Search

Introduction Alpha‐gal syndrome (AGS) is characterized by delayed hypersensitivity to non‐primate mammalian meat in people having specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) to the oligosaccharide galactose‐alpha‐1,3‐galactose. AGS has been linked to tick bites from Amblyomma americanum (Aa) in the U.S. A small animal model of meat allergy is needed to study the mechanism of alpha‐gal sensitization, the effector phase leading to delayed allergic responses and potential therapeutics to treat AGS. Methods Eight‐ to ten‐weeks old mice with a targeted inactivation of alpha‐1,3‐galactosyltransferase (AGKO) were injected intradermally with 50 μg of Aa tick salivary gland extract (TSGE) on days 0, 7, 21, 28, 42, and 49. Total IgE and alpha‐gal sIgE were quantitated on Day 56 by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. Mice were challenged orally with 400 mg of cooked pork kidney homogenate or pork fat. Reaction severity was assessed by measuring a drop in core body temperature and scoring allergic signs. Results Compared to control animals, mice treated with TSGE had 190‐fold higher total IgE on Day 56 (0.60 ± 0.12 ng/ml vs. 113.2 ± 24.77 ng/ml; p < 0.001). Alpha‐gal sIgE was also produced in AGKO mice following TSGE sensitization (undetected vs. 158.4 ± 72.43 pg/ml). Further, sensitized mice displayed moderate clinical allergic signs along with a drop in core body temperature of ≥2°C as an objective measure of a systemic allergic reaction. Interestingly, female mice had higher total IgE responses to TSGE treatment but male mice had larger declines in mean body temperature. Conclusion TSGE‐sensitized AGKO mice generate sIgE to alpha‐gal and demonstrate characteristic allergic responses to pork fat and pork kidney. In keeping with the AGS responses documented in humans, mice reacted more rapidly to organ meat than to high fat pork challenge. This mouse model establishes the central role of tick bites in the development of AGS and provides a small animal model to mechanistically study mammalian meat allergy., Alpha‐gal syndrome (AGS) is characterized by delayed hypersensitivity to non‐primate mammalian meat in people having specific IgE (sIgE) to the oligosaccharide galactose‐alpha‐1,3‐galactose and has been linked to tick bites from Amblyomma americanum (Aa) in the U.S. We demonstrate that intradermal injection of Aa tick salivary gland extract (TSGE) in alpha‐gal knockout (AGKO) mice induce alpha‐gal sIgE production and mice displayed moderate clinical allergic signs along with a drop in core body temperature as an objective measure of a systemic allergic reaction. Further, this model recapitulates several aspects of red meat allergy seen in the humans and will be used to mechanistically study this novel food allergy and model therapeutic approaches to treat this disease.

Food allergy is a growing health problem worldwide that impacts millions of individuals. Current treatment options are limited and strict dietary avoidance remains the standard of care. Immunotherapy using whole, native allergens is under active clinical investigation but harbors the risk of severe side effects including anaphylaxis. Newer food-specific therapies with hypoallergenic proteins may potentially offer safer treatment alternatives, and this review seeks to investigate the evidence supporting the use of these modalities. The utilization of different methods to alter allergen structure and IgE binding leads to reduced allergenicity and decreases the risk for systemic reactions, making the use of potential therapies including extensively heated egg/milk, peptide immunotherapy, recombinant allergen immunotherapy, and DNA vaccines safe and possibly efficacious forms of treatment in food allergy. However, for the majority of these treatment modalities, limited data currently exists looking at the safety and efficacy in human subjects with food allergy. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current evidence examining the safety and efficacy of hypoallergenic proteins in the treatment of food allergies.

Background In a previously reported CoFAR study, 55 subjects with egg allergy underwent randomized, placebo-controlled egg oral immunotherapy (eOIT). Active treatment induced desensitization in most and sustained unresponsiveness (SU) in a smaller subset. We hypothesized that component-resolved analysis of IgE, IgG4, IgA, IgA1, and IgA2 may identify potential biomarkers of SU in OIT subjects. Methods Longitudinal samples for 51 egg-allergic subjects (37 active and 14 placebo) were available. Egg white (EW)-, ovalbumin (OVA)-, and ovomucoid (OVM)-specific levels of IgA, IgA1, and IgA2 were quantified by ELISA. IgE and IgG4 to these antigens were quantified using ImmunoCAP®. Clinical responders achieved SU to egg; all others were considered nonresponders. Between-group comparisons were made among active and placebo, as well as responders and nonresponders. Results No placebo subjects achieved responder status. Through month 48, among the 37 active subjects, baseline IgE-OVM was lower in responders (median 3.97 kU/l, n = 19) than in nonresponders (10.9 kU/l, n = 18, P = 0.010). Logistic regression analysis revealed that lower baseline IgE-EW (P = 0.038), IgE-OVM (P = 0.032), and a higher IgG4/IgE-OVM ratio (P = 0.013) were associated with clinical response. Relative increases in IgG4-EW, IgA-EW, and IgA2-EW were observed in responders (P = 0.024, 0.024, and 0.029, respectively). IgG4/IgE, IgA/IgE, and IgA2/IgE ratios for EW and IgA/IgE ratio for OVA were found to be significantly elevated among responders (P = 0.004, 0.009, 0.028, and 0.008, respectively). Conclusions Increased IgG4-EW, IgA-EW, and IgA2-EW during eOIT are associated with clinical response to eOIT. Lower pretreatment IgE-EW and IgE-OVM are also associated with SU. Future studies are needed to evaluate and validate these potential biomarkers.

Background Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with peanut changes clinical and immune responses in most peanut-allergic individuals, but the response is highly variable. Objective We sought to examine the component-specific effects of peanut SLIT and determine whether peanut component testing could predict the outcome of a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 12 months of peanut SLIT. Methods We included 33 subjects who underwent peanut SLIT with a DBPCFC of 2500 mg of peanut protein performed after 12 months on therapy. Plasma samples from baseline and after 12 months of peanut SLIT were assayed using ImmunoCAP for IgE and IgG4 against whole peanut, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, Ara h 3, Ara h 8, and Ara h 9. Results Following 12 months of SLIT, 10 subjects (30%) passed the DBPCFC without symptoms and were considered desensitized. Subjects that failed the DBPCFC tolerated a median of 460 mg peanut protein (range: 10-1710 mg). The desensitized group had significantly lower baseline levels of IgE against peanut (median 40.8 vs 231 kUA/L, p = 0.0082), Ara h 2 (median 17 vs 113 kUA/L, p=0.0082), and Ara h 3 (median 0.3 vs 8.5 kUA/L, p = 0.0396). ROC curves indicated that baseline IgE against peanut and Ara h 2 were equally effective at discriminating between the two groups (AUC = 0.7957, p = 0.007752 for both). Conclusion and Clinical Relevance In this cohort of subjects undergoing SLIT for peanut allergy, lower baseline levels of IgE against Ara h 2, Ara h 3, and peanut were associated with successful desensitization. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Tree nut allergy is a potentially life-threatening disease that is increasing in prevalence, now affecting 1% of the general population in the United States. While other food allergies often resolve spontaneously, tree nut allergies are outgrown in less than 10% of cases. Due to the likelihood of cross-sensitization to multiple tree nut allergens, the current treatment guideline is strict avoidance of all nuts once one tree nut allergy has been diagnosed. For example, walnut and pecan are highly cross-reactive, along with cashew and pistachio, but the extent of clinical, IgE-mediated cross-reactivity among other tree nuts remains unclear, therefore making avoidance of all tree nuts a safe approach. There have been recent advances in immunotherapy for food allergies. For instance, there are investigational immunotherapies for milk, egg and peanut allergies, specifically oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy. However, there are no large randomized controlled clinical trials for tree nut allergies. Even though there has been less research into tree nut allergy immunotherapies, the evidence of T-cell cross-reactivity among tree nuts exists in animal models and in T cells from allergic patients indicates that immunotherapeutic interventions may be possible. Here, we review the literature regarding epidemiology, allergen homology and cross-reactivity among tree nuts, and explore how current findings can be employed for effective therapy.

Food allergies have increased in prevalence over the past 20 years, now becoming an important public health concern. Although there are no therapies currently available for routine clinical care, recent reports have indicated that immunotherapies targeting the mucosal immune system may be effective. Oral immunotherapy is conducted by administering small, increasing amounts of food allergen; it has shown promise for desensitizing individuals with peanut, egg, or milk allergies. Sublingual immunotherapy also desensitizes allergic patients to foods—2 major studies have examined the effects of sublingual immunotherapy in subjects with peanut allergies. We review the complex nature of IgE-mediated food allergies and the therapies being evaluated in clinical trials. We focus on the diagnosis and management of food allergies and investigational therapies.

Food allergies have increased in prevalence over the past 20 years, now becoming an important public health concern. Although there are no therapies currently available for routine clinical care, recent reports have indicated that immunotherapies targeting the mucosal immune system may be effective. Oral immunotherapy is conducted by administering small, increasing amounts of food allergen; it has shown promise for desensitizing individuals with peanut, egg, or milk allergies. Sublingual immunotherapy also desensitizes allergic patients to foods—two major studies have examined the effects of sublingual immunotherapy in subjects with peanut allergies. We review the complex nature of IgE-mediated food allergies and the therapies being evaluated in clinical trials. We focus on the diagnosis and management of food allergies and investigational therapies.

Background Allergic reactions to tree nuts are often severe and are outgrown in less than 10% of diagnosed patients. Objectives To determine whether treatment of underlying tree nut sensitization will prevent allergic reactions to cross-reacting tree nuts and to determine the effects of single–tree nut immunotherapy on true multi–tree nut sensitization. Methods Cross-reactivity model: Cashew-sensitized mice underwent immunotherapy with cashew and were subsequently challenged with cashew and pistachio. Multisensitization model: Cashew plus walnut-sensitized mice were treated with cashew alone, walnut alone, or both cashew and walnut and then underwent challenges to cashew and walnut. Challenges were assessed on the basis of symptoms, changes in body temperature, and mouse mast cell protease-1 release. Results In the cross-reactivity model, cashew immunotherapy completely prevented allergic reactions on challenges with cashew or the cross-reactive pistachio. In the multisensitization model, mice with cashew plus walnut allergy were significantly protected from anaphylactic reactions on cashew challenge in both the cashew-alone and walnut-alone immunotherapy groups. Results from the walnut challenge demonstrated significantly decreased allergic responses in the walnut immunotherapy group, whereas mice in the cashew immunotherapy group experienced significantly lower symptoms. In the cross-reactivity model, immunotherapy effectively decreased IL-4 and IL-5 production and increased IL-12 relative to placebo while also inducing a 5-fold increase in specific IgG 1 . Conclusion Single–tree nut immunotherapy can effectively decrease allergic responses in both the cross-reactivity and multisensitization mouse models. Further studies are needed to determine which single–tree nut immunotherapies will be most effective for specific multi–tree nut allergy profiles.

There is no approved therapy for food allergies, which affect 12 million people in the United States and millions more worldwide. In the last few years, our research team at Duke has begun to develop protocols to treat peanut and other food allergies. Two distinct therapies are being developed. Oral immunotherapy (OIT), which relies on ingestion of increasing amounts of the allergenic food, has been used to successfully desensitize more than 50 peanut allergic subjects. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) involves placing small quantities of peanut allergens under the tongue and has shown promise in our initial placebo-controlled clinical trial. Immunologic changes associated with OIT and SLIT include reduction in mast cell reactivity as determined by skin prick test size, decreased basophil responses, decreased specific-IgE, increased IgG4, and induction of regulatory T cells. Development of these immunotherapy strategies has generated much excitement in the food allergy community; however, further studies are needed before these approaches are ready for clinical use.

Food allergies affect approximately 5% of the U.S. population and have increased in the last decade. In recent years, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been tested in clinical trials for peanut, milk, and egg allergies in young children. OIT appears to be fairly well tolerated by most subjects and leads to desensitization with a greatly increased threshold of allergen required to induce reactions. Further approaches being investigated in preclinical studies in mouse models indicate the potential for using adjuvants, such as TLR9 agonists in combination with OIT; peptide OIT; and non-allergen specific applications such as herbal formulations. Further questions about OIT remain, including the optimal dosing and length of treatment; whether tolerance can be developed; and the exact cellular mechanisms resulting in protection following OIT. With many clinical trials underway across the United States and other countries, and a growing pipeline of preclinical research with translational potential, there is great hope for a widely applicable food allergy treatment.

Open-label oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols have been used to treat small numbers of patients with peanut allergy. Peanut OIT has not been evaluated in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.To investigate the safety and effectiveness of OIT for peanut allergy in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.In this multicenter study, children ages 1 to 16 years with peanut allergy received OIT with peanut flour or placebo. Initial escalation, build-up, and maintenance phases were followed by an oral food challenge (OFC) at approximately 1 year. Titrated skin prick tests (SPTs) and laboratory studies were performed at regular intervals.Twenty-eight subjects were enrolled in the study. Three peanut OIT subjects withdrew early in the study because of allergic side effects. During the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, all remaining peanut OIT subjects (n = 16) ingested the maximum cumulative dose of 5000 mg (approximately 20 peanuts), whereas placebo subjects (n = 9) ingested a median cumulative dose of 280 mg (range, 0-1900 mg; P.001). In contrast with the placebo group, the peanut OIT group showed reductions in SPT size (P.001), IL-5 (P = .01), and IL-13 (P = .02) and increases in peanut-specific IgG(4) (P.001). Peanut OIT subjects had initial increases in peanut-specific IgE (P.01) but did not show significant change from baseline by the time of OFC. The ratio of forkhead box protein 3 (FoxP3)(hi): FoxP3(intermediate) CD4+ CD25+ T cells increased at the time of OFC (P = .04) in peanut OIT subjects.These results conclusively demonstrate that peanut OIT induces desensitization and concurrent immune modulation. The current study continues and is evaluating the hypothesis that peanut OIT causes long-term immune tolerance.

Food allergy is a major cause of life-threatening hypersensitivity reactions. Food-induced anaphylaxis is the most common reason for someone to present to the emergency department for an anaphylactic reaction. At present, the avoidance of the allergenic food is the only method of preventing further reactions for allergic patients.With better characterization of allergens and an understanding of the immunologic mechanism involved in this reaction, investigators have developed several therapeutic modalities potentially applicable to the treatment and eventual prevention of food allergy. This review identifies and discusses the potential treatment options for food allergy that are under development.Relevant articles are reviewed pertaining to the treatment of food allergy.Among the therapeutic options currently under investigation are anti-IgE therapy, peptide immunotherapy, traditional Chinese medicine, mutated protein immunotherapy, DNA immunization and immunization with immunostimulatory sequences linked to allergens. These novel forms of treatment for allergic disease hold promise for the safe and effective treatment of food-allergic individuals and the prevention of food allergy in the future.

Background Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been thought to induce clinical desensitization to allergenic foods, but trials coupling the clinical response and immunologic effects of peanut OIT have not been reported. Objective The study objective was to investigate the clinical efficacy and immunologic changes associated with OIT. Methods Children with peanut allergy underwent an OIT protocol including initial day escalation, buildup, and maintenance phases, and then oral food challenge. Clinical response and immunologic changes were evaluated. Results Of 29 subjects who completed the protocol, 27 ingested 3.9 g peanut protein during food challenge. Most symptoms noted during OIT resolved spontaneously or with antihistamines. By 6 months, titrated skin prick tests and activation of basophils significantly declined. Peanut-specific IgE decreased by 12 to 18 months, whereas IgG 4 increased significantly. Serum factors inhibited IgE–peanut complex formation in an IgE-facilitated allergen binding assay. Secretion of IL-10, IL-5, IFN-γ, and TNF-α from PBMCs increased over a period of 6 to 12 months. Peanut-specific forkhead box protein 3 T cells increased until 12 months and decreased thereafter. In addition, T-cell microarrays showed downregulation of genes in apoptotic pathways. Conclusion Oral immunotherapy induces clinical desensitization to peanut, with significant longer-term humoral and cellular changes. Microarray data suggest a novel role for apoptosis in OIT.