Interaction Between Baseline Participant Factors and Treatment Effects Following Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

The Probiotic Peanut Oral Immunotherapy-003 multicenter randomized trial found that both probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) and peanut OIT alone (OIT) were effective compared with placebo in inducing clinical remission after 18 months of treatment, and improving health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 12 months after treatment. Understanding treatment effect modifiers can optimize outcomes through precision care.

OBJECTIVES

This post hoc study examined baseline clinical and demographic participant factors that modified treatment effects.

METHODS

The study sample included 201 children (aged 1-10 years) with challenge-confirmed peanut allergy. Exposure variables were baseline clinical and demographic factors. Outcomes were remission (double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, cumulative 4,950-mg peanut protein at 8 weeks after treatment) and HRQL (change in Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Form score). Interactions between baseline factors and treatment effects on remission and HRQL were explored with regression models.

RESULTS

A higher degree of peanut sensitivity (large peanut skin prick test, high peanut specific IgE, and low reaction-eliciting dose at study entry challenge) and other concurrent allergic conditions (multiple food allergies, asthma, or wheeze) were associated with the decreased likelihood of attaining remission after both PPOIT and OIT treatment. History of anaphylaxis was associated with the reduced likelihood of remission after PPOIT compared with OIT. For the HRQL outcome, there was evidence that sex, history of anaphylaxis, and age modified treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline participant factors modify PPOIT and OIT effects on remission and HRQL. Considering modifiers of treatment effect during participant selection may optimize treatment success and clinical trial design toward specific outcomes, such as the achievement of remission.

Animal Models in the Study of Food Allergens: Long-Term Maintenance of Allergic Reactivity in Mouse Models of Food Allergy

Multiple mouse models have been used to characterize mechanisms of allergic sensitization and anaphylaxis and are widely used for preclinical development of novel therapeutics. However, the majority of published works with mouse models of food allergy have very short intervals between the time of sensitization and the end of the study, and the duration of maintenance of reactivity has not been widely reported. This chapter focuses on two of the most commonly used mouse models with sensitization to peanut or ovalbumin, with the focus on the long-term durability of sensitization to allow for longer therapeutic protocols and assessment of sustained unresponsiveness.

A clinical focus on oral tolerance in the development, prevention, and management of food allergy

Food allergy impacts up to 10 % of the population and can result in life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. The pathogenesis of food allergy is not entirely understood but the disruption in naturally occurring oral tolerance is presumed to be involved. Research has been directed not only toward prevention of food allergy but on the restoration of oral tolerance by various means including immunotherapy (oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous), as well as adjunctive therapies including biologicals and probiotics. This review paper briefly discusses the involvement of oral tolerance in the pathogenesis of food allergy and how food allergy might be prevented; however, the main focus is on the potential for restoration of oral tolerance with various treatment modalities (oral immunotherapy with and without adjunctive therapies).

Omalizumab in IgE-Mediated Food Allergy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.

METHODS

An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.

Maximum Dose Food Challenges Reveal Transient Sustained Unresponsiveness in Peanut Oral Immunotherapy (POIMD Study)

BACKGROUND

The maximum tolerated dose of peanut protein following peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is unknown because most research studies have not examined very high thresholds.

OBJECTIVE

To define the maximum dose tolerated by patients on POIT and severity of allergic reactions after a 1-month period of treatment discontinuation.

METHODS

In a phase 2 3-year POIT open-label study, we enrolled participants age 5 to 13 years with a 1-year build-up period followed by a 2-year daily maintenance dose of 3900 mg with assessment of the maximum tolerated dose using double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) of 26,225 mg cumulative dose of peanut protein. The DBPCFC was performed at baseline, after 12-month build-up, at 2 year of maintenance, and after a 1-month period of treatment discontinuation. Biomarkers were assessed every 6 weeks for the first 6 months of therapy. A general linear mixed model was used for analysis.

RESULTS

The mean maximum cumulative tolerated dose after 12 months increased by 12,063 mg (P < .001) (n = 12), slightly decreased during maintenance (n = 11), and significantly decreased by 7593 mg after avoidance for 1 month (P = .03) (n = 6). Biomarker analysis revealed decreases in cytokine expression within the first 6 weeks of initiation of POIT and decreased peanut-IgG₄ and increased cytokine expression after 1 month of discontinuation. The DBPCFC reaction severity, examined through a symptom score with 1 point for each defined symptom, decreased after 12 months, but did not significantly change after 1 month of POIT discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of POIT and sustained unresponsiveness by maximum tolerated dose by DBPCFCs in this small phase 2 trial showed that desensitization is diminished, with 100% loss of tolerated dose after 1 month of avoidance following 3 years of treatment.

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.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: a Current Perspective

Purpose of the Review

Peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is one of the most studied experimental therapies for food allergy. With the recently FDA-approved peanut product, Palforzia, the goal of this article is to review the most recent data from clinical trials, discuss recent trends, and anticipate future developments.

Recent Findings

The latest research suggests that peanut OIT could be a promising option for peanut-allergic patients, with the majority of participants in research studies achieving the primary efficacy endpoint of desensitization, as well as sustained unresponsiveness in select populations. Some studies also showed improvements in food allergy-related quality of life. However, peanut OIT is not without risk or side effects, including potentially serious allergic reactions.

Summary

Future research will need to evaluate the short- and long-term effectiveness of the therapy in the real-world setting, predictors of important treatment outcomes, and the use of adjunctive therapies that may mitigate some of these allergic reactions.

A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Multisite Study Using Omalizumab-facilitated Rapid Desensitization to Test Continued vs Discontinued Dosing in Multifood Allergic Individuals

BACKGROUND

As there is limited data on the sustainability of desensitization of multifood-oral immunotherapy (multifood-OIT), we conducted a multisite multifood-OIT study to compare the efficacy of successful desensitization with sustained dosing vs discontinued dosing after multifood-OIT.

METHODS

We enrolled 70 participants, aged 5-22 years with multiple food allergies confirmed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs). In the open-label phase of the study, all participants received omalizumab (weeks 1-16) and multi-OIT (2-5 allergens; weeks 8-30) and eligible participants (on maintenance dose of each allergen by weeks 28-29) were randomized 1:1:1 to 1 g, 300 mg, or 0 mg arms (blinded, weeks 30-36) and then tested by food challenge at week 36. Success was defined as passing 2 g food challenge to at least 2 foods in week 36.

FINDINGS

Most participants were able to reach a dose of 2 g or higher of each of 2, 3, 4, and 5 food allergens (as applicable to the participant's food allergens in OIT) in week 36 food challenges. Using an intent-to-treat analysis, we did not find evidence that a 300 mg dose was effectively different than a 1 g dose in maintaining desensitization, and both together were more effective than OIT discontinuation (0 mg dose) (85% vs 55%, P = 0.03). Fifty-five percent of the intent-to-treat participants and 69% of per protocol participants randomized to the 0 mg arm showed no objective reactivity after 6 weeks of discontinuation. Cross-desensitization was found between cashew/pistachio and walnut/pecan when only one of the foods was part of OIT. No statistically significant safety differences were found between the three arms.

INTERPRETATION

These results suggest that sustained desensitization after omalizumab-facilitated multi-OIT best occurs through continued maintenance OIT dosing of either 300 mg or 1 g of each food allergen as opposed to discontinuation of multi-OIT.

FUNDING

Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, NIAID AADCRC U19AI104209.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02626611.

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

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

Is Allergen Immunotherapy in Children Disease Modifying? A Review of the Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although evidence supports a beneficial effect of allergen immunotherapy on the symptoms of allergic respiratory disease and food allergy, it is not clear whether immunotherapy modifies the natural history of these conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

In aeroallergen immunotherapy, studies suggest that prevention of asthma can be attained. Less evident is the ability of immunotherapy to prevent new allergen sensitizations and more studies are needed to test whether immunotherapy can continue suppressing airway symptoms after treatment discontinuation. In food allergen immunotherapy, there is evidence that unresponsiveness to a food challenge can be sustained in some treatment recipients, but little knowledge exists as to the dose and duration of treatment that can optimize this effect. Suggestive evidence exists that allergen immunotherapy can modify allergic disease in children, but definitive studies are lacking. More research in the field is required.

Debates in Allergy Medicine: Oral immunotherapy shortens the duration of milk and egg allergy - the con argument

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been shown to be effective for inducing desensitization in children with cow’s milk and egg allergy. In contrast, there is limited evidence that OIT can induce tolerance or sustained unresponsiveness in food allergic patients. Sustained unresponsiveness, determined by a food challenge following a period of secondary avoidance, has been suggested to reflect a more enduring state of tolerance and is pertinent when considering the ability of OIT to shorten the duration of food allergy. While it has been shown that children who tolerate baked forms of egg and milk are more likely to develop tolerance compared to those who are allergic to baked forms of these foods, there is no convincing evidence that OIT using modified allergen in baked foods can hasten resolution of cow’s milk and egg allergy. Instead, it is likely that baked milk and baked egg tolerant children represent a sub-phenotype of milk and egg allergy that is more likely to resolve spontaneously over time.

Debates in Allergy Medicine: Does oral immunotherapy shorten the duration of milk and egg allergy? The pro argument

The development of oral tolerance or food allergy is an active process, related to dynamic interactions between host immune cells, microbiome, dietary factors, and food allergens. Oral tolerance is the default immune response in the gut. A food allergy occurs when this process fails and a pathologic Th2 response is activated. Oral food immunotherapy (OIT) aims to restore immune tolerance in food-allergic individuals. The stimulation of Tregs production seems to represent a crucial step in inducing long-term tolerance, but other mechanisms (e.g., the suppression of mast cell and basophil reactivity, changes in allergen-specific cells with regulatory markers) are involved. Several studies reported the efficacy of OIT in terms of "sustained unresponsiveness" (SU), an operational definition of immune tolerance. In successfully treated subjects, the ability to pass an oral food challenge 2 to 8 weeks after stopping the food allergen exposure seems to be conditioned by the treatment starting age, frequency, amount or type of food consumed, and by the duration of the maintenance phase. Based on the available data, the percentage of milk- and egg-allergic subjects achieving sustained unresponsiveness after an OIT ranges from 21% to 58,3%. A comprehensive understanding of mechanisms underlying the induction of oral tolerance with OIT, or natural tolerance to food allergens in healthy individuals, could potentially lead to advances in development of better treatment options for food allergic patients.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy

Food allergy is a pathological, potentially deadly cascade of immune responses to molecules or molecular fragments that are normally innocuous when encountered in foods, such as milk, egg, or peanut. As the incidence and prevalence of food allergy rise, the standard of care is poised to advance beyond food allergen avoidance coupled with injectable epinephrine treatment of allergen-induced systemic reactions. Recent studies provide evidence that oral immunotherapy may effectively redirect the atopic immune responses of food allergy patients as they ingest small but gradually increasing allergen doses over many months, eliciting safer immune responses to these antigens. Research into the molecular and cellular bases of pathological and therapeutic immune responses, and into the possibilities for their safe and effective modulation, is generating tremendous interest in basic and clinical immunology. We synthesize developments, innovations, and key challenges in our understanding of the immune mechanisms associated with atopy and oral immunotherapy for food allergy.

Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

Food allergy is a potentially life-threatening condition with no approved therapies, apart from avoidance and injectable epinephrine for acute allergic reactions. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an experimental treatment in which food-allergic patients consume gradually increasing quantities of the food to increase their threshold for allergic reaction. This therapy carries significant risk of allergic reactions. The ability of OIT to desensitize patients to particular foods is well-documented, although the ability to induce tolerance has not been established. This review focuses on recent studies for the treatment of food allergies such as cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut.

Advances in the Treatment of Food Allergy: Sublingual and Epicutaneous Immunotherapy

Food allergies continue to increase in prevalence. Standard care is a strict elimination diet, but life-threatening reactions still occur. Allergen immunotherapy has the most potential in treating food allergy. Subcutaneous immunotherapy has not been adopted into food allergy therapy. Oral immunotherapy has a high rate of adverse reactions. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) uses the tolerogenic environment of the oral mucosa and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) uses the immune cells of the epidermis to transport antigens to afferent lymph nodes to activate immune responses. SLIT and EPIT can successfully desensitize patients. More research is needed to define optimal doses and administration protocols.

Two-weeks-sustained unresponsiveness by oral immunotherapy using microwave heated cow's milk for children with cow's milk allergy

Background

Several studies have reported that oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective for children with cow’s milk (CM) allergy. These studies reported the efficacy of OIT in terms of desensitization, but did not describe sustained unresponsiveness to CM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the OIT protocol using microwave heated cow’s milk (MH-CM) in terms of 2-weeks-sustained unresponsiveness (2-weeks-SU) and safety.

Methods

Forty-eight children were enrolled in this study. Thirty-one children agreed to receive rush OIT using MH-CM (the OIT group) and another 17 children who did not want to receive rush OIT formed the untreated group. Rates of desensitization and 2-weeks-sustained unresponsiveness were compared between the two groups at 1 year after the start of OIT. We followed up these rates and safety data for another year and for longer in the OIT group.

Results

No children in the untreated group did not pass an open food challenge to CM. Of the 31 children in the OIT group, 14 (P = 0.002) achieved desensitization, and 8 (P = 0.036) achieved 2-weeks-SU to CM at 1 year from the start of OIT. Two years after the start of OIT, both the rate of desensitization and the rate of 2-weeks-SU in the OIT group significantly increased compared with the rates at 1 year (P = 0.025 and P = 0.008 respectively).

Conclusions

The rush OIT protocol using MH-CM was effective at inducing 2-weeks-SU s to CM and had a good safety profile in children with CM allergy.

Trial registration Approval number: 324, Registered 3 February 2009