Faculty Bibliography

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.

Results from the Learning Early About Peanut trial and its follow-up study suggest that early peanut introduction in the diets of high-risk infants may prevent the development of peanut allergy. Allergy organizations around the world released a unified statement, the Consensus Communication on Early Peanut Introduction and the Prevention of Peanut Allergy in High Risk Infants, in response to results from the Learning Early About Peanut trial, which recommends early introduction of peanut into the diet of those children at greatest risk of development of peanut allergy. As a result, it is expected that practicing allergists will experience an increased demand to perform an oral food challenge (OFC) in infants. Allergists often perform OFCs; however, conducting an OFC in an infant creates unique circumstances that have not been considered in previously published OFC guideline documents. The purpose of this workgroup report is to provide guidance to practitioners regarding the proper approach for conducting a peanut challenge in an infant.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:We focus on recent advances regarding the epidemiology, physiopathology, diagnosis and managements of non-IgE-mediated gastrointestinal food allergies (non-IgE-GI-FAs), particularly food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES). RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:The first international FPIES diagnostic and management guidelines have been recently published. Although FPIES largely remains a diagnosis of exclusion, it may be more prevalent than previously thought. Ondansetron has emerged as a major tool for the treatment of FPIES acute reactions. Recent data also suggest an important role for innate immune cells in FPIES pathogenesis. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Despite major advances in the diagnosis and management of non-IgE-GI-FAs, particularly FPIES, the lack of specific diagnostic tests and biomarkers to guide clinical management remains challenging.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Naturally occurring botulism is rare, but a large number of cases could result from unintentional or intentional contamination of a commercial food. Despeciated, equine-derived, heptavalent botulinum antitoxin (HBAT) is licensed in the United States. Timely treatment reduces morbidity and mortality, but concerns that botulinum antitoxin can induce anaphylaxis exist. We sought to quantify the allergy risk of botulinum antitoxin treatment and the usefulness of skin testing to assess this risk. Methods/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a systematic review of (1) allergic reactions to botulinum antitoxin and (2) the predictive value of skin testing (ST) before botulinum antitoxin administration. We searched 5 scientific literature databases, reviewed articles' references, and obtained data from the HBAT manufacturer and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Anaphylaxis incidence was determined for HBAT and previously employed botulinum antitoxins. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of ST for anaphylaxis related to HBAT and other botulinum antitoxins. Results/UNASSIGNED:Seven articles were included. Anaphylaxis incidence was 1.64% (5/305 patients) for HBAT and 1.16% (8/687 patients) for all other botulinum antitoxins (relative risk, 1.41 [95% confidence interval, .47-4.27]; P = .5). Observed values for both PPV and NPV for HBAT-ST (33 patients) were 100%. Observed PPVs and NPVs of ST for other botulinum antitoxins (302 patients) were 0-56% and 50%-100%, respectively. There were no reports of fatal anaphylaxis. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Considering the <2 % rate of anaphylaxis, fatal outcomes, modest predictive value of ST, resource requirements for ST, and the benefits of early treatment, data do not support delaying HBAT administration to perform ST in a mass botulinum toxin exposure. Anaphylactic reactions may occur among 1%-2% of botulinum antitoxin recipients and will require epinephrine and antihistamine treatment and, possibly, intensive care.