Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy With Viaskin Milk vs Placebo in Children With Cow's Milk Allergy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: No approved treatment exists for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk allergy (CMA), a common childhood food allergy. Objective: To assess dose, efficacy, and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin milk in children with IgE-mediated CMA. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 1/2, 2-part, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging clinical trial in children aged 2 to 17 years with IgE-mediated CMA was conducted between November 2014 through December 2017. It took place at 17 trial sites in the US and Canada. Current CMA was confirmed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at study entry. Part A assessed the short-term safety of 150 µg, 300 µg, or 500 µg of Viaskin milk; part B evaluated the efficacy and safety of the 3 doses vs placebo over 12 months of treatment. Of the 308 screened participants with physician-diagnosed CMA, 198 met eligibility criteria (including an eliciting dose 300 mg or less) and were randomized. Intervention: Safety of Viaskin milk (150-µg, 300-µg, or 500-µg doses) was evaluated over a 3-week period (part A). In part B, 180 additional participants were randomized to receive Viaskin milk at doses of 150 µg, 300 µg, or 500 µg or placebo (1:1:1:1) for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as a 10-fold or more increase in the cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein (reaching at least 144 mg) or a cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein at 1444 mg or more at the month 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Results: A total of 95.5% of the randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 8 [4.17] years; 124 of 198 were male [62.6%]) completed treatment. The highest response rate was observed in participants who received Viaskin milk at the 300-µg dose with 24 of 49 responders (49.0%) overall vs 16 of 53 responders (30.2%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.91-5.41; P = .09), highest in the 2 to 11 years age group (22 of 38 [57.9%] vs 13 of 40 [32.5%]; P = .04). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate application-site reactions. One participant in the 500-µg Viaskin milk dose group experienced treatment-related anaphylaxis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, 12 months of daily epicutaneous immunotherapy with a dose of Viaskin milk at 300 µg was associated with a statistically significant treatment response in 2- to 11-year-old children with IgE-mediated CMA. Treatment-related anaphylaxis and treatment-related discontinuation rates were low. Further research is needed to explore Viaskin milk as a viable treatment option for children with IgE-mediated CMA. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02223182.

Omalizumab for the Treatment of Multiple Food Allergies.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies are common and are associated with substantial morbidity; the only approved treatment is oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. METHODS: In this trial, we assessed whether omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective and safe as monotherapy in patients with multiple food allergies. Persons 1 to 55 years of age who were allergic to peanuts and at least two other trial-specified foods (cashew, milk, egg, walnut, wheat, and hazelnut) were screened. Inclusion required a reaction to a food challenge of 100 mg or less of peanut protein and 300 mg or less of the two other foods. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive omalizumab or placebo administered subcutaneously (with the dose based on weight and IgE levels) every 2 to 4 weeks for 16 to 20 weeks, after which the challenges were repeated. The primary end point was ingestion of peanut protein in a single dose of 600 mg or more without dose-limiting symptoms. The three key secondary end points were the consumption of cashew, of milk, and of egg in single doses of at least 1000 mg each without dose-limiting symptoms. The first 60 participants (59 of whom were children or adolescents) who completed this first stage were enrolled in a 24-week open-label extension. RESULTS: Of the 462 persons who were screened, 180 underwent randomization. The analysis population consisted of the 177 children and adolescents (1 to 17 years of age). A total of 79 of the 118 participants (67%) receiving omalizumab met the primary end-point criteria, as compared with 4 of the 59 participants (7%) receiving placebo (P<0.001). Results for the key secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end point (cashew, 41% vs. 3%; milk, 66% vs. 10%; egg, 67% vs. 0%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Safety end points did not differ between the groups, aside from more injection-site reactions in the omalizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In persons as young as 1 year of age with multiple food allergies, omalizumab treatment for 16 weeks was superior to placebo in increasing the reaction threshold for peanut and other common food allergens. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03881696.).

Esophageal Remodeling Correlates With Eating Behaviors in Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data characterizing eating habits among pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We compared eating behaviors in pediatric patients with EoE with healthy controls and assessed the degree of correlation with symptomatology, endoscopic and histologic findings, and esophageal distensibility. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study where subjects consumed 4 food textures (puree, soft solid, chewable, and hard solid) and were scored for eating behaviors including number of chews per bite, sips of fluid per food, and consumption time. Symptomatic, endoscopic, histologic, and esophageal distensibility data were collected for case subjects. RESULTS: Twenty-seven case subjects and 25 healthy controls were enrolled in our study (mean age 11.0 years, 63.5% male). Compared with healthy controls, pediatric patients with EoE demonstrated more chews per bite with soft solid (13.6 vs 9.1, P = 0.031), chewable (14.7 vs 10.7, P = 0.047), and hard solid foods (19.0 vs 12.8, P = 0.037). Patients with EoE also demonstrated increased consumption time with soft solid (94.7 vs 58.3 seconds, P = 0.002), chewable (90.0 vs 65.1 seconds, P = 0.005), and hard solid foods (114.1 vs 76.4 seconds, P = 0.034) when compared with healthy controls. Subgroup analysis based on disease status showed no statistically significant differences in eating behaviors between active and inactive EoE. Total endoscopic reference score positively correlated with consumption time ( r = 0.53, P = 0.008) and number of chews ( r = 0.45, P = 0.027) for chewable foods and with number of chews ( r = 0.44, P = 0.043) for hard solid foods. Increased consumption time correlated with increased eosinophil count ( r = 0.42, P = 0.050) and decreased esophageal distensibility ( r = -0.82, P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Altered eating behaviors including increased chewing and increased consumption time can be seen in pediatric patients with EoE, can persist despite histologic remission, and may be driven by changes in esophageal distensibility.

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

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

The Role of the Mind-Body Connection in Children with Food Reactions and Identified Adversity: Implications for Integrating Stress Management and Resilience Strategies in Clinical Practice.

Child adversity is often associated with poor quality of life in pediatric gastrointestinal disorders, including non-allergic food reactions (food intolerances), which may be improved using mind-body interventions. We conducted an observational study to (1) describe child adversity (stressors) and resilience factors in children with food intolerances, and (2) explore the association between stressors and self-reported use of integrative modalities. A retrospective chart review of children ≥4-years-old presenting to a pediatric food intolerances clinic from 2017 to 2020 was performed (n = 130). Use of integrative medicine at intake, demographic, illness, and social history data were collected. Qualitative analysis identified exposure to stressors and resilience strategies. Correlation was assessed using a chi-square test. Management of the medical condition was the most common stressor, indicating impact on quality of life. Resilience strategies included themes of self-coping and social support. Individuals with one or more stressors were more likely to be using an integrative modality (most commonly, mind-body interventions) prior to their visit (X2 = 8.1, p = 0.004). Our hypothesis-generating study suggests that screening for child adversity and integrative medicine use may be used to better address quality of life and personalized approaches to treat pediatric food intolerances.

Human germline heterozygous gain-of-function STAT6 variants cause severe allergic disease.

STAT6 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 6) is a transcription factor that plays a central role in the pathophysiology of allergic inflammation. We have identified 16 patients from 10 families spanning three continents with a profound phenotype of early-life onset allergic immune dysregulation, widespread treatment-resistant atopic dermatitis, hypereosinophilia with esosinophilic gastrointestinal disease, asthma, elevated serum IgE, IgE-mediated food allergies, and anaphylaxis. The cases were either sporadic (seven kindreds) or followed an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern (three kindreds). All patients carried monoallelic rare variants in STAT6 and functional studies established their gain-of-function (GOF) phenotype with sustained STAT6 phosphorylation, increased STAT6 target gene expression, and TH2 skewing. Precision treatment with the anti-IL-4Rα antibody, dupilumab, was highly effective improving both clinical manifestations and immunological biomarkers. This study identifies heterozygous GOF variants in STAT6 as a novel autosomal dominant allergic disorder. We anticipate that our discovery of multiple kindreds with germline STAT6 GOF variants will facilitate the recognition of more affected individuals and the full definition of this new primary atopic disorder.

Safety of Multifood Oral Immunotherapy in Children Aged 1 to 18 Years at an Academic Pediatric Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) aims to increase the reaction threshold to a food allergen and decrease the risk of a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction in the event of an accidental ingestion. Whereas single-food OIT is the most extensively studied, data on multifood OIT are limited. OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to examine the safety and feasibility of single-food and multifood immunotherapy in a large cohort in an outpatient pediatric allergy clinic setting. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients enrolled in single-food and multifood OIT between September 1, 2019, and September 30, 2020, and data collection of those patients until November 19, 2021, were performed. RESULTS: There were 151 patients who underwent either an initial dose escalation (IDE) or a standard oral food challenge. Seventy-eight patients were receiving single-food OIT with 67.9% reaching maintenance. Fifty patients were undergoing multifood OIT with 86% reaching maintenance to at least 1 OIT food and 68% reaching maintenance for all their foods. Of the 229 IDEs, there were low frequencies of failed IDEs (10.9%), epinephrine administration (8.7%), emergency department referrals (0.4%), and hospital admission (0.4%). Cashew accounted for one-third of failed IDEs. Epinephrine administration during home dosing occurred in 8.6% of patients. Eleven patients discontinued OIT owing to symptoms during up-dosing. No patients discontinued once reaching maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Desensitization to 1 food or multiple foods simultaneously through OIT appears to be safe and feasible using the OIT protocol that has been established. The most common adverse reaction causing discontinuation of OIT was gastrointestinal symptoms.

Food Allergy Management for Adolescents Using Behavioral Incentives: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the use of behavioral economics approaches to promote the carrying of epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) among adolescents with food allergies. We hypothesized that adolescents who receive frequent text message nudges (Intervention 1) or frequent text message nudges plus modest financial incentives (Intervention 2) would be more likely to carry their epinephrine than members of the usual care control group. METHODS: We recruited 131 adolescents ages 15 to 19 with a food allergy and a current prescription for epinephrine to participate in a cohort multiple randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to participate in Intervention 1, Intervention 2, or to receive usual care. The primary outcome was consistency of epinephrine-carrying, measured as the proportion of checkpoints at which a participant could successfully demonstrate they were carrying their EAI, with photo-documentation of the device. RESULTS: During Intervention 1, participants who received the intervention carried their EAI 28% of the time versus 38% for control group participants (P = .06). During Intervention 2, participations who received the intervention carried their EAI 45% of the time versus 23% for control group participants (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Text message nudges alone were unsuccessful at promoting EAI-carrying but text message nudges combined with modest financial incentives almost doubled EAI-carriage rates among those who received the intervention compared with the control group. However, even with the intervention, adolescents with food allergies carried their EAI <50% of the time. Alternative strategies for making EAIs accessible to adolescents at all times should be implemented.

Improvement in eosinophilic esophagitis when using dupilumab for other indications or compassionate use.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab has been approved to treat atopic dermatitis, asthma, and nasal polyps and is in active clinical trials for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Given its shared immunopathology, we hypothesized that EoE symptoms and inflammation would improve when dupilumab therapy was used for other allergic indications. OBJECTIVE: To measure the clinical and histologic response in EoE to dupilumab when treating other atopic diseases. METHODS: We completed a retrospective chart review of all patients at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Rady Children Hospital who were prescribed dupilumab for atopic dermatitis, asthma, or nasal polyps and had a concomitant clinical diagnosis of EoE. Demographic information along with histology, symptom scores, medications, and diet information were collected. Response to dupilumab was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients were identified. Of which, 11 patients were prescribed dupilumab for asthma, 27 for atopic dermatitis, 3 for nasal polyps, and 4 for compassionate use for EoE. There was no follow-up data for 8 patients. Follow-up histology was available for 26 patients: 22 of 26 had less than 6 eosinophils per high power field after the initiation of dupilumab with significant improvement (pre: 52.9 + 35.1 to post: 4.5 + 10.9 eosinophils/high power field, P < .005). A total of 28 patients had improvement of symptoms, with 24 patients reporting complete resolution of symptoms after dupilumab initiation. Reductions in EoE treatment medications (swallowed steroids, proton pump inhibitors) or expansion of diet occurred in 29 patients treated with dupilumab. CONCLUSION: Dupilumab therapy initiated for atopic disease effectively induces symptomatic and histologic remission of esophageal disease and reduces the need for EoE-directed therapy in patients with concomitant EoE.

Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Peanut-Allergic Children: REALISE Randomized Clinical Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for peanut allergy are limited. In previous clinical trials, epicutaneous immunotherapy with a patch containing 250-µg peanut protein (Viaskin Peanut 250 µg [VP250]) was well tolerated and statistically superior to placebo in desensitizing peanut-allergic children. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety of VP250 in children, using a study design approximating potential real-world use. METHODS: REAL LIfe Use and Safety of EPIT (REALISE) is a phase 3 multicenter study consisting of a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled period followed by open-label active treatment. Children aged 4 to 11 years with physician diagnosis of peanut allergy received daily treatment with placebo (6 months) or VP250 (up to 36 months). Data from the 6-month, randomized, controlled phase of REALISE are reported. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-three children were randomized 3:1 to receive VP250 (n = 294) or placebo (n = 99) for 6 months; 284 (72.3%) children had a history of peanut anaphylaxis. According to parent diary, all participants receiving VP250 and 83.8% receiving placebo reported at least 1 episode of local skin reaction, with frequency decreasing over time. Only 4 participants (1.4%) receiving VP250 discontinued because of adverse events (AEs). Epinephrine was administered for allergic reactions attributed to VP250 in 7 children (2.4%), of whom 5 remained in the study; none involved severe anaphylaxis. Overall, AE rates were similar among participants with and without a history of peanut anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In a study designed to mirror real-world use, VP250 was observed to be well tolerated in peanut-allergic children, consistent with previous phase 2b and 3 studies.

Oral Food Challenge for FPIES in Practice-A Survey: Report from the Work Group on FPIES Within the Adverse Reactions to Foods Committee, FAED IS, AAAAI.

BACKGROUND: Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is a non-IgE-mediated food allergy diagnosed via history and/or an oral food challenge (OFC). OBJECTIVE: To determine allergists' approach to FPIES OFCs. METHODS: A web-based survey was e-mailed to 1100 randomly selected American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members. RESULTS: A total of 132 individuals responded (12% response rate). A total of 95.5% (n = 105) of respondents perform OFCs in their practice, but only 58.7% (n = 71) perform FPIES OFCs. The median number of FPIES OFCs in children was reported as 3 per year (range, 0-76); all but 1 respondent (2.5%) had not performed any FPIES OFCs in adults. The most common FPIES OFC foods were cow's milk, rice, lightly cooked egg, oat, soy, baked milk, and baked egg. The decision to offer FPIES OFCs was based on the severity of past reactions, the patient and family's desire, and the patient's age. FPIES OFCs were most commonly performed in an outpatient setting, with placement of peripheral intravenous access depending on the severity of past reactions and with a serving appropriate for age divided into 3 equal portions administered over 30 minutes. There was significant variability in the approach to conducting FPIES OFCs. Most respondents (87.4%, n = 127) indicated that specific guidelines for performing FPIES OFCs would be helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the discordance in allergists' practices performing OFCs for IgE-mediated food allergy compared with FPIES. The lack of universal agreement on the optimal way to perform OFCs in FPIES demonstrates the need for future studies to develop a standardized protocol for FPIES OFCs.

Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome oral food challenge: Time for a change?

OBJECTIVE: Food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome (FPIES) is typically diagnosed based on a characteristic clinical history; however, an oral food challenge (OFC) may be necessary to confirm the diagnosis or evaluate for the development of tolerance. FPIES OFC methods vary globally, and there is no universally agreed upon protocol. The objective of this review is to summarize reported FPIES OFC approaches and consider unmet needs in diagnosing and managing FPIES. DATA SOURCES: PubMed database was searched using the keywords food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome, oral food challenge, cow milk allergy, food allergy, non-immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergy and FPIES. STUDY SELECTIONS: Primary and review articles were selected based on relevance to the diagnosis of FPIES and the FPIES OFC. RESULTS: We reviewed the history of FPIES and the evolution and variations in the FPIES OFC. A summary of current literature suggests that most patients with FPIES will react with 25% to 33% of a standard serving of the challenged food, there is little benefit to offering a divided dose challenge unless there is suspicion of specific immunoglobulin E to the food being challenged, reactions typically appear within 1 to 4 hours of ingestion, and reactions during OFC rarely result in emergency department or intensive care unit admission. CONCLUSION: International standardization in the FPIES OFC approach is necessary with particular attention to specific dose administration across challenged foods, timing between the patient's reaction and offered OFC to verify tolerance, patient safety considerations before the OFC, and identification of characteristics that would indicate home reintroduction is appropriate.

Long-term, open-label extension study of the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: PEOPLE 3-year results.

BACKGROUND: The PEPITES (Peanut EPIT Efficacy and Safety) trial, a 12-month randomized controlled study of children with peanut allergy and 4 to 11 years old, previously reported the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy (250 µg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250 µg). OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess interim safety and efficacy of an additional 2 years of EPIT from the ongoing (5-year treatment) PEOPLE (PEPITES Open-Label Extension) study. METHODS: Subjects who completed PEPITES were offered enrollment in PEOPLE. Following an additional 2 years of daily DBV712 250 µg, subjects who had received DBV712 250 µg in PEPITES underwent month-36 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge with an optional month-38 sustained unresponsiveness assessment. RESULTS: Of 213 eligible subjects who had received DBV712 250 µg in PEPITES, 198 (93%) entered PEOPLE, of whom 141 (71%) had assessable double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at month 36. At month 36, 51.8% of subjects (73 of 141) reached an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg, compared with 40.4% (57 of 141) at month 12; 75.9% (107 of 141) demonstrated increased eliciting dose compared with baseline; and 13.5% (19 of 141) tolerated the full double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge of 5444 mg. Median cumulative reactive dose increased from 144 to 944 mg. Eighteen subjects underwent an optional sustained unresponsiveness assessment; 14 of those (77.8%) maintained an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg at month 38. Local patch-site skin reactions were common but decreased over time. There was no treatment-related epinephrine use in years 2 or 3. Compliance was high (96.9%), and withdrawals due to treatment-related adverse events were low (1%). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that daily EPIT treatment for peanut allergy beyond 1 year leads to continued response from a well-tolerated, simple-to-use regimen.

Food Allergy Management at School.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 8% of schoolchildren in the United States experience potentially life-threatening food allergies. They must diligently avoid allergenic foods and have prompt access to epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis. These prevention strategies must be sustained without interruption, posing a range of challenges at school. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 178 participants about their experiences managing food allergies outside the home. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using an iterative approach in NVivo 10. RESULTS: Participants reported highly varied school experiences across the ecological model. They described the need to be proactive and self-sufficient to manage food allergies. Whereas food allergy-related social exclusion was common, participants also described positive peer interactions, including intensive peer engagement and support. They perceived that formal school policies were limited in scope and inconsistently implemented. Prevention-oriented policies were more common in lower grades than in higher grades. CONCLUSIONS: Poorly defined and implemented policies disrupted students' social and educational experiences at school, families' relationships with school staff, and, ultimately, the safety and wellbeing of students with allergies. Given the high prevalence of food allergies among children, these findings demonstrate the need for multiple layers of support to facilitate safe, socially inclusive food allergy management at schools.