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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Food immunotherapy practice: Nation differences across Europe, the FIND project.

BACKGROUND: Food allergen immunotherapy (FA-AIT) practice is known to vary globally. This project aims to identify and characterize European centres performing FA-AIT. METHODS: An EAACI task force conducted an online survey to gather relevant information regarding FA-AIT practice and setting-specific resources after reviewing the published literature and congress abstracts throughout Europe. RESULTS: We identified 102 FA-AIT centres in 18 countries; only Spain (n = 39) and France (n = 16) had ≥10 such centres. Overall, most facilities were hospital-based (77.5%), publicly funded (80.4%) and delivered FA-AIT as routine clinical care (80.4%). On average, departments had 3 allergists/paediatric allergists and 2 nurses. Surveyed centres had provided FA-AIT for a median of 9 years [1-24] to a median of 105 [5-2415] patients. The estimated total number of treated patients was 24875, of whom 41.3% received AIT for milk, 34.2% egg, 12.8% peanut and 11.7% other foods. Anaphylaxis to AIT doses requiring over 4-6 h of observation was reported by 70.6% of centres, ICU admissions by 10.8% and eosinophilic esophagitis by 45.1%. Quality of life and sustained unresponsiveness were evaluated in 20.6% and 54.9% of centres, respectively. The main contraindications for food AIT were severe asthma (57%-63%), eosinophilic esophagitis (56%-48%) and age below 5 years (47%-41%). CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, FA-AIT is provided mostly in clinical practice. Significant variation is seen in the number of centres per country, facility characteristics and inclusion/exclusion criteria, and in certain aspects of protocols. Potential inequality in access to AIT has been identified as well as the need for education and guidance for treatment standardization.

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.

Using data from food challenges to inform management of consumers with food allergy: A systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting doses (EDs) (eg, ED01 or ED05 values, which are the amounts of allergen expected to cause objective symptoms in 1% and 5% of the population with an allergy, respectively) are increasingly being used to inform allergen labeling and clinical management. These values are generated from food challenge, but the frequency of anaphylaxis in response to these low levels of allergen exposure and their reproducibility are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine (1) the rate of anaphylaxis in response to low-level peanut exposure and (2) the reproducibility of reaction thresholds (and anaphylaxis) at food challenge. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that reported at least 50 individuals with peanut allergy reacting to peanut at double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) and were published between January 2010 and September 2020. Risk of bias was assessed by using National Institute for Clinical Excellence methodologic checklists. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were included (covering a total of 3151 participants, 534 of whom subsequently underwent further peanut challenge). At individual participant data meta-analysis, 4.5% (95% CI, 1.9% to 10.1%) of individuals reacted to 5 mg or less of peanut protein with anaphylaxis (moderate heterogeneity [I2 = 57%]). Intraindividual thresholds varied by up to 3 logs, although this variation was limited to a half-log change in 71.2% (95% CI, 56.2% to 82.6%) of individuals. In all, 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1% to 5.0%) of patients initially tolerated 5 mg of peanut protein but then reacted to this dose at subsequent challenge (low heterogeneity [I2 = 16%]); none developed anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Around 5% of individuals reacting to an ED01 or ED05 level of exposure to peanut might develop anaphylaxis in response to that dose. This equates to 1 and 6 anaphylaxis events per 2500 patients exposed to an ED01 or ED05 dose, respectively, in the broader population of individuals with peanut allergy.

Delayed symptoms and orthostatic intolerance following peanut challenge.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reactions to Oral Food Challenge (OFC) in peanut-allergic individuals have been well-characterised, but rates and phenotypes of symptom recurrence beyond the first hour after objective symptoms are less well-characterised. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of new-onset symptoms occurring at least 1 h after stopping OFC in peanut-allergic children and adults undergoing peanut-OFC. METHODS: We prospectively collected data relating to adverse events following positive reactions at double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) to peanut in children and adults evaluated for eligibility to participate in two clinical trials (NCT02149719, NCT02665793). The trials included people aged 8 to 45 with primary, IgE-mediated peanut allergy at DBPCFC. The challenge protocol included consumption of a light meal 1 h after reaction. RESULTS: A total of 121 participants (64 children, 57 adults) had immediate, objective symptoms at DBPCFC, 25 (17 children, 8 adults) with anaphylaxis. Thirty-three (27%) had progression or recurrence of symptoms ≥ 1 h after objective clinical reaction, of whom 8 developed anaphylaxis. In 23 cases, the onset of new symptoms was associated with consumption of a light meal. In eight cases, symptoms were limited to a symptomatic postural fall in blood pressure noted in preparation for discharge, without any other new features of an allergic reaction. CONCLUSIONS & CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Progressive or new-onset symptoms ≥1 h following initial allergic reaction at OFC are common and can include orthostatic hypotension. Recurrent symptoms may be temporally associated with food consumption.

Reaction phenotypes in IgE-mediated food allergy and anaphylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: Food allergy encompasses a range of food hypersensitivities. Different clinical phenotypes for food allergy likely exist in much the same way as endotype discovery is now a major research theme in asthma. We discuss the emerging evidence for different reaction phenotypes (ie, symptoms experienced after allergen exposure in food allergic individuals) and their relevance for clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished literature relating to reaction phenotypes in food allergy. STUDY SELECTIONS: Authors assessment of the available data. RESULTS: Food anaphylaxis may be pathophysiologically different than anaphylaxis caused by nonfood triggers. Currently, there are no robust, clinically useful predictors of severity in food allergy. It is likely that patient-specific reaction phenotypes exist in food allergy, which may affect the risk of severe anaphylaxis. Allergen immunotherapy may modulate these phenotypes. CONCLUSION: Data are emerging to confirm our clinical experience that many food allergic patients experience stereotypical symptoms after allergen exposure, both in the community and at supervised oral food challenge, in a manner that varies among patients. Integrating data sets from different cohorts and applying unbiased machine-based learning analyses may demonstrate specific food allergy endotypes in a similar way to asthma. Whether this results in improvements in patient management (eg, through facilitating risk stratification or affecting the decision to prescribe an epinephrine autoinjector and, perhaps, the number of devices) remains to be determined, but given our current inability to predict which patients are most at risk of severe food allergic reactions, this will clearly be an important area of research in the future.

GRADE-ing the Benefit/Risk Equation in Food Immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We reviewed the existing evidence base to desensitisation for food allergy, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to discuss whether desensitisation is likely to become part of routine treatment for patients with food allergy. RECENT FINDINGS: Desensitisation for food allergy to peanut, egg and cow's milk is efficacious, but whether such interventions are cost-effective is less clear, due to the issues over a sustained desensitisation effect and the increase in allergic reactions occurring in patients on treatment. Few studies have assessed the change in health-related quality of life associated with treatment, and most have not considered discordance between parent-reported changes in health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes compared to those of the patients themselves; none to date have controlled for the improvement in HRQL occurring after initial challenge which will confound outcomes. The lack of longer-term safety and cost-effectiveness data, as well as an absence of current consensus in the reporting of patient-relevant outcomes, must be addressed in order to be able to recommend the introduction of desensitisation as a routine treatment in healthcare systems.

Mast cell activation test in the diagnosis of allergic disease and anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is an increasing public health issue and the most common cause of life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. Conventional allergy tests assess for the presence of allergen-specific IgE, significantly overestimating the rate of true clinical allergy and resulting in overdiagnosis and adverse effect on health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To undertake initial validation and assessment of a novel diagnostic tool, we used the mast cell activation test (MAT). METHODS: Primary human blood-derived mast cells (MCs) were generated from peripheral blood precursors, sensitized with patients' sera, and then incubated with allergen. MC degranulation was assessed by means of flow cytometry and mediator release. We compared the diagnostic performance of MATs with that of existing diagnostic tools to assess in a cohort of peanut-sensitized subjects undergoing double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge. RESULTS: Human blood-derived MCs sensitized with sera from patients with peanut, grass pollen, and Hymenoptera (wasp venom) allergy demonstrated allergen-specific and dose-dependent degranulation, as determined based on both expression of surface activation markers (CD63 and CD107a) and functional assays (prostaglandin D2 and ß-hexosaminidase release). In this cohort of peanut-sensitized subjects, the MAT was found to have superior discrimination performance compared with other testing modalities, including component-resolved diagnostics and basophil activation tests. Using functional principle component analysis, we identified 5 clusters or patterns of reactivity in the resulting dose-response curves, which at preliminary analysis corresponded to the reaction phenotypes seen at challenge. CONCLUSION: The MAT is a robust tool that can confer superior diagnostic performance compared with existing allergy diagnostics and might be useful to explore differences in effector cell function between basophils and MCs during allergic reactions.