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.

APPEAL-2: A pan-European qualitative study to explore the burden of peanut-allergic children, teenagers and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Allergy to Peanuts ImPacting Emotions And Life (APPEAL-1) was a recent European multi-country questionnaire survey that highlighted the negative impacts of peanut allergy (PA) on quality of life. A follow-on qualitative study, APPEAL-2, further assessed the burden of PA and associated coping strategies through semi-structured interviews. OBJECTIVE: To gain qualitative insight on the strategies used to cope with and manage PA and the impact of these strategies on the quality of life of children, teenagers and caregivers. METHODS: This cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in eight European countries: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Denmark and the Netherlands. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with children (aged 8-12 years) and teenagers (aged 13-17 years) with self-/proxy-reported moderate or severe PA and with parents/caregivers of children or teenagers (aged 4-17 years) with moderate or severe PA. Data were analysed using thematic analysis; data saturation was assessed. Two conceptual models were developed to illustrate the impacts of PA and coping strategies used to manage them for (a) individuals with PA and (b) parents/caregivers of children with PA. RESULTS: 107 participants were interviewed: 24 children, 39 teenagers and 44 caregivers. The conceptual models illustrated themes related to coping and control, driven by the fear of PA reactions, and the associated emotional, social, relationship and work impacts. Factors moderating these impacts included social attitudes and support, child-caregiver relationship and coping strategies used. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The APPEAL-2 results substantiate the findings of APPEAL-1; the results also suggest that the severity of experience with PA may not correlate with perception of its overall burden and show variable impacts by country.

APPEAL-1: A pan-European survey of patient/caregiver perceptions of peanut allergy management.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy (PA) is associated with marked quality-of-life (QoL) impairment. However, data are lacking on the experience and impact of living with PA from the perspectives of persons with PA (PwPA) and their caregivers. Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life study 1 (APPEAL-1) was a pan-European survey investigating these perspectives. This first of two articles reports clinical characteristics of PwPA and PA management practices. METHODS: APPEAL-1 was a quantitative, online survey conducted in eight European countries, developed by eight representatives of patient advocacy groups and five healthcare professionals and researchers. Eligible participants included adults with PA and parents/caregivers of PwPA who responded by self-report and provided proxy-report for the PwPA under their care. Data were summarized using nonweighted descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1846 completed/analysed questionnaires, 528 were from adults with PA (self-report); 437 by proxy for children with PA (34 aged 0-3 years, 287 aged 4-12 years, 116 aged 13-17 years) and 881 from parents/caregivers (self-report). Of PwPA (N = 965), 95% reported diagnosis by healthcare professionals, mostly by clinical history and peanut-specific allergy testing. Rates of allergic rhinitis, asthma and other food allergies in PwPA were 50%, 42% and 79%, respectively. Only 31% of PwPA received HCP advice/support following their worst allergic reaction, and 28% had not been prescribed an adrenaline auto-injector. Results were similar by country but varied by age group. CONCLUSIONS: The APPEAL-1 findings contribute to greater understanding of PA impact on PwPA, caregivers and family members and the need for improved PA management across Europe.

APPEAL-1: A multiple-country European survey assessing the psychosocial impact of peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy (PA) is a common, potentially life-threatening and typically lifelong condition with a significant burden of illness. However, information is lacking on how persons with PA (PwPA) and their caregivers perceive the psychosocial impact of living with PA. The Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life 1 (APPEAL-1) survey, conducted across Europe, investigated the experience and impact of living with PA. Here, we report data evaluating the psychosocial impact of PA on PwPA and their caregivers. METHODS: Allergy to Peanuts imPacting Emotions And Life study 1 was an online survey conducted in eight European countries. Representatives of eight patient advocacy groups and five healthcare-research specialists developed the survey. Eligible respondent groups included the following: adults diagnosed with PA (self-report); parent/nonparent caregivers (proxy-report for a child with PA); and parent/nonparent caregivers (self-report of PA impact on themselves). RESULTS: Of 1846 total study respondents, 419 were adults with PA (self-report); 546 were parents/caregivers (proxy-report); and 881 were parents/caregivers (self-report). Most respondents reported lifestyle restrictions regarding food (84%-93%) and additional domains including parties and socializing, holiday activities and destinations, and taking public transport (53%-89%). Approximately 40% rated themselves as "very" frustrated and "very" stressed. Two-thirds (65%) felt socially isolated; 43% were bullied. Less than half felt confident in knowing when to use an adrenaline autoinjector. Several intercountry differences were observed such as high levels of uncertainty and stress in respondents from Ireland, highest rates of anxiety in respondents from Germany, and social exclusion and isolation most common in respondents from France. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut allergy imposes an adverse psychosocial impact on patients and caregivers, leading to frustration, stress and isolation. Attention to the impact of PA is needed in research and clinical practice to improve PA healthcare and public education programmes.

Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved.

Understanding how consumers with food allergies make decisions based on precautionary labelling.

BACKGROUND: Understanding consumer perceptions is crucial if effective food safety policy and risk communication are to be developed and implemented. We sought to understand how those living with food allergy assess risk with precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) and their preference in how risks are communicated within a quantitative risk assessment (QRA) framework. METHODS: The Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) labelling online survey was developed for adults and parents of children with food allergy and distributed across Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain and UK via patient support groups. RESULTS: There were 1560 complete responses. 'This product is not suitable for' was selected as first choice for PAL by 46% overall and 'May contain' was selected as the first choice by 44%. Seventy-three percent reported that it would improve their trust in a product if a QRA process had been used to make a decision about whether to include 'may contain'. Overall, 66% reported that a 'statement + symbol' on the label indicating a QRA, would help them to understand the risk assessment process that had been used by the food manufacturer. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers want to know what process has actually taken place for the placing of a PAL and/or risk assessment statement on a particular food product. Our findings provide a basis for the development of more informative communication around food allergen risk and safety and support evidence-based policy-making in the context of the legislative requirements of the European Union's Food Information for Consumers Regulation.

Evidence-based approaches to the application of precautionary allergen labelling: Report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy is a major public health concern with avoidance of the trigger food(s) being central to management by the patient. Food information legislation mandates the declaration of allergenic ingredients; however, the labelling of the unintentional presence of allergens is less defined. Precautionary allergen labelling (PAL) was introduced by the food industry to help manage and communicate the risk of reaction from the unintended presence of allergens in foods. In its current form, PAL is counterproductive for consumers with food allergies as there is no standardized approach to applying PAL. Foods with a PAL often do not contain the identified food allergen while some products without a PAL contain quantities of common food allergens that are capable of inducing an allergic reaction. Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) was an EU-funded project that aimed to improve the management of food allergens by the food industry for the benefit of people with food allergies. Within iFAAM, a clinically validated tiered risk assessment approach for food allergens was developed. Two cross-stakeholder iFAAM workshops were held on 13-14 December 2016 and 19-20 April 2018. One of the objectives of these workshops was to develop a proposal to make PAL effective for consumers. This paper describes the outcomes from these workshops. This provides the basis for the development of more informative and transparent labelling that will ultimately improve management and well-being in consumers with food allergy.

Can dietary strategies in early life prevent childhood food allergy? A report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy affects a small but significant number of children and adults. Food allergy is responsible for considerable morbidity and is the commonest cause of anaphylaxis in children. One of the aims of the European Union-funded "Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management" (iFAAM) project was to improve our understanding of the best way to prevent the development of food allergy. Groups within the project worked on integrating the current prevention evidence base as well as generating new data to move our understanding forward. This paper from the iFAAM project is a unique addition to the literature on this topic as it not only outlines the recently published randomized controlled trials (as have previous reviews) but also summarizes two iFAAM-associated project workshops. These workshops focused on how we may be able to use dietary strategies in early life to prevent the development of food allergy and summarized the range of opinions amongst experts in this controversial area.

Identifying and managing patients at risk of severe allergic reactions to food: Report from two iFAAM workshops.

Food allergy affects a small but important number of children and adults. Much of the morbidity associated with food allergy is driven by the fear of a severe reaction and fatalities continue to occur. Foods are the commonest cause of anaphylaxis. One of the aims of the European Union-funded Integrated Approaches to Food Allergen and Allergy Risk Management (iFAAM) project was to improve the identification and management of children and adults at risk of experiencing a severe reaction. A number of interconnected studies within the project have focused on quantifying the severity of allergic reactions; the impact of food matrix, immunological factors on severity of reactions; the impact of co-factors such as medications on the severity of reactions; utilizing single-dose challenges to understand threshold and severity of reactions; and community studies to understand the experience of patients suffering real-life allergic reactions to food. Associated studies have examined population thresholds and co-factors such as exercise and stress. This paper summarizes two workshops focused on the severity of allergic reactions to food. It outlines the related studies being undertaken in the project indicating how they are likely to impact on our ability to identify individuals at risk of severe reactions and improve their management.

[Hidden allergens in processed food : An update from the consumer's point of view]. / "Versteckte Allergene" in vorverpackten Lebensmitteln : Ein Update zur Problematik aus Sicht allergischer Verbraucher.

Despite improved allergen labelling and careful avoidance strategies, hidden allergens in food remain a substantial risk for unintended reactions for consumers with food allergies. New data from a survey of the German Allergy and Asthma Association (Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund - DAAB) shows a slight decrease in the number of consumers that report allergic reactions to prepacked food. Still, 75 % (compared to 85 % in 2008) have experienced at least one allergic reaction after eating a prepacked food. In more than half of the cases, the reaction was classified as severe (with airway and/or cardiovascular symptoms such as respiratory distress, loss of blood pressure or anaphylactic shock). Again, more than 40 % (2008: 47 %, 2015: 42 %) reported that no information on the presence of the food allergens had been present on the label either as ingredients or as precautionary allergen labelling (PAL). Different possibilities are discussed under which food allergens may not be recognized or recognizable by consumers with food allergies, such as allergen labelling that is not easy to understand, unexpected occurrence of allergens as well as recipe changes in known foods. Examples are given as well as proposals for the improvement of the situation in order to better meet the goals of food information regulations to enable consumers with food allergies to make "informed choices which are safe for them" (Quote Regulation (EU) 1169/2011 - Reason 24).

Time to ACT-UP: Update on precautionary allergen labelling (PAL).

Background: Precautionary Allergen ("may contain") Labelling (PAL) is used by industry to communicate potential risk to food-allergic individuals posed by unintended allergen presence (UAP). In 2014, the World Allergy Organization (WAO) highlighted that PAL use was increasing, but often applied inconsistently and without regulation - which reduces its usefulness to consumers with food allergy and those purchasing food for them. WAO proposed the need for a regulated, international framework to underpin application of PAL. In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations convened an expert consultation to address the issue of PAL, the outputs of which are now being considered by the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL). Objectives: To summarise the latest data to inform the application of PAL in a more systematic way, for implementation into global food standards. Methods: A non-systematic review of issues surrounding precautionary labelling and food allergens in pre-packaged products. Results: Approximately, 100 countries around the world have legislation on the declaration of allergenic ingredients. Just a few have legislation on UAP. Given the risks that UAP entails, non-regulated PAL creates inconvenience in real life due to its unequal, difficult interpretation by patients. The attempts made so far to rationalize PAL present lights and shadows. Conclusions: At a time when CCFL is considering the results of the FAO/WHO Expert Consultation 2020-2023, we summarise the prospects to develop an effective and homogeneous legislation at a global level, and the areas of uncertainty that might hinder international agreement on a regulated framework for PAL of food allergens.

Vegan diets from an allergy point of view - Position paper of the DGAKI working group on food allergy.

Vegan diets are currently attracting a great deal of attention. However, avoiding animal-based foods restricts the diet and is associated with risks, the extent and medical implications of which are at present not sufficiently understood. Elimination diets represent the usual therapeutic long-term management in the presence of food allergy. In order to understand the risks of vegan diets and to discuss these critically from the perspective of food allergies, the expertise of a nutritionist/dietitian with expertise in this area is indispensable. This position paper deals with the incentives behind and the benefits of a plant-based diet. The knowledge required to cover macro- and micronutrient dietary requirements is presented. Using the avoidance of cow's milk as an example, the challenges of adequately meeting nutritional needs are identified and (so-called) milk alternatives are evaluated from an allergy and nutritional point of view. Finally, other plant-based (substitute) products are evaluated from the same perspective, as significant protein sources in vegan diets (e.g., legumes, nuts, and seeds) are at the same time potential and potent triggers of allergic reactions. However, the allergic potential of many substitute products cannot be fully assessed at present due to gaps in research. Wheat as the most important trigger for anaphylaxis in adults is also evaluated. Finally, the increase in ultra-processed products in the (vegan) food sector and their potential consequences for the immune system are discussed.

Peanut Can Be Used as a Reference Allergen for Hazard Characterization in Food Allergen Risk Management: A Rapid Evidence Assessment and Meta-Analysis.

Regional and national legislation mandates the disclosure of "priority" allergens when present as an ingredient in foods, but this does not extend to the unintended presence of allergens due to shared production facilities. This has resulted in a proliferation of precautionary allergen ("may contain") labels (PAL) that are frequently ignored by food-allergic consumers. Attempts have been made to improve allergen risk management to better inform the use of PAL, but a lack of consensus has led to variety of regulatory approaches and nonuniformity in the use of PAL by food businesses. One potential solution would be to establish internationally agreed "reference doses," below which no PAL would be needed. However, if reference doses are to be used to inform the need for PAL, then it is essential to characterize the hazard associated with these low-level exposures. For peanut, there are now published data relating to over 3000 double-blind, placebo-controlled challenges in allergic individuals, but a similar level of evidence is lacking for other priority allergens. We present the results of a rapid evidence assessment and meta-analysis for the risk of anaphylaxis to a low-level allergen exposure for priority allergens. On the basis of this analysis, we propose that peanut can and should be considered an exemplar allergen for the hazard characterization at a low-level allergen exposure.

Managing food allergy: GA2LEN guideline 2022.

Food allergy affects approximately 2-4% of children and adults. This guideline provides recommendations for managing food allergy from the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN). A multidisciplinary international Task Force developed the guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II framework and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We reviewed the latest available evidence as of April 2021 (161 studies) and created recommendations by balancing benefits, harms, feasibility, and patient and clinician experiences. We suggest that people diagnosed with food allergy avoid triggering allergens (low certainty evidence). We suggest that infants with cow's milk allergy who need a breastmilk alternative use either hypoallergenic extensively hydrolyzed cow's milk formula or an amino acid-based formula (moderate certainty). For selected children with peanut allergy, we recommend oral immunotherapy (high certainty), though epicutaneous immunotherapy might be considered depending on individual preferences and availability (moderate certainty). We suggest considering oral immunotherapy for children with persistent severe hen's egg or cow's milk allergy (moderate certainty). There are significant gaps in evidence about safety and effectiveness of the various strategies. Research is needed to determine the best approaches to education, how to predict the risk of severe reactions, whether immunotherapy is cost-effective and whether biological therapies are effective alone or combined with allergen immunotherapy.

Update of the S2k guideline on the management of IgE-mediated food allergies.

Not available.