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.).

Safety and immunopharmacology of ASP0892 in adults or adolescents with peanut allergy: two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: New treatment options with improved safety and novel mechanisms of actions are needed for patients with peanut allergy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of ASP0892, a peanut DNA vaccine, after intradermal (id) or intramuscular (im) administration in adult or adolescent patients with peanut allergy in two phase 1 studies. METHODS: ASP0892 or placebo was administered every 2 weeks for a total of 4 doses. The doses were 1 mg or 4 mg id or 4 mg im for adults, and 1 mg or 4 mg id for adolescents. Immunologic parameters were assessed longitudinally. RESULTS: Thirty-one adults (mean age 24.3 years, 17 males) received ASP0892 (9, 8, 8 patients for 1 mg id, 4 mg id or 4 mg im, respectively) or placebo (2 patients/group). Twenty adolescents (mean age 14.2 years, 11 males) received ASP0892 (8 patients/group) or placebo (2 patients/group). In both studies, the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was injection site pruritus. No deaths or treatment withdrawal were related to TEAEs. No serious TEAEs related to treatment were observed in adult or adolescent patients. ASP0892 treatment led to modest increases in allergen-specific IgG and/or IgG4 in adults (1 mg id, 4 mg im) and adolescents (1 mg id, 4 mg id). No improvements in clinical outcomes, including double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge, were found after ASP0892 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In two phase 1 studies, ASP0892 was well tolerated with modest but not clinically relevant changes in immune responses. GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT02851277, NCT03755713.

Lycopene alleviates food allergy by modulating the PI3K/AKT pathway in peanut-sensitized BALB/c mice.

Food allergies, which lead to life-threatening acute symptoms, are considered an important public health problem. Therefore, it is essential to develop efficient preventive and treatment measures. We developed a crude peanut protein extract (PPE)-induced allergy mouse model to investigate the effects of lycopene on peanut allergy. Mice were divided into four groups: 5 mg/kg lycopene, 20 mg/kg lycopene, no treatment, and control groups. Serum inflammatory factors were detected using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In addition, pathology and immunohistochemistry analyses were used to examine the small intestine of mice. We found that lycopene decreased PPE-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IL-13 levels in the serum, relieved small intestine inflammation, attenuated the production of histamine and mouse mast cell protease-1, and downregulated PI3K and AKT1 expression in the small intestine tissues of mice allergic to peanuts. Our results suggest that lycopene can ameliorate allergy by attenuating the PI3K/AKT pathway and the anaphylactic reactions mediated by PPE-specific IgE.

A phase II study of Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibition for the prevention of anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUNDIgE-mediated anaphylaxis is a potentially fatal systemic allergic reaction for which there are no currently FDA-approved preventative therapies. Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is an essential enzyme for IgE-mediated signaling pathways and is an ideal pharmacologic target to prevent allergic reactions. In this open-label trial, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of acalabrutinib, a BTK inhibitor that is FDA approved to treat some B cell malignancies, in preventing clinical reactivity to peanut in adults with peanut allergy.METHODSAfter undergoing graded oral peanut challenge to establish their baseline level of clinical reactivity, 10 patients had a 6-week rest period, then received 4 standard doses of 100 mg acalabrutinib twice daily and underwent repeat food challenge. The primary endpoint was the change in patients' threshold dose of peanut protein to elicit an objective clinical reaction.RESULTSAt baseline, patients tolerated a median of 29 mg of peanut protein before objective clinical reaction. During subsequent food challenge on acalabrutinib, patients' median tolerated dose significantly increased to 4,044 mg (range 444-4,044 mg). 7 patients tolerated the maximum protocol amount (4,044 mg) of peanut protein with no clinical reaction, and the other 3 patients' peanut tolerance increased between 32- and 217-fold. 3 patients experienced a total of 4 adverse events that were considered to be possibly related to acalabrutinib; all events were transient and nonserious.CONCLUSIONAcalabrutinib pretreatment achieved clinically relevant increases in patients' tolerance to their food allergen, thereby supporting the need for larger, placebo-controlled trials.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT05038904FUNDINGAstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, the Ludwig Family Foundation, and NIH grants AI143965 and AI106043.

Anti-IgE effect of small-molecule-compound arctigenin on food allergy in association with a distinct transcriptome profile.

BACKGROUND: Excessive production of IgE plays a major role in the pathology of food allergy. In an attempt to identify anti-IgE natural products, Arctium Lappa was one of the most effective herbs among approximately 300 screened medicinal herbs. However, little is known about its anti-IgE compounds. OBJECTIVE: To identify compounds from Arctium Lappa for targeted therapy on IgE production and explore their underlying mechanisms. METHODS: Liquid-liquid extraction and column chromatographic methods were used to purify the compounds. IgE inhibitory effects were determined on IgE-producing human myeloma U266 cells, peanut-allergic murine model and PBMCs from food-allergic patients. Genes involved in IgE inhibition in PBMCs were studied by RNA sequencing. RESULTS: The main compounds isolated were identified as arctiin and arctigenin. Both compounds significantly inhibited IgE production in U266 cells, with arctigenin the most potent (IC50=5.09µg/mL). Arctigenin (at a dose of 13 mg/kg) markedly reduced peanut-specific IgE levels, blocked hypothermia and histamine release in a peanut-allergic mouse model. Arctigenin also significantly reduced IgE production and Th2 cytokines (IL-5, IL-13) by PBMCs. We found 479 differentially expressed genes in PBMCs with arctigenin treatment (p < .001 and fold-change ≥1.5), involving 24 gene ontology terms (p < .001, FDR <0.05); cell division was the most significant. Eleven genes including UBE2C and BCL6 were validated by qPCR. CONCLUSION: Arctigenin markedly inhibited IgE production in U266 cells, peanut-allergic murine model and PBMCs from allergic patients by down-regulating cell division, cell cycle-related genes and up-regulating anti-inflammatory factors.

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.

Advances, Practical Implementation, and Unmet Needs Regarding Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergy.

Treatment of food allergy is a rapidly changing landscape, with arguably, the most significant advancement in recent years, the transition of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to clinical practice. As an innovation, OIT is a phase of rapidly increasing demand, particularly for some allergens such as peanut, egg, and milk, which have substantial evidence of efficacy. However, significant questions remain about how to best treat multiple food allergies and less common food allergies and how to optimize long-term safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the currently available resources for integrating food allergy OIT into clinical practice and focuses on the multiple remaining unmet needs such as providing an approach for OIT to food allergens for which there is no or limited evidence; practical issues related to food allergy treatment particularly when it is not going well; long-term outcomes and follow-up after OIT; and strategies to help meet the impending increase in demand.

Self-administration of adrenaline for anaphylaxis during in-hospital food challenges improves health-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of anaphylaxis on health-related quality of life (HRQL) and self-efficacy in food-allergic patients undergoing in-hospital food challenge. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Specialist allergy centre. PATIENTS: Peanut-allergic young people aged 8-16 years. INTERVENTIONS: Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge to peanut, with HRQL and self-efficacy assessed using validated questionnaire, approximately 2 weeks prior to and 2 weeks after challenge. Where possible, anaphylaxis was treated with self-injected adrenaline (epinephrine). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in HRQL and self-efficacy. RESULTS: 56 participants had reactions at food challenge, of whom 16 (29%) had anaphylaxis. Overall, there was an improvement in HRQL (mean 2.6 points (95% CI 0.3 to 4.8); p=0.030) and self-efficacy (mean 4.1 points (95% CI 2.4 to 5.9); p<0.0001), independent of whether anaphylaxis occurred. Parents also reported improved HRQL (mean 10.3 points (95% CI 5.9 to 14.7); p<0.0001). We found evidence of discordance between the improvement in HRQL and self-efficacy as reported by young people and that perceived by parents in their child. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis at food challenge, followed by self-administration of injected adrenaline, was associated with an increase in HRQL and self-efficacy in young people with peanut allergy. We found no evidence that the occurrence of anaphylaxis had a detrimental effect. Young people should be encouraged to self-administer adrenaline using their autoinjector device to treat anaphylaxis at in-hospital challenge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02149719.

Peanut Allergen Powder-dnfp: A Novel Oral Immunotherapy to Mitigate Peanut Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: To review data on efficacy and safety of peanut allergen powder-dnfp (PAP; Palforzia), a novel oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, a common food allergy. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed/CINAHL search in English was performed from inception to June 30, 2020, using the search words peanut allergy, desensitization, ARA101, and peanut oral immunotherapy. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION QUANTIFICATION: Published phase 2 and 3 clinical trials, documents presented to the Food and Drug Administration, and supplemental study documentation were reviewed. Articles evaluated PAP's pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, mechanism of action, efficacy, and safety. DATA SYNTHESIS: PAP was efficacious and safe for treatment of peanut allergy in mostly Caucasian children, 4 to 17 years old. A key phase III clinical trial showed a statistically significant difference (primary end point) between PAP 600 mg and placebo groups (67.2% vs 4%; P < 0.001). During initial dose escalation and updosing phases, gastrointestinal and respiratory tract allergic reactions (ARs) were more common in the PAP group. More epinephrine rescue was used in the PAP group. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Oral immunotherapy for desensitization of peanut allergy was shown to reduce the severity of reactions if accidental allergen exposure occurs. Risk evaluation and mitigation strategy certification is required for pharmacies, health care providers, and clinics. More data in real-world populations will enhance its effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: In patients 4 to 17 years old, PAP mitigated ARs, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental peanut exposure. Although there are risks, it was efficacious in more than two-thirds of participants in phase 2 and phase 3 efficacy trials.

A pilot study towards the immunological effects of omalizumab treatment used to facilitate oral immunotherapy in peanut-allergic adolescents.

Anti-IgE treatments, such as omalizumab, have shown promising effects in allergy treatment. Our previous work has shown that individualized omalizumab treatment (OT) allows a safe initiation and rapid up-dosing of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in peanut-allergic adolescents. However, the broader immunological effects of this OT are incompletely understood. In this pilot study, we longitudinally followed the total B- and T-cell immunity during OT, using flow cytometry, ELISpot and ELISA. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and plasma were collected from participants (n = 17) at several timepoints during treatment, before starting OT (baseline), prior to starting OIT during OT (start OIT) and at maintenance dose OIT prior to OT reduction (maintenance). OT did not affect the total B-cell compartment over treatment time, but our results suggest an association between the OT dosage scheme and the B-cell compartment. Further, in vitro polyclonal T-cell activation at the different timepoints suggests a cytokine skewing towards the Th1 phenotype at the expense of Th2- and Th9-related cytokines during treatment. No differences in the frequencies or phenotype of regulatory T cells (Tregs) over treatment time were observed. Finally, plasma chemokine levels were stable over treatment time, but suggest elevated gut homing immune responses in treatment successes during the treatment as compared to treatment failures. The novel and explorative results of this pilot study help to improve our understanding on the immunological effects of OT used to facilitate OIT and provide guidance for future immunological investigation in large clinical trials.

Patient/parent administered epinephrine in acute anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with a known peanut allergy, previous studies suggest low carrying rates of epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) and hesitancy to self-administer epinephrine upon anaphylaxis onset. Given the high prescription rates of epinephrine and prevalence of peanut allergies, it is important to identify rates of on-scene EAI use and affecting factors. METHODS: The electronic medical records of 217 patients-either with an ED diagnosis of peanut anaphylaxis or diagnosis of anaphylaxis with a known epinephrine prescription from 2010 through May 2020--were reviewed for physician notes and demographic factors. RESULTS: Epinephrine was administered on-scene by 25.3% of anaphylaxis patients. Of the 6 health care professionals identified, 100% administered epinephrine on-scene. Females (32.2%) were administered epinephrine on-scene more frequently than males (19.8%; p = 0.04). Rate of epinephrine administration increased from 2010 through 2019 (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This study selected for individuals diagnosed with anaphylaxis, meaning EAI use should have been observed nearly 100% of the time. An administration rate of 22.6% observed among individuals not identified as health care professionals suggests that the majority of patients prescribed epinephrine have not used their EAIs, even when presented an opportunity for application. The administration rate of 100% observed among health care professionals indicates that comfort with EAIs facilitates willingness to administer on-scene. EAIs can range up to $900 in expense, thus physicians should employ EAI training devices and other training strategies.

Peanut Allergy - No Longer a Life Sentence.

In this review we provide an overview on the latest knowledge in the prevention and active management of peanut allergy. The rise in incidence of food allergy has generated new challenges in the management of affected individuals. Strategies to counteract the increase in prevalence of peanut allergy can be considered as a pyramid, beginning with primary prevention of those at risk through earlier introduction of peanut into the infant diet, to secondary prevention of peanut-sensitised children through improvements in the correct diagnosis of peanut allergy and finally to the treatment of children with proven peanut allergy. CONCLUSION: With the paradigm shift towards an active management, peanut allergy should no longer be seen as a life sentence.

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

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

Food allergy immunotherapy: Oral immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy.

IgE-mediated food allergy remains a significant and growing problem across the globe. Of the various treatment modalities, oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) have been the best studied. Across various studies of OIT for egg, milk, and peanut allergy, strong levels of desensitization have been shown. With egg and peanut OIT, a limited remission, or sustained unresponsiveness (SU), has further been demonstrated. These advances have been further validated by successful phase 2 and phase 3 studies of peanut OIT. EPIT, using daily administrations of a proprietary patch, demonstrated efficacy as well as safety and tolerability in parallel phase 2 studies; however, its phase 3 study did not meet its primary efficacy outcome. Despite its good track record of desensitization, the safety and tolerability of OIT has remained a question. EPIT, on the other hand, has proven safe and tolerable; however, the adequacy of its desensitization has remained to be determined. As OIT and EPIT continue their march toward regulatory review, optimizations for immunotherapy and novel therapies continue to be developed providing hope for food allergy patients everywhere.