Core Outcome Set for IgE-mediated food allergy clinical trials and observational studies of interventions: International Delphi consensus study 'COMFA'.

BACKGROUND: IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) is a global health concern with substantial individual and societal implications. While diverse intervention strategies have been researched, inconsistencies in reported outcomes limit evaluations of FA treatments. To streamline evaluations and promote consistent reporting, the Core Outcome Measures for Food Allergy (COMFA) initiative aimed to establish a Core Outcome Set (COS) for FA clinical trials and observational studies of interventions. METHODS: The project involved a review of published clinical trials, trial protocols and qualitative literature. Outcomes found as a result of review were categorized and classified, informing a two-round online-modified Delphi process followed by hybrid consensus meeting to finalize the COS. RESULTS: The literature review, taxonomy mapping and iterative discussions with diverse COMFA group yielded an initial list of 39 outcomes. The iterative online and in-person meetings reduced the list to 13 outcomes for voting in the formal Delphi process. One more outcome was added based on participant suggestions after the first Delphi round. A total of 778 participants from 52 countries participated, with 442 participating in both Delphi rounds. No outcome met a priori criteria for inclusion, and one was excluded as a result of the Delphi. Thirteen outcomes were brought to the hybrid consensus meeting as a result of Delphi and two outcomes, 'allergic symptoms' and 'quality of life' achieved consensus for inclusion as 'core' outcomes. CONCLUSION: In addition to the mandatory reporting of adverse events for FA clinical trials or observational studies of interventions, allergic symptoms and quality of life should be measured as core outcomes. Future work by COMFA will define how best to measure these core outcomes.

EAACI guidelines on the diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy.

This European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guideline provides recommendations for diagnosing IgE-mediated food allergy and was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Food allergy diagnosis starts with an allergy-focused clinical history followed by tests to determine IgE sensitization, such as serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) and skin prick test (SPT), and the basophil activation test (BAT), if available. Evidence for IgE sensitization should be sought for any suspected foods. The diagnosis of allergy to some foods, such as peanut and cashew nut, is well supported by SPT and serum sIgE, whereas there are less data and the performance of these tests is poorer for other foods, such as wheat and soya. The measurement of sIgE to allergen components such as Ara h 2 from peanut, Cor a 14 from hazelnut and Ana o 3 from cashew can be useful to further support the diagnosis, especially in pollen-sensitized individuals. BAT to peanut and sesame can be used additionally. The reference standard for food allergy diagnosis is the oral food challenge (OFC). OFC should be performed in equivocal cases. For practical reasons, open challenges are suitable in most cases. Reassessment of food allergic children with allergy tests and/or OFCs periodically over time will enable reintroduction of food into the diet in the case of spontaneous acquisition of oral tolerance.

Managing food allergy: GA2LEN guideline 2022.

Food allergy affects approximately 2-4% of children and adults. This guideline provides recommendations for managing food allergy from the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN). A multidisciplinary international Task Force developed the guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II framework and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We reviewed the latest available evidence as of April 2021 (161 studies) and created recommendations by balancing benefits, harms, feasibility, and patient and clinician experiences. We suggest that people diagnosed with food allergy avoid triggering allergens (low certainty evidence). We suggest that infants with cow's milk allergy who need a breastmilk alternative use either hypoallergenic extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk formula or an amino acid-based formula (moderate certainty). For selected children with peanut allergy, we recommend oral immunotherapy (high certainty), though epicutaneous immunotherapy might be considered depending on individual preferences and availability (moderate certainty). We suggest considering oral immunotherapy for children with persistent severe hen's egg or cow's milk allergy (moderate certainty). There are significant gaps in evidence about safety and effectiveness of the various strategies. Research is needed to determine the best approaches to education, how to predict the risk of severe reactions, whether immunotherapy is cost-effective and whether biological therapies are effective alone or combined with allergen immunotherapy.

Allergen immunotherapy and/or biologicals for IgE-mediated food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial interest in immunotherapy and biologicals in IgE-mediated food allergy. METHODS: We searched six databases for randomized controlled trials about immunotherapy alone or with biologicals (to April 2021) or biological monotherapy (to September 2021) in food allergy confirmed by oral food challenge. We pooled the data using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We included 36 trials about immunotherapy with 2126 mainly child participants. Oral immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 9.9, 95% CI 4.5.-21.4, high certainty); cow's milk (RR 5.7, 1.9-16.7, moderate certainty) and hen's egg allergy (RR 8.9, 4.4-18, moderate certainty). The number needed to treat to increase tolerance to a single dose of 300 mg or 1000 mg peanut protein was 2. Oral immunotherapy did not increase adverse reactions (RR 1.1, 1.0-1.2, low certainty) or severe reactions in peanut allergy (RR 1,6, 0.7-3.5, low certainty), but may increase (mild) adverse reactions in cow's milk (RR 3.9, 2.1-7.5, low certainty) and hen's egg allergy (RR 7.0, 2.4-19.8, moderate certainty). Epicutaneous immunotherapy increased tolerance whilst on therapy for peanut (RR 2.6, 1.8-3.8, moderate certainty). Results were unclear for other allergies and administration routes. There were too few trials of biologicals alone (3) or with immunotherapy (1) to draw conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Oral immunotherapy improves tolerance whilst on therapy and is probably safe in peanut, cow's milk and hen's egg allergy. More research is needed about quality of life, cost and biologicals.

Correction: Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/23011.].

Data Sharing Goals for Nonprofit Funders of Clinical Trials.

Sharing clinical trial data can provide value to research participants and communities by accelerating the development of new knowledge and therapies as investigators merge data sets to conduct new analyses, reproduce published findings to raise standards for original research, and learn from the work of others to generate new research questions. Nonprofit funders, including disease advocacy and patient-focused organizations, play a pivotal role in the promotion and implementation of data sharing policies. Funders are uniquely positioned to promote and support a culture of data sharing by serving as trusted liaisons between potential research participants and investigators who wish to access these participants' networks for clinical trial recruitment. In short, nonprofit funders can drive policies and influence research culture. The purpose of this paper is to detail a set of aspirational goals and forward thinking, collaborative data sharing solutions for nonprofit funders to fold into existing funding policies. The goals of this paper convey the complexity of the opportunities and challenges facing nonprofit funders and the appropriate prioritization of data sharing within their organizations and may serve as a starting point for a data sharing toolkit for nonprofit funders of clinical trials to provide the clarity of mission and mechanisms to enforce the data sharing practices their communities already expect are happening.

Patients' Perspectives and Needs on Novel Food Allergy Treatments in the United States.

PURPOSE: Food allergy management places a daily psychosocial burden on patients and their caregivers. New food allergy treatments may positively impact their lives, but also introduce new stressors. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the current state of the literature regarding patients' and caregivers' food allergy experiences and needs within the United States as well as a set of recommendations regarding how best to proceed with patient-centered development and evaluation of new food allergy treatments. RECENT FINDINGS: The first pharmaceutical-grade product for peanut oral immunotherapy was approved in the United States for children aged 4-17 years following a successful international Phase 3 trial. This new treatment is only the first of several food allergy treatments currently under development. Patients will soon be presented with multiple options for food allergy treatment and will need to make decisions about what treatment is best for them. SUMMARY: Allergy researchers and providers are encouraged to consider patients' perspectives and needs when developing and evaluating new food allergy treatments. Recommendations regarding next steps include the development of new patient-reported outcome tools, focus on psychosocial support, health disparities, and financial implications, and research harmonization and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Food Allergen Labeling and Purchasing Habits in the United States and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Mandatory labeling of products with top allergens has improved food safety for consumers. Precautionary allergen labeling (PAL), such as "may contain" or "manufactured on shared equipment," are voluntarily placed by the food industry. OBJECTIVE: To establish knowledge of PAL and its impact on purchasing habits by food-allergic consumers in North America. METHODS: Food Allergy Research & Education and Food Allergy Canada surveyed consumers in the United States and Canada on purchasing habits of food products featuring different types of PAL. Associations between respondents' purchasing behaviors and individual characteristics were estimated using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 6684 participants, 84.3% (n = 5634) were caregivers of a food-allergic child and 22.4% had food allergy themselves. Seventy-one percent reported a history of experiencing a severe allergic reaction. Buying practices varied on the basis of PAL wording; 11% of respondents purchased food with "may contain" labeling, whereas 40% purchased food that used "manufactured in a facility that also processes." Twenty-nine percent of respondents were unaware that the law requires labeling of priority food allergens. Forty-six percent were either unsure or incorrectly believed that PAL is required by law. Thirty-seven percent of respondents thought PAL was based on the amount of allergen present. History of a severe allergic reaction decreased the odds of purchasing foods with PAL. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of consumers falsely believed that PAL was required by law. Up to 40% surveyed consumers purchased products with PAL. Understanding of PAL is poor, and improved awareness and guidelines are needed to help food-allergic consumers purchase food safely.