Quiz Ref ID Studies conducted between 2011 and 2018 note that peanut allergy affects approximately 1% to 2% of US children.^1-3 The current standard of care is strict peanut avoidance and rapid administration of epinephrine on presentation of allergic symptoms.⁴ Peanut allergy is a common cause of emergency department visits for food-induced anaphylaxis and has been associated with fatal reactions.^5-7 Peanut is a ubiquitous ingredient, complicating successful dietary avoidance, which poses risk of an unintentional exposure, even from small amounts. Consequently, peanut allergy is associated with poor quality of life for both food-allergic individuals and their caregivers, who have indicated that treatment resulting in their child having protection against unintentional peanut exposures would positively affect quality of life.⁸ Therefore, this population could benefit from a treatment that safely and feasibly results in desensitization (a transient state of reduced reactivity demonstrated by an increased eliciting dose during a posttreatment food challenge), which if translated to actual exposures, might offer protection and reduced risk from unintentional consumption.⁹

Cow’s milk allergy (CMA) is one of the most common presentations of food allergy seen in early childhood. It is also one of the most complex food allergies, being implicated in IgE-mediated food allergy as well as diverse manifestations of non-IgE-mediated food allergy. For example, gastrointestinal CMA may present as food protein induced enteropathy, enterocolitis or proctocolitis. Concerns regarding the early and timely diagnosis of CMA have been highlighted over the years. In response to these, guideline papers from the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Europe, the Americas and the World Allergy Organisation have been published. The UK guideline, ‘Diagnosis and management of non-IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy in infancy—a UK primary care practical guide’ was published in this journal in 2013. This Milk Allergy in Primary Care (MAP) guideline outlines in simple algorithmic form, both the varying presentations of cow’s milk allergy and also focuses on the practical management of the most common presentation, namely mild-to-moderate non-IgE-mediated allergy. Based on the international uptake of the MAP guideline, it became clear that there was a need for practical guidance beyond the UK. Consequently, this paper presents an international interpretation of the MAP guideline to help practitioners in primary care settings around the world. It incorporates further published UK guidance, feedback from UK healthcare professionals and affected families and, importantly, also international guidance and expertise.

We previously reported the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT™) for peanut allergy (250 μg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250μg) in a 12-month randomized controlled study (PEPITES) of peanut-allergic children aged 4-11 years. To assess interim safety and efficacy of an additional 2 years of EPIT from the ongoing (5-year treatment) open-label extension PEOPLE study. Subjects who completed PEPITES were offered enrollment in PEOPLE. Following an additional 2 years of daily DBV712 250μg, subjects who had received DBV712 250μg in PEPITES underwent Month-36 double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) with an optional Month-38 sustained unresponsiveness (SU) assessment. 198 (93%) of 213 eligible subjects who had received DBV712 250μg in PEPITES entered PEOPLE, of whom 141 (71%) had assessable DBPCFC at Month 36. At Month 36, 51.8% (73/141) of subjects reached an eliciting dose (ED) of ≥1000 mg, compared with 40.4% (57/141) at Month 12. 75.9% (107/141) demonstrated increased ED compared to baseline. 13.5% (19/141) tolerated the full DBPCFC of 5444 mg. Median cumulative reactive dose increased from 144 to 944 mg. 18 subjects underwent an optional SU assessment; 14/18 (77.8%) maintained an ED of ≥1000 mg at Month 38. Local patch-site skin reactions were common but decreased over time. There was no treatment-related epinephrine use in years 2 or 3. Compliance was high (96.9%), and withdrawals due to treatment-related adverse events low (1%). These results demonstrate that daily EPIT treatment for peanut allergy beyond 1 year leads to continued response from a well-tolerated, simple-to-use regimen.

The Milk Allergy in Primary (MAP) Care guideline was first published in 2013 in this journal. MAP aimed to provide simple and accessible algorithms for UK clinicians in primary care, detailing all the steps between initial presentation, through diagnosis, management and tolerance development. Despite its UK focus, it soon became clear that MAP was being accessed internationally and thus an updated International Milk Allergy in Primary Care (iMAP) guideline was published in 2017. Both guidelines used existing international consensus guidelines to develop accessible algorithms accompanied by patient information leaflets. In 2018, the guidelines were criticised for 3 distinct reasons: promoting the overdiagnosis of cow’s milk allergy (CMA), negatively impacting breastfeeding and the possibility of industry influence on the guidelines. The authors address these criticisms using available evidence and, in the context of this and in consultation with patient groups, members of the General Practice Infant Feeding Network and other infant feeding healthcare leads, have collaboratively produced updated algorithms and an information leaflet to support breastfeeding. We believe iMAP is now closer to its original aim of facilitating early and accurate diagnosis of CMA, whilst minimising, as far as possible, any concerns around overdiagnosis or a risk to breastfeeding rates. We continue to welcome open and constructive engagement about how best to achieve these aims to provide evidence-based, practical guidelines for the primary care practitioner.