Background Peanut allergy is common, life-threatening, and without therapeutic options. We evaluated peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) by using Viaskin Peanut for peanut allergy treatment. ...Objective We sought to evaluate the clinical, safety, and immunologic effects of EPIT for the treatment of peanut allergy. Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 74 participants with peanut allergy (ages 4-25 years) were treated with placebo (n = 25), Viaskin Peanut 100 μg (VP100; n = 24) or Viaskin Peanut 250 μg (VP250; n = 25; DBV Technologies, Montrouge, France). The primary outcome was treatment success after 52 weeks, which was defined as passing a 5044-mg protein oral food challenge or achieving a 10-fold or greater increase in successfully consumed dose from baseline to week 52. Adverse reactions and mechanistic changes were assessed. Results At week 52, treatment success was achieved in 3 (12%) placebo-treated participants, 11 (46%) VP100 participants, and 12 (48%) VP250 participants ( P = .005 and P = .003, respectively, compared with placebo; VP100 vs VP250, P = .48). Median change in successfully consumed doses were 0, 43, and 130 mg of protein in the placebo, VP100, and VP250 groups, respectively (placebo vs VP100, P = .014; placebo vs VP250, P = .003). Treatment success was higher among younger children ( P = 0.03; age, 4-11 vs >11 years). Overall, 14.4% of placebo doses and 79.8% of VP100 and VP250 doses resulted in reactions, predominantly local patch-site and mild reactions ( P = .003). Increases in peanut-specific IgG4 levels and IgG4 /IgE ratios were observed in peanut EPIT-treated participants, along with trends toward reduced basophil activation and peanut-specific TH 2 cytokines. Conclusions Peanut EPIT administration was safe and associated with a modest treatment response after 52 weeks, with the highest responses among younger children. This, when coupled with a high adherence and retention rate and significant changes in immune pathways, supports further investigation of this novel therapy.
Background Peanut allergy (PA) is rare in countries in which peanuts are introduced early into infants’ diets. Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) is an interventional study aiming to assess ...whether PA can be prevented by oral tolerance induction. Objective We sought to characterize a population screened for the risk of PA. Methods Subjects screened for the LEAP interventional trial comprise the LEAP screening study cohort. Infants were aged 4 to 10 months and passed a prescreening questionnaire. Results This analysis includes 834 infants (mean age, 7.8 months). They were split into the following: group I, patients with mild eczema and no egg allergy (n = 118); group II, patients with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both but 0-mm peanut skin prick test (SPT) wheal responses (n = 542); group III, patients with severe eczema, egg allergy, or both and 1- to 4-mm peanut wheal responses (n = 98); and group IV, patients with greater than 4-mm peanut wheal responses (n = 76). Unexpectedly, many (17%) in group II had peanut-specific IgE sensitization (≥0.35 kU/L); 56% of group III were similarly sensitized. In contrast, none of the patients in group I and 91% of those in group IV had peanut-specific IgE sensitization. Sensitization on skin testing to peanut (SPT response of 1-4 mm vs 0 mm) was associated with egg allergy and severe eczema (odds ratio OR, 2.31 95% CI, 1.39-3.86 and 2.47 95% CI, 1.14-5.34, respectively). Similar associations were observed with specific IgE sensitization. Black race was associated with a significantly higher risk of peanut-specific IgE sensitization (OR, 5.30 95% CI, 2.85-9.86). Paradoxically, for a given specific IgE level, black race was protective against cutaneous sensitization (OR, 0.15 95% CI, 0.04-0.61). Conclusion Egg allergy, severe eczema, or both appear to be useful criteria for identifying high-risk infants with an intermediate level of peanut sensitization for entry into a PA prevention study. The relationship between specific IgE level and SPT sensitization needs to be considered within the context of race.
Background Although studies of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy have shown promise, treatment is frequently complicated by adverse reactions and, even when successful, has limited long-term ...efficacy because benefits usually diminish when treatment is discontinued. Objective We sought to examine whether the addition of omalizumab to milk OIT reduces treatment-related reactions, improves outcomes, or both. Methods This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with subjects randomized to omalizumab or placebo. Open-label milk OIT was initiated after 4 months of omalizumab/placebo with escalation to maintenance over 22 to 40 weeks, followed by daily maintenance dosing through month 28. At month 28, omalizumab was discontinued, and subjects passing an oral food challenge (OFC) continued OIT for 8 weeks, after which OIT was discontinued with rechallenge at month 32 to assess sustained unresponsiveness (SU). Results Fifty-seven subjects (7-32 years) were randomized, with no significant baseline differences in age, milk-specific IgE levels, skin test results, or OFC results. At month 28, 24 (88.9%) omalizumab-treated subjects and 20 (71.4%) placebo-treated subjects passed the 10-g “desensitization” OFC ( P = .18). At month 32, SU was demonstrated in 48.1% in the omalizumab group and 35.7% in the placebo group ( P = .42). Adverse reactions were markedly reduced during OIT escalation in omalizumab-treated subjects for percentages of doses per subject provoking symptoms (2.1% vs 16.1%, P = .0005), dose-related reactions requiring treatment (0.0% vs 3.8%, P = .0008), and doses required to achieve maintenance (198 vs 225, P = .008). Conclusions In this first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of omalizumab in combination with food OIT, we found significant improvements in measurements of safety but not in outcomes of efficacy (desensitization and SU).
In a randomized trial, the early introduction of peanuts in infants at high risk for allergy was shown to prevent peanut allergy. In this follow-up study, we investigated whether the rate of peanut ...allergy remained low after 12 months of peanut avoidance among participants who had consumed peanuts during the primary trial (peanut-consumption group), as compared with those who had avoided peanuts (peanut-avoidance group).
At the end of the primary trial, we instructed all the participants to avoid peanuts for 12 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of participants with peanut allergy at the end of the 12-month period, when the participants were 72 months of age.
We enrolled 556 of 628 eligible participants (88.5%) from the primary trial; 550 participants (98.9%) had complete primary-outcome data. The rate of adherence to avoidance in the follow-up study was high (90.4% in the peanut-avoidance group and 69.3% in the peanut-consumption group). Peanut allergy at 72 months was significantly more prevalent among participants in the peanut-avoidance group than among those in the peanut-consumption group (18.6% 52 of 280 participants vs. 4.8% 13 of 270, P<0.001). Three new cases of allergy developed in each group, but after 12 months of avoidance there was no significant increase in the prevalence of allergy among participants in the consumption group (3.6% 10 of 274 participants at 60 months and 4.8% 13 of 270 at 72 months, P=0.25). Fewer participants in the peanut-consumption group than in the peanut-avoidance group had high levels of Ara h2 (a component of peanut protein)-specific IgE and peanut-specific IgE; in addition, participants in the peanut-consumption group continued to have a higher level of peanut-specific IgG4 and a higher peanut-specific IgG4:IgE ratio.
Among children at high risk for allergy in whom peanuts had been introduced in the first year of life and continued until 5 years of age, a 12-month period of peanut avoidance was not associated with an increase in the prevalence of peanut allergy. Longer-term effects are not known. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; LEAP-On ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01366846.).
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.
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.
Oral food challenge (OFC) is the criterion standard to assess peanut allergy (PA), but it involves a risk of allergic reactions of unpredictable severity.
Our aim was to identify biomarkers for risk ...of severe reactions or low dose threshold during OFC to peanut.
We assessed Learning Early about Peanut Allergy study, Persistance of Oral Tolerance to Peanut study, and Peanut Allergy Sensitization study participants by administering the basophil activation test (BAT) and the skin prick test (SPT) and measuring the levels of peanut-specific IgE, Arachis hypogaea 2–specific IgE, and peanut-specific IgG4, and we analyzed the utility of the different biomarkers in relation to PA status, severity, and threshold dose of allergic reactions to peanut during OFC.
When a previously defined optimal cutoff was used, the BAT diagnosed PA with 98% specificity and 75% sensitivity. The BAT identified severe reactions with 97% specificity and 100% sensitivity. The SPT, level of Arachis hypogaea 2–specific IgE, level of peanut-specific IgE, and IgG4/IgE ratio also had 100% sensitivity but slightly lower specificity (92%, 93%, 90%, and 88%, respectively) to predict severity. Participants with lower thresholds of reactivity had higher basophil activation to peanut in vitro. The SPT and the BAT were the best individual predictors of threshold. Multivariate models were superior to individual biomarkers and were used to generate nomograms to calculate the probability of serious adverse events during OFC for individual patients.
The BAT diagnosed PA with high specificity and identified severe reactors and low threshold with high specificity and high sensitivity. The BAT was the best biomarker for severity, surpassed only by the SPT in predicting threshold. Nomograms can help estimate the likelihood of severe reactions and reactions to a low dose of allergen in individual patients with PA.
Display omitted
Background Food allergy is an important public health problem because it affects children and adults, can be severe and even life-threatening, and may be increasing in prevalence. Beginning in 2008, ...the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, working with other organizations and advocacy groups, led the development of the first clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy. A recent landmark clinical trial and other emerging data suggest that peanut allergy can be prevented through introduction of peanut-containing foods beginning in infancy. Objectives Prompted by these findings, along with 25 professional organizations, federal agencies, and patient advocacy groups, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases facilitated development of addendum guidelines to specifically address the prevention of peanut allergy. Results The addendum provides 3 separate guidelines for infants at various risk levels for the development of peanut allergy and is intended for use by a wide variety of health care providers. Topics addressed include the definition of risk categories, appropriate use of testing (specific IgE measurement, skin prick tests, and oral food challenges), and the timing and approaches for introduction of peanut-containing foods in the health care provider's office or at home. The addendum guidelines provide the background, rationale, and strength of evidence for each recommendation. Conclusions Guidelines have been developed for early introduction of peanut-containing foods into the diets of infants at various risk levels for peanut allergy.
For egg allergy, dietary avoidance is the only currently approved treatment. We evaluated oral immunotherapy using egg-white powder for the treatment of children with egg allergy.
In this ...double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 55 children, 5 to 11 years of age, with egg allergy received oral immunotherapy (40 children) or placebo (15). Initial dose-escalation, build-up, and maintenance phases were followed by an oral food challenge with egg-white powder at 10 months and at 22 months. Children who successfully passed the challenge at 22 months discontinued oral immunotherapy and avoided all egg consumption for 4 to 6 weeks. At 24 months, these children underwent an oral food challenge with egg-white powder and a cooked egg to test for sustained unresponsiveness. Children who passed this challenge at 24 months were placed on a diet with ad libitum egg consumption and were evaluated for continuation of sustained unresponsiveness at 30 months and 36 months.
After 10 months of therapy, none of the children who received placebo and 55% of those who received oral immunotherapy passed the oral food challenge and were considered to be desensitized; after 22 months, 75% of children in the oral-immunotherapy group were desensitized. In the oral-immunotherapy group, 28% (11 of 40 children) passed the oral food challenge at 24 months and were considered to have sustained unresponsiveness. At 30 months and 36 months, all children who had passed the oral food challenge at 24 months were consuming egg. Of the immune markers measured, small wheal diameters on skin-prick testing and increases in egg-specific IgG4 antibody levels were associated with passing the oral food challenge at 24 months.
These results show that oral immunotherapy can desensitize a high proportion of children with egg allergy and induce sustained unresponsiveness in a clinically significant subset. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00461097.).
Atopic dermatitis (AD) affects up to 20% of children worldwide and is an increasing public health problem, particularly in developed countries. Although AD in infants and young children can resolve, ...there is a well-recognized increased risk of sequential progression from AD to other atopic diseases, including food allergy (FA), allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, a process referred to as the atopic march. The mechanisms underlying the development of AD and subsequent progression to other atopic comorbidities, particularly FA, are incompletely understood and the subject of intense investigation. Other major research objectives are the development of effective strategies to prevent AD and FA, as well as therapeutic interventions to inhibit the atopic march. In 2017, the Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored a workshop to discuss current understanding and important advances in these research areas and to identify gaps in knowledge and future research directions. International and national experts in the field were joined by representatives from several National Institutes of Health institutes. Summaries of workshop presentations, key conclusions, and recommendations are presented herein.
PDF
