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.

Age-Related Food Aversion and Anxiety Represent Primary Patient Barriers to Food Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Although oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy is a reasonable treatment option, barriers to this procedure's implementation have not been extensively evaluated from a patient perspective. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the barriers patients face during OIT administration, including anxiety and taste aversion, and the role of health care professionals, especially dietitians. METHODS: A survey in Canada and the United States involved families currently enrolled in food OIT programs. RESULTS: Of responses from 379 participants, fear of reaction was the most common barrier to OIT initiation, with 45.6% reporting it being a "very significant" barrier with other fears reported. However, taste aversion represented the prominent obstacle to continuation. Taste aversion was associated with a slower buildup (P = .02) and a reduction in dose (P = .002). Taste aversion was a strongly age-dependent barrier for initiation (P < .001) and continuation (P < .002), with older children over 6 years of age reporting it as a very significant barrier (P < .001). Boredom was reported as a concern for specific allergens such as peanut, egg, sesame, and hazelnuts (P < .05), emphasizing the need for diverse food options. Notably, 59.9% of respondents mixed OIT foods with sweet items. Despite these dietary concerns, dietitians were underutilized, with only 9.5% of respondents having seen a dietitian and the majority finding dietitian support helpful with greater certainty about the exact dose (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Taste aversion and anxiety represent primary patient-related barriers to OIT. Taste aversion was highly age dependent, with older patients being more affected. Dietitians and psychology support were underutilized, representing a critical target to improve adherence and OIT success.

Effect of oral immunotherapy to peanut on food-specific quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is an increasingly common problem for which the only available treatment is avoidance. Oral immunotherapy has shown promise for increasing tolerance of peanut in allergic children. Food allergy has an effect on the quality of life of children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of oral immunotherapy to peanut on food-specific quality of life in children and adolescents. METHODS: One hundred patients (5-18 years of age) were enrolled in an open trial of peanut oral immunotherapy. Parents of children 5 to 12 years old, children 8 to 12 years old, and teenagers completed validated, age-specific, food-related quality-of-life surveys before and after peanut oral immunotherapy. RESULTS: Ninety patients (76 children 5-12 years old and 14 adolescents 13-18 years old) achieved the maintenance daily dose of 450 mg of peanut protein. A significant improvement in quality of life was found in all survey domains (allergen avoidance, dietary restriction, risk of accidental exposure, emotional impact, food-related anxiety, and social and dietary limitations) with the exception of the emotional impact domain on the adolescents' survey. Quality of life significantly improved (P < .02) on all 30 questions when parents assessed their children 5 to 12 years old. When children (8-12 years old) and teens assessed themselves, quality of life improved (P < .05) on 22 of 24 questions and 12 of 18 questions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Peanut oral immunotherapy significantly improves food-specific quality of life.

Community Private Practice Clinical Experience with Peanut Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut oral immunotherapy is an effective treatment for desensitizing peanut-allergic patients, but the frequency of adverse reactions has limited its widespread use. OBJECTIVE: To review the frequency of adverse reactions that patients on peanut oral immunotherapy experience during build-up and maintenance phases and explore factors that may contribute to adverse events. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of children and adults with peanut allergy undergoing peanut oral immunotherapy at the New England Food Allergy Treatment Center in West Hartford, Conn was performed. Data on patient demographics, allergic profile, peanut allergy testing, and details of reactions in build-up and maintenance phases were collected. A systemic reaction was defined as one of the following: (1) severe reaction involving 1 system, such as generalized hives and/or angioedema; (2) 2 or more of the following symptoms: cutaneous or oral, respiratory, or gastrointestinal symptoms; (3) drop in blood pressure; or (4) need for epinephrine. RESULTS: Data were available on 783 patients aged 3.5 to 48.3 years. During buildup, 78 patients (10%) experienced at least 1 systemic reaction, 660 (84%) at least 1 gastrointestinal adverse event, 369 (47%) at least 1 cutaneous adverse event, and 157 (20%) at least 1 respiratory adverse event. Thirty-four patients (4%) required epinephrine during buildup. Six hundred ninety-seven patients (89%) completed buildup and progressed to maintenance. During maintenance, 131 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 systemic reaction, 190 (27%) at least 1 gastrointestinal adverse event, 104 (15%) at least 1 cutaneous adverse event, and 50 (7%) at least 1 respiratory adverse event. Seventy-four patients (11%) required epinephrine during maintenance. None of the adverse events required hospitalizations, and there were no mortalities. Nine patients (1%) were diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis during buildup or maintenance. Increasing pretreatment peanut specific IgE levels were associated with increased odds of a systemic reaction during buildup. Increasing age, pretreatment peanut specific IgE level, and a systemic reaction in buildup were associated with increased odds of a systemic reaction during maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut oral immunotherapy may be an effective and safe treatment for carefully selected peanut-allergic patients under the guidance of experienced providers. Specific patient characteristics and immunologic factors may help predict adverse events.

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: multipractice experience with epinephrine-treated reactions.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy creates the risk of life-threatening anaphylaxis that can disrupt psychosocial development and family life. The avoidance management strategy often fails to prevent anaphylaxis and may contribute to social dysfunction. Peanut oral immunotherapy may address these problems, but there are safety concerns regarding implementation in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report is to communicate observations about the frequency of epinephrine-treated reactions during peanut oral immunotherapy in 5 different allergy/immunology practices. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of peanut oral immunotherapy performed in 5 clinical allergy practices. RESULTS: A total of 352 treated patients received 240,351 doses of peanut, peanut butter, or peanut flour, and experienced 95 reactions that were treated with epinephrine. Only 3 patients received 2 doses of epinephrine, and no patient required more intensive treatment. A total of 298 patients achieved the target maintenance dose for a success rate of 85%. CONCLUSION: Peanut oral immunotherapy carries a risk of systemic reactions. In the context of oral immunotherapy, those reactions were recognized and treated promptly. Peanut oral immunotherapy may be a suitable therapy for patients managed by qualified allergists/immunologists.