Faculty Bibliography

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.

Baked milk (BM) and baked egg (BE) diets are increasingly used in the management of milk and egg allergy, rather than avoidance. Children with tolerance versus reactivity to BM and BE may have smaller skin prick test and lower specific IgE, and BM-tolerant children have less basophil reactivity and more peripheral T regulatory cells. However, most milk- and egg-allergic children tolerate BM and BE and an individual's reactivity is unpredictable. Non-reactivity is due to conformational changes in the allergens. Significant differences in the published advice about methods of introduction exist from graded introduction at home to a medically supervised full dose. These approaches carry different risks and may have different immunological effects. Reactivity to BM is a predictor of a severe milk allergy. Therefore, medical supervision for BM and BE introduction is prudent. The baked diet allows dietary liberation. Most, but not all, BM- and BE-tolerant children continue eating the baked foods. The prognosis of children who can eat BM and BE is favorable with likely resolution of their allergy over the next few years. Murine models of BE diets demonstrate that heated egg can impart clinical protection against anaphylaxis and cause immune changes. Most observational human studies of BM and BE diets demonstrate clinical resolution of allergy and favorable immune changes versus regular care controls. However, the one randomized controlled trial for the BE diet in BE-tolerant children did not support an immune-modifying effect of the BE diet. Another study of BE immunotherapy is expected to be completed in 2018. There is currently no evidence for prevention of allergy with the baked diets. There may be a future role for BM and BE in liberating the diets of individuals with non-IgE-mediated allergy given recent studies that a subset of these patients can consume BM without a clinical reaction.

With rising prevalence of food allergy (FA), allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) for FA has become an active area of research in recent years. In AIT, incrementally increasing doses of inciting allergen are given with the goal to increase tolerance, initially through desensitization, which relies on regular exposure to allergen. With prolonged therapy in some subjects, AIT may induce sustained unresponsiveness, in which tolerance is retained after a period of allergen avoidance. Methods of AIT currently under study in humans include oral, sublingual, epicutaneous, and subcutaneous delivery of modified allergenic protein, as well as via DNA-based vaccines encoding allergen with lysosomal-associated membrane protein I. The balance of safety and efficacy varies by type of AIT, as well as by targeted allergen. Age, degree of sensitization, and other comorbidities may affect this balance within an individual patient. More recently, AIT with modified proteins or combined with immunomodulatory therapies has shown promise in making AIT safer and/or more effective. Though methods of AIT are neither currently advised by experts (oral immunotherapy [OIT]) nor widely available, AIT is likely to become a part of recommended management of FA in the coming years. Here, we review and compare methods of AIT currently under study in humans to prepare the practitioner for an exciting new phase in the care of food allergic patients in which improved tolerance to inciting foods will be a real possibility.