Faculty Bibliography

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common presentations of food allergy in early childhood. Management of CMA involves individualized avoidance of cow's milk and other mammalian milk and foods containing these. Optimal elimination of cow's milk avoidance includes: label reading; information about safe and nutritious substitute foods; appropriate choice of infant formula or a plant-based food; establishing tolerance to baked milk and monitoring nutritional intake and growth. Substitute formulas are divided into soy formula (not hydrolyzed), milk-based extensively hydrolyzed formulas, rice based extensive, and partially hydrolyzed formulas and amino acid-based formulas. The use of other mammalian milks is not recommended for the management of cow's milk allergy due to a high level of cross-reactivity and nutritional concerns. For toddlers who are eating well, children, and adults, a suitable plant-based beverage may be a suitable alternative to a specialized formula, following careful nutritional considerations. Families need to be instructed on finding suitable nutritious foods and how to prepare suitable meals at home. Individuals with CMA also need to know how to identify and treat acute severe reactions.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the awareness of, adherence to, and barriers to the 2017 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) peanut allergy prevention guidelines among the pediatrics health care workforce. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Pediatricians, family physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and dermatologists who provide care for infants were solicited for a population-based online survey, administered from June 6, 2022, through July 3, 2022. The survey collected information about NIAID guideline awareness, implementation, and barriers as well as concerns related to the guidelines. RESULTS:A total of 250 pediatricians, 250 family physicians, 504 APPs, and 253 dermatologists met inclusion criteria. Self-reported guideline awareness was significantly higher for pediatricians (76%) compared with dermatologists (58%), family physicians (52%), and APPs (45%) (P < .05). Among participants who were aware of the guidelines, most reported using part or all of the guidelines in their clinical practices. Reported practice patterns for peanut introduction in 6-month-old infants were variable and did not always align with guidelines, particularly for infants with mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS:Although pediatricians have the highest self-reported level of NIAID guideline awareness, awareness was suboptimal irrespective of provider type. Education for all pediatric clinicians is urgently needed to promote evidence-based peanut allergy prevention practices.

BACKGROUND:Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE:We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS:We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS:The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE mediated food allergy presenting with delayed onset of projectile vomiting in the absence of cutaneous and respiratory symptoms. The pathophysiology of FPIES remains poorly characterized. The first international consensus guidelines for FPIES were published in 2017 and provided clinicians with parameters on the diagnosis and treatment of FPIES. The guidelines have served as a resource in the recognition and management of FPIES, contributing to an increased awareness of FPIES. Since then, new evidence has emerged, shedding light on adult-onset FPIES, the different phenotypes of FPIES, the recognition of new food triggers, center-specific food challenge protocols and management of acute FPIES. Emerging evidence indicates that FPIES impacts both pediatric and adult population. As a result, there is growing need to tailor the consensus guidelines to capture diagnoses in both patient groups. Furthermore, it is crucial to provide food challenge protocols that meet the needs of both pediatric and adult FPIES patients, as well as the subset of patients with atypical FPIES. This review highlights the evolving clinical evidence relating to FPIES diagnosis and management published since the 2017 International FPIES Guidelines. We will focus on areas where recent published evidence may support evolution or revision of the guidelines.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:To review current and future treatment options for IgE-mediated food allergy. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Recent years have seen major developments in both allergen-specific and allergen-non-specific treatment options, with the first FDA-approved peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) product becoming available in 2020. In addition to OIT, other immunotherapy modalities, biologics, adjunct therapies, and novel therapeutics are under investigation. Food allergy is a potentially life-threatening condition associated with a significant psychosocial impact. Numerous products and protocols are under investigation, with most studies focusing on OIT. A high rate of adverse events, need for frequent office visits, and cost remain challenges with OIT. Further work is needed to unify outcome measures, develop treatment protocols that minimize adverse events, establish demographic and clinical factors that influence candidate selection, and identify patient priorities.

Food allergy is a global public health problem that until recent years lacked any aetiological treatment supported by academy, industry and regulators. Food immunotherapy (AIT) is an evolving treatment option, supported by clinical practice and industry trial data. Recent AIT meta-analyses have highlighted the difficulty in pooling safety and efficacy data from AIT trials, due to secondary heterogeneity in the study. An EAACI task force (CO-FAITH) initiated by the Paediatric Section was created to focus on AIT efficacy outcomes for milk, egg and peanut allergy rather than in trial results. A systematic search and a narrative review of AIT controlled clinical trials and large case series was conducted. A total of 63 manuscripts met inclusion criteria, corresponding to 23, 21 and 22 studies of milk, egg and peanut AIT, respectively. The most common AIT efficacy outcome was desensitization, mostly defined as tolerating a maintenance phase dose, or reaching a particular dose upon successful exit oral food challenge (OFC). However, a large degree of heterogeneity was identified regarding the dose quantity defining this outcome. Sustained unresponsiveness and patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were explored less frequently, and to date have been most rigorously described for peanut AIT versus other allergens. Change in allergen threshold assessed by OFC remains the most common efficacy measure, but OFC methods suffer from heterogeneity and methodological disparity. This review has identified multiple heterogeneous outcomes related to measuring the efficacy of AIT. Efforts to better standardize and harmonize which outcomes, and how to measure them must be carried out to help in the clinical development of safe and efficacious food allergy treatments.