ICER report for peanut OIT comes up short

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.

Food Oral Immunotherapy: A Survey Among US Practicing Allergists Conducted as a AAAAI Leadership Institute Project and Work Group Report

BACKGROUND

Food oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an active form of treatment for food allergies. Although research in this area has been ongoing for many years, the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved product for peanut allergy treatment became available only in January 2020. Limited data exist on OIT services offered by physicians in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

This workgroup report was developed to evaluate OIT practices among allergists practicing in the United States.

METHODS

The authors developed an anonymous 15-question survey and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Practices, Diagnostics and Therapeutics Committee before distribution to the membership. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology electronically distributed the survey to a random sample of 780 members in November 2021. In addition to questions specific to food OIT, the survey included questions on demographics and professional characteristics of the responders.

RESULTS

A total of 78 members completed the survey, yielding a 10% response rate. Fifty percent of responders were offering OIT in their practice. There was a significant difference in experience in OIT originating from research trials in academic versus nonacademic centers. Generally, OIT practices were similar in both settings for the number of foods offered, the performance of oral food challenges before initiating treatment, the number of new patients to whom OIT was offered to per month, and age groups OIT to whom was offered. Almost all of the reported barriers to OIT were similar between settings: staff and time limitations, concerns about safety and anaphylaxis, the need for more education on how to perform, inadequate compensation, and that it was not a significant demand from patients. Clinic space limitations were significantly different and more prominent in academic settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey revealed interesting trends in the practice of OIT across the United States, with some significant differences arising when academic and nonacademic settings were compared.

Factors associated with home epinephrine-treated reactions during peanut and tree-nut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Home reactions requiring epinephrine administration, a marker of their severity, restrict the widespread use of oral immunotherapy (OIT), but their risk factors are largely not known.

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors for such reactions during OIT to most allergenic foods.

METHODS

All patients who began OIT for peanut, tree nuts, sesame, or egg allergy at the Shamir Medical Center between April 2010 and January 2020 were enrolled. The patients were instructed to use their epinephrine autoinjectors during reactions consisting of severe abdominal pain, significant shortness of breath, or lethargy, or whenever in uncertainty of reaction severity. Patients with and without home epinephrine-treated reactions (HETRs) were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 757 OIT treatments for peanut (n = 346), tree nuts (n = 221; walnut n = 147, cashew n = 57, hazelnut n = 16, almond n = 1), sesame (n = 115), and egg (n = 75) allergies were administered to 644 patients. Eighty-three (10.9%) patients experienced HETRs. The highest rate of HETRs was experienced during walnut (20.4%) or hazelnut (25%) OIT, followed by peanut (9.8%), sesame (6.1%), egg (6.7%), and cashew (5.3%) OIT. Risk factors for HETRs included a reaction treated in an emergency department (ER) (P = .005) before starting OIT and a reaction treated with epinephrine during in-clinic induction (P < .001). Significantly fewer patients with (73.6%) than without (88.3%) HETRs achieved full desensitization (P = .001), but only a few patients with HETRs (8.4%) failed treatment.

CONCLUSION

Previous reaction severity is the main predictor for HETRs during OIT. These reactions are more frequent during walnut and hazelnut OIT than during OIT for other foods studied. Most patients experiencing HETRs achieved desensitization.

Management of Anaphylaxis During Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) has emerged as an active management option for peanut allergy, with an FDA-approved product now available for therapy. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, can occur during therapy and their management is key in optimizing this treatment and patient outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this manuscript, we will review the rates of allergic reactions and anaphylaxis in seminal peanut oral immunotherapy research studies. We will examine factors that can alter the risk of anaphylaxis and describe various strategies, including adjunct therapies, that have the potential to mitigate anaphylaxis risk based on published evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rates of anaphylaxis and epinephrine administration vary in different research studies, but there is consensus that most POIT-related allergic reactions are mild or moderate and not severe. Certain external factors (for example, tiredness, exercise, viral illness) as well as uncontrolled allergic co-morbidities (asthma, allergic rhinitis) have been shown to increase the risk of anaphylaxis during OIT. The search of biomarkers who may predict who is at risk for severe allergic reactions is ongoing. Adjunct therapies have shown promise, but further studies are required to optimize their use alongside POIT. Our understanding of anaphylaxis during POIT has increased in recent years, resulting in better management strategies. However, future plans will need to involve all stakeholders, including physicians, patients and families, researchers, public health authorities, and the food, hospitality, and catering industries.

Peanut allergy: Beyond the oral immunotherapy plateau

BACKGROUND

There are a lack of disease-modifying treatments for peanut allergy, which is lifelong in most instances. Oral immunotherapy has remained at the forefront of prospective treatments, though its efficacy is consistently undermined by the risk of adverse reactions and meager sustained effects.

AIM

This review discusses the current state of oral immunotherapy, its strengths and limitations, and the future of therapeutics for the treatment of peanut allergy.

CONCLUSION

The persistence of peanut allergy is currently attributed to reservoirs of peanut-specific memory B cells and Th2 cells, though the cellular and molecular interplay that facilitates the replenishment of peanut-specific IgE remains elusive. Uncovering these events will prove critical for identification of novel targets as we forge ahead to a new age of peanut allergy treatment with biotherapeutics.

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT)-related awareness, attitudes, and experiences among a Nationally-Representative Sample of Food Allergy Patients/Caregivers

BACKGROUND

Advances in oral immunotherapy (OIT) have led to recently expanded treatment options for food allergy (FA) patients. However, to inform future outreach efforts and ensure equitable access to emerging treatments, a greater understanding of current OIT-related awareness, attitudes and experiences is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize current OIT awareness, attitudes and experiences among a nationally-representative sample of US adults with FA and parents/caregivers of pediatric patients.

METHODS

A probability-based sample of US adults and parents/caregivers of children with FA was surveyed about OIT-related knowledge, attitudes, and experiences.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by respondents (N=781) from all 50 states. Overall, 72% did not know what OIT was prior to the survey. Respondents from households earning over $100,000/year or with a college degree each had significantly greater odds of reporting any OIT awareness compared to lower-income (OR=2.0; 95%CI:1.2-3.4) and non-college-educated (OR=1.9; 95%CI:1.2-3.0) respondents. Among respondents familiar/unfamiliar with OIT, 54%/34% reported their expected treatment outcome was to obtain protection against accidental exposure. Among respondents familiar/unfamiliar with OIT, 38%/35% reported their expected treatment outcome to be curing the allergy. Furthermore, 55% of OIT unfamiliar respondents said they would not be comfortable initiating a conversation with their healthcare provider about their suitability for OIT.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that among a nationally-representative sample of FA patients and pediatric caregivers, awareness of OIT is low, and over 95% of patients lack personal experience with OIT. Furthermore, the data suggest current OIT awareness is disproportionately elevated among wealthier, more highly-educated respondents.

Emerging developments in the forefront of peanut oral immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, progress continued in the field of peanut oral immunotherapy over the past 12 to 18 months. Of importance, the first oral immunotherapy product for the treatment of peanut allergy was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in January 2020.

RECENT FINDINGS

Suggested modifications to the practice of oral immunotherapy, some of which may have lasting impacts, were circulated as a result of the pandemic. New advances in pathophysiology, sustained unresponsiveness, quality of life, safety, and cost effectiveness were also published.

SUMMARY

During 2020, COVID-19 influenced the daily practice of allergy and immunology, with peanut oral immunotherapy being no exception. However, clinicians now have a FDA-approved treatment option for peanut allergy in children, a welcome development for a difficult disease. Future research is needed to clarify several knowledge deficits surrounding the best use of peanut OIT.

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.

Emerging Therapies for Peanut Allergy

Peanut allergy (PA) is a food allergy that causes an IgE-mediated type I hypersensitivity reaction. PA has become an increasing public health burden, with 2% of American children reported to have this condition in 2010. Current guidelines recommend allergen avoidance, patient education, and administration of H1 antihistamines, β2-agonists, or epinephrine based on the severity of reaction. In this review article, emerging therapies for PA are evaluated for their potential role in treating PA. Oral, epicutaneous, and sublingual immunotherapies have completed clinical trials with promising efficacy. In particular, Palforzia (AR101) is an oral immunotherapy that received Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approval in January 2020 and Viaskin Peanut is an epicutaneous immunotherapy with an anticipated FDA decision date by August 5, 2020. Furthermore, adjuvant combinations with either probiotics or anti-IgE receptor antagonists have shown an improved efficacy and safety profile compared to oral immunotherapy alone. However, immunotherapy-induced adverse reaction rates are high due to the risks associated with intentional allergen exposure. These results suggest that peanut immunotherapy has a promising role in the treatment of PA, although further studies are needed before its incorporation into standard of care.

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.

Pharmacotherapy in allergy medicine: from 'ipse dixit' to the evidence-based medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of the article is to examine the contributions made in recent years by evidence-based medicine to the understanding, positioning, and use of drugs for the treatment of the main allergic conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several antiasthmatic drugs have been reappraised for their efficacy characteristics and drug interactions in Cochrane reviews. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines have been reformulated in evidence-based medicine (EBM) terms in 2017; over these years, new point of care instruments contributed to the approximation of the guidelines to real life by drawing from the patients themselves information that allows to finely modeling the pharmacological suggestions. Last, at the time of the emergence of new drugs for the treatment of peanut allergy, new systematic reviews have helped to focus on the most suitable reference outcomes with the aim to respond promptly and adherently to patients' needs.

SUMMARY

EBM has contributed to changes in the GINA guidelines in the last two years. It has been instrumental in translating the ARIA guidelines in real life. It has also contributed to profiling the potential and limitations of oral peanut immunotherapy. In allergy medicine, EBM is a formidable aid for the advancement of knowledge.

Consensus report from the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) 2019 Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy Summit

Food allergy is a major health problem affecting 5% to 10% of the population in developed nations, including an estimated 32 million Americans. Despite the large number of patients suffering from food allergies, up until the end of January 2020, no treatment for food allergies had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The only options were avoidance of food allergen triggers and acute management of allergic reactions. A considerable body of data exists supporting oral immunotherapy (OIT) as a promising, novel treatment option, including that for the now Food and Drug Administration-approved peanut OIT product Palforzia (Aimmune Therapeutics, Brisbane, Calif). However, data for long-term quality-of-life improvement with OIT varies, depending on the measures used for analysis. Like many therapies, OIT is not without potential harms, and burdens, and the evaluation of patient-specific risk-benefit ratio of food OIT produces challenges for clinicians and patients alike, with many unanswered questions. Food Allergy Research & Education organized the Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy Summit on November 6, 2019, modeled after the PRACTALL sessions between the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology to address these critical issues. Health care providers, patient representatives, researchers, regulators, and food allergy advocates came together to discuss OIT and identify areas of common ground as well as gaps in existing research and areas of uncertainty and disagreement. The purpose of this article was to summarize that discussion and facilitate collaboration among clinicians and patients to help them make better-informed decisions about offering and accepting OIT, respectively, as a therapeutic option.