Pooja Varshney

A randomized controlled study of peanut oral immunotherapy: Clinical desensitization and modulation of the allergic response

BACKGROUND Open-label oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols have been used to treat small numbers of patients with peanut allergy. Peanut OIT has not been evaluated in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. OBJECTIVE To investigate the safety and effectiveness of OIT for peanut allergy in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS In this multicenter study, children ages 1 to 16 years with peanut allergy received OIT with peanut flour or placebo. Initial escalation, build-up, and maintenance phases were followed by an oral food challenge (OFC) at approximately 1 year. Titrated skin prick tests (SPTs) and laboratory studies were performed at regular intervals. RESULTS Twenty-eight subjects were enrolled in the study. Three peanut OIT subjects withdrew early in the study because of allergic side effects. During the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, all remaining peanut OIT subjects (n = 16) ingested the maximum cumulative dose of 5000 mg (approximately 20 peanuts), whereas placebo subjects (n = 9) ingested a median cumulative dose of 280 mg (range, 0-1900 mg; P < .001). In contrast with the placebo group, the peanut OIT group showed reductions in SPT size (P < .001), IL-5 (P = .01), and IL-13 (P = .02) and increases in peanut-specific IgG(4) (P < .001). Peanut OIT subjects had initial increases in peanut-specific IgE (P < .01) but did not show significant change from baseline by the time of OFC. The ratio of forkhead box protein 3 (FoxP3)(hi): FoxP3(intermediate) CD4+ CD25+ T cells increased at the time of OFC (P = .04) in peanut OIT subjects. CONCLUSION These results conclusively demonstrate that peanut OIT induces desensitization and concurrent immune modulation. The current study continues and is evaluating the hypothesis that peanut OIT causes long-term immune tolerance.

Adverse reactions during peanut oral immunotherapy home dosing

To The Editor: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is increasingly being investigated as a potential treatment for peanut and other food allergies, with a recent study demonstrating evidence of clinical desensitization and immunologic changes suggesting the development of long-term tolerance1. Unlike traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy for inhalant allergens, peanut OIT is administered daily, with the vast majority of doses given at home. In our peanut OIT protocols, subjects are seen in the research unit for observed dose escalations every two weeks, and subsequent doses are given at home. In the open-label study of peanut OIT, home doses were generally well-tolerated2. The incidence of allergic reactions with any home dose was 3.5%, with mild upper respiratory and skin symptoms being the most common complaints. Despite the infrequent incidence of symptoms with peanut OIT home dosing, certain patterns of reactions have surfaced during this phase. Characterizing these reactions and identifying potential triggers or factors which predispose to reactions may improve the safety of home dosing. Reactions occurring during investigational OIT or any immunotherapy protocol are challenging to study prospectively, due to ongoing modifications in the protocol and recommendations that are instituted to prevent further reactions. In subcutaneous aeroallergen immunotherapy, asthma has been identified as a risk factor for systemic reactions, prompting recommendations to evaluate respiratory symptoms and consider objective measures of airway function during administration3. Researchers studying milk and egg OIT noted certain “augmentation factors” that lowered threshold doses – namely, infection, exercise, pollen allergy, and irregular intake4 – and identifying these factors and reducing the immunotherapy dose prevented further allergic reactions. We have noted five patterns associated with a propensity to react to a previously tolerated dose of peanut OIT, including several not previously described. It is interesting that these factors would provoke symptoms after a given OIT dose when, in many of the examples noted, the dose had been tolerated for weeks to months without symptoms. Table I lists selected examples illustrating the observed patterns – (1) concurrent illness, (2) suboptimally-controlled asthma, (3) timing of dose administration after food ingestion, (4) physical exertion after dosing, and (5) dosing during menses. Addressing these factors (see Table II) has improved the safety profile of our peanut OIT protocol. While some of our recommendations mirror those instituted in subcutaneous immunotherapy protocols, most are unique to OIT administration. We expand on reports from other research centers4, 5, which have described triggers such as infection, exercise, pollen allergy, and irregular intake, and this is the first report involving protocols for peanut allergy. Table I Examples of Reactions during Peanut OIT Home Dosing Table II Recommendations for Future OIT Investigations We have observed that dosing during febrile illnesses has been associated with systemic reactions to previously tolerated peanut OIT doses. We recommend withholding OIT during acute illnesses and advise subjects to resume dosing at home if fewer than three doses are missed. If three to five doses are missed, subjects return to the research unit for observed dosing. Those who miss more than five days of dosing may require significant dose reduction or repeat desensitization. In our open-label study2, asthma was associated with a higher rate of chest symptoms during OIT. Of the subjects reporting chest symptoms during home dosing, 82% had co-existing asthma. Several subjects receiving peanut OIT noted cough and wheezing after doses. Some also had chronic cough or exercise-induced respiratory symptoms. Although we did not observe changes in pulmonary function in these subjects, their symptoms improved with the initiation of asthma controller medications (see Table I), highlighting the importance of diagnosing and treating co-morbid atopic conditions. Regular peak flow measurements and pulmonary function testing has been implemented to optimize asthma control. It has not been uncommon for a subject taking a daily OIT dose without eating a meal or snack in the two hours before dosing to have symptoms with a dose that has been previously tolerated; taking the same dose with food the next day and thereafter prevents further reactions. Additionally, several subjects have experienced allergic symptoms with exercise after OIT dosing, and we advise these individuals to avoid exertion for two hours after dosing. Finally, one subject had several systemic reactions when menses was coupled with exercise despite no symptoms with daily dosing in the interval between episodes and was eventually withdrawn from the study. She was not taking other medications (e.g. non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Of note, she did not have systemic reactions each time she exercised during menses. At this time, the role of menses is unclear, and further study is needed. In the studies to date, peanut and food OIT have a good safety profile, and home dosing is infrequently associated with adverse reactions2, 6. However, allergic symptoms should be expected, and subjects and their families should be counseled about circumstances associated with an increased possibility of reacting to previously tolerated OIT doses. As OIT for food allergy becomes increasingly studied in research settings, implementing these recommendations and modifications can improve the safety of these experimental protocols.

Peanut oral immunotherapy is not ready for clinical use

Peanut OIT has shown promise as a potential treatment for food allergy. However, there remain numerous unanswered questions surrounding this investigational treatment, including the risks of OIT compared to avoidance, dosing regimen issues, patient selection, post-desensitization strategy, allocation of clinical resources, and reimbursement. Further studies are needed to address these outstanding issues in order to determine if this type of therapy is appropriate for clinical use.

Sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children: A retrospective comparison

To the Editor: There has been considerable recent interest in developing therapies for food allergy, an increasingly common and highly morbid disorder for which strict dietary elimination and ready access to epinephrine remain the standard of care.(1) While both oral immunotherapy (OIT)(2-4) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)(5) have been shown to induce clinical desensitization to foods (reviewed in 6), no head-to-head comparative analysis of the two treatments has been published. We conducted a retrospective study of two previously published protocols for peanut allergy(2,3). This new analysis includes additional subjects, compares the 12-month oral food challenge outcomes, and extends analysis of immunologic parameters out to 24 months. Eligible peanut-allergic subjects were recruited into one of two concurrent clinical trials: OIT (maintenance dose of 4000 mg/day and cumulative double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge (DBPCFC) dose of 5000 mg); or SLIT, (2 mg/day, and 2500 mg, respectively) [all quantities refer to peanut protein]. Although the optimal immunotherapy dose remains unknown, the doses chosen in these trials were based on preliminary data from pilot studies. Of note, unique properties of the oral mucosal immune response are hypothesized to account for SLIT’s efficacy at log-fold lower doses (reviewed in 7). Both trials utilized randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs. Mechanistic studies were performed longitudinally as previously described using blood drawn from subjects within 24 hours of their last immunotherapy dose.(2, 3) At 12 months, subjects underwent DBPCFC to assess clinical desensitization; OIT subjects received a maximal 5000 mg cumulative protein dose, and for safety reasons SLIT challenges were limited to 2500 mg (Online Repository Tables E1/E2). We compared laboratory data between OIT and SLIT at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months, as well as DBPCFC pass/fail outcomes, using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (STATA 12; College Station, TX) and Mann-Whitney U test (GraphPad Prism; La Jolla, CA). Twenty-three subjects on OIT and 27 subjects on SLIT were evaluated after receiving 2 years of treatment (Table 1). We did not undertake a formal comparison of safety parameters between the two studies, and upcoming interval reports of each study will include these data. However, there were no serious adverse events reported in either study. No SLIT and two OIT subjects (one active, one placebo) required four total doses of epinephrine for dose-related reactions. At baseline, the peanut-specific IgE was similar between OIT and SLIT subjects (Fig 1A). Twelve months of treatment led to higher median peanut-specific IgE levels in the OIT group compared to the SLIT group (204.5 kU/L versus 66.7 kU/L, p=0.0382); however, levels were not significantly different between the groups at 24 months (Fig 1A). While peanut-specific IgG4 increased over time in both groups (Fig 1B), the effect was greater with OIT at 12 (20.1 mg/L versus 3.1 mg/L) and 24 months (20.3 mg/L versus 7.9 mg/L, p<0.001). Although decreased in both groups, median peanut-specific IgE/IgG4 ratios were significantly lower at 12 and 24 months for subjects receiving OIT (Fig 1C). Thirty-four subjects (14 OIT, 20 SLIT) had basophil activation assessed by CD63 up-regulation at baseline and 12 months. After 12 months, a significantly lower percentage of CD63+ basophils was found in the OIT group compared with the SLIT group when stimulated with 100 (median 5.90% versus 21.50%) and 10−1 μg/mL (median 6.34% versus 30.75%) crude peanut extract (p<0.01). No between-group difference was seen after stimulation with weaker dilutions of 10−2 and 10−3 μg/mL crude peanut extract. Too few samples were obtained at 24 months to perform an analysis. FIG 1 A and B, Change in serum peanut-IgE and peanut-IgG4 (SLIT/OIT). C, IgE/IgG4 ratio to peanut (SLIT/OIT). D, Cumulative amount tolerated during DBPCFC (SLIT/OIT). E, Serum peanut-IgE (Pass/Fail). F, Fold change in serum peanut-IgG4 from baseline to 12 months ... Table 1 Baseline subject characteristics Eighteen subjects on OIT and 27 subjects on SLIT underwent 12 month desensitization DBPCFCs, results of which are shown in Figure 1D. Despite differences in DBPCFC protocols, SLIT subjects reacted at lower eliciting dose thresholds. A Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate the difference in proportions and relative risk for passing or failing the DBPCFC according to treatment group. The difference in proportions was statistically significant (p=0.002), with OIT-treated subjects 3 times more likely to pass the 12 month desensitization DBPCFC than SLIT-treated subjects (RR=3.00, 95% CI 1.64-5.49). In an attempt to identify candidate biomarkers, we combined all SLIT and OIT subjects and then categorized them by “pass” or “fail” based upon their ability to complete the DBPCFC without symptoms. Consistent with other studies, subjects passing the 12 month desensitization DBPCFC tended to have lower baseline peanut-specific IgE levels (34.6 kU/L versus 167 kU/L, p=0.0575) (Fig 1E). Peanut-specific IgG4 was increased by 27-fold in the “pass” group compared to a 6.5-fold increase in the “fail” group (p=0.01; Fig 1F). Interestingly, the percentage of CD63+ basophils was significantly lower at 12 months in the “pass” group compared with the “fail” group when stimulated with 100 (median 5.90% versus 21.50%) and 10−1 μg/mL (median 6.34% versus 34.75%) crude peanut extract (p<0.01). Again no differences were seen between groups after stimulation with weaker dilutions. Skin prick tests decreased over time in all subjects. Wheal size, serum peanut-specific IgA and peanut-specific IgG, and CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ T-regulatory cells were not significantly different between the OIT and SLIT groups or the “pass” and “fail” groups. In summary, our results suggest that after two years of treatment, OIT produces greater immunologic changes than SLIT in peanut-allergic children. Specifically, peanut OIT resulted in greater changes in peanut-specific IgE, IgG4, and IgE/IgG4 ratio as well as basophil activation. In addition, eliciting dose thresholds were lower and more variable during DBPCFC at 12 months in SLIT-treated subjects, compared to OIT-treated subjects. Subjects who passed the DBPCFC tended to have lower baseline peanut-IgE levels, in addition to a larger fold change in peanut-IgG4 and less basophil activation at 12 months. The major limitation of this study is that it was not a randomized prospective study designed to directly compare the two modalities with a uniform protocol and consecutive enrollment. It is important to also note that interim clinical endpoints measured after only 12 months of immunotherapy likely do not provide a full assessment of the efficacy of either method. Further research is needed to determine the optimal length of treatment, dose, and ideal immunotherapy candidate for each modality.

Food allergen panel testing often results in misdiagnosis of food allergy

OBJECTIVE To determine the utility of food allergy panel testing among patients referred to a pediatric food allergy center. STUDY DESIGN Retrospective chart review of all new patients seen between September 2011 and December 2012 by 1 provider in a tertiary referral pediatric food allergy center. A cost analysis was performed to calculate the estimated cost of evaluation for patients who have received a food allergy panel. RESULTS Of 797 new patient encounters, 284 (35%) patients had received a food allergy panel. Only 90 (32.8%) individuals had a history warranting evaluation for food allergy; 126 individuals were avoiding a food based on recommendations from the referring provider and 112 (88.9%) were able to re-introduce at least 1 food into their diet. The positive predictive value of food allergy panel testing in this unselected population was 2.2%. The estimated cost of evaluation for this population was

Role of Tolerance in the Development of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases

79,412. CONCLUSIONS Food allergy panel testing often results in misdiagnosis of food allergy, overly restrictive dietary avoidance, and an unnecessary economic burden on the health system.

Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome (FPIES): Review of Recent Guidelines

Although the precise link is not completely understood, eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases have been shown to be highly associated with atopy. Oral tolerance describes the specific suppression of immune responses to an antigen by prior administration of the antigen by the oral route. Like other allergic gastrointestinal diseases, eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders may result from a loss of oral tolerance or a failure in the induction of tolerance. Further study to clarify the role of tolerance in the development of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases can help identify potential prevention strategies and therapeutic targets.

Oral Tolerance and Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Purpose of ReviewTo increase understanding of food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES), a non-immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated reaction to food, by reviewing a growing body of literature, including recently published international consensus guidelines.Recent FindingsFPIES primarily affects infants and young children and is characterized by the delayed onset of gastrointestinal symptoms, predominantly repetitive vomiting, in response to a trigger food. Symptoms are often severe and can lead to shock. Diagnosis can be challenging due to a wide differential diagnoses and lack of disease biomarkers. FPIES is a clinical diagnosis, with allergy testing playing a very limited role, if any. Medically supervised oral food challenges are used to monitor resolution of disease, which generally occurs in early childhood.SummaryFPIES is an important condition presenting to clinicians in a variety of settings. Recent international consensus guidelines and a growing body of literature can better equip practitioners to care for these often-challenging patients.

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT) Induces Clinical Tolerance in Peanut-Allergic Children

The role of food allergy in EoE may be explained by a breakdown in oral tolerance or a failure in the induction of tolerance. Oral tolerance is the physiologic mechanism by which immune responses to an antigen are suppressed by prior administration of the antigen by the oral route. This normal process is crucial in allowing a wide array of dietary proteins access to the body without activating harmful immune responses. Oral tolerance presumably evolved as an analog of self-tolerance to prevent potentially dangerous hypersensitivity reactions to harmless food proteins and commensal gut flora. The lumen of the gastrointestinal tract, the largest immunologic organ in the body, is continually exposed to numerous dietary proteins. Here, antigen-presenting cells encounter food proteins and subsequently activate regulatory T lymphocytes that reside in the loose connective tissue beneath the gastrointestinal epithelium. These cells then suppress cellular and humoral immune responses to the protein. In nonallergic hosts, the majority of food proteins are absorbed without provoking injurious local or systemic immune responses. The pathologic cellular and humoral immune responses that characterize food allergy likely result from either a failure in establishing tolerance or a breakdown in existing tolerance. It is possible that similar mechanisms underlie the pathogenesis of EoE.