Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:This research sought to explore health care providers' (HCPs) experiences of delivering the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Commission (EC) approved peanut oral immunotherapy (peanut OIT; Palforzia). Semi-structured qualitative interviews with HCPs who had initiated treatment with ≥ 3 patients in the first nine months following FDA approval sought to identify challenges faced and successful implementation strategies. RESULTS:Eight allergists and three nurse practitioners from eight sites based in the United States participated. The HCPs included in this research were motivated to implement this novel treatment, however, entered the process with some reservations. HCPs described how successful implementation of peanut OIT requires them to be thoughtful about their clinic's abilities to integrate complex, time-consuming treatments into their daily practice. Prior experience of OIT was deemed beneficial, but not essential for implementation and learning from others' experience was suggested as a way of helping new prescribers overcome perceived and actual implementation challenges. Delivering licensed peanut OIT during the COVID-19 pandemic posed both challenges and unexpected opportunities for implementation. The experiences described have the potential to benefit the wider allergy community by providing practical solutions, successful implementation strategies and opportunities to enhance training and resources.

The increasing prevalence of food allergies is a growing public health problem. For children considered high risk of developing food allergy (particularly due to the presence of other food allergies or severe eczema), the evidence for the early introduction of allergenic foods, and in particular peanut and egg, is robust. In such cases, the consensus is clear that not only should such foods not be delayed, but that they should be introduced at approximately 4 to 6 months of age in order to minimize the risk of food allergy development. The early introduction of allergenic foods appears to be an effective strategy for minimizing the public health burden of food allergy, though further studies on the generalizability of this approach in low-risk populations is needed.

The appropriate at-home management of anaphylaxis begins with patient education on recognition and treatment, especially when and how to use epinephrine. Delayed administration of epinephrine as well as having severe symptoms and needing multiple doses of epinephrine to treat symptoms are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. The successful implementation of at-home management of anaphylaxis requires appropriate patient selection and an algorithmic approach that recommends activation of emergency medical services (EMS) when the patient does not adequately respond to at-home administration of epinephrine or there are extenuating patient-related circumstances. Fortunately, approximately 98% of anaphylactic episodes respond to 2 or fewer doses of epinephrine, the standard prescription used for epinephrine autoinjectors; fatal anaphylaxis is very rare, as low as 0.002 deaths/million person-years; and biphasic reactions are uncommon (∼5%), and only extremely rarely lethal. Thus, most common concerns leading to recommended EMS activation and emergency department visits after epinephrine administration are generally unsubstantiated. Furthermore, emergency department visits do not always lead to better treatment and drive health care costs higher. Open communications with patients and families regarding risks and benefits of at-home management and observation versus EMS activation and emergency department evaluation after epinephrine administration for anaphylaxis are essential. However, we believe the data indicate that it is time to reconsider the often used and taught approach that recommends EMS activation whenever epinephrine is used.

It is currently unclear if SARS-CoV-2 infection or mRNA vaccination can also induce IgG and IgA against common human coronaviruses (HCoVs) in lactating parents. Here we prospectively analyzed human milk (HM) and blood samples from lactating parents to measure the temporal patterns of anti-SARS-CoV-2 specific and anti-HCoV cross-reactive IgA and IgG responses. Two cohorts were analyzed: a vaccination cohort (n = 30) who received mRNA-based vaccines for COVID-19 (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2), and an infection cohort (n = 45) with COVID-19 disease. Longitudinal HM and fingerstick blood samples were collected pre- and post-vaccination or, for infected subjects, at 5 time-points 14-28 days after confirmed diagnosis. The anti-spike(S) and anti-nucleocapsid(N) IgA and IgG antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 and HCoVs were measured by multiplex immunoassay (mPlex-CoV). We found that vaccination significantly increased the anti-S IgA and IgG levels in HM. In contrast, while IgG levels increased after a second vaccine dose, blood and HM IgA started to decrease. Moreover, HM and blood anti-S IgG levels were significantly correlated, but anti-S IgA levels were not. SARS2 acute infection elicited anti-S IgG and IgA that showed much higher correlations between HM and blood compared to vaccination. Vaccination and infection were able to significantly increase the broadly cross-reactive IgG recognizing HCoVs in HM and blood than the IgA antibodies in HM and blood. In addition, the broader cross-reactivity of IgG in HM versus blood indicates that COVID-19 vaccination and infection might provide passive immunity through HM for the breastfed infants not only against SARS-CoV-2 but also against common cold coronaviruses.

Rationale: Although IgE-mediated food allergies affect 7.6% of children and 9% of adults in the United States, there is limited information on the prevalence and characteristics of allergic reactions to food during travel. Understanding the reactions that occur during travel will provide at-risk passengers and carriers with the necessary information to create measures to prevent and manage these emergencies.
Method(s): We analyzed two patient registry surveys on allergic history and allergic reactions established by Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE) using SPSS.
Result(s): Out of 4956 survey respondents who described the location of their allergic reactions to foods, 86 (1.7%) reported reactions during travel. Of these, 18.6% (n=16) occurred on an airplane/in-flight, and 81.4% (n=70) were reported while commuting/in-transit. Overall, the most common sites of reported reactions were home (17.2%, n=2270) and dining out (7.4%, n=976). There were no statistically significant differences between those reporting travel-related reactions and non-travel-related reactions with regards to concomitant asthma, eczema, allergic rhinitis, drug allergy, or eosinophilic esophagitis. There was no difference in self-reported severity of the reaction and epinephrine use during the reaction. However, those reporting travel-related reactions were significantly more likely to report a lifetime history of anaphylaxis (p=0.04). Peanut and tree nuts were the most commonly identified food allergen for both travel-related reactions and non-travel-related reactions.
Conclusion(s): Allergic reactions during travel were rare in these surveys and were reported more frequently during commuting than on airplanes/in-flight. Individuals reporting travel reactions were more likely to report a lifetime history of anaphylaxis.
Copyright

BACKGROUND:For young children with peanut allergy, dietary avoidance is the current standard of care. We aimed to assess whether peanut oral immunotherapy can induce desensitisation (an increased allergic reaction threshold while on therapy) or remission (a state of non-responsiveness after discontinuation of immunotherapy) in this population. METHODS:We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in five US academic medical centres. Eligible participants were children aged 12 to younger than 48 months who were reactive to 500 mg or less of peanut protein during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Participants were randomly assigned by use of a computer, in a 2:1 allocation ratio, to receive peanut oral immunotherapy or placebo for 134 weeks (2000 mg peanut protein per day) followed by 26 weeks of avoidance, with participants and study staff and investigators masked to group treatment assignment. The primary outcome was desensitisation at the end of treatment (week 134), and remission after avoidance (week 160), as the key secondary outcome, were assessed by DBPCFC to 5000 mg in the intention-to-treat population. Safety and immunological parameters were assessed in the same population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03345160. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between Aug 13, 2013, and Oct 1, 2015, 146 children, with a median age of 39·3 months (IQR 30·8-44·7), were randomly assigned to receive peanut oral immunotherapy (96 participants) or placebo (50 participants). At week 134, 68 (71%, 95% CI 61-80) of 96 participants who received peanut oral immunotherapy compared with one (2%, 0·05-11) of 50 who received placebo met the primary outcome of desensitisation (risk difference [RD] 69%, 95% CI 59-79; p<0·0001). The median cumulative tolerated dose during the week 134 DBPCFC was 5005 mg (IQR 3755-5005) for peanut oral immunotherapy versus 5 mg (0-105) for placebo (p<0·0001). After avoidance, 20 (21%, 95% CI 13-30) of 96 participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy compared with one (2%, 0·05-11) of 50 receiving placebo met remission criteria (RD 19%, 95% CI 10-28; p=0·0021). The median cumulative tolerated dose during the week 160 DBPCFC was 755 mg (IQR 0-2755) for peanut oral immunotherapy and 0 mg (0-55) for placebo (p<0·0001). A significant proportion of participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy who passed the 5000 mg DBPCFC at week 134 could no longer tolerate 5000 mg at week 160 (p<0·001). The participant receiving placebo who was desensitised at week 134 also achieved remission at week 160. Compared with placebo, peanut oral immunotherapy decreased peanut-specific and Ara h2-specific IgE, skin prick test, and basophil activation, and increased peanut-specific and Ara h2-specific IgG4 at weeks 134 and 160. By use of multivariable regression analysis of participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy, younger age and lower baseline peanut-specific IgE was predictive of remission. Most participants (98% with peanut oral immunotherapy vs 80% with placebo) had at least one oral immunotherapy dosing reaction, predominantly mild to moderate and occurring more frequently in participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy. 35 oral immunotherapy dosing events with moderate symptoms were treated with epinephrine in 21 participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:In children with a peanut allergy, initiation of peanut oral immunotherapy before age 4 years was associated with an increase in both desensitisation and remission. Development of remission correlated with immunological biomarkers. The outcomes suggest a window of opportunity at a young age for intervention to induce remission of peanut allergy. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, Immune Tolerance Network.