The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 126, Issue 1 , Pages 31-32, July 2010

Peanut oral immunotherapy is not ready for clinical use

  • Ananth Thyagarajan, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
    • ,
  • Pooja Varshney, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
    • ,
  • Stacie M. Jones, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, Ark
    • ,
  • Scott Sicherer, MD

      Affiliations

    • Elliot and Roslyn Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
    • ,
  • Robert Wood, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md
    • ,
  • Brian P. Vickery, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
    • ,
  • Hugh Sampson, MD

      Affiliations

    • Elliot and Roslyn Jaffe Food Allergy Institute, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY
    • ,
  • A. Wesley Burks, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: A. Wesley Burks, MD, Division of Allergy and Immunology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 2898, Durham, NC 27710.

Received 20 April 2010; received in revised form 7 May 2010; accepted 10 May 2010.

Article Outline

Key words: Peanut allergy, oral immunotherapy, desensitization

 

Hippocrates wrote that “The physician must… have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm” (Hippocratic Corpus, Epidemics, Bk I, Sect 5). As physicians, we are continually challenged with the task of weighing the possible risks and benefits of treatment against those of taking no action. Similarly, we pursue clinical investigation when existing evidence is in a state of equipoise, or uncertainty regarding the comparative therapeutic merits of a particular treatment.1 Only once we demonstrate that action (eg, experimental treatment) is superior to nonaction (or the current standard of care) can we then recommend it with confidence that our practices uphold the principle of primum non nocere—“first, do no harm.”

In the United States, 3.9% of children are affected by food allergy, with an increase in prevalence of 18% from 1997 to 2007.2 Peanut allergy, in particular, affects over 1% of the general population in Westernized countries.3, 4, 5 The current standard of care includes appropriate diagnosis, avoidance of the food, and education of the patient and family. Because treatment options are limited, there is a vital need for new therapeutic modalities. Several groups have studied potential therapies for peanut allergy, including various forms of antigen-specific and nonspecific treatments.6 Peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in an open-label study has been shown to raise the threshold dose of reaction to ingested allergen, resulting in clinical desensitization for the majority of subjects.7 Peanut OIT is also associated with decreased peanut skin prick test size, antigen-specific basophil activation, and allergen-specific IgE as well as increased allergen-specific IgG4, regulatory T-cell number, and associated cytokine levels while on therapy. Nevertheless, numerous unanswered questions surrounding this investigational treatment remain, with the foremost being the risks of OIT compared with food avoidance (ie, incidence of accidental ingestion). Additional unanswered questions include issues associated with dosing regimens, patient selection, postdesensitization strategy, allocation of clinical resources, and reimbursement.

With current forms of OIT, as with other forms of immunotherapy, up to 18% of patients undergoing treatment will not be able to endure the associated side effects.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 In addition, accidental ingestions do pose a threat, with events occurring in about 15% of children with peanut and tree nut allergy over a 4-year period.13, 14 The major issue to address is whether the likelihood of patients experiencing accidental food reactions over a given period is more or less than the percentage of patients who cannot tolerate OIT.

In initial studies, peanut OIT has been generally safe but not without risk. In an earlier open-label peanut OIT protocol, the risks of reaction during the initial escalation day, build-up phase, and home dosing were 93%, 46%, and 3.5%, respectively.15 In a more recent study of open-label peanut OIT during the 1-week rush immunotherapy phase, 17 of 22 subjects could not reach the 500-mg dose of peanuts.12 In fact, 18% of subjects in this protocol dropped out secondary to side effects from peanut OIT. Unlike subcutaneous immunotherapy for inhalant allergens, OIT is administered daily, with the majority of OIT doses given at home. Despite the infrequent incidence of allergic reactions with home dosing (<4% of doses), certain factors may be associated with an increased likelihood of reacting with a home dose, including (1) dosing during concurrent illness, (2) suboptimally controlled asthma, (3) timing of dose administration after food ingestion, (4) physical exertion after dosing, and (5) dosing during menses.16 Because OIT continues to be studied in research settings, other patterns may emerge, providing important information to characterize its safety profile further.

It is also important to recognize that OIT to other foods has been associated with adverse reaction rates equal to or even exceeding those seen with peanut OIT. In fact, in a double-blind study of milk OIT, reactions were seen in nearly half of all doses, with over 10% requiring treatment.8 Further, other less common but potentially more important adverse consequences of OIT, such as eosinophilic esophagitis, clearly deserve further study.11

Oral immunotherapy protocols currently under investigation use different dosing schedules and varying durations of treatment. The selection criterion for these protocols excludes individuals with a history of anaphylaxis with hypotension, which may represent many patients seeking this treatment in the clinical setting. Specific patient selection characteristics need further refinement because it has not yet been shown who may benefit most from the protection conferred by OIT treatment. “Desensitization” in this context refers to increasing the threshold of food needed to cause an allergic reaction, while on ongoing therapy, whereas “tolerance” is defined as resolution of allergy without ongoing treatment.17 Individual patients and their families may have differing goals of therapy with respect to desensitization versus tolerance. The protective effects that are seen while still on therapy include a significant change in the family's perception of their quality of life,18 but we do not know what happens once therapy has been discontinued. Current protocols are investigating whether treatment with higher OIT doses leads to an increased chance of inducing tolerance, but this strategy may come with increased risk. These factors must be elucidated in the research setting before widespread use.

Additional work is needed in designing a postdesensitization strategy for patients who demonstrate effective desensitization with OIT treatment. How much peanut should desensitized subjects ingest to maintain their state of protection? How often? Although there is evidence of increasing the threshold dose,7, 19 the ability to incorporate peanut freely into the diet is still in question. Without further investigation, clinicians will be unable to provide advice on the basis of objective data. In addition, this treatment may create a false sense of security leading to lax behavior in terms of access to self-injectable epinephrine and/or inappropriate emergency facility treatment with ingestion.

On a pragmatic note, current OIT protocols are time- intensive and labor-intensive, with dedicated study personnel available for observation of subjects postdosing, preparation and administration of doses, monitoring, and ongoing communication with patients and families. Space for initial desensitization, observed dose escalation visits, and challenges is also a concern. Because third-party reimbursement for such services has not yet been established, such personnel and spatial requirements may be difficult to implement. Assessing compliance is imperative given the potential for reactions if doses are missed.20 Modification of checkpoints used in the research setting (pharmacy dose pack inspections, home diaries, and so forth) may need to be carried out.

Oral immunotherapy represents a promising therapeutic intervention for food allergy, but we remain at a state of equipoise with many unanswered questions to be studied, including the risks of OIT compared with avoidance, dosing regimen issues, patient selection, postdesensitization strategy, allocation of clinical resources, and reimbursement. Studies of OIT using other food allergens (eg, milk, egg) are associated with similar side effects and issues as those surrounding peanut OIT.8, 9 Therefore, OIT to neither peanut nor other foods is ready for clinical use.

Although everyone involved in patient care and in novel therapeutic research would like a treatment option to offer individuals with food allergy, now is not the right time. Further studies are needed to address these outstanding issues to determine whether this type of therapy is appropriate for clinical use.

Back to Article Outline

 

This editorial arose out of a Pro-Con Debate through the Duke University Allergy and Immunology Fellowship program.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141–145
  2. Branum AM, Lukacs SL. Food allergy among children in the United States. Pediatrics. 2009;124:1549–1555
  3. Ben-Shoshan M, Kagan RS, Alizadehfar R, Joseph L, Turnbull E, St Pierre Y, et al. Is the prevalence of peanut allergy increasing? A 5-year follow-up study in children in Montreal. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;123:783–788
  4. Mullins RJ, Dear KB, Tang ML. Characteristics of childhood peanut allergy in the Australian Capital Territory, 1995 to 2007. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;123:689–693
  5. Sicherer SH, Muñoz-Furlong A, Godbold JH, Sampson HA. US prevalence of self-reported peanut, tree nut, and sesame allergy: 11 year follow-up. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125:1322–1326
  6. Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy: recent advances in pathophysiology and treatment. Annu Rev Med. 2009;60:261–277
  7. Jones SM, Pons L, Roberts JL, Scurlock AM, Perry TT, Kulis M, et al. Clinical efficacy and immune regulation with peanut oral immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:292–300e1-97
  8. Skripak JM, Nash SD, Rowley H, Brereton NH, Oh S, Hamilton RG, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of milk oral immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:1154–1160
  9. Buchanan AD, Green TD, Jones SM, Scurlock AM, Christie L, Althage KA, et al. Egg oral immunotherapy in nonanaphylactic children with egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119:199–205
  10. Longo G, Barbi E, Berti I, Meneghetti R, Pittalis A, Ronfani L, et al. Specific oral tolerance induction in children with very severe cow's milk-induced reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:343–347
  11. Narisety SD, Skripak JM, Steele P, Hamilton RG, Matsui EC, Burks AW, et al. Open-label maintenance after milk oral immunotherapy for IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:610–612
  12. Blumchen K, Ulbricht H, Staden U, Dobberstein K, Beschorner J, Lopes de Oliveira LC, et al. Oral peanut immunotherapy in children with peanut anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126:83–91
  13. Sicherer SH, Burks AW, Sampson HA. Clinical features of acute allergic reactions to peanut and tree nuts in children. Pediatrics. 1998;102:e6
  14. Clark AT, Ewan PW. Good prognosis, clinical features, and circumstances of peanut and tree nut reactions in children treated by a specialist allergy center. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;122:286–289
  15. Hofmann AM, Scurlock AM, Jones SM, Palmer KP, Lokhnygina Y, Steele PH, et al. Safety of a peanut oral immunotherapy protocol in children with peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:286–291
  16. Varshney P, Steele PH, Vickery BP, Bird JA, Thyagarajan A, Scurlock AM, et al. Adverse reactions during peanut oral immunotherapy home dosing. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:1351–1352
  17. Scurlock AM, Burks AW, Jones SM. Oral immunotherapy for food allergy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2009;9:186–193
  18. Bird A, Daly D, Burks W, Hourihane JOB, DunnGalvin A. Impact of oral food-specific immunotherapy (OIT) on health related quality of life (HRQL) of children and parents during build up of tolerance. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125:AB22
  19. Clark AT, Islam S, King Y, Deighton J, Anagnostou K, Ewan PW. Successful oral tolerance induction in severe peanut allergy. Allergy. 2009;64:1218–1220
  20. Rolinck-Werninghaus C, Staden U, Mehl A, Hamelmann E, Beyer K, Niggemann B. Specific oral tolerance induction with food in children: transient or persistent effect on food allergy?. Allergy. 2005;60:1320–1322

 Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: S. M. Jones has received research support from the National Peanut Board, the National Institutes of Health (NIAID), and DYAX Corp and is on the Medical Advisory Board for the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network. S. Sicherer is a consultant for the Food Allergy Initiative and has received research support from the National Institutes of Health (NIAID), the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, and the Food Allergy Initiative. R. Wood has received research support from the National Institutes of Health and is on the Medical Advisory Board for the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network. B. P. Vickery has received research support from the Thrasher Research Fund and the National Institutes of Health (NIAID). H. Sampson is a consultant for Allertein, LLC; has received research support from the Food Allergy Initiative and the National Institutes of Health (NIAID); is a consultant and scientific advisor for the Food Allergy Initiative; and is 45% owner of Herbal Springs, LLC. A. W. Burks is a consultant for ActoGeniX NV, Intelliject, McNeil Nutritionals, and Novartis; is a minority stockholder in Allertein and MastCell, Inc; is on the Advisory Board for Dannon Co Probiotics; is on the expert panel for Nutricia; has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, and the Wallace Research Foundation; has served as an expert witness on the topic of food allergy; is on the Medical Board of Directors for the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network; is a Dermatological Allergy Committee Member for the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology; is a Study Section Member for the National Institutes of Health (HAI); and is on the Reviewer Board for the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the US Food and Drug Administration. The rest of the authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.

PII: S0091-6749(10)00813-4

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2010.05.012

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 126, Issue 1 , Pages 31-32, July 2010

Article Tools