Immunotherapy and biologics in the management of IgE‐mediated food allergy: Systematic review and meta‐analyses of efficacy and safety

Abstract

AbstractFood allergy (FA) is a potentially life‐threatening chronic condition that is becoming an increasing public health problem worldwide. This systematic review (SR) was carried out to inform the development of clinical recommendations on the treatment of IgE‐mediated FA with biologics and/or IT for the update of the EAACI guidelines. A SR of randomized‐controlled trials or quasi‐controlled trials was carried out. Studies were identified via comprehensive search strategies in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library, up to April 2022. Population: Human adults, children, and adolescents with IgE‐mediated FA. Intervention: IT and/or biologics. Comparator: Placebo or standard‐of‐care (allergen avoidance). Outcome: Efficacy (desensitization, sustained unresponsiveness (SU), remission), quality of life, and safety (systemic and local adverse reactions (AR)). The Cochrane RoB tool was used to assess the risk of bias. It was reported according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO CRD4202229828. After screening, 121 studies were included (111 for IT and 10 for biologics). Most studies had a high risk of bias and showed high heterogeneity in design and results. Metanalysis showed a positive effect of biologics and IT in terms of relative risk (RR) for achieving tolerance to the culprit food compared to avoidance or placebo. Omalizumab for any FA showed a RR of 2.17 [95% confidence interval: 1.22, 3.85]. For peanut allergy, oral IT (OIT) had a RR of 11.94 [1.76, 80.84] versus avoidance or placebo, sublingual IT (SLIT) had a RR of 3.00 [1.04, 8.66], and epicutaneous IT (EPIT) of 2.16 [1.56, 3.00]. OIT had a RR of 5.88 [2.27, 15.18] for cow's milk allergy, and of 3.43 [2.24, 5.27] for egg allergy. There was insufficient data on SLIT or EPIT for the treatment of egg and milk allergies. Most ARs reported were mild. For OIT the most common AR involved the gastrointestinal system and for EPIT, AR's most commonly affected the skin. There was limited data on severe or life‐threatening ARs. There was limited evidence for long term efficacy and quality of life. In conclusion, biologics and IT, alone or in combination, are effective in achieving desensitization while on active treatment but more evidence is needed on long‐term tolerance as current evidence is not of high quality. Adverse events while on therapy are generally mild to moderate but a long‐term comprehensive safety profile is missing. There is a critical need to optimize and standardize desensitization protocols and outcome measures to facilitate our understanding of the efficacy and safety as well as to allow for comparison between interventions.