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.

Continuous and Daily Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: Results from a 2-Year Open-Label Follow-On Study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled PALISADE trial demonstrated the benefit of daily oral immunotherapy with Peanut (Arachis Hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH, formerly AR101) in peanut-allergic children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: ARC004, the open-label follow-on study to PALISADE, used 5 dosing cohorts to explore PTAH treatment beyond 1 year and alternative dosing regimens in peanut-allergic individuals. METHODS: Active arm (PTAH-continuing) PALISADE participants who tolerated 300-mg peanut protein at the exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge and placebo arm (PTAH-naive) participants could enter ARC004. PTAH-continuing participants were assigned to receive daily (cohorts 1 and 3A) or non-daily (cohorts 2, 3B, and 3C) dosing regimens; PTAH-naive participants were built up to 300 mg/d PTAH, followed by maintenance dosing. At study completion, participants underwent an exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with doses up to 2000 mg peanut protein. Data were assessed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 358 (87.5%) eligible participants (4-17 years) entered ARC004 (PTAH-continuing, n = 256; PTAH-naive, n = 102). Among PTAH-continuing participants, exposure-adjusted adverse event rates were 12.94 to 17.54/participant-year and 25.95 to 42.49/participant-year in daily and non-daily dosing cohorts, respectively; most participants (83%) experienced mild or moderate adverse events. Daily dosing cohorts appeared to have higher desensitization rates than non-daily dosing cohorts. Of all PTAH-continuing cohorts, cohort 3A had the longest daily dosing duration and the highest desensitization rates. Changes in immune markers with PTAH continuation demonstrated ongoing immunomodulation. Outcomes in PTAH-naive participants mirrored those of the PALISADE active arm. CONCLUSIONS: Continued daily PTAH treatment beyond 1 year showed sustained safety and efficacy. Ongoing immunomodulation was observed during the second year of treatment.

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 .).

Safety and efficacy of tiotropium in children aged 1-5 years with persistent asthmatic symptoms: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of potential asthma medications in children younger than 5 years. We descriptively assessed the safety and efficacy of tiotropium, a long-acting anticholinergic drug, in children aged 1-5 years with persistent asthmatic symptoms. METHODS: This exploratory 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2/3, regulatory multicentre trial was done at 32 hospitals, clinics, and clinical research units in 11 countries in Asia, Europe, and North America. Children aged 1-5 years with at least a 6-month history of persistent asthmatic symptoms and a need for inhaled corticosteroids were eligible. Patients were randomly allocated using an interactive voice or web-based response system to receive once-daily tiotropium 2·5 µg, tiotropium 5 µg, or placebo as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroids with or without additional controller medication. Patients and investigators were masked to study group assignment. Tiotropium was given via the Respimat inhaler once daily as two puffs of 1·25 µg in the 2·5 µg group, two puffs of 2·5 µg in the 5 µg group, or two puffs of placebo. The primary outcomes were safety, which was assessed by comparing adverse events between the tiotropium and placebo groups, and efficacy, which was measured as the change in weekly mean combined daytime asthma symptom score from baseline to week 12. Statistical analyses of treatment effects were exploratory; although endpoints were defined, they were used for descriptive analyses only. The safety and primary analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01634113), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between July 26, 2012, and Dec 4, 2014, 102 children were randomly assigned to the three treatment groups (36 to receive tiotropium 2·5 µg, 32 to receive tiotropium 5 µg, and 34 to receive placebo). 101 children completed the study and were included in the analyses. The changes in adjusted weekly mean combined daytime asthma symptom scores between baseline and week 12 were not significantly different between any of the groups. The adjusted mean difference between the tiotropium 2·5 µg group and placebo group was -0·080 (95% CI -0·312 to 0·152) and the difference between tiotropium 5 µg and placebo group was -0·048 (-0·292 to 0·195). Adverse events were less frequent with tiotropium treatment than with placebo (20 [56%] of 36 children with tiotropium 2·5 µg, 18 [58%] of 31 with tiotropium 5 µg, and 25 [74%] of 34 with placebo), although no formal statistical comparison between groups was performed. A greater proportion of children reported asthma exacerbations as adverse events in the placebo group (ten [29%] of 34) than in the tiotropium groups (five [14%] of 36 in the 2·5 µg group and two [6%] of 31 in the 5 µg group). Serious adverse events were reported in three patients (all of whom received placebo); no adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment or death. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, our small study is the first to assess the safety and efficacy of tiotropium in children aged 1-5 years with persistent asthmatic symptoms. Tolerability of tiotropium was similar to that of placebo, which is consistent with previous findings in older populations. Although mean daytime asthma symptom scores were not significantly different between groups, tiotropium showed the potential to reduce asthma exacerbation risk compared with placebo. The findings of the study are limited by the small sample size and descriptive statistical analyses. Additional well powered trials are needed to further assess the safety and efficacy of tiotropium in young children. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Effect of fluticasone/salmeterol administered via a single device on exercise-induced bronchospasm in patients with persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is a common trigger of asthma symptoms in patients with persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the protective effect of fluticasone/salmeterol against exercise-induced bronchospasm. METHODS: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of 192 asthma patients who used moderate-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Patients (aged 12-50 years; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1], 78% of predicted at baseline) were randomized to receive fluticasone/salmeterol (250/50 microg twice daily) or fluticasone alone (250 microg twice daily) via Diskus for 4 weeks. Exercise challenge tests were performed 1 and 8.5 hours after administration of the first (day 1) and last (week 4) doses of blinded study medication. RESULTS: On day 1 and at week 4, mean +/- SEM values for the maximal percentage decline in FEV1 1 hour after drug administration were 11.4% +/- 1.5% and 10.9% +/- 1.5% for fluticasone/salmeterol compared with 20.0% +/- 1.7% and 18.4% +/- 1.8% for fluticasone (P < .001). At 8.5 hours, mean +/- SEM values on day 1 and at week 4 were 11.6% +/- 1.4% and 8.9% +/1.1%, respectively, for fluticasone/salmeterol and 12.6% +/- 1.6% and 12.9% +/- 1.4%, respectively, for fluticasone (P = .01 at week 4). More fluticasone-treated patients did not complete the 8.5-hour exercise challenges (36% on day 1 and 33% at week 4) compared with the fluticasone/salmeterol group (18% each) (P < or = .01). Improvements in peak expiratory flow rate and albuterol rescue-free days were significantly greater with fluticasone/salmeterol vs fluticasone over weeks 1 to 4 (P < or = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the improvements in other measures of asthma control, long-term fluticasone/salmeterol therapy also provided protection against exercise-induced bronchospasm in patients with persistent asthma.