Probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy versus oral immunotherapy and placebo in children with peanut allergy in Australia (PPOIT-003): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy is effective at inducing desensitisation to allergens and induces sustained unresponsiveness (ie, clinical remission) in a subset of patients, but causes frequent reactions. We aimed to investigate whether addition of a probiotic adjuvant improved the efficacy or safety of peanut oral immunotherapy. METHODS: PPOIT-003, a multicentre, randomised, phase 2b trial, was conducted in three tertiary hospitals in Australia (Adelaide [SA], Melbourne [VIC], and Perth [WA]) in children aged 1-10 years, weighing more than 7 kg, with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (cumulative 4950 mg dose of peanut protein) and positive peanut skin prick test (≥3 mm) or peanut-specific IgE (≥0·35 kU/L). Children were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT), placebo probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT), or placebo probiotic and placebo OIT (placebo) for 18 months, and were followed up until 12 months after completion of treatment. Oral immunotherapy consisted of increasing doses of peanut protein (commercially available food-grade 12% defatted peanut flour [50% peanut protein]) until a 2000 mg daily maintenance dose was reached. The probiotic adjuvant was a daily dose of 2 × 1010 colony-forming units of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 53103. Placebo immunotherapy comprised maltodextrin, brown food colouring, and peanut essence, and placebo probiotic was maltodextrin. Dual primary outcomes were 8-week sustained unresponsiveness, defined as no reaction to a cumulative dose of 4950 mg peanut protein at treatment completion and 8 weeks after treatment completion, in the PPOIT versus placebo groups and the PPOIT versus OIT groups, analysed by intention to treat. Safety endpoints were adverse events during the treatment phase, and peanut ingestion and reactions in the 12-month post-treatment period. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 12616000322437. FINDINGS: Between July 4, 2016, and Sept 21, 2020, 201 participants were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 36 (46%) of 79 children in the PPOIT group and 42 (51%) of 83 children in the OIT group achieved sustained unresponsiveness compared with two (5%) of 39 children in the placebo group (risk difference 40·44% [95% CI 27·46 to 53·42] for PPOIT vs placebo, p<0·0001), with no difference between PPOIT and OIT (-5·03% [-20·40 to 10·34], p=0·52). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 72 (91%) of 79 children in the PPOIT group, 73 (88%) of 83 children in the OIT group, and 28 (72%) of 39 children in the placebo group. Exposure-adjusted incidence of adverse events was 10·58 in the PPOIT group, 11·36 in the OIT, and 2·09 in the placebo group (ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·85 to 0·99] for PPOIT vs OIT, p=0·042; 4·98 [4·11-6·03] for PPOIT vs placebo, p<0·0001; 5·42 [4·48-6·56] for OIT vs placebo, p<0·0001), with differences seen primarily in gastrointestinal symptoms and in children aged 1-5 years. During the 12-month post-treatment period, 60 (85%) of 71 participants in the PPOIT group, 60 (86%) of 70 participants in the OIT group, and six (18%) of 34 participants in the placebo group were eating peanut; rescue epinephrine use was infrequent (two [3%] of 71 in the PPOIT group, four [6%] of 70 in the OIT group, and none in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Both PPOIT and OIT were effective at inducing sustained unresponsiveness. Addition of a probiotic did not improve efficacy of OIT, but might offer a safety benefit compared with OIT alone, particularly in preschool children. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council Australia and Prota Therapeutics.

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.

A combination recombinant protein and outer membrane vesicle vaccine against serogroup B meningococcal disease.

Although meningococcal disease caused by serogroup B remains an important public health concern, a licensed vaccine providing broad protection against this pathogen is not yet available. Advances in genomics have paved the way for the discovery of new vaccine candidates for inclusion into a multicomponent serogroup B vaccine. In this article, we will review recent advances in the development of these vaccines, focussing particularly on one of the 'next generation' MenB vaccines, 4CMenB.