Omalizumab for the Treatment of Multiple Food Allergies.

BACKGROUND: Food allergies are common and are associated with substantial morbidity; the only approved treatment is oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. METHODS: In this trial, we assessed whether omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective and safe as monotherapy in patients with multiple food allergies. Persons 1 to 55 years of age who were allergic to peanuts and at least two other trial-specified foods (cashew, milk, egg, walnut, wheat, and hazelnut) were screened. Inclusion required a reaction to a food challenge of 100 mg or less of peanut protein and 300 mg or less of the two other foods. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive omalizumab or placebo administered subcutaneously (with the dose based on weight and IgE levels) every 2 to 4 weeks for 16 to 20 weeks, after which the challenges were repeated. The primary end point was ingestion of peanut protein in a single dose of 600 mg or more without dose-limiting symptoms. The three key secondary end points were the consumption of cashew, of milk, and of egg in single doses of at least 1000 mg each without dose-limiting symptoms. The first 60 participants (59 of whom were children or adolescents) who completed this first stage were enrolled in a 24-week open-label extension. RESULTS: Of the 462 persons who were screened, 180 underwent randomization. The analysis population consisted of the 177 children and adolescents (1 to 17 years of age). A total of 79 of the 118 participants (67%) receiving omalizumab met the primary end-point criteria, as compared with 4 of the 59 participants (7%) receiving placebo (P<0.001). Results for the key secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end point (cashew, 41% vs. 3%; milk, 66% vs. 10%; egg, 67% vs. 0%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Safety end points did not differ between the groups, aside from more injection-site reactions in the omalizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In persons as young as 1 year of age with multiple food allergies, omalizumab treatment for 16 weeks was superior to placebo in increasing the reaction threshold for peanut and other common food allergens. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03881696.).

Phase 3 Trial of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Toddlers with Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).

Desensitization and remission after peanut sublingual immunotherapy in 1- to 4-year-old peanut-allergic children: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have suggested a potential advantage with younger age at treatment initiation. OBJECTIVE: We studied the safety and efficacy of SLIT for peanut allergy in 1- to 4-year-old children. METHODS: Peanut-allergic 1- to 4-year-old children were randomized to receive 4 mg peanut SLIT versus placebo. Desensitization was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 36 months of treatment. Participants desensitized to at least 443 mg peanut protein discontinued therapy for 3 months and then underwent DBPCFC to assess for remission. Biomarkers were measured at baseline and longitudinally during treatment. RESULTS: Fifty participants (25 peanut SLIT, 25 placebo) with a median age of 2.4 years were enrolled across 2 sites. The primary end point of desensitization was met with actively treated versus placebo participants having a significantly greater median cumulative tolerated dose (4443 mg vs 143 mg), higher likelihood of passing the month 36 DBPCFC (60% vs 0), and higher likelihood of demonstrating remission (48% vs 0). The highest rate of desensitization and remission was seen in 1- to 2-year-olds, followed by 2- to 3-year-olds and 3- to 4-year-olds. Longitudinal changes in peanut skin prick testing, peanut-specific IgG4, and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio were seen in peanut SLIT but not placebo participants. Oropharyngeal itching was more commonly reported by peanut SLIT than placebo participants. Skin, gastrointestinal, upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and multisystem adverse events were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Peanut SLIT safely induces desensitization and remission in 1- to 4-year-old children, with improved outcomes seen with younger age at initiation.

Food allergies on a college campus.

There are limited data on food allergies among college students. In this article, we review the most current available studies. These self-reported surveys and qualitative interviews reported overall poor avoidance of known allergens and low rates of carrying self-injectable epinephrine among students with food allergy. College students may exhibit risk-taking food behaviors due to a number of factors, including age-appropriate risk-taking predilection, strong social influences, and lack of experience in self-advocacy. Having to disclose an otherwise invisible condition repeatedly in a new environment may also lead to "disclosure fatigue," creating an additional barrier to self-advocacy. Common themes in the narrative include hypervigilance, stigma management, and concern about others' misunderstanding of food allergy. Although there is a paucity of data in this area, it is likely that having greater support at the institution level, along with support from peers and faculty, may help improve awareness, self-injectable epinephrine carriage, and allergen avoidance. This review also discusses strategies for preparedness at school, including specific steps to maximize safety.

A Review of Shared Decision-Making, Published Protocols, and Post-desensitization Strategies in Oral Immunotherapy (OIT).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use. RECENT FINDINGS: With food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients.

Treatment for food allergy: Current status and unmet needs.

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.

Open-label study of the efficacy, safety, and durability of peanut sublingual immunotherapy in peanut-allergic children.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the efficacy of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are limited. The durability of desensitization after SLIT has not been well described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4-mg peanut SLIT and persistence of desensitization after SLIT discontinuation. METHODS: Challenge-proven peanut-allergic 1- to 11-year-old children were treated with open-label 4-mg peanut SLIT for 48 months. Desensitization after peanut SLIT was assessed by a 5000-mg double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). A novel randomly assigned avoidance period of 1 to 17 weeks was followed by the DBPCFC. Skin prick test results immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation test results, TH1, TH2, and IL-10 cytokines were measured longitudinally. Safety was assessed through patient-reported home diaries. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants were enrolled and 47 (87%) completed peanut SLIT and the 48-month DBPCFC per protocol. The mean successfully consumed dose (SCD) during the DBPCFC increased from 48 to 2723 mg of peanut protein after SLIT (P < .0001), with 70% achieving clinically significant desensitization (SCD > 800 mg) and 36% achieving full desensitization (SCD = 5000 mg). Modeled median time to loss of clinically significant desensitization was 22 weeks. Peanut skin prick test; peanut-specific IgE, IgG4, and IgG4/IgE ratio; and peanut-stimulated basophil activation test, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IFN-γ, and IL-10 changed significantly compared with baseline, with changes seen as early as 6 months. Median rate of reaction per dose was 0.5%, with transient oropharyngeal itching being the most common, and there were no dosing symptoms requiring epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label, prospective study, peanut SLIT was safe and induced clinically significant desensitization in most of the children, lasting more than 17 weeks after discontinuation of therapy.

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.

A clinical focus on oral tolerance in the development, prevention, and management of food allergy.

Food allergy impacts up to 10 % of the population and can result in life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. The pathogenesis of food allergy is not entirely understood but the disruption in naturally occurring oral tolerance is presumed to be involved. Research has been directed not only toward prevention of food allergy but on the restoration of oral tolerance by various means including immunotherapy (oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous), as well as adjunctive therapies including biologicals and probiotics. This review paper briefly discusses the involvement of oral tolerance in the pathogenesis of food allergy and how food allergy might be prevented; however, the main focus is on the potential for restoration of oral tolerance with various treatment modalities (oral immunotherapy with and without adjunctive therapies).

Kinetics of basophil hyporesponsiveness during short-course peanut oral immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) leads to suppression of mast cell and basophil degranulation along with changes in the adaptive immune response. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine how rapidly these effects occur during OIT and more broadly, the kinetics of basophil and mast cell suppression throughout the course of therapy. METHODS: Twenty participants, age 4 to 12 years, were enrolled in a peanut OIT trial and assessed for desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness after 9 months of therapy. Blood was collected 5 times in the first month and then intermittently throughout to quantify immunoglobulins and assess basophil activation by CD63, CD203c, and phosphorylated SYK (pSYK). RESULTS: Twelve of 16 participants that completed the trial were desensitized after OIT, with 9 achieving sustained unresponsiveness after discontinuing OIT for 4 weeks. Basophil hyporesponsiveness, defined by lower CD63 expression, was detected as early as day 90. pSYK was correlated with CD63 expression, and there was a significant decrease in pSYK by day 250. CD203c expression remained unchanged throughout therapy. Interestingly, although basophil activation was decreased across the cohort during OIT, basophil activation did not correlate with individual clinical outcomes. Serum peanut-specific IgG4 and IgA increased throughout therapy, whereas IgE remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Suppression of basophil activation occurs within the first 90 days of peanut OIT, ultimately leading to suppression of signaling through pSYK.

Updating the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is promising as an efficacious treatment for food allergy. Other food allergy treatments are also under development. However, adverse allergic events during treatment, as well as during oral food challenges, are common and reporting is not standardized. OBJECTIVE: A more nuanced grading scale is needed to create a comprehensive and universal system to categorize adverse events and their severity for food allergy clinical trials. METHODS: Starting with the 2012 Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale and the World Allergy Organization Grading System, we developed the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions, Version 3.0, in collaboration with industry partners with expert opinion. RESULTS: The revised CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions has 5 levels of increasing severity, ranging from generalized urticaria, localized angioedema, rhinitis, and abdominal pain (grade 1) to death (grade 5). Systemic reactions are further categorized within each grade by relevant organ system. Mild, single-system reactions are differentiated from mild, multisystem reactions. Lower respiratory tract symptoms are graded on the basis of response to therapy; those that are refractory to standard treatment (eg, requiring >3 doses of intramuscular epinephrine, continuous intravenous epinephrine infusion, and continuous albuterol nebulization) and respiratory compromise requiring mechanical ventilation are classified as grade 4, life-threatening reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Universal and consistent use of the revised CoFAR Grading Scale beyond the CoFAR centers would allow for better data aggregation and safety comparisons in clinical trials for food allergy.

Allergen-specific T cells and clinical features of food allergy: Lessons from CoFAR immunotherapy cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific IL-4+ and IL-13+ CD4+ cells (type 2 cells) are essential for helping B cells to class-switch to IgE and establishing an allergic milieu in the gastrointestinal tract. The role of T cells in established food allergy is less clear. OBJECTIVE: We examined the food allergen-specific T-cell response in participants of 2 food allergen immunotherapy trials to assess the relationship of the T-cell response to clinical phenotypes, including response to immunotherapy. METHODS: Blood was obtained from 84 participants with peanut allergy and 142 participants with egg allergy who underwent double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges. Peanut- and egg-responsive T cells were identified by CD154 upregulation after stimulation with the respective extract. Intracellular cytokines and chemokine receptors were also detected. The response to peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy (Peanut Epicutaneous Phase II Immunotherapy Clinical Trial [CoFAR6]; 49 participants receiving epicutaneous immunotherapy) and egg oral immunotherapy or a baked egg diet (Baked Egg or Egg Oral Immunotherapy for Children With Egg Allergy [CoFAR7]; 92 participants) was monitored over time. RESULTS: Peanut-specific type 2 and CCR6+ T cells were negatively correlated with each other and differently associated with immune parameters, including specific IgE level and basophil activation test result. At baseline, type 2 cells, but not CCR6+ cells, were predictive of clinical parameters, including a successfully consumed dose of peanut and baked egg tolerance. Exposure to peanut or egg immunotherapy was associated with a decrease in type 2 cell frequency. At baseline, high egg-specific type 2 cell frequency was the immune feature most predictive of oral immunotherapy failure. CONCLUSION: Food-specific type 2 T cells at baseline are informative of threshold of reactivity and response to immunotherapy.

Effective methods of clinical education.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview of key points and helpful tips related to engaging learners in different medical education settings, including the virtual education environment. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar for articles and review papers on the topic of medical education. STUDY SELECTIONS: There was a focus on articles that reviewed best practices on a variety of topics related to medical education. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy for treatment of peanut allergy: Follow-up from the Consortium for Food Allergy Research.

BACKGROUND: Consortium for Food Allergy Research investigators previously reported 52-week outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy, observing modest and statistically significant induction of desensitization, highest in children ages 4 to 11 years. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate changes in efficacy, safety, and mechanistic parameters following extended open-label peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy. METHODS: Peanut-allergic participants (4-25 years) received 52 weeks of placebo (PLB), Viaskin Peanut 100 µg (VP100) or 250 µg (VP250), and then crossed over to VP250 for PLB (PLB-VP250) and VP100 (VP100-VP250) participants and continued treatment for VP250 participants (total = 130 weeks of active epicutaneous immunotherapy). Efficacy was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (5044 mg peanut protein), and adherence, safety, and mechanistic parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: At week 130, desensitization success was achieved in 1 of 20 (5%) PLB-VP250, 5 of 24 (20.8%) VP100-VP250, and 9 of 25 (36%) VP250 participants, with median successfully consumed dose change from baseline of 11.5 mg, 141.5 mg, and 400 mg, respectively. Median age (years) for week 130 desensitization success was 6.2 years (interquartile range, 5.2-9.1) versus 9.4 years (interquartile range, 7.6-12.8) for failures (P < .001). Adherence was 96%. Adverse reactions were predominantly local patch-site reactions. Significant increases in peanut- and Ara h2-specific IgG4 observed at week 52 persisted to week 130. By a post hoc analysis, there were no statistically significant increases from week 52 to week 130 in either desensitization success or successfully consumed dose. CONCLUSIONS: Extended treatment with VP250 was well tolerated, and desensitization observed at week 52 persisted between weeks 52 and 130. Treatment success was observed predominantly in younger participants, with younger age at initiation of active therapy an important predictor of success.

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 .).

Mechanisms of oral immunotherapy.

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 (TH 2) 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.

Induction of sustained unresponsiveness after egg oral immunotherapy compared to baked egg therapy in children with egg allergy.

BACKGROUND: While desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness (SU) have been shown with egg oral immunotherapy (OIT), the benefits of baked egg (BE) therapy for egg allergy have not been well studied. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BE ingestion compared with egg OIT in participants allergic to unbaked egg but tolerant to BE. METHODS: Children who are BE-tolerant but unbaked egg reactive ages 3 to 16 years were randomized to 2 years of treatment with either BE or egg OIT. Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges were conducted after 1 and 2 years of treatment to assess for desensitization, and after 2 years of treatment followed by 8 to 10 weeks off of treatment to assess for SU. Mechanistic studies were conducted to assess for immune modulation. A cohort of participants who are BE-reactive underwent egg OIT and identical double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges as a comparator group. RESULTS: Fifty participants (median age 7.3 years) were randomized and initiated treatment. SU was achieved in 3 of 27 participants assigned to BE (11.1%) versus 10 of 23 participants assigned to egg OIT (43.5%) (P = .009). In the BE-reactive comparator group, 7 of 39 participants (17.9%) achieved SU. More participants who are BE-tolerant withdrew from BE versus from egg OIT (29.6% vs 13%). Dosing symptom frequency in participants who are BE-tolerant was similar with BE and egg OIT, but more frequent in participants who are BE-reactive. Egg white-specific IgE, skin testing, and basophil activation decreased similarly after BE and egg OIT. CONCLUSIONS: Among children allergic to unbaked egg but tolerant to BE, those treated with egg OIT were significantly more likely to achieve SU than were children ingesting BE.

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.

Food allergy immunotherapy: Oral immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy.

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.

Evaluation of daily patch application duration for epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy.

Background: Epicutaneous immunotherapy is a potential novel immunotherapy that utilizes unique cutaneous immunologic properties. In a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trial, an epicutaneous patch (DBV712) with 250 µg of peanut protein applied once daily for 12-months was statistically superior to placebo in desensitizing children with peanut allergy (ages 4-11 years) (N = 356). Objective: To assess the relationship between the hours of daily application time and the efficacy of DBV712 250 µg. Methods: DBV712 250 µg was applied to 30 nonallergic volunteers for various durations from 2 to 24 hours and then assayed for residual peanut protein. Patch application data from the phase III clinical trial were analyzed post hoc according to prespecified responder rates and changes in the eliciting dose (ED), as measured by the geometric mean (GM) ED ratio (12 months/baseline). Results: Following application, there was a marked decrease in peanut protein on the patches from 2 to 12 hours. After 12 hours, the median peanut protein recovered was below quantification limits. The median daily patch application duration in subjects from the phase III clinical trial was 21.1 hours (DBV712 250 µg) and 22.4 hours (placebo). Ninety-five percent of the treated population achieved >10 hours per day mean application. Response rates and GM ED ratios were similar among subjects across a range of application durations; e.g., in those with a mean duration of >10 hours, the response rate was 36.6% and the GM ED ratio was 3.8, comparable with 42.6% and 4.0, respectively, in those with a mean duration of >20 hours. In DBV712 250 µg subjects with >16 hours mean application duration (84.5% of the treated population), the response rate was 38.8% versus 13.4% for placebo (difference, 24.4% [95% confidence interval, 15.5-34.0%]; p < 0.001). Conclusion: An evaluation of residual peanut protein on patches following application and post hoc analysis of phase III data strongly suggest that allergen delivery is attained with 12-16 hours of daily patch application time, sufficient to drive clinically meaningful desensitization to peanut after 12 months.