Systems vaccinology of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in humans.

The emergency use authorization of two mRNA vaccines in less than a year from the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 represents a landmark in vaccinology1,2. Yet, how mRNA vaccines stimulate the immune system to elicit protective immune responses is unknown. Here we used a systems vaccinology approach to comprehensively profile the innate and adaptive immune responses of 56 healthy volunteers who were vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). Vaccination resulted in the robust production of neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (derived from 2019-nCOV/USA_WA1/2020) and, to a lesser extent, the B.1.351 strain, as well as significant increases in antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells after the second dose. Booster vaccination stimulated a notably enhanced innate immune response as compared to primary vaccination, evidenced by (1) a greater frequency of CD14+CD16+ inflammatory monocytes; (2) a higher concentration of plasma IFNγ; and (3) a transcriptional signature of innate antiviral immunity. Consistent with these observations, our single-cell transcriptomics analysis demonstrated an approximately 100-fold increase in the frequency of a myeloid cell cluster enriched in interferon-response transcription factors and reduced in AP-1 transcription factors, after secondary immunization. Finally, we identified distinct innate pathways associated with CD8 T cell and neutralizing antibody responses, and show that a monocyte-related signature correlates with the neutralizing antibody response against the B.1.351 variant. Collectively, these data provide insights into the immune responses induced by mRNA vaccination and demonstrate its capacity to prime the innate immune system to mount a more potent response after booster immunization.

Untargeted metabolomic profiling in children identifies novel pathways in asthma and atopy.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and other atopic disorders can present with varying clinical phenotypes marked by differential metabolomic manifestations and enriched biological pathways. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify these unique metabolomic profiles in atopy and asthma. METHODS: We analyzed baseline nonfasted plasma samples from a large multisite pediatric population of 470 children aged <13 years from 3 different sites in the United States and France. Atopy positivity (At+) was defined as skin prick test result of ≥3 mm and/or specific IgE ≥ 0.35 IU/mL and/or total IgE ≥ 173 IU/mL. Asthma positivity (As+) was based on physician diagnosis. The cohort was divided into 4 groups of varying combinations of asthma and atopy, and 6 pairwise analyses were conducted to best assess the differential metabolomic profiles between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred ten children were classified as At-As-, 42 as At+As-, 74 as At-As+, and 144 as At+As+. Untargeted global metabolomic profiles were generated through ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy. We applied 2 independent machine learning classifiers and short-listed 362 metabolites as discriminant features. Our analysis showed the most diverse metabolomic profile in the At+As+/At-As- comparison, followed by the At-As+/At-As- comparison, indicating that asthma is the most discriminant condition associated with metabolomic changes. At+As+ metabolomic profiles were characterized by higher levels of bile acids, sphingolipids, and phospholipids, and lower levels of polyamine, tryptophan, and gamma-glutamyl amino acids. CONCLUSION: The At+As+ phenotype displays a distinct metabolomic profile suggesting underlying mechanisms such as modulation of host-pathogen and gut microbiota interactions, epigenetic changes in T-cell differentiation, and lower antioxidant properties of the airway epithelium.

Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE: We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS: We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION: We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach.

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

Efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy in children aged 1-3 years with peanut allergy (the Immune Tolerance Network IMPACT trial): a randomised placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, Immune Tolerance Network.

Expression, purification, characterization, and patient IgE reactivity of new macadamia nut iso-allergen.

Structural and functional information about food allergens is essential for understanding the allergenicity of food proteins. All allergens belong to a small number of protein families. Various allergens from different families have been successfully produced recombinantly in E. coli for their characterization and applications in allergy diagnosis and treatment. However, recombinant hexameric 11S seed storage protein has not been reported, although numerous 11S legumins are known to be food allergens, including the recently identified macadamia nut allergen Mac i 2. Here we report the production of a macadamia nut legumin by expressing it in E. coli with a substrate site of HRV 3C protease and cleaving the purified protein with HRV 3C protease. The protease divided the protein into two chains and left a native terminus for the C-terminal chain, resulting in a recombinant hexameric 11S allergen for the first time after the residues upstream to the cleavage site flipped out of the way of the trimer-trimer interaction. The 11S allergens are known to have multiple isoforms in many species. The present study removed an obstacle in obtaining homogeneous allergens needed for studying allergens and mitigating allergenicity. Immunoreactivity of the protein with serum IgE confirmed it to be a new isoform of Mac i 2.

Climate change and global health: A call to more research and more action.

There is increasing understanding, globally, that climate change and increased pollution will have a profound and mostly harmful effect on human health. This review brings together international experts to describe both the direct (such as heat waves) and indirect (such as vector-borne disease incidence) health impacts of climate change. These impacts vary depending on vulnerability (i.e., existing diseases) and the international, economic, political, and environmental context. This unique review also expands on these issues to address a third category of potential longer-term impacts on global health: famine, population dislocation, and environmental justice and education. This scholarly resource explores these issues fully, linking them to global health in urban and rural settings in developed and developing countries. The review finishes with a practical discussion of action that health professionals around the world in our field can yet take.

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 .).

Identification of Pru du 6 as a potential marker allergen for almond allergy.

BACKGROUND: Oral food challenges have demonstrated that diagnosis of almond allergy based on extract-sIgE tests displays low specificity. Molecular allergy diagnosis is expected to improve accuracy, but its value in diagnosing almond allergy remains unknown. The aim of this study was to identify relevant almond allergens and examine their ability to improve almond allergy diagnosis. METHODS: IgE-reactive proteins were purified from almond kernels. IgE binding to almond extract and the allergens was analyzed by quantitative ELISA using sera from 18 subjects with a proven almond allergy. The control group consisted of sera from 18 subjects allergic to peanut and/or tree nuts but tolerant to almond. RESULTS: Three IgE-binding proteins were identified: legumin (Pru du 6), alpha-hairpinin (Pru du 8), and mandelonitrile lyase (Pru du 10). Positive IgE (≥0.35 kU/L) to almond extract showed 94% sensitivity but only 33% specificity. IgE to Pru du 6 maintained high sensitivity (83%) and provided superior specificity (78%). Sera from almond-allergic subjects had significantly higher IgE levels to almond extract (P < .0001) and Pru du 6 (P < .0001) than sera from tolerant donors. Sensitization to Pru du 6 was highly specific for almond allergy, while frequencies of sensitization to legumins from peanut, walnut, hazelnut, and cashew were similar in both groups. IgE to Pru du 8 and Pru du 10 was less sensitive (41% and 67%), but showed specificities of 100% and 61%. CONCLUSION: The use of almond allergens markedly increases the diagnostic specificity compared to the extract. Pru du 6 is a potential new molecular marker for almond allergy.

Basophil activation test shows high accuracy in the diagnosis of peanut and tree nut allergy: The Markers of Nut Allergy Study.

BACKGROUND: Peanut and tree nut allergies are the most important causes of anaphylaxis. Co-reactivity to more than one nut is frequent, and co-sensitization in the absence of clinical data is often obtained. Confirmatory oral food challenges (OFCs) are inconsistently performed. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of the basophil activation test (BAT) in diagnosing peanut and tree nut allergies. METHODS: The Markers Of Nut Allergy Study (MONAS) prospectively enrolled patients aged 0.5-17 years with confirmed peanut and/or tree nut (almond, cashew, hazelnut, pistachio, walnut) allergy or sensitization from Canadian (n = 150) and Austrian (n = 50) tertiary pediatric centers. BAT using %CD63+ basophils (SSClow/CCR3pos) as outcome was performed with whole blood samples stimulated with allergen extracts of each nut (0.001-1000 ng/mL protein). BAT results were assessed against confirmed allergic status in a blinded fashion to develop a generalizable statistical model for comparison to extract and marker allergen-specific IgE. RESULTS: A mixed effect model integrating BAT results for 10 and 100 ng/mL of peanut and individual tree nut extracts was optimal. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) was 0.98 for peanut, 0.97 for cashew, 0.92 for hazelnut, 0.95 for pistachio, and 0.97 for walnut. The BAT outperformed sIgE testing for peanut or hazelnut and was comparable for walnut (AUROC 0.95, 0.94, 0.92) in a sub-analysis in sensitized patients undergoing OFC. CONCLUSIONS: Basophil activation test can predict allergic clinical status to peanut and tree nuts in multi-nut-sensitized children and may reduce the need for high-risk OFCs in patients.

Vaccines and allergic reactions: The past, the current COVID-19 pandemic, and future perspectives.

Vaccines are essential public health tools with a favorable safety profile and prophylactic effectiveness that have historically played significant roles in reducing infectious disease burden in populations, when the majority of individuals are vaccinated. The COVID-19 vaccines are expected to have similar positive impacts on health across the globe. While serious allergic reactions to vaccines are rare, their underlying mechanisms and implications for clinical management should be considered to provide individuals with the safest care possible. In this review, we provide an overview of different types of allergic adverse reactions that can potentially occur after vaccination and individual vaccine components capable of causing the allergic adverse reactions. We present the incidence of allergic adverse reactions during clinical studies and through post-authorization and post-marketing surveillance and provide plausible causes of these reactions based on potential allergenic components present in several common vaccines. Additionally, we review implications for individual diagnosis and management and vaccine manufacturing overall. Finally, we suggest areas for future research.

COVID-19 pandemic: Practical considerations on the organization of an allergy clinic-An EAACI/ARIA Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has evolved into a pandemic infectious disease transmitted by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Allergists and other healthcare providers (HCPs) in the field of allergies and associated airway diseases are on the front line, taking care of patients potentially infected with SARS-CoV-2. Hence, strategies and practices to minimize risks of infection for both HCPs and treated patients have to be developed and followed by allergy clinics. METHOD: The scientific information on COVID-19 was analysed by a literature search in MEDLINE, PubMed, the National and International Guidelines from the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Cochrane Library, and the internet. RESULTS: Based on the diagnostic and treatment standards developed by EAACI, on international information regarding COVID-19, on guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations, and on previous experience, a panel of experts including clinicians, psychologists, IT experts, and basic scientists along with EAACI and the "Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA)" initiative have developed recommendations for the optimal management of allergy clinics during the current COVID-19 pandemic. These recommendations are grouped into nine sections on different relevant aspects for the care of patients with allergies. CONCLUSIONS: This international Position Paper provides recommendations on operational plans and procedures to maintain high standards in the daily clinical care of allergic patients while ensuring the necessary safety measures in the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Novel application of a discrete time-to-event model for randomized oral immunotherapy clinical trials with repeat food challenges.

The evaluation of double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) generally focuses on a participant passing a challenge at a predetermined dose, and does not consider the dose of reaction for those who fail or are censored due to study discontinuation. Further, a number of food allergy trials have incorporated multiple DBPCFCs throughout the duration of the study in order to evaluate changes in reaction over time including sustained unresponsiveness from treatment. Outcomes arising from these trials are commonly modeled using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests at each time point. We propose applying time-to-event methodology to food allergy trials in order to exploit the inherent granularity of challenge outcomes that additionally accommodates repeated DBPCFCs. Specifically, we consider dose-to-failure for each study challenge and extend the cumulative tolerated dose across challenges to result in a dose-time axis. A discrete time-to-event framework is applied to the dose-time outcome to assess the efficacy of treatment across the entire study period. We illustrate ideas with data from the Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Study: Safety, Efficacy and Discovery (POISED) trial, conducted at Stanford University, which evaluated the efficacy of oral immunotherapy on desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness in peanut allergic children and adults. We demonstrate the advantages of time-to-event approaches for assessing the efficacy of treatment over time and incorporating information for those who failed or were lost to follow up. Further, we introduce a dose-time outcome that is interpretable to clinicians and allows for examination of such outcomes over time.

H2-antagonist in IgE-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions: what literature says so far?

Histamine is a monoamine synthesized from the amino acid histidine that is well-known for its role in IgE-mediated anaphylaxis but has shown pleiotropic effects on the immune system, especially in order to promote inflammatory responses. H1-receptor antagonist are common drugs used in mild/moderate allergic reactions whereas H2-receptor antagonist are commonly administered in gastric ulcer but showed some properties in allergy too. The EAACI guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of anaphylactic reactions recommend their use as third-line therapy in adjunct to H1-antagonists. The purpose of this article is to produce a complete summary of findings and evidence known so far about the usefulness of H2-receptor antagonist in allergic reactons.

Consensus report from the Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) 2019 Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy Summit.

Food allergy is a major health problem affecting 5% to 10% of the population in developed nations, including an estimated 32 million Americans. Despite the large number of patients suffering from food allergies, up until the end of January 2020, no treatment for food allergies had been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The only options were avoidance of food allergen triggers and acute management of allergic reactions. A considerable body of data exists supporting oral immunotherapy (OIT) as a promising, novel treatment option, including that for the now Food and Drug Administration-approved peanut OIT product Palforzia (Aimmune Therapeutics, Brisbane, Calif). However, data for long-term quality-of-life improvement with OIT varies, depending on the measures used for analysis. Like many therapies, OIT is not without potential harms, and burdens, and the evaluation of patient-specific risk-benefit ratio of food OIT produces challenges for clinicians and patients alike, with many unanswered questions. Food Allergy Research & Education organized the Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy Summit on November 6, 2019, modeled after the PRACTALL sessions between the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology to address these critical issues. Health care providers, patient representatives, researchers, regulators, and food allergy advocates came together to discuss OIT and identify areas of common ground as well as gaps in existing research and areas of uncertainty and disagreement. The purpose of this article was to summarize that discussion and facilitate collaboration among clinicians and patients to help them make better-informed decisions about offering and accepting OIT, respectively, as a therapeutic option.

Long-term, open-label extension study of the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: PEOPLE 3-year results.

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.

Transcriptional changes in peanut-specific CD4+ T cells over the course of oral immunotherapy.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) can successfully desensitize allergic individuals to offending foods such as peanut. Our recent clinical trial (NCT02103270) of peanut OIT allowed us to monitor peanut-specific CD4+ T cells, using MHC-peptide Dextramers, over the course of OIT. We used a single-cell targeted RNAseq assay to analyze these cells at 0, 12, 24, 52, and 104 weeks of OIT. We found a transient increase in TGFß-producing cells at 52 weeks in those with successful desensitization, which lasted until 117 weeks. We also performed clustering and identified 5 major clusters of Dextramer+ cells, which we tracked over time. One of these clusters appeared to be anergic, while another was consistent with recently described TFH13 cells. The other 3 clusters appeared to be Th2 cells by their coordinated production of IL-4 and IL-13, but they varied in their expression of STAT signaling proteins and other markers. A cluster with high expression of STAT family members also showed a possible transient increase at week 24 in those with successful desensitization. Single cell TCRαß repertoire sequences were too diverse to track clones over time. Together with increased TGFß production, these changes may be mechanistic predictors of successful OIT that should be further investigated.

An evaluation of factors influencing response to epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy in the PEPITES trial.

Background: Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy is a potential novel immunotherapy that utilizes the unique cutaneous immunologic properties to induce desensitization. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial (PEPITES) in peanut-allergic children 4-11 years demonstrated an epicutaneous patch (DBV712) with 250 µg peanut protein was statistically superior to placebo in inducing desensitization following 12 months of daily treatment. Objective: To investigate what baseline and in-study factors influenced response to DBV712 250 µg, with a focus on patch adhesion, by posthoc analysis of PEPITES data. Methods: A posthoc multivariate model built with log-transformed Month 12 eliciting dose (ED) as the dependent variable was used to assess the influence of baseline characteristics and patch adhesion. Baseline characteristics and treatment response were also evaluated by stratifying subjects into decile subgroups by patch detachment rates over the 12-month study. Results: Multivariate analysis identified higher baseline ED and lower baseline peanut-specific IgE as the variables most predictive of higher Month 12 ED, followed by mean daily patch application duration, baseline SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score, and age. By decile stratification, no association between patch detachment and treatment response was identified for 80% of DBV712-treated subjects. All DBV712-treated subjects, including those with the highest patch detachment rates, demonstrated treatment benefit measured by fold-changes in geometric mean ED. Conclusion: We identified subject baseline characteristics of higher baseline ED and lower baseline peanut-specific IgE as most predictive of higher Month 12 ED. For the majority of treated subjects, patch detachment did not impact treatment response. A minority of subjects, highly sensitive to peanut at baseline, had lower prespecified responder rates and higher patch detachment rates, yet still benefited from treatment based upon fold-changes in ED.

Peanut-specific type 1 regulatory T cells induced in vitro from allergic subjects are functionally impaired.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy (PA) is a life-threatening condition that lacks regulator-approved treatment. Regulatory T type 1 (TR1) cells are potent suppressors of immune responses and can be induced in vivo upon repeated antigen exposure or in vitro by using tolerogenic dendritic cells. Whether oral immunotherapy (OIT) leads to antigen-specific TR1 cell induction has not been established. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether peanut-specific TR1 cells can be generated in vitro from peripheral blood of patients with PA at baseline or during OIT and whether they are functional compared with peanut-specific TR1 cells induced from healthy control (HC) subjects. METHODS: Tolerogenic dendritic cells were differentiated in the presence of IL-10 from PBMCs of patients with PA and HC subjects pulsed with the main peanut allergens of Arachis hypogaea, Ara h 1 and 2, and used as antigen-presenting cells for autologous CD4+ T cells (CD4+ T cells coincubated with tolerogenic dendritic cells pulsed with the main peanut allergens [pea-T10 cells]). Pea-T10 cells were characterized by the presence of CD49b+ lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG3)+ TR1 cells, antigen-specific proliferative responses, and cytokine production. RESULTS: CD49b+LAG3+ TR1 cells were induced in pea-T10 cells at comparable percentages from HC subjects and patients with PA. Despite their antigen specificity, pea-T10 cells of patients with PA with or without OIT, as compared with those of HC subjects, were not anergic and had high TH2 cytokine production upon peanut-specific restimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Peanut-specific TR1 cells can be induced from HC subjects and patients with PA, but those from patients with PA are functionally defective independent of OIT. The unfavorable TR1/TH2 ratio is discussed as a possible cause of PA TR1 cell impairment.