Successful management of severe cow's milk allergy with omalizumab treatment and CD-sens monitoring

A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study on the efficacy of Omalizumab on food allergy threshold in children with severe food allergy

BACKGROUND

Food allergy is common in childhood with some children having a low threshold and being difficult to protect from accidental ingestion of the offending food. Therapies for this potentially life-threatening condition are highly needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of Omalizumab in food-allergic children.

METHODS

This is a single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Food allergic children with a cumulative threshold ≤443 mg food protein at DBPCFC were randomized to Omalizumab (asthma dose) or placebo (3:1). After 3 months, a second DBPCFC was performed (steps 3, 10, 30, 100, 300, 1000, and 3000 mg food protein), followed by a separate open challenge up to 10,000 and 30,000 mg food protein if negative. Responders were defined as ≥2-step increases in threshold. Non-responders received high-dose Omalizumab. A third DBPCFC was performed after 6 months. Skin testing, blood samples, and the severity of atopic co-morbidity were registered during the study and 3 months after treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 20 children were evaluated at 3 months (14 Omalizumab, 6 placebo). All treated with Omalizumab increased their threshold at least two steps and with a significant difference between the Omalizumab and the placebo group (p = .003), although the intended number of included children was not reached. The threshold before Omalizumab treatment was 13-443 mg food protein while the threshold after 3 months of treatment increased up to 44,000 mg (1143-44,000). In the placebo group, two children improved threshold during the study.

CONCLUSION

An increase in the threshold level during Omalizumab treatment significantly improve patient safety and protected all children against small amount of allergen.

Combining Anti-IgE Monoclonal Antibodies and Oral Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Food Allergy

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy is a real public health problem worldwide. The prevalence of food allergy is particularly high in children. Patients with food allergy experience high morbidity with a change in quality of life due to the risk of severe anaphylaxis. Current treatment options are poor. Allergen avoidance is widely recommended but exposes patients to accidental ingestion. Oral immunotherapy is also used in patients with food allergies to the most common allergens. Oral immunotherapy consists of a daily administration of small, gradually increasing amounts of allergens to induce desensitisation. This procedure aims at inducing immune tolerance to the ingested food allergens. However, some patients experience adverse reactions and discontinue oral immunotherapy.Given that IgE plays a crucial role in food allergy and anti-IgE are effective in allergic asthma, the use of anti-IgE therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) such as omalizumab has been assessed in food allergy patients. The use of omalizumab as a monotherapy in food allergy has not been extensively studied but looks promising. There is more published evidence regarding the effect of omalizumab and oral immunotherapy in food allergy. Given the promising results of oral immunotherapy regarding sustained tolerance in clinical trials and the potential capacity of omalizumab to reduce symptoms in case of accidental exposure, a strategy combining oral immunotherapy with omalizumab pre-treatment has been suggested as a safer option in patients with severe food allergy compared to isolated therapy. Omalizumab seems useful in ensuring safer administration of oral immunotherapy with the oral immunotherapy maintenance dose being reached more rapidly. Quality-of-life improvement is greater with oral immunotherapy + omalizumab compared to oral immunotherapy alone. Moreover, sustained unresponsiveness is achieved more frequently with omalizumab. Considering that precision medicine and personalised therapy are major goals for allergic diseases, predictive biomarkers are crucial in order to identify food allergy patients more likely to benefit from anti-IgE therapies.

Biologics in food allergy: up-to-date

Introduction: In recent years, the advent of immunotherapy has remarkably improved the management of IgE-mediated food allergy. However, some barriers still exist. Therefore, the effort of researchers aims to investigate new perspectives in the field of non-allergen specific therapy, also based on the current knowledge of the pathogenesis of this disease.Areas covered: This review aims to focus on the role of biologics as a treatment option in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. These agents are characterized by their ability to inactivate the Th2 pro-inflammatory pathways. Biologics can be used both alone and in association with immunotherapy. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IgE, the IL-4/IL-13 axis, IL-5, and alarmins have been proposed and investigated for treating food allergy.Expert opinion: The clinical efficacy and safety of biologics have been demonstrated in several preclinical studies and randomized controlled trials. Future studies are still required to address current unmet needs, including the identification of the optimal dose to be used by ensuring the effectiveness of therapy.

Utility of basophil activation test for predicting the outcome of wheezing in children: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

No reliable biological marker for the diagnosis of asthma in younger children is currently available. In this study, we analyzed the differences in basophil activation test (BAT) results among children with recurrent wheezing episodes who had different asthma outcomes.

RESULTS

A prospective cohort study was conducted in children aged under 5 years who visited our pediatric respiratory clinic and ward for wheezing. After enrollment, the participants provided samples for a CD63-based BAT performed using an inhalant allergen mixture as a stimulant. Histories of personal allergic diseases and family allergic diseases were evaluated by using a questionnaire. All participants were followed up for 2 years, and their asthma outcomes were evaluated at the end of the follow-up period. The correlation between the BAT results and asthma outcomes was analyzed. Of the 45 originally enrolled children, 38 completed both the follow-up and a BAT. After stimulation with the inhalant mixture, the CD63 expression on basophils and the rate of positive CD63-based BAT results in children diagnosed with asthma were both significantly higher than those in children who were not diagnosed with asthma (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). For the prediction of asthma, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value of CD63-based BAT was 71.8 and 69.2%, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio of CD63-based BAT were 1.70 and 0.3, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our pilot study indicates that CD63-based BAT has potential clinical value for predicting asthma outcome in young children with wheezing episodes.

Economic considerations on the usage of biologics in the allergy clinic

The advent of biologic therapies has transformed care for severe atopic disorders but their high cost poses new challenges with regard to long-term sustainability and fair allocation of resources. This article covers the basic concepts of cost-utility analyses and reviews the available literature on cost utility of biologic drugs in atopic disorders. When used within their limits as part of a multi-dimensional assessment, economic analyses can be extremely useful to guide decision-making and prioritization of care. Despite the good quality of most cost-utility analyses conducted for the use of biologics in asthma and other atopic diseases, their conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are extremely variable. This is mainly due to the use of inconsistent estimates of health utility benefit with therapy. Development of reliable and validated instruments to measure disutility in atopic disorders and measure of indirect costs in atopic disease are identified as a priority for future research.

A pilot study towards the immunological effects of omalizumab treatment used to facilitate oral immunotherapy in peanut-allergic adolescents

Anti-IgE treatments, such as omalizumab, have shown promising effects in allergy treatment. Our previous work has shown that individualized omalizumab treatment (OT) allows a safe initiation and rapid up-dosing of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in peanut-allergic adolescents. However, the broader immunological effects of this OT are incompletely understood. In this pilot study, we longitudinally followed the total B- and T-cell immunity during OT, using flow cytometry, ELISpot and ELISA. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and plasma were collected from participants (n = 17) at several timepoints during treatment, before starting OT (baseline), prior to starting OIT during OT (start OIT) and at maintenance dose OIT prior to OT reduction (maintenance). OT did not affect the total B-cell compartment over treatment time, but our results suggest an association between the OT dosage scheme and the B-cell compartment. Further, in vitro polyclonal T-cell activation at the different timepoints suggests a cytokine skewing towards the Th1 phenotype at the expense of Th2- and Th9-related cytokines during treatment. No differences in the frequencies or phenotype of regulatory T cells (Tregs) over treatment time were observed. Finally, plasma chemokine levels were stable over treatment time, but suggest elevated gut homing immune responses in treatment successes during the treatment as compared to treatment failures. The novel and explorative results of this pilot study help to improve our understanding on the immunological effects of OT used to facilitate OIT and provide guidance for future immunological investigation in large clinical trials.

Basophil Activation as Marker of Clinically Relevant Allergy and Therapy Outcome

For some years now the basophil activation test (BAT) using flow cytometry has emerged as a powerful tool and sensitive marker that can be used to detect clinically relevant allergies, provide information on the severity of an allergic reaction, and monitor therapies. Compared to other in vitro diagnostic tests, BAT seems to have a better informative value in terms of clinical relevance. In general, the BAT can be used for the diagnosis of the most common forms of IgE-mediated allergy such as hymenoptera venom allergy, inhalant allergy, food allergy, and drug allergy. Various basophil markers and parameters have been established which, depending on the trigger of the respective allergy, can provide information on the clinical relevance of sensitization, on the development of natural tolerance, on trigger thresholds, and on the severity of the allergic reaction. The BAT also serves as a suitable follow-up instrument for various therapeutic approaches such as specific immunotherapy, desensitization protocols, or use of anti-IgE-antibodies for the various diseases. Quality controls for routine use, standardization, and automatization are expected to expand the range of applications for the above-mentioned indications.

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.

Individual Sensitization Pattern Recognition to Cow's Milk and Human Milk Differs for Various Clinical Manifestations of Milk Allergy

Cow’s milk allergy (CMA) belongs to one of the most common food allergies in early childhood affecting 2–3% of children under 3 years of age. However, approximately 1% of adults remain allergic to cow’s milk, often showing severe reactions even to traces of milk. In our study, we recruited patients with different clinical manifestations of CMA, including patients with anaphylaxis and less severe symptoms. We assessed the sensitization patterns and allergic responses of these subgroups through different immunological and cell-based methods. Sera of patients were investigated for IgE against whole cow’s milk and its single allergens by CAP- FEIA. In a newly developed in-house multiplex dot assay and a basophil activation test (BAT), cow’s milk allergens, in addition to human breast milk and single allergens from cow’s and human milk were analyzed for IgE recognition and severity of CMA in the included patients. Both the CAP-FEIA routine diagnostic and the multiplex dot test could differentiate CMA with severe from milder allergic reactions by means of the patients’ casein sensitization. The BAT, which mirrors the clinical response in vitro, confirmed that basophils from patients with severe reactions were more reactive to caseins in contrast to the basophils from more moderate CMA patients. By means of this improved component-resolved diagnosis of CMA, individual sensitization patterns could be assessed, also taking sensitization against human milk into consideration.

A clinical follow-up of omalizumab in routine treatment of allergic asthma monitored by CD-sens

Introduction

Omalizumab has been available for treatment of allergic asthma for more than a decade and thus, its efficacy in routine treatment was of interest to evaluate. Basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD‐sens) has been shown to correlate with the bronchial allergen threshold sensitivity and can be used to objectively measure omalizumab treatment efficacy. We aimed to evaluate the effect of omalizumab treatment of allergic asthma by CD‐sens, as an objective marker of the IgE‐mediated inflammation, and related to SPT, spirometry, FeNO, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE).

Methods

Thirty‐two patients were treated with omalizumab for 16 weeks. CD‐sens was used to define the response and related to clinical parameters. If CD‐sens was negative (<0.1) (CD‐sens low Group) the patient continued with the standard dose. If CD‐sens was ≥0.1 (CD‐sens high Group) a second 16 weeks period with 25–50% dosage increase was started and evaluated after a total of 32 weeks.

Results

Nine of 32 patients became CD‐sens negative after treatment (CD‐sens start: 8.0; 16 weeks: <0.01) and regarded as successful. 15/23 were unsuccessful (CD‐sens start: 13; 16 weeks: 1.65) and the omalizumab dose was increased. CD‐sens decreased significantly (p < 0.05) and further 3/15 patients became CD‐sens negative (CD‐sens at 32 weeks: 0.5). There was a significantly smaller IgE‐ab fraction (IgE‐ab/IgE) in the CD‐sens low versus the CD‐sens high Group (p < 0.0001). A significant decrease in ACQ was seen in both groups after 16 weeks treatment (p = 0.05 and 0.01, respectively). No significant changes could be detected for the other clinical parameters.

Conclusion

By the use of the objective laboratory method CD‐sens, which effectively measure the direct effect of omalizumab, that is, the IgE‐mediated part of the allergic asthma, in combination with clinical parameters it might be possible to more effectively monitor and treat IgE‐mediated allergic asthma.

Use of biologics in severe food allergies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe cases of food allergy account for the majority of the burden in terms of risks, quality of life, and resource expenditure. The traditional approach to these forms has been strict avoidance. More recently, Oral ImmunoTherapy (OIT) has gained a role in their management. However, in severe food allergies OIT is often infeasible.

RECENT FINDINGS

Case reports, observational, and prospective studies have recently proposed different approaches to severe food allergy. The majority of them include the use of biologics. Omalizumab has been the most studied drug for severe food allergies, and its role as adjuvant treatment to OIT is well established. Interest has been raised on other biologics, as dupilumab, reslizumab, and mepolizumab. Toll-like receptor agonists, and gene therapy using adeno-associated virus coding for Omalizumab are promising alternatives.

SUMMARY

The recent studies are deeply influencing the clinical practice. We review the modifications of the clinical approach to severe food allergies so far available. We indicate the possible evolutions of treatment with biologics in severe food allergies.

The clinical utility of basophil activation testing in diagnosis and monitoring of allergic disease

The basophil activation test (BAT) has become a pervasive test for allergic response through the development of flow cytometry, discovery of activation markers such as CD63 and unique markers identifying basophil granulocytes. Basophil activation test measures basophil response to allergen cross-linking IgE on between 150 and 2000 basophil granulocytes in <0.1 ml fresh blood. Dichotomous activation is assessed as the fraction of reacting basophils. In addition to clinical history, skin prick test, and specific IgE determination, BAT can be a part of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with food-, insect venom-, and drug allergy and chronic urticaria. It may be helpful in determining the clinically relevant allergen. Basophil sensitivity may be used to monitor patients on allergen immunotherapy, anti-IgE treatment or in the natural resolution of allergy. Basophil activation test may use fewer resources and be more reproducible than challenge testing. As it is less stressful for the patient and avoids severe allergic reactions, BAT ought to precede challenge testing. An important next step is to standardize BAT and make it available in diagnostic laboratories. The nature of basophil activation as an ex vivo challenge makes it a multifaceted and promising tool for the allergist. In this EAACI task force position paper, we provide an overview of the practical and technical details as well as the clinical utility of BAT in diagnosis and management of allergic diseases.