Oral immunotherapy and tolerance induction in childhood

Prevalence rates of food allergy have increased rapidly in recent decades. Of concern, rates of increase are greatest among children under 5 yrs of age and for those food allergies that persist into adulthood such as peanut or tree nut allergy and shellfish allergy. Given these trends, the overall prevalence of food allergy will compound over time as the number of children affected by food allergy soars and a greater proportion of food‐allergic children are left with persistent disease into adulthood. It is therefore vital to identify novel curative treatment approaches for food allergy. Acquisition of oral tolerance to the diverse array of ingested food antigens and intestinal microbiota is an active immunologic process that is successfully established in the majority of individuals. In subjects who develop food allergy, there is a failure or loss of oral tolerance acquisition to a limited number of food allergens. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) offers a promising approach to induce specific oral tolerance to selected food allergens and represents a potential strategy for long‐term curative treatment of food allergy. This review will summarize the current understanding of oral tolerance and clinical trials of OIT for the treatment of food allergy.     

Oral desensitization in children with immunoglobulin E-mediated cow's milk allergy – follow-up at 4 yr and 8 months

Until now, the basic treatment for food allergy has been to avoid the offending item. This approach is difficult in the case of common foods and in the case where there is a risk of severe reaction after consuming the offending food, even inadvertently. This is the follow‐up of a previous study aimed at desensitizing 21 children with immunoglobulin E (IgE)‐mediated cow’s milk (CM) allergy. This protocol was totally or partially successful in 85% of cases, but failed in the remaining 15%. Our aims were to study the long‐term effectiveness and safety of oral CM desensitization, and the prognostic value of Skin Prick Test (SPT) and specific serum CM IgE. The 21 children were called back (one dropped out). The allergic history and other information on CM intake over the last 4–5 yr were recorded. Children underwent SPT, and end‐point SPT, with casein and α‐lactoalbumin. Specific CM IgE was also measured. At follow‐up, 14/20 children totally (n = 13, 65%) or partially (n = 1, 5%) tolerated CM. None of the recalled children reported use of emergency care. SPT positivity to casein and/or α‐lactoalbumin decreased significantly (p < 0.01), and all the negative SPT referred to the tolerant children. Cutaneous sensitivity to both casein and α‐lactoalbumin (end‐point SPT) significantly decreased after the 6‐month desensitization period of the previous study (p < 0.001), but did not decrease significantly at follow‐up. A significant reduction of serum‐specific CM IgE was also observed (p < 0.05). Clinical tolerance induced by oral CM desensitization persists in time. Negativization of SPT and reduction of specific CM IgE could be considered prognostic indicators of CM tolerance. Oral CM desensitization seems to be a promising method to treat CM food allergy. This protocol is time‐consuming but offers the advantage that it can be performed at home. This methodology must only be used by trained staff.     

Addressing risk management difficulties in children with food allergies

Risk is a concept inherent in every medical procedure. It can be defined as the probability of an adverse event in a defined population over a specified period of time. In the frame of food allergy management, it might be related to a diagnostic procedure, a treatment, or the consumption of foods. The risk of an adverse event can also be augmented by individual factors. This rostrum article discusses various aspects faced by children with food allergies in the light of risk, and their practical implications. Identifying personal risks for severe reaction, such as unstable asthma, and correcting them whenever possible also contribute to a reduction of the risk inherent to food allergy. Among the facets discussed, oral food challenges (OFC) are the most common diagnostic procedures implying an inherent risk. The risk of OFCs can be minimized by correct indication and timing of the test, a safe setting, as well as by ensuring that the patient is otherwise well without potential stressor potentially increasing the risk of a more severe reaction. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been studied as a potential treatment for increasing the threshold dose for reaction, and thus reducing the risk of accidental reaction. Nevertheless, the procedure is not devoid of risk as the patients may and do often react during the course of the procedure. Ingestion of trace amounts in processed foods, mainly in community settings such as restaurants, schools, or day care, represents a potential risk of reactions, although for a minority of patients. Precautionary allergen labeling (PAL) is a widespread strategy to reduce the potential risk of reactions due to traces. However, PAL is currently inefficient due to inconsistent labeling, also not indicating a clear maximum amount possibly present in the manufactured food. Finally, cost-effectiveness needs to be considered in risk management, as many risk reduction procedures are clearly not cost-effective.     

One Child's Food Fight: A Case Study of Oral Immunotherapy Treatment for Food Allergies

The prevalence of food allergy has risen dramatically in the last two decades. Primary care providers encounter food-allergic children on a daily basis. Although the standard of care has traditionally been strict avoidance of the allergen and advisement to carry an epinephrine autoinjector in case of an accidental exposure resulting in a severe reaction, food allergy research has progressed in the past decade concerning various immunotherapies that may provide an alternate treatment strategy. Oral immunotherapy (OIT), performed under the supervision of an allergist, is the most widely studied of these therapies. In the past, OIT has been available in the realm of clinical trials, but it is now being offered by a small but increasing number of allergists in private practice throughout the United States. Pediatric primary care clinicians should be aware of both the risks and possible benefits of this treatment, because they are likely to encounter patients who may inquire about OIT in their practices. In this case report, use of OIT will be reviewed in the treatment of a food-allergic child.     

Immunotherapy – risk/benefit in food allergy

Food allergy is a growing health concern in the westernized world with approx. 6% of children suffering from it. A lack of approved treatment has led to strict avoidance of the culprit food proteins being the only standard of care. Nowadays in‐depth research is conducted to evaluate the possible use of allergen‐specific immunotherapy (SIT) as an active therapeutic option for food allergy. Various routes of administration for the immunotherapy are investigated, including subcutaneous, oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous, and some appear to be successful in inducing a temporary tolerant state. Most research has been conducted with oral immunotherapy due to its efficacious and relatively safe profile. Increasing interest is dedicated to safer and more convenient approaches, such as sublingual and epicutaneous SIT; however, doubts exist about their possible capacity to induce temporary tolerant state and permanent oral tolerance. The high frequency of allergic adverse reactions of the various approaches and the inability to achieve permanent oral tolerance have highlighted the need of refinements in the strategies. A promising strategy for preventing IgE cross‐linking and thus enhancing safety of SIT, while still activating T cells, is the use of tolerogenic peptides. The implementation of such an immunotherapy approach has the potential of not only increasing the chance of achieving a permanent state of tolerance, but also improving the safety and tolerability of the therapy. Immunotherapy for food allergy is still not ready for the clinic, but current and upcoming studies are dedicated to collect enough evidence for the possible implementation of allergen‐SIT as a standard treatment for food allergy.