Probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy is associated with long-term persistence of 8-week sustained unresponsiveness and long-lasting quality-of-life improvement

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when conceived in the late 2000s and early 2010s, in the 2020s, these outcome choices risk being stagnant and outdated.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.

Food allergy yardstick: Where does omalizumab fit?

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Oral immunotherapy using boiled peanuts for treating peanut allergy: An open-label, single-arm trial

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy affects 1%-3% of children in Western countries. Boiling peanuts has been demonstrated to result in a hypoallergenic product that may provide a safer way of inducing desensitization in peanut-allergic patients by first inducing tolerance to boiled peanut. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy (OIT) using sequential doses of boiled peanuts followed by roasted peanuts for treating peanut allergy in children.

METHODS

In this open-label, phase 2, single-arm clinical trial, children aged 6-18 years with a positive history of peanut allergy and positive peanut skin prick test ≥ 8 mm and/or peanut-specific IgE ≥ 15 kU/L at screening underwent OIT involving sequential up-dosing with 12-hour boiled peanut for 12 weeks, 2-hour boiled peanut for 20 weeks and roasted peanut for 20 weeks, to a target maintenance dose of 12 roasted peanuts daily.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

proportion of children passing open-label oral food challenge involving cumulative administration of 12 roasted peanuts (12 g peanuts; approximately 3000 mg peanut protein) 6-8 weeks after reaching the target maintenance dose. Secondary outcomes included treatment-related adverse events and use of medications for treating allergy symptoms.

RESULTS

Between 1 July 2017 and 22 June 2018, 70 participants were enrolled and commenced OIT. Desensitization was successfully induced in 56 of 70 (80%) participants. Withdrawal due to treatment-related adverse events was infrequent (n = 3). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (61%) participants, corresponding to a rate of 6.58 per 1000 OIT doses. Medication use associated with treatment-related adverse events was infrequent, with rescue epinephrine use reported by three (4%) participants (0.05 per 1000 doses).

CONCLUSION

Oral immunotherapy using boiled followed by roasted peanuts represents a pragmatic approach that appears effective in inducing desensitization and is associated with a favourable safety profile.

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.

Food Allergy and Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases-The Next 10 Years

The first report of food allergy desensitization was in 1908, at least a few years before the first published description of a diagnostic test for food allergy. It has taken almost 100 years for food allergy to move from passive management of avoidance to a more proactive approach including prevention and treatment. In parallel, this has been matched by recognition of eosinophil gastrointestinal diseases, which were first described in the 1980s (although eosinophilic esophagitis was itself described in 1978). As we celebrate 10 years of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, we take the opportunity to look into the future and speculate how our practice may develop over the next decade.