Phase 3 Trial of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Toddlers with Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).

Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent.

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: 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.

Management of Refractory Anaphylaxis: An Overview of Current Guidelines.

In this review, we compare different refractory anaphylaxis (RA) management guidelines focusing on cardiovascular involvement and best practice recommendations, discuss postulated pathogenic mechanisms underlining RA and highlight knowledge gaps and research priorities. There is a paucity of data supporting existing management guidelines. Therapeutic recommendations include the need for the timely administration of appropriate doses of aggressive fluid resuscitation and intravenous (IV) adrenaline in RA. The preferred second-line vasopressor (noradrenaline, vasopressin, metaraminol and dopamine) is unknown. Most guidelines recommend IV glucagon for patients on beta-blockers, despite a lack of evidence. The use of methylene blue or extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is also suggested as rescue therapy. Despite recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of anaphylaxis, the factors that lead to a lack of response to the initial adrenaline and thus RA are unclear. Genetic factors, such as deficiency in platelet activating factor-acetyl hydrolase or hereditary alpha-tryptasaemia, mastocytosis may modulate reaction severity or response to treatment. Further research into the underlying pathophysiology of RA may help define potential new therapeutic approaches and reduce the morbidity and mortality of anaphylaxis.

Impact of using less objective symptoms to define tolerated dose during food challenges: A data-driven approach.

BACKGROUND: Food challenges (FCs) form the basis for assessing efficacy outcomes in interventional studies of food allergy; however, different studies have used a variety of similar but not identical criteria to define a challenge reaction, including subjective (nonobjective) symptoms occurring in a single-organ system as dose limiting. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to undertake a secondary analysis of 4 interventional studies to assess the impact of using less objective criteria to determine challenge-stop on reaction thresholds and their reproducibility. METHODS: We analyzed individual participant data, including individual participant data meta-analysis, by using 3 different published challenge-stop criteria: (1) PRACTALL consesus criteria; (2) Consortium for Food Allergy Research version 3 (CoFAR v3) with at least 1 moderate- or severe-grade symptom; or (3) CoFAR v3 with at least 2 mild symptoms occurring in different organ systems. Reproducibility of challenge threshold was also assessed in participants undergoing subsequent repeat FCs. RESULTS: Four studies, with detailed challenge data from a total of 592 participants, were included. Applying CoFAR v3 definitions for dose-limiting symptoms resulted in an underestimate of reaction thresholds compared with those in PRACTALL (P < .001) that is equivalent to almost a single dosing increment when using a semi-log dosing regimen. Reproducibility was also reduced when applying CoFAR v3 (P < .001 [n = 223]). Using the least conservative interpretation of CoFAR v3 (≥2 mild symptoms occurring in different systems) resulted in a significant overestimate of 15% when assessing oral immunotherapy efficacy. Applying a data-driven minor modification to CoFAR v3 resulted in a new set of challenge-stop criteria with validity similar to that of PRACTALL but one that is simpler to implement and in which significant gastrointestinal discomfort with observable decreased activity remains a dose-limiting symptom. CONCLUSION: The use of less objective symptoms to define challenge-stop compromises the reproducibility of the FC as a tool to assess efficacy outcomes in interventional studies, and potentially overestimates the efficacy of the intervention tested.

Immunogenicity, safety, and reactogenicity of heterologous COVID-19 primary vaccination incorporating mRNA, viral-vector, and protein-adjuvant vaccines in the UK (Com-COV2): a single-blind, randomised, phase 2, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Given the importance of flexible use of different COVID-19 vaccines within the same schedule to facilitate rapid deployment, we studied mixed priming schedules incorporating an adenoviral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 [ChAd], AstraZeneca), two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 [BNT], Pfizer-BioNTech, and mRNA-1273 [m1273], Moderna) and a nanoparticle vaccine containing SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and Matrix-M adjuvant (NVX-CoV2373 [NVX], Novavax). METHODS: Com-COV2 is a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial in which adults aged 50 years and older, previously immunised with a single dose of ChAd or BNT in the community, were randomly assigned (in random blocks of three and six) within these cohorts in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a second dose intramuscularly (8-12 weeks after the first dose) with the homologous vaccine, m1273, or NVX. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations measured by ELISA in heterologous versus homologous schedules at 28 days after the second dose, with a non-inferiority criterion of the GMR above 0·63 for the one-sided 98·75% CI. The primary analysis was on the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done for all participants who received a dose of study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 27841311. FINDINGS: Between April 19 and May 14, 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9·4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (n=540, 47% female) or BNT (n=532, 40% female). In ChAd-primed participants, geometric mean concentration (GMC) 28 days after a boost of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in recipients of ChAd/m1273 (20 114 ELISA laboratory units [ELU]/mL [95% CI 18 160 to 22 279]) and ChAd/NVX (5597 ELU/mL [4756 to 6586]) was non-inferior to that of ChAd/ChAd recipients (1971 ELU/mL [1718 to 2262]) with a GMR of 10·2 (one-sided 98·75% CI 8·4 to ∞) for ChAd/m1273 and 2·8 (2·2 to ∞) for ChAd/NVX, compared with ChAd/ChAd. In BNT-primed participants, non-inferiority was shown for BNT/m1273 (GMC 22 978 ELU/mL [95% CI 20 597 to 25 636]) but not for BNT/NVX (8874 ELU/mL [7391 to 10 654]), compared with BNT/BNT (16 929 ELU/mL [15 025 to 19 075]) with a GMR of 1·3 (one-sided 98·75% CI 1·1 to ∞) for BNT/m1273 and 0·5 (0·4 to ∞) for BNT/NVX, compared with BNT/BNT; however, NVX still induced an 18-fold rise in GMC 28 days after vaccination. There were 15 serious adverse events, none considered related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Heterologous second dosing with m1273, but not NVX, increased transient systemic reactogenicity compared with homologous schedules. Multiple vaccines are appropriate to complete primary immunisation following priming with BNT or ChAd, facilitating rapid vaccine deployment globally and supporting recognition of such schedules for vaccine certification. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and National Institute for Health Research. NVX vaccine was supplied for use in the trial by Novavax.

Optimal dose of adrenaline auto-injector for children and young people at risk of anaphylaxis: A phase IV randomized controlled crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend intramuscular injection of 500 µg adrenaline (epinephrine) for anaphylaxis in teenagers and adults; however, most autoinjectors deliver a maximum 300 µg dose. We evaluated plasma adrenaline levels and cardiovascular parameters (including cardiac output) following self-injection with 300 µg or 500 µg adrenaline in teenagers at risk of anaphylaxis. METHODS: Subjects were recruited to a randomized, single-blind two period crossover trial. Participants received all 3 injections (Emerade® 500 µg, Emerade® 300 µg, Epipen® 0.3 mg) on 2 separate visits (allocated in a randomized block design), at least 28 days apart. Intramuscular injection was confirmed by ultrasound, and heart rate/stroke volume assessed using continuous monitoring. The trial was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03366298). RESULTS: Twelve participants (58% male, median 15.4 years) participated; all completed the study. 500 µg injection resulted in a higher and more prolonged peak concentration (p = 0.01) and greater Area-Under-Curve for plasma adrenaline (p < 0.05) compared to 300 µg, with no difference in adverse events. Adrenaline caused a significant increase in heart rate irrespective of dose and device. Unexpectedly, 300 µg adrenaline resulted in a significant increase in stroke volume when delivered with Emerade®, but a negative inotropic effect with Epipen® (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These data support a 500 µg dose of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis in individuals >40 kg in the community. The contrasting effects on stroke volume between Epipen® and Emerade®, despite similar peak plasma adrenaline levels, are unexpected. There is an urgent need to better understand differences in pharmacodynamics following adrenaline administration by autoinjector. In the meantime, we recommend adrenaline injection by needle/syringe in the healthcare setting in individuals with anaphylaxis refractory to initial treatment.

The future of food allergy: Challenging existing paradigms of clinical practice.

The field of food allergy has seen tremendous change over the past 5-10 years with seminal studies redefining our approach to prevention and management and novel testing modalities in the horizon. Early introduction of allergenic foods is now recommended, challenging the previous paradigm of restrictive avoidance. The management of food allergy has shifted from a passive avoidance approach to active interventions that aim to provide protection from accidental exposures, decrease allergic reaction severity and improve the quality of life of food-allergic patients and their families. Additionally, novel diagnostic tools are making their way into clinical practice with the goal to reduce the need for food challenges and assist physicians in the-often complex-diagnostic process. With all the new developments and available choices for diagnosis, prevention and therapy, shared decision-making has become a key part of medical consultation, enabling patients to make the right choice for them, based on their values and preferences. Communication with patients has also become more complex over time, as patients are seeking advice online and through social media, but the information found online may be outdated, incorrect, or lacking in context. The role of the allergist has evolved to embrace all the above exciting developments and provide patients with the optimal care that fits their needs. In this review, we discuss recent developments as well as the evolution of the field of food allergy in the next decade.

Cofactors in food anaphylaxis in adults.

Around 25% to 50% of food-induced allergic reactions in adults cause anaphylaxis, and epidemiologic evidence suggests that food is the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Reaction severity is unpredictable, and patients will often experience reactions of variable severity, even to an identical exposure (both dose and allergen). A common explanation for this phenomenon has been the impact of "cofactors"-factors that might contribute to reaction severity independent of the allergen exposure. Cofactors can influence reaction severity in 2 ways: either by reducing the reaction threshold (ie, the dose needed to trigger any symptoms) so that patients have no symptoms in the absence of the cofactor and only react with the cofactor present, or by increasing reaction severity such that individuals have only mild symptoms in the absence of the cofactor, but a more severe reaction when the cofactor is present. Indeed, the same patient may have reactions with different cofactors or even need more than one cofactor to develop a severe reaction. Cofactors reportedly play a role in approximately 30% of anaphylaxis reactions in adults. Exercise, nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs, alcohol, and sleep deprivation are the most frequent cofactors reported. Routine evaluation of the possible involvement of cofactors is essential in managing patients with food anaphylaxis: in patients with a suggestive history but a negative oral food challenge, cofactors should be taken into account to provide appropriate advice to reduce the risk of future anaphylaxis.

Reproducibility of food challenge to cow's milk: Systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cow's milk (CM) is an increasingly common cause of severe allergic reactions, but there is uncertainty with respect to severity of reactions at low-level CM exposure, as well as the reproducibility of reaction thresholds. OBJECTIVE: We undertook an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of studies reporting double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges in CM to determine the rate of anaphylaxis to low-level exposures and the reproducibility of reaction thresholds. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and IPD meta-analysis of studies reporting relevant data. Authors were contacted to provide additional data and/or clarification as needed. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodologic checklists. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included, representing data from over 1000 participants. The cumulative ED01 and ED05 (cumulative doses causing objective symptoms in 1% and 5% of the at-risk allergic population) were 0.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.5) and 2.9 (95% CI, 1.6-5.4) mg, respectively. At meta-analysis, 4.8% (95% CI, 2.0-10.9) and 4.8% (95% CI, 0.7-27.1) of individuals reacting to ≤5 mg and ≤0.5 mg of CM protein had anaphylaxis (minimal heterogeneity, I2 = 0%). Then 110 individuals underwent repeat double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges; the intraindividual variation in reaction threshold was limited to a ½-log change in 80% (95% CI, 65-89) of participants. Two individuals initially tolerated 5 mg CM protein but then reacted to this dose at a subsequent challenge, although neither had anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: About 5% of CM-allergic individuals reacting to ED01 or ED05 exposure might have anaphylaxis to that dose. This equates to 5 and 24 anaphylaxis events per 10,000 patients exposed to an ED01 or ED05 dose, respectively, in the broader CM-allergic population. Most of these anaphylactic reactions would be mild and respond to a single dose of epinephrine.

Anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities: A consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Despite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility. METHODS: We convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale. RESULTS: The panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis.

British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) joint consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common cause of dysphagia in both children and adults, as well as one of the most prevalent oesophageal diseases with a significant impact on physical health and quality of life. We have provided a single comprehensive guideline for both paediatric and adult gastroenterologists on current best practice for the evaluation and management of EoE. METHODS: The Oesophageal Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology was commissioned by the Clinical Standards Service Committee to develop these guidelines. The Guideline Development Group included adult and paediatric gastroenterologists, surgeons, dietitians, allergists, pathologists and patient representatives. The Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes process was used to generate questions for a systematic review of the evidence. Published evidence was reviewed and updated to June 2021. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. Two rounds of voting were held to assess the level of agreement and the strength of recommendations, with 80% consensus required for acceptance. RESULTS: Fifty-seven statements on EoE presentation, diagnosis, investigation, management and complications were produced with further statements created on areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: These comprehensive adult and paediatric guidelines of the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition are based on evidence and expert consensus from a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, including patient advocates and patient support groups, to help clinicians with the management patients with EoE and its complications.

Safety and immunogenicity of heterologous versus homologous prime-boost schedules with an adenoviral vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Com-COV): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines. METHODS: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation. INTERPRETATION: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research.

Pharmacokinetics of adrenaline autoinjectors.

Anaphylaxis is a medical emergency with adrenaline acknowledged as the first-line therapy. It is therefore important that patients have access to self-injectable adrenaline in the community. Manufacturers have been requested by European Medicine Regulators to generate pharmacokinetic data for these autoinjector devices. For the first time, these data provide an insight into how individual devices work in different populations, and how they compare. We undertook a thorough literature search and also accessed grey literature, using searches of medicine regulators' websites and freedom of information requests. The data demonstrate that it takes at least 5-10 min to achieve early peak plasma concentration for most devices. The specific autoinjector device seems to be the most important determinant of pharmacokinetics, with different devices giving rise to different plasma adrenaline profiles. Needle length does not seem to be the most important factor; rather, the force and speed of injection (which varies from one device to another) is likely to be of greater importance. In general, peak plasma adrenaline concentration is lower and time-to-peak concentration longer with increased skin-to-muscle depth. However, it is difficult to draw conclusions with the current available data, due to a lack of head-to-head comparisons, small numbers of study participants and the failure to acknowledge the biphasic nature of intramuscular adrenaline absorption for analysis purposes.

Information needs of patients considering oral immunotherapy for food allergy.

While the historic management of food allergy includes avoidance strategies and allergic reaction treatment, oral immunotherapy (OIT) approaches have become more commonly integrated into therapeutic approaches. International guidelines, phase 3 trials and real-world experience have supported the implementation of this procedure. However, OIT is an elective, rarely curative procedure with inherent risks that necessitates an increased degree of health literacy for the patients and families. Families assume the responsibility of amateur healthcare providers to ensure the daily safe administration of the allergenic food. As such, it is incumbent upon physicians to ensure that families are prepared for this role. A thorough educational and shared decision-making approach is necessary during the counselling and consent process to adequately inform the families. Educated discussion about the efficacy and patient-centred effectiveness, therapeutic alternatives and family goals is required to align physician and patient expectations. A frank discussion about the struggles, practical challenges, risks and contraindications can help to develop an understanding of the risk mitigation strategies employed to maintain safety. Physicians should develop a proactive approach to educate families about this, at times, burdensome procedure. This educational approach should encourage ongoing support starting prior to consent through the maintenance visits. By preparing families for their unique management role, physicians can help ensure the safe and successful integration of OIT into the therapeutic offering for the management of food allergies.

Early-life predictors and risk factors of peanut allergy, and its association with asthma in later-life: Population-based birth cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding risk factors for peanut allergy (PA) is essential to develop effective preventive measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to ascertain associates and predictors of PA, and the relationship between PA and asthma severity. METHODS: In a population-based birth cohort, we investigated the association between objectively confirmed PA with early-life environmental exposures, filaggrin (FLG)-loss-of-function mutations and other atopic disease. We then examined the association of PA with longitudinal trajectories of sensitization, wheeze and allergic comorbidities, which were previously derived using machine learning. Finally, we ascertained the relationship between PA and asthma severity. RESULTS: PA was confirmed in 30/959 participants with evaluable data. In the multivariate analysis, eczema in infancy (OR = 4.4, 95% CI 1.5-13.2, p = 0.007), egg sensitization at age 3 years (OR = 9.7, 95% CI 3.3-29.9, p < 0.001) and early-life cat ownership (OR = 3.0, 95% CI 1.1-8.4, p = 0.04) were independent associates of PA. In the stratified analysis among 700 participants with genetic information, in children with early-life eczema there was no difference in FLG mutations between children with and without PA (3/18 [16.7%] vs. 42/220 [19.1%], p = 1.00). In contrast, among children without eczema, those with PA were almost eight times more likely to have FLG mutations (2/6 [33.3%] vs. 27/456 [5.9%], p = 0.049). We observed associations between PA and multiple allergic sensitization profiles derived using machine learning, with ~60-fold increase in risk among individuals assigned to multiple early sensitization. PA was significantly associated with persistent wheeze (but not other wheeze phenotypes), and with trajectories of atopic disease characterized by co-morbid persistent eczema and wheeze (but not with transient phenotypes). Children with PA were more likely to have asthma, but among asthmatics we found no evidence of an association between PA and asthma severity. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut allergy is associated with multiple IgE sensitization and early-onset persistent eczema and wheeze. FLG loss-of-function mutations were associated with peanut allergy in children without eczema.

Predicting probability of tolerating discrete amounts of peanut protein in allergic children using epitope-specific IgE antibody profiling.

BACKGROUND: IgE-epitope profiling can accurately diagnose clinical peanut allergy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether sequential (linear) epitope-specific IgE (ses-IgE) profiling can provide probabilities of tolerating discrete doses of peanut protein in allergic subjects undergoing double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges utilizing PRACTALL dosing. METHODS: Sixty four ses-IgE antibodies were quantified in blood samples using a bead-based epitope assay. A pair of ses-IgEs that predicts Cumulative Tolerated Dose (CTD) was determined using regression in 75 subjects from the discovery cohort. This epitope-based predictor was validated on 331 subjects from five independent cohorts (ages 4-25 years). Subjects were grouped based on their predicted values and probabilities of reactions at each CTD threshold were calculated. RESULTS: In discovery, an algorithm using two ses-IgE antibodies was correlated with CTDs (rho = 0.61, p < .05); this correlation was 0.51 (p < .05) in validation. Using the ses-IgE-based predictor, subjects were assigned into "high," "moderate," or "low" dose-reactivity groups. On average, subjects in the "high" group were four times more likely to tolerate a specific dose, compared with the "low" group. For example, predicted probabilities of tolerating 4, 14, 44, and 144 or 444 mg in the "low" group were 92%, 77%, 53%, 29%, and 10% compared with 98%, 95%, 94%, 88%, and 73% in the "high" group. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate predictions of food challenge thresholds are complex due to factors including limited responder sample sizes at each dose and variations in study-specific challenge protocols. Despite these limitations, an epitope-based predictor was able to accurately identify CTDs and may provide a useful surrogate for peanut challenges.

Risk factors for severe reactions in food allergy: Rapid evidence review with meta-analysis.

This rapid review summarizes the most up to date evidence about the risk factors for severe food-induced allergic reactions. We searched three bibliographic databases for studies published between January 2010 and August 2021. We included 88 studies and synthesized the evidence narratively, undertaking meta-analysis where appropriate. Significant uncertainties remain with respect to the prediction of severe reactions, both anaphylaxis and/or severe anaphylaxis refractory to treatment. Prior anaphylaxis, an asthma diagnosis, IgE sensitization or basophil activation tests are not good predictors. Some molecular allergology markers may be helpful. Hospital presentations for anaphylaxis are highest in young children, yet this age group appears at lower risk of severe outcomes. Risk of severe outcomes is greatest in adolescence and young adulthood, but the contribution of risk taking behaviour in contributing to severe outcomes is unclear. Evidence for an impact of cofactors on severity is lacking, although food-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis may be an exception. Some medications such as beta-blockers or ACE inhibitors may increase severity, but appear less important than age as a factor in life-threatening reactions. The relationship between dose of exposure and severity is unclear. Delays in symptom recognition and anaphylaxis treatment have been associated with more severe outcomes. An absence of prior anaphylaxis does not exclude its future risk.

Development and validation of the food allergy severity score.

BACKGROUND: The heterogeneity and lack of validation of existing severity scores for food allergic reactions limit standardization of case management and research advances. We aimed to develop and validate a severity score for food allergic reactions. METHODS: Following a multidisciplinary experts consensus, it was decided to develop a food allergy severity score (FASS) with ordinal (oFASS) and numerical (nFASS) formats. oFASS with 3 and 5 grades were generated through expert consensus, and nFASS by mathematical modeling. Evaluation was performed in the EuroPrevall outpatient clinic cohort (8232 food reactions) by logistic regression with request of emergency care and medications used as outcomes. Discrimination, classification, and calibration were calculated. Bootstrapping internal validation was followed by external validation (logistic regression) in 5 cohorts (3622 food reactions). Correlation of nFASS with the severity classification done by expert allergy clinicians by Best-Worst Scaling of 32 food reactions was calculated. RESULTS: oFASS and nFASS map consistently, with nFASS having greater granularity. With the outcomes emergency care, adrenaline and critical medical treatment, oFASS and nFASS had a good discrimination (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [ROC-AUC]>0.80), classification (sensitivity 0.87-0.92, specificity 0.73-0.78), and calibration. Bootstrapping over ROC-AUC showed negligible biases (1.0 × 10-6 -1.23 × 10-3 ). In external validation, nFASS performed best with higher ROC-AUC. nFASS was strongly correlated (R 0.89) to best-worst scoring of 334 expert clinicians. CONCLUSION: FASS is a validated and reliable method to measure severity of food allergic reactions. The ordinal and numerical versions that map onto each other are suitable for use by different stakeholders in different settings.

Global patterns in anaphylaxis due to specific foods: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There are increasing global data relating to prevalence of food allergy and food-induced anaphylaxis; however, this is often based on surrogate measures of sensitization rather than objective symptoms at food challenge. In terms of protecting food-allergic consumers from reactions, to our knowledge, there has been no global survey assessing geographic differences in the proportion of anaphylaxis triggered by specific foods. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify common triggers for food-induced anaphylaxis and how these vary from country to country. METHODS: Systematic review of relevant reports published between January 2010 and November 2020. Results were reported following PRISMA guidelines. Publications were screened and data extracted by 2 independent reviewers, and the risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies (encompassing 41 countries and all 6 regions as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) were included. Significant regional variations in the most common triggers of food anaphylaxis were seen; however, in general, there was good agreement between local legislative requirements for allergen disclosure and the most common allergens for each region or nation. CONCLUSIONS: Local legislation for allergen disclosure generally reflects those allergens commonly responsible for food anaphylaxis. Cow's milk and crustaceans appear to cause a higher proportion of anaphylaxis compared to peanut in some regions.

Use of multiple epinephrine doses in anaphylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory bodies recommend that all patients at risk of anaphylaxis be prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, which they should carry at all times. This is in contrast to some guidelines. The proportion of anaphylaxis reactions that are treated with multiple doses of epinephrine has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis in which data relating to the number of doses administered were available. METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies reporting at least 10 anaphylaxis events (due to food or venom) from 1946 until January 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate for the meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed. The study was registered under the PROSPERO identifier CRD42017069109. RESULTS: A total of 86 studies (36,557 anaphylaxis events) met the inclusion criteria (20 of the studies [23%] were prospective studies; 64 [74%] reported reactions in the community, and 22 [26%] included food challenge data). Risk of bias was assessed as low in 50 studies. Overall, 7.7% of anaphylaxis events from any cause (95% CI = 6.4-9.1) were treated with multiple doses of epinephrine. When only epinephrine-treated reactions for which subsequent doses were administered by a health care professional were considered, 11.1% of food-induced reactions (95% CI = 9.4-13.2) and 17.1% of venom-induced reactions (95% CI = 11.3-25.0) were treated with more than 1 epinephrine dose. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the meta-analyses, but at sensitivity analysis this estimate was not affected by study design or anaphylaxis definition. CONCLUSION: Around 1 in 10 anaphylaxis reactions are treated with more than 1 dose of epinephrine.