Peanut oral immunotherapy in a pediatric allergy clinic: Patient factors associated with clinical outcomes

Oral Immunotherapy Should Play a Key Role in Preschool Food Allergy Management

Food allergies pose significant challenges including the risk for severe allergic reactions. This review article highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the historic standard management approach-avoidance and carrying epinephrine in case of accidental ingestion-and argues, based on accumulating evidence, that oral immunotherapy (OIT) should play a key role in preschool food allergy management. Firstly, our review will highlight pitfalls with the 'wait-and-see' approach to natural resolution of food allergies, with recent data pointing to lower resolution than previously thought. For those who do not outgrow their allergies, waiting until school age to offer OIT means missing the window of opportunity where OIT is safest, and prolongs unnecessary dietary restrictions. For those who do outgrow their allergies, research indicates they may not reintroduce the food due to fear and aversion and can become re-sensitised, putting them at risk of severe reactions. Secondly, the risks associated with allergen avoidance are higher than previously believed. Allergen avoidance is imperfect and carries an increased risk of severe reactions when compared with the risk of severe reactions while on OIT, particularly in preschoolers. Although an allergic reaction can be stressful, it is preferable to have this occur during OIT where caregivers are vigilant following a scheduled dose, rather than having this occur at a potentially unexpected time following an accidental exposure. Lastly, there is a growing body of evidence supporting favourable safety and effectiveness of OIT in preschoolers, and preliminary data suggesting higher likelihood of remission in infants. OIT has the potential to significantly improve quality of life, and future research is needed to answer this important question in preschoolers. In summary, while ongoing research will further clarify cost-effectiveness, long-term adherence and psychosocial impacts of OIT, this review suggests that OIT should play a key role in preschool food allergy management.

Implementing Food Oral Immunotherapy Into Clinical Practice: Quality and Safety Perspectives From a US Academic Center

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an accessible procedure for practicing allergy/immunology providers, yet rigorous safety standards are limited in the clinical setting. By exploring the transition from research to clinical practice OIT, we review relevant safety considerations necessary for the clinical provider. We offer a perspective on clinical benefits and considerations at the individual, collaboration, and policy levels from the vantage of a large academic OIT program, and we propose several practical start-up checklists and clerical considerations for practicing providers. Awareness of the local population and front-end planning is necessary to improve the accessibility of this procedure in clinical practice among racial and socioeconomic minority populations. Sharing and merging OIT protocols, procedural methods, and electronic medical record order sets may increase harmonization among OIT-providing institutions and further our abilities to pool safety and outcomes data, ultimately enhancing the safety and efficacy of clinical OIT.

Oral immunotherapy as a curative treatment for food-allergic preschool children: Current evidence and potential underlying mechanisms

The worldwide rising prevalence of food allergy is a major public health concern. Standard care consists of allergen avoidance and rescue medication upon accidental exposure. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is increasingly being studied as a treatment option. Although desensitization (an increased reaction threshold) is often achieved during OIT, sustained unresponsiveness (SU; clinical nonreactivity after finishing OIT) is not achieved in most patients. A few studies have investigated the effectiveness of OIT in children younger than 4 years of age (early = e-OIT) and have shown a much more favorable outcome in terms of SU development. Together with food allergy prevention studies, which have demonstrated high efficacy of early oral allergen exposure, the outcomes of e-OIT studies indicate an early-life window of opportunity to achieve SU, allowing unrestricted dietary intake. However, the underlying mechanism of the high effectiveness of e-OIT is not understood yet. Both cohort and OIT studies indicate early-life immune plasticity. An immature food-allergic response in the first years of life seems to be a major driver of this immune plasticity, along with a higher tolerogenic immunological state. Allergy maturation can likely be disrupted effectively by early intervention, preventing the development of persistent food allergy. Upcoming studies will provide important additional data on the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of e-OIT. Combined with immune mechanistic studies, this should inform the implementation of e-OIT.

Peanut allergy: risk factors, immune mechanisms, and best practices for oral immunotherapy success

INTRODUCTION

Peanut oral immunotherapy (pOIT) is the only FDA-approved treatment for food allergy and its adoption amongst allergist immunologists and their patients is growing. pOIT is the subject of numerous clinical trials, however, the focus is often on treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability, rather than identifying patients most likely to benefit from pOIT. Here, we review existing data on the clinical and immunological outcomes of pOIT that inform best practices for pOIT candidate selection.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we describe the natural history of peanut allergy, summarize immunological and clinical outcomes of pOIT at different ages, discuss the optimization of pOIT in key age groups, and finally suggest an ideal age range at which to initiate pOIT for best outcomes.

EXPERT OPINION

pOIT is currently underutilized by patients and allergist-immunologists. Developing guidelines for selecting appropriate patients and optimizing treatment may help to increase access to pOIT. Many aspects of pOIT need additional study to further our understanding of the optimal timing to start pOIT, with careful consideration to clinical, immunological, and quality of life outcomes.

The effect of applied force and device design on skin prick test performance

BACKGROUND

Skin prick tests (SPTs) are difficult to standardize, and SPT performance mainly relies on the clinician's expertise. So far, the effect of various factors such as device types, shape, variety of material type, and applied force on the performance of SPT has not been extensively investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of various factors, including type or shape of devices, material type, and applied force, on the performance of SPT.

METHODS

Four SPT devices with different shapes and materials were applied on 12 subjects under 3 different applied forces (30, 45, and 60 g). The results were compared with standard method using an ALK lancet pricked by an experienced clinician.

RESULTS

A total of 480 pricks were conducted on 12 subjects. The wheal sizes and sensitivities of all devices increased with higher applied forces. The thinner lancets with a long sharp tip had relatively higher analytical sensitivities and provided 100% sensitivity at applied forces of 45 g and above. The pain scores of all devices at applied forces of 30 to 60 g ranged from 1.00 to 1.81 with minimal incidences of bleeding (0%-4.17%), whereas the pain score of the standard method by the ALK lancet was 2.08 with much higher incidences of bleeding at 27.08%.

CONCLUSION

The type/shape of the SPT device and applied force are the essential factors affecting the performance of SPT. The study result could pave the way toward higher performance and standardized SPT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Thai Clinical Trials Registry identification number: TCTR20220627004 (https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20220627004).

A practical focus on peanut oral immunotherapy

A new era of active treatment for food allergy has arrived because patients with peanut allergy are increasingly able to access options for oral immunotherapy (OIT). This milestone is a culmination of years of clinical research and represents a major inflection point for the field because it will have dramatic impacts on allergy practice. In this review, we provide a brief review of the literature as well as practical guidance with concern for the use of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved peanut OIT as well as shelf-bought products.

A practical focus on multi-food oral immunotherapy

Approximately one-third of patients who present for oral immunotherapy (OIT) will be allergic to more than one food. Those patients with more than one food allergy have the option of sequential courses of single-food OIT or, in the right situation, combining several foods as part of multifood OIT. The time and cost savings can be substantial. Treatment protocols used with multiple foods are basically the same as with single-food courses, so clinics proficient with single-food OIT can easily transition to multifood OIT. Outcomes have been shown to be similar between the two approaches, so patients should be offered the opportunity to address their food allergies in one, more convenient OIT course.