Epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy.

Peanut allergy treatment options remain limited, but novel approaches are being studied, including epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). EPIT uses the cutaneous immune system to promote tolerance to food allergens. Viaskin™ Peanut, an approach to EPIT in late-stage clinical development uses an occlusive patch with a condensation chamber that enables natural epidermal water loss to solubilize dry antigen on the patch, which is then absorbed and captured by skin Langerhans cells. This form of EPIT does not require disruption of the skin barrier, thus avoiding a proinflammatory cytokine response by targeting the nonvascularized epidermis and limiting systemic allergen exposure. Extensive preclinical research suggests that Viaskin Peanut has a distinct mechanism of desensitization, including the potential for disease modification, driven by a unique population of regulatory T cells. Numerous clinical studies of Viaskin Peanut have demonstrated desensitization and reductions in reaction severity, particularly in children aged 1 through 11 years, as well as a favorable safety profile with mostly mild-to-moderate skin reactions that were observed to decrease over time. EPIT with Viaskin Peanut may be a potential therapeutic option for peanut allergy that is clinically practical with long-term efficacy and tolerability.

Application of PLGA-PEG-PLGA Nanoparticles to Percutaneous Immunotherapy for Food Allergy.

Compared with oral or injection administration, percutaneous immunotherapy presents a promising treatment modality for food allergies, providing low invasiveness and safety. This study investigated the efficacy of percutaneous immunotherapy using hen egg lysozyme (HEL)-loaded PLGA-PEG-PLGA nanoparticles (NPs), as an antigen model protein derived from egg white, compared with that of HEL-loaded chitosan hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (CS)-modified PLGA NPs used in previous research. The intradermal retention of HEL in excised mouse skin was measured using Franz cells, which revealed a 2.1-fold higher retention with PLGA-PEG-PLGA NPs than that with CS-modified PLGA NPs. Observation of skin penetration pathways using fluorescein-4-isothiocyanate (FITC)-labeled HEL demonstrated successful delivery of HEL deep into the hair follicles with PLGA-PEG-PLGA NPs. These findings suggest that after NPs delivery into the skin, PEG prevents protein adhesion and NPs aggregation, facilitating stable delivery deep into the skin. Subsequently, in vivo percutaneous administration experiments in mice, with concurrent iontophoresis, demonstrated a significant increase in serum IgG1 antibody production with PLGA-PEG-PLGA NPs compared with that with CS-PLGA NPs after eight weeks of administration. Furthermore, serum IgE production in each NP administration group significantly decreased compared with that by subcutaneous administration of HEL solution. These results suggest that the combination of PLGA-PEG-PLGA NPs and iontophoresis is an effective percutaneous immunotherapy for food allergies.

Dendritic cells in food allergy, treatment, and tolerance.

Food allergy is a growing problem with limited treatment options. It is important to understand the mechanisms of food tolerance and allergy to promote the development of directed therapies. Dendritic cells (DCs) are specialized antigen-presenting cells (APCs) that prime adaptive immune responses, such as those involved in the development of oral tolerance and food allergies. The DC subsets in the gut and skin are defined by their surface markers and function. The default response to an ingested innocuous antigen is oral tolerance, which requires either gut DCs or a subset of newly identified RORγt+ APCs to induce the development of gut peripheral regulatory T cells. However, DCs in the skin, gut, and lung can also promote allergic sensitization when they are activated under certain inflammatory conditions, such as with alarmin release or gut dysbiosis. DCs also play a role in the responses to the various modalities of food immunotherapy. Langerhans cells in the skin appear to be necessary for the response to epicutaneous immunotherapy. It will be important to determine which real-world stimuli activate the DCs that prime allergic sensitization and discover methods to selectively initiate a tolerogenic program in APCs.

From Skin to Solution: Exploring Epicutaneous Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Peanut allergy is a leading cause of severe food reactions. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) compared to placebo for peanut-allergic individuals. After prospectively registering on PROSPERO, we searched three databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and 2 trial registries till September 2023. Analysis was conducted via RevMan where data was computed using risk ratios (RR). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE criteria were used to appraise and evaluate the evidence. From 4927 records, six multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trials comprising 1453 participants were included. The 250 µg EPIT group had a significant increase in successful desensitization compared to placebo (RR: 2.13 (95% C.I: 1.72, 2.64), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), while the 100 µg EPIT group did not (RR: 1.54 (95% C.I: 0.92, 2.58), P = 0.10, I2 = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence). Moreover, there was a significant increase in local (RR: 1.69 (95% C.I: 1.06, 2.68), P = 0.03, I2 = 89%) and systemic adverse events (RR: 1.75 (95% C.I: 1.14, 2.69), P = 0.01, I2 = 0%) with EPIT. Additionally, individuals administered EPIT have an increased probability of requiring rescue medications like epinephrine (RR: 1.91 (95% C.I: 1.12, 3.28), P = 0.02, I2 = 0%) and topical corticosteroids (RR: 1.49 (95% C.I: 1.29, 1.73), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%) to treat adverse events. The association of adverse events post-treatment including anaphylaxis (RR: 2.31 (95% C.I: 1.00, 5.33), P = 0.05, I2 = 36%), skin/subcutaneous disorders like erythema or vesicles (RR: 0.93 (95% C.I: 0.79, 1.08), P = 0.33, I2 = 0%), and respiratory disorders like dyspnea or wheezing (RR: 0.94 (95% C.I: 0.77, 1.15), P = 0.55, I2 = 0%) with EPIT is inconclusive. EPIT, although effective in desensitization, is linked to an increased risk of adverse events. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023466600.

Safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy with DBV712 (peanut patch) in peanut allergy.

INTRODUCTION: DBV712 250 µg (also referred to as Viaskin Peanut or peanut patch; Viaskin is a trademark of DBV Technologies) is an innovative approach to epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). The patch-based technology system facilitates peanut protein (allergen) absorption into the intact non-vascularized epidermis to promote desensitization to peanut while limiting systemic allergen exposure. AREAS COVERED: Efficacy and safety in children have been evaluated in four completed phase 3 studies. Overall, the results from these studies have demonstrated the peanut patch to be superior in desensitization compared with placebo and safe for daily use over multiple years. EXPERT OPINION: These findings, as well as supportive evidence from phase 2 studies, confirm the potential for an effective treatment of peanut allergy in children. The purpose of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy of the peanut patch in the treatment of peanut allergy.

The Future of Food Allergy Management: Advancements in Therapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review current and future treatment options for IgE-mediated food allergy. RECENT FINDINGS: 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.

Flex-IT! Applying "Platform Trials" Methodology to Immunotherapy for Food Allergy in Research and Clinical Practice.

There is an increasing trend in the management of food allergy toward active treatment using allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Although AIT is efficacious, treatment-related adverse events are common, particularly with oral immunotherapy in those with high levels of allergen-specific IgE sensitization. In clinical practice, these adverse events inevitably create challenges: clinicians and patients routinely face decisions whether to alter the dose itself, the frequency of dosing, and the pace of escalation, or indeed discontinue AIT altogether. Flexibility is therefore needed to adapt treatment, particularly in clinical practice, so that participants are "treated-to-target." For example, this may entail a significant change in the dosing protocol or even switching from one route of administration to another in response to frequent adverse events. We refer to this approach as flexible immunotherapy. However, there is little evidence to inform clinicians as to what changes to treatment are most likely to result in treatment success. Classical clinical trials rely, by necessity, on relatively rigid updosing protocols. To provide an evidence base to optimize AIT, the food allergy community should adopt adaptive platform trials, where a "master protocol" facilitates more efficient evaluation, including longer-term outcomes of multiple interventions. Within a single clinical trial, participants are able to switch between different treatment arms; interventions can be added or dropped without compromising the integrity of the trial. Developing platform trials for food AIT may initially be costly, but they represent a significant opportunity to grow the evidence base (with respect to both treatment outcomes and biomarker discovery) at scale. In addition, they could help understand longitudinal disease trajectories that are difficult to study in clinical trials for food allergy due to the time needed to demonstrate changes in efficacy. Finally, their adoption would achieve greater collaboration and consistency in approaches to proactive management of food allergy in routine clinical practice. As a community, we need to actively pursue this with funders and established research collaborations to deliver the very best outcomes for our patients and their families.

Food Allergen Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Patients with IgE-Mediated Food Allergy.

The prevalence of allergic diseases, including food allergy, is increasing, especially in developed countries. Implementation of an elimination diet is not a sufficient therapeutic strategy in patients with food allergy, whose quality of life is significantly impaired. In recent years, new effective therapeutic strategies have been developed, such as the application of oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy. Oral immunotherapy is the most often applied strategy because of its effectiveness and ease of application, with an acceptable safety profile. The effectiveness of oral immunotherapy in patients with egg, cow's milk, and peanut allergy has been proven both in terms of raising of the threshold and the development of tolerance, and in some patients, the development of sustainable unresponsiveness. Although oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for food allergy, several limitations, including a long duration and a significant rate of reported adverse events, reduces its success. Therefore, new therapeutic options, such as treatment with biologicals, either as combinations with food allergen immunotherapy or as monotherapy with the aim of improving the efficacy and safety of treatment, are being investigated.

Evaluation of clinical outcomes of efficacy in food allergen immunotherapy trials, COFAITH EAACI task force.

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.