AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy, for which there are no approved treatment options, affects patients who are at risk for unpredictable and occasionally life-threatening allergic reactions.

METHODS

In a phase 3 trial, we screened participants 4 to 55 years of age with peanut allergy for allergic dose-limiting symptoms at a challenge dose of 100 mg or less of peanut protein (approximately one third of a peanut kernel) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Participants with an allergic response were randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive AR101 (a peanut-derived investigational biologic oral immunotherapy drug) or placebo in an escalating-dose program. Participants who completed the regimen (i.e., received 300 mg per day of the maintenance regimen for approximately 24 weeks) underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at trial exit. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants 4 to 17 years of age who could ingest a challenge dose of 600 mg or more, without dose-limiting symptoms.

RESULTS

Of the 551 participants who received AR101 or placebo, 496 were 4 to 17 years of age; of these, 250 of 372 participants (67.2%) who received active treatment, as compared with 5 of 124 participants (4.0%) who received placebo, were able to ingest a dose of 600 mg or more of peanut protein, without dose-limiting symptoms, at the exit food challenge (difference, 63.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 53.0 to 73.3; P<0.001). During the exit food challenge, the maximum severity of symptoms was moderate in 25% of the participants in the active-drug group and 59% of those in the placebo group and severe in 5% and 11%, respectively. Adverse events during the intervention period affected more than 95% of the participants 4 to 17 years of age. A total of 34.7% of the participants in the active-drug group had mild events, as compared with 50.0% of those in the placebo group; 59.7% and 44.4% of the participants, respectively, had events that were graded as moderate, and 4.3% and 0.8%, respectively, had events that were graded as severe. Efficacy was not shown in the participants 18 years of age or older.

CONCLUSIONS

In this phase 3 trial of oral immunotherapy in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut, treatment with AR101 resulted in higher doses of peanut protein that could be ingested without dose-limiting symptoms and in lower symptom severity during peanut exposure at the exit food challenge than placebo. (Funded by Aimmune Therapeutics; PALISADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02635776 .).

Peanut oral immunotherapy results in increased antigen-induced regulatory T-cell function and hypomethylation of forkhead box protein 3 (FOXP3)

BACKGROUND

The mechanisms contributing to clinical immune tolerance remain incompletely understood. This study provides evidence for specific immune mechanisms that are associated with a model of operationally defined clinical tolerance.

OBJECTIVE

Our overall objective was to study laboratory changes associated with clinical immune tolerance in antigen-induced T cells, basophils, and antibodies in subjects undergoing oral immunotherapy (OIT) for peanut allergy.

METHODS

In a phase 1 single-site study, we studied participants (n = 23) undergoing peanut OIT and compared them with age-matched allergic control subjects (n = 20) undergoing standard of care (abstaining from peanut) for 24 months. Participants were operationally defined as clinically immune tolerant (IT) if they had no detectable allergic reactions to a peanut oral food challenge after 3 months of therapy withdrawal (IT, n = 7), whereas those who had an allergic reaction were categorized as nontolerant (NT; n = 13).

RESULTS

Antibody and basophil activation measurements did not statistically differentiate between NT versus IT participants. However, T-cell function and demethylation of forkhead box protein 3 (FOXP3) CpG sites in antigen-induced regulatory T cells were significantly different between IT versus NT participants. When IT participants were withdrawn from peanut therapy for an additional 3 months (total of 6 months), only 3 participants remained classified as IT participants, and 4 participants regained sensitivity along with increased methylation of FOXP3 CpG sites in antigen-induced regulatory T cells.

CONCLUSION

In summary, modifications at the DNA level of antigen-induced T-cell subsets might be predictive of a state of operationally defined clinical immune tolerance during peanut OIT.

Sustained unresponsiveness to peanut in subjects who have completed peanut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Although peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been conclusively shown to cause desensitization, it is currently unknown whether clinical protection persists after stopping therapy.

OBJECTIVE

Our primary objective was to determine whether peanut OIT can induce sustained unresponsiveness after withdrawal of OIT.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot clinical trial of peanut OIT at 2 US centers. Subjects age 1 to 16 years were recruited and treated for up to 5 years with peanut OIT. The protocol was modified over time to permit dose increases to a maximum of 4000 mg/d peanut protein. Blood was collected at multiple time points. Clinical end points were measured with 5000-mg double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenges once specific criteria were met.

RESULTS

Of the 39 subjects originally enrolled, 24 completed the protocol and had evaluable outcomes. Twelve (50%) of 24 successfully passed a challenge 1 month after stopping OIT and achieved sustained unresponsiveness. Peanut was added to the diet. At baseline and the time of challenge, such subjects had smaller skin test results, as well as lower IgE levels specific for peanut, Ara h 1, and Ara h 2 and lower ratios of peanut-specific IgE/total IgE compared with subjects not passing. There were no differences in peanut IgG₄ levels or functional activity at the end of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first demonstration of sustained unresponsiveness after peanut OIT, occurring in half of subjects treated for up to 5 years. OIT favorably modified the peanut-specific immune response in all subjects completing the protocol. Smaller skin test results and lower allergen-specific IgE levels were predictive of successful outcome.

Administration of a probiotic with peanut oral immunotherapy: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Coadministration of a bacterial adjuvant with oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been suggested as a potential treatment for food allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a combined therapy comprising a probiotic together with peanut OIT.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC 1.3724 and peanut OIT (probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy [PPOIT]) in children (1-10 years) with peanut allergy. The primary outcome was induction of sustained unresponsiveness 2 to 5 weeks after discontinuation of treatment (referred to as possible sustained unresponsiveness). Secondary outcomes were desensitization, peanut skin prick test, and specific IgE and specific IgG4 measurements.

RESULTS

Sixty-two children were randomized and stratified by age (≤5 and >5 years) and peanut skin test wheal size (≤10 and >10 mm); 56 reached the trial's end. Baseline demographics were similar across groups. Possible sustained unresponsiveness was achieved in 82.1% receiving PPOIT and 3.6% receiving placebo (P < .001). Nine children need to be treated for 7 to achieve sustained unresponsiveness (number needed to treat, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.59). Of the subjects, 89.7% receiving PPOIT and 7.1% receiving placebo were desensitized (P < .001). PPOIT was associated with reduced peanut skin prick test responses and peanut-specific IgE levels and increased peanut-specific IgG4 levels (all P < .001). PPOIT-treated participants reported a greater number of adverse events, mostly with maintenance home dosing.

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized placebo-controlled trial evaluating the novel coadministration of a probiotic and peanut OIT and assessing sustained unresponsiveness in children with peanut allergy. PPOIT was effective in inducing possible sustained unresponsiveness and immune changes that suggest modulation of the peanut-specific immune response. Further work is required to confirm sustained unresponsiveness after a longer period of secondary peanut elimination and to clarify the relative contributions of probiotics versus OIT.

Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy.

METHODS

In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930.

RESULTS

12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I²=0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I²=0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I²=0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (p_interaction=0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I²=0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I²=0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I²=0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I²=0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I²=28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I²=0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I²=0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed.

FUNDING

None.

Sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

There are presently no available therapeutic options for patients with peanut allergy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate the safety, efficacy, and immunologic effects of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

METHODS

After a baseline oral food challenge (OFC) of up to 2 g of peanut powder (approximately 50% protein; median successfully consumed dose [SCD], 46 mg), 40 subjects, aged 12 to 37 years (median, 15 years), were randomized 1:1 across 5 sites to daily peanut or placebo SLIT. A 5-g OFC was performed after 44 weeks, followed by unblinding; placebo-treated subjects then crossed over to higher dose peanut SLIT, followed by a subsequent crossover Week 44 5-g OFC. Week 44 OFCs from both groups were compared with baseline OFCs; subjects successfully consuming 5 g or at least 10-fold more peanut powder than the baseline OFC threshold were considered responders.

RESULTS

After 44 weeks of SLIT, 14 (70%) of 20 subjects receiving peanut SLIT were responders compared with 3 (15%) of 20 subjects receiving placebo (P < .001). In peanut SLIT responders, median SCD increased from 3.5 to 496 mg. After 68 weeks of SLIT, median SCD significantly increased to 996 mg (compared with Week 44, P = .05). The median SCD at the Week 44 Crossover OFC was significantly higher than baseline (603 vs 71 mg, P = .02). Seven (44%) of 16 crossover subjects were responders; median SCD increased from 21 to 496 mg among responders. Of 10,855 peanut doses through the Week 44 OFCs, 63.1% were symptom free; excluding oral-pharyngeal symptoms, 95.2% were symptom free.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut SLIT safely induced a modest level of desensitization in a majority of subjects compared with placebo. Longer duration of therapy showed statistically significant increases in the SCD.

Sustained outcomes in oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (POISED study): a large, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Dietary avoidance is recommended for peanut allergies. We evaluated the sustained effects of peanut allergy oral immunotherapy (OIT) in a randomised long-term study in adults and children.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, we enrolled participants at the Sean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University (Stanford, CA, USA) with peanut allergy aged 7-55 years with a positive result from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC; ≤500 mg of peanut protein), a positive skin-prick test (SPT) result (≥5 mm wheal diameter above the negative control), and peanut-specific immunoglobulin (Ig)E concentration of more than 4 kU/L. Participants were randomly assigned (2·4:1·4:1) in a two-by-two block design via a computerised system to be built up and maintained on 4000 mg peanut protein through to week 104 then discontinued on peanut (peanut-0 group), to be built up and maintained on 4000 mg peanut protein through to week 104 then to ingest 300 mg peanut protein daily (peanut-300 group) for 52 weeks, or to receive oat flour (placebo group). DBPCFCs to 4000 mg peanut protein were done at baseline and weeks 104, 117, 130, 143, and 156. The pharmacist assigned treatment on the basis of a randomised computer list. Peanut or placebo (oat) flour was administered orally and participants and the study team were masked throughout by use of oat flour that was similar in look and feel to the peanut flour and nose clips, as tolerated, to mask taste. The statistician was also masked. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who passed DBPCFCs to a cumulative dose of 4000 mg at both 104 and 117 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02103270.

FINDINGS

Between April 15, 2014, and March 2, 2016, of 152 individuals assessed, we enrolled 120 participants, who were randomly assigned to the peanut-0 (n=60), peanut-300 (n=35), and placebo groups (n=25). 21 (35%) of peanut-0 group participants and one (4%) placebo group participant passed the 4000 mg challenge at both 104 and 117 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 12·7, 95% CI 1·8-554·8; p=0·0024). Over the entire study, the most common adverse events were mild gastrointestinal symptoms, which were seen in 90 of 120 patients (50/60 in the peanut-0 group, 29/35 in the peanut-300 group, and 11/25 in the placebo group) and skin disorders, which were seen in 50/120 patients (26/60 in the peanut-0 group, 15/35 in the peanut-300 group, and 9/25 in the placebo group). Adverse events decreased over time in all groups. Two participants in the peanut groups had serious adverse events during the 3-year study. In the peanut-0 group, in which eight (13%) of 60 participants passed DBPCFCs at week 156, higher baseline peanut-specific IgG4 to IgE ratio and lower Ara h 2 IgE and basophil activation responses were associated with sustained unresponsiveness. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

INTERPRETATION

Our study suggests that peanut OIT could desensitise individuals with peanut allergy to 4000 mg peanut protein but discontinuation, or even reduction to 300 mg daily, could increase the likelihood of regaining clinical reactivity to peanut. Since baseline blood tests correlated with week 117 treatment outcomes, this study might aid in optimal patient selection for this therapy.

FUNDING

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Peanut allergy: Emerging concepts and approaches for an apparent epidemic

Peanut allergy is typically lifelong, often severe, and potentially fatal. Because reactions can occur from small amounts, the allergy presents patients with significant obstacles to avoid allergic reactions. In North America and the United Kingdom, prevalence rates among schoolchildren are now in excess of 1%, framing an increasing public health concern and raising research questions about environmental, immunologic, and genetic factors that may influence outcomes of peanut allergy. This review focuses on recent observations that continue to question the influences of maternal and infant diet on outcomes of peanut allergy, and explore how peanut may be uniquely suited to induce an allergic response. We highlight studies that affect current diagnosis, management, and the nature of advice that can be provided to patients, including the utility of diagnostic tests, doses that elicit reactions, characteristics of reactions from exposure, issues of cross-reactivity, concerns about peanut contamination of manufactured goods, and the natural course of the allergy. Clinical, molecular, and immunologic advances are reviewed, highlighting research discoveries that influence strategies for improved diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Among the therapeutic strategies reviewed are sublingual and oral immunotherapy, anti-IgE, Chinese herbal medicine, and vaccine strategies.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Although promising results have emerged regarding oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of peanut allergy (PA), direct comparisons of these approaches are limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to compare the safety, efficacy, and mechanistic correlates of peanut OIT and SLIT.

METHODS

In this double-blind study children with PA were randomized to receive active SLIT/placebo OIT or active OIT/placebo SLIT. Doses were escalated to 3.7 mg/d (SLIT) or 2000 mg/d (OIT), and subjects were rechallenged after 6 and 12 months of maintenance. After unblinding, therapy was modified per protocol to offer an additional 6 months of therapy. Subjects who passed challenges at 12 or 18 months were taken off treatment for 4 weeks and rechallenged.

RESULTS

Twenty-one subjects aged 7 to 13 years were randomized. Five discontinued therapy during the blinded phase. Of the remaining 16, all had a greater than 10-fold increase in challenge threshold after 12 months. The increased threshold was significantly greater in the active OIT group (141- vs 22-fold, P = .01). Significant within-group changes in skin test results and peanut-specific IgE and IgG4 levels were found, with overall greater effects with OIT. Adverse reactions were generally mild but more common with OIT (P < .001), including moderate reactions and doses requiring medication. Four subjects had sustained unresponsiveness at study completion.

CONCLUSION

OIT appeared far more effective than SLIT for the treatment of PA but was also associated with significantly more adverse reactions and early study withdrawal. Sustained unresponsiveness after 4 weeks of avoidance was seen in only a small minority of subjects.

Effect of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Ingestion Among Children With Peanut Allergy: The PEPITES Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

There are currently no approved treatments for peanut allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and adverse events of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch among peanut-allergic children.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 31 sites in 5 countries between January 8, 2016, and August 18, 2017. Participants included peanut-allergic children (aged 4-11 years [n = 356] without a history of a severe anaphylactic reaction) developing objective symptoms during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein.

INTERVENTIONS

Daily treatment with peanut patch containing either 250 μg of peanut protein (n = 238) or placebo (n = 118) for 12 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the percentage difference in responders between the peanut patch and placebo patch based on eliciting dose (highest dose at which objective signs/symptoms of an immediate hypersensitivity reaction developed) determined by food challenges at baseline and month 12. Participants with baseline eliciting dose of 10 mg or less were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 300 mg or more; participants with baseline eliciting dose greater than 10 to 300 mg were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 1000 mg or more. A threshold of 15% or more on the lower bound of a 95% CI around responder rate difference was prespecified to determine a positive trial result. Adverse event evaluation included collection of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Among 356 participants randomized (median age, 7 years; 61.2% male), 89.9% completed the trial; the mean treatment adherence was 98.5%. The responder rate was 35.3% with peanut-patch treatment vs 13.6% with placebo (difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 12.4%-29.8%; P < .001]). The prespecified lower bound of the CI threshold was not met. TEAEs, primarily patch application site reactions, occurred in 95.4% and 89% of active and placebo groups, respectively. The all-causes rate of discontinuation was 10.5% in the peanut-patch group vs 9.3% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among peanut-allergic children aged 4 to 11 years, the percentage difference in responders at 12 months with the 250-μg peanut-patch therapy vs placebo was 21.7% and was statistically significant, but did not meet the prespecified lower bound of the confidence interval criterion for a positive trial result. The clinical relevance of not meeting this lower bound of the confidence interval with respect to the treatment of peanut-allergic children with epicutaneous immunotherapy remains to be determined.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02636699.

Successful oral tolerance induction in severe peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is common, potentially severe and rarely resolves causing impaired quality of life. No disease-modifying treatment exists and there is therefore a need to develop a therapeutic intervention.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

The aim of this study was to investigate whether peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) can induce clinical tolerance to peanut protein.

METHODS

Four peanut-allergic children underwent OIT. Preintervention oral challenges were performed to confirm clinical allergy and define the amount of protein required to cause a reaction (dose thresholds). OIT was then administered as daily doses of peanut flour increasing from 5 to 800 mg of protein with 2-weekly dose increases. After 6 further weeks of treatment, the oral challenge was repeated to define change in dose threshold and subjects continued daily treatment.

RESULTS

Preintervention challenges confirmed peanut allergy and revealed dose thresholds of 5-50 mg (1/40-1/4 of a whole peanut); one subject had anaphylaxis during challenge and required adrenaline injection. All subjects tolerated immunotherapy updosing to 800 mg protein and i.m. adrenaline was not required. Each subject tolerated at least 10 whole peanuts (approximately 2.38 g protein) in postintervention challenges, an increase in dose threshold of at least 48-, 49-, 55- and 478-fold for the four subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated a substantial increase in dose threshold after OIT in all subjects, including the subject with proven anaphylaxis. OIT was well tolerated and conferred protection against at least 10 peanuts, more than is likely to be encountered during accidental ingestion.

Effect of Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Exposure Among Patients With Peanut Sensitivity: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Epicutaneous immunotherapy may have potential for treating peanut allergy but has been assessed only in preclinical and early human trials.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the optimal dose, adverse events (AEs), and efficacy of a peanut patch for peanut allergy treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 2b double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of a peanut patch in peanut-allergic patients (6-55 years) from 22 centers, with a 2-year, open-label extension (July 31, 2012-July 31, 2014; extension completed September 29, 2016). Patients (n = 221) had peanut sensitivity and positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomly assigned patients (1:1:1:1) received an epicutaneous peanut patch containing 50 μg (n = 53), 100 μg (n = 56), or 250 μg (n = 56) of peanut protein or a placebo patch (n = 56). Following daily patch application for 12 months, patients underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge to establish changes in eliciting dose.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary efficacy end point was percentage of treatment responders (eliciting dose: ≥10-times increase and/or reaching ≥1000 mg of peanut protein) in each group vs placebo patch after 12 months. Secondary end points included percentage of responders by age strata and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

Of 221 patients randomized (median age, 11 years [quartile 1, quartile 3: 8, 16]; 37.6% female), 93.7% completed the trial. A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at month 12 between the 250-μg (n = 28; 50.0%) and placebo (n = 14; 25.0%) patches (difference, 25.0%; 95% CI, 7.7%-42.3%; P = .01). No significant difference was seen between the placebo patch vs the 100-μg patch. Because of statistical testing hierarchical rules, the 50-μg patch was not compared with placebo. Interaction by age group was only significant for the 250-μg patch (P = .04). In the 6- to 11-year stratum, the response rate difference between the 250-μg (n = 15; 53.6%) and placebo (n = 6; 19.4%) patches was 34.2% (95% CI, 11.1%-57.3%; P = .008); adolescents/adults showed no difference between the 250-μg (n = 13; 46.4%) and placebo (n = 8; 32.0%) patches: 14.4% (95% CI, -11.6% to 40.4%; P = .40). No dose-related serious AEs were observed. The percentage of patients with 1 or more TEAEs (largely local skin reactions) was similar across all groups in year 1: 50-μg patch = 100%, 100-μg patch = 98.2%, 250-μg patch = 100%, and placebo patch = 92.9%. The overall median adherence was 97.6% after 1 year; the dropout rate for treatment-related AEs was 0.9%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this dose-ranging trial of peanut-allergic patients, the 250-μg peanut patch resulted in significant treatment response vs placebo patch following 12 months of therapy. These findings warrant a phase 3 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01675882.

Sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy: Long-term follow-up of a randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

We previously reported the initial results of the first multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), observing a favorable safety profile associated with modest clinical and immunologic effects in the first year.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to provide long-term (3-year) clinical and immunologic outcomes for our peanut SLIT trial. Key end points were (1) percentage of responders at 2 years (ie, could consume 5 g of peanut powder or a 10-fold increase from baseline), (2) percentage reaching desensitization at 3 years, (3) percentage attaining sustained unresponsiveness after 3 years, (4) immunologic end points, and (5) assessment of safety parameters.

METHODS

Response to treatment was evaluated in 40 subjects aged 12 to 40 years by performing a 10-g peanut powder oral food challenge after 2 and 3 years of daily peanut SLIT therapy. At 3 years, SLIT was discontinued for 8 weeks, followed by another 10-g oral food challenge and an open feeding of peanut butter to assess sustained unresponsiveness.

RESULTS

Approximately 98% of the 18,165 doses were tolerated without adverse reactions beyond the oropharynx, with no severe symptoms or uses of epinephrine. A high rate (>50%) discontinued therapy. By study's end, 4 (10.8%) of 37 SLIT-treated participants were fully desensitized to 10 g of peanut powder, and all 4 achieved sustained unresponsiveness. Responders at 2 years showed a significant decrease in peanut-specific basophil activation and skin prick test titration compared with nonresponders.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut SLIT induced a modest level of desensitization, decreased immunologic activity over 3 years in responders, and had an excellent long-term safety profile. However, most patients discontinued therapy by the end of year 3, and only 10.8% of subjects achieved sustained unresponsiveness.

IgE-mediated food allergy in children

Food allergy is a serious health issue affecting roughly 4% of children, with a substantial effect on quality of life. Prognosis is good for the most frequent allergens with almost all children outgrowing their allergy. However, the long-term implications for disease burden are substantial for children with persistent allergies (eg, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish) and for those with high concentrations of milk, egg, and wheat IgE. Antigen avoidance has been the time-honoured approach both for prevention and treatment. However, findings from studies done in the past 5 years show that early contact with food can induce tolerance and desensitisation to foods. We review the epidemiology, natural history, and management of food allergy, and discuss the areas of controversy and future directions in research and clinical practice.

Peanut allergy: recurrence and its management

BACKGROUND

Although peanut allergy may recur, the frequency with which this occurs is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The goals of this study were to determine the rate of peanut allergy recurrence, identify risk factors for recurrent peanut allergy, and develop specific recommendations for the treatment of patients with resolved peanut allergy.

METHODS

Children who outgrew peanut allergy were evaluated with questionnaires, skin tests, and peanut-specific IgE levels. Patients were invited to undergo a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) unless the history of a possible recurrence reaction was so convincing that a challenge would be potentially dangerous.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were evaluated. Forty-seven patients continued to tolerate peanut, of whom 34 ingested concentrated peanut products at least once per month and 13 ate peanut infrequently or in limited amounts but passed a DBPCFC. The status of 18 patients was indeterminate because they ate peanut infrequently or in limited amounts and declined to have a DBPCFC. After excluding 12 patients originally diagnosed with peanut allergy based solely on a positive skin prick test or peanut-specific IgE level, 3 of 15 patients who consumed peanut infrequently or in limited amounts had recurrences, compared with no recurrences in the 23 patients who ate peanut frequently ( P = .025). The recurrence rate was 7.9 (95% CI, 1.7% to 21.4%).

CONCLUSION

Children who outgrow peanut allergy are at risk for recurrence, and this risk is significantly higher for patients who continue largely to avoid peanut after resolution of their allergy. On the basis of these findings, we now recommend that patients eat peanut frequently and carry epinephrine indefinitely until they have demonstrated ongoing peanut tolerance.

Efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy with AR101 in European children with a peanut allergy (ARTEMIS): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Peanut allergy is the leading cause of food-related anaphylaxis. Current management options can negatively affect food allergy-related quality of life. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of an investigational oral biologic drug (AR101).

METHODS

The AR101 Trial in Europe Measuring Oral Immunotherapy Success in peanut-allergic children (ARTEMIS) trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial done at 18 hospitals in Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Children and adolescents with peanut allergy, aged 4-17 years, who developed dose-limiting symptoms to 300 mg or less peanut protein (equivalent to approximately one peanut kernel) during a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test at study entry were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive daily doses of either AR101 oral immunotherapy (AR101 group) or a taste-masked placebo (placebo group). All participants, investigators, and care providers were masked to treatment allocation until the study was completed. Doses were increased every 2 weeks over 6 months until a dose of 300 mg was reached and maintained for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in the intention-to-treat or safety population (defined as those participants who had been randomly assigned and had received at least one dose of the assigned drug) who could consume a single dose of 1000 mg (cumulative dose 2043 mg) peanut protein without developing dose-limiting allergic symptoms at an exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge after 9 months of treatment. Additional endpoints included safety (ie, the frequency and severity of adverse events) and changes in food allergy-related quality of life, assessed by use of age-appropriate Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQs) and the Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03201003, and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between June 12, 2017, and Feb 15, 2018, 227 patients were screened, of whom 175 were randomly assigned to the AR101 group (n=132) and the placebo group (n=43). All primary and secondary endpoints were met. 77 (58%) of 132 participants in the AR101 group tolerated 1000 mg peanut protein at the exit food challenge versus one (2%) of 43 participants in the placebo group (AR101-placebo treatment difference 56·0% [95% CI 44·1-65·2], p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported by almost all participants. The maximum severity of adverse events reported was mild or moderate for most participants who received AR101 (mild, 66 [50%] of 132 participants; moderate, 63 [48%]; and severe, one [1%]) or placebo (mild, 24 [56%] of 43 participants; moderate, 18 [42%]; severe, none). Participants aged 8-12 years in the AR101 group reported improvements that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference between the two groups across all FAQLQ domains. Additionally, participants in the AR101 group and their caregivers reported improvements that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference in FAIM domains related to the perceived likelihood and outcomes of a severe allergic reaction.

INTERPRETATION

AR101 oral immunotherapy treatment led to rapid desensitisation to peanut protein, with a predictable safety profile that improved with treatment, and an associated improvement in self-reported and caregiver-reported food allergy-related quality of life. These patient-oriented outcomes provide invaluable data to help physicians, patients, and caregivers make informed, shared decisions on the management of peanut allergy.

FUNDING

Aimmune Therapeutics.

Peanut oral immunotherapy transiently expands circulating Ara h 2-specific B cells with a homologous repertoire in unrelated subjects

BACKGROUND

Peanut oral immunotherapy (PNOIT) induces persistent tolerance to peanut in a subset of patients and induces specific antibodies that might play a role in clinical protection. However, the contribution of induced antibody clones to clinical tolerance in PNOIT is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that PNOIT induces a clonal, allergen-specific B-cell response that could serve as a surrogate for clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We used a fluorescent Ara h 2 multimer for affinity selection of Ara h 2-specific B cells and subsequent single-cell immunoglobulin amplification. The diversity of related clones was evaluated by means of next-generation sequencing of immunoglobulin heavy chains from circulating memory B cells with 2x250 paired-end sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform.

RESULTS

Expression of class-switched antibodies from Ara h 2-positive cells confirms enrichment for Ara h 2 specificity. PNOIT induces an early and transient expansion of circulating Ara h 2-specific memory B cells that peaks at week 7. Ara h 2-specific sequences from memory cells have rates of nonsilent mutations consistent with affinity maturation. The repertoire of Ara h 2-specific antibodies is oligoclonal. Next-generation sequencing-based repertoire analysis of circulating memory B cells reveals evidence for convergent selection of related sequences in 3 unrelated subjects, suggesting the presence of similar Ara h 2-specific B-cell clones.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel affinity selection approach to identify antigen-specific B cells, we demonstrate that the early PNOIT-induced Ara h 2-specific B-cell receptor repertoire is oligoclonal and somatically hypermutated and shares similar clonal groups among unrelated subjects consistent with convergent selection.

Omalizumab for the Treatment of Multiple Food Allergies

BACKGROUND

Food allergies are common and are associated with substantial morbidity; the only approved treatment is oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy.

METHODS

In this trial, we assessed whether omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective and safe as monotherapy in patients with multiple food allergies. Persons 1 to 55 years of age who were allergic to peanuts and at least two other trial-specified foods (cashew, milk, egg, walnut, wheat, and hazelnut) were screened. Inclusion required a reaction to a food challenge of 100 mg or less of peanut protein and 300 mg or less of the two other foods. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive omalizumab or placebo administered subcutaneously (with the dose based on weight and IgE levels) every 2 to 4 weeks for 16 to 20 weeks, after which the challenges were repeated. The primary end point was ingestion of peanut protein in a single dose of 600 mg or more without dose-limiting symptoms. The three key secondary end points were the consumption of cashew, of milk, and of egg in single doses of at least 1000 mg each without dose-limiting symptoms. The first 60 participants (59 of whom were children or adolescents) who completed this first stage were enrolled in a 24-week open-label extension.

RESULTS

Of the 462 persons who were screened, 180 underwent randomization. The analysis population consisted of the 177 children and adolescents (1 to 17 years of age). A total of 79 of the 118 participants (67%) receiving omalizumab met the primary end-point criteria, as compared with 4 of the 59 participants (7%) receiving placebo (P<0.001). Results for the key secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end point (cashew, 41% vs. 3%; milk, 66% vs. 10%; egg, 67% vs. 0%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Safety end points did not differ between the groups, aside from more injection-site reactions in the omalizumab group.

CONCLUSIONS

In persons as young as 1 year of age with multiple food allergies, omalizumab treatment for 16 weeks was superior to placebo in increasing the reaction threshold for peanut and other common food allergens. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03881696.).

Novel baseline predictors of adverse events during oral immunotherapy in children with peanut allergy

BACKGROUND

Though peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising investigational therapy, its potential is limited by substantial adverse events (AEs), which are relatively understudied.

OBJECTIVE

A retrospective analysis was conducted, pooling data from 3 pediatric peanut OIT trials, comprising the largest analysis of peanut OIT safety to date.

METHODS

We pooled data from 104 children with peanut allergy from 3 peanut OIT studies. We catalogued AEs from parental reports, daily symptom diaries, and dose escalations. We included events that were considered likely related to OIT and identified potential baseline predictors of higher AE rates using generalized linear regression models.

RESULTS

Eighty percent of subjects experienced likely related AEs during OIT (72% during buildup and 47% during maintenance). Of these AEs, over 90% occurred while at home. Approximately 42% of subjects experienced systemic reactions, and 49% experienced gastrointestinal symptoms. Twenty percent of subjects dropped out, with half (10% of the overall group) due to persistent gastrointestinal symptoms. Baseline allergic rhinitis (AR) and peanut SPT wheal size were significant predictors of higher overall AE rates. SPT wheal size predicted increased gastrointestinal AEs, and AR predicted increased systemic reactions. Over the course of OIT, 61% of subjects received treatment for likely related AEs, 59% with antihistamines and 12% with epinephrine.

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut OIT is associated with frequent AEs, with rates declining over time, and most graded mild. However, systemic reactions and intolerable gastrointestinal AEs do occur and are significantly associated with AR and peanut SPT wheal size, respectively. Further study is needed of predictive biomarkers and the overall risks and benefits of OIT.

Suppression of the immunologic response to peanut during immunotherapy is often transient

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest that oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy hold promise; however, the immunologic mechanisms underlying these therapies are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to generate insights into the mechanisms and duration of suppression of immune responses to peanut during immunotherapy.

METHODS

Blood was obtained from subjects at baseline and at multiple time points during a placebo-controlled trial of peanut OIT and SLIT. Immunologic outcomes included measurement of spontaneous and stimulated basophil activity by using automated fluorometry (histamine) and flow cytometry (activation markers and IL-4), measurement of allergen-induced cytokine expression in dendritic cell (DC)-T-cell cocultures by using multiplexing technology, and measurement of MHC II and costimulatory molecule expression on DCs by using flow cytometry.

RESULTS

Spontaneous and allergen-induced basophil reactivity (histamine release, CD63 expression, and IL-4 production) were suppressed during dose escalation and after 6 months of maintenance dosing. Peanut- and dust mite-induced expression of TH2 cytokines was reduced in DC-T-cell cocultures during immunotherapy. This was associated with decreased levels of CD40, HLA-DR, and CD86 expression on DCs and increased expression of CD80. These effects were most striking in myeloid DC-T-cell cocultures from subjects receiving OIT. Many markers of immunologic suppression reversed after withdrawal from immunotherapy and in some cases during ongoing maintenance therapy.

CONCLUSION

OIT and SLIT for peanut allergy induce rapid suppression of basophil effector functions, DC activation, and TH2 cytokine responses during the initial phases of immunotherapy in an antigen-nonspecific manner. Although there was some interindividual variation, in many patients suppression appeared to be temporary.

Efficacy of a management plan based on severity assessment in longitudinal and case-controlled studies of 747 children with nut allergy: proposal for good practice

BACKGROUND

There are few data on the long-term management of children with peanut/nut allergy. Advice is variable and often inadequate; further reactions are common. There is no consensus on the criteria for prescription of rescue medication, particularly adrenaline.

METHOD

A longitudinal prospective and case-control study in a tertiary allergy clinic. Patients/parents/school staff of 747 children with confirmed peanut or tree nut allergy received detailed verbal and written advice on nut avoidance, training in recognition and (self-) treatment of reactions and a written treatment plan. The severity of nut allergy was graded (mild-severe) and emergency medication was allocated according to our criteria: all received oral antihistamines, injected adrenaline (EpiPen) was given to those with reactions with airway narrowing, milder reactions to low-dose exposure or concomitant asthma. At annual follow-up over 25 906 patient-months (median: 39 months) retraining was given and details of further reactions (frequency, severity and treatment) were obtained. Criteria for allocation of EpiPen were evaluated.

RESULTS

The worst reaction pre-enrolment was mild in 64% and moderate/severe in 36% (airway narrowing). Of 615 subjects followed up, 21% had a further reaction (eightfold reduction in frequency), mostly mild. There was a 60-fold reduction in the frequency of severe reactions. Of those with a moderate-severe initial reaction, 99.5% had no or a less severe follow-up reaction. No child with a mild or severe index reaction had a severe follow-up reaction. Only 1/615 (0.2%) had a severe follow-up reaction and only 2/615 (0.3%) used adrenaline, both successfully and had it available according to our criteria. Of mild-moderate reactions, 77% required oral antihistamines alone and 15% no treatment. Children who had follow-up reactions had more frequent and severe reactions pre-enrolment.

CONCLUSION

The management plan greatly reduced the frequency and severity of further reactions and was successful for all children. Our criteria for selective prescription of EpiPen in the context of this management plan were appropriate. This is the first study to provide evidence on which to inform practice.

Long-term sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: Clinical and immunologic evidence of desensitization

BACKGROUND

Peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for 1 year has been shown to induce modest clinical desensitization in allergic children. Studies of oral immunotherapy, epicutaneous immunotherapy, and SLIT have suggested additional benefit with extended treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to investigate the safety, clinical effectiveness, and immunologic changes with long-term SLIT in children with peanut allergy.

METHODS

Children with peanut allergy aged 1 to 11 years underwent extended maintenance SLIT with 2 mg/d peanut protein for up to 5 years. Subjects with peanut skin test wheals of less than 5 mm and peanut-specific IgE levels of less than 15 kU/L were allowed to discontinue therapy early. Desensitization was assessed through a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) with up to 5000 mg of peanut protein after completion of SLIT dosing. Sustained unresponsiveness was further assessed by using identical DBPCFCs after 2 to 4 weeks without peanut exposure.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven of 48 subjects completed 3 to 5 years of peanut SLIT, with 67% (32/48) successfully consuming 750 mg or more during DBPCFCs. Furthermore, 25% (12/48) passed the 5000-mg DBPCFC without clinical symptoms, with 10 of these 12 demonstrating sustained unresponsiveness after 2 to 4 weeks. Side effects were reported with 4.8% of doses, with transient oropharyngeal itching reported most commonly. Side effects requiring antihistamine treatment were uncommon (0.21%), and no epinephrine was administered. Peanut skin test wheals, peanut-specific IgE levels, and basophil activation decreased significantly, and peanut-specific IgG4 levels increased significantly after peanut SLIT.

CONCLUSION

Extended-therapy peanut SLIT provided clinically meaningful desensitization in the majority of children with peanut allergy that was balanced with ease of administration and a favorable safety profile.