Walnut oral immunotherapy for desensitisation of walnut and additional tree nut allergies (Nut CRACKER): a single-centre, prospective cohort study

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.

Evolving Food Allergy Clinical Trials to Become More Patient-Centered

The current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) paradigm may not fully capture important patient-centered outcomes or measure a primary outcome that is truly meaningful to patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized tools measuring the patient's experience in food allergy clinical trials, which can help support shared decision-making (SDM) and further our understanding of treatment impact. Food allergy PROMs include quality of life (QoL), health state utility (HSU), severity, and self-efficacy measures. Currently, FDA registration trials for product approval only consider a fixed increase in allergen threshold from pre-to-post intervention as a primary outcome (vs a more flexible "X-fold" increase not accounting for an upper and lower specific threshold), though many use QoL as a secondary outcome for patient-centered assessment of treatment impact. Currently used QoL PROMs were not designed to measure change on therapy nor measure HSU (eg, quantitative risk a patient may be willing to take to improve their current health), which can be used to determine therapy value. Although the current paradigm for primary and secondary outcomes in food allergy clinical trials was appropriate at the early stages of food allergy therapy development when conceived in the late 2000s and early 2010s, in the 2020s, these outcome choices risk being stagnant and outdated. As such, the current paradigm for food allergy outcomes should evolve to incorporate more patient-centered primary outcome measures that patient data indicate are meaningful, so outcomes more realistically reflect a therapy's impact. This evolution will better support SDM discussions as patients consider their therapy options and can inform new product development.

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.

Hazelnut Oral Immunotherapy Desensitizes Hazelnut But Not Other Tree Nut Allergies (Nut CRACKER Study)

BACKGROUND

Data on oral immunotherapy (OIT) for hazelnut allergy is limited and its potential to cross-desensitize for other nuts is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy and safety of hazelnut OIT in desensitizing to hazelnut and additional tree nuts.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study of 30 hazelnut-allergic patients aged 4 years or older who underwent hazelnut OIT. Full desensitization (4,000 mg protein) rates were compared with those of 14 observational controls, and immunologic changes during OIT were measured. We determined cross-desensitization in cases of walnut and cashew co-allergy (n = 12). Inhibition of IgE binding to walnut by hazelnut was evaluated by ELISA in a separate set of dual walnut-hazelnut allergic patients.

RESULTS

The rate of full hazelnut desensitization following OIT was 96.7% (29 of 30 patients) compared with 14.3% (two of 14) in controls (odds ratio = 25.7; 95% CI, 3.7-178.7; P < .001). Five patients (16.7%) were treated with injectable epinephrine for home reactions. Hazelnut skin prick test and specific IgE to hazelnut and its main components, Cor a 9, 14 and 16, decreased whereas specific IgG4 increased during OIT. A maintenance dose of 1,200 mg hazelnut protein was sufficient to maintain full desensitization. No cross-desensitization was noted in dual hazelnut-cashew allergic patients (n = 6). In dual hazelnut-walnut allergic patients, an increase in the walnut eliciting dose was observed in two of six patients (33.2%) (to 1,200 and 4,200 mg, respectively). Similarly, by cross-inhibition ELISA, hazelnut competed for IgE-binding to walnut in five of 25 (20%) hazelnut-walnut co-allergic patients (20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Hazelnut OIT is highly effective, with a safety profile similar to that of OIT to other nuts. Cross-desensitization to walnut and cashew is unlikely.

Basophil activation test in the food allergy clinic: its current use and future applications

INTRODUCTION

The basophil activation test (BAT) has shown evidence of high sensitivity and high specificity to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergy. It is a functional test that uses live cells analyzed by flow cytometry and thus needs to be performed within 24h of blood collection. BAT has shown to be reproducible and reliable when tested in a clinical diagnostic laboratory with standardized protocols and flow cytometry settings.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the evidence to support clinical use of BAT and the next steps required for clinical implementation for an improve clinical care for patients with suspected IgE-mediated food allergy.

EXPERT OPINION

BAT has recently been included in Clinical Guidelines of Food Allergy Diagnosis and its implementation in clinical practice depends largely on availability. Proposed clinical applications of the BAT include: distinction between food allergy and asymptomatic IgE sensitization; determination of food allergic status to peanut, tree nuts and seeds in polysensitized children; evaluation of tolerance to baked egg and baked milk in egg and milk allergic children; identification of patients at high-risk of severe allergic reactions; monitoring for spontaneous resolution of food allergy; confirmation of eligibility for specific treatments of food allergy; prediction and monitoring of response to immunomodulatory treatments.

Walnut Jug r 1 is Responsible for Primary Sensitization among Patients Suffering Walnut-Hazelnut 2S Albumin Cross-Reactivity

Walnut and hazelnut coallergy is a frequent manifestation in clinical practice whose molecular basis remains unclear. For this purpose, walnut-hazelnut cross-reactivity was evaluated in 20 patients allergic to one or both tree nuts and sensitized to their 2S albumins. Immunoblotting assays showed that 85% of patients recognized Jug r 1, walnut 2S albumin, which was associated with the development of severe symptoms; 50% of them corecognized hazelnut 2S albumin, Cor a 14. Both allergens were isolated using chromatographic techniques. Inhibition ELISAs revealed that Jug r 1 strongly inhibited the binding of Cor a 14-specific IgE, but Cor a 14 only partially inhibited Jug r 1-specific IgE binding. Our results showed that patients sensitized to walnut/hazelnut 2S albumins were not a homogeneous population. There were patients sensitized to specific epitopes of walnut 2S albumins and patients sensitized to cross-reactive epitopes between walnut and hazelnut, with Jug r 1 being the primary sensitizer.

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.

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.

The Future of Food Allergy Management: Advancements in Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review current and future treatment options for IgE-mediated food allergy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent years have seen major developments in both allergen-specific and allergen-non-specific treatment options, with the first FDA-approved peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) product becoming available in 2020. In addition to OIT, other immunotherapy modalities, biologics, adjunct therapies, and novel therapeutics are under investigation. Food allergy is a potentially life-threatening condition associated with a significant psychosocial impact. Numerous products and protocols are under investigation, with most studies focusing on OIT. A high rate of adverse events, need for frequent office visits, and cost remain challenges with OIT. Further work is needed to unify outcome measures, develop treatment protocols that minimize adverse events, establish demographic and clinical factors that influence candidate selection, and identify patient priorities.

A Review of Shared Decision-Making, Published Protocols, and Post-desensitization Strategies in Oral Immunotherapy (OIT)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use.

RECENT FINDINGS

With food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients.

Primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of food allergy: current practices and future directions

The incidence of food allergies has risen around the globe, and experts have been exploring methods of preventing such allergies in young children to ease the burden of disease and reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by anaphylaxis to food allergens. Such preventative measures can be categorised as primary, secondary and tertiary prevention, which are discussed in detail in this review. Primary prevention is defined as the prevention of becoming sensitised towards specific allergens. The evidence suggests that avoiding common allergenic foods during pregnancy and breastfeeding is not protective against food allergies, and guidelines recommend weaning from 4 to 6 months of age, with recent studies supporting the early introduction of peanuts at 4 months to prevent peanut allergy. Secondary prevention targets patients who are already sensitised and aims to halt the progression of sensitisation, with evidence for high rates of success and safety in trials of early introduction to milk and peanuts using oral immunotherapy in sensitised infants. Tertiary allergy prevention focuses on reducing the risk of a patient having anaphylaxis, with oral immunotherapy being the most common method of promoting tolerance in allergic children. Several studies have demonstrated successful reintroduction for milk, egg and peanut; however, no such guidelines are recommended for other foods. Finally, dietary advancement therapy in the form of milk and egg ladders has been employed as a method of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of allergies, particularly in Ireland, the UK and Canada.

Low-dose oral immunotherapy in immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergies

Nowadays, the management of food allergies has increasingly moved from conventional oral immunotherapy (OIT) to low-dose OIT or low-dose OIT utilizing hypoallergenic foods. This shift is largely because the latter appears to induce oral tolerance with fewer adverse effects than the former. However, the mechanisms underpinning such differences remain unclear. To better understand these mechanisms, we conducted a comparative study scrutinizing the mechanisms of OIT, especially those of low-dose desensitization. We also summarized articles on low-dose OIT and low-dose OIT using hypoallergenic foods. We examined the efficacy, safety, and immunological parameters of low-dose OIT and those of low-dose OIT with hypoallergenic foods with the aim of shedding some light on low-dose OIT and its therapeutic application in inducing oral tolerance for individuals with food allergies.

Updates in food allergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Food allergies are on the rise. Though allergen avoidance and management of acute reactions have been the backbone of therapy, complete avoidance and timely acute care is often not feasible. Food allergen immunotherapy (FAIT) is a novel and evolving treatment option intended to induce desensitization and potential sustained unresponsiveness (SU) to food allergens. This review addresses the methods, mechanisms, efficacy, and adverse effects of oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergens in the published literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Single FAIT has been most extensively studied in peanut, milk, and hen's egg allergic patients and has been successful in achieving desensitization in treated individuals through various modalities. Long-term data regarding SU is limited; however, current data suggests subsets of patients may be more likely to achieve SU compared to others. Other studies are actively assessing multifood AIT and novel FAIT protocols with adjunctive therapies.

SUMMARY

Food allergy constitutes a prevalent problem with far-reaching consequences. The emergence of FAIT may mitigate the burden of food allergy. Current evidence is promising for specific allergens and pediatric patient populations. Future studies are needed to further assess efficacy between different modalities of immunotherapy for food allergens across an age continuum.

Eosinophil-Associated Gastrointestinal Manifestations During OIT

Gastrointestinal adverse events are common during oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy and range from immediate IgE-mediated reactions to non-anaphylactic clinical presentations. This review aims to summarize recent findings on non-anaphylactic eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal adverse events during OIT. Two clinical presentations of non-anaphylactic eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal adverse events during OIT are identified, each with a different paradigm for treatment, and distinguished by their time of onset. In the first clinical entity, characterized by its onset early in the course of treatment, patients present with abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. The symptoms become evident typically within weeks to months of starting OIT. These symptoms, however, are not temporally related to the time of dose administration, as in the case of immediate IgE-mediated anaphylactic reactions. While esophageal biopsies, when performed, can demonstrate eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), baseline esophageal eosinophilia has also been observed in food allergic patients prior to OIT. A potential non-invasive biomarker, the peripheral absolute eosinophil count (AEC), often rises during these reactions and subsides after dose reduction and subsequent resolution of symptoms. OIT can usually then be resumed, albeit at a slower pace, without a recurrence of symptoms. Risk factors for development of symptoms early during OIT include a high starting dose and a baseline AEC of greater than 600. The second, and much less frequently encountered, non-anaphylactic gastrointestinal adverse event related to OIT, presents months to years after initiating OIT. In this latter group, patients present with the classical clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings of EoE. In contrast to the acute onset group, peripheral eosinophilia is usually not observed in these cases. This OIT-associated EoE has shown good response to standard EoE treatment approaches of proton pump inhibitors or swallowed steroids. Most patients with eosinophil-associated adverse reactions are able to continue OIT and remain desensitized. Treatment approaches depend on the specific subtype of these reactions and relate to the stages of OIT treatment.

Severe Anaphylactic Reactions to Home Doses of Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Severe anaphylactic reactions to home doses may occur during food allergy oral immunotherapy (OIT).

OBJECTIVE

To study the rate and risk factors for such reactions.

METHODS

We studied all patients aged greater than 3.5 years who completed OIT in a single center between April 2010 and January 2020. All home epinephrine-treated reactions (HETRs) were identified. High-grade HETRs (HG-HETRs) were defined as HETRs involving respiratory (SpO2 of 94% or less), cardiovascular (low blood pressure), or central nervous system impairment (loss of consciousness). We investigated the rate and risk factors for HG-HETRs.

RESULTS

A total of 1,637 OIT treatments were studied: milk (880), peanut (346), tree nuts (221), sesame (115), and egg (75). Of 390 identified HETRs, 30 HG-HETRs occurred during 27 treatments (1.65% of all treatments). Nearly all (26 of 30) were during milk OIT in patients with house dust mite (HDM) sensitization and asthma (26 of 30 each). Of the 30 patients with HG-HETRs, 21 recovered with one or two epinephrine treatments, but nine (0.55% of all treatments) did not respond to a second dose of epinephrine and were deemed to have refractory anaphylaxis. Three patients required intensive care unit admission and three received epinephrine drip, but none required ventilatory support. Risk factors for HG-HETRs included milk OIT (P = .031), asthma (P = .02) and HDM sensitization (P = .02). No specific triggers for HG-HETR were identified. Of patients with HG-HETRs, 25.9% were fully desensitized, including the four non-milk treated patients; 22.2% were partially desensitized; and 51.9% failed.

CONCLUSIONS

High-grade HETRs are uncommon, particularly refractory anaphylactic reactions to home OIT doses. Although milk OIT, asthma, and HDM sensitization are the main risk factors for such reactions, identification of patients who are at risk is challenging.

Cross-reactive epitopes and their role in food allergy

Allergenic cross-reactivity among food allergens complicates the diagnosis and management of food allergy. This can result in many patients being sensitized (having allergen-specific IgE) to foods without exhibiting clinical reactivity. Some food groups such as shellfish, fish, tree nuts, and peanuts have very high rates of cross-reactivity. In contrast, relatively low rates are noted for grains and milk, whereas many other food families have variable rates of cross-reactivity or are not well studied. Although classical cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants are clinically not relevant, α-Gal in red meat through tick bites can lead to severe reactions. Multiple sensitizations to tree nuts complicate the diagnosis and management of patients allergic to peanut and tree nut. This review discusses cross-reactive allergens and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants in the major food groups, and where available, describes their B-cell and T-cell epitopes. The clinical relevance of these cross-reactive B-cell and T-cell epitopes is highlighted and their possible impact on allergen-specific immunotherapy for food allergy is discussed.

Allergen immunotherapy: progress and future outlook

INTRODUCTION

Allergy, the immunological hypersensitivity to innocuous environmental compounds, is a global health problem. The disease triggers, allergens, are mostly proteins contained in various natural sources such as plant pollen, animal dander, dust mites, foods, fungi and insect venoms. Allergies can manifest with a wide range of symptoms in various organs, and be anything from just tedious to life-threatening. A majority of all allergy patients are self-treated with symptom-relieving medicines, while allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causative treatment option.

AREAS COVERED

This review will aim to give an overview of the state-of-the-art allergy management, including the use of new biologics and the application of biomarkers, and a special emphasis and discussion on current research trends in the field of AIT.

EXPERT OPINION

Conventional AIT has proven effective, but the years-long treatment compromises patient compliance. Moreover, AIT is typically not offered in food allergy. Hence, there is a need for new, effective and safe AIT methods. Novel routes of administration (e.g. oral and intralymphatic), hypoallergenic AIT products and more effective adjuvants holds great promise. Most recently, the development of allergen-specific monoclonal antibodies for passive immunotherapy may also allow treatment of patients currently not treated or treatable.

Natural History of Hazelnut Allergy and Current Approach to Its Diagnosis and Treatment

Hazelnut allergy is the most prevalent type of nut allergy in Europe, with symptoms that can range from mild, such as hives and itching, to severe, such as anaphylaxis, particularly in patients who are sensitized to highly stable allergens, such as storage proteins. Compared to other types of food allergies, allergies to tree nuts, including hazelnuts, tend to persist throughout life. Although symptoms can appear in early childhood, they often continue into adulthood, with a minority of cases improving during adolescence. Currently, there is no curative treatment available for hazelnut allergy, and patients must adhere to a restrictive diet and carry autoinjective epinephrine. However, oral allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a promising treatment option. Patients can be categorized based on their risk for severe reactions using various clinical, in vivo, and in vitro tests, including component-resolved diagnosis and oral food challenge. This review aims to provide an overview of the current knowledge of the natural history of hazelnut allergy and new approaches for its diagnosis and management.

Factors associated with home epinephrine-treated reactions during peanut and tree-nut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Home reactions requiring epinephrine administration, a marker of their severity, restrict the widespread use of oral immunotherapy (OIT), but their risk factors are largely not known.

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors for such reactions during OIT to most allergenic foods.

METHODS

All patients who began OIT for peanut, tree nuts, sesame, or egg allergy at the Shamir Medical Center between April 2010 and January 2020 were enrolled. The patients were instructed to use their epinephrine autoinjectors during reactions consisting of severe abdominal pain, significant shortness of breath, or lethargy, or whenever in uncertainty of reaction severity. Patients with and without home epinephrine-treated reactions (HETRs) were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 757 OIT treatments for peanut (n = 346), tree nuts (n = 221; walnut n = 147, cashew n = 57, hazelnut n = 16, almond n = 1), sesame (n = 115), and egg (n = 75) allergies were administered to 644 patients. Eighty-three (10.9%) patients experienced HETRs. The highest rate of HETRs was experienced during walnut (20.4%) or hazelnut (25%) OIT, followed by peanut (9.8%), sesame (6.1%), egg (6.7%), and cashew (5.3%) OIT. Risk factors for HETRs included a reaction treated in an emergency department (ER) (P = .005) before starting OIT and a reaction treated with epinephrine during in-clinic induction (P < .001). Significantly fewer patients with (73.6%) than without (88.3%) HETRs achieved full desensitization (P = .001), but only a few patients with HETRs (8.4%) failed treatment.

CONCLUSION

Previous reaction severity is the main predictor for HETRs during OIT. These reactions are more frequent during walnut and hazelnut OIT than during OIT for other foods studied. Most patients experiencing HETRs achieved desensitization.

Efficacy and safety of food allergy oral immunotherapy in adults

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging method for treating food allergy in children. However, data regarding adults undergoing this process are lacking.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients with food allergy aged ≥17 years who completed OIT treatment between April 2010 and December 2020 at Shamir Medical Center. Data were compared with that of children aged 4 to <11 years and adolescents aged ≥11 to 17 treated during the same time period.

RESULTS

A total of 96 adults at a median age of 22.3 years who underwent OIT for milk (n = 53), peanut (n = 18), sesame (n = 7), egg (n = 5), and tree nuts (n = 13) were analyzed and compared with 1299 children and 309 adolescents. Adults experienced more adverse reactions requiring injectable epinephrine, both during in-clinic up-dosing (49% vs. 15.9% and 26.5% for children and adolescents, respectively, p < 0.0001) and during home treatment (22.9% vs. 12.4%, p = 0.007 for children, and 17.5%, p = 0.23 for adolescents). Most adults (61.5%) were fully desensitized, but the rates of full desensitization were significantly lower than children (73.4%, p = 0.013). Significantly more adults (28.3%) undergoing milk OIT failed treatment than children (14.3%, p = 0.015) and adolescents (14.1%, p = 0.022), while failure rates in adults undergoing OIT for other foods were low (9.3%) and comparable with children and adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS

OIT is successful in desensitizing most adults with IgE-mediated food allergy. Adults undergoing milk OIT are at increased risk for severe reactions and for OIT failure while failure rates in adults undergoing OIT for other foods are low.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy: Translation from studies to clinical practice?

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is now recognized as an alternative active treatment to strict food avoidance in certain patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. Studies have confirmed the efficacy of OIT to desensitize children with allergy to cow's milk, eggs, and peanuts. The benefits, risks, and constraints of OIT are becoming increasingly well understood. However, there is no consensual criteria to select patients to whom OIT could be proposed, and many issues remain to address including the definitions of desensitization and long-term efficacy, the assessment of patient's experience in real life, the optimization of buildup and maintenance protocols, and the utility of multiple food OIT. The recent authorization by medical agency concerning the first medicine for peanut OIT is a step forward towards higher standardization in the practice of OIT. This article summarizes in comprehensive narrative format data on efficacy, tolerance, impact on quality of life and adverse effects of OIT and discuss elements to consider in clinical practice before starting OIT.

Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Tree Nut Oral Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Our group previously described preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in a real-world, multicenter setting, suggesting that this therapy is safe for most preschoolers.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and tolerability of tree nut (TN) OIT in preschoolers in the real world.

METHODS

As part of a Canada-wide quality improvement project, TN-OIT (cashew/pistachio, walnut/pecan, hazelnut, almond, and macadamia nut) was performed in preschoolers who had (1) a skin prick test wheal diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm or a specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L and a convincing objective IgE-mediated reaction or (2) no ingestion history and a specific IgE level greater than or equal to 5 kU/L. Dose escalations were performed every 2 to 4 weeks till a maintenance dose of 300 mg of TN protein was reached. Symptoms were recorded and classified using the modified World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Reaction Grading System (1, mildest; 5, fatal).

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients who started TN-OIT from 2018 to 2021, 79 (85.9%) underwent single-food TN-OIT and 13 (14.1%) underwent multifood TN-OIT to 2 (10.8%) or 3 (3.3%) TNs. Eighty-nine (96.7%) patients reached maintenance, and 4 (4.3%) dropped out. Sixty-five (70.7%) patients experienced reactions during buildup: 35 (38.0%) grade 1 reactions, 30 (32.6%) grade 2 reactions, no grade 3 or 4 reactions, and 2 (2.17%) received epinephrine.

CONCLUSIONS

Preschool TN-OIT in a real-world, multicenter setting appears safe and tolerable, with results comparable with our previously reported peanut OIT findings.

Oral Immunotherapy

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.

Characteristics of patients diagnosed as non-allergic following food allergy oral immunotherapy referral

BACKGROUND

Ascribing food allergy diagnosis to patients who are not allergic is well described, but its implications on oral immunotherapy (OIT) have not been studied. The aim was to study non-allergic patients referred for OIT.

METHODS

All patients who began OIT at Shamir Medical Center between November 2015 and August 2020 were included. Medical records were reviewed, and skin prick tests (SPT) and/or specific IgE were measured. Patients were challenged to the index food. Allergic and non-allergic patients were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1073 patients were studied (milk, n = 327; egg, n = 41; peanut, n = 272; sesame, n = 130; and tree nuts, n = 303) and 87 (8.1%) were found non-allergic (milk, n = 21; egg, n = 6; sesame, n = 5; peanut, n = 29; tree nuts, n = 26). Predictors of being not allergic were no previous reaction to the index food (OR = 3.3, p = 0.001), not having asthma (OR = 2.4, p = 0.001), or HDM sensitization (OR = 2.0, p = 0.007), male sex (OR = 2.3, p = 0.004), and a smaller SPT wheal size (OR = 1.5, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of patients referred for OIT are mislabeled with food allergy, suffer from unjustly food limitations and impairments in quality of life, and "take up" OIT places of true allergic patients. Awareness of OIT centers to this phenomenon is important.

IMPACT

A significant number (8.1%) of patients referred for OIT are found not allergic to the food they intended to treat. This study characterizes non-allergic patients referred for OIT (a lack of previous reaction to the index food, a smaller or negative SPT wheal size, and less atopic co-morbidities) and discusses the implications of such referrals. Increased awareness by OIT centers to potential non-allergic patients referred for OIT is required, including screening of patients before treatment initiation, to minimize unnecessary treatments of non-allergic patients.

Treatment for food allergy: Current status and unmet needs

The treatment of food allergy has traditionally relied on avoidance of the offending food(s) and use of emergency medications in the event of accidental exposures. However, this long-standing paradigm is beginning to shift, as a variety of treatment approaches have been and are being developed. This report provides an overview of the past, present, and future landscape of interventional clinical trials for the treatment of food allergy. It focuses on specific issues related to participant characteristics, protocol design, and study end points in the key clinical trials in the literature and examine how differences between studies may impact the clinical significance of the study results. Recommendations are provided for the optimization of future trial designs and focus on specific unmet needs in this rapidly evolving field.

Induction of food-specific IgG by Gene Gun-delivered DNA vaccines

Background

Shellfish and tree nut allergies are among the most prevalent food allergies, now affecting 2%–3% and 1% of the US population, respectively. Currently, there are no approved therapies for shellfish or tree nut allergies, with strict avoidance being the standard of care. However, oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy and subcutaneous immunotherapy for environmental allergens are efficacious and lead to the production of allergen-specific IgG, which causes suppression of allergen effector cell degranulation. Since allergen-specific IgG is a desired response to alleviate IgE-mediated allergies, we tested transcutaneously-delivered DNA vaccines targeting shellfish and tree nut allergens for their ability to induce antigen-specific IgG, which would have therapeutic potential for food allergies.

Methods

We assessed Gene Gun-delivered DNA vaccines targeting either crustacean shellfish or walnut/pecan allergens, with or without IL-12, in naïve mice. Three strains of mice, BALB/cJ, C3H/HeJ and CC027/GeniUnc, were evaluated for IgG production following vaccination. Vaccines were administered twice via Gene Gun, three weeks apart and then blood was collected three weeks following the final vaccination.

Results

Vaccination with shellfish allergen DNA led to increased shrimp-specific IgG in all three strains, with the highest production in C3H/HeJ from the vaccine alone, whereas the vaccine with IL-12 led to the highest IgG production in BALB/cJ and CC027/GeniUnc mice. Similar IgG production was also induced against lobster and crab allergens. For walnut/pecan vaccines, BALB/cJ and C3H/HeJ mice produced significantly higher walnut- and pecan-specific IgG with the vaccine alone compared to the vaccine with IL-12, while the CC027 mice made significantly higher IgG with the addition of IL-12. Notably, intramuscular administration of the vaccines did not lead to increased antigen-specific IgG production, indicating that Gene Gun administration is a superior delivery modality.

Conclusions

Overall, these data demonstrate the utility of DNA vaccines against two lifelong food allergies, shellfish and tree nuts, suggesting their potential as a food allergy therapy in the future.

A practical focus on multi-food oral immunotherapy

Approximately one-third of patients who present for oral immunotherapy (OIT) will be allergic to more than one food. Those patients with more than one food allergy have the option of sequential courses of single-food OIT or, in the right situation, combining several foods as part of multifood OIT. The time and cost savings can be substantial. Treatment protocols used with multiple foods are basically the same as with single-food courses, so clinics proficient with single-food OIT can easily transition to multifood OIT. Outcomes have been shown to be similar between the two approaches, so patients should be offered the opportunity to address their food allergies in one, more convenient OIT course.

A practical focus on oral immunotherapy to tree nuts

Tree nut (TN) allergy is common, with a global prevalence of up to 4.9%. TN allergy is persistent in most patients, and accidental reactions are common. There is considerable clinical cross-reactivity between cashew and pistachio, and between walnut and pecan. A diagnosis of TN allergy is based on a history of clinical reaction on ingestion, along with confirmed sensitization through either skin-prick or serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing. Component testing and food challenges may be required in patients with birch pollinosis to distinguish between IgE-mediated allergy to a heat-stable protein and pollen food allergy syndrome. There is available evidence that TN oral immunotherapy (OIT) is reasonably safe and effective. There are numerous nonpharmaceutical food products to facilitate TN-OIT dosing. TN OIT should be offered as a treatment option for patients with TN allergy.

Cashew oral immunotherapy for desensitizing cashew-pistachio allergy (NUT CRACKER study)

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a treatment option for patients with milk, egg, and peanut allergy, but data on the efficacy and safety of cashew OIT are limited.

METHODS

A cohort of 50 cashew-allergic patients aged ≥4 years, who were consecutively enrolled into cashew OIT (target dose 4000 mg protein) between 4/2016 and 12/2019. Fifteen cashew-allergic patients who continued cashew elimination served as observational controls. Co-allergy to pistachio and walnut was determined. Full desensitization rate and associated immunological changes in both groups were compared. Patients fully desensitized to cashew were instructed to consume a dose of 1200 mg cashew protein for 6 months and were then challenged to a full dose. Patients with co-allergy to pistachio or walnut were challenged to the respective nut.

RESULTS

Forty-four of 50 OIT-treated patients (88%) compared to 0% in controls tolerated a dose of 4000 mg cashew protein at the end of the study (odds ratio 8.3, 95% CI 3.9-17.7, p < 0.001). An additional three patients were desensitized to 1200 mg cashew protein, and three patients stopped treatment. Three patients (6%) were treated with injectable epinephrine for home reactions. Desensitized patients had decreased SPT, sIgE, basophil reactivity, and increased sIgG4, following treatment. Following cashew desensitization, all pistachio (n = 35) and four of eight walnut co-allergic patients were cross-desensitized to the respective nut. All (n = 44) patients consuming a low cashew dose for ≥6 months following desensitization passed a full-dose cashew OFC.

CONCLUSIONS

Cashew OIT desensitizes most cashew-allergic patients and cross-desensitizes to pistachio. Safety is similar to OIT for other foods.

Triggers for Home Epinephrine-Treated Reactions During Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy

BACKGROUND

Home reactions requiring epinephrine treatment represent a significant obstacle to oral immunotherapy (OIT) and impair treatment outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To identify potential triggers for such reactions for improvement of patient safety.

METHODS

All patients aged older than 3.7 years who began an open-label OIT treatment program to milk, peanut, egg, sesame, or tree nuts in the Institute of Allergy, Immunology, and Pediatric Pulmonology at Shamir Medical Center between April 2010 and March 2018 were enrolled. Information on home epinephrine-treated reactions (HETRs) during the up-dosing phase of OIT was collected from the documentation in patients' files and the reports were transmitted by email and via a web reporting system.

RESULTS

A total 1,270 OIT treatments were included (milk 780; peanut 256; egg 63; sesame 72; and tree nuts 99). Home epinephrine was administered in 200 treatments (15.7%) and in 70 of them a second epinephrine-treated reaction occurred. The leading identified triggers for HETRs were physical exercise temporally associated with administration of home dose (20%), and dose consumption during infectious disease (16.7%), or when fatigued (13.8%). The rate of first HETRs was highest (10.1%) to doses of 500 mg protein or less and particularly to 300 mg or less. The occurrence of first HETRs was highest (35.5%) during the first and decreased to 13.8% by the last of the 4-week home-treatment phase. Second HETRs occurred in a similar rate throughout these 4 weeks. The incidence of HETRs was highest during pollen season and vacation months.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of factors, some protocol-dependent, that trigger HETRs should assist in improving OIT safety.

Oral Immunotherapy in Food Allergy: A Critical Pediatric Perspective

There is evidence that in children with persistent IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) to cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut, oral allergen-specific immunotherapy (OIT) may increase the reaction threshold to the culprit food allergen(s). OIT may protect patients from the occurrence of severe reactions in case of accidental ingestion of the culprit food during treatment. Notwithstanding, many gaps are still unsolved, including safety issues, identification of predictive biomarkers, and post-desensitization efficacy. In this perspective, the use of omalizumab (Anti-IgE monoclonal antibody) has been proposed as an adjunctive treatment to OIT in order to reduce the risk of allergic reactions related to OIT. This review aims to summarize the current evidence and unmet needs on OIT in children with FA to enhance the development of longitudinal, prospective, and well-designed studies able to fill the current gaps soon.

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.

Oral immunotherapy in children with a food allergy-Where do we stand? - Review

The number of hospitalisations due to an anaphylactic reaction to food is continuously increasing. Therefore, there is an urgent need to seek effective therapy. Currently, the only way to treat food allergies is to avoid allergens and to administer intramuscular adrenaline if an accidental allergen intake occurs. The only causal therapeutic strategy is specific oral immunotherapy. An increasing amount of data confirms this therapy's effectiveness and safety, but the results remain inconclusive due to the lack of long-term follow-up. In this state-of-the-art review, we briefly summarise the latest placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials on oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergy. During the paper's review, we asked the following questions: does the therapy permanently increase the amount of allergen consumed without symptoms? Does it significantly increase or decrease the occurrence of severe systemic reactions - requiring the administration of adrenaline or hospitalisation? Many authors describe outcomes such as an increase in the amount of allergen that can be safely ingested; however, significant clinical benefits such as decreased hospitalisations or anaphylaxis incidence are rarely included in the results. To date, there is no unified protocol of therapy, which makes comparisons between studies difficult because of significant differences in types, doses, and routes of administration of the allergen, timeline for up-dosing and maintenance, duration of the therapy, and primary outcomes of OIT.

Oral Immunotherapy for Food-Allergic Children: A Pro-Con Debate

The prevalence of food allergy has increased in recent years, especially in children. Allergen avoidance, and drugs in case of an allergic reaction, remains the standard of care in food allergy. Nevertheless, increasing attention has been given to the possibility to treat food allergy, through immunotherapy, particularly oral immunotherapy (OIT). Several OIT protocols and clinical trials have been published. Most of them focus on children allergic to milk, egg, or peanut, although recent studies developed protocols for other foods, such as wheat and different nuts. OIT efficacy in randomized controlled trials is usually evaluated as the possibility for patients to achieve desensitization through the consumption of an increasing amount of a food allergen, while the issue of a possible long-term sustained unresponsiveness has not been completely addressed. Here, we evaluated current pediatric OIT knowledge, focusing on the results of clinical trials and current guidelines. Specifically, we wanted to highlight what is known in terms of OIT efficacy and effectiveness, safety, and impact on quality of life. For each aspect, we reported the pros and the cons, inferable from published literature. In conclusion, even though many protocols, reviews and meta-analysis have been published on this topic, pediatric OIT remains a controversial therapy and no definitive generalized conclusion may be drawn so far. It should be an option provided by specialized teams, when both patients and their families are prone to adhere to the proposed protocol. Efficacy, long-term effectiveness, possible role of adjuvant therapies, risk of severe reactions including anaphylaxis or eosinophilic esophagitis, and impact on the quality of life of both children and caregivers are all aspects that should be discussed before starting OIT. Future studies are needed to provide firm clinical and scientific evidence, which should also consider patient reported outcomes.

From Allergen Molecules to Molecular Immunotherapy of Nut Allergy: A Hard Nut to Crack

Peanuts and tree nuts are two of the most common elicitors of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy. Nut allergy is frequently associated with systemic reactions and can lead to potentially life-threatening respiratory and circulatory symptoms. Furthermore, nut allergy usually persists throughout life. Whether sensitized patients exhibit severe and life-threatening reactions (e.g., anaphylaxis), mild and/or local reactions (e.g., pollen-food allergy syndrome) or no relevant symptoms depends much on IgE recognition of digestion-resistant class I food allergens, IgE cross-reactivity of class II food allergens with respiratory allergens and clinically not relevant plant-derived carbohydrate epitopes, respectively. Accordingly, molecular allergy diagnosis based on the measurement of allergen-specific IgE levels to allergen molecules provides important information in addition to provocation testing in the diagnosis of food allergy. Molecular allergy diagnosis helps identifying the genuinely sensitizing nuts, it determines IgE sensitization to class I and II food allergen molecules and hence provides a basis for personalized forms of treatment such as precise prescription of diet and allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Currently available forms of nut-specific AIT are based only on allergen extracts, have been mainly developed for peanut but not for other nuts and, unlike AIT for respiratory allergies which utilize often subcutaneous administration, are given preferentially by the oral route. Here we review prevalence of allergy to peanut and tree nuts in different populations of the world, summarize knowledge regarding the involved nut allergen molecules and current AIT approaches for nut allergy. We argue that nut-specific AIT may benefit from molecular subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) approaches but identify also possible hurdles for such an approach and explain why molecular SCIT may be a hard nut to crack.

Medical clown support is associated with better quality of life of children with food allergy starting oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

The start of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a critical period in the treatment process, with a potential to influence patient quality of life (QOL) and subsequently treatment outcome. The association of medical clowning with QOL at OIT initiation was examined.

METHODS

Children aged 4-12 years supported by a medical clown (MC) during the induction week of OIT for food allergy were studied. Children in the same age range starting OIT without the support of a MC served as controls. Parents of all children completed the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Form (FAQLQ-PF), and children aged 8-12 years completed the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Child Form (FAQLQ-CF). QOL scores of parents and children with and without a MC support were compared.

RESULTS

Children with (n = 88) and without (n = 212) the support of a MC were comparable in demographics and clinical characteristics. The study group had a significantly lower single highest tolerated dose compared to controls (57 ± 83 vs 162 ± 274 mg protein, respectively, P < .001). Parental perception of the QOL of children was not associated with a MC support (P = .81) but rather with previous reaction severity (P < .01). In contrast, the QOL of children aged 8-12 years (n = 119) was positively associated primarily with a MC support, total score 3.7 ± 1.1 vs 4.6 ± 1.3 (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

While the perception of QOL of parents of children with food allergy at OIT initiation is mainly associated with previous reaction severity, the QOL of the children themselves is primarily positively associated with MC support.

Latest Developments in the Management of Nut Allergies

Purpose of review

In this review, we sought to describe the most recent advances in the dietary and medical management of peanut and tree nut allergy, including selective introduction and immunotherapy.

Recent findings

Dietary updates include changes to labeling laws, improved information sources, and new apps for buying foods in shops and overseas to better protect individuals with nut allergies. There are still issues in the management of nut allergies in schools, such as parents having to resort to packed lunches instead of school meals and patients experiencing bullying. Air travel also poses concern, but additional resources are now available to travelers, and recent evidence suggest limited airborne exposure to nuts. The medical management of anaphylaxis is use of epinephrine; however, this remains underutilized. Needle length and administration devices have been recently debated considering the risk of bone penetration vs subcutaneous administration, and autoinjectors seem to deliver higher peak concentrations than syringes. Selective nut introduction has gained momentum in the last 5 years, demonstrating improved quality of life but with the need for motivated parents for continued consumption and available resources for challenges. Immunotherapy to nuts is also a rapidly developing field, with the balance of efficacy and safety being important considerations in the differing modes of administration.

Summary

The management of nut allergies is a rapidly developing field, and dietary and medical management have progressed significantly in the last 5 years. Future research directions include improving safety and efficacy of food immunotherapy and examining patients’ goals for therapy and treatment outcomes.

Home epinephrine-treated reactions in food allergy oral immunotherapy: Lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective in desensitizing patients with food allergy but adverse reactions limit its use.

Objective

To study the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown in Israel between March 15, 2020, and April 30, 2020, on the incidence of home epinephrine-treated reactions.

Methods

All patients who were in the up-dosing phase of OIT for greater than or equal to 1 month during the lockdown, or a respective period in years 2015 to 2019, were studied. The incidence of home-epinephrine treated reactions during the 2020 lockdown was compared with that in the respective period in 2015 to 2019 and to periods before and after the lockdown.

Results

A total of 1163 OIT treatments were analyzed. Two epinephrine injections occurred during 2020 (0.7%) compared with 29 injections (3.28%) during 2015 to 2019 (P = .03). Patients treated in 2020 were older (8.1 vs 7 years, P < .01) and had a significantly lower single highest tolerated dose (12 vs 20 mg protein, P < .01). The rate of milk-OIT was lower (P = .01), but the total number of milk treatments was higher (99 vs 71 to 82) in 2020 compared with 2015 to 2019. On multivariate analysis, treatments during the 2020 lockdown were performed in older patients (P = .001), primarily for nonmilk (P = .03), began with a lower single highest tolerated dose (P = .006), and were associated with significantly less home epinephrine-treated reactions (P = .05) compared with those in 2015 to 2019. Patients treated in 2020 experienced more epinephrine-treated reactions in adjacent periods before (n = 8) and after (n = 6) the lockdown.

Conclusion

The lower rate of home epinephrine-treated reactions during the coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown in Israel suggests that potentially avoidable triggers contribute significantly to the rate of adverse reactions during OIT.

The importance of the 2S albumins for allergenicity and cross-reactivity of peanuts, tree nuts, and sesame seeds

Allergies to peanuts, tree nuts, and sesame seeds are among the most important food-related causes of anaphylaxis. Important clinical questions include: Why is there a variable occurrence of coallergy among these foods and Is this immunologically mediated? The clinical and immunologic data summarized here suggest an immunologic basis for these coallergies that is based on similarities among the 2S albumins. Data from component resolved diagnostics have highlighted the relationship between IgE binding to these allergens and the presence of IgE-mediated food allergy. Furthermore, in vitro and in vivo experiments provide strong evidence that the 2S albumins are the most important allergens in peanuts for inducing an allergic effector response. Although the 2S albumins are diverse, they have a common disulfide-linked core with similar physicochemical properties that make them prime candidates to explain much of the observed coallergy among peanuts, tree nuts, and sesame seeds. The well-established frequency of cashew and pistachio nut coallergy (64%-100%) highlights how the structural similarities among their 2S albumins may account for observed clinical cross-reactivity. A complete understanding of the physicochemical properties of the 2S albumins in peanuts, tree nuts, and sesame seeds will enhance our ability to diagnose, treat, and ultimately prevent these allergies.

Practical challenges in oral immunotherapy resolved through patient-centered care

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is now widely recognized as a valid option for the management of IgE-mediated food allergies. However, in real-life practice, OIT can lead to a variety of unique situations where the best course of action is undetermined. In patient-centered care, individual patient preferences, needs and values, should guide all clinical decisions. This can be achieved by using shared-decision making and treatment customization to navigate areas of uncertainty in a way that is responsive to patient’s needs and preferences. However, in the context of OIT, lack of awareness of potential protocol adaptability or alternatives can become a barrier to treatment personalization. The purpose of this article is to review the theoretical bases of patient-centered care and shared decision-making and their practical implication for the patient-centered delivery of OIT. Clinical cases highlighting common challenges in real-life OIT practice are presented along with a discussion of potential personalized management options to be considered. While the practice of OIT is bound to evolve as additional scientific and experiential knowledge is gained, it should always remain rooted in the general principles of patient-centered care.

An Approach to the Office-Based Practice of Food Oral Immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) provides an active treatment option for patients with food allergies. OIT may improve quality of life and raise the threshold at which a patient with food allergy may react to an allergen, but it is a rigorous therapy that requires a high degree of commitment by the clinician, patients, and families. Recent guidelines from the Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology have provided a framework for the ethical, evidence-based, and patient-oriented clinical practice of OIT, and the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology guidelines have also recommended that OIT can be used as a potential treatment. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of an OIT pharmaceutical has accelerated the adoption of OIT. This review provides a summary of the recent Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines and a consensus of practical experience of clinicians across the United States and Canada related to patient selection, office and staff preparation, the general OIT process, OIT-related reaction management, and treatment outcomes.

Recent advances in the management of nut allergy

Peanut/tree nut allergy is common and has been associated with particularly severe reactions. Epidemiological data have shown that the prevalence ranges between 0.05% and 4.9% for tree nut and between 0.5% and 3% for peanut. These large variations can be explained by differences in the age of included patients and the geographical region. In addition, the food consumption modality (ie, raw versus roasted) plays a major role, as heat treatment has the capacity to modify the allergenicity of nuts and legumes. Nut allergies tend to persist into adulthood and consequently have a high impact on quality of life.

Recently, it has been demonstrated that a significant proportion of nut allergic patients are able to tolerate other nuts. As opposed to the avoidance of all nuts, this approach is currently proposed in several tertiary allergy centers. However, diagnosis of nut allergy is particularly difficult due to co-sensitization leading to high rate of false positive skin prick tests and/or specific IgE to whole allergen extracts. The use of component resolved diagnosis leads to major improvement of diagnosis, particularly to distinguish between primary and secondary nut allergies. The basophil activation test has been suggested to be useful but is still used mainly as a research tool. Thus, diagnosis remains mainly based on the oral food challenge, which is considered as the gold standard.

Regarding treatment, avoidance remains the cornerstone of management of nut allergy. Oral immunotherapy is increasingly proposed as an alternative management strategy.