Safety of Direct Drug Provocation for the Evaluation of Penicillin Allergy in Low-Risk Adults.

BACKGROUND: About 10% of patients have a penicillin allergy label, but less than 5% of them are actually allergic. Unnecessary penicillin avoidance is associated with serious medical consequences. Given the growing number of these labels, it is imperative that our diagnostic strategy for penicillin allergy be as efficient as possible. The validity of traditionally used skin tests (STs) has been questioned, whereas drug provocation testing (DPT), the criterion standard, without previous ST appears very safe in most cases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of direct DPT without consideration for ST results and the validity of ST in the diagnosis of penicillin allergy. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study without a control group, we recruited patients consulting an allergist for penicillin allergy. Patients underwent ST followed by DPT regardless of ST results. Patients with anaphylaxis to penicillin within the past 5 years or a severe delayed reaction were excluded, as were those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidity. RESULTS: None of the 1002 recruited patients had a serious reaction to DPT. Ten (1.0%) had a mild immediate reaction, of whom only 1 (0.1%) was considered likely IgE-mediated. The positive and negative predictive values of ST for an immediate reaction were 3.6% and 99.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a low-risk adult population reporting penicillin allergy, ST has very poor positive predictive value. Direct DPT without ST is safe and appears to be an ideal diagnostic strategy to remove penicillin allergy labels that could be implemented in first-line practice.

Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy With Viaskin Milk vs Placebo in Children With Cow's Milk Allergy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: No approved treatment exists for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk allergy (CMA), a common childhood food allergy. Objective: To assess dose, efficacy, and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin milk in children with IgE-mediated CMA. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 1/2, 2-part, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging clinical trial in children aged 2 to 17 years with IgE-mediated CMA was conducted between November 2014 through December 2017. It took place at 17 trial sites in the US and Canada. Current CMA was confirmed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at study entry. Part A assessed the short-term safety of 150 µg, 300 µg, or 500 µg of Viaskin milk; part B evaluated the efficacy and safety of the 3 doses vs placebo over 12 months of treatment. Of the 308 screened participants with physician-diagnosed CMA, 198 met eligibility criteria (including an eliciting dose 300 mg or less) and were randomized. Intervention: Safety of Viaskin milk (150-µg, 300-µg, or 500-µg doses) was evaluated over a 3-week period (part A). In part B, 180 additional participants were randomized to receive Viaskin milk at doses of 150 µg, 300 µg, or 500 µg or placebo (1:1:1:1) for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as a 10-fold or more increase in the cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein (reaching at least 144 mg) or a cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein at 1444 mg or more at the month 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Results: A total of 95.5% of the randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 8 [4.17] years; 124 of 198 were male [62.6%]) completed treatment. The highest response rate was observed in participants who received Viaskin milk at the 300-µg dose with 24 of 49 responders (49.0%) overall vs 16 of 53 responders (30.2%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.91-5.41; P = .09), highest in the 2 to 11 years age group (22 of 38 [57.9%] vs 13 of 40 [32.5%]; P = .04). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate application-site reactions. One participant in the 500-µg Viaskin milk dose group experienced treatment-related anaphylaxis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, 12 months of daily epicutaneous immunotherapy with a dose of Viaskin milk at 300 µg was associated with a statistically significant treatment response in 2- to 11-year-old children with IgE-mediated CMA. Treatment-related anaphylaxis and treatment-related discontinuation rates were low. Further research is needed to explore Viaskin milk as a viable treatment option for children with IgE-mediated CMA. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02223182.

Assessment of long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in children with asthma (LIBERTY ASTHMA EXCURSION): an open-label extension study.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab efficacy and safety in children aged 6-11 years with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma were shown in the VOYAGE study-a 52-week, multinational, multicentre, phase 3 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of dupilumab in children with moderate-to-severe asthma who previously participated in the VOYAGE study. METHODS: 365 of 408 children with moderate-to-severe asthma from VOYAGE enrolled in EXCURSION, a 52 week, open-label extension study conducted at 70 centres across 17 countries. 240 children continued with add-on dupilumab (dosed according to bodyweight: 100 mg for those weighing ≤30 kg and 200 mg for those weighing more than 30 kg at EXCURSION baseline) once every 2 weeks administered by subcutaneous injection (dupilumab/dupilumab group) and 125 children on placebo during VOYAGE initiated dupilumab (100 or 200 mg, according to bodyweight), once every 2 weeks administered by subcutaneous injection (placebo/dupilumab group). Following a protocol amendment, for a subset of children weighing 30 kg or less, the dose was changed to 300 mg once every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint for the open-label extension study was the number and proportion of patients with any treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) during the 52-week study period in the overall population (defined as children aged 6-11 years old with moderate-to-severe asthma who previously completed VOYAGE). Statistical analyses were descriptive. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03560466; EXCURSION). FINDINGS: Children who completed VOYAGE were eligible to enrol in EXCURSION between June 21, 2018 and Aug 18, 2020. During EXCURSION, the safety profile and proportion of patients reporting TEAEs were consistent with those observed during the parent study (VOYAGE). In the overall population, 232 (63·6%) of 365 patients experienced at least one TEAE (dupilumab/dupilumab: 147 [61·3%]; placebo/dupilumab: 85 [68·0%]). The most frequently reported TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, pharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract infections. INTERPRETATION: In EXCURSION, long-term treatment with dupilumab was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Tolerability of sublingual versus vestibular allergy immunotherapy tablet administration: A randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Local application site reactions are common with sublingual allergy immunotherapy (AIT)-tablets for the treatment of allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) and occasionally lead to treatment discontinuation. Because of the lower mast cell density in the vestibular mucosa than the sublingual area, vestibular AIT-tablet administration may result in fewer adverse events (AEs). This pilot study evaluated the tolerability of the vestibular administration route of AIT-tablets compared with the sublingual route in adult subjects with AR/C. METHODS: Adults (n = 164) aged 18-65 years with AR/C treated with daily birch pollen, grass pollen, ragweed pollen or house dust mite AIT in tablet form were randomized 1:1 to vestibular or sublingual administration for 28 days, followed by 28 days of sublingual administration only. The primary endpoint was the severity (mild, moderate, severe) of local treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) during the first 28 days of treatment. RESULTS: During the first 28 days, the percentage of subjects in the vestibular and sublingual groups reporting mild TRAEs were 55.6% versus 50.6%, respectively; moderate TRAEs were 27.2% versus 30.1%; and severe TRAEs were 12.3% versus 6.0% (p = .16). In the vestibular group, 95.1% of the subjects experienced at least one TRAE during the first period versus 81.9% in the sublingual group (p = .01) and discontinuation rates due to AEs were higher (12.3% vs. 3.6%). CONCLUSION: The frequencies of subjects experiencing severe TRAEs, at least one TRAE, and discontinuations due to AEs at the initiation of AIT-tablets were numerically higher with vestibular administration than sublingual administration. Sublingual administration should remain the standard of care for subjects treated with AIT-tablets for AR/C.

Once-Daily Oral Berotralstat for Long-Term Prophylaxis of Hereditary Angioedema: The Open-Label Extension of the APeX-2 Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Berotralstat is a first-line, once-daily oral plasma kallikrein inhibitor approved for prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks in patients 12 years or older. OBJECTIVE: This analysis examined the safety and effectiveness of long-term prophylaxis with berotralstat. METHODS: APeX-2 was a phase 3, parallel-group, multicenter trial in patients with HAE caused by C1-inhibitor deficiency (NCT03485911). Part 1 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of 150 and 110 mg of berotralstat over 24 weeks. In part 2, berotralstat-treated patients continued the same treatment, and placebo-treated patients were re-randomized to 150 or 110 mg of berotralstat for 24 weeks. In part 3, all patients were treated with open-label berotralstat at 150 mg, which could be continued for up to an additional 4 years. In part 3, the primary endpoint was long-term safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included HAE attack rates and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Eighty-one patients entered part 3. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 82.7% of patients, with most being mild or moderate in severity. The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, abdominal pain, arthralgia, coronavirus infection, and diarrhea. Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 14.8% of patients, but none were serious. For patients who completed 96 weeks of berotralstat treatment (n = 70), the mean (standard error) change in attack rate from baseline was -2.21 (0.20) attacks/mo. Clinically meaningful improvements in QoL were also observed, with the largest improvements in the functioning domain. CONCLUSION: Berotralstat was generally well tolerated, provided rapid and sustained reductions in HAE attacks and improved QoL over 96 weeks.

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

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

Minimization of ragweed allergy immunotherapy costs through use of the sublingual immunotherapy tablet in Canadian children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergy immunotherapy (AIT), in the form of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with alum-precipitated aqueous extracts, SCIT with a modified ragweed pollen allergen tyrosine adsorbate (MRPATA; Pollinex®-R), or a sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet are options for the treatment of ragweed pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in Canadian children. A cost minimization analysis evaluated the economic implications of the use of the ragweed SLIT-tablet vs SCIT in Canadian children with ragweed ARC. METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was conducted comparing the short ragweed SLIT-tablet, 12 Amb a 1-U, preseasonally with preseasonal ragweed SCIT, annual ragweed SCIT, or MRPATA. The analysis was conducted over a time horizon of 3 years from a public payer perspective in Ontario and Quebec. Resources and costs associated with medication and services of healthcare professionals were considered for each treatment. The resource and cost input values for the model were obtained from published literature and validated by Canadian clinical experts in active allergy practice. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied. Several scenario analyses were conducted to determine the impact of many of the key base case assumptions on the outcomes. RESULTS: Over the total 3-year time horizon, the ragweed SLIT-tablet had a potential cost savings of $900.14 in Ontario and $1023.14 in Quebec when compared with preseasonal ragweed SCIT, of $6613.22 in Ontario and $8750.64 in Quebec when compared with annual ragweed SCIT, and $79.62 in Ontario and $429.49 in Quebec when compared with MRPATA. The ragweed SLIT-tablet had higher drug costs compared with the other AIT options, but lower costs for healthcare professional services. The lower costs for healthcare professional services with the ragweed SLIT-tablet were driven by the need for fewer office visits than SCIT. Scenario analysis indicated that costs were most impacted by including societal costs (e.g., costs associated with patient/caregiver travel and time lost). The potential cost savings of the ragweed SLIT-tablet versus SCIT and MRPATA was maintained in most scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: In this cost minimization analysis, the ragweed SLIT-tablet provided estimated cost savings from a public payer perspective for the treatment of ragweed ARC in Canadian children compared with SCIT or MRPATA.

Simulation-based education to improve management of refractory anaphylaxis in an allergy clinic.

BACKGROUND: High-fidelity simulations based on real-life clinical scenarios have frequently been used to improve patient care, knowledge and teamwork in the acute care setting. Still, they are seldom included in the allergy-immunology curriculum or continuous medical education. Our main goal was to assess if critical care simulations in allergy improved performance in the clinical setting. METHODS: Advanced anaphylaxis scenarios were designed by a panel of emergency, intensive care unit, anesthesiology and allergy-immunology specialists and then adapted for the adult allergy clinic setting. This simulation activity included a first part in the high-fidelity simulation-training laboratory and a second at the adult allergy clinic involving actors and a high-fidelity mannequin. Participants filled out a questionnaire, and qualitative interviews were performed with staff after they had managed cases of refractory anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Four nurses, seven allergy-immunology fellows and six allergy/immunologists underwent the simulation. Questionnaires showed a perceived improvement in aspects of crisis and anaphylaxis management. The in-situ simulation revealed gaps in the process, which were subsequently resolved. Qualitative interviews with participants revealed a more rapid and orderly response and improved confidence in their abilities and that of their colleagues to manage anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: High-fidelity simulations can improve the management of anaphylaxis in the allergy clinic and team confidence. This activity was instrumental in reducing staff reluctance to perform high-risk challenges in the ambulatory setting, thus lifting a critical barrier for implementing oral immunotherapy at our adult center.

Extrapolating Evidence-Based Medicine of AIT Into Clinical Practice in the United States.

Allergy/immunology specialists in the United States prescribing allergy immunotherapy (AIT) have placed a heavy value on practical experience and anecdotal evidence rather than research-based evidence. With the extensive research on AIT conducted in the last few decades, the time has come to better implement evidence-based medicine (EBM) for AIT. The goal of this review was to critically assess EBM for debated concepts in US AIT practice for respiratory allergies in the context and quality of today's regulatory standards. Debated topics reviewed were the efficacy and safety of AIT in various subgroups (eg, polyallergic patients, older patients, patients with asthma, and pregnant women), diagnosis topics (eg, skin prick test vs allergen-specific serum IgE, factors affecting skin prick tests, use of nasal or conjunctival allergen challenges, and telemedicine for diagnosis), and dosing topics (eg, optimal dosing for subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy tablets, US liquid allergen extract history, duration of treatment, and biomarkers of efficacy). In addition, EBM for patient-centered AIT issues (eg, adherence, use of practice guidelines, and pharmacoeconomics) and the approach to implementation of AIT EBM in future clinical practice were addressed. The EBM for each concept was briefly summarized, and when possible, a practical, concise recommendation was given.

Bradykinin-induced angioedema in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Acute airway angioedema commonly occurs through two distinct mechanisms: histamine- and bradykinin-dependent. Although they respond to distinct treatments, these two potentially life-threatening states present similarly. Poor recognition of the bradykinin-dependent pathway leads to treatment errors in the emergency department (ED), despite the availability of multiple pharmacologic options for hereditary angioedema (HAE) and other forms of bradykinin-induced angioedema. Here, we consider the pathophysiology and clinical features of bradykinin-induced angioedema, and we present a systematic literature review exploring the effectiveness of the available therapies for managing such cases. METHODS: PubMed searches using 'emergency', 'bradykinin' and various therapeutic product names identified studies reporting the efficacy of treatments for bradykinin-induced angioedema in the ED setting. In all, 22 studies met prespecified criteria and are analysed here. FINDINGS: Whereas histamine-induced angioedema has a faster onset and often presents with urticaria, bradykinin-induced angioedema is slower in onset, with greater incidence of abdominal symptoms. Acute airway angioedema in the ED should initially be treated with anaphylactic protocols, focusing on airway management and treatment with epinephrine, antihistamine and systemic steroids. Bradykinin-induced angioedema should be considered if this standard treatment is not effective, despite proper dosing and regard of beta-adrenergic blockade. Therapeutics currently approved for HAE appear as promising options for this and other forms of bradykinin-induced angioedema encountered in the ED. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic algorithms of bradykinin-induced angioedema should be followed in the ED, with early use of approved therapies to improve patient outcomes.

Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Peanut-Allergic Children: REALISE Randomized Clinical Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for peanut allergy are limited. In previous clinical trials, epicutaneous immunotherapy with a patch containing 250-µg peanut protein (Viaskin Peanut 250 µg [VP250]) was well tolerated and statistically superior to placebo in desensitizing peanut-allergic children. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety of VP250 in children, using a study design approximating potential real-world use. METHODS: REAL LIfe Use and Safety of EPIT (REALISE) is a phase 3 multicenter study consisting of a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled period followed by open-label active treatment. Children aged 4 to 11 years with physician diagnosis of peanut allergy received daily treatment with placebo (6 months) or VP250 (up to 36 months). Data from the 6-month, randomized, controlled phase of REALISE are reported. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-three children were randomized 3:1 to receive VP250 (n = 294) or placebo (n = 99) for 6 months; 284 (72.3%) children had a history of peanut anaphylaxis. According to parent diary, all participants receiving VP250 and 83.8% receiving placebo reported at least 1 episode of local skin reaction, with frequency decreasing over time. Only 4 participants (1.4%) receiving VP250 discontinued because of adverse events (AEs). Epinephrine was administered for allergic reactions attributed to VP250 in 7 children (2.4%), of whom 5 remained in the study; none involved severe anaphylaxis. Overall, AE rates were similar among participants with and without a history of peanut anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In a study designed to mirror real-world use, VP250 was observed to be well tolerated in peanut-allergic children, consistent with previous phase 2b and 3 studies.

Randomized controlled trial of ragweed sublingual immunotherapy tablet in the subpopulation of Canadian children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Post hoc analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability of the ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet in Canadian adults with ragweed pollen-induced allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C). This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the ragweed SLIT-tablet in the subpopulation of Canadian children and adolescents with AR/C in a previously described randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: The trial (NCT02478398) was conducted in North American and European children/adolescents ages 5-17 years with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C with or without asthma (FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted). Participants were randomized to daily ragweed SLIT-tablet (12 Amb a 1-U) or placebo for up to 28 weeks. The primary endpoint was the average total combined score (TCS; sum of rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score [DSS] and daily medication score [DMS]) during peak ragweed pollen season (RPS). Key secondary endpoints were TCS during the entire RPS, and DSS and DMS during peak RPS. Post hoc analyses of the primary and key secondary endpoints were conducted in the subpopulation of Canadian participants. RESULTS: Of the 1025 randomized participants, 246 (SLIT-tablet, n = 116; placebo, n = 130) were in the Canadian subpopulation. In the total study population, relative TCS (95% CI) improvement with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo was - 38.3% (- 46.0%, - 29.7%; least square [LS] mean difference, - 2.73; P < 0.001) during peak RPS. In the Canadian subpopulation, relative TCS improvements with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo were - 40.8% (- 54.5%, - 20.2%; LS mean difference, - 1.59; P = 0.001) during peak RPS and - 36.6% (- 50.2%, - 16.5%; LS mean difference, - 1.36; P = 0.002) during the entire RPS. DSS and DMS during peak RPS in the Canadian subpopulation improved with SLIT-tablet versus placebo by - 30.6% (- 45.2%, - 7.7%; LS mean difference, - 0.94; P = 0.010) and - 77.2% (- 97.5%, - 44.2%; LS mean difference, - 0.66; P = 0.003), respectively. No events of anaphylaxis, airway compromise, intramuscular epinephrine administration, eosinophilic esophagitis, or severe treatment-related systemic allergic reactions were reported in the overall population or Canadian subpopulation. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of the ragweed SLIT-tablet in Canadian children/adolescents with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C was consistent with the total study population. The ragweed SLIT-tablet resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms, decreased symptom-relieving medication use, and was well tolerated in Canadian children/adolescents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02478398. Registered June 23, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02478398?term=NCT02478398&draw=2&rank=1.

Dupilumab in Children with Uncontrolled Moderate-to-Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Children with moderate-to-severe asthma continue to have disease complications despite the receipt of standard-of-care therapy. The monoclonal antibody dupilumab has been approved for the treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma as well as with other type 2 inflammatory diseases. METHODS: In this 52-week phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 408 children between the ages of 6 and 11 years who had uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma to receive a subcutaneous injection of dupilumab (at a dose of 100 mg for those weighing ≤30 kg and 200 mg for those weighing >30 kg) or matched placebo every 2 weeks. All the children continued to receive a stable dose of standard background therapy. The primary end point was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in the percentage of predicted prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV1) at week 12 and in the score on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 7 Interviewer-Administered (ACQ-7-IA) at week 24. End points were evaluated in the two primary efficacy populations who had either a type 2 inflammatory asthma phenotype (≥150 blood eosinophils per cubic millimeter or a fraction of exhaled nitric oxide of ≥20 ppb at baseline) or a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per cubic millimeter at baseline. RESULTS: In patients with the type 2 inflammatory phenotype, the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations was 0.31 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22 to 0.42) with dupilumab and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.54 to 1.03) with placebo (relative risk reduction in the dupilumab group, 59.3%; 95% CI, 39.5 to 72.6; P<0.001). The mean (±SE) change from baseline in the ppFEV1 was 10.5±1.0 percentage points with dupilumab and 5.3±1.4 percentage points with placebo (mean difference, 5.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.1 to 8.3; P<0.001). Dupilumab also resulted in significantly better asthma control than placebo (P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the patients with an eosinophil count of at least 300 cells per cubic millimeter at baseline. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among children with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma, those who received add-on dupilumab had fewer asthma exacerbations and better lung function and asthma control than those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; Liberty Asthma VOYAGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02948959.).

Fenebrutinib in H1 antihistamine-refractory chronic spontaneous urticaria: a randomized phase 2 trial.

Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is crucial for FcεRI-mediated mast cell activation and essential for autoantibody production by B cells in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Fenebrutinib, an orally administered, potent, highly selective, reversible BTK inhibitor, may be effective in CSU. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial (EudraCT ID 2016-004624-35 ) randomized 93 adults with antihistamine-refractory CSU to 50 mg daily, 150 mg daily and 200 mg twice daily of fenebrutinib or placebo for 8 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in urticaria activity score over 7 d (UAS7) at week 8. Secondary end points were the change from baseline in UAS7 at week 4 and the proportion of patients well-controlled (UAS7 ≤ 6) at week 8. Fenebrutinib efficacy in patients with type IIb autoimmunity and effects on IgG-anti-FcεRI were exploratory end points. Safety was also evaluated. The primary end point was met, with dose-dependent improvements in UAS7 at week 8 occurring at 200 mg twice daily and 150 mg daily, but not at 50 mg daily of fenebrutinib versus placebo. Asymptomatic, reversible grade 2 and 3 liver transaminase elevations occurred in the fenebrutinib 150 mg daily and 200 mg twice daily groups (2 patients each). Fenebrutinib diminished disease activity in patients with antihistamine-refractory CSU, including more patients with refractory type IIb autoimmunity. These results support the potential use of BTK inhibition in antihistamine-refractory CSU.

Short-Term Subcutaneous Allergy Immunotherapy and Dupilumab are Well Tolerated in Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been proven as an effective therapy against some allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients unresponsive to intranasal corticosteroids and/or antihistamines but carries risk of systemic allergic reactions. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCIT+dupilumab vs SCIT alone. METHODS: This phase 2a, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study conducted in 103 adults with grass pollen-induced SAR (NCT03558997) randomized patients 1:1:1:1 to SCIT, dupilumab (300 mg every 2 weeks), SCIT+dupilumab, or placebo. SCIT was administered using an 8-week cluster protocol followed by 8 weeks of maintenance injections. Primary endpoint was change from pre-treatment baseline in area under the curve (AUC) in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) 0-1 h following nasal allergen challenge (NAC) with timothy grass extract at Week 17. RESULTS: Although 16 weeks of treatment with SCIT+dupilumab did not significantly improve TNSS AUC (0-1 h) following NAC at Week 17 vs SCIT (least squares mean -56.76% vs -52.03%), a higher proportion of SCIT+dupilumab-treated patients (61.5%) achieved SCIT maintenance dose vs SCIT (46.2%). A lower proportion of SCIT+dupilumab-treated patients (7.7%) required epinephrine rescue treatment vs SCIT (19.2%). There were significantly fewer withdrawals in the SCIT+dupilumab group than in the SCIT group (n = 2 [7.7%] vs n = 8 [30.8%]; P = 0.0216); the majority of SCIT group withdrawals were due to SCIT-related intolerability, compared with no discontinuations from the SCIT+dupilumab group. CONCLUSION: In SAR patients, 16 weeks of SCIT+dupilumab may improve SCIT tolerability but did not incrementally reduce post-allergen challenge nasal symptoms compared with SCIT alone. CLINICAL STUDY NUMBER: NCT03558997.

Sublingual immunotherapy tablet: a cost-minimizing alternative in the treatment of tree pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis in Canada.

BACKGROUND: A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) was performed to evaluate the economic implications of introducing the SQ Tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets marketed as ITULATEK® (Health Canada regulatory approval in April 2020) for the treatment of pollen-induced (birch, alder and/or hazel) seasonal allergic rhinitis in Canada (Ontario and Quebec), where Tree Pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is already an available treatment option. METHODS: A CMA was deemed appropriate and was based on the assumption that the SQ Tree SLIT-tablets have comparable efficacy to Tree Pollen SCIT. A societal perspective was adopted in the model, including relevant costs of medications, costs of health care services, and productivity losses. The time horizon in the model was three years, which corresponds to a minimal treatment course of allergy immunotherapy. Resource use and costs were based on published sources, where available, and validated by Canadian specialist clinicians (allergists) in active practice in Ontario and in Quebec, where applicable. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied in accordance with the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) guidelines. To assess the robustness of the results, scenario analyses were performed by testing alternative assumptions for selected parameters (e.g., Tree Pollen SCIT resource use, discount rates, number of injections, annual SCIT dosing with maintenance injections, and nurse time support), to evaluate their impact on the results of the analysis. RESULTS: The direct costs, including the drug costs, and physician services costs, for three years of treatment, were similar for both SQ Tree SLIT-tablets vs. Tree Pollen SCIT in both Ontario and Quebec ($2799.01 and $2838.70 vs. $2233.76 and $2266.05 respectively). However, when the indirect costs (including patient's travel expenses and lost working hours) are included in the model, total savings for the treatment with SQ Tree SLIT-tablets of $1111.79 for Ontario and $1199.87 for Quebec were observed. Scenario analyses were conducted and showed that changes in assumptions continue to result in the savings of SQ Tree SLIT- tablets over Tree Pollen SCIT. CONCLUSIONS: The CMA indicates that SQ Tree SLIT-tablets are a cost-minimizing alternative to Tree Pollen SCIT when considered from a societal perspective in Ontario and Quebec.

The Risk of Allergic Reaction to SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines and Recommended Evaluation and Management: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, GRADE Assessment, and International Consensus Approach.

Concerns for anaphylaxis may hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunization efforts. We convened a multidisciplinary group of international experts in anaphylaxis composed of allergy, infectious disease, emergency medicine, and front-line clinicians to systematically develop recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immediate allergic reactions. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, the World Health Organizstion (WHO) global coronavirus database, and the gray literature (inception, March 19, 2021) were systematically searched. Paired reviewers independently selected studies addressing anaphylaxis after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, polyethylene glycol (PEG) and polysorbate allergy, and accuracy of allergy testing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine allergy. Random effects models synthesized the data to inform recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, agreed upon using a modified Delphi panel. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine anaphylaxis is 7.91 cases per million (n = 41,000,000 vaccinations; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.02-15.59; 26 studies, moderate certainty), the incidence of 0.15 cases per million patient-years (95% CI 0.11-0.2), and the sensitivity for PEG skin testing is poor, although specificity is high (15 studies, very low certainty). We recommend vaccination over either no vaccination or performing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient screening allergy testing for individuals without history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient, and a shared decision-making paradigm in consultation with an allergy specialist for individuals with a history of a severe allergic reaction to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/excipient. We recommend further research to clarify SARS-CoV-2 vaccine/vaccine excipient testing utility in individuals potentially allergic to SARS-CoV2 vaccines or their excipients.

Oral once-daily berotralstat for the prevention of hereditary angioedema attacks: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Berotralstat (BCX7353) is an oral, once-daily inhibitor of plasma kallikrein in development for the prophylaxis of hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of berotralstat in patients with HAE over a 24-week treatment period (the phase 3 APeX-2 trial). METHODS: APeX-2 was a double-blind, parallel-group study that randomized patients at 40 sites in 11 countries 1:1:1 to receive once-daily berotralstat in a dose of 110 mg or 150 mg or placebo (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03485911). Patients aged 12 years or older with HAE due to C1 inhibitor deficiency and at least 2 investigator-confirmed HAE attacks in the first 56 days of a prospective run-in period were eligible. The primary efficacy end point was the rate of investigator-confirmed HAE attacks during the 24-week treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were randomized; 120 of them received at least 1 dose of the study drug (n = 41, 40, and 39 in the 110-mg dose of berotralstat, 150-mg of dose berotralstat, and placebo groups, respectively). Berotralstat demonstrated a significant reduction in attack rate at both 110 mg (1.65 attacks per month; P = .024) and 150 mg (1.31 attacks per month; P < .001) relative to placebo (2.35 attacks per month). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred more with berotralstat than with placebo were abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and back pain. No drug-related serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Both the 110-mg and 150-mg doses of berotralstat reduced HAE attack rates compared with placebo and were safe and generally well tolerated. The most favorable benefit-to-risk profile was observed at a dose of 150 mg per day.

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.

Clinical Practice of Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and Asthma: An Expert Panel Report.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) reduces symptoms and medication use associated with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis and allergic asthma. Although several AIT guidelines exist, there remain unanswered questions about AIT that are relevant to everyday practice. Our objective was to prepare an evidence-based overview addressing the practical aspects of AIT in clinical practice based on published evidence and the experience of international experts in the field. Topics covered include interpretation and translation of clinical trial data into everyday clinical practice (eg, allergen doses and treatment duration), assessment of risk and treatment of local and systemic allergic reactions, recommendations for improvement of AIT guidelines, and identification of appropriate data for seeking regulatory approval, to name a few. Many informational gaps in AIT practice need further evaluation as products and practices evolve.