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.

Efficacy and safety of peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy in patients with atopic comorbidities.

Background: Co-occurring atopic conditions are common in children with peanut allergy. As such, it is important to examine the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin Peanut 250 µg patch (VP250) in peanut-allergic children with these conditions. Objective: We sought to compare efficacy and safety of VP250 versus placebo in peanut-allergic children with/without ongoing atopic conditions at baseline, including asthma, atopic dermatitis/eczema, or concomitant food allergy. Methods: A subgroup analysis of peanut-allergic children aged 4 to 11 years enrolled in PEPITES (12 months) and REALISE (6 months) randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials was conducted. The efficacy outcome measure was the difference in prespecified responder rate between placebo and VP250 groups at month 12 based on eliciting dose of peanut protein using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge in PEPITES. Safety profiles were evaluated by baseline concomitant disease subgroup in all randomized subjects who received 1 or more dose of the study drug in PEPITES and REALISE pooled data. Results: Responder rates were significantly (P < .05, all comparisons) greater with VP250 compared with placebo treatment regardless of whether subjects had other atopic conditions. Safety and tolerability profiles were generally similar across subgroups, with no new safety concerns detected. A trend for both higher responder rates and rates of local reactions was observed in subjects with baseline atopic dermatitis versus those without. In subjects with concomitant food allergy at baseline, higher rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, but not study discontinuations or overall rates of anaphylaxis, were observed. Conclusions: The results support the safety and efficacy of VP250 for treating peanut-allergic children with or without concomitant atopic conditions.

A Qualitative Study to Inform Development of a Behavioral Intervention to Promote Food Allergy Self-Management and Adjustment among Early Adolescents.

Objective: Adolescence is a high-risk period for patients with food allergy (FA) as management responsibilities shift to the youth. This study used qualitative methods to explore FA experiences among a diverse pediatric FA population and inform behavioral intervention development. Methods: A total of 26 adolescents ages 9-14 years with IgE-mediated FA (M age = 11.92 years; 62% male; 42% Black, 31% White, 12% Hispanic/Latinx) and 25 primary caregivers (M age = 42.57 years; 32% annual income > $100,000) were recruited from FA clinics to complete separate qualitative interviews about FA-related experiences. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and entered into Dedoose, a qualitative software program. A grounded theory qualitative analytic approach was used to analyze data. Results: Emergent themes include: 1) FA is a chronic burden that affects daily life, 2) Families experience anxiety about FA, 3) Families find it challenging to transition FA management from parent to child, 4) FA families feel the need to be prepared, 5) FA families frequently advocate for their needs, and 6) Social experiences affect the FA experience. Conclusions: Adolescents with FA and their caregivers experience daily stress related to their chronic illness. A behavioral intervention that provides FA education, bolsters stress/anxiety management, assists parents in transitioning FA management responsibility to the youth, teaches executive functioning and advocacy skills, and fosters peer support could help adolescents successfully cope with and manage FA in their daily lives.

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.

The Impact of Allergy Specialty Care on Health Care Utilization Among Peanut Allergy Children in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The influence of allergist management on peanut allergy (PA)-related health care utilization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether allergist care lowers PA costs. METHODS: IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was analyzed for PA diagnosis/reaction-related codes (January 2010-June 2019) in patients 64 years or younger, with demographically matched non-PA food allergy controls (NPAFACs). Outcomes were measured and compared 12 months before/after first claim date. RESULTS: Among 72,854 persons with PA (39,068 with ≥1 allergist visit, 53.6%), and 166,825 NPAFACs, the number of National Drug Codes and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes was higher for persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit during both baseline and follow-up (all P < .001). Persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit were prescribed epinephrine at significantly higher rates (RR, 1.67; P < .001). Rates of epinephrine claims, mean epinephrine costs, and proportion with peanut anaphylaxis were higher among the PA group with versus without an allergist visit (69.9% vs 63.3%; $676 vs $493, 48.9% vs 20.7%; all P < .001). The proportion with anaphylaxis episodes was higher in the PA group versus the NPAFAC group (53.1% vs 31.6%; P < .001). Total health care costs were higher in the NPAFAC group versus the PA group ($7863 vs $7261; P < .001) and lower for persons with PA with versus without an allergist visit ($6347 vs $8270; P < .001), with no significant differences in PA reaction-related costs between PA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of anaphylaxis were seen among the PA group with versus without an allergist visit during the follow-up period (53.6% of overall PA group). Allergist care was associated with a reduction in total health care costs and higher rates of epinephrine prescription.

Psychometric parameters of food allergy quality of life during an allergen immunotherapy trial.

BACKGROUND: The Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Form (FAQLQ-PF) is a commonly used patient-reported outcome measure in food allergy (FA) research. It was developed before FA treatment clinical trials were commonplace and is used as a secondary outcome measure in pivotal FA treatment trials. We examined the psychometric properties of the FAQLQ-PF and its relevance to children with peanut allergy engaged in an epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) clinical trial. METHODS: Analysis was performed on 26 universally answered items of the FAQLQ-PF, from assessments undertaken during the phase 3 PEPITES study (baseline, Month 12), which examined the safety and efficacy of EPIT for children with peanut allergy aged 4-11 years. Item response theory (IRT) was used to assess psychometric parameters of the FAQLQ-PF (i.e., discrimination, difficulty, and information). Confirmatory factor analysis was also employed; reliability was assessed using McDonald's omega (ω) and Cronbach's alpha (α). RESULTS: A total of 23 of 26 items presented very high discrimination levels (>1.7), and all 26 fell within the recommended difficulty threshold (between -1.5 and 1.5). The items contributed a reasonable information level for their respective factors/subdomains. The measure also presented a marginally acceptable model fit for the 3-factor structure (e.g., comparative fit index = 0.88, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.87) and good reliability levels across time points (ω and α > 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we present a novel reanalysis of the FAQLQ-PF items using IRT. The longitudinal performance of individual items and subscales was corroborated, and items with the highest discrimination were identified, showing that the tool is suitable for longitudinal measurements in FA treatment trials.

Peanut cross-contamination in randomly selected baked goods.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care for managing peanut allergy includes avoidance of peanut and use of injectable epinephrine; however, strict avoidance is difficult and accidental ingestion is common with potentially serious consequences. Despite vigilance and efforts to minimize the risk of accidental exposure, peanut protein cross-contamination continues to occur in a variety of foods, including baked goods. OBJECTIVE: To assess and quantify the presence of peanut protein contamination in certain baked goods. METHODS: Randomly selected baked goods were collected from bakeries in the New York and Miami metropolitan areas that sold a variety of ethnic cuisines. A second set of samples from the same bakeries was collected at least 1 week after to evaluate between-batch variability. Samples were sent to the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program to analyze peanut contamination by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Consumption estimates were based on 2003 to 2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey survey data. RESULTS: Of 154 samples from 18 bakeries, 4 (2.6%) had detectable peanut contamination with peanut protein levels ranging from 0.1 mg/100 g to 650 mg/100 g. Consumption estimates for single occasion ingestion of a contaminated item ranged from 0.07 mg to 832 mg of peanut protein. CONCLUSION: In this study, unintended peanut protein was present in a small, but not insignificant, proportion of baked goods, with the potential to trigger a reaction in individuals with peanut allergy. Some products contained high levels of unintended peanut protein. The current data support the potential for accidental exposure to peanut protein with its associated risk.

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.

Improvements in Quality of Life in Children Following Epicutaneous Immunotherapy (EPIT) for Peanut Allergy in the PEPITES and PEOPLE Studies.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy quality of life (FAQL) is impaired in children with peanut allergy. Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQs) provide disease-specific insight into the burden of peanut allergy and potential FAQL changes after peanut immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To examine FAQL changes in children after treatment with epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy (250 µg, daily epicutaneous peanut protein; DBV712 250 µg). METHODS: FAQL was prospectively measured using the FAQLQ parent proxy form (Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Proxy Form [FAQLQ-PF], for children aged ≤12 years) and child form (Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Child Form [FAQLQ-CF], child rated if aged ≥8 years) during the 12-month double-blind, randomized, controlled Peanut EPIT Efficacy and Safety Study (PEPITES) trial and the initial 12 months of the open-label PEPITES Open Label Extension Study (PEOPLE) follow-up study. Data were analyzed for between-group differences after treatment unblinding. RESULTS: FAQLQs from placebo participants (FAQLQ-PF: 96; FAQLQ-CF: 47) and treatment group participants (FAQLQ-PF: 209; FAQLQ-CF: 105) were analyzed. Twenty-four-month global FAQL scores (FAQLQ-PF/FAQLQ-CF) were significantly improved in the treatment group versus the placebo group (least squares mean, 0.34, P = .008, and 0.46, P = .023, respectively). At 24 months, there was significant FAQLQ-PF score improvement in participants initially randomized to treatment who met the efficacy primary end point (n = 74; least squares mean, 0.55; P < .001) and in participants with any eliciting dose increase (n = 127; least squares mean, 0.66; P < .001). FAQLQ-PF improvements were observed in social dietary limitations (P = .002), food-related anxiety (P = .029), and emotional impact (P = .048) domains. FAQLQ-CF improvements were observed in risk of accidental exposure (P = .002) and allergen avoidance (P = .04) domains. Nearly all outcomes met a nontreatment context minimal clinically important difference previously cited for FAQLQ. CONCLUSIONS: Epicutaneous immunotherapy treatment was observed to be associated with significant global and domain-specific FAQL improvement (FAQLQ-PF/FAQLQ-CF), largely driven by increases in eliciting dose, in children with peanut allergy.

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.

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.

An evaluation of factors influencing response to epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy in the PEPITES trial.

Background: Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy is a potential novel immunotherapy that utilizes the unique cutaneous immunologic properties to induce desensitization. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial (PEPITES) in peanut-allergic children 4-11 years demonstrated an epicutaneous patch (DBV712) with 250 µg peanut protein was statistically superior to placebo in inducing desensitization following 12 months of daily treatment. Objective: To investigate what baseline and in-study factors influenced response to DBV712 250 µg, with a focus on patch adhesion, by posthoc analysis of PEPITES data. Methods: A posthoc multivariate model built with log-transformed Month 12 eliciting dose (ED) as the dependent variable was used to assess the influence of baseline characteristics and patch adhesion. Baseline characteristics and treatment response were also evaluated by stratifying subjects into decile subgroups by patch detachment rates over the 12-month study. Results: Multivariate analysis identified higher baseline ED and lower baseline peanut-specific IgE as the variables most predictive of higher Month 12 ED, followed by mean daily patch application duration, baseline SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score, and age. By decile stratification, no association between patch detachment and treatment response was identified for 80% of DBV712-treated subjects. All DBV712-treated subjects, including those with the highest patch detachment rates, demonstrated treatment benefit measured by fold-changes in geometric mean ED. Conclusion: We identified subject baseline characteristics of higher baseline ED and lower baseline peanut-specific IgE as most predictive of higher Month 12 ED. For the majority of treated subjects, patch detachment did not impact treatment response. A minority of subjects, highly sensitive to peanut at baseline, had lower prespecified responder rates and higher patch detachment rates, yet still benefited from treatment based upon fold-changes in ED.

Unmet needs of children with peanut allergy: Aligning the risks and the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is a potentially severe and lifelong allergy, with few effective treatments or preventive measures. OBJECTIVE: To convene an expert panel of allergists, pediatricians, and advocates to discuss and highlight unmet needs in the prevention and management of peanut allergies. METHODS: Literature searches of PubMed were performed. The panel evaluated published data on the prevention of peanut allergy, treatment of existing peanut allergy, and management of reactions after unintentional peanut exposures. RESULTS: The following key unmet needs in the prevention and management of peanut allergy were identified: (1) enhancing and optimizing implementation of early peanut introduction as a means of preventing the development of peanut allergy, (2) developing knowledge translation strategies regarding the safety and efficacy data for current and emerging immunotherapies for peanut-allergic children to support their use in clinical practice, and (3) promoting understanding of true exposure risk in allergic individuals and ensuring access to epinephrine for unintentional exposures that provoke severe reactions. Practitioners should help educate caregivers about the actual risks associated with peanut allergy and its prevention and management so that treatment decisions can be evidence based rather than fear based. Support tools are needed to help address caregiver goals, expectations, and psychological barriers, as well as identify facilitators for prevention and treatment strategies. CONCLUSION: There are significant unmet needs in our understanding of peanut allergy; addressing these needs will help to enhance understanding of how to most effectively prevent and treat peanut allergy, as well as educate the food-allergic and nonallergic community regarding current evidence-based practices.

Commercial claims costs related to health care resource use associated with a diagnosis of peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy (PA) affects approximately 1.6 million US children. The current standard of care is strict avoidance and prompt reaction treatment. Peanut allergy health care costs and health care resource utilization (HCRU) are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To estimate PA health care costs and HCRU using a nationally representative commercial payer database. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was examined for PA diagnosis/reaction codes between January 2010 and October 2016 in patients 64 years of age or younger, with age cohort-matched controls. Outcomes were measured 12 months before and after the first claim date. Health care costs and HCRU were compared using Student's t tests and χ2 tests. RESULTS: Patients with a PA-related diagnostic code (n = 41,675) incurred almost double all-cause health care costs vs controls ($6436 vs $3493, P < .001), mainly from inpatient and outpatient medical costs ($5002 vs $2832, P < .001). More than one third of the PA group patients (36%) had a code indicative of an anaphylactic reaction during follow-up. Mean PA or reaction-related code costs per visit totaled $7921 for hospitalizations and $1115 for emergency department (ED) visits. Costs were 30% lower in patients with asthma codes without PA codes vs those with both codes ($5678 vs $8112, P < .001); all-cause ED costs were more than double in patients with atopic dermatitis codes with PA codes vs those without PA codes ($654 vs $308, P < .001). CONCLUSION: National commercial payer claims data indicate a significant health care burden associated with a PA-related code, including over $6400/patient in annual all-cause costs and increased health care utilization.

Estimated risk reduction to packaged food reactions by epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is a generally persistent, sometimes life-threatening food allergy. With no treatments demonstrating the ability to cure a food allergy, the focus of drugs in development has been on providing a level of protection against accidental exposure reactions. However, no study has estimated the relative risk reduction of a food-allergic population receiving a specific immunotherapeutic treatment for their allergies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative risk reduction when consuming peanut-contaminated packaged food products in a double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study population of children treated with epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for 12 months with either a patch containing 250 µg peanut protein (250-µg patch) or a placebo patch. METHODS: The probability of an allergic reaction due to the unintended presence of peanut protein in packaged food products was modeled per study group and food category combination using Monte Carlo simulations. Risks per eating occasion of a contaminated packaged food product and the number of individuals per study population predicted to react on a yearly basis were investigated. RESULTS: The population treated with the 250-µg patch demonstrated a significantly increased dose-response distribution after 12 months of treatment, which resulted in a relative risk reduction of 73.2% to 78.4% when consuming peanut-contaminated packaged food products. In contrast, no statistically significant change was observed for the placebo group at the 12-month point. CONCLUSION: Our study estimates a substantial relative risk reduction for allergic reactions among peanut-allergic children after 12 months of EPIT with the 250-µg patch, supporting the potential real-world clinical relevance of this investigational immunotherapy and its possible role as a future therapy for peanut-allergic children. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02636699.