Search

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common food allergies in early childhood. CMA has varied presentations and multiple facets. A detailed clinical history is key for classification. In IgE-mediated CMA, skin prick testing and serum specific IgE testing are useful in the diagnosis, but an oral food challenge may still be necessary if there is doubt or to assess tolerance. Non-IgE-mediated CMA presentations include food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis, food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome, and eosinophilic esophagitis. The diagnosis of food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis and food protein-induced enterocolitis syndrome is based on the clinical history. An esophageal biopsy is required for the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis. Atopy patch testing, IgG testing, or IgG4 testing is not helpful in any CMA evaluation. Children with CMA (except those with food protein-induced allergic proctocolitis) are at risk for poor growth, and a nutritional evaluation should be part of routine care. Extensively hydrolyzed formulas are the recommended first-choice alternative formula for CMA. For IgE-mediated CMA, alternative approaches to traditional strict avoidance include oral immunotherapy and omalizumab (both as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy). Multiple international guidelines have addressed evaluation and management of CMA, providing key information, support, and guidance for clinicians in daily practice., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergies are the most common type of food allergy, often causing rapid symptoms after exposure to allergens posing a serious health risk and a high impact on patient's and caregiver's quality of life. Omalizumab, a humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, reduces allergic reactions by binding to circulating IgE. Omalizumab has been successfully used in allergic asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and chronic urticaria, and was recently approved for treating IgE-mediated food allergies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This GA 2 LEN ANACARE Consensus Statement presents our position on the use of omalizumab for treating IgE-mediated food allergies, based on a systematic review and meta-analysis, experience with use for other conditions, and expert consensus achieved via an eDelphi process. Following publication of the recent OUtMATCH study (stage 1) results and subsequent FDA approval, we propose that there is now sufficient evidence to recommend omalizumab as the only drug currently available that can mechanistically reduce IgE-mediated food allergic reactions. We acknowledge that the evidence does not reach the highest level of evidence which would be needed for a guideline recommendation., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical and Translational Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.)

Purpose of Review: To discuss if all patients who use self-injectable epinephrine outside the hospital setting require immediate emergency care., Recent Findings: Prior to 2023, anaphylaxis management guidance universally recommended that patients who use self-injectable epinephrine outside of the hospital or clinic setting immediately activate emergency medical services and seek further care. Additional food-induced anaphylaxis management recommendations specified that all patients always carry 2 auto-injector devices and give a second dose of epinephrine if there was not immediate response within 5 min of injection. Patients presenting for emergency care after epinephrine are often observed for up to 4-6 h afterwards, even when completely asymptomatic. These management steps have lacked evidence for improving outcomes, and universal implementation of these approaches is not cost-effective as guidance for food allergic patients. Epinephrine pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics suggest that peak physiologic response is more likely to occur closer to 15 min than before 5 min, that few patients require a second dose of epinephrine as most stabilize within 15 min of use, that 60 min of observation after a patient stabilizes after epinephrine use may be adequate as patients infrequently have further sequelae, and that not everyone needs to carry 2 epinephrine auto-injectors on their person at all times. The most recent anaphylaxis practice parameter promotes a contextualized approach to these management questions, outlining the option for watchful waiting to gauge response to epinephrine before seeking emergency care, which has been proven as a more cost-effective management strategy. The recent updated anaphylaxis care guidelines support the evolution of anaphylaxis care, in that universal, immediate activation of emergency services is not required for using self-injectable epinephrine outside the hospital setting., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Shrimp allergy, the most common food allergy in the United States, affects up to 2% of the population. Its etiology is multi-factorial with the combination of genetic predisposition and environmental exposures. This review summarizes the latest diagnosis and management strategies for shrimp allergy. Currently, the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge is the gold standard for diagnosis. Moreover, mainstream and experimental management strategies include food allergen avoidance, the FDA-approved omalizumab, and oral immunotherapy. Herein, we emphasize the urgent need to develop more effective diagnostic tools and therapies for shrimp allergy., Competing Interests: CMD has grant funding from NIH-NIAID (1R34AI57948, U54 AI117804, UM2-AI130836), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and DBV Technologies. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Su, Blackmon, Xu, Holt, Boateng, Wang, Szafron, Anagnostou, Anvari and Davis.)

This article explores food allergy and the nascent field of nutritional psychiatry. Individuals with food allergy experience lower levels of "food freedom" than their nonallergic counterparts, which can create cognitive, emotional, social, nutritional, and financial burdens. Patterns of food avoidance may influence neuroinflammatory states and the gut microbiome; these changes may be associated with neuropsychiatric symptoms. Food restriction may promote disruption of the microbiome neuroimmune axis, which has been linked to various allergic diseases. Targeted psychological counseling strategies can provide benefit. Food allergy and restricted diets may impact dietary health benefits., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Clinical teams are at the heart of healthcare value. Teamwork requires an appreciation of the unique geniuses of each team member as well as an understanding of team dynamics and larger organizational challenges. Effective teams leverage each member's unique talents within a culture of shared humility, service, and dedication. Although interpersonal communication is paramount, organizations that promote a culture of psychological safety to allow productive and necessary conflict are most effective at fostering shared commitment that allows real accountability and result-oriented, responsive systems. Healthy teams can serve to energize clinicians to provide outstanding service and high-value care., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A patient-reported outcome is directly reported by the patient without interpretation of the patient's response by anyone else. It refers to the patient's health (symptoms and feelings), quality of life, or functional status associated with health care or treatment. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are defined as the tools or instruments that are used to measure patient-reported outcomes. Health-related quality of life has been the most studied psychosocial PROM in food allergy, using validated questionnaires. In drug allergy, PROMs are useful in capturing patients' experiences of potential allergic reactions, including subjective symptoms such as headache, dizziness, or fatigue. Patient-reported outcome measures can also help differentiate true allergies from side effects or other nonallergic reactions and inform decisions about drug challenges and de-labeling strategies. Ensuring the chosen tool is validated for the specific allergy context is crucial for accurate data collection. Integrating patient-reported experiences alongside traditional methods can lead to more accurate assessments and personalized care., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

For clinicians involved in improving healthcare for patients with allergic and immunologic conditions, advocacy on a broader level through public outreach is key to advancing value-based care. In this article, we provide a toolkit of strategies and resources that can be used to raise public awareness of important issues through various mediums, including podcasts and social media, newspapers, testimonies, presentations, and interviews. A simple approach to effective media interactions is described using the acronym "RATIO," which stands for Research, Audience, Targeted topic, Interview rephrasing, and Optimism. The acronym also reminds the person who is presenting information that only a fraction of what is discussed will be recalled, and an even smaller proportion will be implemented. Key points should be made early. Examples of key talking points are provided for selected topics, including food allergy, anaphylaxis, asthma, rhinitis, and broader healthcare advocacy., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited decision-support tools are available to help shared decision-making (SDM) regarding food oral immunotherapy (OIT) initiation. No current tool covers all foods, forms, and pediatric ages for which OIT is offered., Methods: In compliance with International Patient Decision Aid Standards criteria, this pediatric decision-aid comparing OIT versus avoidance was developed in three stages. Nested qualitative data assessing OIT decisional needs were supplemented with evidence-synthesis from the OIT literature to create the prototype decision-aid content. This underwent iterative development with food allergy experts and patient advocacy stakeholders until unanimous consensus was reached regarding content, bias, readability, and utility in making a choice. Lastly, the tool underwent validated assessment of decisional acceptability, decisional conflict, and decisional self-efficacy., Results: The decision-aid underwent 5 iterations, resulting in a 4-page written aid (Flesch-Kincaid reading level 6.1) explaining therapy choices, risks and benefits, providing self-rating for attribute importance for the options and self-assessment regarding how adequate the information was in decision-making. A total of n = 135 caregivers of food-allergic children assessed the decision-aid, noting good acceptability, high decisional self-efficacy (mean score 85.9/100) and low decisional conflict (mean score 20.9/100). Information content was rated adequate and sufficient, the therapy choices wording balanced, and presented without bias for a "best choice." Lower decisional conflict was associated with caregiver-reported anaphylaxis., Conclusions: This first pediatric OIT decision-aid, agnostic to product, allergen, and age has good acceptability, limited bias, and is associated with low decisional conflict and high decisional self-efficacy. It supports SDM in navigating the decision to start OIT or continue allergen avoidance., (© 2024 European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Cow's milk and egg allergy affect approximately 1.9% and 0.9% of children, respectively. Dietary advancement therapies (DATs), including milk (ML) and egg (EL) ladders, and baked milk (BM-OIT) and baked egg (BE-OIT) oral immunotherapy, are potential therapeutic options for these patients., Objective: To perform systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of DATs in children with IgE-mediated milk or egg allergy., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted, exploring 22 potential outcomes, with meta-analysis performed where ≥3 studies reported data. The GRADE approach was used to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome, and the Johanna Briggs Institute tools were used for determining risk of bias., Results: Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria among 9946 titles screened. Tolerance occurred in 69% of EL, 58% of ML, 49% of BE-OIT, and 29% of BM-OIT patients. All-severity allergic reactions occurred in 21% of EL, 25% of ML, 20% of BE-OIT, and 61% of BM-OIT patients, with epinephrine use in 3% of EL, 2% of ML, and 9% of BM-OIT patients. At-home reactions occurred in 19% of BE-OIT and 10% of BM-OIT patients. Discontinuation occurred in 14% of EL, 17% of ML, 17% of BE-OIT, and 20% of BM-OIT patients. The mean time to BE egg and BE-OIT tolerance was 13.25 months (4 studies) and 19.1 months (3 studies). Certainty of evidence was very low, and risk of bias high. Study heterogeneity was high, attributable to multiple factors., Conclusions: There is very low certainty of evidence supporting DAT safety and efficacy. We cannot conclude that DAT accelerates tolerance development., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians., Objective: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled., Results: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective., Conclusion: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity., Competing Interests: Disclosures J.A.L. served as consultant for ARS, Aquestive, Bryn, ALK, and Novartis and Co-Chair Joint Task Force for Practice Parameters; received research money to institution from DBV and adjudication for Abvie and Siolta. T.E.D. the project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), under Award Number 2UL1TR001425 - 05A1; the content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. E.M.A. is and employee of Public Health Agency of Canada, but the views in any paper are her own and not those of Public Health Agency of Canada. Board member of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and Head of Allergy Section, Canadian Pediatric Society. A.A. received institutional funding (Novartis) and consultation/speaker fees (ALK, EPG Health, MJH, Adelphi, Genentech, FARE, and Medscape) and served as advisory board member (Ready, Set, Food; Novartis; and Genentech). K.G.B. received grants from NIH (R01AI150295), AHRQ (R01HS029319), and Thermo Fisher Scientific and royalties from UpToDate and is consulting for Denali Therapeutics. M.B. serves as investigator and advisory board member for Regeneron and Sanofi. N.M.C. serves as clinical investigator; received research support from AstraZeneca, Genentech, and Kenota Health; serves as advisor, consultant, and/or speaker for Amgen, ARS Pharma, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Bryn Pharma LLC, Freed AI, Genentech, GSK, Hikma, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi. D.B.K.G. is a consultant for Novartis, Aquestive, CellDex, and Kokua; received clinical trials support from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, GSK, Merck, Regeneron, Allergy Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, and AstraZeneca and royalties from UpToDate. N.L.H. is a speaker for Adma Bio and Takeda; speaker and advisor for Pharming, Horizon/Amgen, Horizon; advisory board member and speaker for Pharmaceuticals/Amgen. M.G.L. received research money to institution from Regeneron. S.S.M. is speaker for Genentech, Regeneron/Sanofi, GSK, and AstraZeneca and received grant from Takeda. J.J.O. consultant/advisor: GSK, Aquestive, Amgen, and ARS; adjudication/DSMB: AZ, Novartis, GSK, Sanofi, and AbbVie; reviewer/editor and executive editor: Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; reviewer: UpToDate; executive editor: Medscape; research/grants: NIH. A.R. speakers bureau member for Sanofi/Regeneron, GSK, and AstraZeneca. N.L.R. received funding from the Jeffrey Modell Foundation (58293-I), the NIH (R21AI164100), and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; is consultant for Takeda, Pharming Healthcare, and CSL Behring; received royalties from Wolters Kluwer and UpToDate. L.S. is clinical investigator for Regeneron and DBV Technologies and advisor for Sanofi and Leo pharmaceuticals. M.S.S. is member and co-chair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters; serves on the editorial board of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice; is an associate editor of Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; serves on the board of directors of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (views expressed are his own); has participated in research that has received funding from DBV. J.M.S. received grant support from and is consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi. C.A.S. recipient of a AAAAI Foundation Faculty Development Award. The views expressed in this work are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the AAAAI. D.R.S. is consultant to ARS. J.W. received research support from NIAID, Aimmune, DBV Technologies, and Siolta and consultancy fees from ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, and Novartis. M.J.G. is consultant for Aquestive; is a member of physician/medical advisory boards for DBV Technologies, Sanofi/Regeneron, Nutricia, Novartis, Acquestive, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, ALK-Abello, Bryn, Genentech, and Prota; is an unpaid member of the scientific advisory council for the National Peanut Board and medical advisory board of the International Food Protein Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome Association; is a member of the Brighton Collaboration Criteria Vaccine Anaphylaxis 2.0 working group; is the senior associate editor for the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; is member of the Joint Taskforce on Allergy Practice Parameters; received honorarium for lectures from ImSci, Red Nucleus, Medscape, Paradigm Medical Communications, Kaplan, Food Allergy Research and Education, and multiple state/local allergy societies. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Neuropsychiatric symptoms have long been acknowledged as a common comorbidity for individuals with allergic diseases. The proposed mechanisms for this relationship vary by disease and patient population and may include neuroinflammation and/or the consequent social implications of disease symptoms and management. We review connections between mental health and allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, asthma, vocal cord dysfunction, urticaria, and food allergy. Many uncertainties remain and warrant further research, particularly with regard to how medications interact with pathophysiologic mechanisms of allergic disease in the neuroimmune axis. Proactive screening for mental health challenges, using tools such as the Patient Health Questionnaire and Generalized Anxiety Disorder screening instruments among others, can aid clinicians in identifying patients who may need further psychiatric evaluation and support. Although convenient, symptom screening tools are limited by variable sensitivity and specificity and therefore require healthcare professionals to remain vigilant for other mental health "red flags." Ultimately, understanding the connection between allergic disease and mental health empowers clinicians to both anticipate and serve the diverse physical and mental health needs of their patient populations., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Omalizumab is an anti-IgE therapy newly approved by the Food and Drug Administration for allergen agnostic treatment of single or multiple food allergies in patients aged 1 year or older., Objective: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab as a food allergy treatment., Methods: We evaluated health and economic outcomes in Markov cohorts of simulated food allergic infants randomized to receive omalizumab using a 15-year horizon. Monte Carlo simulation was used (n = 40,000 subjects) to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective, incorporating both a family-level and individual-level analysis. We included family-level analysis to incorporate a broad perspective for health utility change, given treatment effects likely benefit all parties at home (eg, caregivers, siblings), not just the patient, representing the sum of changes in all such persons. Supplemental analyses explored lower omalizumab cost and home initiation. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Results: In the family-level cohort analysis, omalizumab exceeded cost-effectiveness thresholds ($185,183/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]). In a comparison of the omalizumab strategy (OMA) with the non-omalizumab strategy, the cost of OMA exceeded the non-omalizumab strategy ($315,020 vs $136,609) with greater incremental effectiveness (12.668 vs 11.699 QALY). In the individual-level analysis, the cost-effectiveness of OMA was $573,698/QALY. In base-case assessments, OMA was cost-effective (willingness to pay, $100,000/QALY) at a health state utility (HSU) improvement of 0.265. The value-based cost of OMA ranged from $14,166 to $23,791 when it was considered at the individual and family-unit levels. Requiring OMA administration in the clinic was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $260,239)., Conclusions: In the base case and at current pricing, omalizumab is not cost-effective, but it could be at a lower retail price or when use creates large health utility shifts in the family and patient., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Food allergy management has greatly evolved in the last several years, moving from passive approaches, such as strict food allergen avoidance, to more active treatments, including regulatory approval of the first specifically indicated immunotherapy product (for peanut) in 2020. In 2024, a second therapy, omalizumab, received regulatory approval for the treatment of 1 or more IgE-mediated food allergies, providing clinicians with multiple treatment options to offer patients and families. With this expanded armamentarium of food allergy treatment options, the practicing clinician requires detailed knowledge of benefits and risks of omalizumab, how omalizumab fits into the management landscape, and how to use shared decision-making to optimize therapy. This yardstick aims to provide the clinician with a review of data leading to omalizumab's food allergy indication and an evidence-based expert opinion approach regarding on how best to use this and other therapies available to optimize patient management., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Anagnostou reports receiving institutional funding from Novartis; serving as advisory board member of Genentech, Novartis, Bryn, and Ready. Set. Food!; and receiving consultation/speaker fees from ALK, Adelphi, Novartis, Genentech, Medscape, FARE, MHJ, and EPG Health. Dr Greenhawt is a consultant for Aquestive; is a member of physician/medical advisory boards for DBV Technologies, Takeda, Griffols, Nutricia, Novartis, Aquestive, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, ALK-Abello, Bryn, Genentech, and Prota; is a speaker for Genentech; is an unpaid member of the scientific advisory council for the National Peanut Board and medical advisory board of the International Food Protein Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome Association; is a member of the Brighton Collaboration Criteria Vaccine Anaphylaxis 2.0 working group; is the senior associate editor for the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; and is member of the Joint Taskforce on Allergy Practice Parameters. He has received honorarium for lectures from ImSci, Red Nucleus, Medscape, Paradigm Medical Communications, Kaplan, Food Allergy Research and Education, and multiple state/local allergy societies. Dr Shaker is a member and co-chair of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, serves on the editorial board of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice, is an associate editor of Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, and serves on the board of directors of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (views expressed are his own). Dr Vickery reports receiving grants from Alladapt, AstraZeneca, Genentech, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)/National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Siolta; personal fees from Allergenis, Aravax, Reacta Biosciences, and Sanofi Regeneron; both grants and personal fees from Aimmune, DBV, FARE, Novartis, and Regeneron; and stock options from Moonlight Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Wang is a member of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters; receives research support from NIAID, Aimmune, DBV, and Siolta; and receives consultancy fees from ALK-Abello, DBV, and Novartis., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Food allergy has been increasing in prevalence in most westernised countries and poses a significant burden to patients and families; dietary and social limitations as well as psychosocial and economic burden affect daily activities, resulting in decreased quality of life. Food oral immunotherapy (food-OIT) has emerged as an active form of treatment, with multiple benefits such as increasing the threshold of reactivity to the allergenic food, decreasing reaction severity on accidental exposures, expanding dietary choices, reducing anxiety and generally improving quality of life. Risks associated with food immunotherapy mostly consist of allergic reactions during therapy. While the therapy is generally considered both safe and effective, patients and families must be informed of the aforementioned risks, understand them, and be willing to accept and hedge these risks as being worthwhile and outweighed by the anticipated benefits through a process of shared decision-making. Food-OIT is a good example of a preference-sensitive care paradigm, given candidates for this therapy must consider multiple trade-offs for what is considered an optional therapy for food allergy compared with avoidance. Additionally, clinicians who discuss OIT should remain increasingly aware of the growing impact of social media on medical decision-making and be prepared to counter misconceptions by providing clear evidence-based information during in-person encounters, on their website, and through printed information that families can take home and review., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AA reports institutional funding from Aimmune Therapeutics, Novartis and FARE (Food Allergy Research and Education), and personal fees (consultation and speaker services) from DBV Technologies, ALK and FARE. MG is a consultant for Aquestive; is a member of physician/medical advisory boards for DBV Technologies, Sanofi/Regeneron, Nutricia, Novartis, Aquestive, Allergy Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, ALK-Abello and Prota; is an unpaid member of the scientific advisory council for the National Peanut Board and medical advisory board of the International Food Protein Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome Association; is a member of the Brighton Collaboration Criteria Vaccine Anaphylaxis 2.0 working group; is the senior associate editor for the Annals of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; and is member of the Joint Taskforce on Allergy Practice Parameters. He has received honorarium for lectures from ImSci, MedLearningGroup, RMEI Medical Education and multiple state/local allergy societies. He received past research support ending in 2020 from the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (K08-HS024599). PRdR reports research grant from Aimmune Therapeutics and FAES; speakers honoraria from GSK, FAES, Novartis, ALK, LETI, Aimmune Therapeutics, Sanofi, Stallergenes and DBV. DS reports consultant fees from ARS Pharmaceuticals, Before Brands, Novartis and ParentMD; research support from DBV Technologies; is a social media editor for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; is a member of the Board of Regents for the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; is a member of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy/Immunology; and is an associate editor of Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. EMA is an employee of Public Health Agency of Canada. GP and VS report no conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Based on shared decision-making (SDM) principles, a decision aid was previously developed to help patients, their caregivers, and physicians decide which peanut allergy management approach best suits them. This study refined the decision aid's content to better reflect patients' and caregivers' lived experience., Recent Findings: Current standard of care for peanut allergy is avoidance, although peanut oral immunotherapy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients 4-17 years old. An advisory board of allergy therapy experts (n = 3) and patient advocates (n = 3) informed modifications to the decision aid. The revised tool underwent cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) among adolescents (12-17 years old) with peanut allergy and caregivers of patients 4-17 years old with peanut allergy to evaluate its relevance, understandability, and usefulness. The 20 CDI participants understood the information presented in the SDM tool and reported it was important and relevant. Some revisions were made based on participant feedback. Results support content validity of the Peanut Allergy Treatment SDM Tool., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Pharmacoequity refers to equity in access to pharmacotherapy for all patients and is an especially large barrier to biologic agents in patients with allergic diseases. Value-based care models can prompt clinicians to address social determinants of health, promoting pharmacoequity. Pharmacoequity is influenced by numerous factors including socioeconomic status, which may be mediated through insurance status, educational attainment, and access to specialist care. In addition to lower socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, age, locations isolated from care systems, and off-label indications for biologic agents all constitute barriers to pharmacoequity. Whereas pharmaco-inequity is more apparent for expensive biologics, it also affects many other allergy treatments including epinephrine autoinjectors and SMART for asthma. Current programs aimed at alleviating cost barriers are imperfect. Patient assistance programs, manufacturer-sponsored free drug programs, and rebates often increase the complexity of care, with resultant inequity, particularly for patients with lower health literacy. Ultimately, single silver-bullet solutions are elusive. Long-term improvement instead requires a combination of research, advocacy, and creative problem-solving to design more intelligent and efficient systems that provide timely access to necessary care for every patient, every time., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use., Recent Findings: With food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Food allergies affect growth in children by decreasing the availability of nutrients through decreased dietary intake, increased dietary needs, food-medication interactions, and psychosocial burden. Guidelines on food allergy management frequently recommend nutrition counseling and growth monitoring of children with food allergies., Objective: To provide clear guidance for clinicians to identify children with food allergies who are at nutritional risk and ensure prompt intervention., Methods: We provide a narrative review summarizing information from national and international guidelines, retrospective studies, population studies, review articles, case reports, and case series to identify those with food allergy at greatest nutritional risk, determine the impact of nutritional interventions on growth, and develop guidance for risk reduction in children with food allergies., Results: Children with food allergies are at increased risk of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth. Nutritional assessment and intervention can improve outcomes. Identifying poor growth is an important step in the nutrition assessment. Therefore, growth should be assessed at each allergy evaluation. Interventions to ensure adequate dietary intake for growth include appropriately prescribed elimination diets, breast-feeding support and assessment, supplemental formula, vitamin and/or mineral supplementation, appropriate milk substitutes, and timely introduction of nutrient-dense complementary foods. Access to foods of appropriate nutritional value is an ongoing concern., Conclusion: Nutrition intervention or referral to registered dietitian nutritionists with additional training and/or experience in food allergy may result in improved growth and nutrition outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly used in food allergy. We review its use in the areas of prevention, diagnosis, and management., Data Sources: PubMed and online SDM resources., Study Selections: Studies and reviews relevant to SDM and areas in food allergy that decision-making may be applied were selected for discussion., Results: Food allergy represents an area with multiple opportunities for SDM. Patients, on one hand, need to obtain the necessary information and understanding of existing options from the allergist. The allergist, on the other hand, needs to understand "where the patient is coming from," their needs, preferences, and values, so that jointly they can reach a decision that is responsive to these. Benefits of SDM include a better understanding of disease by patients, improved compliance with medication, better health outcomes, decreased health care costs, and improved ability of patients to manage their disease and make informed choices., Conclusion: In food allergy prevention, diagnosis, and management, multiple preference-sensitive options exist for patients where SDM may be used during allergy consultations, alongside decision aids. Decision aids are tools that assist and support patients during the SDM process, by supplementing the patient-physician interaction., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Anagnostou reports receiving institutional funding from Aimmune; serving as an advisory board member to DBV Technologies and Novartis; and receiving consultation/speaker fees from ALK-Abelló, Adelphi, and Aimmune Therapeutics., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Dietary advancement therapies (DATs) constitute a continuum spanning extensively heated item ingestion, progressive milk or egg ladders, and oral immunotherapy (OIT). These represent an evolution in food allergy management from strict avoidance to an active therapy that may modulate the immune system to develop tolerance to particular forms of the allergen. Many egg or milk individuals are tolerant to baked egg or milk at baseline, and regular consumption (at home ingestion) of baked milk or egg is a safe process with potential quality of life and immunologic benefit. Milk and egg ladders, developed for non-IgE mediated allergy, are increasingly being adapted to IgE-mediated allergy as a potentially safe at-home option for gradual dietary advancement. However, data are limited regarding how safe and effective these approaches are or what patient is best suited for which DAT. It is also unclear whether extensively heated allergen consumption and ladders are susceptible to the same patient-specific factors that affect day-to-day tolerance and safety in OIT. Several recent events involving near-fatal or fatal reactions to milk or egg products (all among patients with asthma) have highlighted that DATs are not risk-free, and that physician guidance in these therapies is essential. Such guidance may include obtaining informed consent before starting any DAT and instituting the same safe dosing rules for OIT across any form of DAT. This rostrum discusses practical concerns about the safety of DAT, and considerations regarding how clinicians can maximize patient protection while defining the safety and efficacy of real-world implementation of these concepts., (Copyright © 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) has emerged as an active management option for peanut allergy, with an FDA-approved product now available for therapy. Allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, can occur during therapy and their management is key in optimizing this treatment and patient outcomes., Purpose of Review: In this manuscript, we will review the rates of allergic reactions and anaphylaxis in seminal peanut oral immunotherapy research studies. We will examine factors that can alter the risk of anaphylaxis and describe various strategies, including adjunct therapies, that have the potential to mitigate anaphylaxis risk based on published evidence., Recent Findings: Rates of anaphylaxis and epinephrine administration vary in different research studies, but there is consensus that most POIT-related allergic reactions are mild or moderate and not severe. Certain external factors (for example, tiredness, exercise, viral illness) as well as uncontrolled allergic co-morbidities (asthma, allergic rhinitis) have been shown to increase the risk of anaphylaxis during OIT. The search of biomarkers who may predict who is at risk for severe allergic reactions is ongoing. Adjunct therapies have shown promise, but further studies are required to optimize their use alongside POIT. Our understanding of anaphylaxis during POIT has increased in recent years, resulting in better management strategies. However, future plans will need to involve all stakeholders, including physicians, patients and families, researchers, public health authorities, and the food, hospitality, and catering industries., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: This research sought to explore health care providers' (HCPs) experiences of delivering the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Commission (EC) approved peanut oral immunotherapy (peanut OIT; Palforzia). Semi-structured qualitative interviews with HCPs who had initiated treatment with ≥ 3 patients in the first nine months following FDA approval sought to identify challenges faced and successful implementation strategies., Results: Eight allergists and three nurse practitioners from eight sites based in the United States participated. The HCPs included in this research were motivated to implement this novel treatment, however, entered the process with some reservations. HCPs described how successful implementation of peanut OIT requires them to be thoughtful about their clinic's abilities to integrate complex, time-consuming treatments into their daily practice. Prior experience of OIT was deemed beneficial, but not essential for implementation and learning from others' experience was suggested as a way of helping new prescribers overcome perceived and actual implementation challenges. Delivering licensed peanut OIT during the COVID-19 pandemic posed both challenges and unexpected opportunities for implementation. The experiences described have the potential to benefit the wider allergy community by providing practical solutions, successful implementation strategies and opportunities to enhance training and resources., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The maximum tolerated dose of peanut protein following peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is unknown because most research studies have not examined very high thresholds., Objective: To define the maximum dose tolerated by patients on POIT and severity of allergic reactions after a 1-month period of treatment discontinuation., Methods: In a phase 2 3-year POIT open-label study, we enrolled participants age 5 to 13 years with a 1-year build-up period followed by a 2-year daily maintenance dose of 3900 mg with assessment of the maximum tolerated dose using double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) of 26,225 mg cumulative dose of peanut protein. The DBPCFC was performed at baseline, after 12-month build-up, at 2 year of maintenance, and after a 1-month period of treatment discontinuation. Biomarkers were assessed every 6 weeks for the first 6 months of therapy. A general linear mixed model was used for analysis., Results: The mean maximum cumulative tolerated dose after 12 months increased by 12,063 mg (P < .001) (n = 12), slightly decreased during maintenance (n = 11), and significantly decreased by 7593 mg after avoidance for 1 month (P = .03) (n = 6). Biomarker analysis revealed decreases in cytokine expression within the first 6 weeks of initiation of POIT and decreased peanut-IgG 4 and increased cytokine expression after 1 month of discontinuation. The DBPCFC reaction severity, examined through a symptom score with 1 point for each defined symptom, decreased after 12 months, but did not significantly change after 1 month of POIT discontinuation., Conclusions: The evaluation of POIT and sustained unresponsiveness by maximum tolerated dose by DBPCFCs in this small phase 2 trial showed that desensitization is diminished, with 100% loss of tolerated dose after 1 month of avoidance following 3 years of treatment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Although there is a general perception that the prevalence of food allergy is increasing, data supporting this are limited. Food is the least common cause of fatal anaphylaxis, and fortunately, it is a very rare event; however, it is also unpredictable. There is widespread consensus that severe reactions cannot be predicted in a clinically meaningful way. Certain food triggers are more frequently associated with fatal anaphylaxis than others. In observational studies, peanut and tree nuts account for at least 30% to 50% of fatalities, with seafood and cow's milk also associated with fatal reactions. Fatal food-induced anaphylaxis is most likely to occur during adolescence and young adulthood, although the reasons for this are unclear. International guidelines agree that intramuscular (IM) epinephrine is the treatment of choice for managing food-triggered anaphylaxis and has a good safety profile when given by the IM route. However, fatalities still occur despite the timely administration of epinephrine. Food-allergic individuals must navigate a world that requires daily vigilance for allergens and preparedness for allergic reactions. Although the actual risk of fatal reactions is minimal, it is not zero, and severe reactions are unpredictable. Clinicians need to help patients better understand the very low but real risk of fatal reaction and enable them to lead as normal a life as possible through appropriate education, safety netting, and risk reduction., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The randomized, controlled PALISADE trial demonstrated the benefit of daily oral immunotherapy with Peanut (Arachis Hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH, formerly AR101) in peanut-allergic children and adolescents., Objective: ARC004, the open-label follow-on study to PALISADE, used 5 dosing cohorts to explore PTAH treatment beyond 1 year and alternative dosing regimens in peanut-allergic individuals., Methods: Active arm (PTAH-continuing) PALISADE participants who tolerated 300-mg peanut protein at the exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge and placebo arm (PTAH-naive) participants could enter ARC004. PTAH-continuing participants were assigned to receive daily (cohorts 1 and 3A) or non-daily (cohorts 2, 3B, and 3C) dosing regimens; PTAH-naive participants were built up to 300 mg/d PTAH, followed by maintenance dosing. At study completion, participants underwent an exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with doses up to 2000 mg peanut protein. Data were assessed using descriptive statistics., Results: Overall, 358 (87.5%) eligible participants (4-17 years) entered ARC004 (PTAH-continuing, n = 256; PTAH-naive, n = 102). Among PTAH-continuing participants, exposure-adjusted adverse event rates were 12.94 to 17.54/participant-year and 25.95 to 42.49/participant-year in daily and non-daily dosing cohorts, respectively; most participants (83%) experienced mild or moderate adverse events. Daily dosing cohorts appeared to have higher desensitization rates than non-daily dosing cohorts. Of all PTAH-continuing cohorts, cohort 3A had the longest daily dosing duration and the highest desensitization rates. Changes in immune markers with PTAH continuation demonstrated ongoing immunomodulation. Outcomes in PTAH-naive participants mirrored those of the PALISADE active arm., Conclusions: Continued daily PTAH treatment beyond 1 year showed sustained safety and efficacy. Ongoing immunomodulation was observed during the second year of treatment., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 .).