Wheat, a component of the staple diet globally, is a common food allergen in children. The symptoms of wheat allergy (WA) range from skin rash to shortness of breath, significantly impairing quality of life. Following initial clinical suspicion, individuals may undergo routinely used allergy tests such as a wheat allergen-specific skin prick test (SPT), a blood test for specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) levels, or oral food challenge. Conventional management of WA lies in wheat avoidance, yet accidental consumption may be inevitable owing to the ubiquity of wheat in various food products. This article aims to provide an overview of the immunologic pathway of WA, followed by its emerging diagnostic methods, namely alcohol-soluble SPT extracts, component-resolved diagnosis, and the basophil activation test (BAT). The mechanisms underlying wheat allergen-specific oral immunotherapy (OIT) as well as a summary of the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of related clinical trials will then be discussed.

The use of extensively heated (EH) milk and egg products, and dietary advancement therapies such as milk and egg ladders is increasingly common for the management of milk and egg allergies. Although the majority of patients with milk and egg allergies will outgrow their allergies, the ability to tolerate extensively hydrolyzed forms of these allergens is an early indicator of developing long-term tolerance. The denaturation of conformational epitopes during the heating process reduces the allergenicity of these proteins, which makes patients who are EH tolerant more likely to tolerate progressively more of these proteins.

UNASSIGNED: Across the practice of allergy and clinical immunology, disruptive innovations have accelerated the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) to improve the health of patients and populations, particularly with regard to food allergy prevention and management of food allergy and anaphylaxis.
UNASSIGNED: A narrative review was performed to describe recent innovations in shared decision-making, risk communication, and food allergy.
UNASSIGNED: Several challenges, primarily related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and misinformation campaigns, have catalyzed adaptations to evolve clinical care. Recent pressures have facilitated the rapid adoption of telemedicine. In 2023, many allergist/immunologists routinely incorporate both in-person and virtual visits to contextually deliver value-based care to each patient. SDM may occur in a hybrid model that incorporates both in-person and virtual encounters, with many patients experiencing benefit from a combination approach. This may be facilitated by leveraging previsit web-based SDM tools. Whether in person or by telemedicine, effective risk communication to avoid cognitive overload while appreciating population variation in numeracy is key to competent implementation of SDM. Misinformation continues to disproportionately harm patients who belong to groups that encourage denial of evidence-based medical recommendations and COVID-19 vaccination intent correlating with sociopolitical factors. Still, strategies to address misinformation that leverage empathy, respect, and expertise can help to mitigate these effects. Physician wellness is a key component to realization of the Quadruple Aim of health care, and the use of positive framing and appreciative inquiry can help to optimize outcomes and improve value in health care.
UNASSIGNED: SDM is an important component to consider when incorporating recent innovations in allergy and clinical immunology care, particularly in the setting of contextual and conditional medical recommendations. Effective risk communication is critical to SDM that is truly reflective of patient goals and preferences, and can be facilitated through in-person encounters, telemedicine, and hybrid models. It is important to foster physician wellness as a component of the Quadruple Aim, particularly in the recent pandemic climate of misinformation and denial of evidence-based medicine within large groups of society.

Long term daily dosing for patients and families may be challenging due to food aversions, dosing protocols, and age of the patient. The few long term studies suggest that low quantity daily dosing is associated with passing higher dose challenges over the long term, whereas high dose maintenance may protect for longer avoidance intervals. We review the data for peanut and suggest several strategies for your patients.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an office-based procedure that offers potential treatment of immunoglobulin E mediated food allergy. OIT has multiple benefits, e.g., the ability to desensitize the individual with food allergy, which shifts the eliciting dose threshold required in that individual to trigger an allergic reaction, and also potentially to decrease the severity of any resulting reactions. However, OIT is not a cure and has distinct risks, including the risk of allergic reactions (including anaphylaxis) from the therapy itself, the potential risk of developing eosinophilic esophagitis (or similar clinical symptoms without a formal biopsy), and logistical issues in coordinating when to give the daily dose, and there are still uncertain intermediate-to-long-term outcomes with regard to OIT. The decision to start OIT is complex and potentially nuanced. Shared decision-making is a process that allows the patient and family and the clinician to undergo a mutual discussion of the risks, benefits, alternatives, and other considerations with regard to a medical decision (such as starting OIT) whereby there is an exchange of information that allows the patient and family to formally clarify and express their values and preferences with regard to facets of the decision in this particular context. The goal is for the patient to be able to make a fully informed decision that is reflective of his or her goals, values, preferences, and desires. This article outlined some of the key considerations to discuss with parents and patients before enrolling in an OIT program with regard to the risks and benefits, to assist in engaging in shared decision-making and obtaining informed consent.

Cow\'s milk allergy (CMA) is a common childhood food allergy associated with a significant burden for those children who are affected and their families, including unintentional exposures that result in allergic reactions, severe allergic reactions, and anaphylaxis. In young children, cow\'s milk is one of the most frequent food triggers in anaphylactic episodes, and fatalities have also been described as a result of unintentional exposures, which reinforces the notion that milk allergy can be severe in some individuals. The natural history of CMA is favorable, with the allergy resolving over time in the majority of individuals, although some will have persistent allergy that does not resolve. The standard management approach for CMA consists of strict avoidance of milk and carriage of emergency medication for use in accidental exposures. Recently, a novel approach has emerged as an alternative option for management in patients with CMA in the form of oral immunotherapy (OIT). The aim of milk OIT is to protect patients from accidental exposures to milk-containing foods and allow patients to introduce larger amounts of milk into their diet. The goal of this article was to review the available evidence, discuss key studies that focused on milk OIT, and provide practical information and useful tips related to this novel treatment.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an emerging treatment, but it is more than products and protocols. Office setup, including spacing, staffing, and logistics, is critical to assess to fully implement OIT into clinical practice. To provide insights into what needs to be considered in setting up an office to practically implement OIT into clinical practice. Most of the clinical research about OIT focuses on the products and protocols used for OIT. However, to safely and effectively integrate this into clinical practice, there are many practical aspects that need to be considered. Proper staffing, office space, scheduling, and on-call responsibilities all need to be considered because OIT will impact all of these aspects of practice. We provide suggestions and considerations as you think through these vital logistics in your office. These are practical considerations that must be determined to effectively handle OIT in an office setting. OIT products and protocols are one aspect of OIT. Actually delivering the treatment with staff, office space, and handling the patient needs after hours is really when OIT becomes more of a reality for the physician and the patient.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) emerged into clinical practice, and its delivery highlights the multifaceted expertise of registered nurses (RN) as central to allergy/immunology interprofessional collaborative teams. The allergist-RN model of clinical evidenced-based OIT provision is presented. RN competencies, role components, and intervention examples are included to assist RNs and allergists in maximizing RN capabilities. RNs\' patient-centered focus, and the ability to evaluate and incorporate physical, psychological, and sociological patient aspects are assets to OIT teams. RNs can establish best practices, initiate scholarly inquiry, and disseminate new knowledge to interdisciplinary colleagues. RNs also implement allergist-prescribed standing protocols within their legal practice scope by using their clinical judgment during evaluation of a patient receiving OIT. The same RN may serve as a nurse clinician, patient and family educator, case manager, research collaborator, and OIT program manager. Allergy/immunology practices use diverse staffing models, which thus require adaptation of presented descriptions per clinical team needs and resources.

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.

Approximately one-third of patients who present for oral immunotherapy (OIT) will be allergic to more than one food. Those patients with more than one food allergy have the option of sequential courses of single-food OIT or, in the right situation, combining several foods as part of multifood OIT. The time and cost savings can be substantial. Treatment protocols used with multiple foods are basically the same as with single-food courses, so clinics proficient with single-food OIT can easily transition to multifood OIT. Outcomes have been shown to be similar between the two approaches, so patients should be offered the opportunity to address their food allergies in one, more convenient OIT course.