Evaluation of clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials, COFAITH EAACI task force

Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.

Desensitization and remission after peanut sublingual immunotherapy in 1- to 4-year-old peanut-allergic children: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prior studies of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have suggested a potential advantage with younger age at treatment initiation.

OBJECTIVE

We studied the safety and efficacy of SLIT for peanut allergy in 1- to 4-year-old children.

METHODS

Peanut-allergic 1- to 4-year-old children were randomized to receive 4 mg peanut SLIT versus placebo. Desensitization was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 36 months of treatment. Participants desensitized to at least 443 mg peanut protein discontinued therapy for 3 months and then underwent DBPCFC to assess for remission. Biomarkers were measured at baseline and longitudinally during treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty participants (25 peanut SLIT, 25 placebo) with a median age of 2.4 years were enrolled across 2 sites. The primary end point of desensitization was met with actively treated versus placebo participants having a significantly greater median cumulative tolerated dose (4443 mg vs 143 mg), higher likelihood of passing the month 36 DBPCFC (60% vs 0), and higher likelihood of demonstrating remission (48% vs 0). The highest rate of desensitization and remission was seen in 1- to 2-year-olds, followed by 2- to 3-year-olds and 3- to 4-year-olds. Longitudinal changes in peanut skin prick testing, peanut-specific IgG4, and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio were seen in peanut SLIT but not placebo participants. Oropharyngeal itching was more commonly reported by peanut SLIT than placebo participants. Skin, gastrointestinal, upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and multisystem adverse events were similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Peanut SLIT safely induces desensitization and remission in 1- to 4-year-old children, with improved outcomes seen with younger age at initiation.

Varying Approaches to Management of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy in Children Around the World

Food allergy is a chronic disease that affects individuals of all ages and is a significant public health problem globally. This narrative overview examines clinical management strategies for IgE-mediated food allergy in children around the world to understand variations in practice. Information was drawn from clinical practice guidelines, recent research, the websites of professional and governmental bodies with expertise in food allergy, and clinical experts from a broad cross-section of geographical regions. The structure and delivery of clinical services, allergen avoidance and food labeling, and resources to support the management of allergic reactions in the community are discussed in detail. The adoption of emerging food immunotherapies is also explored. Wide variations in clinical management of food allergy were apparent across the different countries. Common themes were continuing issues with access to specialist care and recognition of the need to balance risk reduction with dietary and social restrictions to avoid unnecessary detrimental impacts on the quality of life of food allergy sufferers. Findings highlight the need for standardized presentation of practice and priorities, and may assist clinicians and researchers when engaging with government and funding agencies to address gaps.

Food immunotherapy practice: Nation differences across Europe, the FIND project

BACKGROUND

Food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) practice is known to vary globally. This project aims to identify and characterize European centres performing FA-AIT.

METHODS

An EAACI task force conducted an online survey to gather relevant information regarding FA-AIT practice and setting-specific resources after reviewing the published literature and congress abstracts throughout Europe.

RESULTS

We identified 102 FA-AIT centres in 18 countries; only Spain (n = 39) and France (n = 16) had ≥10 such centres. Overall, most facilities were hospital-based (77.5%), publicly funded (80.4%) and delivered FA-AIT as routine clinical care (80.4%). On average, departments had 3 allergists/paediatric allergists and 2 nurses. Surveyed centres had provided FA-AIT for a median of 9 years [1-24] to a median of 105 [5-2415] patients. The estimated total number of treated patients was 24875, of whom 41.3% received AIT for milk, 34.2% egg, 12.8% peanut and 11.7% other foods. Anaphylaxis to AIT doses requiring over 4-6 h of observation was reported by 70.6% of centres, ICU admissions by 10.8% and eosinophilic esophagitis by 45.1%. Quality of life and sustained unresponsiveness were evaluated in 20.6% and 54.9% of centres, respectively. The main contraindications for food AIT were severe asthma (57%-63%), eosinophilic esophagitis (56%-48%) and age below 5 years (47%-41%).

CONCLUSIONS

In Europe, FA-AIT is provided mostly in clinical practice. Significant variation is seen in the number of centres per country, facility characteristics and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and in certain aspects of protocols. Potential inequality in access to AIT has been identified as well as the need for education and guidance for treatment standardization.

Pathogenesis of IgE-mediated food allergy and implications for future immunotherapeutics

Our understanding of the immune basis of food allergy has grown rapidly in parallel with the development of new immune-targeted interventions for the treatment of food allergy. Local tissue factors, including the composition of skin and gastrointestinal microbiota and production of Th2-inducing cytokines (TSLP, IL-33, and IL-25) from barrier sites, have been shown not only to contribute to the development of food allergy, but also to act as effective targets for treatment in mice. Ongoing clinical trials are testing the targeting of these factors in human disease. There is a growing understanding of the contribution of IL-13 to the induction of high-affinity IgE and the need for continual T-cell help in the maintenance of long-lived IgE. This provides a strong rationale to test biologics targeting both IL-4 and IL-13 in the treatment of established food allergy. Various forms of allergen immunotherapy for food allergy have clearly shown that low specific IgE and elevated specific IgG4 are predictive of sustained treatment effect. Treatments that mimic that immune response, for example, lowering IgE, with monoclonal antibodies such as omalizumab, or administering allergen-specific IgG, are in various stages of investigation. As we gain more opportunities to use immune-modifying treatments for the treatment of food allergy, studies of the immune and clinical response to those interventions will continue to rapidly advance our understanding of the immune basis of food allergy and tolerance.

Long-term sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: Clinical and immunologic evidence of desensitization

BACKGROUND

Peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for 1 year has been shown to induce modest clinical desensitization in allergic children. Studies of oral immunotherapy, epicutaneous immunotherapy, and SLIT have suggested additional benefit with extended treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate the safety, clinical effectiveness, and immunologic changes with long-term SLIT in children with peanut allergy.

METHODS

Children with peanut allergy aged 1 to 11 years underwent extended maintenance SLIT with 2 mg/d peanut protein for up to 5 years. Subjects with peanut skin test wheals of less than 5 mm and peanut-specific IgE levels of less than 15 kU/L were allowed to discontinue therapy early. Desensitization was assessed through a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) with up to 5000 mg of peanut protein after completion of SLIT dosing. Sustained unresponsiveness was further assessed by using identical DBPCFCs after 2 to 4 weeks without peanut exposure.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 48 subjects completed 3 to 5 years of peanut SLIT, with 67% (32/48) successfully consuming 750 mg or more during DBPCFCs. Furthermore, 25% (12/48) passed the 5000-mg DBPCFC without clinical symptoms, with 10 of these 12 demonstrating sustained unresponsiveness after 2 to 4 weeks. Side effects were reported with 4.8% of doses, with transient oropharyngeal itching reported most commonly. Side effects requiring antihistamine treatment were uncommon (0.21%), and no epinephrine was administered. Peanut skin test wheals, peanut-specific IgE levels, and basophil activation decreased significantly, and peanut-specific IgG₄ levels increased significantly after peanut SLIT.

CONCLUSION

Extended-therapy peanut SLIT provided clinically meaningful desensitization in the majority of children with peanut allergy that was balanced with ease of administration and a favorable safety profile.

Treatment for food allergy

The prevalence of IgE-mediated food allergy is an increasing public health concern effecting millions of persons worldwide. The current standard of treatment is strict avoidance of the offending food or foods, and to date, there are no regulatory approved treatments for food allergy. A significant amount of research has been directed at various forms of food immunotherapy, including oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous delivery routes. Although oral immunotherapy has shown the greatest promise for efficacy in terms of the amount of protein that can be ingested, it has also demonstrated less tolerability and a less favorable safety profile compared with sublingual immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy, which offers the least protection but has the best safety and tolerability profile. Studies have been conducted with adding adjuvants and anti-IgE to enhance either the efficacy or safety of food immunotherapy. Multiple concepts of food immunotherapy beyond these first-generation treatments are in either animal or early phase 1 studies.