RESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Humanos , Administración Oral , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/etiología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Food allergies are common and are associated with substantial morbidity; the only approved treatment is oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. METHODS: In this trial, we assessed whether omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective and safe as monotherapy in patients with multiple food allergies. Persons 1 to 55 years of age who were allergic to peanuts and at least two other trial-specified foods (cashew, milk, egg, walnut, wheat, and hazelnut) were screened. Inclusion required a reaction to a food challenge of 100 mg or less of peanut protein and 300 mg or less of the two other foods. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive omalizumab or placebo administered subcutaneously (with the dose based on weight and IgE levels) every 2 to 4 weeks for 16 to 20 weeks, after which the challenges were repeated. The primary end point was ingestion of peanut protein in a single dose of 600 mg or more without dose-limiting symptoms. The three key secondary end points were the consumption of cashew, of milk, and of egg in single doses of at least 1000 mg each without dose-limiting symptoms. The first 60 participants (59 of whom were children or adolescents) who completed this first stage were enrolled in a 24-week open-label extension. RESULTS: Of the 462 persons who were screened, 180 underwent randomization. The analysis population consisted of the 177 children and adolescents (1 to 17 years of age). A total of 79 of the 118 participants (67%) receiving omalizumab met the primary end-point criteria, as compared with 4 of the 59 participants (7%) receiving placebo (P<0.001). Results for the key secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end point (cashew, 41% vs. 3%; milk, 66% vs. 10%; egg, 67% vs. 0%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Safety end points did not differ between the groups, aside from more injection-site reactions in the omalizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In persons as young as 1 year of age with multiple food allergies, omalizumab treatment for 16 weeks was superior to placebo in increasing the reaction threshold for peanut and other common food allergens. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03881696.).
Asunto(s)
Antialérgicos , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Omalizumab , Adolescente , Niño , Humanos , Lactante , Alérgenos/efectos adversos , Arachis/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Omalizumab/efectos adversos , Omalizumab/uso terapéutico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Antialérgicos/administración & dosificación , Antialérgicos/uso terapéutico , Preescolar , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
There are limited data on food allergies among college students. In this article, we review the most current available studies. These self-reported surveys and qualitative interviews reported overall poor avoidance of known allergens and low rates of carrying self-injectable epinephrine among students with food allergy. College students may exhibit risk-taking food behaviors due to a number of factors, including age-appropriate risk-taking predilection, strong social influences, and lack of experience in self-advocacy. Having to disclose an otherwise invisible condition repeatedly in a new environment may also lead to "disclosure fatigue," creating an additional barrier to self-advocacy. Common themes in the narrative include hypervigilance, stigma management, and concern about others' misunderstanding of food allergy. Although there is a paucity of data in this area, it is likely that having greater support at the institution level, along with support from peers and faculty, may help improve awareness, self-injectable epinephrine carriage, and allergen avoidance. This review also discusses strategies for preparedness at school, including specific steps to maximize safety.
Asunto(s)
Epinefrina , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Estudiantes , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/epidemiología , Estudiantes/psicología , Universidades , Epinefrina/uso terapéutico , Epinefrina/administración & dosificaciónRESUMEN
Food allergy is an increasing public health problem in children and adults. In addition to the risk of potentially severe reactions, food allergy can have a significant burden on quality of life, nutrition, cost of living, and social activities. Traditionally, treatment has primarily included strict food allergen avoidance and use of emergency medications to treat an allergic reaction. However, in recent years, there have been significant strides in the advancement of food allergy treatment, including the approval of the first and only approved therapy (peanut oral immunotherapy) for food allergy in 2020. Clinical trials have primarily focused on food allergen immunotherapy (oral, epicutaneous, sublingual). Building off of a foundation of promising data supporting the efficacy of food oral immunotherapy and our greater understanding of the underlying mechanism of immunotherapy, newer approaches, including alternative routes of delivery, adjuncts to therapy, modified allergens, and utilization in younger patients, aim to provide safer and more effective treatment approaches to the millions of patients burdened by food allergy.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Calidad de Vida , Niño , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/tratamiento farmacológico , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Alimentos , Alérgenos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prior studies of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have suggested a potential advantage with younger age at treatment initiation. OBJECTIVE: We studied the safety and efficacy of SLIT for peanut allergy in 1- to 4-year-old children. METHODS: Peanut-allergic 1- to 4-year-old children were randomized to receive 4 mg peanut SLIT versus placebo. Desensitization was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 36 months of treatment. Participants desensitized to at least 443 mg peanut protein discontinued therapy for 3 months and then underwent DBPCFC to assess for remission. Biomarkers were measured at baseline and longitudinally during treatment. RESULTS: Fifty participants (25 peanut SLIT, 25 placebo) with a median age of 2.4 years were enrolled across 2 sites. The primary end point of desensitization was met with actively treated versus placebo participants having a significantly greater median cumulative tolerated dose (4443 mg vs 143 mg), higher likelihood of passing the month 36 DBPCFC (60% vs 0), and higher likelihood of demonstrating remission (48% vs 0). The highest rate of desensitization and remission was seen in 1- to 2-year-olds, followed by 2- to 3-year-olds and 3- to 4-year-olds. Longitudinal changes in peanut skin prick testing, peanut-specific IgG4, and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio were seen in peanut SLIT but not placebo participants. Oropharyngeal itching was more commonly reported by peanut SLIT than placebo participants. Skin, gastrointestinal, upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and multisystem adverse events were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Peanut SLIT safely induces desensitization and remission in 1- to 4-year-old children, with improved outcomes seen with younger age at initiation.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Inmunoterapia Sublingual , Humanos , Preescolar , Lactante , Arachis , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Administración Sublingual , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/etiología , Alérgenos , Método Doble Ciego , Inmunoglobulina G , Administración OralRESUMEN
Food allergies can pose significant risks and profoundly impact the quality of life of children and their families, making them a major public health concern. Allergen avoidance has been the traditional mainstay of treatment; however, recent research has focused on various approaches to food allergen immunotherapy. This review summarizes the recent advancements in oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapies, highlighting their respective advantages and disadvantages. The ultimate goal of food allergen immunotherapy is to maximize efficacy while minimizing risks, leading to the exploration of strategies such as low-dose immunotherapy and the use of biologics. When selecting candidates for immunotherapy among patients with food allergies, factors such as allergen characteristics, the likelihood of natural resolution, age, symptom severity, and impact on quality of life require consideration, and an individualized approach should be adopted to determine the most suitable treatment method.
RESUMEN
SCOPE: The unstructured region of Ara h 2, referred to as epitope 3, contains a repeated motif, DYPSh (h = hydroxyproline) that is important for IgE binding. METHODS AND RESULTS: IgE binding assays to 20mer and shorter peptides of epitope 3, defines a 16mer core sequence containing one copy of the DPYSh motif, DEDSYERDPYShSQDP. This study performs alanine scanning of this and a related 12mer mimotope, LLDPYAhRAWTK. IgE binding, using a pool of 10 sera and with individual sera, is greatly reduced when alanine is substituted for aspartate at position 8 (D8; p < 0.01), tyrosine at position 10 (Y10; p < 0.01), and hydroxyproline at position 12 (h12; p < 0.001). IgE binding to alanine-substituted peptides of a mimotope containing the DPY_h motif confirm the critical importance of Y (p < 0.01) and h (p < 0.01), but not D. Molecular modeling of the core and mimotope suggests an h-dependent conformational basis for the recognition of these sequences by polyclonal IgE. CONCLUSIONS: IgE from pooled sera and individual sera differentially bound amino acids throughout the sequences of Epitope 3 and its mimotope, with Y10 and h12 being most important for all sera. These results are highly significant for designing hypoallergenic forms of Ara h 2.
Asunto(s)
Aminoácidos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Humanos , Secuencia de Aminoácidos , Antígenos de Plantas/química , Alanina , Hidroxiprolina , Epítopos , Proteínas de Plantas/química , Péptidos , Inmunoglobulina E/metabolismo , Albuminas 2S de Plantas , Alérgenos/químicaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Preescolar , Humanos , Lactante , Alérgenos/efectos adversos , Anafilaxia/etiología , Arachis/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Administración CutáneaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with food allergy may be advised to introduce specific foods into their diets, both to increase tolerance gradually and as next steps after completing oral immunotherapy or other therapeutic interventions. However, the safe use of retail foods depends on the ability to establish the specific allergen protein content of these foods. OBJECTIVE: To develop a systematic approach to estimate the protein content of peanut, milk, egg, wheat, cashew, hazelnut, and walnut in a variety of retail food equivalents for each allergen and associated patient education materials. METHOD: We created an algorithm that used a multistep process with information from product food labels, nutrient databases, independent weighing and measuring of foods, and information provided by manufacturers, including certificates of analysis, and e-mail communication to estimate the allergen protein content of multiple retail foods for each of seven allergens. Once a variety of retail food equivalents for each allergen and allergen serving size was determined, we developed participant education handouts, which were reviewed by study teams at 10 food allergy centers, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Consortium for Food Allergy Research coordinating center. After 1 year of use, multiple queries were addressed and the retail food equivalents and educational materials were reviewed and edited. RESULTS: We identified a variety of retail food equivalents for seven allergens at six serving sizes, and created 48 unique patient education materials. CONCLUSION: Our results provide extensive guidance on a variety of retail equivalents for seven foods, and a method to estimate retail food protein equivalents systematically with ongoing reassessment.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Omalizumab , Adulto , Niño , Humanos , Alérgenos/uso terapéutico , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/tratamiento farmacológico , Nueces , Omalizumab/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Studies on the efficacy of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are limited. The durability of desensitization after SLIT has not been well described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4-mg peanut SLIT and persistence of desensitization after SLIT discontinuation. METHODS: Challenge-proven peanut-allergic 1- to 11-year-old children were treated with open-label 4-mg peanut SLIT for 48 months. Desensitization after peanut SLIT was assessed by a 5000-mg double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). A novel randomly assigned avoidance period of 1 to 17 weeks was followed by the DBPCFC. Skin prick test results immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation test results, TH1, TH2, and IL-10 cytokines were measured longitudinally. Safety was assessed through patient-reported home diaries. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants were enrolled and 47 (87%) completed peanut SLIT and the 48-month DBPCFC per protocol. The mean successfully consumed dose (SCD) during the DBPCFC increased from 48 to 2723 mg of peanut protein after SLIT (P < .0001), with 70% achieving clinically significant desensitization (SCD > 800 mg) and 36% achieving full desensitization (SCD = 5000 mg). Modeled median time to loss of clinically significant desensitization was 22 weeks. Peanut skin prick test; peanut-specific IgE, IgG4, and IgG4/IgE ratio; and peanut-stimulated basophil activation test, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IFN-γ, and IL-10 changed significantly compared with baseline, with changes seen as early as 6 months. Median rate of reaction per dose was 0.5%, with transient oropharyngeal itching being the most common, and there were no dosing symptoms requiring epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label, prospective study, peanut SLIT was safe and induced clinically significant desensitization in most of the children, lasting more than 17 weeks after discontinuation of therapy.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Inmunoterapia Sublingual , Humanos , Niño , Lactante , Preescolar , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/efectos adversos , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/métodos , Arachis , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Interleucina-10 , Estudios Prospectivos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/diagnóstico , Inmunoglobulina E , Alérgenos , Inmunoglobulina G , Administración OralRESUMEN
Peanut and tree-nut allergies are frequently comorbid for reasons not completely understood. Vicilin-buried peptides (VBPs) are an emerging family of food allergens whose conserved structural fold could mediate peanut/tree-nut co-allergy. Peptide microarrays were used to identify immunoglobulin E (IgE) epitopes from the N-terminus of the vicilin allergens Ara h 1, Ana o 1, Jug r 2, and Pis v 3 using serum from three patient diagnosis groups: monoallergic to either peanuts or cashew/pistachio, or dual allergic. IgE binding peptides were highly prevalent in the VBP domains AH1.1, AO1.1, JR2.1, and PV3.1, but not in AO1.2, JR2.2, JR2.3, and PV3.2 nor the unstructured regions. The IgE profiles did not correlate with diagnosis group. The structure of the VBPs from cashew and pistachio was solved using solution-NMR. Comparisons of structural features suggest that the VBP scaffold from peanuts and tree-nuts can support cross-reactivity. This may help understand comorbidity and cross-reactivity despite a distant evolutionary origin.
Asunto(s)
Anacardium , Arachis , Inmunoglobulina E , Juglans , Pistacia , Humanos , Alérgenos/química , Alérgenos/inmunología , Anacardium/química , Arachis/química , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Juglans/química , Hipersensibilidad a la Nuez/diagnóstico , Nueces/química , Péptidos/química , Péptidos/inmunología , Pistacia/química , Reacciones CruzadasRESUMEN
Food allergy impacts up to 10 % of the population and can result in life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. The pathogenesis of food allergy is not entirely understood but the disruption in naturally occurring oral tolerance is presumed to be involved. Research has been directed not only toward prevention of food allergy but on the restoration of oral tolerance by various means including immunotherapy (oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous), as well as adjunctive therapies including biologicals and probiotics. This review paper briefly discusses the involvement of oral tolerance in the pathogenesis of food allergy and how food allergy might be prevented; however, the main focus is on the potential for restoration of oral tolerance with various treatment modalities (oral immunotherapy with and without adjunctive therapies).
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Probióticos , Humanos , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/prevención & control , Probióticos/uso terapéutico , Alérgenos , Administración OralRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Inmunoterapia Sublingual , Humanos , Alérgenos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Alimentos/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Inmunoterapia , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/métodosRESUMEN
ImmunoglobulinA (IgA) is the predominant antibody isotype in the gut, where it regulates commensal flora and neutralizes toxins and pathogens. The function of food-specific IgA in the gut is unknown but is presumed to protect from food allergy. Specifically, it has been hypothesized that food-specific IgA binds ingested allergens and promotes tolerance by immune exclusion; however, the evidence to support this hypothesis is indirect and mixed. Although it is known that healthy adults have peanut-specific IgA in the gut, it is unclear whether children also have gut peanut-specific IgA. We found in a cohort of non-food-allergic infants (n = 112) that there is detectable stool peanut-specific IgA that is similar to adult quantities of gut peanut-specific IgA. To investigate whether this peanut-specific IgA is associated with peanut tolerance, we examined a separate cohort of atopic children (n = 441) and found that gut peanut-specific IgA does not predict protection from development of future peanut allergy in infants nor does it correlate with concurrent oral tolerance of peanut in older children. We observed higher plasma peanut-specific IgA in those with peanut allergy. Similarly, egg white-specific IgA was detectable in infant stools and did not predict egg tolerance or outgrowth of egg allergy. Bead-based epitope assay analysis of gut peanut-specific IgA revealed similar epitope specificity between children with peanut allergy and those without; however, gut peanut-specific IgA and plasma peanut-specific IgE had different epitope specificities. These findings call into question the presumed protective role of food-specific IgA in food allergy.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Niño , Lactante , Adulto , Humanos , Arachis , Alérgenos , Inmunoglobulina A , EpítoposRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Antigen-specific immunoglobulin responses have yet to be studied at the oral mucosal surface during peanut oral immunotherapy (PnOIT). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify salivary peanut-specific IgG4 (PNsIgG4) and IgA (PNsIgA) and total IgG4 and IgA in participants from the Immune Tolerance Network's IMPACT study, a phase 2 PnOIT trial. METHODS: Peanut-allergic children, aged 12 months to younger than 48 months at screening, were enrolled and randomized to PnOIT or placebo oral immunotherapy (OIT) for 134 weeks. Per-protocol analysis included 69 PnOIT and 23 placebo participants. Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges were conducted at weeks 134 and 160 to assess desensitization and remission, respectively. Saliva samples were collected at baseline and 30, 82, 134, and 160 weeks to quantify PNsIgG4, PNsIgA, and total IgG4 and IgA. RESULTS: Participants who received PnOIT experienced significant increases in PNsIgG4 in saliva, whereas participants on placebo did not (P < .01 at all time points). The PNsIgA/total IgA ratio was also significantly increased in participants treated with PnOIT when compared with those receiving placebo at 30 and 82 weeks (P < .05). During PnOIT, desensitized participants had increased PNsIgA that plateaued, whereas the not desensitized/no remission group did not change over time. Interestingly, when the PnOIT group was evaluated by clinical outcome, PNsIgA was higher at baseline in the not desensitized/no remission group than in the desensitized/remission group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: PnOIT induces substantial increases in allergen-specific IgG4 and IgA in saliva. These data provide insight into OIT-induced mucosal responses and suggest the utility of these easily obtained samples for biomarker development.