Treatment expectations in food-allergic patients referred for oral immunotherapy

An update on recent developments and highlights in food allergy

While both the incidence and general awareness of food allergies is increasing, the variety and clinical availability of therapeutics remain limited. Therefore, investigations into the potential factors contributing to the development of food allergy (FA) and the mechanisms of natural tolerance or induced desensitization are required. In addition, a detailed understanding of the pathophysiology of food allergies is needed to generate compelling, enduring, and safe treatment options. New findings regarding the contribution of barrier function, the effect of emollient interventions, mechanisms of allergen recognition, and the contributions of specific immune cell subsets through rodent models and human clinical studies provide novel insights. With the first approved treatment for peanut allergy, the clinical management of FA is evolving toward less intensive, alternative approaches involving fixed doses, lower maintenance dose targets, coadministration of biologicals, adjuvants, and tolerance-inducing formulations. The ultimate goal is to improve immunotherapy and develop precision-based medicine via risk phenotyping allowing optimal treatment for each food-allergic patient.

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.

Endpoints and Outcomes After Immunotherapy for Food Allergy: What Is Meaningful for Patients?

Multiple novel interventions for food allergy are currently at various stages of development with the goal of reducing or eliminating allergic reactions. However, the relative success of these therapeutics in achieving meaningful, long-term improvements to patients' lives is difficult to determine as there is currently very limited understanding of the degree of alignment between clinical trial efficacy endpoints and patient-centered outcomes. Furthermore, outcome measures used in clinical trials of food allergy immunotherapies vary widely, are often misinterpreted, and not necessarily consistent with what patients expect to achieve through treatment. This review aims to assist clinicians in critically interpreting outcomes reported in clinical trials and accurately communicating risks and outcomes to patients when practicing shared decision-making.

Mapping the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire Parent Form onto the Short-Form Six-Dimensions version 2

BACKGROUND

The Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire Parent Form (FAQLQ-PF) is the most widely used quality of life questionnaire in food allergy. The objective of this study was to develop a mapping algorithm to convert FAQLQ-PF scores into health state utilities.

METHODS

The Short-Form Six-Dimensions version 2 (SF-6Dv2) and FAQLQ-PF questionnaires were collected from an academic center oral immunotherapy referral cohort. Utility estimates were derived from the SF-6Dv2 using the food allergy preference set. Candidate mapping algorithm models were developed using seven regression methods starting from either the total average score, the average scores of each of the three domains or the individual item scores of FAQLQ-PF. The process was repeated twice, including only section A, common to all age groups, or including all age-applicable sections of the FAQLQ-PF. The mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE) were used to select the best fitting model. An independent cohort from a previous national online survey was used for external validation.

RESULTS

In the index cohort, 1000 of 1257 respondents had completed both questionnaires. The lowest MAE (0.0791) and RMSE (0.1020) were recorded when entering individual item scores in a categorical regression model. The model including only FAQLQ-PF section A was found to be most consistent when tested in the external validation cohort (n = 248) (MAE of 0.0898).

CONCLUSION

The FAQLQ-PF was mapped onto SF-6Dv2 utilities with good predictive accuracy in two independent cohorts. This will enable calculation of health utility for cost-effectiveness analyses in food allergy.

Advances, Practical Implementation, and Unmet Needs Regarding Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

Treatment of food allergy is a rapidly changing landscape, with arguably, the most significant advancement in recent years, the transition of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to clinical practice. As an innovation, OIT is a phase of rapidly increasing demand, particularly for some allergens such as peanut, egg, and milk, which have substantial evidence of efficacy. However, significant questions remain about how to best treat multiple food allergies and less common food allergies and how to optimize long-term safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the currently available resources for integrating food allergy OIT into clinical practice and focuses on the multiple remaining unmet needs such as providing an approach for OIT to food allergens for which there is no or limited evidence; practical issues related to food allergy treatment particularly when it is not going well; long-term outcomes and follow-up after OIT; and strategies to help meet the impending increase in demand.