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.

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

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

Ligelizumab in adolescents with chronic spontaneous urticaria: Results of a dedicated phase 2b randomized clinical trial supported with pharmacometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), a long-lasting disease in children, impacts their quality of life. We report the results of a phase 2b dose-finding trial of ligelizumab (NCT03437278) and a high-affinity humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, in adolescents with CSU, supported by modeling and simulation analyses, mitigating challenges in pediatric drug development. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, randomized H1-antihistamine-refractory adolescent CSU patients (12-18 years) 2:1:1 to ligelizumab 24 mg, 120 mg, or placebo every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. Patients on placebo transitioned to ligelizumab 120 mg at week 12. Integrating data from the previous adult and present adolescent trial of ligelizumab, a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling described the longitudinal changes in ligelizumab pharmacokinetics, and its effect on weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7). RESULTS: Baseline UAS7 (mean ± SD) was 30.5 ± 7.3 (n = 24), 29.3 ± 7.7 (n = 13), and 32.5 ± 9.0 (n = 12) for patients (median age, 15 years) on ligelizumab 24 mg, 120 mg, and placebo, respectively. Change from baseline in UAS7 at week 12 with ligelizumab 24 mg, 120 mg, and placebo was -15.7 ± 10.9, -18.4 ± 12.3, and -13.0 ± 13.0, respectively. Ligelizumab was well-tolerated. The modeling analysis showed that body weight, but not age, affected ligelizumab's apparent clearance. No significant differences between adolescents and adults were detected on the model-estimated maximum effect and potency. CONCLUSIONS: Ligelizumab exhibited efficacy and safety in adolescent CSU patients, consistent with that in adults. The PK and potency of ligelizumab were not impacted by age, and the same dose of ligelizumab can be used for treating adolescents and adults with CSU. Our study shows how modeling and simulation can complement pediatric drug development.

Pediatric chronic urticaria: Clinical and laboratory characteristics and factors linked to remission.

BACKGROUND: Chronic urticaria (CU) is defined as the occurrence of wheals/angioedema for ≥6 consecutive weeks. Until now, guidelines and publications addressing CU have focused mainly on adults. As a result, evidence and guidance in the pediatric population are scarce. METHODS: This study aims to describe clinical and laboratory findings in pediatric CU and to determine factors associated with remission. RESULTS: 185 patients, 54% female, median age at onset of 8.8 years. Angioedema was present in almost half. The most common type of CU was chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in 74%. At least one atopic comorbidity was found in almost a third (35%). In addition, 8% had an autoimmune disorder (exclusively in CSU) and 9% had a psychiatric condition. Basopenia was found in 67% and was more frequently associated with CSU. The basophil activation test (BAT) was positive in 40%. With regard to remission, being of male sex, angioedema absence, the absence of physical triggers, and eosinophil counts >0.51 × 109 /L were associated with shorter CU duration. CONCLUSION: Atopy is a common condition in pediatric CU. CSU is the most common type. Autoimmune comorbidities and basopenia were significantly more common in CSU. In addition, ours is one of the few studies, assessing BAT utility in the pediatric population, being positive in a relevant percentage (40%). BAT positivity was more frequent in CSU. Our results suggest that the absence of angioedema and physical triggers, male sex, and eosinophil counts >0.51 × 109 /L appear to be associated with a better prognosis in terms of remission.

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.

Allergic diseases and immunodeficiencies in children, lessons learnt from COVID-19 pandemic by 2022: A statement from the EAACI-section on pediatrics.

By the April 12, 2022, the COVID-19 pandemic had resulted in over half a billion people being infected worldwide. There have been 6.1 million deaths directly due to the infection, but the pandemic has had many more short- and long-term pervasive effects on the physical and mental health of the population. Allergic diseases are among the most prevalent noncommunicable chronic diseases in the pediatric population, and health-care professionals and researchers were seeking answers since the beginning of pandemic. Children are at lower risk of developing severe COVID-19 or dying from infection. Allergic diseases are not associated with a higher COVID-19 severity and mortality, apart from severe/poorly controlled asthma. The pandemic disrupted routine health care, but many mitigation strategies, including but not limited to telemedicine, were successfully implemented to continue delivery of high-standard care. Although children faced a multitude of pandemic-related issues, allergic conditions were effectively treated remotely while reduction in air pollution and lack of contact with outdoor allergens resulted in improvement, particularly respiratory allergies. There is no evidence to recommend substantial changes to usual management modalities of allergic conditions in children, including allergen immunotherapy and use of biologicals. Allergic children are not at greater risk of multisystem inflammatory syndrome development, but some associations with Long COVID were reported, although the data are limited, and further research is needed. This statement of the EAACI Section on Pediatrics provides recommendations based on the lessons learnt from the pandemic, as available evidence.

A European survey of management approaches in chronic urticaria in children: EAACI pediatric urticaria taskforce.

BACKGROUND: Although well described in adults, there are scarce and heterogeneous data on the diagnosis and management of chronic urticaria (CU) in children (0-18 years) throughout Europe. Our aim was to explore country differences and identify the extent to which the EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline recommendations for pediatric urticaria are implemented. METHODS: The EAACI Task Force for pediatric CU disseminated an online clinical survey among EAACI pediatric section members. Members were asked to answer 35 multiple choice questions on current practices in their respective centers. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 2,773 physicians of whom 358 (13.8%) responded, mainly pediatric allergists (80%) and pediatricians (49.7%), working in 69 countries. For diagnosis, Southern European countries used significantly more routine tests (eg, autoimmune testing, allergological tests, and parasitic investigation) than Northern European countries. Most respondents (60.3%) used a 2nd -generation antihistamine as first-line treatment of whom 64.8% updosed as a second line. Omalizumab was used as a second-line treatment by 1.7% and third line by 20.7% of respondents. Most clinicians (65%) follow EAACI/WAO/GA2LEN/EDF guidelines when diagnosing CU, and only 7.3% follow no specific guidelines. Some clinicians prefer to follow national guidelines (18.4%, mainly Northern European) or the AAAAI practice parameter (1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Even though most members of the Pediatric Section of EAACI are familiar with the EAACI/WAO/GA2LEN/EDF guidelines, a significant number do not follow them. Also, the large variation in diagnosis and treatment strengthens the need to re-evaluate, update, and standardize guidelines on the diagnosis and management of CU in children.

COVID-19 pandemic and allergen immunotherapy-an EAACI survey.

BACKGROUND: As in many fields of medical care, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in an increased uncertainty regarding the safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Therefore, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to analyze the situation in different countries and to systematically collect all information available regarding tolerability and possible amendments in daily practice of sublingual AIT (SLIT), subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) for inhalant allergies and venom AIT. METHODS: Under the framework of the EAACI, a panel of experts in the field of AIT coordinated by the Immunotherapy Interest Group set-up a web-based retrospective survey (SurveyMonkey® ) including 27 standardized questions on practical and safety aspects on AIT in worldwide clinical routine. RESULTS: 417 respondents providing AIT to their patients in daily routine answered the survey. For patients (without any current symptoms to suspect COVID-19), 60% of the respondents informed of not having initiated SCIT (40% venom AIT, 35% SLIT) whereas for the maintenance phase of AIT, SCIT was performed by 75% of the respondents (74% venom AIT, 89% SLIT). No tolerability concern arises from this preliminary analysis. 16 physicians reported having performed AIT despite (early) symptoms of COVID-19 and/or a positive test result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). CONCLUSIONS: This first international retrospective survey in atopic diseases investigated practical aspects and tolerability of AIT during the COVID-19 pandemic and gave no concerns regarding reduced tolerability under real-life circumstances. However, the data indicate an undertreatment of AIT, which may be temporary, but could have a long-lasting negative impact on the clinical care of allergic patients.

Managing childhood allergies and immunodeficiencies during respiratory virus epidemics - The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: A statement from the EAACI-section on pediatrics.

While the world is facing an unprecedented pandemic with COVID-19, patients with chronic diseases need special attention and if warranted adaptation of their regular treatment plan. In children, allergy and asthma are among the most prevalent non-communicable chronic diseases, and healthcare providers taking care of these patients need guidance. At the current stage of knowledge, children have less severe symptoms of COVID-19, and severe asthma and immunodeficiency are classified as risk factors. In addition, there is no evidence that currently available asthma and allergy treatments, including antihistamines, corticosteroids, and bronchodilators, increase the risk of severe disease from COVID-19. Most countries affected by COVID-19 have opted for nationwide confinement, which means that communication with the primary clinician is often performed by telemedicine. Optimal disease control of allergic, asthmatic, and immunodeficient children should be sought according to usual treatment guidelines. This statement of the EAACI Section on Pediatrics puts forward six recommendations for the management of childhood allergies and immunodeficiencies based on six underlying facts and existing evidence.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide.

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient's profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient's adherence to the treatment. This user's guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.

Allergen Immunotherapy in children with respiratory allergic diseases.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a well-established treatment for allergic respiratory diseases. It represents a cornerstone in the clinical management of allergic children since it is the only curative option to date able to modify the natural history of Ig-E mediated allergic diseases. Through a well-defined immunologic mechanism, AIT promotes regulatory T cells and cuts down the immune response induced by allergens. According to current guidelines based on up-to-date evidence, AIT should be offered to children with moderate-severe allergic rhinitis and/or controlled asthma starting from 5 years of age, further to an adequate risk-benefit assessment which includes patient's adherence to the treatment and a proper selection of the right product. Younger age and mild disease could be considered based on an individual evaluation. Both subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes of administration have a good efficacy and safety profile with safer outcomes for SLIT compared to SCIT. Only standardized products with documented evidence of clinical efficacy should be used. Although AIT is used worldwide, there are still gaps and limitations, including the lack of reliable biomarkers predictive of the clinical outcome. Novel adjuvants are currently under investigations to boost the strength and efficiency of the immune response, as well as new formulations with better efficacy and better patient's adherence to the treatment. Herein, we aim to provide an overview of current key evidence with major regard to clinical practice as well as knowledge gaps and future research needs in the context of AIT in children with respiratory allergic diseases.

Allergen immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergy: There is a measure in everything to a proper proportion of therapy.

IgE-mediated food allergy (FA) is a potentially life-threatening condition with a negative impact on quality of life and an increasing prevalence in westernized countries in the recent two decades. A strict avoidance of the triggering food(s) represents the current standard approach. However, an elimination diet may be difficult and frustrating, in particular for common foods, (eg, milk, egg, and peanut). Food allergy immunotherapy (FA-AIT) may provide an active treatment that enables to increase the amount of food that the patient can intake without reaction during treatment (ie, desensitization), and reduces the risk of potential life-threatening allergic reaction in the event of accidental ingestion. However, several gaps need still to be filled. A memorable Latin orator stated: "Est modus in rebus" (Horace, Sermones I, 1, 106-07). This sentence remembers that there is a measure in everything to a proper proportion of therapy. The common sense of measure should find application in each stage of treatment. A personalized approaching should consider the specific willing and features of each patient. Efforts are devoted to improve the efficacy, the safety but also the quality of life of patients suffering from FA. In the near future, it will be important to clarify immunologic pathways of FA-AIT, and to identify reliable biomarkers in order to recognize the most suitable candidates to FA-AIT and algorithms for treatments tailored on well-characterized subpopulations of patients.

Decision-making for pediatric allergy immunotherapy for aeroallergens: a narrative review.

There has been exciting progress in diagnosis and in the treatment of allergic patients. The objective of this review is to summarize the most relevant contributions in the past 10 years with a special focus on the pediatric population allergic to aeroallergens and provide the most relevant references and practical issues for the decision-making. Current guidelines on allergy diagnosis recommend a thorough clinical history as the first step, followed by allergen extract testing using an in vivo prick test and/or an in vitro specific IgE test. Molecular diagnosis is recommended when previous tests are inconclusive. In practice, the most important factors to decide the AIT treatment are the actual intensity and duration of the patient's symptoms and the availability of appropriate AIT products for the patient's sensitization profile at high allergen concentrations and with confirmed efficacy and safety from clinical trials. This document summarizes outstanding references for allergic immunotherapy decision-making and provides summary tables and figures analyzing the most important factors related to the decision for allergen immunotherapy and the safety risks related. The experts concluded that AIT is efficacious and safe for the treatment of allergic patients that is available for the most frequent aeroallergens.What is Known:• The prevalence of allergic asthma and rhinitis in children has increased in recent decades.• The efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy has been shown in multiple studies and systematic reviews.What is New:• This document summarizes outstanding references for allergic immunotherapy decision-making and provides summary tables and figures analyzing the most important factors related to the decision for allergen immunotherapy and the safety risks related. Recommendations of expert authors for the decision of the patients more suitable for allergen immunotherapy are included.

Current state and future of pediatric allergology in Europe: A road map.

The history of pediatric allergology (PA) in Europe is relatively youthful, dating back to 1984, when a small group of pediatricians founded the European Working Group on Pediatric Allergy and Immunology-later giving rise to ESPACI (European Society on Pediatric Allergology and Clinical Immunology). In 1990, the first dedicated journal, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (PAI), was founded. There are striking differences across Europe, and even within European countries, in relation to the training pathways for doctors seeing children with allergic disease(s). In 2016, the EAACIClemens von Pirquet Foundation (CvP) organized and sponsored a workshop with the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Pediatric Section. This collaboration focussed on the future of PA and specifically on education, research, and networking/ advocacy. The delegates representing many countries across Europe have endorsed the concept that optimal care of children with allergic diseases is delivered by pediatricians who have received dedicated training in allergy, or allergists who have received dedicated training in pediatrics. In order to meet the needs of children and families with allergic disease(s), the pediatric allergist is highly encouraged to develop several networks. Our challenge is to reinforce a clear strategic approach to scientific excellence to across our member base and to ensure and enhance the relevance of European pediatric research in allergy. With research opportunities in basic, translational, clinical, and epidemiologic trials, more trainees and trained specialists are needed and it is an exciting time to be a pediatric allergologist.

Mechanisms of Allergen Immunotherapy and Potential Biomarkers for Clinical Evaluation.

Allergen-immunotherapy (AIT) is an efficacious and disease-modifying treatment option for IgE-mediated diseases. Among these allergic rhinitis, insect venom allergy, food allergy, and allergic asthma are the most common candidates for AIT. AIT gives rise to clinical immunotolerance which may last for years after the treatment cessation. Mechanisms of AIT include suppression of allergic inflammation in target tissues and stimulation of the production of blocking antibodies, especially IgG4 and IgA. These mechanisms are followed by a reduction of underlying allergen-specific Th2 cell-driven responses to the allergens. Tolerance induction takes place through the desensitization of effector cells and stimulation of regulatory T cells that show their effects by mechanisms involving cell-cell cross-talk, but also other mechanisms, e.g., by the production of immunomodulatory cytokines such as, e.g., IL-10 and TGF-beta. From a personalized medical perspective, there is a need for clinical biomarkers of value in selecting responders and optimizing patient care during AIT. Also, a deeper understanding of underlying mechanistic processes will improve AIT's future outcomes. In this paper, the current knowledge of mechanisms in AIT is reviewed with a special focus on biomarkers of this therapy.

WAO consensus on DEfinition of Food Allergy SEverity (DEFASE).

Background: While several scoring systems for the severity of anaphylactic reactions have been developed, there is a lack of consensus on definition and categorisation of severity of food allergy disease as a whole. Aim: To develop an international consensus on the severity of food allergy (DEfinition of Food Allergy Severity, DEFASE) scoring system, to be used globally. Methods Phase 1: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review (SR) of 11 databases for published and unpublished literature on severity of food allergy management and set up a panel of international experts. Phase 2: Based on our findings in Phase 1, we drafted statements for a two-round modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) survey. A purposefully selected multidisciplinary international expert panel on food allergy (n = 60) was identified and sent a structured questionnaire, including a set of statements on different domains of food allergy severity related to symptoms, health-related quality of life, and economic impact. Participants were asked to score their agreement on each statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Median scores and percentage agreements were calculated. Consensus was defined a priori as being achieved if 70% or more of panel members rated a statement as "strongly agree" to "agree" after the second round. Based on feedback, 2 additional online voting rounds were conducted. Results: We received responses from 92% of Delphi panel members in round 1 and 85% in round 2. Consensus was achieved on the overall score and in all of the 5 specific key domains as essential components of the DEFASE score. Conclusions: The DEFASE score is the first comprehensive grading of food allergy severity that considers not only the severity of a single reaction, but the whole disease spectrum. An international consensus has been achieved regarding a scoring system for food allergy disease. It offers an evaluation grid, which may help to rate the severity of food allergy. Phase 3 will involve validating the scoring system in research settings, and implementing it in clinical practice.

Systematic review of monotherapy with biologicals for children and adults with IgE-mediated food allergy.

Background: Biological therapies relieve symptoms in allergic inflammatory diseases so we systematically reviewed the evidence about whether biological monotherapy could benefit people with IgE-mediated food allergy. Methods: We searched six bibliographic databases from 1946 to 30 September 2021 for randomised and non-randomised controlled trials about biological monotherapy in people with IgE-mediated food allergy confirmed by oral food challenge. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to narratively summarise findings from three trials with 118 participants. The studies were too heterogeneous and sparse to conduct meta-analysis. Results: We included one randomised trial about etokimab, one about omalizumab and one about the discontinued TNX-901. All were in people with peanut allergy in the USA, mostly aged 13+ years. There was a trend towards improved tolerance of peanut during treatment, with few side effects. However, we have very low certainty about the evidence due to the small number of trials and participants. No included trial reported on quality of life or cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: There is not yet enough certainty to support offering etokimab or omalizumab widely for food allergy. Clinicians may consider the merits for individuals, but large randomised trials with standardised measures are needed to confirm the safety, efficacy and most suitable candidates, doses and durations of treatment before more universal use.