Immunotherapy and biologics in the management of IgE-mediated food allergy: Systematic review and meta-analyses of efficacy and safety.

Food allergy (FA) is a potentially life-threatening chronic condition that is becoming an increasing public health problem worldwide. This systematic review (SR) was carried out to inform the development of clinical recommendations on the treatment of IgE-mediated FA with biologics and/or IT for the update of the EAACI guidelines. A SR of randomized-controlled trials or quasi-controlled trials was carried out. Studies were identified via comprehensive search strategies in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library, up to April 2022. POPULATION: Human adults, children, and adolescents with IgE-mediated FA. INTERVENTION: IT and/or biologics. COMPARATOR: Placebo or standard-of-care (allergen avoidance). OUTCOME: Efficacy (desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness (SU), remission), quality of life, and safety (systemic and local adverse reactions (AR)). The Cochrane RoB tool was used to assess the risk of bias. It was reported according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO CRD4202229828. After screening, 121 studies were included (111 for IT and 10 for biologics). Most studies had a high risk of bias and showed high heterogeneity in design and results. Metanalysis showed a positive effect of biologics and IT in terms of relative risk (RR) for achieving tolerance to the culprit food compared to avoidance or placebo. Omalizumab for any FA showed a RR of 2.17 [95% confidence interval: 1.22, 3.85]. For peanut allergy, oral IT (OIT) had a RR of 11.94 [1.76, 80.84] versus avoidance or placebo, sublingual IT (SLIT) had a RR of 3.00 [1.04, 8.66], and epicutaneous IT (EPIT) of 2.16 [1.56, 3.00]. OIT had a RR of 5.88 [2.27, 15.18] for cow's milk allergy, and of 3.43 [2.24, 5.27] for egg allergy. There was insufficient data on SLIT or EPIT for the treatment of egg and milk allergies. Most ARs reported were mild. For OIT the most common AR involved the gastrointestinal system and for EPIT, AR's most commonly affected the skin. There was limited data on severe or life-threatening ARs. There was limited evidence for long term efficacy and quality of life. In conclusion, biologics and IT, alone or in combination, are effective in achieving desensitization while on active treatment but more evidence is needed on long-term tolerance as current evidence is not of high quality. Adverse events while on therapy are generally mild to moderate but a long-term comprehensive safety profile is missing. There is a critical need to optimize and standardize desensitization protocols and outcome measures to facilitate our understanding of the efficacy and safety as well as to allow for comparison between interventions.

Basophil activation test in the food allergy clinic: its current use and future applications.

INTRODUCTION: The basophil activation test (BAT) has shown evidence of high sensitivity and high specificity to support the diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergy. It is a functional test that uses live cells analyzed by flow cytometry and thus needs to be performed within 24h of blood collection. BAT has shown to be reproducible and reliable when tested in a clinical diagnostic laboratory with standardized protocols and flow cytometry settings. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we summarize the evidence to support clinical use of BAT and the next steps required for clinical implementation for an improve clinical care for patients with suspected IgE-mediated food allergy. EXPERT OPINION: BAT has recently been included in Clinical Guidelines of Food Allergy Diagnosis and its implementation in clinical practice depends largely on availability. Proposed clinical applications of the BAT include: distinction between food allergy and asymptomatic IgE sensitization; determination of food allergic status to peanut, tree nuts and seeds in polysensitized children; evaluation of tolerance to baked egg and baked milk in egg and milk allergic children; identification of patients at high-risk of severe allergic reactions; monitoring for spontaneous resolution of food allergy; confirmation of eligibility for specific treatments of food allergy; prediction and monitoring of response to immunomodulatory treatments.

Serologic measurements for peanut allergy: Predicting clinical severity is complex.

Allergist-immunologists use serologic peanut allergy testing to maximize test sensitivity and specificity while minimizing cost and inconvenience. Recent advances toward this goal include a better understanding of specific IgE (sIgE) and component testing, epitope-sIgE assays, and basophil activation testing. Predicting reaction severity with serologic testing is challenged by a range of co-factors that influence reaction severity, such as the amount and form of any allergen consumed and comorbid disease. In 2020, the Allergy Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters recommended Ara h 2-sIgE as the most cost-effective diagnostic test for peanut allergy because of its superior performance, when compared with skin prick testing and serum IgE. Basophil activation testing, a functional test of allergic response not evaluated in the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters guideline, is a promising option for both allergy diagnosis and prognosis. Similarly, epitope-sIgE testing may improve prediction of reaction thresholds, but further validation is needed. Despite advances in food allergy testing, many of these tools remain limited by cost, accessibility, and feasibility. In addition, there is a need for further research on how atopic dermatitis may be modifying serologic food allergy severity assessments. Given these limitations, allergy test selection requires a shared decision-making approach so that a patient's values and preferences regarding financial impact, inconvenience, and psychological effects are considered in the context of clinician expertise on the timing and use of optimized testing.

Basophil activation test as predictor of severity and threshold of allergic reactions to egg.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patients at risk of severe allergic reactions and/or low threshold of reactivity is very important, particularly for staple foods like egg. METHODS: One hundred and fifty children underwent double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) to baked egg (BE), skin prick testing and blood collection for serology and basophil activation test (BAT). Patients who passed BE DBPCFC underwent loosely cooked egg (LCE) DBPCFC. Severity of allergic reactions was classified following Practall guidelines and threshold dose was determined during DBPCFC. RESULTS: Sixty out of 150 (40%) children reacted to BE and 16 out of 77 (21%) to LCE on DBPCFC. Considering DBPCFC to BE, 23 children (38%) had severe reactions and 33 (55%) reacted to 0.13 g or less of egg protein (low threshold group). Two children (2 out of 16 = 12%) had severe reactions to LCE. Demographic, clinical and most immunological features were not significantly different between severe/non-severe BE reactors or low/high threshold groups. Severe BE reactors had higher ovomucoid-sIgE (p = .009) and higher BAT to BE (p = .001). Patients with lower threshold to BE had higher IgE-specific activity (p = .027) and BAT to egg (p = .007) but lower severity score (p = .008). Optimal cut-offs for ovomucoid-sIgE had 100% sensitivity, 35% specificity and 60% accuracy and for BAT 76% sensitivity, 74% specificity and 75% accuracy to identify BE severe reactors. Optimal cut-offs for specific activity had 70% sensitivity, 68% specificity and 69% accuracy and for BAT 70% sensitivity, 72% specificity and 71% accuracy to identify low threshold patients. CONCLUSIONS: BAT was the best biomarker to predict severity and threshold of allergic reactions to BE and can be useful when making decisions about management of egg allergy.

Systematic review and meta-analyses on the accuracy of diagnostic tests for IgE-mediated food allergy.

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is updating the Guidelines on Food Allergy Diagnosis. We aimed to undertake a systematic review of the literature with meta-analyses to assess the accuracy of diagnostic tests for IgE-mediated food allergy. We searched three databases (Cochrane CENTRAL (Trials), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID)) for diagnostic test accuracy studies published between 1 October 2012 and 30 June 2021 according to a previously published protocol (CRD42021259186). We independently screened abstracts, extracted data from full texts and assessed risk of bias with QUADRAS 2 tool in duplicate. Meta-analyses were undertaken for food-test combinations for which three or more studies were available. A total of 149 studies comprising 24,489 patients met the inclusion criteria and they were generally heterogeneous. 60.4% of studies were in children ≤12 years of age, 54.3% were undertaken in Europe, ≥95% were conducted in a specialized paediatric or allergy clinical setting and all included oral food challenge in at least a percentage of enrolled patients, in 21.5% double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges. Skin prick test (SPT) with fresh cow's milk and raw egg had high sensitivity (90% and 94%) for milk and cooked egg allergies. Specific IgE (sIgE) to individual components had high specificity: Ara h 2-sIgE had 92%, Cor a 14-sIgE 95%, Ana o 3-sIgE 94%, casein-sIgE 93%, ovomucoid-sIgE 92/91% for the diagnosis of peanut, hazelnut, cashew, cow's milk and raw/cooked egg allergies, respectively. The basophil activation test (BAT) was highly specific for the diagnosis of peanut (90%) and sesame (93%) allergies. In conclusion, SPT and specific IgE to extracts had high sensitivity whereas specific IgE to components and BAT had high specificity to support the diagnosis of individual food allergies.

Partial Egg Consumption Modifies the Diagnostic Performance of Allergy Tests to Predict Outcome of Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Food Challenges to Egg.

BACKGROUND: Many children are consuming some egg when they are diagnosed with egg allergy. We hypothesized that egg consumption could modify the diagnostic performance of allergy tests. OBJECTIVE: To stratify diagnostic performance of tests according to egg consumption status. METHODS: The BAT2 study (NCT03309488) participants underwent oral food challenge (OFC), food-frequency questionnaires, skin prick test (SPT), specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) and specific immunoglobulin G4 (sIgG4) and basophil activation test (BAT). RESULTS: At study entry, 45% of participants reported partial egg consumption ("consumers") and 55% were avoiding egg strictly ("avoiders"). Avoiders had larger SPT (P < .001), higher BAT to egg (P < .001), sIgE to egg white (EW; P = .001) and to ovalbumin (OVA; P = .001), but not to ovomucoid (P = .231). Consumers had higher levels of sIgG4 to all egg allergens (P < .001) than avoiders. In consumers, the test with the best diagnostic performance was BAT (area under the curve [AUC] = .912) followed by SPT to raw egg (AUC = 0.805), EW-sIgE (AUC = 0.738), and OVA-sIgE (AUC = 0.732). In avoiders, the best tests were BAT (AUC = 0.834) and EW-sIgE (AUC = 0.833) followed by OVA-sIgE (AUC = 0.793) and SPT to EW (AUC=0.789). Using 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity cut-offs, the proportion of patients requiring OFC were 33% for BAT, 53% for SPT to raw egg, 61% for OVA-sIgE, and 73% for EW-sIgE for consumers; and 73% for BAT, 79% for EW-sIgE, and 93% for SPT to EW for avoiders. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic performance of tests is influenced by the immunomodulatory effect of egg consumption. BAT is the most reliable test and reduced the need for OFC, particularly in partial egg consumers.

Feast for thought: A comprehensive review of food allergy 2021-2023.

A review of the latest publications in food allergy over the past couple of years confirmed that food allergy is a major public health concern, affecting about 8% of children and 10% of adults in developed countries. The prevalence of food allergy varies around the world, with the increase being driven mainly by environmental factors, possibly together with genetic susceptibility to environmental changes. A precise diagnosis of food allergy is extremely important. Both new tests (eg, the basophil activation test) and improved optimization of information provided by existing tests (eg, the skin prick test and measurement of specific IgE level) can contribute to improving the accuracy and patients' comfort of food allergy diagnosis. Understanding the underlying immune mechanisms is fundamental to designing allergen-specific treatments that can be safe and effective in the long term. New discoveries of the immune response to food allergens, including T-cell and B-cell responses, have emerged. Novel therapeutic approaches are being trialed at various stages of development as attempts to allow for more active intervention to treat food allergy. Prevention is key to reducing the increase in prevalence. Early introduction of allergenic foods seems to be the most effective intervention, but others are being studied, and will, it is hoped, lead to modification of the epidemiologic trajectory of food allergy over time.

Living with food allergies: the experiences of adult patients and caregivers.

Background: Few studies have addressed how food allergy may impact differently on the daily lives of adults with food allergies and caregivers for food-allergic dependents. Objective: To explore similarities and differences in life experiences and unmet needs between individuals caring for a child with food allergy and adults with food allergy world-wide. Methods: Two multinational, virtual, interactive, moderated discussions of specific questions between respectively people with food allergies and caregivers for people with food allergies, with experienced clinicians participating. Results: Sixteen individuals living with food allergies and nine caregivers took part in the two roundtables. Food avoidance and antihistamines were the most common treatments for food-allergic reactions in both groups. Caregivers reported greater burden of disease on affected individuals and families than did adult patients. Adult panelists considered autoinjectors easy to use but caregivers reported additional emotional stress thinking about autoinjector use. Caregivers described an ever-present fear of inattention and of overlooking a risk factor for a severe reaction, whereas adult panelists showed a determination not to let their food allergies interfere with living their lives. Both groups had safety-conscious attitudes to treatments, but adult patients emphasized convenience while caregivers prioritized reduced severity of reactions and eliminated fear. Both groups confirmed the need for improved, trusted sources of information, and for resources and training programs for any new therapies. Conclusion: The interactive exchange provided insights into differences between adult patients and caregivers, notably in fear and confidence in daily life, severity of disease impact, and unmet needs for 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.

Food allergy-A holistic approach to dietary management. A joint EAACI Research & Outreach Committee and INDANA review.

Following a diagnosis of IgE-mediated food allergy, to secure the best outcome, the patient should receive individualized advice tailored to their specific needs, which considers the type and presentation of the food involved, level of exclusion required, risk of cross-contamination and any variance required for age, ethnicity, financial issues, and lifestyle. Issues such as food labels "may contain" statements, and variation in the threshold of reaction and impact of cofactors should also be considered. Most important is the need to ensure that the diagnosis is robust, especially given the nutritional, psychological, and socioeconomic issues that can affect an individual with a diagnosis of food allergy. Unnecessary exclusion of one or more foods that have not triggered allergic reactions, especially in individuals with allergic comorbidities, can result in severe IgE-mediated reactions on re-exposure. Given that food allergies may change over time, the diagnosis should be reviewed, to determine whether resolution is likely, or new-food triggers are reported. Regular assessment is vital, especially during childhood, to ensure reintroduction occurs at an appropriate time, thus enabling increased diversity of the diet and improvement in the quality of life. For some, an IgE-mediated food allergy may necessitate the life-long exclusion of foods, and for others, a food habitually eaten suddenly triggers an allergic reaction in adult life. People of all ages, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds deserve individual advice on the management of their food allergy to support a healthy diet and improve quality of life.

Ara h 2 Peptide Mix Improves the Diagnosis of Peanut Allergy and Is Relevant for Ara h 2-Induced Mast Cell Activation.

BACKGROUND: A precise diagnosis of peanut allergy is extremely important. We identified 4 Ara h 2 peptides that improved Ara h 2-specific IgE (sIgE) diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic utility of sIgE to the mixture of these peptides and their role in mast cell response to peanut allergens. METHODS: sIgE to the peptide mix was determined using ImmunoCAP. Its diagnostic utility was compared with Ara h 2-sIgE and sIgE to the individual peptides. The functional relevance of the peptides was tested on the mast cell activation test using laboratory of allergic diseases 2 cell line and flow cytometry. RESULTS: A total of 52 peanut-allergic (PA), 36 peanut-sensitized but tolerant, and 9 nonsensitized nonallergic children were studied. Peptide mix-sIgE improved the diagnostic performance of Ara h 2-sIgE compared with Ara h 2-sIgE alone (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve .92 vs .89, respectively; P = .056). The sensitivity and specificity of Ara h 2-sIgE combined with the peptide mix were 85% and 96%, respectively. sIgE to individual peptides had the highest specificity (91%-96%) but the lowest sensitivity (10%-52%) compared with Ara h 2-sIgE (69% specificity and 87% sensitivity) or with peptide mix-sIgE (82% specificity and 63% sensitivity). Peptide 3 directly induced mast cell activation, and the peptide mix inhibited Ara h 2-induced activation of mast cells sensitized with plasma from Ara h 2-positive PA patients. CONCLUSIONS: sIgE to the peptide mix improved the diagnostic performance of Ara h 2-sIgE similarly to sIgE to individual peptides. The peptides interfered with Ara h 2-induced mast cell activation, confirming its relevance in peanut allergy.

Diagnostic utility of allergy tests to predict baked egg and lightly cooked egg allergies compared to double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges.

BACKGROUND: Double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) are the gold-standard to diagnose food allergy. However, they can cause allergic reactions of unpredictable severity. We assessed accuracy of current and new diagnostic tests compared to DBPCFC to baked egg (BE) and to lightly cooked egg (LCE). METHODS: Children aged 6 months to 15 years were assessed for possible egg allergy as part of the BAT2 study (NCT03309488). They underwent clinical assessment, skin prick test (SPT), specific IgE (sIgE) and basophil activation test (BAT). The results of the tests were compared with DBPCFC outcomes to both BE and LCE. RESULTS: A total of 150 children underwent DBPCFC to BE, 60 (40%) reacted to and 85 (57%) tolerated BE and 5 (3%) had inconclusive oral food challenges (OFC). Seventy-seven children tolerant to BE had DBPCFC to LCE and 16 reacted. The test within each modality with the best diagnostic performance for BE allergy was as follows: SPT to egg white (EW) (AUC = 0.726), sIgE to EW (AUC = 0.776) and BAT to egg (AUC = 0.783). BAT (AUC = 0.867) was the best test in the younger than 2 years age group. Applying 100% sensitivity and 100% specificity cut-offs, followed by OFC, resulted in 100% diagnostic accuracy. BAT enabled the greatest reduction in OFC (41%). Using sIgE followed by BAT allowed to reduce the number of BATs performed by about 30% without significantly increasing the number of OFC. CONCLUSIONS: The best diagnostic test was BAT to egg in terms of diagnostic accuracy and reduction in number of OFC. Using sIgE to EW followed by BAT required fewer BATs with sustained OFC reduction and diagnostic accuracy.

Developing a Prediction Model for Determination of Peanut Allergy Status in the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) Studies.

BACKGROUND: The Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study team developed a protocol-specific algorithm using dietary history, peanut-specific IgE, and skin prick test (SPT) to determine peanut allergy status if the oral food challenge (OFC) could not be administered or did not provide a determinant result. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how well the algorithm determined allergy status in LEAP; to develop a new prediction model to determine peanut allergy status when OFC results are not available in LEAP Trio, a follow-up study of LEAP participants and their families; and to compare the new prediction model with the algorithm. METHODS: The algorithm was developed for the LEAP protocol before the analysis of the primary outcome. Subsequently, a prediction model was developed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Using the protocol-specified algorithm, 73% (453/617) of allergy determinations matched the OFC, 0.6% (4/617) were mismatched, and 26% (160/617) participants were nonevaluable. The prediction model included SPT, peanut-specific IgE, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, and Ara h 3. The model inaccurately predicted 1 of 266 participants as allergic who were not allergic by OFC and 8 of 57 participants as not allergic who were allergic by OFC. The overall error rate was 9 of 323 (2.8%) with an area under the curve of 0.99. The prediction model additionally performed well in an external validation cohort. CONCLUSION: The prediction model performed with high sensitivity and accuracy, eliminated the problem of nonevaluable outcomes, and can be used to estimate peanut allergy status in the LEAP Trio study when OFC is not available.

EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0.

Since the discovery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a mediator of allergic diseases in 1967, our knowledge about the immunological mechanisms of IgE-mediated allergies has remarkably increased. In addition to understanding the immune response and clinical symptoms, allergy diagnosis and management depend strongly on the precise identification of the elicitors of the IgE-mediated allergic reaction. In the past four decades, innovations in bioscience and technology have facilitated the identification and production of well-defined, highly pure molecules for component-resolved diagnosis (CRD), allowing a personalized diagnosis and management of the allergic disease for individual patients. The first edition of the "EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide" (MAUG) in 2016 rapidly became a key reference for clinicians, scientists, and interested readers with a background in allergology, immunology, biology, and medicine. Nevertheless, the field of molecular allergology is moving fast, and after 6 years, a new EAACI Taskforce was established to provide an updated document. The Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0 summarizes state-of-the-art information on allergen molecules, their clinical relevance, and their application in diagnostic algorithms for clinical practice. It is designed for both, clinicians and scientists, guiding health care professionals through the overwhelming list of different allergen molecules available for testing. Further, it provides diagnostic algorithms on the clinical relevance of allergenic molecules and gives an overview of their biology, the basic mechanisms of test formats, and the application of tests to measure allergen exposure.

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.

Will Oral Food Challenges Still Be Part of Allergy Care in 10 Years' Time?

Oral food challenges (OFCs) are currently the definitive diagnostic procedure in food allergy. Their design has evolved over the decades to maximize safety, optimize convenience, and address several specific clinical questions. However, they are a resource-intensive investigation that carry a risk for severe allergic reaction in which fatal outcomes, although rare, have been reported. In this review, we explore the many roles that OFC fulfil in the clinical and research settings. We also discuss progress that has been made in developing alternative diagnostic tools and how far these have reached in offering a viable replacement to OFC in clinical practice. Finally, we discuss the ongoing importance of research OFC to improve the future diagnostic capabilities of novel diagnostic tools.