Real-world attitudes among allergists/immunologists regarding oral immunotherapy and preferred terminology

How to Incorporate Oral Immunotherapy into Your Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss how to best incorporate oral immunotherapy into your clinical practice based on recent evidence and guidelines, and address controversies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Oral immunotherapy is the food immunotherapy treatment with the most literature supporting its use. Recent data from both randomized clinical trials and real-world studies show OIT is especially safe and effective in preschoolers, while avoidance may be less safe than previously thought. OIT guidelines support its use outside of research. Oral immunotherapy can be safely and effectively incorporated into your clinical practice, with careful planning and consideration of scenarios where benefits outweigh risks. Baseline oral food challenges are necessary in clinical trials, but in clinical practice, these are best done when the history is unclear due to resource limitations. There is a role for both regular food and FDA-approved products. Future research should focus on optimizing safety and adherence in the real-world setting.

[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.

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

Currently, there is no Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy for food allergy. Several new potential treatments are under investigation, including food allergen immunotherapy via various routes of administration, such as oral immunotherapy, epicutaneous immunotherapy, subcutaneous immunotherapy, and sublingual immunotherapy. The double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) has traditionally been used for diagnostic purposes, but extrapolation of the specific terminology used in food allergy diagnosis to interpretation of efficacy in clinical trials is incongruent and difficult to apply. There is a need for standardization of the terminology used in food allergy clinical trials, because inconsistencies can lead to potential misinterpretation of end points. The reactive dose, previously referred to as the eliciting dose, is defined as the dose given that induces the onset of unequivocal allergic symptoms, or the dose that stops the challenge based on physician discretion. Conversely, the single highest tolerated dose is defined as the highest dose given during a food challenge that elicits either no symptoms or symptoms that do not meet stopping criteria per the study protocol. The evolving field of food allergy provides a novel opportunity to define those end points that are most meaningful for patients, which is fundamental for successful implementation, education, and safety.