Search

Background: The PEPITES (Peanut EPIT Efficacy and Safety) trial, a 12-month randomized controlled study of children with peanut allergy and 4 to 11 years old, previously reported the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy (250 μg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250 μg)., Objective: We sought to assess interim safety and efficacy of an additional 2 years of EPIT from the ongoing (5-year treatment) PEOPLE (PEPITES Open-Label Extension) study., Methods: Subjects who completed PEPITES were offered enrollment in PEOPLE. Following an additional 2 years of daily DBV712 250 μg, subjects who had received DBV712 250 μg in PEPITES underwent month-36 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge with an optional month-38 sustained unresponsiveness assessment., Results: Of 213 eligible subjects who had received DBV712 250 μg in PEPITES, 198 (93%) entered PEOPLE, of whom 141 (71%) had assessable double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at month 36. At month 36, 51.8% of subjects (73 of 141) reached an eliciting dose of ≥1000 mg, compared with 40.4% (57 of 141) at month 12; 75.9% (107 of 141) demonstrated increased eliciting dose compared with baseline; and 13.5% (19 of 141) tolerated the full double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge of 5444 mg. Median cumulative reactive dose increased from 144 to 944 mg. Eighteen subjects underwent an optional sustained unresponsiveness assessment; 14 of those (77.8%) maintained an eliciting dose 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 were low (1%)., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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 .).

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.

Background: Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment modality that has the potential to alter the natural course of allergic diseases. Sublingual immunotherapy has been developed to facilitate access to this form of treatment and to minimize serious adverse events., Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of sublingual grass allergen tablets in seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis., Methods: A multinational, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted during 2002 and 2003. Fifty-five centers in 8 countries included 855 participants age 18 to 65 years who gave a history of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and had a positive skin prick test and elevated serum allergen-specific IgE to Phleum pratense. Participants were randomized to 2500, 25,000, or 75,000 SQ-T grass allergen tablets (GRAZAX; ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark) or placebo for sublingual administration once daily. Mean duration of treatment was 18 weeks., Results: Average rhinoconjunctivitis scores during the season showed moderate reductions of symptoms (16%) and medication use (28%) for the grass allergen tablet 75,000 SQ-T (P = .0710; P = .0470) compared with placebo. Significantly better rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life scores (P = .006) and an increased number of well days (P = .041) were also observed. Efficacy was increased in the subgroup of patients who completed the recommended preseasonal treatment of at least 8 weeks before the grass pollen season (symptoms, 21%, P = .0020; and medication use, 29%, P = .0120). No safety concerns were observed., Conclusion: This study confirms dose-dependent efficacy of the grass allergen tablet. Although further studies are required, the greater tolerability of the tablet may permit immunotherapy to be available to a much broader group of patients with impaired quality of life caused by grass pollen allergy., Clinical Implications: For patients with grass pollen allergy, sublingual immunotherapy is well tolerated and can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life.

Background: To determine the proportion and reproducibility of cat‐allergic mild asthmatics with early asthmatic response (EAR) during cat allergen exposure in a naturalistic exposure chamber (NEC). Methods: This was a prospective, observational study in 30 cat‐allergic mild asthmatics who received two 180‐min cat‐allergen (Felis domesticus allergen 1 [Fel d 1]) challenges 27 days apart in an NEC. Results: An EAR (≥20% reduction from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]) was observed in 67% and 52% of subjects at first and second NEC exposure, respectively, with similar median time to EAR; 44% of subjects had an EAR on days 1 and 28. Late asthmatic response (≥15% reduction in FEV1 within 24 h of NEC exit) was observed in 33% of subjects following either exposure. Average FEV1 and total nasal symptom score during NEC exposure were highly correlated within subjects between NEC exposures (r = 0.91, p < 0.0001; r = 0.73, p < 0.001), but total ocular symptom score was not. Time to EAR, but not average FEV1, was significantly associated with NEC Fel d 1 concentration, which was variable. There were no serious adverse events; 12/30 subjects experienced 20 adverse events (including asthma, 10%; headache, 10%). Conclusions: The NEC model demonstrates that average FEV1 change is highly reproducible and has a low correlation with cat allergen levels. However, time to EAR and incidence of EAR are less reproducible and are highly correlated with NEC allergen levels. Average FEV1, rather than incidence of EAR or time to EAR, could be considered as an endpoint for interventional trials testing cat‐specific anti‐allergy therapies using an NEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effect of sublingual immunotherapy on quality of life (QoL) was examined in patients with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. Patients (n = 855) were randomised to once-daily grass allergen tablets (2,500; 25,000; or 75,000 SQ-T Phleum pratense extract; GRAZAX or placebo. Treatment was initiated 8 weeks before the start of the grass pollen season and continued throughout. If symptoms were present, patients received loratadine or placebo rescue medication. There were three major findings: in patients using loratadine, grass allergen tablets provided QOL benefits over placebo; Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) score was 17% (p = 0.006) and 20% (p = 0.020) greater with 75,000 SQ-T tablet than with placebo at first and second seasonal visit, respectively; in patients not using loratadine, grass allergen tablets improved QoL more than placebo; RQLQ score was 21% greater (p = 0.021) with 75,000 SQ-T tablet at second seasonal visit; grass tablets (without loratadine) had a greater effect on QoL than loratadine alone. RQLQ score was 26% (p = 0.014) greater with 75,000 SQ-T tablets than loratadine at second seasonal visit. These data show that sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergen tablets improves QOL in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, reduces symptoms, and that this effect is greater than rescue antihistamine alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]