Who are the potential patients for omalizumab for food allergy?

Want to help your patients with food allergy anxiety? Do proximity challenges!

Excessive anxiety regarding the potential for accidental and fatal cross-contamination is very common among patients and families with food allergy and contributes significantly to burden, reduced quality of life, and poorer management. In their landmark paper published nearly a decade ago, Dr Chitra Dinakar and colleagues recommended that food allergists incorporate proximity food challenges such as smelling or touching an allergen into regular clinical practice to improve patient knowledge regarding safety and relative risk and reduce anxiety. Such proximity challenges are akin to the exposure tasks routinely used to treat anxiety in cognitive-behavioral therapy, the first-line psychosocial intervention for anxiety disorders. Exposure is a highly evidence-based therapy technique in which patients-guided and encouraged by their providers-directly and strategically confront a feared object, situation, or activity. Anxiety eventually diminishes and erroneous beliefs are corrected when exposures happen repeatedly in the absence of the feared negative outcome. Following a summary of the history and evidence base for exposure in both the psychiatric and food allergy literature, we review several considerations related to conducting in-office proximity challenges. Topics include in-office assessment of food allergy anxiety and medically unnecessary avoidance; choosing appropriate, individualized proximity challenges based on patient presentation; and practical considerations in carrying out in-office proximity challenges to maximize benefits to anxious patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Peanut-Allergic Toddlers: Open-Label Extension to EPITOPE

BACKGROUND

The pivotal phase 3 EPITOPE trial, a 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of epicutaneous immunotherapy with the VIASKIN patch containing 250 μg of peanut protein (VP250), previously reported significant treatment response versus placebo in peanut-allergic toddlers aged 1 through 3 years.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the interim efficacy and safety of VP250 from the first year of the EPITOPE open-label extension (OLE) study.

METHODS

Eligible participants enrolled in the OLE study for up to 3 years of total treatment with annual double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) and safety assessments; here we report the first-year OLE (year 2) results.

RESULTS

A total of 266 EPITOPE participants enrolled in the OLE study; 244 underwent month 24 DBPCFC (n = 166 VP250; n = 78 placebo). After 24 months of VP250, 81.3% reached an eliciting dose (ED) ≥1000 mg, 63.8% reached an ED ≥2000 mg, and 55.9% completed the DBPCFC (cumulative dose: 3444 mg) without meeting stopping criteria. No treatment-related anaphylaxis or serious treatment-related adverse events occurred during year 2 in this treatment arm. Local application-site reactions occurred less frequently in year 2 versus year 1. In placebo-treated EPITOPE participants, outcomes after 1 year of open-label VP250 were consistent with EPITOPE treatment results: 62.7% reached an ED ≥1000 mg, 36.5% reached an ED ≥2000 mg, and 28.4% completed the DBPCFC without meeting stopping criteria; and there was 1 treatment-related anaphylaxis event.

CONCLUSIONS

Two years of VP250 in young peanut-allergic children demonstrated continued increases in treatment effect without new safety signals. This supports the potential of VP250 as a safe and effective treatment for peanut allergy in young children.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV: NCT03859700.

Omalizumab in Food Allergy in Children: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

Omalizumab (OMA) is gaining recognition as a promising therapeutic approach for IgE-mediated food allergies in pediatric patients. We conducted a review analyzing 22 studies, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and case reports, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA in food allergy management in children and adolescents. The results indicate that OMA, whether used as monotherapy or in combination with oral immunotherapy (OIT), significantly increases allergen tolerance, reduces the severity of allergic reactions, and improves patients' quality of life. When used alongside OIT, OMA reduced adverse reactions during dose escalation and maintenance phases, facilitating safer and more effective desensitization. Additionally, OMA demonstrated benefits beyond food allergy management, including improved asthma control and a reduction in food allergy-related anxiety. However, challenges remain, including high costs, the need for standardized treatment protocols, and limitations related to total IgE thresholds for eligibility. While OMA has been FDA-approved for food allergy treatment in the United States, further research is needed to establish long-term efficacy, optimal dosing strategies, and its role in sustained tolerance development. Future research should focus on optimizing treatment protocols and identifying which patients will benefit the most. Integrating omalizumab into food allergy management could revolutionize pediatric care, offering hope for a safer, more effective approach to desensitization.

Moving Beyond Desensitization to Tolerance in Food Allergy

Management of IgE-mediated food allergy is shifting from reactive management strategies (allergen avoidance and ready access to autoinjectable epinephrine in case of exposure) to proactive therapies. These therapies are in various stages of clinical development and implementation; the two main approaches include allergen-specific or active therapies (induce the immune system to produce a protective response to the allergen; eg, Food and Drug Administration-approved AR101/Palforzia (peanut [Arachis hypogaea] Allergen Powder-dnfp; PTAH, also known as AR101) (Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc., Brisbane, CA) for peanut allergy), and allergen-agnostic, passive therapies (provide the body with the tools needed to suppress immediate hypersensitivity reactions in a nonspecific manner; eg, Food and Drug Administration-approved omalizumab). These therapies provide a similar degree of protection, specifically desensitization (increased reaction threshold while receiving food allergy therapy, bite safety), but differ in mechanisms, dosing protocols, and side effects. The goals of therapeutics in development are shifting to sustained unresponsiveness or remission (absence of clinical reactivity after allergen and food allergy therapy avoidance, typically for weeks to months) and tolerance (no clinical reaction or free ingestion of the allergen). As the food allergy management repertoire expands, important considerations in selecting a therapy will be patient-specific and include mode of delivery, dosing regimens, side-effect profiles, and goals or outcomes. The role of shared decision making and implementation strategies to support equitable access across patient populations and clinical contexts will be critical to move an increasing number of patients beyond desensitization to tolerance, if they wish.

Management of children with food allergies by allergists in the United States

Background

Management of patients with food allergies is complex, especially in cases of patients with multiple and potentially severe food allergies. Although international guidelines exist for food allergy management, the role of the allergist in the decision-making process is key.

Objective

Our aim was to investigate the management patterns and educational needs of practicing allergists treating patients with food allergies.

Methods

An online survey was e-mailed to United States-based practicing allergists (N = 2833) in November-December 2021. The allergists were screened for managing 1 or more patients (including ≥25% pediatric patients) with food allergies per month. The allergists responded to questions regarding food allergy management in response to 2 hypothetical pediatric case studies, their familiarity with available guidelines and emerging treatments, and their future educational preferences. A descriptive analysis of outcomes was conducted.

Results

A total of 125 responding allergists (4.4%) met the eligibility criteria and completed the survey. The allergists prioritized written exposure action plans, patient-caregiver communication, prevention of serious reactions, and consideration of both food allergy severity and allergic comorbidities in the management of patients with food allergies. With regard to recommending biologics in the future, the allergists identified patient history of anaphylaxis and hospitalizations, food allergy severity, and allergic comorbidities as all being important factors to consider when deciding on appropriate treatment options. The allergists noted their ongoing educational needs, especially for current and emerging treatments for food allergies.

Conclusion

With the treatment landscape for food allergies evolving rapidly, the decision-making priorities and continuing educational needs of allergists will be important in optimizing the management of patients with food allergies.

The use and implementation of omalizumab as food allergy treatment: Consensus-based guidance and Work Group Report of the Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Omalizumab was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of any single food allergy or multiple food allergies in children aged 1 year and older and adults. There is currently no formal guidance regarding recommended best practices for omalizumab use in food allergy, including patient selection, anticipated goals and outcomes of therapy, procedure for monitoring patients who elect to start omalizumab therapy, and ways in which omalizumab can be incorporated into the landscape of food allergy management and daily clinical practice. This work group report was developed by the food allergy therapies subcommittee of the Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee within the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Consensus, evidence-based guidance regarding experts' recommendations for using omalizumab to treat children and adults with food allergy was developed by using modified Delphi methodology. In iterative fashion, a total of 8 statements regarding how to use omalizumab to treat patients with food allergy were developed by 16 clinical experts. This guidance provides the clinician with a suggested approach to patient selection, initiation of therapy, monitoring of efficacy, and long-term follow-up care. The role of preference-sensitive care is emphasized, with most statements offering care recommendations relevant to the culture and values of a particular practice setting.

Community and academic allergists' perspectives on integrating biologics into food allergy care: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Biologics are an important area of research and development, including for treatment of food allergy (FA). However, how allergists perceive the risks and benefits of biologics to treat FA remains largely unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how US-based allergists perceive the use of biologics in FA treatment.

METHODS

Using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling, providers were recruited through direct solicitation by email to participate in a telephone or Zoom interview about their perceptions of the risks and benefits of current and future FA treatment options. Interviews were transcribed, deidentified, and coded to conduct a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We conducted 60 interviews with providers from 34 states working either in community practice (53.3%) or academic medical centers (46.7%). Our sample was primarily non-Hispanic White (60.0%) and men (56.7%). The plurality was in their 40s (41.7%). Our findings clustered in the following 4 main themes: (1) perceived benefits of biologics, (2) ideal use of biologics, (3) concerns about biologics, and (4) biologics as the perceived future of FA. Community and academic providers had largely similar views, but academic providers more often emphasized the benefits of biologics, and community providers were, on the whole, more supportive of using biologics as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy rather than as monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that providers hold mixed views about the use of biologics to treat FA. However, most were enthusiastic about prescribing biologics for FA while also being highly concerned about the cost to patients and the health care system.