Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:We sought to determine whether an extensively hydrolyzed formula (EHF) supplemented with two human milk oligosaccharides (HMO) was tolerated by infants with cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA). METHODS:A whey-based EHF (Test formula) containing 2'fucosyl-lactose (2'FL) and lacto-N-neotetraose (LNnT) was assessed for clinical hypoallergenicity and safety. The Control formula was a currently marketed EHF without HMO. Children with CMPA, aged 2 months to 4 years, were assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) to both formulas, in randomized order. If both DBPCFC were negative, subjects participated in a one-week, open food challenge (OFC) with the Test formula. Symptoms and adverse events were recorded. Hypoallergenicity was accepted if at least 90% (with 95% confidence intervals) of subjects tolerated the Test formula. RESULTS:61). There was one allergic reaction to the Test, and one to the Control formula. On the mITT analysis, 63 out of 64 (98.4%; 95% CI lower bound 92.8%), and on the PP analysis 60 out of 61 (98.4%; 95% CI lower bound 92.5%) participants tolerated the Test formula, confirming hypoallergenicity. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The whey-based EHF supplemented with 2'FL and LNnT met the clinical hypoallergenicity criteria and can be recommended for the management of CMPA in infants and young children.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There are currently no approved treatments for peanut allergy. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To assess the efficacy and adverse events of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch among peanut-allergic children. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 31 sites in 5 countries between January 8, 2016, and August 18, 2017. Participants included peanut-allergic children (aged 4-11 years [n = 356] without a history of a severe anaphylactic reaction) developing objective symptoms during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:Daily treatment with peanut patch containing either 250 μg of peanut protein (n = 238) or placebo (n = 118) for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was the percentage difference in responders between the peanut patch and placebo patch based on eliciting dose (highest dose at which objective signs/symptoms of an immediate hypersensitivity reaction developed) determined by food challenges at baseline and month 12. Participants with baseline eliciting dose of 10 mg or less were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 300 mg or more; participants with baseline eliciting dose greater than 10 to 300 mg were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 1000 mg or more. A threshold of 15% or more on the lower bound of a 95% CI around responder rate difference was prespecified to determine a positive trial result. Adverse event evaluation included collection of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results/UNASSIGNED:Among 356 participants randomized (median age, 7 years; 61.2% male), 89.9% completed the trial; the mean treatment adherence was 98.5%. The responder rate was 35.3% with peanut-patch treatment vs 13.6% with placebo (difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 12.4%-29.8%; P < .001]). The prespecified lower bound of the CI threshold was not met. TEAEs, primarily patch application site reactions, occurred in 95.4% and 89% of active and placebo groups, respectively. The all-causes rate of discontinuation was 10.5% in the peanut-patch group vs 9.3% in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:Among peanut-allergic children aged 4 to 11 years, the percentage difference in responders at 12 months with the 250-μg peanut-patch therapy vs placebo was 21.7% and was statistically significant, but did not meet the prespecified lower bound of the confidence interval criterion for a positive trial result. The clinical relevance of not meeting this lower bound of the confidence interval with respect to the treatment of peanut-allergic children with epicutaneous immunotherapy remains to be determined. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02636699.

The Milk Allergy in Primary (MAP) Care guideline was first published in 2013 in this journal. MAP aimed to provide simple and accessible algorithms for UK clinicians in primary care, detailing all the steps between initial presentation, through diagnosis, management and tolerance development. Despite its UK focus, it soon became clear that MAP was being accessed internationally and thus an updated International Milk Allergy in Primary Care (iMAP) guideline was published in 2017. Both guidelines used existing international consensus guidelines to develop accessible algorithms accompanied by patient information leaflets. In 2018, the guidelines were criticised for 3 distinct reasons: promoting the overdiagnosis of cow's milk allergy (CMA), negatively impacting breastfeeding and the possibility of industry influence on the guidelines. The authors address these criticisms using available evidence and, in the context of this and in consultation with patient groups, members of the General Practice Infant Feeding Network and other infant feeding healthcare leads, have collaboratively produced updated algorithms and an information leaflet to support breastfeeding. We believe iMAP is now closer to its original aim of facilitating early and accurate diagnosis of CMA, whilst minimising, as far as possible, any concerns around overdiagnosis or a risk to breastfeeding rates. We continue to welcome open and constructive engagement about how best to achieve these aims to provide evidence-based, practical guidelines for the primary care practitioner.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:This review incorporates findings from studies of oral food challenges (OFC) over the last decade and highlights the latest innovations and understanding of the procedure. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:PRACTALL guidelines are widely used in OFC research, but there is still no international consensus on the OFC protocol in clinical practice. Guidelines for performing OFC in clinical practice have been updated to include oral food challenges for infants. There have been advances in predictive models for outcomes and severity of reaction during OFC that take into account multiple clinical data as well as newer laboratory modalities. Low-dose OFC and eliciting threshold dose determination are being examined for additional diagnostic and therapeutic use in the management of food allergy. Quality-of-life considerations have also been reviewed, as well as post-OFC assessment and care. The OFC remains an important diagnostic tool in the management of food allergy and in clinical research. Advances in the field should improve safety and broaden the clinical applications of this essential procedure.