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.

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:To critically appraise the recent most relevant studies in the rapidly advancing field of food oral and sublingual immunotherapy. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Food allergen-specific immunotherapy via oral (OIT) and sublingual route (SLIT) increases the threshold of reactivity to peanut, cow's milk, egg, wheat, and many other foods in the majority of the treated individuals. This desensitized state is contingent upon the continued ingestion of the maintenance doses of the food. Permanent oral tolerance is achievable in a smaller subset of the treated individuals. The optimal duration of therapy has not been firmly established but is likely dependent on the phenotype (severity and persistence). Efficacy of food-OIT is superior compared with SLIT, whereas the safety of OIT is less favorable. Standardization of treatment protocols, maintenance dosing, duration of therapy, target populations and harmonization of the outcomes are top priorities at this stage. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:OIT and SLIT represent two different routes of food allergen-specific immunotherapy. Although significant progress has been made in the last decade, both treatment modalities are still in the very early stages of development and further investigations are necessary to optimize the protocols and improve safety while maximizing efficacy.

Tropomyosin (TM) is the main allergen of shrimp. Glycation reportedly reduced the allergenicity of TM, and the allergenicity reduction was heavily dependent upon the sources of saccharides. In this work we investigated, how glycation of tropomyosin by functional oligosaccharides affected the allergenicity. Compared to TM, the TM glycated by galacto-oligosaccharide (TM-GOS), mannan-oligosaccharide (TM-MOS) and maltopentaose (TM-MPS) had lower allergenicity and induced weaker mouse allergy responses. While the TM glycated by fructo-oligosaccharide (TM-FOS) had stronger allergenicity and induced severe mouse allergy symptoms, due to the generation of neoallergns that belonged to advanced glycation end products (e.g. CML). Therefore, GOS, MOS and MPS could be applied to desensitize shrimp TM-induced food allergy through glycation, while FOS was not suitable to reduce TM allergenicity. Glycation of TM by GOS, MOS and MPS, especially for MPS, significantly reduced allergenicity and alleviated allergy symptoms, which could be potentially explored for immunotherapy for shrimp-allergic patients.

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.

Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE-mediated food allergy that has been well-characterized clinically, yet it is still poorly understood. Acute FPIES is characterized by vomiting 1-4 h and/or diarrhea within 24 h after ingestion of a culprit food. Chronic FPIES is the result of chronic exposure to an offending food that can result in chronic watery diarrhea, intermittent vomiting, and failure to thrive. FPIES typically presents in infancy and self-resolves by school age in most patients. Adult-onset FPIES is rare, but it has been reported. Cow's milk and soy are the most common triggering foods in infants in the US, and as solids are introduced in the diet, FPIES reactions to grains (rice, oat) increase in prevalence. Variability in common trigger foods exists depending on the geographical origin-for example, fish is a frequent trigger in Spanish and Italian patients. Heavy reliance on a detailed history is required for the diagnosis as physical exam findings, laboratory tests, and/or imaging studies are suggestive and not specific for FPIES. Oral food challenges remain the gold standard for confirming diagnosis, and the challenge protocol may be for an individual depending on risk of reaction, prior reaction severity, and positive-specific IgE status. The recent development of diagnostic criteria in 2017 will serve to increase recognition of the disorder and allow for early implementation of management strategies. Acute management during reactions includes IV hydration, anti-emetics, and IV corticosteroids. Reaction prevention strategies include strict food avoidance until the physician deems a food reintroduction challenge clinically appropriate. Future efforts in FPIES research should be aimed at elucidating the underlying disease mechanisms and possible treatment targets.