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.

An Approach to the Office-Based Practice of Food Oral Immunotherapy.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) provides an active treatment option for patients with food allergies. OIT may improve quality of life and raise the threshold at which a patient with food allergy may react to an allergen, but it is a rigorous therapy that requires a high degree of commitment by the clinician, patients, and families. Recent guidelines from the Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology have provided a framework for the ethical, evidence-based, and patient-oriented clinical practice of OIT, and the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology guidelines have also recommended that OIT can be used as a potential treatment. The recent Food and Drug Administration approval of an OIT pharmaceutical has accelerated the adoption of OIT. This review provides a summary of the recent Canadian Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines and a consensus of practical experience of clinicians across the United States and Canada related to patient selection, office and staff preparation, the general OIT process, OIT-related reaction management, and treatment outcomes.

AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy, for which there are no approved treatment options, affects patients who are at risk for unpredictable and occasionally life-threatening allergic reactions. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we screened participants 4 to 55 years of age with peanut allergy for allergic dose-limiting symptoms at a challenge dose of 100 mg or less of peanut protein (approximately one third of a peanut kernel) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Participants with an allergic response were randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive AR101 (a peanut-derived investigational biologic oral immunotherapy drug) or placebo in an escalating-dose program. Participants who completed the regimen (i.e., received 300 mg per day of the maintenance regimen for approximately 24 weeks) underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at trial exit. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants 4 to 17 years of age who could ingest a challenge dose of 600 mg or more, without dose-limiting symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 551 participants who received AR101 or placebo, 496 were 4 to 17 years of age; of these, 250 of 372 participants (67.2%) who received active treatment, as compared with 5 of 124 participants (4.0%) who received placebo, were able to ingest a dose of 600 mg or more of peanut protein, without dose-limiting symptoms, at the exit food challenge (difference, 63.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 53.0 to 73.3; P<0.001). During the exit food challenge, the maximum severity of symptoms was moderate in 25% of the participants in the active-drug group and 59% of those in the placebo group and severe in 5% and 11%, respectively. Adverse events during the intervention period affected more than 95% of the participants 4 to 17 years of age. A total of 34.7% of the participants in the active-drug group had mild events, as compared with 50.0% of those in the placebo group; 59.7% and 44.4% of the participants, respectively, had events that were graded as moderate, and 4.3% and 0.8%, respectively, had events that were graded as severe. Efficacy was not shown in the participants 18 years of age or older. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 3 trial of oral immunotherapy in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut, treatment with AR101 resulted in higher doses of peanut protein that could be ingested without dose-limiting symptoms and in lower symptom severity during peanut exposure at the exit food challenge than placebo. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; PALISADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02635776 .).

An update on the safety of specific immunotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As allergen sublingual immunotherapy becomes more widely used in Europe and draws the attention of physicians of the USA, it is important to compare and contrast the safety aspects of this therapy versus allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy. RECENT FINDINGS: There are reports of severe systemic reactions associated with sublingual immunotherapy, but no fatalities. There are various studies of systemic reactions, including those that result in death, associated with subcutaneous immunotherapy over its nearly 100-year worldwide experience. Local reactions are common to both forms of the treatment. SUMMARY: If both forms of therapy are equally effective, a cost (including safety aspects) -benefit analysis of sublingual immunotherapy versus subcutaneous immunotherapy is necessary to determine how best to incorporate both forms of specific immunotherapy into the management of allergic patients. Adherence to published guidelines will reduce the likelihood of adverse reactions.