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.).

A systematic review and expert Delphi Consensus recommendation on the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab: A position paper of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the interleukin (IL)-4 receptor alpha subunit, thus blocking the effects of IL-4 and IL-13, and has shown efficacy in treating various conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and others. Because of its immune modulatory effects, clinical trials that studied dupilumab did not allow patients to receive live vaccines during the clinical trials because of an abundance of caution, and thus package inserts recommend that patients who are being treated with dupilumab should avoid live vaccines. Because dupilumab is now approved for use in patients from 6 months of age for the treatment of atopic dermatitis, this reported contraindication is now posing a clinical dilemma for patients and clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of literature on the safety and efficacy of vaccinations in patients who are receiving dupilumab and to provide expert guidance on the use of vaccines in patients who are receiving dupilumab. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed, and an expert Delphi Panel was assembled. RESULTS: The available literature on patients who received vaccinations while using dupilumab overall suggests that live vaccines are safe and that the vaccine efficacy, in general, is not affected by dupilumab. The expert Delphi panel agreed that the use of vaccines in patients receiving dupilumab was likely safe and effective. CONCLUSION: Vaccines (including live vaccines) can be administered to patients receiving dupilumab in a shared decision-making capacity.

BT595, a 10% Human Normal Immunoglobulin, for Replacement Therapy of Primary Immunodeficiency Disease: Results of a Subcohort Analysis in Children.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and safety of a new, highly purified 10% IVIg (BT595, Yimmugo®) administered in children with PID. METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, uncontrolled, multicenter Phase III pivotal trial. Among the 67 subjects in the trial were 18 pediatric patients aged 2 to 17 years with diagnosis of PID included in this analysis. They received doses between 0.2 and 0.8 g/kg body weight for approximately 12 months at intervals of either 3 or 4 weeks. Dosage and dosing interval were based on each patient's pre-trial infusion schedule. The rates of acute serious bacterial infections (SBI), secondary efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: No SBI occurred in the pediatric population. Two hundred sixty infusions were administered to the 18 pediatric patients. The mean (SD) IgG trough level was 8.55 (1.67) g/L at baseline and 8.84 (2.17) g/L at the follow-up visit after the last BT595 infusion. At the single infusions respectively, the average mean IgG trough levels ranged between 8.52 and 10.58 g/L. More than 85% of all infusions administered were not associated with any infusional AE (start during or within 72 h post-infusion). None of the severe or serious AEs were related to the investigational medicinal product (IMP). No premedication was used. Thirteen children reached a maximum infusion rate between > 2.0 and 8 mL/kg/h; no AE with an onset during the infusion occurred at these infusion rates. CONCLUSION: BT595 is effective, convenient, well tolerated, and safe for the treatment of children with PID. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2015-003652-52; NCT02810444, registered June 23, 2016.

Immune response evolution in peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children.

BACKGROUND: Epicutaneous immunotherapy with investigational Viaskin™ Peanut 250 µg (DBV712) has demonstrated statistically superior desensitization versus placebo in peanut-allergic children in clinical trials. It is unclear whether serologic biomarkers predict response. METHODS: Serum-specific IgG4 and IgE (whole peanut and components) from subjects enrolled in the phase 3 Efficacy and Safety of Viaskin Peanut in Children With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy study were examined by exploratory univariate and multivariate analyses to determine trajectories and predictors of treatment response, based upon peanut protein eliciting dose (ED) at Month (M) 12 double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge. RESULTS: Among Viaskin Peanut-treated subjects, peanut sIgG4 significantly increased from baseline through M12 and peanut sIgE peaked at M3 and fell below baseline by M12, with sIgG4 and sIgE peanut components mirroring these trajectories. Placebo subjects had no significant changes. By univariate analysis, M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE was higher in treatment responders (p < 0.001) and had highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ED ≥300 mg and ≥1000 mg (AUC 69.5% and 69.9%, respectively). M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE >20.1 predicted M12 ED ≥300 mg (80% positive predictive value). The best performing component was Ara h 1 sIgE <15.7 kUA /L (AUC 66.5%). A multivariate model combining Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had an AUC of 68.2% (ED ≥300 mg) and 67.8% (ED ≥1000 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Peanut sIgG4 rise most clearly differentiated Viaskin Peanut versus placebo subjects. sIgG4/sIgE ratios >20.1 and the combination of Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had moderate ability to predict treatment response and could potentially be useful for clinical monitoring. Additional data are needed to confirm these relationships.

Innovations in the treatment of anaphylaxis: A review of recent data.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current standard of first-line emergency treatment of anaphylaxis is intramuscular (IM) epinephrine, mostly administered through epinephrine autoinjector (EAI) in the outpatient setting. However, undercarriage and underuse of EAIs are common, and delayed epinephrine use is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals have expressed a strong desire for small, needle-free devices and products that would offer improved carriage, ease of use, and more convenient, less invasive routes of epinephrine administration. Novel mechanisms of epinephrine administration are under investigation to help address several recognized EAI limitations. This review explores innovative nasal and oral products under investigation for the outpatient emergency treatment of anaphylaxis. FINDINGS: Human studies of epinephrine administered through nasal epinephrine spray, a nasal powder spray, and a sublingual film have been conducted. Data from these studies indicate promising pharmacokinetic results comparable to those of the standard of outpatient emergency care (0.3-mg EAI) and syringe and needle IM epinephrine administration. Several products have shown maximum plasma concentration values higher than those of the 0.3-mg EAI and manual IM injection, although it remains unclear whether this has clinical relevancy in patient outcomes. Generally, these modalities show comparable time to maximum concentrations. Pharmacodynamic changes observed with these products are comparable to or more robust than those seen with EAI and manual IM injection. SUMMARY: Given comparable or superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results and safety of innovative epinephrine therapies to those of current standards of care, US Food and Drug Administration approval of these products may help address numerous barriers that EAIs present. The ease of use and carriage and favorable safety profiles of needle-free treatments may make them an attractive alternative to patients and caregivers, potentially addressing injection fears, needle-based safety risks, and other reasons for lack of or delayed use.

Yardstick for managing cough, part 1: In adults and adolescent patients older than 14 years of age.

Nationwide statistics in the United States and Australia reveal that cough of undifferentiated duration is the most common complaint for which patients of all ages seek medical care in the ambulatory setting. Management of chronic cough is one of the most common reasons for new patient visits to pulmonologists. Because symptomatic cough is such a common problem and so much has been learned about how to diagnose and treat cough of all durations but especially chronic cough, this 2-part yardstick has been written to review in a practical way the latest evidence-based guidelines most of which have been developed from recent high quality systematic reviews on how best to manage cough of all durations in adults, adolescents, and children. In this manuscript, part 1 of the 2-part series, we provide evidence-based, and expert opinion recommendations on the management of chronic cough in adult and adolescent patients (>14 years of age).

Yardstick for the medical management of chronic rhinosinusitis.

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an inflammatory condition of the paranasal sinuses defined by classic symptoms, imaging findings, or endoscopic findings. There are a growing number of emerging pharmacologic therapies being evaluated to treat patients with CRS, some of which have gained indication status in the United States. There have not been updated treatment guidelines published in the United States however since 2014. This document is meant to serve as an updated expert consensus document for the pharmacologic management of patients with CRS. We review available data focusing on prospective clinical trials on oral and intranasal corticosteroids, nasal irrigation, biologics, antibiotics, and allergy immunotherapy for CRS both with and without nasal polyposis, including specific therapies for aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease-associated CRS and allergic fungal CRS. There are multiple options to treat CRS, and clinicians should be knowledgeable on the efficacy and risks of these available therapies. Allergists-immunologists now have various therapies available to treat patients with CRS.

Infections in Infants with SCID: Isolation, Infection Screening, and Prophylaxis in PIDTC Centers.

PURPOSE: The Primary Immune Deficiency Treatment Consortium (PIDTC) enrolled children with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) in a prospective natural history study of hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) outcomes over the last decade. Despite newborn screening (NBS) for SCID, infections occurred prior to HSCT. This study's objectives were to define the types and timing of infection prior to HSCT in patients diagnosed via NBS or by family history (FH) and to understand the breadth of strategies employed at PIDTC centers for infection prevention. METHODS: We analyzed retrospective data on infections and pre-transplant management in patients with SCID diagnosed by NBS and/or FH and treated with HSCT between 2010 and 2014. PIDTC centers were surveyed in 2018 to understand their practices and protocols for pre-HSCT management. RESULTS: Infections were more common in patients diagnosed via NBS (55%) versus those diagnosed via FH (19%) (p = 0.012). Outpatient versus inpatient management did not impact infections (47% vs 35%, respectively; p = 0.423). There was no consensus among PIDTC survey respondents as to the best setting (inpatient vs outpatient) for pre-HSCT management. While isolation practices varied, immunoglobulin replacement and antimicrobial prophylaxis were more uniformly implemented. CONCLUSION: Infants with SCID diagnosed due to FH had lower rates of infection and proceeded to HSCT more quickly than did those diagnosed via NBS. Pre-HSCT management practices were highly variable between centers, although uses of prophylaxis and immunoglobulin support were more consistent. This study demonstrates a critical need for development of evidence-based guidelines for the pre-HSCT management of infants with SCID following an abnormal NBS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01186913.

The global burden of illness of peanut allergy: A comprehensive literature review.

Peanut allergy (PA) currently affects approximately 2% of the general population of Western nations and may be increasing in prevalence. Patients with PA and their families/caregivers bear a considerable burden of self-management to avoid accidental peanut exposure and to administer emergency medication (adrenaline) if needed. Compared with other food allergies, PA is associated with higher rates of accidental exposure, severe reactions and potentially fatal anaphylaxis. Approximately 7%-14% of patients with PA experience accidental peanut exposure annually, and one-third to one-half may experience anaphylaxis, although fatalities are rare. These risks impose considerably high healthcare utilization and economic costs for patients with PA and restrictions on daily activities. Measures to accommodate patients with PA are often inadequate, with inconsistent standards for food labelling and inadequate safety policies in public establishments such as restaurants and schools. Children with PA are often bullied, resulting in sadness, humiliation and anxiety. These factors cumulatively contribute to significantly reduced health-related quality of life for patients with PA and families/caregivers. Such factors also provide essential context for risk/benefit assessments of new PA therapies. This narrative review comprehensively assessed the various factors comprising the burden of PA.

Pediatrician perspectives on symptom presentation and treatment of acute allergic reactions.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis remains difficult to diagnose and epinephrine underused. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the thoughts of pediatricians regarding when acute allergic reactions constitute anaphylaxis and when epinephrine should be given by conducting an anonymous online survey. METHODS: The survey consisted of 8 case-based scenarios of allergic reactions with the following 2 questions on each case: (1) does this case represent anaphylaxis? and (2) if this patient immediately presented to you, would you treat the patient with epinephrine during the reaction? RESULTS: A total of 1001 responses were analyzed. When assessing all cases combined, there was discordance in whether a case represented anaphylaxis and administration of epinephrine was warranted in 8% of the cases. An average of 5% of all the respondents suggested that the case represented anaphylaxis but would not warrant epinephrine, whereas an average of 3% suggested that the case did not represent anaphylaxis but that epinephrine was warranted. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey reveal that there is discordance among pediatricians on when an allergic reaction is considered anaphylaxis and when epinephrine is warranted. These data highlight the need for continued improvement of the definition of anaphylaxis and continued need for education regarding the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update.

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Anaphylaxis-a 2020 practice parameter update, systematic review, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.

Anaphylaxis is an acute, potential life-threatening systemic allergic reaction that may have a wide range of clinical manifestations. Severe anaphylaxis and/or the need for repeated doses of epinephrine to treat anaphylaxis are risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis. Antihistamines and/or glucocorticoids are not reliable interventions to prevent biphasic anaphylaxis, although evidence supports a role for antihistamine and/or glucocorticoid premedication in specific chemotherapy protocols and rush aeroallergen immunotherapy. Evidence is lacking to support the role of antihistamines and/or glucocorticoid routine premedication in patients receiving low- or iso-osmolar contrast material to prevent recurrent radiocontrast media anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is the first-line pharmacotherapy for uniphasic and/or biphasic anaphylaxis. After diagnosis and treatment of anaphylaxis, all patients should be kept under observation until symptoms have fully resolved. All patients with anaphylaxis should receive education on anaphylaxis and risk of recurrence, trigger avoidance, self-injectable epinephrine education, referral to an allergist, and be educated about thresholds for further care.

Making the GRADE in anaphylaxis management: Toward recommendations integrating values, preferences, context, and shared decision making.

OBJECTIVE: To review GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methods and discuss the clinical application of conditional recommendations in clinical guidelines, specifically in the context of anaphylaxis. DATA SOURCES: Articles that described GRADE, evidence synthesis, evidence to recommendation frameworks, and shared decision making were used to discuss conditional recommendations of the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline. STUDY SELECTIONS: A narrative review detailing concepts of GRADE and approaches to translate conditional recommendations to individualized and contextualized patient care. RESULTS: GRADE methods encourage a nuanced relationship between certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Strength of recommendation must incorporate key factors, including the balance between benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource allocation (costs), with equity, feasibility, and acceptability also often included as considerations. GRADE guidelines provide recommendations that are characterized by directionality (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional). A conditional recommendation is tailored to context and primarily applied through a lens of patient preferences related to the likelihood of outcomes of importance and a shared decision-making approach. Although the 2020 Anaphylaxis GRADE guideline better informs the practice of anaphylaxis prevention through (1) identification and mitigation of risk factors for biphasic anaphylaxis and (2) evaluation of the use of glucocorticoid and/or antihistamine pretreatment, all GRADE recommendations, although directional, are conditional and as such should not be universally applied to every circumstance. CONCLUSION: Clinical guidelines provide an important opportunity to critically appraise evidence and translate evidence to practice. Patients, practitioners, and policy makers should appreciate the strength of recommendation and certainty of evidence and understand how this affects guideline applicability and implementation.

Practical peanut challenges for the clinician.

Background: There is an increasing incidence of peanut allergy in many Westernized countries. Unfortunately, current diagnostic tests that evaluate for sensitization can give false-positive results and may lead to overdiagnosis of peanut allergy. Due to this and to the fact that there are several therapies currently being investigated for the treatment of peanut allergy, it is imperative that practitioners who are caring for patients with food allergy be knowledgeable about and comfortable with performing oral challenges to peanut in nonresearch settings. Methods: Literature review and author experience. Results: This article focused on various aspects of a peanut challenge, including patient selection, contraindications, the location of the challenge, form of the peanut to be fed, the starting and goal doses for the challenge, and practical dosing schedules. It is meant to be a real-world overview for a practicing clinician. Conclusions: Clinicians should be able to perform open peanut challenges in properly selected patients.