Safety concerns are a barrier to oral immunotherapy (OIT). This review aims to describe OIT safety events and explore potential risk factors and mitigating factors. Published clinical and real-world OIT studies were reviewed for data on safety outcomes in OIT. Gastrointestinal symptoms are one of the most common adverse reactions associated with OIT, and persistent symptoms can be associated with an eosinophilic response. Allergic reactions are increased in OIT compared with avoidance; however, these symptoms tend not to be severe and to decrease over time. Despite OIT, epinephrine usage persists in studies and life-threatening reactions (though rare) have occurred. High baseline food specific immunoglobulin E levels, aggressive dosing, uncontrolled atopic comorbidities, and poor adherence to protocols may contribute to the severity of adverse events. OIT remains a shared decision that incorporates best medical evidence and appropriate patient selection. It requires individualized care and action plans to ensure safe outcomes.

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.

暂无摘要。

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.
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.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising treatment for food allergies; however, safety is a concern. We synthesized evidence from the best randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on efficacy/safety of OIT for desensitization (DS) and remission (sustained unresponsiveness (SU)) in IgE mediated allergy to peanut, hen\'s eggs, and cow\'s milk. BODY: We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (Until Oct 22) identifying 16 eligible RCTs published in English measuring food allergy by food challenge at the beginning and at the end of the study. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality. We found 18 eligible studies. There was evidence of efficacy for DS for all allergens: peanut (RR 11.32; 95% CI 5.93, 21.60, I2 49%, 8 studies); hen\'s egg (RR 4.67; 2.66, 8.21, I2 0%, 5 studies); cow\'s milk (RR 13.98; 3.51, 55.65, I2 0%, 4 studies) and evidence for SU for peanut (RR 7.74; 2.90, 20.69, I2 0%, 3 studies) and hen\'s egg (RR 6.91; 1.67, 28.57, I2 0%, 2 studies). Allergic events were increased with intervention, and risk of adrenaline use increased for peanut RR 2.96; 1.63, 5.35, I2 0%, 8 studies; egg RR 1.71; 0.42, 6.92, I2 0%, 6 studies; and milk RR 8.45; 2.02, 35.27, I2 0%, 4 studies.
CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence that peanut, hen\'s egg, and cow\'s milk OIT can induce DS and some evidence for remission. There was a high risk of allergic reactions. Generalizability to the entire food allergic population is not known.

A growing number of studies have shown encouraging results with omalizumab (OMA) as monotherapy and as an adjunct to oral immunotherapy (OMA+OIT) in patients with single/multiple food allergies.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of OMA or OMA+OIT in patients with immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy.
An extensive literature search (inception to December 31, 2020) was performed to identify randomized, controlled, and observational studies that assessed OMA as monotherapy or OMA+OIT in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy. The outcomes were an increase in tolerated dose of foods, successful desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness, immunological biomarkers, severity of allergic reactions to food, quality of life (QoL), and safety. A P less than .05 was considered significant.
In total, 36 studies were included. The OMA monotherapy (vs pre-OMA) significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods; increased the threshold of tolerated dose for milk, egg, wheat, and baked milk; improved QoL; and reduced food-induced allergic reactions (all P < .01). The OMA+OIT significantly increased the tolerated dose of multiple foods (vs placebo and pre-OMA), desensitization (vs placebo+OIT and pre-OMA) (all P ≤ .01), and improved QoL (vs pre-OMA) and immunoglobulin G4 levels (both P < .01). No major safety concerns were identified.
In IgE-mediated food allergy, OMA can help patients consume multiple foods and allow for food dose escalation. As an adjunct to OIT, OMA can also support high-dose desensitization and higher maintenance doses. Further studies are warranted to empirically evaluate the effect of OMA and confirm these findings.

UNASSIGNED: Allergy to cow\'s milk is the most common food allergy in infants and it is usually outgrown by 5 years of age. In some individuals it persists beyond early childhood. Oral immunotherapy (OIT, oral desensitization, specific oral tolerance induction) has been proposed as a promising therapeutic strategy for persistent IgE-mediated cow\'s milk allergy. We previously published the systematic review of OIT for cow\'s milk allergy (CMA) in 2010 as part of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) Diagnosis and Rationale for Action against Cow\'s Milk Allergy (DRACMA) Guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: To systematically synthesize the currently available evidence about OIT for IgE-mediated CMA and to inform the updated 2022 WAO guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the websites of selected allergy organizations. We included all studies irrespective of the language of the original publication. The last search was conducted in February 2021. We registered the protocol on Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/AH2DT).
UNASSIGNED: We identified 2147 unique records published between 2010 and 2021, including 13 randomized trials and 109 observational studies addressing cow\'s milk OIT. We found low-certainty evidence that OIT with unheated cow\'s milk, compared to elimination diet alone, increased the likelihood of being able to consume ≥150 ml of cow\'s milk in controlled settings (risk ratio (RR): 12.3, 95% CI: 5.9 to 26.0; risk difference (RD): 25 more per 100, 95% CI 11 to 56) as well as accidently ingest a small amount (≥5 ml) of cow\'s milk (RR: 8.7, 95% CI: 4.7 to 16.1; RD: 25 more per 100, 95% CI 12 to 50). However, 2-8 weeks after discontinuation of a successful OIT, tolerance of cow\'s milk persisted in only 36% (range: 20%-91%) of patients. OIT increased the frequency of anaphylaxis (rate ratio: 60.0, 95% CI 15 to 244; rate difference 5 more anaphylactic reactions per 1 person per year, 95% CI: 4 to 6; moderate evidence) and the frequency of epinephrine use (rate ratio: 35.2, 95% CI: 9 to 136.5; rate difference 268 more events per 100 person-years, 95% CI: 203 to 333; high certainty). OIT also increased the risk of gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 6.9, 95% CI 1.6-30.9; RD 28 more per 100, CI 3 to 100) and respiratory symptoms (RR 49.0, 95% CI 3.12-770.6; RD 77 more per 100, CI 62 to 92), compared with avoidance diet alone. Single-arm observational studies showed that on average 6.9% of OIT patients (95% CI: 3.8%-10%) developed eosinophilic esophagitis (very low certainty evidence). We found 1 trial and 2 small case series of OIT with baked milk.
UNASSIGNED: Moderate certainty evidence shows that OIT with unheated cow\'s milk in patients with IgE-mediated CMA is associated with an increased probability of being able to drink milk and, at the same time, an increased risk of serious adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Cow\'s milk allergy (CMA) is the most common allergy in infants that decreases the quality of life of patients and their families. Standard treatment for CMA is the strict avoidance of milk; new treatment strategies such as oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been sought for patients with CMA. We aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of OIT in the treatment of children with immunoglobulin E-mediated CMA (IMCMA).
METHODS: We searched all randomized controlled trials in which OIT is used to treat children with IMCMA from five international electronic databases. We estimated a pooled risk ratio (RR) for each outcome using a Mantel-Haenzel fixed-effects model if statistical heterogeneity was low.
RESULTS: Eleven studies were chosen for meta-analysis, including a total of 469 children (242 OITs, 227 controls). One hundred and seventy-six patients (72.7%) in the OIT were desensitized compared with 49 patients (21.6%) in the control group (RR: 7.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.82-19.13, p < .0001). The desensitization effect of OIT was particularly significant in children over 3 years old (RR: 18.05, 95% CI: 6.48-50.26, p < .00001). Although adverse effects were common, they usually involved mild reactions, but epinephrine use was more common in the OIT group (RR: 7.69, 95% CI: 2.16-27.33, p < .002).
CONCLUSIONS: OIT can lead to desensitization in the majority of individuals with IMCMA, especially in patients over 3 years old. A major problem of OIT is the frequency of adverse events, although most are mild. OIT may be an alternative treatment in the future.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies are common, affecting 1 in 13 school children in the United States and their prevalence is increasing. Many misconceptions exist with regards to food allergy prevention, diagnosis and management.
OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this review is to address misconceptions with regards to food allergies and discuss the optimal, evidence-based approach for patients who carry this diagnosis.
METHODS: Common misconceptions in terms of food allergy prevention include beliefs that breastfeeding and delayed introduction of allergenic foods prevent the development of food allergies. In terms of diagnosis, statements such as \'larger skin prick tests or/and higher levels of food-specific IgE can predict the severity of food-induced allergic reactions\', or \'Tryptase is always elevated in food-induced anaphylaxis\' are inaccurate. Additionally, egg allergy is not a contraindication for receiving the influenza vaccine, food-allergy related fatalities are rare and peanut oral immunotherapy, despite reported benefits, is not a cure for food allergies. Finally, not all infants with eczema will develop food allergies and epinephrine auto-injectors may unfortunately be both unavailable and underused in food-triggered anaphylaxis.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals must be familiar with recent evidence in the food allergy field and avoid common misunderstandings that may negatively affect prevention, diagnosis and management of this chronic disease.

Food allergy is a potentially life-threatening condition with no approved curative therapy. A number of food allergen immunotherapies are being investigated in phase II/III trials; however, these are limited in their ability to restore immune tolerance to food allergens and often result in high rates of allergic side effects, sometimes involving anaphylaxis, that may curtail their impact. A variety of adjunctive therapies have been developed in order to enhance the efficacy and/or improve the safety of food allergen immunotherapy through either shifting the immune response from a Th2 polarized response to a Th1 and regulatory T cell dominated response or by blocking downstream effects of the allergic inflammatory response by targeting IgE or mast cell mediators. Upstream therapies that shift towards a Th1/Treg response include toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 agonists (e.g., MPL and GLA), TLR9 agonists (CpG oligonucleotides), nanoparticles encapsulating peanut allergen (with and without adjuvants, such as CpG or rapamycin), Chinese herbal medicine (food allergy herbal formula (FAHF-2)), probiotics, and interferon-gamma. In contrast, anti-IgE therapies such as omalizumab, anti-histamines like ketotifen, and leukotriene receptor antagonists all target the downstream allergic response. Anti-IgE-based therapies appear to be furthest along with probiotics, Chinese herbal medicines, and TLR-4 agonists currently in early phase clinical trials. Meanwhile, nanoparticles represent an innovative delivery vehicle for immunotherapy that could improve both efficacy and decrease allergic side effects. Furthermore, other biologic therapies directed towards the allergic immune response are on the horizon. A number of factors will need to be evaluated in comparing these treatments, including ability to decrease allergic adverse events, safety of the adjunctive therapies themselves, effect on long-term sustained unresponsiveness, and cost. Further phenotyping of food allergy patients may be necessary to determine which ones respond best to each therapy. However, with so many promising adjunctive therapies, it appears likely that clinicians will have a variety of options to optimize the administration of food allergen immunotherapy. We provided a review of these methods, their influence on allergic adverse events, and utility in improving the immunomodulatory effects of food allergen immunotherapy.