Immunotherapy for food allergies: a myth or a reality?

Food allergy-From food avoidance to active treatment

The prevalence of food allergy (FA) has increased too rapidly, possibly due to environmental factors. The guidelines recommend strict allergen avoidance, but FA is still the main cause of anaphylaxis in all age groups. Immunotherapy is the only treatment able to change the course of allergic disease, and oral immunotherapy (OIT) is the more effective route in FA. However, it carries the risk of adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis. To improve OIT safety, adjuvant therapy with the immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibody omalizumab has been extensively used. Results suggest particular benefit in patients with high risk of fatal anaphylaxis. An alternative approach is to use omalizumab instead of OIT to prevent severe allergic reactions upon accidental exposure. This paper reviews current evidence regarding IgE-mediated FA, focusing on natural tolerance and food sensitization acquisition, and on avoidance measures and their limitations.

Importance of maternal diet in the training of the infant's immune system during gestation and lactation

Latest forecasts predict that half of the European population will be allergic within the coming 15 years, with food allergies contributing substantially to the total burden; preventive measures are urgently needed. Unfortunately, all attempted alimentary strategies for primary prevention of allergic diseases through allergen avoidance so far have failed. This also holds true for the prevention of food allergies in breastfed infants by the common practice of excluding certain foods with allergenic potential from the maternal diet. As a preventive measure, therefore, exclusion diets should be discouraged. They can exhaust nursing mothers and negatively impact both their nutritional status as well as their motivation to breastfeed. A prolonged exclusion diet may be indicated solely in cases of doctor-diagnosed food allergy following rigid medical tests (e.g. double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges). Indicated cases usually involve exclusion of only a few food items. Continued breastfeeding is generally important for many aspects of the infant's health, including the training of the infant's immune responses to foreign compounds and avoidance of overshooting inflammatory responses. Recent studies suggest that the presence of maternal dietary proteins in amniotic fluid, cord blood, and human milk might support the induction of tolerance towards solid foods in infants. These are exactly the same species of proteins or remnants thereof that, in comparatively few cases, trigger allergic responses. However, the insight that the proteins of maternal dietary origin in human milk are more likely to be cure (or, more precise, directing prevention) than curse has still largely evaded the attention of health care professionals consulted by worried breastfeeding mothers. In this paper, we summarize recent literature on the importance of exposure to dietary proteins in the establishment of immunological tolerance and hence prevention of allergic disease. Multiple organizations have used the scientific knowledge to build (local) guidelines (e.g. AAAAI, EAACI, BSACI) that can support health care professionals to provide the best strategy to prevent the onset of allergic diseases. We thus hope to clarify existing confusion about the allergenic propensities of dietary proteins during early life, which has contributed to exaggerated fears around the diet of pregnant and breastfeeding mothers.

Effect of Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Exposure Among Patients With Peanut Sensitivity: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Epicutaneous immunotherapy may have potential for treating peanut allergy but has been assessed only in preclinical and early human trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal dose, adverse events (AEs), and efficacy of a peanut patch for peanut allergy treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 2b double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of a peanut patch in peanut-allergic patients (6-55 years) from 22 centers, with a 2-year, open-label extension (July 31, 2012-July 31, 2014; extension completed September 29, 2016). Patients (n = 221) had peanut sensitivity and positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomly assigned patients (1:1:1:1) received an epicutaneous peanut patch containing 50 μg (n = 53), 100 μg (n = 56), or 250 μg (n = 56) of peanut protein or a placebo patch (n = 56). Following daily patch application for 12 months, patients underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge to establish changes in eliciting dose.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary efficacy end point was percentage of treatment responders (eliciting dose: ≥10-times increase and/or reaching ≥1000 mg of peanut protein) in each group vs placebo patch after 12 months. Secondary end points included percentage of responders by age strata and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Of 221 patients randomized (median age, 11 years [quartile 1, quartile 3: 8, 16]; 37.6% female), 93.7% completed the trial. A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at month 12 between the 250-μg (n = 28; 50.0%) and placebo (n = 14; 25.0%) patches (difference, 25.0%; 95% CI, 7.7%-42.3%; P = .01). No significant difference was seen between the placebo patch vs the 100-μg patch. Because of statistical testing hierarchical rules, the 50-μg patch was not compared with placebo. Interaction by age group was only significant for the 250-μg patch (P = .04). In the 6- to 11-year stratum, the response rate difference between the 250-μg (n = 15; 53.6%) and placebo (n = 6; 19.4%) patches was 34.2% (95% CI, 11.1%-57.3%; P = .008); adolescents/adults showed no difference between the 250-μg (n = 13; 46.4%) and placebo (n = 8; 32.0%) patches: 14.4% (95% CI, -11.6% to 40.4%; P = .40). No dose-related serious AEs were observed. The percentage of patients with 1 or more TEAEs (largely local skin reactions) was similar across all groups in year 1: 50-μg patch = 100%, 100-μg patch = 98.2%, 250-μg patch = 100%, and placebo patch = 92.9%. The overall median adherence was 97.6% after 1 year; the dropout rate for treatment-related AEs was 0.9%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this dose-ranging trial of peanut-allergic patients, the 250-μg peanut patch resulted in significant treatment response vs placebo patch following 12 months of therapy. These findings warrant a phase 3 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01675882.

Quantitative Assessment of the Safety Benefits Associated with Increasing Clinical Peanut Thresholds Through Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Peanut immunotherapy studies are conducted with the aim to decrease the sensitivity of patients to peanut exposure with the outcome evaluated by testing the threshold for allergic response in a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. The clinical relevance of increasing this threshold is not well characterized.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to quantify the clinical benefit of an increased threshold for peanut-allergic patients.

METHODS

Quantitative risk assessment was performed by matching modeled exposure to peanut protein with individual threshold levels. Exposure was modeled by pairing US consumption data for various food product categories with potential contamination levels of peanut that have been demonstrated to be present on occasion in such food products. Cookies, ice cream, doughnuts/snack cakes, and snack chip mixes were considered in the risk assessment.

RESULTS

Increasing the baseline threshold before immunotherapy from 100 mg or less peanut protein to 300 mg peanut protein postimmunotherapy reduces the risk of experiencing an allergic reaction by more than 95% for all 4 food product categories that may contain trace levels of peanut residue. Further increase in the threshold to 1000 mg of peanut protein had an additional quantitative benefit in risk reduction for all patients reacting to 300 mg or less at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that achieving thresholds of 300 mg and 1000 mg of peanut protein by peanut immunotherapy is clinically relevant, and that the risk for peanut-allergic patients who have achieved this increased threshold to experience an allergic reaction is reduced in a clinically meaningful way.

New pharmaceutical approaches for the treatment of food allergies

INTRODUCTION

Allergic diseases constitute one of the most common causes of chronic illness in developed countries. The main mechanism determining allergy is an imbalance between Th1 and Th2 response towards Th2.

AREAS COVERED

This review describes the mechanisms underlying the natural tolerance to food components and the development of an allergic response in sensitized individuals. Furthermore, therapeutic approaches proposed to manage these abnormal immunologic responses food are also presented and discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

In the past, management of food allergies has consisted of the education of patients to avoid the ingestion of the culprit food and to initiate the therapy (e.g. self-injectable epinephrine) in case of accidental ingestion. In recent years, sublingual/oral immunotherapies based on the continuous administration of small amounts of the allergen have been developed. However, the long periods of time needed to obtain significant desensitization and the generation of adverse effects, limit their use. In order to solve these drawbacks, strategies to induce tolerance are being studied, such as the use of either adjuvant immunotherapy in order to facilitate the reversion of the Th2 response towards Th1 or the use of monoclonal antibodies to block the main immunogenic elements.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy as a novel pathway for oral tolerance induction

Epicutaneous immunotherapy is a developing technique, aiming at desensitizing patients with food allergy with less risks that oral ingestion or injection could generate. Several clinical trials have been performed and are currently running, in milk and peanut allergy, assessing the safety of the technique and its efficacy. Preclinical models indicate a major role in the mechanisms of desensitization, for example, Tregs and epigenetic modifications.