Differences in oral food challenge reaction severity based on increasing age in a pediatric population

Outcomes of oral food challenges in a real-world setting, with predictors of outcomes

BACKGROUND

Oral food challenge (OFC) remains the reference standard for food allergy (FA) diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

This study reports a single-center observational experience with all OFCs conducted over 3 years.

METHODS

All OFCs performed at an outpatient office were tracked. The OFCs were conducted without strict prespecified inclusion or exclusion criteria. Demographic information along with results of diagnostic testing and results of the OFCs were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1132 OFCs were performed, with a median age of 4 years (interquartile range = 2.0-10.0). Of the 1132 OFCs, 862 (76.1%) tolerated the food, whereas 232 (20.5%) experienced a reaction, and 38 (3.4%) did not complete the OFC because of food refusal. The highest percentage of tolerated food was shellfish (91.1%), with the lowest percentage of tolerated food being baked egg (66.1%). There were 66 (5.8%) OFCs that were deemed to be high risk, of which 35 (53.0%) tolerated the food. More than 50% of reactions occurred on the first or second dose, with the most common clinical symptom being urticaria or angioedema, with 29.2% of reactions treated with epinephrine. There were several factors that predicted tolerating an OFC, including the food challenge, the reason for food avoidance, older age at the time of OFC and less reactive skin prick testing, and lower food-specific immunoglobulin E levels.

CONCLUSION

Certain factors can predict tolerating an OFC, and even those considered to be high risk can be safely completed in an outpatient setting, with most tolerating the food, and most reactions not requiring treatment with epinephrine.

A review of food allergy panels and their consequences

Serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) assays to food specific IgE (s-IgE) are useful tools for the confirmation of clinical suspicion of food allergy. However, the specificity of these assays is poor given that sensitization is much more common than clinical food allergy. Therefore, the use of broad panels to assess sensitization to multiple foods often leads to overdiagnosis and unnecessary food avoidance. Unintended consequences that may occur as a result include physical harm, psychological harm, financial cost, opportunity cost, and even worsening of existing health care disparities. Although current guidelines recommend against the use of s-IgE food panel testing, these tests are widely available and frequently used. To limit the negative impacts of s-IgE food panel testing, further work is needed to effectively spread the message that these food panels may cause unintended harm to patients and families.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Safety of Multifood Oral Immunotherapy in Children Aged 1 to 18 Years at an Academic Pediatric Clinic

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) aims to increase the reaction threshold to a food allergen and decrease the risk of a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction in the event of an accidental ingestion. Whereas single-food OIT is the most extensively studied, data on multifood OIT are limited.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to examine the safety and feasibility of single-food and multifood immunotherapy in a large cohort in an outpatient pediatric allergy clinic setting.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients enrolled in single-food and multifood OIT between September 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020, and data collection of those patients until November 19, 2021, were performed.

RESULTS

There were 151 patients who underwent either an initial dose escalation (IDE) or a standard oral food challenge. Seventy-eight patients were receiving single-food OIT with 67.9% reaching maintenance. Fifty patients were undergoing multifood OIT with 86% reaching maintenance to at least 1 OIT food and 68% reaching maintenance for all their foods. Of the 229 IDEs, there were low frequencies of failed IDEs (10.9%), epinephrine administration (8.7%), emergency department referrals (0.4%), and hospital admission (0.4%). Cashew accounted for one-third of failed IDEs. Epinephrine administration during home dosing occurred in 8.6% of patients. Eleven patients discontinued OIT owing to symptoms during up-dosing. No patients discontinued once reaching maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

Desensitization to 1 food or multiple foods simultaneously through OIT appears to be safe and feasible using the OIT protocol that has been established. The most common adverse reaction causing discontinuation of OIT was gastrointestinal symptoms.

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.

Open sesame: Shedding light on an emerging global allergen

BACKGROUND

Sesame allergy has been characterized in the Middle East for some time. However, it has become more widely recognized as foods containing sesame and sesame seeds have become increasingly available in Australia, Europe, and North America. With the passage of the Food Allergy Safety, Treatment, Education, and Research Act in 2021, the United States will join other countries in identifying sesame as a major food allergen and require sesame to be labeled as a food allergen beginning in 2023.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature related to sesame allergy as an increasingly recognized food allergen around the world.

DATA SOURCES

English-language articles retrieved by PubMed searches with relevance to sesame allergy.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Articles were included using the search terms "sesame allergy" and "sesame seed allergy."

RESULTS

A total of 69 relevant articles regarding sesame allergy, relating to its prevalence, clinical presentation, natural history, allergenic epitopes, diagnosis, and treatment, were selected.

CONCLUSION

In recent decades, considerable gains have been made in determining prevalence and natural history of sesame allergy. With increased recognition and prevalence come the need for reliable methods of identification of sesame allergy and approaches for management.

The Case for Prompt Salvage Infant Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Following Failed Primary Prevention

Recent guideline recommendations have shifted from recommending prolonged avoidance of allergenic foods in the first 3 years of life to a primary prevention approach involving the deliberate early introduction to infants at risk of developing food allergy. Despite this, some infants, especially those with severe eczema who are at highest risk for developing peanut allergy, fail to receive the preventative benefits of early peanut introduction due to hesitancy and other factors. Difficulty adhering to regular ingestion after introduction further reduces the effectiveness of primary prevention. As emerging real-world evidence has demonstrated that performing peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) among infants is effective and safe, peanut OIT could be a treatment option for infants with peanut allergy. This review discusses the benefits, risks, and barriers to offering peanut OIT to infants who fail primary prevention strategies. We propose the novel concept that infants with peanut allergy be offered peanut OIT as soon as possible after failed peanut introduction through a shared decision-making process with the family, where there is a preference for active management rather than avoidance.

Risk factors for severe reactions in food allergy: Rapid evidence review with meta-analysis

This rapid review summarizes the most up to date evidence about the risk factors for severe food-induced allergic reactions. We searched three bibliographic databases for studies published between January 2010 and August 2021. We included 88 studies and synthesized the evidence narratively, undertaking meta-analysis where appropriate. Significant uncertainties remain with respect to the prediction of severe reactions, both anaphylaxis and/or severe anaphylaxis refractory to treatment. Prior anaphylaxis, an asthma diagnosis, IgE sensitization or basophil activation tests are not good predictors. Some molecular allergology markers may be helpful. Hospital presentations for anaphylaxis are highest in young children, yet this age group appears at lower risk of severe outcomes. Risk of severe outcomes is greatest in adolescence and young adulthood, but the contribution of risk taking behaviour in contributing to severe outcomes is unclear. Evidence for an impact of cofactors on severity is lacking, although food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis may be an exception. Some medications such as beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors may increase severity, but appear less important than age as a factor in life-threatening reactions. The relationship between dose of exposure and severity is unclear. Delays in symptom recognition and anaphylaxis treatment have been associated with more severe outcomes. An absence of prior anaphylaxis does not exclude its future risk.

Patient selection for milk and egg ladders using a food ladder safety checklist

A food ladder is a form of home-based dietary advancement therapy that gradually increases exposure to an allergenic food through the gradual introduction of egg or milk containing food with increasing quantity and allergenicity from extensively heated forms, such as baked goods, to less processed products. While widely considered safe, the food ladder is not risk-free and most of the egg and milk ladder studies only included preschoolers with mild egg and milk allergies, and with no or well-controlled asthma. We propose a Food Ladder Safety Checklist to assist with patient selection using “4 A's” based on available evidence for food ladders, including Age, active or poorly controlled Asthma, history of Anaphylaxis, and Adherence.

Adverse Events and Labeling Issues Related to Suspected Sesame Allergy Reported in an Online Survey

BACKGROUND

Allergen avoidance is critical for those with IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) but can only be successful with accurate product information. While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (CFSAN) Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS) to collect adverse event (AE) reports related to foods, there is significant under-reporting and information regarding product labeling issues is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe allergic reactions associated with accidental oral exposure to sesame and the role of product labeling.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed and disseminated to online communities focused on sesame allergy. The questionnaire included questions on clinical characteristics, treatments, outcomes, and labelling issues.

RESULTS

360 clinical reactions related to sesame were reviewed in 327 individuals. Anaphylaxis occurred in 68.9% of reactions. Hospitalization occurred in 47.8% of events and epinephrine was administered in 36.4% of cases. Events involving a packaged food-product occurred in 67.5% of AEs with only 43.8% of these using the term "sesame." An alternate name was noted in 46.0% of products that did not include "sesame" on labeling, most of which was "tahini".

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate considerable sesame FA morbidity in part due to inconsistent allergen labeling. Our findings support development of a swifter process for the FDA to update the major allergen list as well as formulation of an improved system for reporting AEs related to foods.