Peanut gastrointestinal delivery oral immunotherapy in adolescents: Results of the build-up phase of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PITA study)

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials, COFAITH EAACI task force

Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.

Clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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.

Current and future treatments for peanut allergy

Peanut allergy (PA) is a common, burdensome childhood disease that in most patients continues into adulthood and has historically been untreatable. However, peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is increasingly being incorporated into allergy practices, using both the first FDA-approved product, PTAH (previously AR101; Palforzia™, Aimmune Therapeutics), as well as store-bought peanut products. POIT in preschoolers continues to gain more acceptance as evidence accrues that it is a safe and feasible approach that may have distinct advantages. There are many new therapeutic interventions currently under study with a variety of different approaches and potential mechanisms. With respect to other forms of immunotherapy, none are currently approved, but the epicutaneous approach is the most well-studied and others are being actively investigated, including sublingual, subcutaneous, and intralymphatic. Biologics are gaining evidence both as adjunctive treatments to POIT and as monotherapy. Omalizumab is the most widely studied biologic for PA but others also have potential. Looking ahead to a future therapeutic landscape of choice, allergists will need to understand each patient's goal of treatment through shared decision-making and fully evaluate the risks, benefits, and alternatives of each new therapy.

Transitioning peanut oral immunotherapy to clinical practice

Peanut allergy is on the rise in industrialized countries, affecting 1%–4.5% of children and generally persisting into adulthood. It is associated with a risk of severe anaphylaxis and is one of the major causes of food allergy-induced deaths. Health-related quality of life is significantly impaired for patients and affected families due to food restrictions attributable to omnipresent precautionary allergen labeling, constant risk of potentially life-threatening reactions, and limitation of social activities. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as a valid treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated peanut allergy, with randomized controlled trials and real-life studies showing a high rate of desensitization and a favorable safety profile, especially in young children. Ultimately, the decision to initiate peanut OIT relies on a multidisciplinary shared decision-making process, involving open, personalized and evidence-based discussions with patients and their caregivers.

Allergen immunotherapy and/or biologicals for IgE-mediated food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is substantial interest in immunotherapy and biologicals in IgE‐mediated food allergy.

Methods

We searched six databases for randomized controlled trials about immunotherapy alone or with biologicals (to April 2021) or biological monotherapy (to September 2021) in food allergy confirmed by oral food challenge. We pooled the data using random‐effects meta‐analysis.

Results

We included 36 trials about immunotherapy with 2126 mainly child participants. Oral immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 9.9, 95% CI 4.5.–21.4, high certainty); cow's milk (RR 5.7, 1.9–16.7, moderate certainty) and hen's egg allergy (RR 8.9, 4.4–18, moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to increase tolerance to a single dose of 300 mg or 1000 mg peanut protein was 2.

Oral immunotherapy did not increase adverse reactions (RR 1.1, 1.0–1.2, low certainty) or severe reactions in peanut allergy (RR 1,6, 0.7–3.5, low certainty), but may increase (mild) adverse reactions in cow's milk (RR 3.9, 2.1–7.5, low certainty) and hen's egg allergy (RR 7.0, 2.4–19.8, moderate certainty). Epicutaneous immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 2.6, 1.8–3.8, moderate certainty). Results were unclear for other allergies and administration routes.

There were too few trials of biologicals alone (3) or with immunotherapy (1) to draw conclusions.

Conclusions

Oral immunotherapy improves tolerance whilst on therapy and is probably safe in peanut, cow's milk and hen's egg allergy. More research is needed about quality of life, cost and biologicals.

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.

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.

A randomized trial of oral immunotherapy for pediatric cow's milk-induced anaphylaxis: Heated vs unheated milk

BACKGROUND

Severe reactions may develop during cow's milk (CM) oral immunotherapy (OIT). We investigated the safety and efficacy of low-dose OIT with heated milk (HM) or unheated milk (UM) in children with anaphylaxis.

METHODS

Children with symptom onset after ingestion of 3-mL HM on a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge were randomly assigned to the HM (n = 17) or UM (n = 16) group. HM group ingested milk powder heated at 125°C for 30 seconds, whereas the UM group used UM. Patients were hospitalized for 5 days; the HM or UM was gradually increased to 3 mL/day; 3-mL/day ingestion was continued at home. One year later, the patients underwent 2-day consecutive 3- and 25-mL HM-oral food challenges (OFCs) after 2-week avoidance.

RESULTS

At baseline, milk- and casein-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels were 56.0 and 51.4 kUA/L in the HM group, and 55.2 and 65.6 kUA/L in the UM group, respectively. One year later, 35% and 18% in the HM group and 50% and 31% in UM group passed the 3 and 25 mL OFCs, respectively. Rates of moderate or severe symptoms and respiratory symptoms per home dose were significantly lower in the HM than in the UM group (0.7% and 1.2% vs 1.4% and 2.6%, respectively, P < .001). β-lactoglobulin-specific IgG₄ levels significantly increased from baseline only in the UM group, whereas casein-specific IgG₄ levels significantly increased from baseline in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HM-OIT induced immunological changes more safely than the UM-OIT. The possibility of lower treatment efficacy with HM-OIT needs to be evaluated in larger studies.

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: The con argument

Background

In some countries of the world, peanut allergy represents an important source of anaphylactic reactions. Traditionally treated with the avoidance of responsible allergens, this condition can also be targeted by oral peanut immunotherapy.

Methods

In this study, we review the beneficial and side effects of currently available forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT). We report the discussions resulting from the publication of a meta-analysis that brought to light the downsides of oral immunotherapy for peanuts.

Results

In some clinical situations, the risk-benefit ratio can favor peanut oral immunotherapy over avoidance. In many other situations, this is not the case. The decision must be based on the values and preferences of clinicians and patients. Those not ready to accept serious adverse effects from POIT are likely to continue the elimination diet; those motivated to achieving desensitization, and prepared to accept serious adverse effects, may choose to undergo POIT.

Conclusions

Without being prejudiced against peanut oral immunotherapy, we indicate the possible evolution of treatment for this condition is in a rapidly evolving broader scenario. Among the future options, sublingual immunotherapy, parenteral immunotherapy with modified allergens, transcutaneous immunotherapy, and the use of biologics will become important options.

Developments in the field of clinical allergy in 2018 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy, Part II

In this article, we describe developments in the field of clinical allergy as described by Clinical and Experimental Allergy in 2018; epidemiology, asthma and rhinitis, clinical allergy and allergens are all covered.

Pharmacotherapy in allergy medicine: from 'ipse dixit' to the evidence-based medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of the article is to examine the contributions made in recent years by evidence-based medicine to the understanding, positioning, and use of drugs for the treatment of the main allergic conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several antiasthmatic drugs have been reappraised for their efficacy characteristics and drug interactions in Cochrane reviews. The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines have been reformulated in evidence-based medicine (EBM) terms in 2017; over these years, new point of care instruments contributed to the approximation of the guidelines to real life by drawing from the patients themselves information that allows to finely modeling the pharmacological suggestions. Last, at the time of the emergence of new drugs for the treatment of peanut allergy, new systematic reviews have helped to focus on the most suitable reference outcomes with the aim to respond promptly and adherently to patients' needs.

SUMMARY

EBM has contributed to changes in the GINA guidelines in the last two years. It has been instrumental in translating the ARIA guidelines in real life. It has also contributed to profiling the potential and limitations of oral peanut immunotherapy. In allergy medicine, EBM is a formidable aid for the advancement of knowledge.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: a Current Perspective

Purpose of the Review

Peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is one of the most studied experimental therapies for food allergy. With the recently FDA-approved peanut product, Palforzia, the goal of this article is to review the most recent data from clinical trials, discuss recent trends, and anticipate future developments.

Recent Findings

The latest research suggests that peanut OIT could be a promising option for peanut-allergic patients, with the majority of participants in research studies achieving the primary efficacy endpoint of desensitization, as well as sustained unresponsiveness in select populations. Some studies also showed improvements in food allergy-related quality of life. However, peanut OIT is not without risk or side effects, including potentially serious allergic reactions.

Summary

Future research will need to evaluate the short- and long-term effectiveness of the therapy in the real-world setting, predictors of important treatment outcomes, and the use of adjunctive therapies that may mitigate some of these allergic reactions.

CSACI guidelines for the ethical, evidence-based and patient-oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging approach to the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated food allergy and is in the process of transitioning to clinical practice.

Objective

To develop patient-oriented clinical practice guidelines on oral immunotherapy based on evidence and ethical imperatives for the provision of safe and efficient food allergy management.

Materials and methods

Recommendations were developed using a reflective patient-centered multicriteria approach including 22 criteria organized in five dimensions (clinical, populational, economic, organizational and sociopolitical). Data was obtained from: (1) a review of scientific and ethic literature; (2) consultations of allergists, other healthcare professionals (pediatricians, family physicians, nurses, registered dieticians, psychologists, peer supporters), patients and caregivers; and patient associations through structured consultative panels, interviews and on-line questionnaire; and (3) organizational and economic data from the milieu of care. All data was synthesized by criteria in a multicriteria deliberative guide that served as a platform for structured discussion and development of recommendations for each dimension, based on evidence, ethical imperatives and other considerations.

Results

The deliberative grid included 162 articles from the literature and media reviews and data from consultations involving 85 individuals. Thirty-eight (38) recommendations were made for the practice of oral immunotherapy for the treatment of IgE mediated food allergy, based on evidence and a diversity of ethical imperatives. All recommendations were aimed at fostering a context conducive to achieving objectives identified by patients and caregivers with food allergy. Notably, specific recommendations were developed to promote a culture of shared responsibility between patients and healthcare system, equity in access, patient empowerment, shared decision making and personalization of OIT protocols to reflect patients' needs. It also provides recommendations to optimize organization of care to generate capacity to meet demand according to patient choice, e.g. OIT or avoidance. These recommendations were made acknowledging the necessity of ensuring sustainability of the clinical offer in light of various economic considerations.

Conclusions

This innovative CPG methodology was guided by patients' perspectives, clinical evidence as well as ethical and other rationales. This allowed for the creation of a broad set of recommendations that chart optimal clinical practice and define the conditions required to bring about changes to food allergy care that will be sustainable, equitable and conducive to the well-being of all patients in need.

Food reactions during avoidance: Focus on peanut

OBJECTIVE

Peanut allergy has historically been difficult to manage, with most cases persisting into adulthood. Novel therapies for peanut allergy treatment are on the horizon, yet allergists must maintain a robust understanding of the risks and benefits of the current standard of therapy, avoidance diet.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search using PubMed of reviews and clinical articles was performed.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Articles discussing peanut or other food-related allergic reactions, accidental exposures or anaphylaxis pertinent to avoidance diet or comparative to oral immunotherapy trials were selected.

RESULTS

Peanut remains a leading allergen associated with accidental ingestions responsible for food-related reactions, both mild and severe. Fatal reactions, however, are rare and measures such as anaphylaxis plans can significantly decrease the risk of accidental anaphylaxis. Patients may over estimate situations thought to increase risk for reactions to peanut, such as inhalation or contact through skin. In oral immunotherapy trials, the rate of anaphylaxis secondary to treatment was significantly higher than avoidance practices.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should continue to discuss avoidance as a viable option for long-term peanut allergy management and empower patients to differentiate relevant situations in which accidental reactions might occur.

Adverse events associated with peanut oral immunotherapy in children - a systematic review and meta-analysis

While peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) represents a promising treatment for peanut allergies in children, safety concerns remain a common barrier to widespread adoption. We aimed to systematically assess available evidence to determine the risk and frequency of adverse events occurring during POIT, and examine study-level characteristics associated with their occurrence and severity. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted through April 2019. Controlled and non-controlled studies evaluating POIT were eligible. Twenty-seven studies, involving 1488 subjects, were included. Adverse events to POIT were common and led to treatment discontinuation in 6.6% of children (95% CI 4.4–9.0; 27 studies, I² = 48.7%). Adverse events requiring treatment with epinephrine occurred among 7.6% (4.5–11.4; 26 studies, I² = 75.5%) of participants, at a rate of 2.0 per 10,000 doses (0.8–3.7; 15 studies, I² = 64.4). Use of a rush treatment phase and targeting a higher maintenance dose were associated with a higher risk and frequency of epinephrine use, while using co-treatments in addition to POIT was associated with a lower risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. While adverse events to POIT are common, this study provides promising explorative evidence that certain modifications to existing treatment protocols could significantly improve treatment outcomes.

Safety of Food Oral Immunotherapy: What We Know, and What We Need to Learn

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy entails a risk of adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis. This safety concern is the major barrier for OIT to become a therapeutic option in clinical practice. The high heterogeneity in safety reporting of OIT studies prevents setting the safety profile accurately. An international consensus is needed to facilitate the analysis of large pooled clinical data with homogeneous safety reporting, that together with integrated omics, and patients/families' opinions, may help stratify the patients' risk and needs, and help developing safe(r) individualized care pathways. This will give OIT the right place in the food allergy therapy.

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT): A Personalized Medicine

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT), a promising allergen-specific approach in the management of Food Allergies (FA), is based on the administration of increasing doses of the culprit food until reaching a maintenance dose. Each step should be adapted to the patient, and OIT should be considered an individualized treatment. Recent studies focused on the standardization and identification of novel biomarkers in order to correlate endotypes with phenotypes in the field of FA.

Allergen immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergy: There is a measure in everything to a proper proportion of therapy

IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) is a potentially life-threatening condition with a negative impact on quality of life and an increasing prevalence in westernized countries in the recent two decades. A strict avoidance of the triggering food(s) represents the current standard approach. However, an elimination diet may be difficult and frustrating, in particular for common foods, (eg, milk, egg, and peanut). Food allergy immunotherapy (FA-AIT) may provide an active treatment that enables to increase the amount of food that the patient can intake without reaction during treatment (ie, desensitization), and reduces the risk of potential life-threatening allergic reaction in the event of accidental ingestion. However, several gaps need still to be filled. A memorable Latin orator stated: "Est modus in rebus" (Horace, Sermones I, 1, 106-07). This sentence remembers that there is a measure in everything to a proper proportion of therapy. The common sense of measure should find application in each stage of treatment. A personalized approaching should consider the specific willing and features of each patient. Efforts are devoted to improve the efficacy, the safety but also the quality of life of patients suffering from FA. In the near future, it will be important to clarify immunologic pathways of FA-AIT, and to identify reliable biomarkers in order to recognize the most suitable candidates to FA-AIT and algorithms for treatments tailored on well-characterized subpopulations of patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy.

METHODS

In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930.

RESULTS

12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I²=0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I²=0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I²=0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (p_interaction=0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I²=0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I²=0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I²=0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I²=0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I²=28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I²=0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I²=0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed.

FUNDING

None.

Food Allergies: Current and Future Treatments

Food allergies are an increasingly public health problem, affecting up to 10% of children and causing a significant burden on affected patients, resulting in dietary restrictions, fear of accidental ingestion and related risk of severe reactions, as well as a reduced quality of life. Currently, there is no specific cure for a food allergy, so the only available management is limited to strict dietary avoidance, education on prompt recognition of symptoms, and emergency treatment of adverse reactions. Several allergen specific- and nonspecific-therapies, aiming to acquire a persistent food tolerance, are under investigation as potential treatments; however, to date, only immunotherapy has been identified as the most promising therapeutic approach for food allergy treatment. The aim of this review is to provide an updated overview on changes in the treatment landscape for food allergies.