Abstract
Food allergy is a major public health issue with growing prevalence in the urbanized world and significant impact on the lives of allergic patients and their families. Research into the risk factors that have contributed to this increase and their underlying immune mechanisms could lead us to definitive ways for treatment and prevention of food allergy. For the time being, introduction of peanut and other allergenic foods in the diet at the time of weaning seems to be an effective way to prevent the development of food allergy. Improved diagnosis and appropriate management and support of food allergic patients are central to patient care with food immunotherapy and biologics making the transition to clinical practice. With the new available treatments, it is becoming increasingly important to include patients' and family preferences to provide a management plan tailored to their needs.
Keywords: basophil activation test, biologics, diagnosis, food allergy, IgE, immunotherapy, skin prick test
Key Message.
Food allergy is a major health issue in the urbanized world with increasing prevalence and significant impact on patients' lives. The diagnosis of food allergy is based on clinical history and evidence of allergen‐specific IgE, with oral food challenge being the gold standard and new tests being developed. There is no curative treatment for food allergy, and allergen avoidance is the mainstay of management, with allergen immunotherapy and biologicals being tested currently. The intervention that is widely recommended to prevent food allergy is introduction of peanut and egg at the time of weaning, alongside with breastfeeding.
1. IMPACT OF FOOD ALLERGY
Food allergy (FA) can be classified into IgE‐ and non–IgE‐mediated depending on the involvement of IgE in its pathogenesis. In this review, we are focusing on IgE‐mediated food allergy. FA affects about 8% of children in the Western countries and seems to be rising in other parts of the world such as in Vietnam and South Africa, and other parts of Asia and Africa, particularly in urban rather than rural areas. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 The prevalence of FA has increased over the recent decades, as has the number of hospitalizations for food‐induced anaphylaxis, following what seems to be the ‘second wave of the allergy epidemic’ after the rise in the prevalence of asthma and respiratory allergy in previous decades. 5 , 6 , 7 Pouessel et al 8 have shown that foods caused 37% of cases of ICU admissions for anaphylaxis and 79% of recurrent anaphylaxis. Self‐reported FA is even more common with an often underappreciated impact. 1 Gupta et al 1 report that about 40% of food allergic children report multiple food allergies, often severe food allergies, and carry an adrenaline auto‐injector. In Western countries, such as the USA and the UK, FA affects disproportionally children from ethnic minorities, such as children of Afro‐Caribbean descent. 1 , 9 , 10 Whether this has to do with genetic predisposition in face of environmental factors related to the modern lifestyle or whether the cultural background, the history of inequality and different access to health care also play a role is unclear. 10 , 11 The threefold higher risk of peanut and other food allergies in infants born in Australia to Asian‐born parents compared with the risk of peanut allergy in infants born to Australian‐born parents reinforced the rapidity with which these changes occur and the importance of gene‐environment interactions that need to be further explored. 12
There is no curative treatment for FA, and the mainstay of management is allergen avoidance. Emergency medication needs to be made available to patients to enable them to treat acute allergic reactions that may result from accidental exposure to the culprit allergens and are unfortunately common. 13 Allergen avoidance imposes dietary restrictions, with potential nutritional consequences, and can lead to food insecurity. 14 , 15 , 16 Eighty‐six per cent of mothers of children with suspected FA avoid foods on their own initiative. 17 Goldberg et al 16 have recently shown that milk‐allergic young adults have reduced bone mineral density and that low calcium intake, asthma and weight constitute independent risk factors. FA can also result in an impairment of quality of life and mental health of children and their families. 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 For instance, mothers of children with suspected FA have higher state and trait anxiety scores than healthy controls 17 and about 50% of children and teenagers with FA experience bullying. 18 FA can also impact negatively on the costs, related to not only the healthcare but also the indirect costs, for instance related to school and work absences, and the financial burden on the families themselves, resulting, for example, from the need to spend more time shopping and to find alternative foods that are often more expensive. All these factors account for additional negative impact on the lives of children with FA and their families that goes beyond the state of hypersensitivity to the culprit allergens, and underscore the importance of an accurate diagnosis and the search for specific treatments for FA.
2. EPIDEMIOLOGY
The prevalence of IgE‐mediated FA is highest in infancy and early childhood, driven by a relatively high prevalence of egg and cow's milk allergy that often resolves later in childhood. By contrast, peanut and tree nut allergies, which also typically present in infancy, are less likely to resolve and therefore predominate in later childhood. 21 Marked differences in the prevalence of FA between countries have been noted for multiple foods, although data from some countries remain sparse. 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 More recent studies have shown that large differences in FA prevalence can exist even within individual countries, with some of this difference driven by a lower prevalence in rural areas compared with urban areas. 4 , 27 , 28 Reasons for these differences are largely speculative, with differences in the prevalence of the risk factors described below potentially playing a role.
The strongest known risk factor for FA is probably eczema, particularly eczema that starts early in life and is more severe. 27 , 28 This finding has been noted consistently across studies in both population‐based studies and allergy clinics for many years; however, the mechanism driving this association remains unclear. It has been hypothesized that a damaged skin barrier resulting from eczema may allow the absorption of food allergens through the skin leading to food sensitization and allergy, in the absence of pre‐existing oral tolerance to those foods. 29 Alternative explanations include the existence of shared genetic or environmental risk factors leading to an increased risk of both eczema and FA.
There has been strong interest in identifying factors that can be modified to prevent FA. Both observational studies and randomized controlled trials have investigated the association between FA and factors including vitamin supplements, fish oil, probiotics and timing of introduction of allergenic foods. These are described further below in the FA prevention section. Other factors that have been associated with risk of FA include factors potentially associated with increased microbial exposure such as pet dogs and older siblings. 30 , 31
3. MECHANISMS AND PATHOPHYSIOLOGY
The mechanisms underlying IgE‐mediated food allergy is type I hypersensitivity. Understanding the underlying immune mechanism can help us identify targets for treatment and other interventions to prevent and reduce the impact of FA. T cells are central coordinators of the immune response to food allergens, namely the production of antibodies by B cells. Using mass cytometry for immunoprofiling of infants, Neeland et al 32 described cellular fingerprints associated with peanut allergy and tolerance among IgE‐sensitized infants. Peanut‐allergic infants had increased frequency of CD19hiHLA‐DRhi–activated B cells and of peanut‐specific memory CD4+ T cells, as well as overproduction of TNF‐alpha, whereas peanut‐sensitized tolerant infants had reduced frequency of CD4+ naïve T cells and an increased frequency of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Following the description of the new subset of Th2 cells typical of highly allergic patients, the TH2A cells, that decreased following allergen‐specific immunotherapy by Wambre et al, 33 Chiang et al 34 found highly differentiated Th2 cells in the peripheral blood of peanut‐allergic patients who were resistant to the countereffect induced by regulatory T cells, whereas healthy controls did not have detectable T‐cell responses to peanut. A stability of T regulatory response was reported by Weissler et al 35 in both allergic and non‐allergic subjects, with a Th2‐ and Th1‐skewed peanut response detected in sensitized and non‐sensitized individuals, respectively. However, Pellerin et al found that Tr1 cells were functionally impaired in peanut‐allergic patients compared with healthy controls. Ruiter et al 36 studied the TCR repertoire of CD154+CD4+ memory T cells and found strong convergent selection of peanut‐specific clones that were more numerous among effector T cells of peanut‐allergic patients, with an imbalance between effector and regulatory T cells. The more reactive patients had a more diverse and polarized Th2 effector phenotype with the expression of Th2 cytokines correlating with peanut‐specific IgE levels.
Recently, new studies have shed light on the role of antibodies in allergy and tolerance and on the still puzzling discrepancy between the presence of allergen‐specific IgE and clinical reactivity to foods. For instance, a new subset of T follicular helper cell has been identified in the germinal centre and designated Tfh13 cells. 37 Tfh13 cells are characterized by a distinct transcription factor profile that includes BCL6 and GATA‐3, and by the production of IL‐4 and Il‐13. Tfh13 result in the production of high‐affinity IgE that is able to induce anaphylaxis to allergens. This high‐affinity IgE is most likely a result of indirect isotype switching from IgG1+ to IgE+ B cells. Contrary to IgG and IgE that depend on germinal centres and Tfh cells, IgA seems to follow an independent mechanism that requires T cells and CD40 ligand but is independent of germinal centres, Tfh and T follicular regulatory cells. 38 Interestingly, Hoh et al 39 have shown that the class switch recombination from IgG to IgE and the somatic hypermutation that lead to increased affinity for allergens could develop in the gut of peanut‐allergic individuals, underscoring the importance of gut‐associated lymphoid tissue in FA.
Apart from intrinsic characteristics of IgE, such as affinity for allergens, post‐translational modifications such as glycosylation can have an impact in the ability of IgE to cause effector cell activation and consequently allergic reactions. In a recent study, Shade et al 40 reported that total IgE from peanut‐allergic subjects had higher sialic acid content compared with non‐atopic subjects and that desialylation of IgE reduced effector cell degranulation and consequent anaphylaxis, raising a new possibility for intervention to treat allergic disease, including FA.
The differences in T‐ and B‐cell and antibody responses between allergic and sensitised tolerant individuals modulate the effector cell response. Hemmings et al 41 showed that Ara h 2–specific IgE induced greater inhibition of IgE binding and greater mast cell degranulation than Ara h 6, confirming that despite the sequence and structural similarities between Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 and the fact that both are major allergens in peanut, Ara h 2 is the dominant allergen. Effector cell response to allergen can support the identification of phenotypes of food‐allergic patients who may deserve different types of follow‐up and may have indication for specific treatments, such as allergen‐specific immunotherapy or biologics. In a study of egg‐allergic children, changes in the basophil reactivity but not in the T‐cell compartment explained the differences in clinical reactivity to baked egg. 42 During peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT), Patil et al 43 assessed basophil responses to Ara h 2 in peanut‐allergic patients at baseline and at different time‐points. Basophil sensitivity, defined by the concentration at which basophils reacted, after 3 months of OIT, could distinguish the patients who responded and had sustained unresponsiveness at the end of the trial from the patients who had transient desensitization and whose basophil response to Ara h 2 rebounded after stopping OIT.
To conclude, understanding the immune mechanisms underlying FA and oral tolerance is key to improve diagnostics and the care for patients and their families and identify targets for a definitive treatment of FA. Table 1 summarizes recent new discoveries about immune mechanisms of FA.
TABLE 1.
Highlights of new discoveries about immune mechanisms of food allergy
| T cells and T follicular helper cells |
•Food allergy involves Th2‐skewed response more than a dysregulated regulatory T‐cell population. 34 , 35 •The new subset of T follicular helper cells designated Tfh13 induces the sequential class switching from IgG1 to IgE, leading to the production of high‐affinity IgE that can cause anaphylaxis. 37 |
| B cells and antibodies |
•IgE class switching can happen in the gut‐associated lymphoid tissue. 39 •IgA induces tolerance through immune exclusion rather than active suppression and is generated via a separate mechanism that is independent of Tfh and germinal centres. 38 |
| Basophils and mast cells |
•IgE glycosylation enhances effector cell degranulation. 40 •Basophil response to allergen can distinguish responders from non‐responders as early as 3 months into oral immunotherapy. 43 |
4. DIAGNOSIS
An accurate diagnosis of FA is essential. Correctly identifying FA is crucial for providing education and management strategies to mitigate the risks of a potentially life‐threatening allergic reaction. In contrast, correctly identifying food tolerance will promote dietary liberation, which is especially important in the light of the paradigm shift encouraging early introduction of allergenic foods to prevent FA. 44 Double‐blind placebo‐controlled food challenges remain the gold standard for FA diagnosis. Updated guidance on performing oral food challenges has recently been published, with additional focus on safety, psychosocial considerations, and baked egg and milk challenges, to name a few. 45 However, due to the inherent risks and intensive resource requirements, their feasibility is limited in some clinical and research settings. The utility of traditional tests of sensitization (SPT and sIgE), as well as development of new molecular techniques that are able to diagnose food allergy without the need for oral food challenges, remains an active area of research. This section highlights recent advances in this area.
Skin prick tests (SPT) and serum‐specific IgE (sIgE) are routinely used in clinical practice and are relatively safe and inexpensive to perform. However, the conventional positive results (SPT ≥ 3 mm or sIgE ≥ 0.35 kU/L) have poor specificity to clinical FA, with approximately half of sensitized individuals able to tolerate the food without reaction. As increasing magnitude of these tests correlates with a higher risk of reaction, many studies have defined thresholds for these tests with 95% positive predictive value (PPV) to FA (reviewed in 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ). Although SPT and sIgE thresholds with 95% PPV to FA are routinely used to minimize the need for diagnostic food challenges, a proportion of children remain in the immunologic grey area; that is, they are food‐sensitized but below the 95% PPV threshold. New approaches that can accurately diagnose FA while reducing the need for food challenges are urgently needed.
Allergen component‐resolved diagnostics (CRD) are proposed as a more accurate method of diagnosis, because instead of using crude allergen extracts, which consist of both allergenic and non‐allergenic components, CRD measures sIgE to individual allergen proteins. A systematic review comparing SPT and sIgE to whole peanut and its components concluded that sIgE to Ara h 2 had greater diagnostic accuracy compared with the other tests. 49 Furthermore, a meta‐analysis of 19 studies found that while sIgE to Ara h 1, Ara h 2 and Ara h 3 had high specificity to peanut allergy, sensitivity was highest in Ara h 2. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Ara h 2 ≥ 0.35 kU/L to peanut allergy were 83% (95% CI 76%‐89%) and 84% (95% CI 77%‐88%). 52 Likewise, further studies support that CRD offer greater accuracy compared with sIgE to whole allergens for hazelnut 53 and it is plausible that this increased accuracy applies to other foods. The major allergen components for most common food allergens have been isolated, and research continues to identify the optimal cut‐off points. 54
Approaches to the diagnosis of FA using cellular tests also appear to offer greater sensitivity and specificity than traditional tests. The basophil activation test (BAT) measures the expression of activation markers on the surface of basophils, stimulated with food allergens and controls, by flow cytometry. 55 In a study of 104 children, BAT demonstrated superior ability to discriminate between peanut‐allergic and peanut‐sensitized tolerant children compared with SPT, sIgE and sIgE to Ara h 2. The optimal diagnostic parameter and threshold demonstrated an impressive sensitivity and specificity of 98% (95% CI 87‐100) and 96% (95% CI 86‐100), respectively. BAT performed similarly well when validated in an independent sample (83% sensitivity and 100% specificity). 56 For other allergens, BAT performed well but not necessarily superior to other measures. In a prospective study of 83 children with suspected tree nut allergy, SPT demonstrated greater sensitivity to BAT, while BAT demonstrated greater specificity compared with SPT; AUC was similar for both measures with the exception of hazelnut where BAT had greater AUC than SPT. 57 While the performance of BAT appears promising, its clinical utility may be limited because it requires live cells and flow cytometry equipment. BAT may therefore be more feasible in settings where it can be used in combination with conventional diagnostic tests. For example, performing peanut BAT as a second step following equivocal SPT or sIgE to Ara h 2 reduced the need for OFC by 97% compared with the combination of SPT and sIgE to whole peanut. 56
The mast cell activation test (MAT) offers another promising approach and has the advantage over BAT that it uses stored plasma rather than fresh whole blood. In the same sample as described previously for peanut BAT, 56 MAT performed equally well to BAT in terms of specificity; however, the sensitivity of MAT was lower than BAT. 58 Importantly, MAT provided definitive results in all cases where basophils were non‐responsive. 58 In a smaller study, MAT performed better than BAT based on AUC for the diagnosis of peanut allergy; however, confidence intervals overlapped. 59 The utility of these tests has been assessed for some other common allergens and performs similarly well but further research is needed. 60 Additionally, these cellular tests may offer additional clinical utility as the results are correlated with reaction severity, 59 , 60 whereas SPT and sIgE are not always predictive of reaction severity. 61 , 62 However, further work is required to inform standardization of laboratory procedures, optimal test parameters and thresholds, and cost‐effectiveness in different settings before these novel approaches are ready for routine clinical practice. 55
Despite continued advances and development of novel molecular techniques, identifying a definitive diagnostic test to negate the need for oral food challenges remains elusive. The optimal threshold requires a trade‐off between false negatives and false positives, and this varies in the published literature due to heterogeneity in study sample, design, methods, regional characteristics, allergen extracts and laboratory procedures. Figure 1 represents a suggested approach to the sequential use of diagnostic tests to improve the diagnosis of food allergy without the need for OFC, as proposed by several studies. 63 This approach involves first‐line tests of traditional SPT and/or sIgE using established 95% PPVs. If results are equivocal, a second‐line test of CRD, BAT or MAT may be ordered and this approach has been shown to substantially reduce the need for OFC. 63 However, OFC remain the gold standard and may be required to confirm the diagnosis if all tests are equivocal. Identification, validation and cost‐effectiveness of the optimal diagnostic approach for FA continue to be an active area of research.
FIGURE 1.

Proposed use of component‐resolved diagnostics (CRD), basophil and mast cell activation tests (BAT and MAT) in combination with conventional tests, skin prick test (SPT) and specific IgE (sIgE), to reduce the need for oral food challenges (OFC)
5. TREATMENT
5.1. Allergen avoidance
In the absence of effective treatment, allergen avoidance and providing appropriate emergency medication used to be the only approach to management of FA. 64 Avoidance of food allergen is onerous for patients and families and often fails with ten per cent of patients on average experiencing an allergic reaction per year. 65 , 66 , 67 Additionally, allergen avoidance inflicts multiple pressures on allergic individuals and their families, food manufacturers, and restaurants and public spaces such as schools and aircrafts. 68 , 69 Precautionary allergen labelling is in general voluntary and used inconsistently across industry which can be misleading for patients and caregivers. 65
Providing adrenaline auto‐injectors (AAI) to patients at risk of anaphylaxis encounters challenges related to their availability, which is mostly limited to high‐income countries, varied national regulations in prescribing and high cost. 70 When prescribed, AAI are only carried at all times by half of the patients 71 and mistakes in use are frequent among both patients 72 and medical staff. 73
Meeting the needs of both food‐allergic children undergoing immunotherapy and those continuing strict avoidance in the same environment, for example school or household with two allergic siblings managed differently, is an arising challenge.
5.2. Food immunotherapy
Just over twenty years since the first RCT demonstrated its efficacy, 74 food immunotherapy (FIT) has become the first established treatment modality for FA, which is now recognised by national and international guidelines. 75 , 76 , 77 The efficacy of oral FIT has been documented in RCT in children with milk, egg and peanut allergy, 78 with lower desensitization rates being achieved in wheat allergy. 79 In the largest oral FIT study so far, the PALISADE study, which investigated efficacy of 300‐mg dose of peanut protein in inducing tolerance to peanut in almost 500 children ≥ 4 years, 67.2% of participants achieved the primary end‐point of passing 600‐mg dose at the exit DBPCFC. 80 It has also been confirmed recently in a placebo‐controlled study that peanut oral IT (POIT) significantly reduces the risk of reaction after accidental exposure to peanut (placebo group, 24 reactions in 14 patients; active group, eight reactions in five patients; P < .001). 81 Nevertheless, the recent safety meta‐analysis, which looked into 12 POIT studies, estimated that the risk of anaphylaxis while on POIT is over three times higher compared with peanut avoidance (RR, 3.12, 95% CI 1.76‐5.55) and the risk of adrenaline use is over twice as high (RR, 2.21; 95% CI 1.27‐3.83). 82 Therefore, the current focus of FIT research is orientated towards answering crucial questions about increasing safety of FIT by choosing well‐tolerated and effective formulation, 83 route and dose, adding adjuvants at the initial stage of the treatment and identifying patients most likely to benefit from FIT. The two most studied alternative routes to oral FIT are sublingual (SLIT) and epicutaneous IT (EPIT). Their safety profile is favourable with few systemic allergic reactions reported; it comes, however, at the cost of lower efficacy. 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 The modest level of desensitization predisposes SLIT and EPIT for use in individuals not tolerating OIT. 87 It may also be the case that longer treatment duration is necessary to achieve results comparable with OIT. 84 The other main need is understanding long‐term outcomes of the treatment. 88 , 89 Table 2 summarizes recent developments in FIT, and Figure 2 illustrates phenotypes of food allergy and possible outcomes of FIT.
TABLE 2.
Recent developments in food immunotherapy (FIT)
| Route | In the large phase 3 study on epicutaneous IT to peanut, 35.3% of participants achieved predefined response rate compared with 13.6% of children in placebo group; despite the difference being statistically significant, the 95% CI exceeded pre‐specified lower cut‐off, which means the study did not meet its primary end‐point. 102 |
| Dose |
Daily dose equivalent of one peanut and ten peanuts exert similar clinical and immunologic effects in peanut IT in young children. 103 No use of adrenaline related to treatment was reported in the recent peanut OIT study in which maintenance peanut protein dose was established at a low dose (between 125 mg and 250 mg). 81 In the group of Japanese children with history of anaphylaxis to wheat, 31% of subjects developed mild anaphylaxis despite low‐dose protocol (53 mg of wheat protein). 104 |
| Age |
FIT tends to be associated with reassuring safety profile and higher rates of sustained unresponsiveness if started early. 103 In the Italian cohort of 73 infants with IgE‐mediated milk allergy who underwent milk OIT, 97% reached the target 150‐mL dose of milk. No patient required use of AAI at home. 105 |
| Formulation |
The BOPI study looked into effectiveness and safety of boiled peanut IT. 28% of participants presented with 1.9 episodes of anaphylaxis during treatment, which is comparable to average rate of severe adverse events reported in other studies. Small proof‐of‐concept study confirmed that baked egg IT led to desensitization to lightly cooked egg with no moderate or severe adverse events noted.Eg Egg IT is more effective in inducing sustained unresponsiveness than baked egg consumption.107 |
| Adjuvants |
Multiple adjuvant agents have been tested in the context of improving benefit‐risk ratio in FIT, from probiotics and Chinese herb medicine through montelukast and antihistamines to biologic treatments. 108 Omalizumab allows quicker up‐dosing with fewer adverse events without affecting immunologic desensitization processes. 108 Omalizumab may potentially mask early symptoms of gastrointestinal disease related to FIT. 110 Adverse events may start occurring after discontinuation of anti‐IgE during the maintenance phase. 111 , 112 |
| Sustained unresponsiveness |
The baseline epitope‐specific antibody binding models can achieve even 87% accuracy in predicting SU in milk OIT. 113 In peanut oral IT, early decrease in basophil sensitivity to Ara h 2 correlates with SU. 43 Higher baseline peanut‐specific IgG4‐to‐IgE ratio and lower Ara h 2 IgE and basophil activation responses were associated with sustained unresponsiveness in the POISED study. |
FIGURE 2.

Clinical phenotypes of food‐sensitized and food‐allergic children and possible outcomes of food immunotherapy. Although the largest evidence comes from peanut studies, the concepts highlighted here are applicable to other food allergies
Despite the efficacy in inducing desensitization to the culprit food, the outcome of FIT differs from natural outgrowing of FA. While the benefits of a margin of protection in case of accidental exposure and introducing certain amount of the food in regular diet are possible during the treatment, the long‐term effect remains unpredictable with up to 70 per cent successfully desensitized individuals losing tolerance after a short period of avoidance. 43 Why the post‐IT tolerance is lost despite apparent similarities in immunologic response with FA resolution (e.g. decrease in specific IgE concentration and raise in specific IgG4) remains unclear. 90
As sustained unresponsiveness is not achieved by at least half of the patients, the question about the necessary frequency of consumption of the food after completion of FIT remains. Reassuringly, consumption of an egg twice a week has proven sufficient to sustain tolerance in the Spanish SEICAP study. 91 In the large long‐term follow‐up Finnish cohort of children who completed milk OIT, only a quarter of the children returned to milk avoidance diet during the median 6.5‐year‐long observation period. 92 Regarding ongoing peanut consumption, 64% of previous peanut IT participants continued to ingest peanut daily and another 25% less frequently. Unfortunately, allergic reactions including airway involvement were still noted even in this late stage of desensitization. 93 With the first commercial product for peanut OIT approved by FDA in January 2020, FIT is likely to become more widely available and uniform in the coming years.
5.3. Biologicals
In FA, biologic treatments have been mostly investigated in the context of facilitating FIT. In addition to the above‐mentioned FIT/anti‐IgE studies, which have already been completed, there are ongoing projects looking at use of dupilumab in combination with peanut OIT (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03793608, Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03682770), combination of dupilumab and omalizumab in multi‐food OIT (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03679676), and anti‐IL‐33 in peanut OIT (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02920021). 94
Due to its pathomechanism, eosinophilic pathway inhibition has been extensively studied in the treatment of EoE. 95 The use of anti‐IL‐5, anti‐IL‐13 and anti‐IL‐4 has been associated with significant reduction in histologic features of EoE in three RCTs. 96 , 97 However, there have been no clear clinical improvement noted. Therefore, the treatments are currently not routinely recommended in EoE management. 98
Recently, inhibition of alarmins (IL‐25, IL‐33 and TSLP) in a mouse model was effective in preventing FA, 99 which may suggest future promising direction of biologic use in FA.
6. PREVENTION
Despite significant progress in identifying risk factors for FA, there is still little that can be recommended to prevent FA. Few of the known risk factors described above are easily modifiable. Furthermore, of the potentially modifiable factors tested in clinical trials to date, most have not been effective in preventing FA. A recent systematic review by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology FA and Anaphylaxis Guidelines Group 100 identified 41 randomized controlled trials of potential FA prevention strategies in infancy and childhood. The vast majority of these trials showed little to no effect on preventing FA, including trials of dietary avoidance of food allergens, vitamin supplements (maternal and infant), fish oil, probiotics, prebiotics, symbiotics and hydrolysed formulas. However, the authors also concluded that the evidence around most of these interventions remains very uncertain. Many of the trials were at risk of bias due to lack of robust diagnostic criteria, high loss to follow‐up, potential confounding, and lack of blinding, and were underpowered for the outcome of interest.
Although some of the risk of FA is likely to be already established at birth, to date there are no known effective preventative strategies that can be applied during pregnancy. The only intervention that is currently widely recommended to reduce the risk of FA is timely introduction of peanut into the infant's diet. This recommendation is primarily based on the results of a large, high‐quality randomized controlled trial in high‐risk infants conducted in the United Kingdom 9 —a country with a relatively high prevalence of FA. The relevance of these findings to countries with a low peanut allergy prevalence is less clear. 101 There is also evidence from meta‐analyses of multiple trials that early introduction of egg into the infant diet reduces the risk of egg allergy, although the extent of the reduction in risk appears lower than for peanut. 44
7. CONCLUSION
Food allergy is a major public health issue with growing prevalence in the urbanized world and significant impact on the lives of allergic patients and their families. Research into the risk factors that have contributed to this increase and their underlying mechanisms could pave the way to definitive ways for treatment and prevention of FA. For the time being, introduction of peanut and other allergenic foods in the diet at the time of weaning seems to be an effective way to prevent the development of FA. Improved diagnosis and appropriate management and support of food‐allergic patients is central to patient care with food immunotherapy and biologicals making the transition to clinical practice. With the new available treatments, it is becoming increasingly important to include patient's and family preferences to provide a management plan tailored to their needs.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Alexandra F. Santos reports grants and personal fees from Medical Research Council (MR/M008517/1; MR/T032081/1); grants from Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE), Asthma UK and the NIHR through the Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) award to Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, during the conduct of the study; grants from Immune Tolerance Network/National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, NIH); grants from Asthma UK; personal fees from Thermo Scientific, Nutricia, Infomed, Novartis, Allergy Therapeutics, and Buhlmann; and research support from Buhlmann and Thermo Scientific through a collaboration agreement with King's College London. RLP and JK receive research support from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
Rachel Louise Peters: Writing‐original draft (equal); Writing‐review & editing (equal). Marta Krawiec: Writing‐original draft (equal); Writing‐review & editing (equal). Jennifer Julia Koplin: Writing‐original draft (equal); Writing‐review & editing (equal). Alexandra Santos: Conceptualization (equal); Writing‐original draft (equal); Writing‐review & editing (equal).
Peer Review
The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/pai.13443.
Peters RL, Krawiec M, Koplin JJ, Santos AF. Update on food allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2021;32:647–657. 10.1111/pai.13443
REFERENCES
- 1. Gupta RS, Warren CM, Smith BM, et al. The public health impact of parent‐reported childhood food allergies in the United States. Pediatrics. 2018;142(6):e20181235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Le TTK, Nguyen DH, Vu ATL, Ruethers T, Taki AC, Lopata AL. A cross‐sectional, population‐based study on the prevalence of food allergies among children in two different socio‐economic regions of Vietnam. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(3):348‐355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Tham EH, Leung ASY, Pacharn P, et al. Anaphylaxis ‐ Lessons learnt when East meets West. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(7):681‐688. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Botha M, Basera W, Facey‐Thomas HE, et al. Rural and urban food allergy prevalence from the South African Food Allergy (SAFFA) study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(2):662‐668 e662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Prescott S, Allen KJ. Food allergy: riding the second wave of the allergy epidemic. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011;22(2):155‐160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Turner PJ, Gowland MH, Sharma V, et al. Increase in anaphylaxis‐related hospitalizations but no increase in fatalities: an analysis of United Kingdom national anaphylaxis data, 1992–2012. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Mullins RJ, Wainstein BK, Barnes EH, Liew WK, Campbell DE. Increases in anaphylaxis fatalities in Australia from 1997 to 2013. Clin Exp Allergy. 2016;46(8):1099‐1110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Pouessel G, Beaudouin E, Tanno LK, et al. Food‐related anaphylaxis fatalities: analysis of the Allergy Vigilance Network((R)) database. Allergy. 2019;74(6):1193‐1196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Du Toit G, Roberts G, Sayre PH, et al. Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(9):803‐813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Perkin MR, Logan K, Tseng A, et al. Randomized trial of introduction of allergenic foods in breast‐fed infants. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(18):1733‐1743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Branum AM, Lukacs SL. Food allergy among children in the United States. Pediatrics. 2009;124(6):1549‐1555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Koplin JJ, Peters RL, Ponsonby AL, et al. Increased risk of peanut allergy in infants of Asian‐born parents compared to those of Australian‐born parents. Allergy. 2014;69(12):1639‐1647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Yanagida N, Ebisawa M, Katsunuma T, Yoshizawa J. Accidental ingestion of food allergens: a nationwide survey of Japanese nursery schools. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(7):773‐776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Meyer R. Nutritional disorders resulting from food allergy in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2018;29(7):689‐704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Dilley MA, Rettiganti M, Christie L, et al. Impact of food allergy on food insecurity and health literacy in a tertiary care pediatric allergy population. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(3):363‐369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Goldberg MR, Nachshon L, Sinai T, et al. Risk factors for reduced bone mineral density measurements in milk‐allergic patients. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2018;29(8):850‐856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Beken B, Celik V, Gokmirza Ozdemir P, Sut N, Gorker I, Yazicioglu M. Maternal anxiety and internet‐based food elimination in suspected food allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(7):752‐759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Fong AT, Katelaris CH, Wainstein BK. Bullying in Australian children and adolescents with food allergies. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2018;29(7):740‐746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Avery NJ, King RM, Knight S, Hourihane JO. Assessment of quality of life in children with peanut allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2003;14(5):378‐382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. King RM, Knibb RC, Hourihane JO. Impact of peanut allergy on quality of life, stress and anxiety in the family. Allergy. 2009;64(3):461‐468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Peters RL, Koplin JJ, Gurrin LC, et al. The prevalence of food allergy and other allergic diseases in early childhood in a population‐based study: healthNuts age 4‐year follow‐up. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;140(1):145‐153 e148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Venter C, Maslin K, Patil V, et al. The prevalence, natural history and time trends of peanut allergy over the first 10 years of life in two cohorts born in the same geographical location 12 years apart. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27(8):804‐811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Venter C, Patil V, Grundy J, et al. Prevalence and cumulative incidence of food hyper‐sensitivity in the first 10 years of life. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27(5):452‐458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Schoemaker AA, Sprikkelman AB, Grimshaw KE, et al. Incidence and natural history of challenge‐proven cow's milk allergy in European children–EuroPrevall birth cohort. Allergy. 2015;70(8):963‐972. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Xepapadaki P, Fiocchi A, Grabenhenrich L, et al. Incidence and natural history of hen's egg allergy in the first 2 years of life‐the EuroPrevall birth cohort study. Allergy. 2016;71(3):350‐357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Osborne NJ, Koplin JJ, Martin PE, et al. Prevalence of challenge‐proven IgE‐mediated food allergy using population‐based sampling and predetermined challenge criteria in infants. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(3):pp. 668–676 e661–662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Martin PE, Eckert JK, Koplin JJ, et al. Which infants with eczema are at risk of food allergy? Results from a population‐based cohort. Clin Exp Allergy. 2015;45(1):255‐264. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Grimshaw KEC, Roberts G, Selby A, et al. Risk factors for hen's egg allergy in Europe: EuroPrevall birth cohort. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(4):1341‐1348 e1345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Lack G. Epidemiologic risks for food allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121(6):1331‐1336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Marrs T, Bruce KD, Logan K, et al. Is there an association between microbial exposure and food allergy? A systematic review. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013;24(4):311‐320 e318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Koplin JJ, Dharmage SC, Ponsonby AL, et al. Environmental and demographic risk factors for egg allergy in a population‐based study of infants. Allergy. 2012;67(11):1415‐1422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Neeland MR, Andorf S, Manohar M, et al. Mass cytometry reveals cellular fingerprint associated with IgE+ peanut tolerance and allergy in early life. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):1091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Wambre E, Bajzik V, DeLong JH, et al. A phenotypically and functionally distinct human TH2 cell subpopulation is associated with allergic disorders. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(401). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Chiang D, Chen X, Jones SM, et al. Single‐cell profiling of peanut‐responsive T cells in patients with peanut allergy reveals heterogeneous effector TH2 subsets. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141(6):2107‐2120. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Weissler KA, Rasooly M, DiMaggio T, et al. Identification and analysis of peanut‐specific effector T and regulatory T cells in children allergic and tolerant to peanut. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141(5):1699‐1710 e1697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Ruiter B, Smith NP, Monian B, et al. Expansion of the CD4(+) effector T‐cell repertoire characterizes peanut‐allergic patients with heightened clinical sensitivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145(1):270‐282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Gowthaman U, Chen JS, Zhang B, et al. Identification of a T follicular helper cell subset that drives anaphylactic IgE. Science. 2019;365(6456). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Zhang B, Liu E, Gertie JA, et al. Divergent T follicular helper cell requirement for IgA and IgE production to peanut during allergic sensitization. Sci Immunol. 2020;5(47). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Hoh RA, Joshi SA, Lee JY, et al. Origins and clonal convergence of gastrointestinal IgE(+) B cells in human peanut allergy. Sci Immunol. 2020;5(45). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Shade KC, Conroy ME, Washburn N, et al. Sialylation of immunoglobulin E is a determinant of allergic pathogenicity. Nature. 2020;582(7811):265‐270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Hemmings O, Du Toit G, Radulovic S, Lack G, Santos AF. Ara h 2 is the dominant peanut allergen despite similarities with Ara h 6. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Berin MC, Grishin A, Masilamani M, et al. Egg‐specific IgE and basophil activation but not egg‐specific T‐cell counts correlate with phenotypes of clinical egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;142(1):149‐158 e148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Patil SU, Steinbrecher J, Calatroni A, et al. Early decrease in basophil sensitivity to Ara h 2 precedes sustained unresponsiveness after peanut oral immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;144(5):1310‐1319 e1314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Ierodiakonou D, Garcia‐Larsen V, Logan A, et al. Timing of allergenic food introduction to the infant diet and risk of allergic or autoimmune disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA. 2016;316(11):1181‐1192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Bird JA, Leonard S, Groetch M, et al. Conducting an oral food challenge: an update to the 2009 adverse reactions to foods Committee Work Group Report. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(1):75‐90 e17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Peters RL, Gurrin LC, Allen KJ. The predictive value of skin prick testing for challenge‐proven food allergy: a systematic review. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2012;23(4):347‐352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Peters RL, Gurrin LC, Dharmage SC, Koplin JJ, Allen KJ. The natural history of IgE‐mediated food allergy: can skin prick tests and serum‐specific IgE predict the resolution of food allergy? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(10):5039‐5061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Cuomo B, Indirli GC, Bianchi A, et al. Specific IgE and skin prick tests to diagnose allergy to fresh and baked cow's milk according to age: a systematic review. Ital J Pediatr. 2017;43(1):93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Klemans RJ, van Os‐Medendorp H, Blankestijn M, Bruijnzeel‐Koomen CA, Knol EF, Knulst AC. Diagnostic accuracy of specific IgE to components in diagnosing peanut allergy: a systematic review. Clin Exp Allergy. 2015;45(4):720‐730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Soares‐Weiser K, Takwoingi Y, Panesar SS, et al. The diagnosis of food allergy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Allergy. 2014;69(1):76‐86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Calvani M, Arasi S, Bianchi A, et al. Is it possible to make a diagnosis of raw, heated, and baked egg allergy in children using cutoffs? A systematic review. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015;26(6):509‐521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Nilsson C, Berthold M, Mascialino B, Orme ME, Sjolander S, Hamilton RG. Accuracy of component‐resolved diagnostics in peanut allergy: systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020;31(3):303–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Nilsson C, Berthold M, Mascialino B, Orme M, Sjolander S, Hamilton R. Allergen components in diagnosing childhood hazelnut allergy: systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020;31(2):186‐196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Flores Kim J, McCleary N, Nwaru BI, Stoddart A, Sheikh A. Diagnostic accuracy, risk assessment, and cost‐effectiveness of component‐resolved diagnostics for food allergy: a systematic review. Allergy. 2018;73(8):1609‐1621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Santos AF, Shreffler WG. Road map for the clinical application of the basophil activation test in food allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 2017;47(9):1115‐1124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Santos AF, Douiri A, Becares N, et al. Basophil activation test discriminates between allergy and tolerance in peanut‐sensitized children. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(3):645‐652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Elizur A, Appel MY, Nachshon L, et al. NUT Co Reactivity ‐ ACquiring Knowledge for Elimination Recommendations (NUT CRACKER) study. Allergy. 2018;73(3):593‐601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Santos AF, Couto‐Francisco N, Becares N, Kwok M, Bahnson HT, Lack G. A novel human mast cell activation test for peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;142(2):689‐691 e689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Bahri R, Custovic A, Korosec P, et al. Mast cell activation test in the diagnosis of allergic disease and anaphylaxis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;142(2):485‐496 e416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Song Y, Wang J, Leung N, et al. Correlations between basophil activation, allergen‐specific IgE with outcome and severity of oral food challenges. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114(4):319‐326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. van Erp FC, Knulst AC, Kentie PA, Pasmans SG, van der Ent CK, Meijer Y. Can we predict severe reactions during peanut challenges in children? Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2013;24(6):596‐602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Santos AF, Du Toit G, O'Rourke C, et al. Biomarkers of severity and threshold of allergic reactions during oral peanut challenges. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Dang TD, Tang M, Choo S, et al. Increasing the accuracy of peanut allergy diagnosis by using Ara h 2. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;129(4):1056‐1063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Muraro A, Werfel T, Hoffmann‐Sommergruber K, et al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines: diagnosis and management of food allergy. Allergy. 2014;69(8):1008‐1025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Graham F, Caubet JC, Eigenmann PA. Can my child with IgE‐mediated peanut allergy introduce foods labeled with "may contain traces"? Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Shaker M, Greenhawt M. Providing cost‐effective care for food allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019;123(3):240‐248.e241. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Capucilli P, Wang KY, Spergel JM. Food reactions during avoidance: focus on peanut. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;124(5):459‐465. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Abrams EM, Greenhawt M. The role of peanut‐free school policies in the protection of children with peanut allergy. J Public Health Policy. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Shaker M, Greenhawt M. Cost‐effectiveness of stock epinephrine autoinjectors on commercial aircraft. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(7):2270‐2276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Tanno LK, Demoly P, Academies JA. Action plan to ensure global availability of adrenaline autoinjectors. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2020;30(2):77‐85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Portnoy J, Wade RL, Kessler C. Patient carrying time, confidence, and training with epinephrine autoinjectors: the RACE survey. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(7):2252‐2261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Sasaki K, Nakagawa T, Sugiura S, Ebisawa M, Ito K. Identifying the factors and root causes associated with the unintentional usage of an adrenaline auto‐injector in Japanese children and their caregivers. Allergol Int. 2018;67(4):475‐480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Maa T, Scherzer DJ, Harwayne‐Gidansky I, et al. Prevalence of errors in anaphylaxis in kids (PEAK): a multicenter simulation‐based study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020;8(4):1239‐1246.e1233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Patriarca G, Schiavino D, Nucera E, Schinco G, Milani A, Gasbarrini GB. Food allergy in children: results of a standardized protocol for oral desensitization. Hepatogastroenterology. 1998;45(19):52‐58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Martorell A, Alonso E, Echeverría L, et al. Oral immunotherapy for food allergy: a Spanish guideline. Egg and milk immunotherapy Spanish guide (ITEMS GUIDE). Part 2: maintenance phase of cow milk (CM) and egg oral immunotherapy (OIT), special treatment dosing schedules. Models of dosing schedules of OIT with CM and EGG. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 2017;45(5):508‐518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Bégin P, Chan ES, Kim H, et al. CSACI guidelines for the ethical, evidence‐based and patient‐oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE‐mediated food allergy. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2020;16:20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Pajno GB, Fernandez‐Rivas M, Arasi S, et al. EAACI Guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: IgE‐mediated food allergy. Allergy. 2018;73(4):799‐815. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Nurmatov U, Dhami S, Arasi S, et al. Allergen immunotherapy for IgE‐mediated food allergy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Allergy. 2017;72(8):1133‐1147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Nowak‐Węgrzyn A, Wood RA, Nadeau KC, et al. Multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial of vital wheat gluten oral immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(2):651‐661.e659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Vickery BP, Vereda A, Casale TB, et al. AR101 oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(21):1991‐2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Blumchen K, Trendelenburg V, Ahrens F, et al. Efficacy, safety, and quality of life in a multicenter, randomized, placebo‐controlled Trial of low‐dose peanut oral immunotherapy in children with peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(2):479‐491.e410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Chu DK, Wood RA, French S, et al. Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta‐analysis of efficacy and safety. Lancet. 2019;393(10187):2222‐2232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Bloom KA, Huang FR, Bencharitiwong R, et al. Effect of heat treatment on milk and egg proteins allergenicity. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2014;25(8):740‐746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Kim EH, Perry TT, Wood RA, et al. Induction of sustained unresponsiveness after egg oral immunotherapy compared to baked egg therapy in children with egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146(4):851‐862 e810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Kim EH, Burks AW. Food allergy immunotherapy: OIT and EPIT. Allergy. 2020;75(6):1337–1346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Kim EH, Yang L, Ye P, et al. Long‐term sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: clinical and immunologic evidence of desensitization. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;144(5):1320‐1326.e1321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Waldron J, Kim EH. Sublingual and patch immunotherapy for food allergy. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2020;40(1):135‐148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Vázquez‐Cortés S, Jaqueti P, Arasi S, Machinena A, Alvaro‐Lozano M, Fernández‐Rivas M. Safety of food oral immunotherapy: what we know, and what we need to learn. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2020;40(1):111‐133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Calvani M, Bianchi A, Imondi C, Romeo E. Oral desensitization in IgE‐mediated food allergy: effectiveness and safety. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020;31(Suppl 24):49‐50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Soyer OU, Akdis M, Ring J, et al. Mechanisms of peripheral tolerance to allergens. Allergy. 2013;68(2):161‐170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Martín‐Muñoz MF, Alonso Lebrero E, Zapatero L, et al. Egg OIT in clinical practice (SEICAP II): maintenance patterns and desensitization state after normalizing the diet. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(2):214‐224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Kauppila TK, Paassilta M, Kukkonen AK, Kuitunen M, Pelkonen AS, Makela MJ. Outcome of oral immunotherapy for persistent cow's milk allergy from 11 years of experience in Finland. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(3):356‐362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Cook Q, Yang L, Hamad A, et al. Dosing, safety, and quality of life after peanut immunotherapy trials ‐ a long‐term follow up study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94. Long A, Borro M, Sampath V, Chinthrajah RS. New developments in non‐allergen‐specific therapy for the treatment of food allergy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2020;20(1):3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95. Hirano I, Furuta GT. Approaches and challenges to management of pediatric and adult patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(4):840‐851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96. Hirano I, Collins MH, Assouline‐Dayan Y, et al. RPC4046, a monoclonal antibody against IL13, reduces histologic and endoscopic activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(3):592‐603.e510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97. Hirano I, Dellon ES, Hamilton JD, et al. Efficacy of dupilumab in a phase 2 randomized trial of adults with active eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(1):111‐122.e110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98. Hirano I, Chan ES, Rank MA, et al. AGA institute and the joint task force on allergy‐immunology practice parameters clinical guidelines for the management of eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(6):1776‐1786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99. Khodoun MV, Tomar S, Tocker JE, Wang YH, Finkelman FD. Prevention of food allergy development and suppression of established food allergy by neutralization of thymic stromal lymphopoietin, IL‐25, and IL‐33. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141(1):171‐179.e171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100. de Silva D, Halken S, Singh C, et al. Preventing food allergy in infancy and childhood: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101. Tham EH, Shek LP, Van Bever HP, et al. Early introduction of allergenic foods for the prevention of food allergy from an Asian perspective‐An Asia Pacific Association of Pediatric Allergy, Respirology & Immunology (APAPARI) consensus statement. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2018;29(1):18‐27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102. Fleischer DM, Greenhawt M, Sussman G, et al. Effect of epicutaneous immunotherapy vs placebo on reaction to peanut protein ingestion among children with peanut allergy: the PEPITES randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;321(10):946‐955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103. Vickery BP, Berglund JP, Burk CM, et al. Early oral immunotherapy in peanut‐allergic preschool children is safe and highly effective. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(1):173‐181.e178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104. Nagakura KI, Yanagida N, Sato S, et al. Low‐dose‐oral immunotherapy for children with wheat‐induced anaphylaxis. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2020;31(4):371‐379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105. Berti I, Badina L, Cozzi G, et al. Early oral immunotherapy in infants with cow's milk protein allergy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2019;30(5):572‐574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106. Bird JA, Clark A, Dougherty I, et al. Baked egg oral immunotherapy desensitizes baked egg allergic children to lightly cooked egg. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2019;7(2):667‐669.e664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107. Kim EH, Perry TT, Wood RA, et al. Induction of sustained unresponsiveness after egg oral immunotherapy compared to baked egg therapy in children with egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;146:851–862. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108. Virkud YV, Wang J, Shreffler WG. Enhancing the safety and efficacy of food allergy immunotherapy: a review of adjunctive therapies. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2018;55(2):172‐189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109. Lin C, Lee IT, Sampath V, et al. Combining anti‐IgE with oral immunotherapy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2017;28(7):619‐627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110. Burk CM, Dellon ES, Steele PH, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis during peanut oral immunotherapy with omalizumab. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(2):498‐501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111. Martorell‐Calatayud C, Michavila‐Gómez A, Martorell‐Aragonés A, et al. Anti‐IgE‐assisted desensitization to egg and cow's milk in patients refractory to conventional oral immunotherapy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2016;27(5):544‐546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112. Brandstrom J, Vetander M, Sundqvist AC, et al. Individually dosed omalizumab facilitates peanut oral immunotherapy in peanut allergic adolescents. Clin Exp Allergy. 2019;49(10):1328‐1341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113. Suárez‐Fariñas M, Suprun M, Chang HL, et al. Predicting development of sustained unresponsiveness to milk oral immunotherapy using epitope‐specific antibody binding profiles. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(3):1038‐1046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
