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.

Application of Asthma Prediction Tools in a Cohort of Infants with Severe Bronchiolitis.

Background: Severe bronchiolitis is a strong childhood asthma risk factor. Early and accurate asthma prediction is key. We applied the Asthma Predictive Index (API), the modified Asthma Predictive Index (mAPI), and the Pediatric Asthma Risk Score (PARS) in a cohort of high-risk infants to predict asthma at age 6 years. Methods: We conducted a 17-center cohort of infants (age <1 year) hospitalized with severe bronchiolitis during 2011-2014. We used only infancy data to predict asthma at age 6 years. Results: The prevalence of parent-reported asthma at age 6 years was 328/880 (37%). The prevalences of a positive index/score for stringent and loose API, mAPI, and PARS were 21%, 51%, 11%, and 34%, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves [95% confidence interval (CI)] ranged from 0.57 (95% CI 0.55-0.60) for mAPI to 0.66 (95% CI 0.63-0.70) for PARS. Conclusions: An asthma prediction tool for high-risk infants is needed to identify those who would benefit most from asthma prevention interventions.

Dupilumab for COPD with Type 2 Inflammation Indicated by Eosinophil Counts.

BACKGROUND: In some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type 2 inflammation may increase exacerbation risk and may be indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts. Dupilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key drivers of type 2 inflammation. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with COPD who had a blood eosinophil count of at least 300 per microliter and an elevated exacerbation risk despite the use of standard triple therapy to receive dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. The primary end point was the annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations of COPD. Key secondary and other end points that were corrected for multiplicity were the change in the prebronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and in the scores on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; range, 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating a better quality of life) and the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS-COPD; range, 0 to 40, with lower scores indicating less severe symptoms). RESULTS: A total of 939 patients underwent randomization: 468 to the dupilumab group and 471 to the placebo group. The annualized rate of moderate or severe exacerbations was 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.93) with dupilumab and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.30) with placebo (rate ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86; P<0.001). The prebronchodilator FEV1 increased from baseline to week 12 by a least-squares (LS) mean of 160 ml (95% CI, 126 to 195) with dupilumab and 77 ml (95% CI, 42 to 112) with placebo (LS mean difference, 83 ml; 95% CI, 42 to 125; P<0.001), a difference that was sustained through week 52. At week 52, the SGRQ score had improved by an LS mean of -9.7 (95% CI, -11.3 to -8.1) with dupilumab and -6.4 (95% CI, -8.0 to -4.8) with placebo (LS mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -5.5 to -1.3; P = 0.002). The E-RS-COPD score at week 52 had improved by an LS mean of -2.7 (95% CI, -3.2 to -2.2) with dupilumab and -1.6 (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.1) with placebo (LS mean difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.4; P = 0.001). The numbers of patients with adverse events that led to discontinuation of dupilumab or placebo, serious adverse events, and adverse events that led to death were balanced in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COPD who had type 2 inflammation as indicated by elevated blood eosinophil counts, those who received dupilumab had fewer exacerbations, better lung function and quality of life, and less severe respiratory symptoms than those who received placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; BOREAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03930732.).

Clinical Phenotypes of Immediate First-Dose Reactions to mRNA COVID-19: A Multicenter Latent Class Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although immediate potentially allergic reactions have been reported after dose 1 of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, comprehensively defined subtypes have not been clearly distinguished. OBJECTIVE: To define distinct clinical phenotypes of immediate reactions after dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and to assess the relation of clinical phenotype to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine second dose tolerance. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with 1 or more potentially allergic symptoms or signs within 4 hours of receiving dose 1 of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and assessed by allergy/immunology specialists from 5 U.S. academic medical centers (January-June 2021). We used latent class analysis-an unbiased, machine-learning modeling method-to define novel clinical phenotypes. We assessed demographic, clinical, and reaction characteristics associated with phenotype membership. Using log-binomial regression, we assessed the relation between phenotype membership and second dose tolerance, defined as either no symptoms or mild, self-limited symptoms resolving with antihistamines alone. A sensitivity analysis considered second dose tolerance as objective signs only. RESULTS: We identified 265 patients with dose-1 immediate reactions with 3 phenotype clusters: (1) Limited or Predominantly Cutaneous, (2) Sensory, and (3) Systemic. A total of 223 patients (84%) received a second dose and 200 (90%) tolerated their second dose. Sensory cluster (all patients had the symptom of numbness or tingling) was associated with a higher likelihood of second dose intolerance, but this finding did not persist when accounting for objective signs. CONCLUSIONS: Three novel clinical phenotypes of immediate-onset reactions after dose 1 of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were identified using latent class analysis: (1) Limited or Predominantly Cutaneous, (2) Sensory, and (3) Systemic. Whereas these clinical phenotypes may indicate differential mechanistic etiologies or associations with subsequent dose tolerance, most individuals proceeding to their second dose tolerated it.

Proton Pump Inhibitors in Allergy: Benefits and Risks.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed and are indicated for the treatment of several gastrointestinal disorders. Allergists may prescribe PPIs as a result of the coincidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease with asthma or rhinitis, or when gastroesophageal reflux disease presents as chronic cough. Furthermore, long-term, high-dose PPI therapy is a recommended option for managing eosinophilic esophagitis, resulting in histologic remission in approximately 40% of patients. Here, we discuss current recommendations for PPI use, its deescalation, and its side effect profile. We review evidence supporting the epidemiologic link between the use of acid-suppressant medication and the subsequent development of allergic disorders.

Infant Exposure to Acid Suppressant Medications Increases Risk of Recurrent Wheeze and Asthma in Childhood.

BACKGROUND: Acid suppressant medications (ASMs) are commonly prescribed in infancy. Little is known about the relationship between ASM exposure and risk of childhood asthma and atopic conditions. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the association between infant ASM exposure and risk for developing recurrent wheeze, allergen sensitization, and asthma in early childhood. METHODS: We used data from a diverse, multicenter, prospective cohort study of 921 infants with a history of bronchiolitis. ASM exposure (histamine-2 receptor antagonists and/or proton pump inhibitors) during infancy (age: <12 months) was ascertained by parent report and medical record review. The outcomes were recurrent wheeze by age 3 years, early childhood allergen sensitization (serum specific IgE), and asthma by age 6 years. We constructed multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for multiple confounders. RESULTS: Of the 921 children in the cohort, 202 (22%) were exposed to ASMs during infancy. Compared with unexposed children, those exposed to ASM were more likely to develop recurrent wheeze by age 3 years (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-2.08, P = .001) and asthma by age 6 years (adjusted odds ratio: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.22-2.27, P = .001). ASM exposure during infancy was not significantly associated with the development of early childhood allergen sensitization (adjusted odds ratio: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.70-1.44, P = .99). CONCLUSIONS: Although exposure to ASMs during infancy does not increase the risk of allergen sensitization in early childhood, ASM exposure during infancy increases the risk of recurrent wheeze and asthma during early childhood.

COVID-19 severity in asthma patients: a multi-center matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The evidence pertaining to the effects of asthma on Coronavirus disease 2019 outcomes has been unclear. To improve our understanding of the clinically important association of asthma and Coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: A matched cohort study was performed using data from the Mass General Brigham Health Care System (Boston, MA). Adult (age ≥18 years) patients with confirmed Coronavirus disease 2019 and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, or interstitial lung disease between March 4, 2020 and July 2, 2020 were analyzed. Up to five non-asthma comparators were matched to each asthma patient based on age (within 5 years), sex, and date of positive test (within 7 days). The primary outcomes were hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and death, using multivariable Cox-proportional hazards models accounting for competing risk of death, when appropriate. Patients were followed for these outcomes from diagnosis of Coronavirus disease 2019 until July 2, 2020. RESULTS: Among 562 asthma patients, 199 (21%) were hospitalized, 15 (3%) received mechanical ventilation, and 7 (1%) died. Among the 2686 matched comparators, 487 (18%) were hospitalized, 107 (4%) received mechanical ventilation, and 69 (3%) died. The adjusted Hazard Ratios among asthma patients were 0.99 (95% Confidence Internal 0.80, 1.22) for hospitalization, 0.69 (95% Confidence Internal 0.36, 1.29) for mechanical ventilation, and 0.30 (95% Confidence Internal 0.11, 0.80) for death. CONCLUSIONS: In this matched cohort study from a large Boston-based healthcare system, asthma was associated with comparable risk of hospitalization and mechanical ventilation but a lower risk of mortality.

Association of Self-reported High-Risk Allergy History With Allergy Symptoms After COVID-19 Vaccination.

Importance: Allergic history in individuals with confirmed anaphylaxis to a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine is common. However, the risk factors for allergy symptoms after receiving the vaccine are unknown. Objective: To assess the association between self-reported history of high-risk allergy and self-reported allergic reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of health care employees. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study obtained demographic, medical, and vaccine administration data of employees of Mass General Brigham from the institutional electronic health record. Employees who received at least 1 dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine between December 14, 2020, and February 1, 2021, and who completed at least 1 postvaccination symptom survey in the 3 days after vaccination were included. Exposures: Self-reported history of high-risk allergy, defined as a previous severe allergic reaction to a vaccine, an injectable medication, or other allergen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1 or more self-reported allergic reactions in the first 3 days after dose 1 or dose 2 of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Multivariable log binomial regression was used to assess the association between allergic reactions and high-risk allergy status. Results: A total of 52 998 health care employees (mean [SD] age, 42 [14] years; 38 167 women [72.0%]) were included in the cohort, of whom 51 706 (97.6%) received 2 doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and 474 (0.9%) reported a history of high-risk allergy. Individuals with vs without a history of high-risk allergy reported more allergic reactions after receiving dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine (11.6% [n = 55] vs 4.7% [n = 2461]). In the adjusted model, a history of high-risk allergy was associated with an increased risk of allergic reactions (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 2.46; 95% CI, 1.92-3.16), with risk being highest for hives (aRR, 3.81; 95% CI, 2.33-6.22) and angioedema (aRR, 4.36; 95% CI, 2.52-7.54). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that self-reported history of high-risk allergy was associated with an increased risk of self-reported allergic reactions within 3 days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. However, reported allergy symptoms did not impede the completion of the 2-dose vaccine protocol among a cohort of eligible health care employees, supporting the overall safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Evaluating Population Data in Allergy-Immunology.

A population-level study is essential for understanding treatment effects, epidemiologic phenomena, and health care best practices. Evaluating large populations and associated data requires an analytic framework, which is commonly used by statisticians, epidemiologists, and data scientists. This document will serve to provide an overview of these commonly employed methods in allergy and immunology research. We will draw upon recent examples from the allergy-immunology literature to contextualize discrete principles of relevance to population-level analysis that include statistical features of a study population, elements of statistical inference, regression analysis, and an overview of machine learning practices. Our intent is to guide the reader through a practical description of this important quantitative discipline and facilitate greater understanding about data and result display in the medical literature.

Early Introduction of Food Allergens and Risk of Developing Food Allergy.

There is increasing evidence that early introduction of allergenic foods may decrease the risk of developing IgE-mediated food allergy. Patterns of food introduction before the 2015 publication of the Learning Early about Peanut Allergy (LEAP) trial are not well-studied, but are important as a baseline for evaluating subsequent changes in infant feeding practices and potentially food allergy. We performed a retrospective longitudinal study using data from a multicenter cohort of infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis between 2011-2014. The primary outcomes were IgE-mediated egg or peanut allergy by age 3 years. Of 770 participants included in the analysis, 635 (82%) introduced egg, and 221 (27%) introduced peanut by age 12 months per parent report. Four participants had likely egg allergy, and eight participants had likely peanut allergy by age 3 years. Regular infant egg consumption was associated with less egg allergy. The association was suggestive for infant peanut consumption with zero peanut allergy cases. Overall, our results suggest that early introduction of peanut was uncommon before 2015. Although limited by the small number of allergy cases, our results suggest that early introduction of egg and peanut are associated with a decreased risk of developing food allergy, and support recent changes in practice guidelines.

A comparison of case definitions for infant atopic dermatitis in a multicenter prospective cohort study.

This study identified two infant AD case definitions that were strongly associated with known AD risk factors. These case definitions can be used to study novel AD risk factors in large cohort studies, potentially providing new insights into the epidemiology of infant AD.

First-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Allergic Reactions: Limited Role for Excipient Skin Testing.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that a severe or immediate allergic reaction to the first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is a contraindication for the second dose. OBJECTIVE: To assess outcomes associated with excipient skin testing after a reported allergic reaction to the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: We identified a consecutive sample of patients with reported allergic reactions after the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine who underwent allergy assessment with skin testing to polyethylene glycol (PEG) and, when appropriate, polysorbate 80. Skin testing results in conjunction with clinical phenotyping of the first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reaction guided second-dose vaccination recommendation. Second-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine reactions were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty patients with reported first-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccine allergic reactions (n = 65; 81% immediate onset) underwent excipient skin testing. Of those, 14 (18%) had positive skin tests to PEG (n = 5) and/or polysorbate 80 (n = 12). Skin testing result did not affect tolerance of the second dose in patients with immediate or delayed reactions. Of the 70 patients who received the second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose (88%), 62 had either no reaction or a mild reaction managed with antihistamines (89%), but 2 patients required epinephrine treatment. Three patients with positive PEG-3350 intradermal (methylprednisolone) testing tolerated second-dose mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Refresh Tears caused nonspecific skin irritation. CONCLUSIONS: Most individuals with a reported allergic reaction to the first dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of skin test result, received the second dose safely. More data are needed on the value of skin prick testing to PEG (MiraLAX) in evaluating patients with mRNA COVID-19 vaccine anaphylaxis. Refresh Tears should not be used for skin testing.