Food Drug Administration (FDA) approved product for the prevention of severe reaction to peanuts in 4–17 year olds to be released on the market. The side effects associated with OIT treatment trials are mild to moderate, predominantly oropharyngeal, and easily treated. More severe reactions, such as generalized urticaria/angioedema, wheezing/respiratory distress, laryngeal edema, and repetitive emesis, have been reported. However systemic reactions are very rare. Low-dose immunotherapy is associated with significantly fewer side effects. Currently, its most limiting allergic side effect is that approximately 10–15% of subjects treated with OIT experience gastrointestinal symptoms, preventing the continuation of therapy. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has also been reported as a cause of persistent abdominal symptoms in OIT.

Increased Production of LIGHT by T Cells in Eosinophilic Esophagitis Promotes Differentiation of Esophageal Fibroblasts Toward an Inflammatory Phenotype

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an antigen-mediated eosinophilic disease of the esophagus that involves fibroblast activation and progression to fibrostenosis. Cytokines produced by T-helper type 2 cells and transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGFβ1) contribute to the development of EoE, but other cytokines involved in pathogenesis are unknown. We investigate the effects of tumor necrosis factor superfamily member 14 (TNFSF14, also called LIGHT) on fibroblasts in EoE.

METHODS

We analyzed publicly available esophageal CD3+ T-cell single-cell sequencing data for expression of LIGHT. Esophageal tissues were obtained from pediatric patients with EoE or control individuals and analyzed by immunostaining. Human primary esophageal fibroblasts were isolated from esophageal biopsy samples of healthy donors or patients with active EoE. Fibroblasts were cultured; incubated with TGFβ1 and/or LIGHT; and analyzed by RNA sequencing, flow cytometry, immunoblots, immunofluorescence, or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Eosinophils were purified from peripheral blood of healthy donors, incubated with interleukin 5, cocultured with fibroblasts, and analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

LIGHT was up-regulated in the esophageal tissues from patients with EoE, compared with control individuals, and expressed by several T-cell populations, including T-helper type 2 cells. TNF receptor superfamily member 14 (TNFRSF14, also called HVEM) and lymphotoxin beta receptor are receptors for LIGHT that were expressed by fibroblasts from healthy donors or patients with active EoE. Stimulation of esophageal fibroblasts with LIGHT induced inflammatory gene transcription, whereas stimulation with TGFβ1 induced transcription of genes associated with a myofibroblast phenotype. Stimulation of fibroblasts with TGFβ1 increased expression of HVEM; subsequent stimulation with LIGHT resulted in their differentiation into cells that express markers of myofibroblasts and inflammatory chemokines and cytokines. Eosinophils tethered to esophageal fibroblasts after LIGHT stimulation via intercellular adhesion molecule-1.

CONCLUSIONS

T cells in esophageal tissues from patients with EoE express increased levels of LIGHT compared with control individuals, which induces differentiation of fibroblasts into cells with inflammatory characteristics. TGFβ1 increases fibroblast expression of HVEM, a receptor for LIGHT. LIGHT mediates interactions between esophageal fibroblasts and eosinophils via ICAM1. This pathway might be targeted for the treatment of EoE.

How to approach adult patients with asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia

As the awareness among gastroenterologists regarding endoscopic features suggesting eosinophilic esophagitis is increasing, individuals without symptoms of esophageal dysfunction are increasingly being found to have esophageal eosinophilia on biopsies performed during upper gastrointestinal endoscopies. However, the course of disease and the management of these asymptomatic individuals with esophageal eosinophilia remain elusive. In this review, we propose a definition of asymptomatic individuals with esophageal eosinophilia and discuss the prevalence, risk factors, and course of disease of this specific patient group. Furthermore, we have established a diagnostic and therapeutic pathway based on the most recent available data.

Oral and sublingual immunotherapy for food allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To critically appraise the recent most relevant studies in the rapidly advancing field of food oral and sublingual immunotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Food allergen-specific immunotherapy via oral (OIT) and sublingual route (SLIT) increases the threshold of reactivity to peanut, cow's milk, egg, wheat, and many other foods in the majority of the treated individuals. This desensitized state is contingent upon the continued ingestion of the maintenance doses of the food. Permanent oral tolerance is achievable in a smaller subset of the treated individuals. The optimal duration of therapy has not been firmly established but is likely dependent on the phenotype (severity and persistence). Efficacy of food-OIT is superior compared with SLIT, whereas the safety of OIT is less favorable. Standardization of treatment protocols, maintenance dosing, duration of therapy, target populations and harmonization of the outcomes are top priorities at this stage.

SUMMARY

OIT and SLIT represent two different routes of food allergen-specific immunotherapy. Although significant progress has been made in the last decade, both treatment modalities are still in the very early stages of development and further investigations are necessary to optimize the protocols and improve safety while maximizing efficacy.

Oral immunotherapy for treatment of peanut allergy

The US Food and Drug Administration's approval of a peanut oral immunotherapy product in January 2020 is a landmark development in the field of food allergy therapy. While food allergy prevalence has been increasing, this product is the first approved therapy for food allergy. Oral immunotherapy has many similarities to subcutaneous immunotherapy and drug desensitization protocols, but does not lead to sustained unresponsiveness. The studies leading to approval of the Palforzia product demonstrated increase in the amount of peanut protein able to be consumed, with 67% of subjects randomized to the treatment arm able to consume 600 mg of peanut protein in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge at study exit. However, side effects are an important consideration, and dropout rates in studies of Palforzia ranged from 11% to 21%. Postmarketing surveillance of this product will be critical in assessing its long-term risks and benefits.

Can food allergy be cured? What are the future prospects?

Food allergies have become a significant heath burden as prevalence continues to rise, affecting 6%-13% of the global population. In the absence of drugs approved by regulatory agencies, the current standard of care remains avoidance of allergenic foods and management of acute allergic reactions with antihistamines and epinephrine autoinjectors. Allergen immunotherapy has been shown to increase the threshold of reactivity in the majority of food-allergic individuals. However, challenges include long treatment periods, high rates of adverse reactions, and lack of permanence of desensitization and established protocols. To address these limitations, adjunctive allergen-specific immunotherapy, vaccines, and non-allergen-specific therapies (eg, monoclonal antibodies) are being explored. The future of food allergy treatment is promising with a number of clinical trials in progress. Currently, although desensitization can be achieved for the majority of individuals with food allergy through immunotherapy, continued ingestion of allergen is needed for most individuals to maintain desensitization. Further understanding of the mechanisms of food allergy and identification of biomarkers to distinguish between temporary and permanent resolution of allergies is needed before a cure, where reactivity to the allergen is permanently lost enabling the individual to consume the allergen in any amount at any time, can be envisioned.

Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Remission Score: Significant Relations to Measures of Disease Activity and Symptoms

OBJECTIVES

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by remissions and relapses. Guidelines defining remission do not exist and therefore remission is inconsistently identified. We sought to define histology remission in EoE.

METHODS

Esophageal biopsies, obtained at the time the validated pediatric EoE symptoms scores v2.0 (PEESS v2.0) questionnaire was completed (N = 42), were scored using the validated EoE Histology Scoring System. An EoE Histology Remission Score (EoEHRS) was constructed and specified that in all esophageal sites sampled the peak eosinophil count was <15 per high power field (HPF); in addition, neither the total grade (severity of pathology) nor stage (extent of pathology) scores could exceed 3 (possible total maximum score for each was 24). Spearman correlation coefficients were generated for histology/symptom correlations; coefficient range 0.31 to 0.50 was considered moderate.

RESULTS

EoE Histology Scoring System composite and individual feature scores from proximal and distal esophageal biopsies correlated moderately with PEESS v2.0 mean scores (0.48-0.36, P < 0.01), and with scores in the dysphagia (0.39-0.30, P ≤ 0.01), pain (0.48-0.34, P ≤ 0.01), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (0.51-0.32, P ≤ 0.01) domains. Biopsies that met full EoEHRS criteria had reduced biomarkers, specifically expression of the mast cell markers CPA3 and tryptase mRNA, and reduced eosinophil peroxidase deposition (P < 0.03), compared to those with nonremission scores. Subjects whose biopsies met EoEHRS remission criteria reported reduced symptoms for all domains except nausea and vomiting (P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The EoEHRS correlated with reduced biomarkers of disease activity and reduced symptoms, and therefore may be useful to inform clinical care and interstudy comparisons.

New Developments in Non-allergen-specific Therapy for the Treatment of Food Allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The prevalence of food allergy is increasing. At the current time, there are no approved treatments for food allergy. Major limitations of immunotherapy are long treatment periods (months or years), frequent clinic visits, high costs, increased risk of adverse events during treatment, and lack of durability of desensitization. Additionally, it is allergen-specific, and in those allergic to multiple allergens, the length and cost of treatment are further increased. In this review, we summarize recent developments in novel non-allergen-specific treatments for food allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of monoclonal antibodies that block IgE or specific pro-allergenic cytokines or their receptors have shown promise in clinical trials for food allergy. The insight we have gained through the use of one drug for the treatment of an atopic disease is quickly being translated to other atopic diseases, including food allergy. The future for food allergy treatment with biologics looks bright.

Sustained outcomes in oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (POISED study): a large, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Dietary avoidance is recommended for peanut allergies. We evaluated the sustained effects of peanut allergy oral immunotherapy (OIT) in a randomised long-term study in adults and children.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, we enrolled participants at the Sean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University (Stanford, CA, USA) with peanut allergy aged 7-55 years with a positive result from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC; ≤500 mg of peanut protein), a positive skin-prick test (SPT) result (≥5 mm wheal diameter above the negative control), and peanut-specific immunoglobulin (Ig)E concentration of more than 4 kU/L. Participants were randomly assigned (2·4:1·4:1) in a two-by-two block design via a computerised system to be built up and maintained on 4000 mg peanut protein through to week 104 then discontinued on peanut (peanut-0 group), to be built up and maintained on 4000 mg peanut protein through to week 104 then to ingest 300 mg peanut protein daily (peanut-300 group) for 52 weeks, or to receive oat flour (placebo group). DBPCFCs to 4000 mg peanut protein were done at baseline and weeks 104, 117, 130, 143, and 156. The pharmacist assigned treatment on the basis of a randomised computer list. Peanut or placebo (oat) flour was administered orally and participants and the study team were masked throughout by use of oat flour that was similar in look and feel to the peanut flour and nose clips, as tolerated, to mask taste. The statistician was also masked. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who passed DBPCFCs to a cumulative dose of 4000 mg at both 104 and 117 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02103270.

FINDINGS

Between April 15, 2014, and March 2, 2016, of 152 individuals assessed, we enrolled 120 participants, who were randomly assigned to the peanut-0 (n=60), peanut-300 (n=35), and placebo groups (n=25). 21 (35%) of peanut-0 group participants and one (4%) placebo group participant passed the 4000 mg challenge at both 104 and 117 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 12·7, 95% CI 1·8-554·8; p=0·0024). Over the entire study, the most common adverse events were mild gastrointestinal symptoms, which were seen in 90 of 120 patients (50/60 in the peanut-0 group, 29/35 in the peanut-300 group, and 11/25 in the placebo group) and skin disorders, which were seen in 50/120 patients (26/60 in the peanut-0 group, 15/35 in the peanut-300 group, and 9/25 in the placebo group). Adverse events decreased over time in all groups. Two participants in the peanut groups had serious adverse events during the 3-year study. In the peanut-0 group, in which eight (13%) of 60 participants passed DBPCFCs at week 156, higher baseline peanut-specific IgG4 to IgE ratio and lower Ara h 2 IgE and basophil activation responses were associated with sustained unresponsiveness. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Our study suggests that peanut OIT could desensitise individuals with peanut allergy to 4000 mg peanut protein but discontinuation, or even reduction to 300 mg daily, could increase the likelihood of regaining clinical reactivity to peanut. Since baseline blood tests correlated with week 117 treatment outcomes, this study might aid in optimal patient selection for this therapy.

FUNDING

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Risk Factors and Treatment Outcomes for Oral Immunotherapy-Induced Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Eosinophilic Responses (OITIGER)

BACKGROUND

We recently described that oral immunotherapy (OIT)-induced gastrointestinal symptoms were associated with peripheral eosinophilic responses (termed OITIGER).

OBJECTIVE

To identify treatment outcomes after dose modification and risk factors for developing OITIGER.

METHODS

Treatment modifications in patients with OITIGER (n = 65) including cumulative dose reductions or treatment suspension were individualized and based on the severity of symptoms and an associated absolute eosinophil count (AEC, eosinophils/μL) of more than 900. Multivariate analysis for risk factors associated with OITIGER was performed in milk-OIT subjects.

RESULTS

Treatment modifications reduced the cumulative daily dosage load by a median of 50% (interquartile range, 50%-67%) in 43 of 65 (66.1%) patients, deferred dose increases in 2 of 65 (3.1%) patients, or temporarily suspended treatment in 18 of 65 (27.7%) patients. Two patients (3.1%) had no treatment intervention. Symptoms and eosinophilia abated on dosage modification, allowing for resumption of dose increases (n = 34) or reinitiation of treatment (n = 9) after a median of 29 (interquartile range, 20-56) and 19 (interquartile range, 17-44) days, respectively. OITIGER reoccurred during treatment in 10 of 54 (18.5%) patients, which resolved after further dose modification. In long-term follow-up (>3-26 months), 31 of 32 patients were asymptomatic with stable AECs. Patients with OITIGER had a higher OIT failure rate (P = .004) and were less likely to reach full desensitization (P < .001), as compared with asymptomatic patients (n = 684). Multivariate analysis identified several risk factors for OITIGER: starting dose more than 120 mg (P < .001; odds ratio, 7.14), second-month dose more than 4-fold over the starting dose (P = .037; odds ratio, 2.18), and baseline AEC more than 600/μL (P = .002; odds ratio, 3.2).

CONCLUSIONS

OITIGER is transient or reversible in most subjects, and its occurrence is related to OIT starting dose, its rate of increase, and baseline AECs.