Oral Immunotherapy and Basophil and Mast Cell Reactivity in Food Allergy

Possible alternative strategies to implement basophil activation testing in multicentric studies

The Basophil Activation Test (BAT) enables flow cytometry characterization of basophil reactivity against specific allergenic molecules. The focus now revolves around democratizing this tool, but, as blood sample stability could be challenging, after having developed a simplified approach, herein, we aimed to characterize two strategies for implementing BAT in multicentric studies: store and ship blood before or after sample processing. Fresh heparin- and EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood samples followed both BAT workflows: "collect, store, process & analyze" or "collect, process, store & analyze". Storage temperatures of 18-25 °C or 2-8 °C and preservation times from 0 to 7 days were considered. Interleukin-3 was also evaluated. With the "collect, store, process & analyze" workflow, heparin-anticoagulated blood and 18-25 °C storage were better than other conditions. While remaining possible, basophil activation exhibited a possible reactivity decay after 24 h. Under the conditions tested, interleukin-3 had no role in enhancing basophil reactivity after storage. Conversely, the "collect, process, store & analyze" workflow demonstrated that either heparin- or EDTA-anticoagulated blood can be processed and kept up to 7 days at 18-25 °C or 2-8 °C before being analyzed. Various strategies can be implemented to integrate BAT in multicentric studies. The "collect, store, process & analyze" workflow remains a simplified logistical approach, but depending on time required to ship from the clinical centers to the reference laboratories, it might not be applicable, or should be used with caution. The "collect, process, store & analyze" workflow may constitute a workflow improvement to provide significant flexibility without impact on basophil reactivity.

Low-dose oral immunotherapy in immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergies

Nowadays, the management of food allergies has increasingly moved from conventional oral immunotherapy (OIT) to low-dose OIT or low-dose OIT utilizing hypoallergenic foods. This shift is largely because the latter appears to induce oral tolerance with fewer adverse effects than the former. However, the mechanisms underpinning such differences remain unclear. To better understand these mechanisms, we conducted a comparative study scrutinizing the mechanisms of OIT, especially those of low-dose desensitization. We also summarized articles on low-dose OIT and low-dose OIT using hypoallergenic foods. We examined the efficacy, safety, and immunological parameters of low-dose OIT and those of low-dose OIT with hypoallergenic foods with the aim of shedding some light on low-dose OIT and its therapeutic application in inducing oral tolerance for individuals with food allergies.

Promises and Remaining Challenges for Further Integration of Basophil Activation Test in Allergy-Related Research and Clinical Practice

More than 20 years after having been initially proposed, the relevance and usefulness of basophil activation test (BAT) for the field of allergy research and testing were demonstrated on many occasions. Leveraging the fully open format of a flexible, whole blood-based functional assay, BAT has been shown to be equally important for fundamental research, clinical research, and diagnosis. Regardless of whether the focus of a study is on the characterization of the allergenic moiety, on the patient side, or on the study of the fundamental processes involved in the allergic disease or its treatment, BAT enables the gathering of very important insights. In spite of this, its full capabilities have yet to be leveraged. Various bottlenecks, including but not limited to assay logistics, robustness, flow cytometry access, and/or expertise, have indeed been limiting its development beyond experts and long-term users. Now, various initiatives, aiming at resolving these bottlenecks, have been launched. If successful, a broader use of BAT could then be contemplated. In such a situation, its more thorough integration in clinical practice has the potential to significantly change the allergic patient's journey.

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.

Update on In Vitro Diagnostic Tools and Treatments for Food Allergies

Food allergy (FA) is an adverse immunological reaction to a specific food that can trigger a wide range of symptoms from mild to life-threatening. This adverse reaction is caused by different immunological mechanisms, such as IgE-mediated, non-IgE-mediated and mixed IgE-mediated reactions. Its epidemiology has had a significant increase in the last decade, more so in developed countries. It is estimated that approximately 2 to 10% of the world's population has FA and this number appears to be increasing and also affecting more children. The diagnosis can be complex and requires the combination of different tests to establish an accurate diagnosis. However, the treatment of FA is based on avoiding the intake of the specific allergenic food, thus being very difficult at times and also controlling the symptoms in case of accidental exposure. Currently, there are other immunomodulatory treatments such as specific allergen immunotherapy or more innovative treatments that can induce a tolerance response. It is important to mention that research in this field is ongoing and clinical trials are underway to assess the safety and efficacy of these different immunotherapy approaches, new treatment pathways are being used to target and promote the tolerance response. In this review, we describe the new in vitro diagnostic tools and therapeutic treatments to show the latest advances in FA management. We conclude that although significant advances have been made to improve therapies and diagnostic tools for FA, there is an urgent need to standardize both so that, in their totality, they help to improve the management of FA.

Oral Immunotherapy in Food Allergy: Where Are We Now?

Food allergy (FA) has become more prevalent and problematic in the last 2 decades, and it poses important individual, social, and economic burdens. Besides treating reactions induced by accidental exposure and periodic evaluation for acquiring natural tolerance, the primary management approach is still allergen avoidance as a global standard. However, an active therapeutic approach that can raise the reaction threshold or accelerate tolerance is needed. This review aimed to provide an overview and the latest evidence of oral immunotherapy (OIT), which has recently been used in the active treatment of FA. FA immunotherapy, particularly OIT, is gaining considerable interest, and substantial effort has been made to integrate this active treatment into clinical practice. Consequently, growing evidence has been obtained regarding the efficacy and safety of OIT, particularly for allergens such as peanuts, eggs, and milk. However, several issues need to be addressed regarding the availability, safety, and long-term effects of this intervention. In this review, we summarize currently available information regarding tolerance-inducing immune mechanisms of OIT, data on efficacy and safety, gaps in current evidence, and ongoing research to develop new therapeutic molecules in order to enhance safety.

New Indications of Biological Drugs in Allergic and Immunological Disorders: Beyond Asthma, Urticaria, and Atopic Dermatitis

Asthma, chronic urticaria, and atopic dermatitis are some of the most numerous allergic diseases affecting children. Recent advances in the understanding of their specific intracellular molecular pathways have led to the approval of monoclonal antibodies targeting definite inflammatory molecules in order to control symptoms and improve quality of life. Less is known about other allergic and immunologic disorders such as rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, eosinophilic esophagitis, anaphylaxis, and food allergy undergoing allergen immunotherapy. The increasing evidence of the molecular mechanisms underlying their pathogeneses made it possible to find in children new indications for known biological drugs, such as omalizumab and dupilumab, and to develop other ones even more specific. Promising results were recently obtained, although few are currently approved in the pediatric population. In this review, we aim to provide the latest evidence about the role, safety, and efficacy of biologic agents to treat allergic and immunologic diseases in children.

Biomarkers and mechanisms of tolerance induction in food allergic patients drive new therapeutic approaches

Immunotherapy for food-allergic patients has been effective in inducing desensitization in some populations, but long-term tolerance has remained an elusive target. A challenge facing our field is how to differentiate immune markers that are impacted by immunotherapy from those that are critical biomarkers of tolerance. Data from recent clinical trials have identified several biomarkers and mechanisms for achieving tolerance. These biomarkers include younger age, lower food-specific IgE, lower food component-specific IgE, specific linear epitope profiles, and subsets of food-specific CD4+ T cells. Additional biomarkers under investigation for their relevance in tolerance induction include TCR repertoires, gastrointestinal and skin microbiome, and local tissue immunity. This mini-review highlights recent advances in understanding biomarkers and mechanisms of tolerance induction in food immunotherapy and how these are influencing clinical trial development.

New Biomarkers in Anaphylaxis (Beyond Tryptase)

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to provide a better understanding of anaphylaxis pathophysiology and describe the underlying mechanisms, effector cells, and the potential biomarkers involved depending on the anaphylaxis endotypes.

Recent Findings

New insight into the potential relevance of pathways others than IgE-dependent anaphylaxis has been unraveled, as well as other biomarkers than tryptase, such as the role of platelet activation factor, basogranulin, dipeptidyl peptidase I, CCL-2, and other cytokines.

Summary

Gaining knowledge of all the mediators and cellular activation/communication pathways involved in each endotype of anaphylaxis will allow the application of precision medicine in patients with anaphylactic reactions, providing insights to the most appropriate approach in each case and helping to stratify severity and risk prediction.

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.

The Basophil Activation Test for Clinical Management of Food Allergies: Recent Advances and Future Directions

The basophil activation test (BAT) is an ex vivo functional assay that measures by flow cytometry the degree of basophil degranulation after stimulation with an allergen. In recent years, there has been an increased interest in the diagnostic value of the BAT as it has the potential to mimic the clinical phenotype of sIgE sensitized patients, in contrast to allergen-specific IgE levels. This diagnostic potential would be of particular interest for food allergies present early in life such as peanut, cow’s milk and eggs, which require an expensive, time-consuming and patient unfriendly oral food challenge (OFC) for diagnosis. However, routine applications of the BAT for clinical use are not yet feasible due to the lack of standardized protocols and large clinical validation studies. This review will summarize the current data regarding the application of the BAT in food allergy (FA) for cow’s milk, egg and peanut, being the most common causes of FA in children. Additionally, it will discuss the hurdles for widespread clinical use of the BAT and possible future directions for this diagnostic procedure.

Food Allergy a Constant Concern to the Medical World and Healthcare Providers: Practical Aspects

Food allergy (FA) is a condition with a growing incidence and is a constant concern for the medical world and healthcare providers. With potential symptoms including anaphylaxis, in the event of an allergic reaction the patient’s life may well be endangered. The diagnosis of FA is a continuous challenge because mild cases tend to be ignored or diagnosed late and young children with allergies are cared for by parents, who are not always able to accurately interpret symptoms. It is very important to be able to differentiate FAs from food intolerance and toxic reactions to food. An accurate diagnosis is required to provide personalized management of an FA. More sophisticated and accurate diagnostic tests, including component diagnosis and epitope reactivity, allow the provision of a directed diagnosis, a more accurate therapeutic approach, and a useful prognostic evaluation. Tests used in current practice include the specific search for serum IgE, elimination diets, oral food challenges, single, blind, and double-blind (DBPCFC) tests, as well as skin tests. The risk of anaphylaxis can be assessed by molecular diagnostics/component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) and by conducting a basophilic activation test (BAT). These tests allow a planned, personalized treatment based on molecular and clinical profiles. CRD can determine the individual profile of allergic molecular reactivity and enable the formulation of a prognostic judgment. Our article highlights the importance of knowing the immune mechanisms, diagnostics, and immunotherapies in FAs. Starting from observing exposure to food allergens, to identifying allergic reactions, analysing the severity of clinical manifestations, noting the possibilities of diagnosis, and illustrating adequate management strategies.

Clinical and immunological evaluation of cat-allergic asthmatics living with or without a cat

BACKGROUND

Characterising the clinical and immunological impact of daily cat exposure in cat-allergic subjects with asthma who live with cats (WC) and those who do not (WoC) may provide understanding of the drivers of the allergic response.

METHODS

Clinical and immunological characteristics (skin prick test, spirometry, symptom assessments, immunological markers) were compared between asthmatic subjects WC (n = 10) and WoC (n = 9).

RESULTS

WC subjects had greater use of long-acting beta agonists (p < .05) and high-potency corticosteroids. No differences were observed in lung function, nasal and ocular symptoms, or asthma control between the groups. Cat dander- and Fel d 1-specific IgG₄ concentrations were higher in WC than WoC subjects (both p < .05). Total IgE and cat dander-, Fel d 1- and Fel d 7-specific IgE concentrations were similar, but Fel d 4-sIgE was higher in WC subjects (p < .05) versus WoC. Basophil sensitivity to cat dander extract and Fel d 1 was lower in WC versus WoC subjects (p < .05) and correlated with higher IgG₄ concentrations (r = 0.63; p = .009). Fel d 1-specific CD4+ T-cell responses polarised toward Th2A responses in WC versus WoC subjects; Fel d 1-specific IgE correlated with surface expression of CRTH2 and CD200R (both p ≤ .05).

CONCLUSION

Immunological differences observed in WC versus WoC did not reflect clinical tolerance with natural cat exposure. The ability to live with a cat despite allergy could be driven by higher preventative medication use. This study may support design of novel therapeutics for allergy management.

Assessment of Allergic and Anaphylactic Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines With Confirmatory Testing in a US Regional Health System

IMPORTANCE

As of May 2021, more than 32 million cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in the United States, resulting in more than 615 000 deaths. Anaphylactic reactions associated with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the immunologic mechanisms underlying allergic reactions to these vaccines.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This case series included 22 patients with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines between December 18, 2020, and January 27, 2021, at a large regional health care network. Participants were individuals who received at least 1 of the following International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision anaphylaxis codes: T78.2XXA, T80.52XA, T78.2XXD, or E949.9, with documentation of COVID-19 vaccination. Suspected allergy cases were identified and invited for follow-up allergy testing.

EXPOSURES

FDA-authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Allergic reactions were graded using standard definitions, including Brighton criteria. Skin prick testing was conducted to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate 80 (P80). Histamine (1 mg/mL) and filtered saline (negative control) were used for internal validation. Basophil activation testing after stimulation for 30 minutes at 37 °C was also conducted. Concentrations of immunoglobulin (Ig) G and IgE antibodies to PEG were obtained to determine possible mechanisms.

RESULTS

Of 22 patients (20 [91%] women; mean [SD] age, 40.9 [10.3] years; 15 [68%] with clinical allergy history), 17 (77%) met Brighton anaphylaxis criteria. All reactions fully resolved. Of patients who underwent skin prick tests, 0 of 11 tested positive to PEG, 0 of 11 tested positive to P80, and 1 of 10 (10%) tested positive to the same brand of mRNA vaccine used to vaccinate that individual. Among these same participants, 10 of 11 (91%) had positive basophil activation test results to PEG and 11 of 11 (100%) had positive basophil activation test results to their administered mRNA vaccine. No PEG IgE was detected; instead, PEG IgG was found in tested individuals who had an allergy to the vaccine.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Based on this case series, women and those with a history of allergic reactions appear at have an elevated risk of mRNA vaccine allergy. Immunological testing suggests non-IgE-mediated immune responses to PEG may be responsible in most individuals.

The use of biologics in food allergy

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Autoimmunity, IgE and FcεRI-bearing cells

Antibody-mediated autoimmune diseases (AAID) involve several isotypes of autoreactive antibodies. In a growing number of AAID, autoreactive IgE are present with a significant prevalence and are often associated with the presence of IgG anti-IgE and/or anti-FcεRIα (high affinity IgE receptor α chain). FcεRI-bearing cells, such as basophils or mast cells, are key players in some of these AAID. Recent advances in the pathophysiology of these diseases led to the passed or current development of anti-IgE strategies that showed very potent effects in some of them. The present review centralizes the information on the relevance of autoreactive IgE and FcεRI-bearing cells in the pathophysiology of different AAID and the ones where the anti-IgE therapeutic strategy shows or may show some benefits for the patients.