Harmonization of Terminology for Tolerated and Reactive Dose in Food Allergy Immunotherapy

Peanut oral immunotherapy using an extensively heated and baked novel composition of peanuts

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an increasingly acceptable therapeutic option for peanut-allergic (PA) children, despite significant side effects. Major peanut allergenic proteins are heat-resistant and are not rendered hypoallergenic after baking or cooking. Lyophilized peanut protein-MH (LPP-MH) is a novel composition from developing peanuts, enabling cooking-induced reduction in allergenicity. We aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of OIT, with extensively heated and baked (EHEB) LPP-MH in PA children.

METHODS

In a single-arm, single-center, pilot study, PA children with a single highest tolerated dose of <100 mg peanut protein were placed on a 40-week OIT protocol with 300 mg daily of heat-treated LPP-MH. A repeat open peanut food challenge was performed after 40 weeks of treatment and at a 6-12 months of follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Thirty-three children with PA were enrolled, with a mean cumulative tolerated dose (MCTD) of 71.2 mg PP (95% CI 45-100 mg). After 40 weeks, 32/33 patients were able to consume more than 300 mg of natural PP, with MCTD of 1709 mg (CI 365-3675 mg). There were no severe allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, during any of the observed LPP-MH challenges or any treatment related doses at home. After 6-12 months on daily maintenance, the MCTD was 8821 mg (95% CI 1930-13,500 mg). This enabled most children age-appropriate dietary inclusion of peanuts.

CONCLUSION

An OIT protocol with heat-treated LPP-MH, a novel composition from developing peanuts, seems a potentially safe and efficacious OIT modality for PA children, enabling the introduction of dietary levels of peanut proteins in highly allergic PA children. Validation in randomized controlled studies is mandated.

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.

Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy in Children 1 to Less Than 4 Years of Age

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is a common childhood allergy, and the only approved treatment for children 4 to 17 years of age is peanut allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) oral immunotherapy. METHODS: For this phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled peanut-allergic children 1 to <4 years of age who experienced dose-limiting symptoms from ≤300 mg peanut protein during a screening double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Participants received PTAH or placebo, randomized in a 2:1 ratio, for approximately 12 months. At the trial conclusion, all participants underwent an exit BDPCFC. The primary end point was desensitization (i.e., tolerating a ≥600-mg single dose of peanut protein with only mild allergy symptoms). RESULTS: In the PTAH-treated group (n=98), 73.5% of participants tolerated a single dose of ≥600 mg peanut protein at exit DBPCFC compared with 6.3% in the placebo group (n=48). Most participants experienced an adverse event (98.0% of PTAH-treated and 97.9% of placebo-treated participants), which was mild or moderate in grade for 93.2% of participants (92.9% in PTAH-treated and 93.8% in placebo-treated participants). Treatment-related adverse events, which were mild to moderate, were experienced by 75.5% of PTAH-treated and 58.3% of placebo-treated participants. Three treatment-related systemic allergic reactions, none of which were severe or serious in grade, were noted in two PTAH-treated participants (2%). CONCLUSIONS: In peanut-allergic children 1 to <4 years of age treated with PTAH for approximately 12 months, the majority tolerated all peanut protein dose levels assessed. PTAH-treated patients had more treatment-related adverse events, which were mild to moderate severity. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03736447.)

Enterosorbents in complex therapy of food allergies: a focus on digestive disorders and systemic toxicity in children

The review analyzes mechanisms and concomitant factors in developing IgE-associated allergic diseases provoked by food allergens and discusses clinical symptoms and current approaches for the treatment of food allergies. The expediency of using enterosorbents in complex therapy of food allergies and skin and respiratory manifestations associated with gastroenterological disorders is substantiated. The review summarizes the experience of using enterosorbents in post-Soviet countries to detoxify the human body. In this regard, special attention is paid to the enterosorbent White Coal (Carbowhite) based on silicon dioxide produced by the Ukrainian company OmniFarma.

Clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With food allergy affecting millions of children worldwide, the consolidation of food allergen immunotherapy represents an encouraging therapeutic option, that might expand in the next few years to reach greater number of candidates. This review aims at providing a critical overview of the efficacy outcomes employed in food allergen immunotherapy trials (AIT).

RECENT FINDINGS

Understanding efficacy endpoints rely on identifying what and how these are being measured. Desensitization, as the efficacy of the therapy to increase the patient's reactivity threshold to the food during therapy, and Sustained Unresponsiveness, withholding such efficacy even if the therapy is withdrawn, are nowadays considered the main parameters of efficacy evaluation. Quality of life is a promising variable to capture food AIT impact from the patient's perspective.There is a relevant degree of heterogeneity across studies in outcomes definitions and also in oral food challenges design, the tool that is more spread to assess results, hampering study comparison.

SUMMARY

Interpreting the results of a clinical trial, and comparing data from different studies is an important task, both for the researcher and the clinician, that should be done after a careful analysis of the outcomes and the evaluation tools used.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy With or Without H1 and H2 Antihistamine Premedication for Peanut Allergy (PISCES): A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Current forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) are associated with side effects, and there is a lack of evidence addressing how to mitigate them.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether premedication with desloratadine and ranitidine results in fewer side effects during peanut OIT/desensitization.

METHODS

A total of 43 patients with peanut allergy (mean age, 7.6 ± 2.1 years, 37% females, 63% males, baseline eliciting dose, 33 ± 26 mg) were randomized to OIT with or without concomitant H₁ and H₂ antihistamine blockade, or double-placebo. Patients, study staff/investigators, and statisticians were blinded. The primary outcomes were the frequency and severity of OIT-induced adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and eliciting doses to blinded food challenge.

RESULTS

Adverse reactions occurred more in the OIT groups compared with the double-placebo group (OIT with antihistamines vs double-placebo hazard ratio, 3.75 [95% CI, 2.79-4.72]; OIT with placebo antihistamines vs double-placebo, hazard ratio, 4.62 [95% CI, 3.61-5.62]). Patients given antihistamines cotreatment with OIT had a similar risk of adverse events compared with those who did not use antihistamines with OIT (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.49-1.97]). OIT with and without antihistamines accelerated the incidence rate of adverse events compared with double-placebo (4.8 and 6.4 events per patient vs 3.5 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.36-4.56] and 2.04 [95% CI, 1.01-4.15], respectively). Antihistamines pretreatment modestly reduced the frequency of moderate to severe adverse reactions among OIT-treated groups (1.9 per patient vs 4.2 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.24-0.89]), primarily urticaria (0.6 vs 2.1 per patient) followed by abdominal pain (2.6 vs 4.2 per patient), but increased neuropsychiatric adverse events (primarily tiredness and sedation, 2.3 vs 0.7 per patient). Eliciting doses after treatment were similar in all groups. Quality of life improved similarly regardless of treatment with peanut OIT or placebo OIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut OIT with antihistamines modestly reduce the skin and gastrointestinal components of the high incidence of adverse reactions during OIT, and there are no clear differences in improvement in quality of life whether treated with OIT, OIT with antihistamines, or placebo OIT despite OIT being effective in inducing desensitization. Safer food allergy treatment approaches that importantly improve quality of life need to be proved in future robust randomized trials.

Managing Food Allergy When the Patient Is Not Highly Allergic

Few patients with food allergy are "highly allergic," meaning they always have severe reactions and always react to very small amounts of allergen. Standard medical approaches for allergy management have focused on the safety and lifestyle modifications this group truly needs, but consequently families with food allergy are typically advised to strictly avoid any exposure to their implicated allergens. Most food-allergic subjects are actually not reactive to very low doses, and many never experience severe reactions. There are also notable conditions where a different care plan is already commonly offered: patients with pollen-related food allergy syndrome, with food-associated exercise-induced anaphylaxis, and with resolving or mild milk or egg allergy might be advised to ingest the allergens in specific circumstances with detailed instructions. Because oral immunotherapy and allergy prevention by early exposure have emphasized alternatives to strict avoidance, there is increasing interest in prospects to forego strict avoidance in those with food allergy. For patients with a high threshold of reactivity (low-dose tolerant, high-dose mildly reactive), there may be options such as allowing the ingestion of products with precautionary allergen labels, allowing dietary indiscretions with small amounts of the allergen, or even encouraging ingestion of subthreshold amounts with therapeutic intent. These practices have not been extensively studied and could be considered controversial. If these approaches are considered, shared decision making is needed in discussing them with patients and families. This review considers the potential approaches to those who are "not highly allergic": the risks, benefits, shared decision making, and research needs.

Immunological Outcomes of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Food Allergy

IgE-mediated food allergies are caused by adverse immunologic responses to food proteins. Allergic reactions may present locally in different tissues such as skin, gastrointestinal and respiratory tract and may result is systemic life-threatening reactions. During the last decades, the prevalence of food allergies has significantly increased throughout the world, and considerable efforts have been made to develop curative therapies. Food allergen immunotherapy is a promising therapeutic approach for food allergies that is based on the administration of increasing doses of culprit food extracts, or purified, and sometime modified food allergens. Different routes of administration for food allergen immunotherapy including oral, sublingual, epicutaneous and subcutaneous regimens are being evaluated. Although a wealth of data from clinical food allergen immunotherapy trials has been obtained, a lack of consistency in assessed clinical and immunological outcome measures presents a major hurdle for evaluating these new treatments. Coordinated efforts are needed to establish standardized outcome measures to be applied in food allergy immunotherapy studies, allowing for better harmonization of data and setting the standards for the future research. Several immunological parameters have been measured in food allergen immunotherapy, including allergen-specific immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation, cytokines, and other soluble biomarkers, T cell and B cell responses and skin prick tests. In this review we discuss different immunological parameters and assess their applicability as potential outcome measures for food allergen immunotherapy that may be included in such a standardized set of outcome measures.

[Allergic immunotherapy in children and adolescents]

L’immunothérapie spécifique allergénique nécessite l’administration répétée d’allergènes dans le but de provoquer une tolérance clinique et immunologique. C’est la seule thérapeutique à visée étiologique qui permet de modifier l’évolution de la maladie en assurant une rémission après l’interruption de la procédure. La prévention de nouvelles sensibilisations par l’immunothérapie reste discutée. Nous envisagerons dans cette revue les principaux mécanismes immunologiques et les indications de l’immunothérapie chez l’enfant et l’adolescent.

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.