Background Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an effective experimental food allergy treatment that is limited by treatment withdrawal and the frequent reversibility of desensitization if interrupted. Newly ...diagnosed preschool children may have clinical and immunological characteristics more amenable to treatment. Objective We sought to test the safety, effectiveness, and feasibility of early OIT (E-OIT) in the treatment of peanut allergy. Methods We enrolled 40 children aged 9 to 36 months with suspected or known peanut allergy. Qualifying subjects reacted to peanut during an entry food challenge and were block-randomized 1:1 to receive E-OIT at goal maintenance doses of 300 or 3000 mg/d in a double-blinded fashion. The primary end point, sustained unresponsiveness at 4 weeks after stopping early intervention oral immunotherapy (4-SU), was assessed by double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenge either upon achieving 4 prespecified criteria, or after 3 maintenance years. Peanut-specific immune responses were serially analyzed. Outcomes were compared with 154 matched standard-care controls. Results Of 40 consented subjects, 3 (7.5%) did not qualify. Overall, 29 of 37 (78%) in the intent-to-treat analysis achieved 4-SU (300-mg arm, 17 of 20 85%; 3000 mg, 12 of 17 71%, P = .43) over a median of 29 months. Per-protocol, the overall proportion achieving 4-SU was 29 of 32 (91%). Peanut-specific IgE levels significantly declined in E-OIT-treated children, who were 19 times more likely to successfully consume dietary peanut than matched standard-care controls, in whom peanut-specific IgE levels significantly increased (relative risk, 19.42; 95% CI, 8.7-43.7; P < .001). Allergic side effects during E-OIT were common but all were mild to moderate. Conclusions At both doses tested, E-OIT had an acceptable safety profile and was highly successful in rapidly suppressing allergic immune responses and achieving safe dietary reintroduction.
IgE‐mediated food allergy remains a significant and growing problem across the globe. Of the various treatment modalities, oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) have been the ...best studied. Across various studies of OIT for egg, milk, and peanut allergy, strong levels of desensitization have been shown. With egg and peanut OIT, a limited remission, or sustained unresponsiveness (SU), has further been demonstrated. These advances have been further validated by successful phase 2 and phase 3 studies of peanut OIT. EPIT, using daily administrations of a proprietary patch, demonstrated efficacy as well as safety and tolerability in parallel phase 2 studies; however, its phase 3 study did not meet its primary efficacy outcome. Despite its good track record of desensitization, the safety and tolerability of OIT has remained a question. EPIT, on the other hand, has proven safe and tolerable; however, the adequacy of its desensitization has remained to be determined. As OIT and EPIT continue their march toward regulatory review, optimizations for immunotherapy and novel therapies continue to be developed providing hope for food allergy patients everywhere.
Background There are no treatments currently available for peanut allergy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a novel approach to the treatment of peanut allergy. Objective We sought to investigate ...the safety, clinical effectiveness, and immunologic changes with SLIT in children with peanut allergy. Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study subjects underwent 6 months of dose escalation and 6 months of maintenance dosing followed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Results Eighteen children aged 1 to 11 years completed 12 months of dosing and the food challenge. Dosing side effects were primarily oropharyngeal and uncommonly required treatment. During the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, the treatment group safely ingested 20 times more peanut protein than the placebo group (median, 1,710 vs 85 mg; P = .011). Mechanistic studies demonstrated a decrease in skin prick test wheal size ( P = .020) and decreased basophil responsiveness after stimulation with 10−2 μg/mL ( P = .009) and 10−3 μg/mL ( P = .009) of peanut. Peanut-specific IgE levels increased over the initial 4 months ( P = .002) and then steadily decreased over the remaining 8 months ( P = .003), whereas peanut-specific IgG4 levels increased during the 12 months ( P = .014). Lastly, IL-5 levels decreased after 12 months ( P = .015). No statistically significant changes were found in IL-13 levels, the percentage of regulatory T cells, or IL-10 and IFN-γ production. Conclusion Peanut SLIT is able to safely induce clinical desensitization in children with peanut allergy, with evidence of immunologic changes suggesting a significant change in the allergic response. Further study is required to determine whether continued peanut SLIT is able to induce long-term immune tolerance.
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.
We sought to investigate the safety, clinical effectiveness, and immunologic changes with long-term SLIT in children with peanut allergy.
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.
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.
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.
Effective methods of clinical education Liao, Nancy; Scherzer, Rebecca; Kim, Edwin H
Annals of allergy, asthma, & immunology,
03/2022, Letnik:
128, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
To provide an overview of key points and helpful tips related to engaging learners in different medical education settings, including the virtual education environment.
Searches were conducted in ...PubMed and Google Scholar for articles and review papers on the topic of medical education.
There was a focus on articles that reviewed best practices on a variety of topics related to medical education.
Medical education is a critical part of any students' or trainees' educational curriculum or training program. There are different settings where medical education is provided, and both general and type-specific best practices can be considered. Those who spend time in medical education are continuously working on innovative ideas to enhance and improve how educators teach in both large and small group settings. More recently, the presenter must also consider whether the event will occur in a live or virtual setting as e-learning has become more popular and at times required, which has both benefits and challenges in medical education.
It is the responsibility of all those who work in medical education to provide interactive and engaging education to learners at all levels of training.
For young children with peanut allergy, dietary avoidance is the current standard of care. We aimed to assess whether peanut oral immunotherapy can induce desensitisation (an increased allergic ...reaction threshold while on therapy) or remission (a state of non-responsiveness after discontinuation of immunotherapy) in this population.
We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in five US academic medical centres. Eligible participants were children aged 12 to younger than 48 months who were reactive to 500 mg or less of peanut protein during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Participants were randomly assigned by use of a computer, in a 2:1 allocation ratio, to receive peanut oral immunotherapy or placebo for 134 weeks (2000 mg peanut protein per day) followed by 26 weeks of avoidance, with participants and study staff and investigators masked to group treatment assignment. The primary outcome was desensitisation at the end of treatment (week 134), and remission after avoidance (week 160), as the key secondary outcome, were assessed by DBPCFC to 5000 mg in the intention-to-treat population. Safety and immunological parameters were assessed in the same population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03345160.
Between Aug 13, 2013, and Oct 1, 2015, 146 children, with a median age of 39·3 months (IQR 30·8–44·7), were randomly assigned to receive peanut oral immunotherapy (96 participants) or placebo (50 participants). At week 134, 68 (71%, 95% CI 61–80) of 96 participants who received peanut oral immunotherapy compared with one (2%, 0·05–11) of 50 who received placebo met the primary outcome of desensitisation (risk difference RD 69%, 95% CI 59–79; p<0·0001). The median cumulative tolerated dose during the week 134 DBPCFC was 5005 mg (IQR 3755–5005) for peanut oral immunotherapy versus 5 mg (0–105) for placebo (p<0·0001). After avoidance, 20 (21%, 95% CI 13–30) of 96 participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy compared with one (2%, 0·05–11) of 50 receiving placebo met remission criteria (RD 19%, 95% CI 10–28; p=0·0021). The median cumulative tolerated dose during the week 160 DBPCFC was 755 mg (IQR 0–2755) for peanut oral immunotherapy and 0 mg (0–55) for placebo (p<0·0001). A significant proportion of participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy who passed the 5000 mg DBPCFC at week 134 could no longer tolerate 5000 mg at week 160 (p<0·001). The participant receiving placebo who was desensitised at week 134 also achieved remission at week 160. Compared with placebo, peanut oral immunotherapy decreased peanut-specific and Ara h2-specific IgE, skin prick test, and basophil activation, and increased peanut-specific and Ara h2-specific IgG4 at weeks 134 and 160. By use of multivariable regression analysis of participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy, younger age and lower baseline peanut-specific IgE was predictive of remission. Most participants (98% with peanut oral immunotherapy vs 80% with placebo) had at least one oral immunotherapy dosing reaction, predominantly mild to moderate and occurring more frequently in participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy. 35 oral immunotherapy dosing events with moderate symptoms were treated with epinephrine in 21 participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy.
In children with a peanut allergy, initiation of peanut oral immunotherapy before age 4 years was associated with an increase in both desensitisation and remission. Development of remission correlated with immunological biomarkers. The outcomes suggest a window of opportunity at a young age for intervention to induce remission of peanut allergy.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, Immune Tolerance Network.
Peanut oral immunotherapy, using a variety of approaches, has been previously shown to induce desensitization in peanut-allergic subjects, but no products have been approved for clinical use by ...regulatory agencies.
We performed the first phase 2 multicentered study to assess the safety and efficacy of AR101, a novel oral biologic drug product.
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at 8 US centers. Eligible subjects were 4 to 26 years old, sensitized to peanut, and had dose-limiting symptoms to ≤143 mg of peanut protein in a screening double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Subjects were randomized 1:1 to daily AR101 or placebo and gradually up-dosed from 0.5 to 300 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects in each arm able to tolerate ≥443 mg (cumulative peanut protein) at exit DBPCFC with no or mild symptoms.
Fifty-five subjects (29 AR101, 26 placebo) were enrolled. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 23 of 29 (79%) and 18 of 29 (62%) AR101 subjects tolerated ≥443 mg and 1043 mg at exit DBPCFC, respectively, versus 5 of 26 (19%) and 0 of 26 (0%) placebo subjects (both P < .0001). Compared with placebo, AR101 significantly reduced symptom severity during exit DBPCFCs and modulated peanut-specific cellular and humoral immune responses. Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms were the most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in both groups, with 6 AR101 subjects (21%) withdrawing, 4 of those due primarily to recurrent GI AEs.
In this study, AR101 demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated clinical activity as a potential immunomodulatory treatment option in peanut-allergic children over the age of 4, adolescents, and young adults.
Treatment for food allergy: Current status and unmet needs Dantzer, Jennifer A.; Kim, Edwin H.; Chinthrajah, R. Sharon ...
Journal of allergy and clinical immunology,
January 2023, 2023-01-00, 20230101, Letnik:
151, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
The treatment of food allergy has traditionally relied on avoidance of the offending food(s) and use of emergency medications in the event of accidental exposures. However, this long-standing ...paradigm is beginning to shift, as a variety of treatment approaches have been and are being developed. This report provides an overview of the past, present, and future landscape of interventional clinical trials for the treatment of food allergy. It focuses on specific issues related to participant characteristics, protocol design, and study end points in the key clinical trials in the literature and examine how differences between studies may impact the clinical significance of the study results. Recommendations are provided for the optimization of future trial designs and focus on specific unmet needs in this rapidly evolving field.
Mechanisms of oral immunotherapy Barshow, Suzanne M.; Kulis, Michael D.; Burks, A. Wesley ...
Clinical and experimental allergy,
April 2021, Letnik:
51, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Food allergy presents a significant global health concern with up to 10% of the population affected in developed nations and a steadily increasing prevalence. In many cases, particularly with peanut, ...tree nut and shellfish, food allergy is a lifelong and potentially life‐threatening diagnosis. While no ‘cure’ for IgE‐mediated food allergy exists, oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising treatment modality with the peanut OIT drug Palforzia (Aimmune Therapeutics) the only treatment for food allergy that is currently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. OIT primarily induces a state of desensitization with only a minority of subjects achieving sustained unresponsiveness, a state of limited clinical remission that appears to be immunologically distinct from natural tolerance. Early humoural changes during OIT include an initial increase in allergen‐specific IgE, which eventually decreases to below baseline levels as OIT progresses, and a gradual increase in allergen‐specific IgA and IgG4 that continues throughout the course of OIT. Basophil hyporesponsiveness and decreased skin prick test wheal size are observed within the first year of OIT, and persistence after completion of therapy has been associated with sustained unresponsiveness. In the T‐cell compartment, there is an initial expansion followed by a decline in the number and activity of T helper 2 (TH2) cells, the latter of which may be dependent on an expansion of IL‐10‐producing cells, including regulatory T‐cells. Our understanding of the immunomodulatory effects of OIT continues to evolve, with new technologies such as single‐cell transcriptional profiling and antibody epitope analysis allowing for more detailed study of T‐cell and B‐cell responses to OIT. In this review, we present evidence to illustrate what is currently known about the immunologic changes induced by OIT, explore potential mechanisms and emphasize knowledge gaps where future research is needed.
PDF
