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.).

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.

The Future of Food Allergy Management: Advancements in Therapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review current and future treatment options for IgE-mediated food allergy. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent years have seen major developments in both allergen-specific and allergen-non-specific treatment options, with the first FDA-approved peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) product becoming available in 2020. In addition to OIT, other immunotherapy modalities, biologics, adjunct therapies, and novel therapeutics are under investigation. Food allergy is a potentially life-threatening condition associated with a significant psychosocial impact. Numerous products and protocols are under investigation, with most studies focusing on OIT. A high rate of adverse events, need for frequent office visits, and cost remain challenges with OIT. Further work is needed to unify outcome measures, develop treatment protocols that minimize adverse events, establish demographic and clinical factors that influence candidate selection, and identify patient priorities.

Current and future treatments for peanut allergy.

Peanut allergy (PA) is a common, burdensome childhood disease that in most patients continues into adulthood and has historically been untreatable. However, peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) is increasingly being incorporated into allergy practices, using both the first FDA-approved product, PTAH (previously AR101; Palforzia™, Aimmune Therapeutics), as well as store-bought peanut products. POIT in preschoolers continues to gain more acceptance as evidence accrues that it is a safe and feasible approach that may have distinct advantages. There are many new therapeutic interventions currently under study with a variety of different approaches and potential mechanisms. With respect to other forms of immunotherapy, none are currently approved, but the epicutaneous approach is the most well-studied and others are being actively investigated, including sublingual, subcutaneous, and intralymphatic. Biologics are gaining evidence both as adjunctive treatments to POIT and as monotherapy. Omalizumab is the most widely studied biologic for PA but others also have potential. Looking ahead to a future therapeutic landscape of choice, allergists will need to understand each patient's goal of treatment through shared decision-making and fully evaluate the risks, benefits, and alternatives of each new therapy.

Social determinants of health influence preschool and caregiver experiences during symptoms and exacerbations of wheezing.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health have been inadequately studied in preschool children with wheezing and their caregivers but may influence the care received. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the symptom and exacerbation experiences of wheezing preschool children and their caregivers, stratified by risk of social vulnerability, over 1 year of longitudinal follow-up. METHODS: A total of 79 caregivers and their preschool children with recurrent wheezing and at least 1 exacerbation in the previous year were stratified by a composite measure of social vulnerability into "low" (N = 19), "intermediate" (N = 27), and "high" (N = 33) risk groups. Outcome measures at the follow-up visits included child respiratory symptom scores, asthma control, caregiver-reported outcome measures of mental and social health, exacerbations, and health care utilization. The severity of exacerbations reflected by symptom scores and albuterol use and exacerbation-related caregiver quality of life were also assessed. RESULTS: Preschool children at high risk of social vulnerability had greater day-to-day symptom severity and more severe symptoms during acute exacerbations. High-risk caregivers were also distinguished by lower general life satisfaction at all visits and lower global and emotional quality of life during acute exacerbations which did not improve with exacerbation resolution. Rates of exacerbation or emergency department visits did not differ, but intermediate- and high-risk families were significantly less likely to seek unscheduled outpatient care. CONCLUSION: Social determinants of health influence wheezing outcomes in preschool children and their caregivers. These findings argue for routine assessment of social determinants of health during medical encounters and tailored interventions in high-risk families to promote health equity and improve respiratory outcomes.

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.

Safety of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp in children and teenagers with peanut allergy: Pooled summary of phase 3 and extension trials.

BACKGROUND: Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH; previously known as AR101) is a daily oral immunotherapy approved to mitigate allergic reactions after accidental peanut exposure in peanut-allergic individuals aged 4-17 years. OBJECTIVE: We sought to comprehensively summarize the PTAH safety profile for up to ∼2 years of treatment. METHODS: Safety and adverse event (AE) data from participants aged 4-17 years from 3 controlled, phase 3 and 2 open-label extension trials were pooled and assessed. RESULTS: Of the 944 individuals receiving ≥1 PTAH dose, median exposure was ∼49 weeks; most participants experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE (TRAE; n = 853; 90.4%). A total of 829 participants experienced TRAEs with a maximum severity of mild (497, 52.6%) or moderate (332, 35.2%); 24 participants (2.5%) experienced TRAEs graded as severe. Overall, 80 participants (9.5%) discontinued as a result of AEs; most experienced gastrointestinal symptoms and discontinued during the first 6 months. When adjusted for exposure, AEs and TRAEs occurred at a rate of 76.4 and 58.7 events per participant-year of exposure (PYE), respectively, during updosing; AEs and TRAEs decreased to 23.0 and 14.2, respectively, during 300 mg maintenance. Overall, exposure-adjusted rates of systemic allergic reactions were 0.12 events/PYE (mild), 0.11 events/PYE (moderate), and 0.01 events/PYE (severe [anaphylaxis]). CONCLUSION: The safety profile of PTAH was consistent across trials, manageable, and improved over time. AEs were predominantly mild to moderate, and all grades declined in frequency with continued treatment. These data can be used to facilitate shared decision-making discussions with patients and families considering treatment with PTAH.

A systematic review of parent report measures assessing the psychosocial impact of food allergy on patients and families.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the psychosocial impact of food allergy (FA) represents a top patient-centered research priority. This priority recognizes that psychosocial impact is an important outcome of current FA therapies (eg, oral immunotherapy), as well as interventions aimed at improving overall quality of life and illness adaptation. Reliable and valid measurement is a necessary prerequisite to developing and evaluating current and emerging FA therapies and potential changes in psychosocial impact. METHODS: In this systematic review, we applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to evaluate available parent report measures assessing the psychosocial impact of pediatric IgE-mediated FA. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 64 articles involving 13 unique measures. Measures were evaluated through the lens of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) guidelines. Findings indicated that available measures show some evidence of reliability and validity; however, none completely adhere to PROMIS guidelines for measure development. CONCLUSION: Results highlight a continued need to dedicate research to develop a measurement approach that assesses the full range of psychosocial impact that parents and families may experience as a result of FA, as well as serve as a research outcome as the field continues to develop effective treatments, including immunotherapy.

Oral desensitization therapy for peanut allergy induces dynamic changes in peanut-specific immune responses.

BACKGROUND: The PALISADE study, an international, phase 3 trial of peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) with AR101, resulted in desensitization in children and adolescents who were highly allergic to peanut. An improved understanding of the immune mechanism induced in response to food allergen immunotherapy would enable more informed and effective therapeutic strategies. Our main purpose was to examine the immunological changes in blood samples from a subset of peanut-allergic individuals undergoing oral desensitization immunotherapy with AR101. METHODS: Blood samples obtained as part of enrollment screening and at multiple time points during PALISADE study were used to assess basophil and CD4+ T-cell reactivity to peanut. RESULTS: The absence of clinical reactivity to the entry double-blinded placebo-controlled peanut challenge (DBPCFC) was accompanied by a significantly lower basophil sensitivity and T-cell reactivity to peanut compared with DBPCFC reactors. At baseline, peanut-reactive TH2A cells were observed in many but not all peanut-allergic patients and their level in peripheral blood correlates with T-cell reactivity to peanut and with serum peanut-specific IgE and IgG4 levels. POIT reshaped circulating peanut-reactive T-cell responses in a subset-dependent manner. Changes in basophil and T-cell responses to peanut closely paralleled clinical benefits to AR101 therapy and resemble responses in those with lower clinical sensitivity to peanut. However, no difference in peanut-reactive Treg cell frequency was observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Oral desensitization therapy with AR101 leads to decreased basophil sensitivity to peanut and reshapes peanut-reactive T effector cell responses supporting its potential as an immunomodulatory therapy.

Open-label follow-on study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and quality of life with extended daily oral immunotherapy in children with peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of daily administration of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Allergen Powder-dnfp (PTAH)-formerly AR101-has been established in clinical trials, but limited data past the first year of treatment are available. This longitudinal analysis aimed to explore the impact of continued PTAH therapeutic maintenance dosing (300 mg/day) on efficacy, safety/tolerability, and food allergy-related quality of life. METHODS: We present a subset analysis of PALISADE-ARC004 participants (aged 4-17 years) who received 300 mg PTAH daily for a total of ~1.5 (Group A, n = 110) or ~2 years (Group B, n = 32). Safety assessments included monitoring the incidence of adverse events (AEs), accidental exposures to food allergens, and adrenaline use. Efficacy was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC); skin prick testing; peanut-specific antibody assays; and Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire (FAQLQ) and Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM) scores. RESULTS: Continued maintenance with PTAH increased participants' ability to tolerate peanut protein: 48.1% of completers in Group A (n = 50/104) and 80.8% in Group B (n = 21/26) tolerated 2000 mg peanut protein at exit DBPCFC without dose-limiting symptoms. Immune biomarkers showed a pattern consistent with treatment-induced desensitization. Among PTAH-continuing participants, the overall and treatment-related exposure-adjusted AE rate decreased throughout the intervention period in both groups. Clinically meaningful improvements in FAQLQ and FAIM scores over time suggest a potential link between increased desensitization as determined by the DBPCFC and improved quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that daily PTAH treatment for peanut allergy beyond 1 year leads to an improved safety/tolerability profile and continued clinical and immunological response.

Participant characteristics and safety outcomes of peanut oral immunotherapy in the RAMSES and ARC011 trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials (PALISADE [ARC003], ARTEMIS [ARC010]) proving efficacy and safety of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH) have used double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) to screen for eligibility and to evaluate efficacy. In routine clinical practice, individuals with peanut allergy do not always undergo food challenges to confirm diagnosis or determine candidacy for treatment. OBJECTIVE: To describe PTAH safety and tolerability in participants selected by clinical history and peanut sensitization parameters not undergoing DBPCFCs during trials and to compare findings with previously published data. METHODS: RAMSES (ARC007) was a 6-month, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in children aged 4 to 17 years with physician-confirmed peanut allergy. ARC011 was the subsequent 6-month follow-on maintenance PTAH study. The primary end point for RAMSES and ARC011 was the frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs). We descriptively compared baseline characteristics and safety outcomes from RAMSES and ARC011 to participants undergoing DBPCFCs in phase 3 PALISADE and ARTEMIS trials. RESULTS: In 506 patients randomized to study treatment, baseline characteristics appeared balanced among groups. Proportion of participants with at least 1 AE was 55% for PTAH vs 33.9% for placebo during initial dose escalation and 98.8% vs 94.0% during updosing, respectively. Most participants with AEs had mild or moderate events. The most common AEs were gastrointestinal. Comparisons to pooled PALISADE and ARTEMIS data revealed higher baseline median peanut-specific immunoglobulin E and skin prick test values for RAMSES participants. Safety outcomes during trial periods were comparable. CONCLUSION: Safety data from clinically selected children with peanut allergy receiving PTAH do not seem different from those in phase 3 trials requiring DBPCFC to enter trials.

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 .).

The use of biologics in food allergy.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy continues to pose problems due to its increased frequency and its increasingly high severity. In this context, alongside the traditional avoidance strategies of allergenic foods and desensitization through the cautious progression of exposure to foods in the context of oral immunotherapy (OIT), alternative strategies have made their way in the last decades. We review the possibilities of intervention in food allergy with the use of biological drugs capable of interfering with the synthesis of IgE, with their mechanisms of action, or with complex biological mechanisms that lead to the establishment of a food allergy. METHODS: Repeated Entrez PubMed searches using the template algorithm "Food allergy" and "biologics" or "Omalizumab" or "Dupilumab" or "milk desensitization" or "oral tolerance induction" or "oral immunotherapy" or "Etokimab" or "Tezepelumab" or "Quilizumab" or "Ligelizumab" or "Tralokinumab" or "Nemolizumab" or "Mepolizumab" or "Reslizumab" or "Benralizumab". The authors' clinical experience in paediatric allergy units of University hospitals was also drawn upon. RESULTS: The landscape in this context has changed dramatically over the past 10 years. We have acquired knowledge mainly on the effect of different types of anti-IgE treatments in poliallergic patients with food allergy, and in patients treated with OIT. However, other mediators are being targeted by specific biologic treatments. Among them, the alarmins Il-33 and TSLP, IL-4 and IL-13, eosinophil-related molecules as IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, and mostly IL-5, and integrins involved in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs), as SIGLEC-8. CONCLUSIONS: The ever-better knowledge of the mechanisms of food allergy allowing these developments will improve not only the perspective of patients with the most serious immediate food allergies such as anaphylaxis, but also those of patients with related diseases such as atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and EGIDs. Biologics are also intended to complement OIT strategies that have developed over the years.

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.

Evaluating primary end points in peanut immunotherapy clinical trials.

Food immunotherapy has been the focus of several allergy research initiatives over the last decade. Although many questions remain unanswered, the evidence suggests that this treatment might be available in the near future outside clinical trials. Additionally, pharmaceutical companies, in light of promising early-stage results, have shown interest in developing commercially available products, thus increasing the likelihood that new immunotherapy treatments will be introduced, especially for peanut allergy. Given this optimistic scenario and given the prospect of rigorously developed products for peanut allergy treatment, each allergist will need to understand the specificities of these treatments and their expected efficacy and adverse event profiles. Thus it is imperative that allergists understand the differences in efficacy between the different management options, as well as how the end points are measured in the relevant literature. However, given the significant heterogeneity detected among food immunotherapy trials, this task might not be as straightforward as desired. This article aims to dissect how primary efficacy end points are defined and assessed to facilitate understanding of the design of these trials and the potential effect that this variation might have on the reported outcomes.

Genetic variants at the 16p13 locus confer risk for eosinophilic esophagitis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus triggered by immune hypersensitivity to food. Herein, we tested whether genetic risk factors for known, non-allergic, immune-mediated diseases, particularly those involving autoimmunity, were associated with EoE risk. We used the high-density Immunochip platform, encoding 200,000 genetic variants for major auto-immune disease. Accordingly, 1214 subjects with EoE of European ancestry and 3734 population controls were genotyped and assessed using data directly generated or imputed from the previously published GWAS. We found lack of association of EoE with the genetic variants in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I, II, and III genes and nearly all other loci using a highly powered study design with dense genotyping throughout the locus. Importantly, we identified an EoE risk locus at 16p13 with genome-wide significance (Pcombined=2.05 × 10-9, odds ratio = 0.76-0.81). This region is known to encode for the genes CLEC16A, DEXI, and CIITI, which are expressed in immune cells and esophageal epithelial cells. Suggestive EoE risk were also seen 5q23 (intergenic) and 7p15 (JAZF1). Overall, we have identified an additional EoE risk locus at 16p13 and highlight a shared and unique genetic etiology of EoE with a spectrum of immune-associated diseases.

High- and low-dose oral immunotherapy similarly suppress pro-allergic cytokines and basophil activation in young children.

BACKGROUND: Mechanisms underlying oral immunotherapy (OIT) are unclear and the effects on immune cells at varying maintenance doses are unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the immunologic changes caused by peanut OIT in preschool aged children and determine the effect on these immune responses in groups ingesting low or high-dose peanut OIT (300 mg or 3000 mg, respectively) as maintenance therapy. METHODS: Blood was drawn at several time-points throughout the OIT protocol and PBMCs isolated and cultured with peanut antigens. Secreted cytokines were quantified via multiplex assay, whereas Treg and peanut-responsive CD4 T cells were studied with flow cytometry. Basophil activation assays were also conducted. RESULTS: Th2-, Th1-, Th9- and Tr1-type cytokines decreased over the course of OIT in groups on high- and low-dose OIT. There were no significant differences detected in cytokine changes between the high- and low-dose groups. The initial increase in both the number of peanut-responsive CD4 T cells and the number of Tregs was transient and no significant differences were found between groups. Basophil activation following peanut stimulation was decreased over the course of OIT and associated with increased peanut-IgG4/IgE ratios. No differences were found between high- and low-dose groups in basophil activation at the time of desensitization or sustained unresponsiveness oral food challenges. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Peanut OIT leads to decreases in pro-allergic cytokines, including IL-5, IL-13, and IL-9 and decreased basophil activation. No differences in T cell or basophil responses were found between subjects on low or high-dose maintenance OIT, which has implications for clinical dosing strategies.

IgE binding to linear epitopes of Ara h 2 in peanut allergic preschool children undergoing oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: For patients with peanut allergy, there are currently no methods to predict who will develop sustained unresponsiveness (SU) after oral immunotherapy (OIT). OBJECTIVE: Assess IgE binding to peanut (PN), Ara h 2, and specific linear epitopes of Ara h 2 as predictors of the important clinical parameters: eliciting dose threshold and attainment of SU following OIT. METHODS: Samples and clinical data were collected from children undergoing OIT. PN- and Ara h 2-sIgE were quantified by ImmunoCAP® . IgE binding to linear peptides of Ara h 2 and Ara h 6 was measured with peptide microarrays. RESULTS: Values of PN-sIgE correlated with eliciting dose (P = .001) and with a higher likelihood of achieving SU (P < .0001), but these relationships were lost at higher values for PN-sIgE (≥14 kIU for eliciting dose and ≥35 kIU/L for SU). In subjects with PN-sIgE ≥ 14 kIU/L, binding of IgE to epitopes 5 and 6 of Ara h 2 was associated with a lower eliciting dose at baseline challenge (P < .001; Pc  < .02). In subjects with PN-sIgE ≥ 35 kIU/L, a combined model of IgE binding to epitopes 1, 5 and 6 with PN-sIgE was highly predictive of attainment of SU (AUC of 0.86; P = .0067). CONCLUSION: In young patients with peanut allergy, measurement of PN-sIgE and IgE binding to specific linear epitopes of Ara h 2 in baseline samples may allow stratification of patients regarding sensitivity to challenge and outcome of OIT.