Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety

Pursuing a "normal" life of food: Families' experiences of pediatric food allergy clinical trials

Although food allergies have been on the rise over the past twenty years, there are currently just two products approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) for this condition, and one treats peanut allergy only. For families seeking medical intervention for their children's food allergies, many turn to clinical trials, which have proliferated in the last decade. Indeed, the entry of the pharmaceutical industry and the availability of clinical trials are rapidly reshaping the food allergy landscape. As a result, many families now perceive clinical trials as a way to "do something" other than merely avoiding the foods to which their children are allergic. Based on ethnographic research, including 124 semi-structured interviews with families and other key stakeholders, this article describes parents' and children's experiences in these clinical trials. It describes how the families that pursue clinical trials for their children's food allergies are typically affluent, and the "normal" life they hope to achieve for their children reflects idealized and privileged notions of normalcy. Analyzing my findings through the lens of stratified biomedicalization, I argue that affluent parents willingly accept a form of biomedicalization of their children that involves exceptional, and sometimes traumatic, clinical trial experiences as they pursue the elusive normal life and future they envision for them.

Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: aligning clinical trials with patient priorities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review explores the clinical outcomes used in immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy (FA) intervention studies, emphasizing unmet need for patient-centred outcomes. Standardizing outcome measurement is critical as research into FA treatments, particularly food immunotherapy, expands. Here we discuss how outcomes should reflect the multidimensional impact of FA on people's lives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence reveals a discrepancy between clinical trial outcomes and those most valued by patients and carers. While trials often prioritize changes in reactivity thresholds or immunological markers, patients and carers emphasize need in reducing severe reactions, improving quality of life, and enhancing confidence in disease management. This disparity highlights importance of harmonization efforts to guide FA research.The Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative recently identified two core outcomes - 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' - through an international consensus process involving patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers. Outcomes like 'desensitization' and 'remission/sustained unresponsiveness' were considered important but were not seen as the most critical.

SUMMARY

Developing and implementing a COS for FA intervention studies is essential to align research with patient priorities, ensuring meaningful improvements in routine clinical care. Standardized outcome measurement will generate robust evidence, inform clinical practice, and empower patients and caregivers in decision-making about FA management.

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.

Long-Term Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Peanut-Allergic Children: An Open-Label Active Treatment (REALISE Study)

BACKGROUND

Owing to limited treatment options for peanut allergy, patients remain at risk for allergic reactions due to accidental exposure. Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) is a novel treatment being investigated for peanut allergy.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed long-term safety of EPIT with VIASKIN peanut patch 250 μg (VP250) via an open-label extension of the REAL Life Use and Safety of EPIT (REALISE) trial.

METHODS

REALISE was a phase 3 trial in peanut-allergic children aged 4 through 11 years that included a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase, followed by an open-label, single-arm, active treatment period for up to 36 months.

RESULTS

Of the 392 participants (male 54.8%; median age 7.2 y) who received at least 1 dose of treatment, 77.8% completed the 36-month active treatment. Mean adherence to treatment was high at 96.4%. Most participants (98.7%) experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); the majority were mild or moderate and decreased in frequency and severity over time. Most participants (94.6%) experienced at least 1 treatment-related TEAE. Local skin reactions were the most common treatment-related TEAE with the incidence decreasing from year 1 (87.8%) to year 3 (19.2%). Serious treatment-related TEAEs were reported in 2 participants. No specific safety signals were identified in the 14 participants enrolled with a history of severe anaphylaxis (Anaphylaxis Staging System grade 3).

CONCLUSION

Consistent with previous phase 3 studies, long-term EPIT with VIASKIN peanut patch 250 μg was well tolerated with high adherence in peanut-allergic children aged 4 through 11 years (clinicaltrials.gov; NCT: NCT02916446).

Research Progress of Oral Immune Tolerance Mechanism Induced by Whey Protein

Cow milk allergy (CMA) is prevalently observed among infants and young children, exerting adverse effects on their growth and quality of life. Oral immune tolerance (OIT) is a more effective method for the prevention and treatment of CMA. The site of OIT is mainly in the gastrointestinal tract, so this article reviews the composition and structural characteristics of intestinal immune system, the molecular mechanisms of immune tolerance by regulatory T cells (Treg), dendritic cells, and gut microbiota. In addition, this paper summarizes the research progress of T cell epitope peptides of β-lactoglobulin and α-lactalbumin in whey protein hydrolysates. The mechanism of OIT induced by whey protein hydrolysate or whey protein combined with other anti-allergic components (phenolic compounds, probiotics, etc.) is overviewed to provide new ideas for the development of hypoallergenic infant formula.

Immune therapies in coeliac disease and food allergies: Advances, challenges, and opportunities

Coeliac disease and food allergy management primarily relies on the strict avoidance of dietary antigens. This approach is challenging to maintain in real-world settings and in food allergy carries the risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis. Despite their distinct pathogenesis, both disorders are driven by maladaptive responses to dietary proteins, creating opportunities for shared treatment strategies. In food allergy, desensitisation therapies such as oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy are well-established, complemented by biologics like omalizumab and dupilumab. However, the induction of sustained tolerance remains challenging. In contrast, therapeutic advancements for coeliac disease are still in their early stages. Current efforts focus on gluten detoxification or modification, immune blockade or modulation, tolerogenic approaches, and barrier restoration. Emerging therapies, including JAK and BTK inhibitors and microbiome-targeted interventions, support further targeted treatment options for both conditions. Biomarkers tracking gluten-specific T cells have emerged as valuable tools for immunomonitoring and symptom assessment in coeliac disease, although standardisation of patient-reported outcome measures and gluten challenge protocols is still needed. Food allergy trials are reliant on double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges to measure allergen reactivity, but these are time-consuming, carry risks, and underscore the need for surrogate biomarkers. The successful development of immune-targeted therapies will require building an immune toolset to optimally assess systemic responses to antigens in both conditions. Clinically, this could lead to better outcomes for patients who might otherwise remain undiagnosed or untreated due to the absence of significant enteropathy or allergen-specific symptoms.

Scientific developments in understanding food allergy prevention, diagnosis, and treatment

Food allergies (FAs) are adverse immune reactions to normally innocuous foods. Their prevalence has been increasing in recent decades. They can be IgE-mediated, non-IgE mediated, or mixed. Of these, the mechanisms underlying IgE-mediated FA are the best understood and this has assisted in the development of therapeutics. Currently there are two approved drugs for the treatment of FA, Palforzia and Omalizumab. Palfornia is a characterized peanut product used as immunotherapy for peanut allergy. Immunotherapy, involves exposure of the patient to small but increasing doses of the allergen and slowly builds immune tolerance to the allergen and increases a patient's allergic threshold. Omalizumab, a biologic, is an anti-IgE antibody which binds to IgE and prevents release of proinflammatory allergenic mediators on exposure to allergen. Other biologics, investigational vaccines, nanoparticles, Janus Kinase and Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or DARPins are also being evaluated as potential therapeutics. Oral food challenges (OFC) are the gold standard for the diagnosis for FA. However, they are time-consuming and involve risk of anaphylaxis; therefore, alternative diagnostic methods are being evaluated. This review will discuss how the immune system mediates an allergic response to specific foods, as well as FA risk factors, diagnosis, prevention, and treatments for FA.

Omalizumab reduces anaphylactic reactions and allows food introduction in food-allergic in children with severe asthma: An observational study

BACKGROUND

In Europe, Omalizumab (anti-IgE) is indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe asthma, but not for IgE-mediated food allergy (FA).

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the impact of Omalizumab on efficacy, safety, and quality of life (FA-QoL) in patients with moderate to severe asthma and who have a history of anaphylaxis to peanut, tree nuts, fish, egg, milk, and/or wheat.

METHODS

Food-allergic children (6-18 years) with moderate to severe asthma underwent oral food challenges (OFCs) to establish the threshold of reaction to the culprit food(s) at baseline (T0) and at 4-month intervals (T1, T2, and T3) during their first year of treatment with Omalizumab. We recorded the number and severity of food-allergic reactions, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, FA-QoL, and total IgE levels.

RESULTS

In 65 patients allergic to 107 foods, the No Observed Adverse Events Level (NOAEL) at T1 increased: 243- and 488-fold for fresh and baked milk, respectively; 172- and 134-fold for raw and baked egg; 245-fold for hazelnut; 55-fold for peanut; 31-fold for wheat; and 10-fold for fish. Full tolerance was achieved in 66.4% of OFCs at T1, 58.3% at T2, and 75% at T3. Ninety-five foods were liberalized in the diet of 55 patients; the remaining 12 were introduced by 10 patients at least in traces. Throughout the study, 40 out of 65 were able to get a free diet. ACT increased from 17 (Q1-Q3: 15-17) to 23.6 (Q1-Q3: 23-25). The FA-QoL score in children ≤12 years decreased from 4.63 ± 0.74 to 2.02 ± 1.13, and in adolescents from 4.68 ± 0.92 to 1.90 ± 1.50.

CONCLUSIONS

During Omalizumab therapy, a safe reintroduction of allergenic foods is feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06316414.

The ethics of food allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ethical dilemmas are a common occurrence in the provision of care to individuals with food allergies. Thus, an understanding of medical ethics is essential for allergists/immunologists.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the importance of medical ethics in the clinical practice of food allergy, there has been little published on this topic. Some international allergy societies have published ethical guidelines. Further investigation on medical ethics in food allergy is required.

SUMMARY

This review describes key ethical principles in relation to food allergy testing, oral food challenges, and various management strategies, including avoidance, omalizumab and oral immunotherapy. This review demonstrates the necessity for education and research on medical ethics in food allergy.

Oral Immunotherapy Should Play a Key Role in Preschool Food Allergy Management

Food allergies pose significant challenges including the risk for severe allergic reactions. This review article highlights the advantages and disadvantages of the historic standard management approach-avoidance and carrying epinephrine in case of accidental ingestion-and argues, based on accumulating evidence, that oral immunotherapy (OIT) should play a key role in preschool food allergy management. Firstly, our review will highlight pitfalls with the 'wait-and-see' approach to natural resolution of food allergies, with recent data pointing to lower resolution than previously thought. For those who do not outgrow their allergies, waiting until school age to offer OIT means missing the window of opportunity where OIT is safest, and prolongs unnecessary dietary restrictions. For those who do outgrow their allergies, research indicates they may not reintroduce the food due to fear and aversion and can become re-sensitised, putting them at risk of severe reactions. Secondly, the risks associated with allergen avoidance are higher than previously believed. Allergen avoidance is imperfect and carries an increased risk of severe reactions when compared with the risk of severe reactions while on OIT, particularly in preschoolers. Although an allergic reaction can be stressful, it is preferable to have this occur during OIT where caregivers are vigilant following a scheduled dose, rather than having this occur at a potentially unexpected time following an accidental exposure. Lastly, there is a growing body of evidence supporting favourable safety and effectiveness of OIT in preschoolers, and preliminary data suggesting higher likelihood of remission in infants. OIT has the potential to significantly improve quality of life, and future research is needed to answer this important question in preschoolers. In summary, while ongoing research will further clarify cost-effectiveness, long-term adherence and psychosocial impacts of OIT, this review suggests that OIT should play a key role in preschool food allergy management.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1 safety study of oral mucosal immunotherapy in adults with peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Oral mucosal immunotherapy (OMIT) involves the use of a specifically formulated toothpaste to deliver allergenic proteins to immunologically active areas of the oral cavity. This represents a novel delivery mechanism with several features designed to improve food allergy desensitization. OMIT has advantages over other approaches to allergy immunotherapy due to its targeted delivery and simplified administration.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety, tolerability, and adherence to OMIT with INT301 in adults with peanut allergy.

METHODS

The Oral Mucosal Escalation Goal Assessment study enrolled 32 adults, aged 18 to 55 years, with peanut allergy in a 3:1 ratio to receive either an escalating dose of INT301 or a placebo. Entry criteria included a positive skin prick test result with a wheal diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm than control and/or peanut-specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L. Subjects were required to fail an oral food challenge less than or equal to 100 mg dose of peanut protein. Safety and tolerability were monitored in the 48-week trial period.

RESULTS

All active subjects (100%) tolerated the prespecified protocol at the highest dose. No moderate or severe systemic reactions were observed in the active participants. Nonsystemic adverse reactions were mostly local (oral and nasal cavities), mild and transient. Active subjects adhered to the treatment for 97% of the days in the study, with no withdrawals due to study medication.

CONCLUSION

In the Oral Mucosal Escalation Goal Assessment trial, INT301 met all primary and secondary end points of safety, tolerability, and adherence. Thus, OMIT seems to be a safe and convenient option for individuals with food allergies. These results support the need for further evaluation in the pediatric population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04603300.

Bibliometric and visual analysis of drug-specific immunotherapy from 1990 to 2024

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is key in allergic diseases, tumor immunity, and autoimmune regulation. In recent years, the mechanism of action of drugs in SIT has attracted much attention, including the induction of hypersensitivity responses and modulation of immune tolerance. However, scientific challenges remain regarding their mechanism of action and optimization strategies. Studies on pharmacological SIT have been accumulated in the past, and there is an urgent need for bibliometric analyses to review and prospect these results for future academic development. Strict search criteria were developed to screen and download literature information from the Web of Science Core Collection. Six elements of the included literature were analyzed and visualized using Citespace, VOSviewer software, and the Bibliometrix package. A total of 682 publications related to the drug SIT were included in this study. The growth trend in the number of publications is evident and entering a new phase with great potential for the future, with the highest total number of citations in 1998. The countries and institutions with the most publications were the USA and the University of Genoa. The author who contributed the most to the field was Incorvaia, Cristoforo. Moreover, Bousquet J was the most influential author. Allergy was considered the leading core source journal, and the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is the most influential. The reference with the highest outbreak intensity is Roberts G, 2018, Allergy, V73, P765, https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13317 . The analysis of the keywords by the various metrics shows that the research hotspot is the tumor-associated SIT, the cutting-edge topic is the mechanism of action of the drug AIT, and the respiratory SIT application is the cutting-edge hot issue. Drug SIT has made good progress with the joint participation of global research institutions, scientists, and various journals. However, cooperation and communication are weak, and it is necessary to build a new cooperation mode to promote the globalization of research results. We have found the research hotspots and cutting-edge issues in this field, which will guide us to make breakthroughs in a more precise direction and play the important role of drug safety in safeguarding human life and health.

Allergen-Specific IgE is a Stronger Predictor of Remission Following Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Than Age in Children Aged 1-10 Years

BACKGROUND

Remission is the desired outcome following OIT as it allows individuals to discontinue treatment and eat the allergen freely. Early initiation of OIT in infants and toddlers has been embraced as an approach to increase the likelihood of remission. However, there is no high-quality evidence supporting younger age as an independent factor driving remission; available studies are limited by small samples of younger subjects and lack of adjustment for confounding covariates, particularly peanut-specific IgE (sIgE) levels which is closely correlated with age.

METHODS

This study examined relationships between peanut sIgE and age at baseline and remission, in children aged 1-10 who completed 18 months of OIT in the PPOIT-003 RCT (n = 162). Remission was defined as absence of clinical reactivity to peanut after 8 weeks of allergen avoidance/treatment discontinuation. Age and sIgE were examined as continuous variables in univariate and multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

Higher peanut sIgE was consistently predictive of lower likelihood of remission, independent of age. In contrast, there was no independent association between age and remission after adjusting for baseline sIgE (OR 0.94 [0.79-1.12], p = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings do not support age as an independent predictor of remission following OIT. Additional studies examining safety and efficacy of OIT in infants and younger children are urgently needed, ahead of widespread adoption of early intervention.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children with High-Threshold Peanut Allergy

BACKGROUND

Approved therapeutics for peanut allergy are not designed for the many patients with allergic reactions to more than one peanut.

METHODS

We randomly assigned (1:1) participants 4 to 14 years of age reacting to a challenge of between 443 mg and 5043 mg of peanut protein to peanut oral immunotherapy (P-OIT) using home-measured peanut butter versus peanut avoidance. The primary end point was the difference between groups in the proportion tolerating a two-dose-level increase or 9043 mg of peanut protein. For ingestion participants tolerating 9043 mg, sustained unresponsiveness (tolerance off treatment) was tested after 16 weeks of ad lib ingestion followed by 8 weeks of abstinence.

RESULTS

Of 73 participants, 38 were randomly assigned to P-OIT and 35 to avoidance. Thirty-two of 38 participants in the ingestion group (84.2%) and 30 of 35 in the avoidance group (85.7%) underwent the primary outcome food challenge. The primary analysis with prespecified multiple imputation for missing values showed 100% success for ingestion versus 21.0% for avoidance (between-group difference, 79.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.6 to 93.5; P<0.001). All 32 treated and 3 out of 30 avoiders (10%) tolerated 9043 mg. In the intention-to-treat analysis, sustained unresponsiveness occurred in 68.4% (26/38) on P-OIT versus 8.6% (3/35) tolerating 9043 mg among those avoiding (between-group difference, 59.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 42.4 to 77.3). No dosing reactions were greater than grade 1 severity, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial of P-OIT using store-bought, home-measured peanut versus peanut avoidance in high-threshold peanut allergy, those treated achieved significantly higher rates of desensitization with a durable response off treatment. (Funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1TR004419] and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious [U19AI136053]; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03907397.).

Prophylactic Peanut Allergen Ara h 6 Sublingual Immunotherapy Drives Expansion of FoxP3 +Helios- Regulatory T Cells in the Absence of Allergen-Specific IgA

Insights into the underlying immunological mechanisms of prophylactic sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) may support the development of new strategies for improved prevention and treatment of food allergy. Here, we investigated the humoral, regulatory and sublingual tissue immune response to prophylactic SLIT administration of a single purified peanut allergen in Brown Norway (BN) rats. BN rats received daily sublingual administration of peanut allergen Ara h 6 for three weeks. Suppression of sensitisation was evaluated by subsequent intraperitoneal administration of Ara h 6. Ara h 6-specific IgE, IgA, IgG1 and IgG2a-c levels were measured in serum. The frequency of regulatory T (Treg) cells was analysed using flow cytometry. The sublingual tissue response to Ara h 6 was analysed by transcriptional profiling using mRNA-sequencing. Ara h 6 SLIT protected rats from subsequent sensitisation without inducing a detectable humoral immune response (Ara h 6-specific IgE, IgA, IgG1 and IgG2a-c) in serum. SLIT furthermore promoted the relative expansion of induced Helios- Treg cells within the conventional CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ Treg population in sublingual draining lymph nodes and blood. In conclusion, prophylactic Ara h 6 SLIT drives the relative expansion of induced Helios- Treg cells in the absence of Ara h 6-specific IgA highlighting a potential novel IgA-independent Treg-related immune response at the sublingual mucosal site.

Microbial metabolism of food allergens determines the severity of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially life-threatening reaction, often triggered by foods and largely mediated by IgE. A critically important aspect of anaphylaxis pertains to the factors that modulate its severity. The human microbiota is known to influence oral tolerance, but the microbial mechanisms directly involved in IgE-mediated anaphylaxis remain unknown. Here, we demonstrate that human saliva harbors peanut-degrading bacteria that metabolize immunodominant allergens (Ara h 1 and Ara h 2) and alter IgE binding. Additionally, we provide in vivo evidence showing that oral bacteria metabolize peanut allergens, influencing systemic allergen exposure and the severity of anaphylaxis. Finally, in a clinical study, we observe that common peanut-degrading bacteria, such as Rothia, from the oral cavity, are more abundant in peanut-allergic patients who exhibit better tolerance to allergen exposure. Altogether, these results demonstrate the role of the human microbiota in modulating IgE-mediated reactions through allergen metabolism. These findings reveal a novel microbial mechanism with potential to prevent, or reduce, the severity of IgE-mediated anaphylaxis.

Food oral immunotherapy

Food oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an option for the treatment of immunoglobin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy that involves administering gradually increasing doses of an allergenic food over time (under medical supervision) with the goal of desensitizing an individual to the food allergen. Current Canadian clinical practice guidelines for OIT recommend this form of therapy as an option in patients with food allergy. The intervention should be prioritized in the infant and toddler population, in which it is particularly well tolerated and can lead to sustained unresponsiveness (also sometimes referred to as remission). In this article, we provide an overview of OIT and discuss the role non-allergist clinicians can play in caring for patients undergoing OIT.

Generic Health-Related Quality of Life of Children With Severe Peanut or Tree Nut Allergy

AIM

Food allergies may decrease health-related quality of life. We assessed health-related quality of life in Finnish children at risk of a severe peanut or tree nut allergy and their parents.

METHODS

Study included children aged 3-15 years referred to Tampere University Hospital for suspected severe nut allergy. Eligibility criteria included a history of anaphylaxis and/or molecular immunology testing referring for severe peanut and/or tree nut allergy. Health-related quality of life was assessed with generic questionnaires 15D for adults, 16D for teenagers or 17D for children, with scores compared with age group-matched population references.

RESULTS

A total of 101 children (mean age 7.7 ± 2.9 years) and parent pairs were enrolled. The mean 16D score for 11 teenagers aged 12-15 years and mean 15D score for 101 parents was similar to reference populations; parental distress was borderline statistically worse (0.890 vs. 0.932, p = 0.013). The mean 17D score for 90 children aged 3-11 years was significantly higher (0.959 vs. 0.938) than in references (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Children with a suspected severe peanut or tree nut allergy had a comparable health-related quality of life to the reference population. Distress among their parents seemed to be increased, warranting more focus on parental counselling.

Roads to remission: evolving treatment concepts in type 2 inflammatory diseases

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) characterised by type 2 inflammation, including asthma, allergic rhinitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, atopic dermatitis, food allergies and eosinophilic esophagitis, are increasing in prevalence worldwide. Currently, there is a major paradigm shift in the management of these diseases, towards the concept of disease modification and the treatment goal remission, regardless of severity and age. Remission as a treatment goal in chronic inflammatory NCDs was first introduced in rheumatoid arthritis, and then adopted in other non-type 2 inflammatory diseases. Among diseases with type 2 Inflammation, this concept is novel and currently most advanced in asthma. This new paradigm has been developed based on a better understanding of the pathophysiology of type 2 inflammation and the advent of highly effective drugs selectively interfering with type 2 pathways. Here, we review the evolution of the new remission concepts in type 2 inflammatory diseases and discuss associated challenges and future research needs.

Funding

None.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate about the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) in treating food allergies. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EPIT.

METHODS

We systematically searched international trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov), PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science from the inception of the database until June 25, 2023. Two authors independently screened potential studies based on the following criteria: food allergy, epidermal immunotherapy, and randomized controlled trials(RCTs). The risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. The primary outcomes included desensitization, local adverse events, systemic adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included epinephrine utilization, topical medication utilization, and severe adverse events. We assessed certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1970 participants were included. Ten high-quality RCTs focusing on peanut allergy and cow's milk allergy were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that EPIT promoted desensitization in patients with food allergy (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.72-2.58; I 2 = 0%, high certainty), particularly in aged ≤ 11 years (RR 3.84, 95% CI 2.39-6.26; I 2 = 34%). Additionally, treatment duration ≥ 52 weeks was found to increase immune tolerance (RR 3.37, 95% CI 2.39-4.75; I 2 = 13%). Patients who undergo EPIT treatment not only raised the local adverse reactions (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.10-2.41; I 2 = 82%, low certainty) but also raised systemic adverse reactions (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01-2.28; I 2 = 0%, high certainty).

CONCLUSION

After EPIT treatment, patients with food allergy can effectively increase their immune tolerance to food. However, it also significantly increases mild-to-moderate anaphylaxis. There is limited data on the impact of EPIT on quality of life and other food allergic diseases, indicating a need for further research.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy

Peanut allergy treatment options remain limited, but novel approaches are being studied, including epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). EPIT uses the cutaneous immune system to promote tolerance to food allergens. Viaskin™ Peanut, an approach to EPIT in late-stage clinical development uses an occlusive patch with a condensation chamber that enables natural epidermal water loss to solubilize dry antigen on the patch, which is then absorbed and captured by skin Langerhans cells. This form of EPIT does not require disruption of the skin barrier, thus avoiding a proinflammatory cytokine response by targeting the nonvascularized epidermis and limiting systemic allergen exposure. Extensive preclinical research suggests that Viaskin Peanut has a distinct mechanism of desensitization, including the potential for disease modification, driven by a unique population of regulatory T cells. Numerous clinical studies of Viaskin Peanut have demonstrated desensitization and reductions in reaction severity, particularly in children aged 1 through 11 years, as well as a favorable safety profile with mostly mild-to-moderate skin reactions that were observed to decrease over time. EPIT with Viaskin Peanut may be a potential therapeutic option for peanut allergy that is clinically practical with long-term efficacy and tolerability.

Food allergy yardstick: Where does omalizumab fit?

Food allergy management has greatly evolved in the last several years, moving from passive approaches, such as strict food allergen avoidance, to more active treatments, including regulatory approval of the first specifically indicated immunotherapy product (for peanut) in 2020. In 2024, a second therapy, omalizumab, received regulatory approval for the treatment of 1 or more IgE-mediated food allergies, providing clinicians with multiple treatment options to offer patients and families. With this expanded armamentarium of food allergy treatment options, the practicing clinician requires detailed knowledge of benefits and risks of omalizumab, how omalizumab fits into the management landscape, and how to use shared decision-making to optimize therapy. This yardstick aims to provide the clinician with a review of data leading to omalizumab's food allergy indication and an evidence-based expert opinion approach regarding on how best to use this and other therapies available to optimize patient management.

Development and acceptability of a decision-aid for food allergy oral immunotherapy in children

BACKGROUND

Limited decision-support tools are available to help shared decision-making (SDM) regarding food oral immunotherapy (OIT) initiation. No current tool covers all foods, forms, and pediatric ages for which OIT is offered.

METHODS

In compliance with International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, this pediatric decision-aid comparing OIT versus avoidance was developed in three stages. Nested qualitative data assessing OIT decisional needs were supplemented with evidence-synthesis from the OIT literature to create the prototype decision-aid content. This underwent iterative development with food allergy experts and patient advocacy stakeholders until unanimous consensus was reached regarding content, bias, readability, and utility in making a choice. Lastly, the tool underwent validated assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy.

RESULTS

The decision-aid underwent 5 iterations, resulting in a 4-page written aid (Flesch-Kincaid reading level 6.1) explaining therapy choices, risks and benefits, providing self-rating for attribute importance for the options and self-assessment regarding how adequate the information was in decision-making. A total of n = 135 caregivers of food-allergic children assessed the decision-aid, noting good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 85.9/100) and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.9/100). Information content was rated adequate and sufficient, the therapy choices wording balanced, and presented without bias for a "best choice." Lower decisional conflict was associated with caregiver-reported anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

This first pediatric OIT decision-aid, agnostic to product, allergen, and age has good acceptability, limited bias, and is associated with low decisional conflict and high decisional self-efficacy. It supports SDM in navigating the decision to start OIT or continue allergen avoidance.

Food Allergy Genetics and Epigenetics: A Review of Genome-Wide Association Studies

In this review, we provide an overview of food allergy genetics and epigenetics aimed at clinicians and researchers. This includes a brief review of the current understanding of genetic and epigenetic mechanisms, inheritance of food allergy, as well as a discussion of advantages and limitations of the different types of studies in genetic research. We specifically focus on the results of genome-wide association studies in food allergy, which have identified 16 genetic variants that reach genome-wide significance, many of which overlap with other allergic diseases, including asthma, atopic dermatitis, and allergic rhinitis. Identified genes for food allergy are mainly involved in epithelial barrier function (e.g., FLG, SERPINB7) and immune function (e.g., HLA, IL4). Epigenome-wide significant findings at 32 loci are also summarized as well as 14 additional loci with significance at a false discovery of < 1 × 10-4. Integration of epigenetic and genetic data is discussed in the context of disease mechanisms, many of which are shared with other allergic diseases. The potential utility of genetic and epigenetic discoveries is deliberated. In the future, genetic and epigenetic markers may offer ways to predict the presence or absence of clinical IgE-mediated food allergy among sensitized individuals, likelihood of development of natural tolerance, and response to immunotherapy.

EAACI guidelines on the management of IgE-mediated food allergy

This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guideline provides recommendations for the management of IgE-mediated food allergy and was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Following the confirmation of IgE-mediated food allergy diagnosis, allergen avoidance and dietary advice (with support of a specialised dietitian, if possible) together with the provision of a written treatment plan, education on the recognition of allergic symptoms and prescription of medication including adrenaline using an auto-injector are essential. Patients with significant anxiety and requirement for coping strategies may benefit from support from a clinical psychologist. As immunomodulatory interventions, omalizumab is suggested for treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy in children from the age of 1 and adults; and oral allergen-specific immunotherapy is recommended for children and adolescents with peanut allergy and suggested for milk and egg allergies (generally after 4 years of age for milk and egg). Sublingual and epicutaneous immunotherapy are suggested for peanut allergy but are not yet available at the point of care. Future research into disease modifying treatments for IgE-mediated food allergy are highly needed, with standardised and patient-focused protocols and outcomes.

Milk ladder: Who? When? How? Where? with the lowest risk of reaction

The milk ladder (ML) approach, which is the gradual reintroduction of the milk allergen from the least allergenic forms to the most allergenic forms into the diet of the patients, has been utilized mostly in non-IgE-mediated but in some countries also in IgE-mediated-CMPA due to its possible benefits which include nutrition, quality of life and tolerance induction. Despite increasing interest, so far, there is no guideline on ML; thus, the use of this approach shows discrepancies among healthcare professionals as many factors such as dietary habits, patient history, test results, workload, and facilities of the hospitals, the anxiety of the parents/patients may affect the decision on how, when, where and whom to use ML. Here, we reviewed current data on implementing the ML, suggested a 4-step ML including receipts and amounts, and shared our experience on optimal patient selection, appropriate time and steps for initiating ML, and time intervals between the steps targeting the lowest risk of reaction. We also added the newly developed twice-baked biscotti cake to the ML. We presented the analyses of this product, showing its low allergenicity compared to conventional cake, which provides a safer introduction of milk into the diet.

An International Delphi Consensus on the Management of Pollen-Food Allergy Syndrome: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee

BACKGROUND

Pollen-food allergy syndrome (PFAS) is common among patients with allergic rhinitis. Treatment recommendations for patients with PFAS remain variable.

OBJECTIVE

To develop consensus recommendation statements for managing patients with PFAS.

METHODS

An international panel of allergists, researchers, and nutritionists with an interest in PFAS from 25 different institutions across 11 countries convened and a list of statements was written by 3 authors. The RAND/University of California Los Angeles methodology was adopted to establish consensus on the statements.

RESULTS

After 2 Delphi rounds, a consensus was reached on 14 statements. The panel agreed that patients with PFAS would benefit from counseling on the nature and basis of PFAS and the rare chance of more severe systemic reactions and their recognition. The panel agreed on avoiding the raw food responsible for the index reaction, but not potentially cross-reactive fruits/vegetables based on the responsible food of the index reaction. Epinephrine autoinjectors should be recommended for patients with PFAS who experienced severe symptoms (beyond the oropharynx) or for patients considered at risk for severe reactions. The panel agreed that the benefit of allergen immunotherapy remains unclear and that PFAS should not be considered the primary indication for such intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed consensus statements regarding counselling patients about the nature and severity of PFAS, potential risk factors, dietary avoidance, epinephrine autoinjector prescription, and allergen immunotherapy consideration for patients with PFAS.

Omalizumab Implementation in Practice: Lessons Learned From the OUtMATCH Study

In February 2024, omalizumab was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of food allergy, based on data from the landmark phase 3 clinical trial, Omalizumab as Monotherapy and as Adjunct Therapy in Children and Adults (OUtMATCH). In this Rostrum, OUtMATCH investigators share their perspectives on the trial results, the implications for translation into daily practice, and on remaining gaps in the field. The study met its primary and key secondary end points, demonstrating a large effect size in multiallergen desensitization compared with placebo; yet there were some participants who did not respond, and the percentage of responders tolerating all 3 food allergens was lower than that for single foods. Clinicians are likely to have many questions about appropriate patient selection, monitoring for treatment responsiveness, and how to manage off-label considerations such as dietary incorporation or cotreatment with oral immunotherapy. Additional research is needed to answer these remaining questions and ensure that the translation of omalizumab in real-world practice leads to high-quality outcomes.

Real-world experience: a retrospective pediatric chart review to determine why patients and caregivers discontinue oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an increasingly utilized management strategy for IgE-mediated food allergy. Despite promising efficacy and effectiveness, there is still a lack of data surrounding the reasons for discontinuation of OIT. The primary reason stated in the literature for discontinuation is adverse gastrointestinal effects. Social factors contributing to OIT discontinuation have not been well reported. We hypothesize that social considerations are significant contributors to treatment discontinuation.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective chart review of 50 patients treated in community pediatric allergy practices who discontinued OIT out of 507 patients who were started on OIT between October 1, 2017-October 27, 2022. Reasons for discontinuation were identified and classified into five main categories: unsafe care decisions, anxiety, adverse effects of OIT, uncontrolled comorbidity and social factors. Categories were not exclusive.

RESULTS

507 patients were started on OIT, with data available for 50 patients who discontinued OIT, aged 10 months to 18 years and 2 months. The overall discontinuation rate was 9.8%, of which 40 patients (80%) discontinued during buildup, 9 patients (18%) discontinued during maintenance and one patient on two food OIT discontinued one food during buildup and one during maintenance (2%). Thirty-four patients (68%) had multiple reasons for discontinuing OIT. Social factors were the most common reason for discontinuation and were identified in 32 patients (64%). Twenty-four patients (48%) discontinued OIT due to adverse effects. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most prevalent, while anaphylaxis contributed to discontinuation in 15 patients (30%). Anxiety led to discontinuation in 17 patients (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data highlights the importance of social factors and anxiety in the success of OIT completion. Our results support the need to consider not only the patient's medical history, but also their social history and support networks when selecting patients who are good candidates for OIT to optimize the successful completion of OIT.

Two-year post-treatment outcomes following peanut oral immunotherapy in the Probiotic and Peanut Oral Immunotherapy-003 Long-Term (PPOIT-003LT) study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined long-term outcomes following oral immunotherapy (OIT); none have examined long-term risks and benefits associated with distinct clinical outcomes (desensitization, remission).

METHODS

Participants completing the probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) -003 randomized trial were enrolled in a follow-on study, PPOIT-003LT. Peanut ingestion, reactions, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were monitored prospectively. Outcomes at 1-year and 2-years post-treatment were examined by treatment group and by post-OIT clinical outcome (remission, desensitization without remission [DWR], allergic).

RESULTS

86% (151/176) of eligible children enrolled. Post-treatment peanut ingestion at 2-years post-treatment were similar for PPOIT (86.7%) and OIT (78.7%) groups, both higher than placebo (10.3%). Reactions reduced over time for all treatment and clinical outcome groups (PPOIT 31.7% to 23.3%, OIT 37.7% to 19.7%, placebo 13.8% to 6.9%; remission 27.5% to 15.9%; DWR 57.9% to 36.8%; allergic 11.6% to 7%). At 2-years post-treatment, similar proportions of remission and allergic participants reported reactions (RD 0.09 (95%CI -0.03, 0.20), p = .127), whereas more DWR participants reported reactions than remission (remission vs DWR: RD -0.21 (95%CI -0.39; -0.03), p = .02) and allergic (DWR vs allergic: RD 0.30 (95%CI 0.13, 0.47), p = .001) participants. At 2-years post-treatment, 0% remission versus 5.3% DWR versus 2.3% allergic participants reported adrenaline injector usage. Remission participants had significantly greater HRQOL improvement (adjusted for baseline) compared with both DWR (MD -0.54 (95%CI -0.99, -0.10), p = .017) and allergic (MD -0.82 (95%CI -1.25, -0.38), p < .001).

CONCLUSION

By 2-years post-treatment, remission participants reported fewer reactions, less severe reactions and greater HRQOL improvement compared with DWR and allergic participants, indicating that remission is the patient-preferred treatment outcome over desensitization or remaining allergic.

Peanut Allergy in Children-Is Prevention Better than Cure?

Peanut allergy, one of the most frequently occurring allergies, usually starts in childhood and rarely subsides-often persisting throughout adult life. Accidental exposure to peanuts can often result in adverse reactions ranging from mild to life-threatening, such as anaphylactic shock. Historically, food avoidance and the use of rescue drugs have remained a fundamental management mechanism for dealing with food allergy. However, prevention of adverse reactions to food allergy is playing an increasing role. This is possible through the early introduction of peanuts into the diet, especially in infants at risk of this allergy. In recent years, specific immunotherapy has been used to develop desensitisation and, in some patients, tolerance-defined as a persistent state of clinical non-reactivity to the allergen after therapy is finished. The aim of this article is to summarise the current state of knowledge on the prevention and treatment of peanut allergy, with a focus on clinical trials, current guidelines, and recent experimental studies. This review may be particularly useful for paediatricians and general practitioners.

Food Sublingual Immunotherapy: Safety and Simplicity of a Real Food Updosing Protocol

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) using food extracts is safe and effective in desensitizing patients with food allergy, yet not often used in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To propose a cost-effective, expedited SLIT protocol using real food.

METHODS

Patients with food allergy aged 5 to 50 years (median, 11 years) initiated food SLIT in a single-clinic setting. The daily maintenance dose was 4 to 11 mg protein in 0.1 to 0.5 mL volume, depending on the food. Some foods were available in liquid form at the local grocery (milk, egg white liquid, and cashew/walnut/sunflower/hazelnut milk), whereas others were prepared in the office using flour and 50% glycerin saline (peanut/sesame/wheat). The first cohort of 20 patients began dosing at a 1:1000 dilution, the next 30 patients at 1:100 dilution. An exercise challenge was performed in a subset of patients on maintenance dosing to evaluate the need for a predose or postdose rest period.

RESULTS

The 1:1000 and 1:100 cohorts both completed day 1 without adverse reactions beyond itchy mouth. There were no systemic reactions requiring epinephrine throughout the study period and 88% reached their maintenance dose. Skin testing of 6-month-old peanut flour solution was not diminished from fresh solution and similar to food extract. Exercise challenge test results in 12 patients were negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen extract food SLIT as used in published trials has limitations of cost and multiple office visits. Inexpensive real food, at the same or slightly higher protein dose, was well tolerated in 4 updose visits, a minimum of a week apart. Unlike food oral immunotherapy, a predose or postdose rest period may not be necessary.

Mechanisms for initiation of food allergy by skin pre-disposed to atopic dermatitis

Food allergy can be life-threatening and often develops early in life. In infants and children, loss-of-function mutations in skin barrier genes associate with food allergy. In a mouse model with skin barrier mutations (Flakey Tail, FT+/- mice), topical epicutaneous sensitization to a food allergen peanut extract (PNE), an environmental allergen Alternaria alternata (Alt) and a detergent induce food allergy and then an oral PNE-challenge induces anaphylaxis. Exposures to these allergens and detergents can occur for infants and children in a household setting. From the clinical and preclinical studies of neonates and children with skin barrier mutations, early oral exposure to allergenic foods before skin sensitization may induce tolerance to food allergens and thus protect against development of food allergy. In the FT+/- mice, oral food allergen prior to skin sensitization induce tolerance to food allergens. However, when the skin of FT+/- pups are exposed to a ubiquitous environmental allergen at the time of oral consumption of food allergens, this blocks the induction of tolerance to the food allergen and the mice can then be skin sensitized with the food allergen. The development of food allergy in neonatal FT+/- mice is mediated by altered skin responses to allergens with increases in skin expression of interleukin 33, oncostatin M and amphiregulin. The development of neonate food allergy is enhanced when born to an allergic mother, but it is inhibited by maternal supplementation with α-tocopherol. Moreover, preclinical studies suggest that food allergen skin sensitization can occur before manifestation of clinical features of atopic dermatitis. Thus, these parameters may impact design of clinical studies for food allergy, when stratifying individuals by loss of skin barrier function or maternal atopy before offspring development of atopic dermatitis.

Current perspective on allergen immunotherapy for food allergies

Food allergies are an increasing global problem and societal issue. In addition to the potential for severe allergic reactions from accidental ingestion, food allergies impose a significant burden on the quality of life, nutrition, cost of living, and social activities of both those afflicted and their caregivers. Strict avoidance of allergens and use of emergency medications to treat allergic reactions are the traditional management and treatment strategies; however, significant progress has been made in recent years toward better treatment of food allergies. Many clinical trials on food allergen immunotherapy (oral, epicutaneous, and sublingual) have revealed its efficacy in increasing reaction thresholds and desensitization. These positive results led to the first FDA approval of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT). However, safer and more effective approaches are required, and adjunct treatments and allergen modifications are being considered. More than 100 facilities in Japan conduct OIT, and numerous studies on it have been reported. Unlike in Europe and the US, stepwise oral food challenges with dietary guidance are conducted separately from the OIT. This review describes the current perspectives on allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, focusing on evidence from Japan.

Immunotherapy and biologics in the management of IgE-mediated food allergy: Systematic review and meta-analyses of efficacy and safety

Food allergy (FA) is a potentially life-threatening chronic condition that is becoming an increasing public health problem worldwide. This systematic review (SR) was carried out to inform the development of clinical recommendations on the treatment of IgE-mediated FA with biologics and/or IT for the update of the EAACI guidelines. A SR of randomized-controlled trials or quasi-controlled trials was carried out. Studies were identified via comprehensive search strategies in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library, up to April 2022.

POPULATION

Human adults, children, and adolescents with IgE-mediated FA.

INTERVENTION

IT and/or biologics.

COMPARATOR

Placebo or standard-of-care (allergen avoidance).

OUTCOME

Efficacy (desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness (SU), remission), quality of life, and safety (systemic and local adverse reactions (AR)). The Cochrane RoB tool was used to assess the risk of bias. It was reported according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO CRD4202229828. After screening, 121 studies were included (111 for IT and 10 for biologics). Most studies had a high risk of bias and showed high heterogeneity in design and results. Metanalysis showed a positive effect of biologics and IT in terms of relative risk (RR) for achieving tolerance to the culprit food compared to avoidance or placebo. Omalizumab for any FA showed a RR of 2.17 [95% confidence interval: 1.22, 3.85]. For peanut allergy, oral IT (OIT) had a RR of 11.94 [1.76, 80.84] versus avoidance or placebo, sublingual IT (SLIT) had a RR of 3.00 [1.04, 8.66], and epicutaneous IT (EPIT) of 2.16 [1.56, 3.00]. OIT had a RR of 5.88 [2.27, 15.18] for cow's milk allergy, and of 3.43 [2.24, 5.27] for egg allergy. There was insufficient data on SLIT or EPIT for the treatment of egg and milk allergies. Most ARs reported were mild. For OIT the most common AR involved the gastrointestinal system and for EPIT, AR's most commonly affected the skin. There was limited data on severe or life-threatening ARs. There was limited evidence for long term efficacy and quality of life. In conclusion, biologics and IT, alone or in combination, are effective in achieving desensitization while on active treatment but more evidence is needed on long-term tolerance as current evidence is not of high quality. Adverse events while on therapy are generally mild to moderate but a long-term comprehensive safety profile is missing. There is a critical need to optimize and standardize desensitization protocols and outcome measures to facilitate our understanding of the efficacy and safety as well as to allow for comparison between interventions.

Viral Vector Based Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy

Food allergy (FA) is estimated to impact up to 10% of the population and is a growing health concern. FA results from a failure in the mucosal immune system to establish or maintain immunological tolerance to innocuous dietary antigens, IgE production, and the release of histamine and other mediators upon exposure to a food allergen. Of the different FAs, peanut allergy has the highest incidence of severe allergic responses, including systemic anaphylaxis. Despite the recent FDA approval of peanut oral immunotherapy and other investigational immunotherapies, a loss of protection following cessation of therapy can occur, suggesting that these therapies do not address the underlying immune response driving FA. Our lab has shown that liver-directed gene therapy with an adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector induces transgene product-specific regulatory T cells (Tregs), eradicates pre-existing pathogenic antibodies, and protects against anaphylaxis in several models, including ovalbumin induced FA. In an epicutaneous peanut allergy mouse model, the hepatic AAV co-expression of four peanut antigens Ara h1, Ara h2, Ara h3, and Ara h6 together or the single expression of Ara h3 prevented the development of a peanut allergy. Since FA patients show a reduction in Treg numbers and/or function, we believe our approach may address this unmet need.

Age-Related Food Aversion and Anxiety Represent Primary Patient Barriers to Food Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Although oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a reasonable treatment option, barriers to this procedure's implementation have not been extensively evaluated from a patient perspective.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the barriers patients face during OIT administration, including anxiety and taste aversion, and the role of health care professionals, especially dietitians.

METHODS

A survey in Canada and the United States involved families currently enrolled in food OIT programs.

RESULTS

Of responses from 379 participants, fear of reaction was the most common barrier to OIT initiation, with 45.6% reporting it being a "very significant" barrier with other fears reported. However, taste aversion represented the prominent obstacle to continuation. Taste aversion was associated with a slower buildup (P = .02) and a reduction in dose (P = .002). Taste aversion was a strongly age-dependent barrier for initiation (P < .001) and continuation (P < .002), with older children over 6 years of age reporting it as a very significant barrier (P < .001). Boredom was reported as a concern for specific allergens such as peanut, egg, sesame, and hazelnuts (P < .05), emphasizing the need for diverse food options. Notably, 59.9% of respondents mixed OIT foods with sweet items. Despite these dietary concerns, dietitians were underutilized, with only 9.5% of respondents having seen a dietitian and the majority finding dietitian support helpful with greater certainty about the exact dose (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Taste aversion and anxiety represent primary patient-related barriers to OIT. Taste aversion was highly age dependent, with older patients being more affected. Dietitians and psychology support were underutilized, representing a critical target to improve adherence and OIT success.

Oral Immunotherapy: An Overview

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an alternative treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy that has been shown to increase tolerance threshold to many of the top food allergens, although this effect may be dependent on age, dose, frequency, and duration. OIT has been shown to be effective and safe in infants, and early initiation can improve rates of desensitization even for those foods whose natural history favors loss of allergy. Studies looking at protocol modification to improve OIT success are ongoing as is the evaluation of clinical tools to help monitor OIT effects.

Safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy with DBV712 (peanut patch) in peanut allergy

INTRODUCTION

DBV712 250 µg (also referred to as Viaskin Peanut or peanut patch; Viaskin is a trademark of DBV Technologies) is an innovative approach to epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). The patch-based technology system facilitates peanut protein (allergen) absorption into the intact non-vascularized epidermis to promote desensitization to peanut while limiting systemic allergen exposure.

AREAS COVERED

Efficacy and safety in children have been evaluated in four completed phase 3 studies. Overall, the results from these studies have demonstrated the peanut patch to be superior in desensitization compared with placebo and safe for daily use over multiple years.

EXPERT OPINION

These findings, as well as supportive evidence from phase 2 studies, confirm the potential for an effective treatment of peanut allergy in children. The purpose of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy of the peanut patch in the treatment of peanut allergy.

High Degree of Desensitization After 1 Year of Early-Life Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: Small Children Oral Immunotherapy (SmaChO) Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of peanut allergy is about 2% and mostly lifelong. Studies of oral immunotherapy (OIT) with peanut (the daily oral intake of an initially low and then increasing dose of peanut) often show problematic side effects, but there are indications of better safety and effect in younger children compared with older children and adults.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and effectiveness of peanut OIT with a slow up-dosing strategy and low maintenance dose in children aged 1 to 3 years who were allergic to peanut, through a 1-year interim analysis.

METHOD

In a randomized controlled trial (2:1 ratio), 75 children, median age 31 months (interquartile range [IQR], 23-40 months) were assigned to receive peanut OIT (n = 50) or peanut avoidance (n = 25).

RESULTS

In the OIT and avoidance groups, 43 of 50 and 20 of 25 children, respectively, performed the 1-year open oral peanut challenge. A cumulative dose of 750 mg peanut protein after 1 year was tolerated by 72% (36 of 50 children) in the OIT group compared with 4% (1 of 25) in the avoidance group (P < .001). Median tolerated cumulative dose was 2,750 mg (IQR, 275-5,000 mg) peanut protein in the OIT group compared with 2.8 mg (IQR, 0.3-27.8 mg) in the avoidance group (P < .001). Of the doses administered at home during the first year of OIT, 1.4% resulted in adverse events and 79% were mild, and three doses of epinephrine were given at home to two individuals.

CONCLUSION

In children aged 1 to 3 years, peanut OIT with the combination of slow up-dosing and low maintenance dose seems safe and effective after 1 year.

Current options in the management of tree nut allergy: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Tree nut allergy is a lifelong and potentially life-threatening condition. The standard of care is strictly avoiding the culprit nut and treating accidental reactions symptomatically. To evaluate potential therapeutic options for desensitizing patients with IgE-mediated tree nut allergy, we systematically searched three bibliographic databases for studies published until January 2024. We looked for active treatments of IgE-mediated allergy to tree nuts (walnut, hazelnut, pistachio, cashew, almond, pecan, macadamia nut, and brazil nut). We focused on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) using oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), epicutaneous (EPIT), or subcutaneous (SCIT) delivery, or other disease-modifying treatments. We found 19 studies that met our criteria: 3 studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, 5 studied oral immunotherapy to a single tree nut, and 6 used multi-food oral immunotherapy with or without omalizumab. The remaining studies investigated the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies or IgE-immunoadsorption in multi-food allergic patients, including patients with tree nut allergy. The heterogeneity of the studies prevented pooling and meta-analysis. Oral immunotherapy, single or multi-nut, with or without omalizumab, was the most studied approach and appears effective in conferring protection from accidental exposures. Omalizumab monotherapy is the only approved alternative management for reducing allergic reactions that may occur with accidental exposure.

Safety and Effectiveness of Bypassing Oral Immunotherapy Buildup With an Initial Phase of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Higher-Risk Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Because of its favorable safety, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy has been proposed as an alternative treatment for those in whom oral immunotherapy (OIT) is of higher risk-older children, adolescents, adults, and those with a history of severe reactions. Although safe, SLIT has been shown to be less effective than OIT.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety of multifood SLIT in pediatric patients aged 4 to 18 years and the effectiveness of bypassing OIT buildup with an initial phase of SLIT.

METHODS

Patients aged 4 to 18 years were offered (multi)food SLIT. Patients built up to 2 mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of 3 to 5 visits under nurse supervision. After 1 to 2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC) (cumulative dose, 300 mg protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

RESULTS

Between summer 2020 and winter 2023, 188 patients were enrolled in SLIT (median age, 11 years). Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department, but none experienced grade 4 (severe) reaction. A subset of 20 patients had 50 low-dose OFCs to 300 mg protein and 35 (70%) OFCs were successful, thereby bypassing OIT buildup.

CONCLUSIONS

In combination with very favorable safety of SLIT, with no life-threatening reactions and few reactions requiring epinephrine, we propose that an initial phase of SLIT to bypass supervised OIT buildup be considered for children in whom OIT is considered to be of higher risk.

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.

From Skin to Solution: Exploring Epicutaneous Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peanut allergy is a leading cause of severe food reactions. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) compared to placebo for peanut-allergic individuals. After prospectively registering on PROSPERO, we searched three databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and 2 trial registries till September 2023. Analysis was conducted via RevMan where data was computed using risk ratios (RR). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE criteria were used to appraise and evaluate the evidence. From 4927 records, six multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trials comprising 1453 participants were included. The 250 µg EPIT group had a significant increase in successful desensitization compared to placebo (RR: 2.13 (95% C.I: 1.72, 2.64), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), while the 100 µg EPIT group did not (RR: 1.54 (95% C.I: 0.92, 2.58), P = 0.10, I2 = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence). Moreover, there was a significant increase in local (RR: 1.69 (95% C.I: 1.06, 2.68), P = 0.03, I2 = 89%) and systemic adverse events (RR: 1.75 (95% C.I: 1.14, 2.69), P = 0.01, I2 = 0%) with EPIT. Additionally, individuals administered EPIT have an increased probability of requiring rescue medications like epinephrine (RR: 1.91 (95% C.I: 1.12, 3.28), P = 0.02, I2 = 0%) and topical corticosteroids (RR: 1.49 (95% C.I: 1.29, 1.73), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%) to treat adverse events. The association of adverse events post-treatment including anaphylaxis (RR: 2.31 (95% C.I: 1.00, 5.33), P = 0.05, I2 = 36%), skin/subcutaneous disorders like erythema or vesicles (RR: 0.93 (95% C.I: 0.79, 1.08), P = 0.33, I2 = 0%), and respiratory disorders like dyspnea or wheezing (RR: 0.94 (95% C.I: 0.77, 1.15), P = 0.55, I2 = 0%) with EPIT is inconclusive. EPIT, although effective in desensitization, is linked to an increased risk of adverse events. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023466600.

Interaction Between Baseline Participant Factors and Treatment Effects Following Peanut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

The Probiotic Peanut Oral Immunotherapy-003 multicenter randomized trial found that both probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) and peanut OIT alone (OIT) were effective compared with placebo in inducing clinical remission after 18 months of treatment, and improving health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 12 months after treatment. Understanding treatment effect modifiers can optimize outcomes through precision care.

OBJECTIVES

This post hoc study examined baseline clinical and demographic participant factors that modified treatment effects.

METHODS

The study sample included 201 children (aged 1-10 years) with challenge-confirmed peanut allergy. Exposure variables were baseline clinical and demographic factors. Outcomes were remission (double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, cumulative 4,950-mg peanut protein at 8 weeks after treatment) and HRQL (change in Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Form score). Interactions between baseline factors and treatment effects on remission and HRQL were explored with regression models.

RESULTS

A higher degree of peanut sensitivity (large peanut skin prick test, high peanut specific IgE, and low reaction-eliciting dose at study entry challenge) and other concurrent allergic conditions (multiple food allergies, asthma, or wheeze) were associated with the decreased likelihood of attaining remission after both PPOIT and OIT treatment. History of anaphylaxis was associated with the reduced likelihood of remission after PPOIT compared with OIT. For the HRQL outcome, there was evidence that sex, history of anaphylaxis, and age modified treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline participant factors modify PPOIT and OIT effects on remission and HRQL. Considering modifiers of treatment effect during participant selection may optimize treatment success and clinical trial design toward specific outcomes, such as the achievement of remission.