Web-based survey investigating cardiovascular complications in hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome after COVID-19 infection and vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is a heritable connective tissue disorder associated with generalized joint hypermobility but also other multisystem comorbidities, many of which may be exacerbated during a viral illness or after a vaccination. We sought to determine whether individuals with hypermobile Ehlers Danlos syndrome report an increase in adverse events, including cardiovascular events, after COVID-19 illness or vaccination. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was made available from November 22, 2021, through March 15, 2022. 368 respondents primarily from the United States self-reported data including diagnosis. We used a Cox proportional hazards model with time varying indicators for COVID-19 illness or vaccination in the previous 30 days. RESULTS: We found a significantly increased rate of new abnormal heart rhythms reported in the 30 days following COVID-19 illness. No additional cardiovascular events were reported after COVID-19 illness. 2.5% of respondents with COVID-19 illness were hospitalized. We did not find a statistically significant increased rate of cardiovascular events in the 30 days following any COVID-19 vaccination dose. Post COVID-19 vaccination, 87.2% of hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome respondents endorsed an expected adverse event (EAE), and 3.1% reported an emergency department visit/hospitalization, of those who received at least one vaccine dose. Events possibly reflecting exacerbation of orthostasis/dysautonomia were common. CONCLUSION: Respondents did not report an increased rate of any cardiovascular events in the 30 days following COVID-19 vaccination; however, those with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome experienced a high rate of expected adverse events after vaccination consistent with a high baseline prevalence of similar symptoms. No cardiovascular events other than new abnormal heart rhythms were reported at any point after a COVID-19 illness.

A randomized double-blinded trial to assess recurrence of systemic allergic reactions following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions (sARs) following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines were initially reported at a higher rate than after traditional vaccines. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the safety of revaccination in these individuals and to interrogate mechanisms underlying these reactions. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, phase 2 trial, participants aged 16 to 69 years who previously reported a convincing sAR to their first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were randomly assigned to receive a second dose of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) vaccine and placebo on consecutive days in a blinded, 1:1 crossover fashion at the National Institutes of Health. An open-label BNT162b2 booster was offered 5 months later if the second dose did not result in severe sAR. None of the participants received the mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) vaccine during the study. The primary end point was recurrence of sAR following second dose and booster vaccination; exploratory end points included biomarker measurements. RESULTS: Of 111 screened participants, 18 were randomly assigned to receive study interventions. Eight received BNT162b2 second dose followed by placebo; 8 received placebo followed by BNT162b2 second dose; 2 withdrew before receiving any study intervention. All 16 participants received the booster dose. Following second dose and booster vaccination, sARs recurred in 2 participants (12.5%; 95% CI, 1.6 to 38.3). No sAR occurred after placebo. An anaphylaxis mimic, immunization stress-related response (ISRR), occurred more commonly than sARs following both vaccine and placebo and was associated with higher predose anxiety scores, paresthesias, and distinct vital sign and biomarker changes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support revaccination of individuals who report sARs to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Distinct clinical and laboratory features may distinguish sARs from ISRRs.

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.).

Defining the window of opportunity and target populations to prevent peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy affects 1% to 2% of European children. Early introduction of peanut into the diet reduces allergy in high-risk infants. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the optimal target populations and timing of introduction of peanut products to prevent peanut allergy in the general population. METHODS: Data from the Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT; n = 1303; normal risk; 3-year follow-up; ISRCTN14254740) and Learning Early About Peanut Allergy study (LEAP; n = 640; high risk; 5-year follow-up; NCT00329784) randomized controlled trials plus the Peanut Allergy Sensitization (PAS; n = 194; low and very high risk; 5-year follow-up) observational study were used to model the intervention in a general population. Peanut allergy was defined by blinded peanut challenge or diagnostic skin prick test result. RESULTS: Targeting only the highest-risk infants with severe eczema reduced the population disease burden by only 4.6%. Greatest reductions in peanut allergy were seen when the intervention was targeted only to the larger but lower-risk groups. A 77% reduction in peanut allergy was estimated when peanut was introduced to the diet of all infants, at 4 months with eczema, and at 6 months without eczema. The estimated reduction in peanut allergy diminished with every month of delayed introduction. If introduction was delayed to 12 months, peanut allergy was only reduced by 33%. CONCLUSIONS: The preventive benefit of early introduction of peanut products into the diet decreases as age at introduction increases. In countries where peanut allergy is a public health concern, health care professionals should help parents introduce peanut products into their infants' diet at 4 to 6 months of life.

Genetically defined individual reference ranges for tryptase limit unnecessary procedures and unmask myeloid neoplasms.

Serum tryptase is a biomarker used to aid in the identification of certain myeloid neoplasms, most notably systemic mastocytosis, where basal serum tryptase (BST) levels >20 ng/mL are a minor criterion for diagnosis. Although clonal myeloid neoplasms are rare, the common cause for elevated BST levels is the genetic trait hereditary α-tryptasemia (HαT) caused by increased germline TPSAB1 copy number. To date, the precise structural variation and mechanism(s) underlying elevated BST in HαT and the general clinical utility of tryptase genotyping, remain undefined. Through cloning, long-read sequencing, and assembling of the human tryptase locus from an individual with HαT, and validating our findings in vitro and in silico, we demonstrate that BST elevations arise from overexpression of replicated TPSAB1 loci encoding canonical α-tryptase protein owing to coinheritance of a linked overactive promoter element. Modeling BST levels based on TPSAB1 replication number, we generate new individualized clinical reference values for the upper limit of normal. Using this personalized laboratory medicine approach, we demonstrate the clinical utility of tryptase genotyping, finding that in the absence of HαT, BST levels >11.4 ng/mL frequently identify indolent clonal mast cell disease. Moreover, substantial BST elevations (eg, >100 ng/mL), which would ordinarily prompt bone marrow biopsy, can result from TPSAB1 replications alone and thus be within normal limits for certain individuals with HαT.

Defining baseline variability of serum tryptase levels improves accuracy in identifying anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Acute increases of ≥20% + 2 ng/mL (20 + 2 rule) over basal serum tryptase (BST) is the recommended threshold supporting a clinical diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Prospective studies have demonstrated high sensitivity for this algorithm after parenteral exposure, but specificity has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We sought to define a serum tryptase change that distinguishes baseline variability from anaphylaxis on the basis of intraindividual variation in BST. METHODS: Ninety-three total subjects with atopy (n = 62) or hereditary α-tryptasemia (HαT) (n = 31) and ≥2 BST measurements were identified. Sequential BST variability measurements were modeled and threshold ratios that optimized sensitivity and/or specificity determined. Models were tested in 22 individuals with physician-diagnosed anaphylaxis and validated in independent cohorts of individuals with HαT (n = 33), indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM) (n = 52), and ISM + HαT (n = 12). Mature tryptase levels were measured in HαT (n = 19) and ISM (n = 20). An online application was developed for clinical use. RESULTS: As a result of BST variability, 9.7% (9/93) of primary cohort patients, and 18% (6/33) of HαT, 30% (16/53) of ISM, and 25% (3/12) of ISM + HαT patients from validation cohorts met the 20 + 2 rule despite absent immediate hypersensitivity symptoms; mature tryptase was noncontributory among individuals with HαT or ISM at baseline. A ratio of acute tryptase/BST exceeding 1.685 provided the optimized diagnostic rule for jointly maximizing sensitivity and specificity. Statistically significant improvement in specificity relative to the 20 + 2 rule was observed among individuals with elevated BST caused by HαT and ISM. CONCLUSIONS: Using an acute tryptase/BST ratio of 1.685 improves specificity of measured changes among individuals with HαT and ISM while maintaining high sensitivity for confirmation of anaphylaxis.

Predictors of low bone density and fracture risk in Loeys-Dietz syndrome.

PURPOSE: Loeys-Dietz syndrome (LDS) is a connective tissue disorder affecting multiple organ systems, including bone. METHODS: We defined the bone phenotype and clinical predictors of low bone density and fracture risk in 77 patients with LDS type 1 to type 5. RESULTS: Patients with LDS had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) Z-scores significantly < 0, and 50% of children and 9% of adults had Z-scores < -2. Sixty percent of patients had ≥1 fracture, and 24% of patients with spinal x-rays scans showed spinal compression fractures. Lower body mass index, asthma, male sex and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease were correlated with lower DXA Z-scores. The count of 5 LDS-associated skeletal features (scoliosis, pes planus, arachnodactyly, spondylolisthesis, and camptodactyly) in patients with LDS was correlated with DXA Z-score. Adults with ≥1 skeletal features had DXA Z-scores significantly < 0, and children with >2 features had DXA Z-score significantly < -2. Bone turnover markers suggest accelerated bone resorption. Data from 5 patients treated with bisphosphonates suggest a beneficial effect. CONCLUSION: All LDS types are associated with reduced bone density and increased risk of fracture, which may be due to increased bone resorption. Clinical features can predict a subgroup of patients at highest risk of low bone density and fracture risk.

A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study of omalizumab for idiopathic anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) is a diagnosis of exclusion, thus taking away the option of therapeutic management focused on eliminating the inciting agent. Epinephrine and antihistamines followed by systemic corticosteroids are the mainstays of therapy for acute events. There is no prophylactic therapy that reliably prevents anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the efficacy of omalizumab in the management of patients with frequent episodes of IA in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 19 patients with frequent IA (≥6 episodes/y) who then underwent a medical evaluation that included a serum tryptase determination, mutational analysis for KIT D816V, and bone marrow evaluation to rule out a clonal mast cell disorder. Computer-generated random numbers were provided by the study pharmacist. The primary end point was anaphylactic events in the 6 months after baseline. Sixteen patients completed the primary trial. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was demonstrated between the placebo and treated groups. There was a trend for efficacy in the treatment group, particularly after 60 days. Overall, the safety profile was favorable without long-term side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab was safely administered to a difficult-to-treat patient population with IA. The efficacy results trended modestly in favor of the treatment group, but no statistically significant differences were detected.

Clinical Research Needs for the Management of Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps in the New Era of Biologics: A National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Workshop.

The development of biologics targeting various aspects of type 2 inflammation for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) will provide clinicians with powerful tools to help treat these patients. However, other therapies are also available, and positioning of biologics in a management algorithm will require comparative trials. In November 2019, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases convened a workshop to consider potential future trial designs. Workshop participants represented a wide spectrum of clinical specialties, including otolaryngology, allergy, and pulmonary medicine, as well as expertise in CRSwNP pathophysiology and in trial methodology and statistics. The workshop discussed the current state of knowledge in CRSwNP and considered the advantages and disadvantages of various clinical trial or observational study designs and various clinical outcomes. The output from this workshop, which is presented in this report, will hopefully provide investigators with adequate information and ideas to design future studies and answer critical clinical questions. It will also help clinicians understand the current state of the management of CRSwNP and its gaps and be more able to interpret the new information to come.

A primer on strong vs weak control of familywise error rate.

Multiple comparison adjustments have a long history, yet confusion remains about which procedures control type 1 error rate in a strong sense and how to show this. Part of the confusion stems from a powerful technique called the closed testing principle, whose statement is deceptively simple, but is sometimes misinterpreted. This primer presents a straightforward way to think about multiplicity adjustment.

On Causal Inferences for Personalized Medicine: How Hidden Causal Assumptions Led to Erroneous Causal Claims About the D-Value.

Personalized medicine asks if a new treatment will help a particular patient, rather than if it improves the average response in a population. Without a causal model to distinguish these questions, interpretational mistakes arise. These mistakes are seen in an article by Demidenko [2016] that recommends the "D-value," which is the probability that a randomly chosen person from the new-treatment group has a higher value for the outcome than a randomly chosen person from the control-treatment group. The abstract states "The D-value has a clear interpretation as the proportion of patients who get worse after the treatment" with similar assertions appearing later. We show these statements are incorrect because they require assumptions about the potential outcomes which are neither testable in randomized experiments nor plausible in general. The D-value will not equal the proportion of patients who get worse after treatment if (as expected) those outcomes are correlated. Independence of potential outcomes is unrealistic and eliminates any personalized treatment effects; with dependence, the D-value can even imply treatment is better than control even though most patients are harmed by the treatment. Thus, D-values are misleading for personalized medicine. To prevent misunderstandings, we advise incorporating causal models into basic statistics education.

Mind the gaps: Clinical trial concepts to address unanswered questions in aeroallergen immunotherapy-An NIAID/AHRQ Workshop.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases organized a workshop to develop trial concepts that could improve the use and effectiveness of aeroallergen immunotherapy (AAIT). Expert groups were formed to accomplish the following tasks: (1) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous versus sublingual AAIT; (2) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of AAIT by using 1 or a few allergens versus all or most allergens to which a patient is sensitized; (3) propose a study design to determine whether AAIT can alter the progression of childhood allergic airways disease; and (4) propose a study design to determine the optimal dose and duration of AAIT to achieve maximal effectiveness with acceptable safety. Study designs were presented by the workgroups, extensively discussed at the workshop, and revised for this report. The proposed trials would be of long duration and require large highly characterized patient populations. Scientific caveats and feasibility matters are discussed. These concepts are intended to help the development of clinical trials that can address some of the major questions related to the practice of AAIT for the management and prevention of allergic airways disease.

IgE testing can predict food allergy status in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing food allergy in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is complicated by their high rate of asymptomatic sensitization to foods, which can lead to misdiagnosis and unnecessary food avoidance. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether food-specific (sIgE) or component immunoglobulin (Ig) E levels could predict allergic status in patients with moderate to severe AD and elevated total IgE. METHODS: Seventy-eight children (median age, 10.7 years) with moderate to severe AD were assessed for a history of clinical reactivity to milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy. The IgE levels for each food and its components were determined by ImmunoCAP. The level and pattern of IgE reactivity to each food and its components, and their ratio to total IgE, were compared between subjects who were allergic and tolerant to each food. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of subjects were sensitized, and 51% reported allergic reactivity to at least 1 of the 5 most common food allergens. Allergy to milk, egg, and peanut were most common, and IgE levels to each of these foods were significantly higher in the allergic group. Component IgEs most associated with milk, egg, and peanut allergy were Bos d8, Gal d1, and Ara h2, respectively. The ratio of sIgE to total IgE offered no advantage to sIgE alone in predicting allergy. CONCLUSION: Specific IgE levels and the pattern of IgE reactivity to food components can distinguish AD subjects allergic vs tolerant to the major food allergens and may therefore be helpful in guiding the clinical management of these patients.

Half blind superiority tests for clinical trials of anti-infective drugs.

This paper introduces a test of superiority of new anti-infective drug B over comparator drug A based on a randomized clinical trial. This test can be used to demonstrate assay (trial) sensitivity for noninferiority trials and rigorously tailor drug choice for individual patients. Our approach uses specialized baseline covariates XA ,XB , which should predict the benefits of drug A and drug B, respectively. Using a response surface model for the treatment effect, we test for superiority at the (XA ,XB ) point that is most likely to show superiority. We identify this point based on estimates from a novel half-blind pseudo likelihood, where we augment a blinded likelihood (mixed over the treatment indicator) with likelihoods for the overall success rates for drug A and drug B (mixed over XA ,XB ). The augmentation results in much better estimates than those based on the mixed blinded likelihood alone but, interestingly, the estimates almost behave as if they were based on fully blinded data. We also develop an analogous univariate method using XA for settings where XB has little variation. Permutation methods are used for testing. If the "half-blind" test rejects, pointwise confidence interval can be used to identify patients who would benefit from drug B. We compare the new tests to other methods with an example and via simulations.

Hypomorphic caspase activation and recruitment domain 11 (CARD11) mutations associated with diverse immunologic phenotypes with or without atopic disease.

BACKGROUND: Caspase activation and recruitment domain 11 (CARD11) encodes a scaffold protein in lymphocytes that links antigen receptor engagement with downstream signaling to nuclear factor κB, c-Jun N-terminal kinase, and mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1. Germline CARD11 mutations cause several distinct primary immune disorders in human subjects, including severe combined immune deficiency (biallelic null mutations), B-cell expansion with nuclear factor κB and T-cell anergy (heterozygous, gain-of-function mutations), and severe atopic disease (loss-of-function, heterozygous, dominant interfering mutations), which has focused attention on CARD11 mutations discovered by using whole-exome sequencing. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the molecular actions of an extended allelic series of CARD11 and to characterize the expanding range of clinical phenotypes associated with heterozygous CARD11 loss-of-function alleles. METHODS: Cell transfections and primary T-cell assays were used to evaluate signaling and function of CARD11 variants. RESULTS: Here we report on an expanded cohort of patients harboring novel heterozygous CARD11 mutations that extend beyond atopy to include other immunologic phenotypes not previously associated with CARD11 mutations. In addition to (and sometimes excluding) severe atopy, heterozygous missense and indel mutations in CARD11 presented with immunologic phenotypes similar to those observed in signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 loss of function, dedicator of cytokinesis 8 deficiency, common variable immunodeficiency, neutropenia, and immune dysregulation, polyendocrinopathy, enteropathy, X-linked-like syndrome. Pathogenic variants exhibited dominant negative activity and were largely confined to the CARD or coiled-coil domains of the CARD11 protein. CONCLUSION: These results illuminate a broader phenotypic spectrum associated with CARD11 mutations in human subjects and underscore the need for functional studies to demonstrate that rare gene variants encountered in expected and unexpected phenotypes must nonetheless be validated for pathogenic activity.

Causal estimands and confidence intervals associated with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests in randomized experiments.

Although the P value from a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test is used often with randomized experiments, it is rarely accompanied with a causal effect estimate and its confidence interval. The natural parameter for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test is the Mann-Whitney parameter, ϕ, which measures the probability that a randomly selected individual in the treatment arm will have a larger response than a randomly selected individual in the control arm (plus an adjustment for ties). We show that the Mann-Whitney parameter may be framed as a causal parameter and show that it is not equal to a closely related and nonidentifiable causal effect, ψ, the probability that a randomly selected individual will have a larger response under treatment than under control (plus an adjustment for ties). We review the paradox, first expressed by Hand, that the ψ parameter may imply that the treatment is worse (or better) than control, while the Mann-Whitney parameter shows the opposite. Unlike the Mann-Whitney parameter, ψ is nonidentifiable from a randomized experiment. We review some nonparametric assumptions that rule out Hand's paradox through bounds on ψ and use bootstrap methods to make inferences on those bounds. We explore the relationship of the proportional odds parameter to Hand's paradox, showing that the paradox may occur for proportional odds parameters between 1/9 and 9. Thus, large effects are needed to ensure that if treatment appears better by the Mann-Whitney parameter, then treatment improves responses in most individuals. We demonstrate these issues using a vaccine trial.

Anti-IgE treatment with oral immunotherapy in multifood allergic participants: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite progress in single food oral immunotherapy, there is little evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of treating individuals with multiple food (multifood) allergies. We did a pilot study testing whether anti-IgE (omalizumab) combined with multifood oral immunotherapy benefited multifood allergic patients. METHODS: We did a blinded, phase 2 clinical trial at Stanford University. We enrolled participants, aged 4-15 years, with multifood allergies validated by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to their offending foods. Inclusion criteria included a positive skin prick test of 6 mm or more (wheal diameter, above the negative control), a food-specific serum IgE concentration of more than 4 kU/L for each food, or both, and a positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at 500 mg or less of food protein. Exclusion criteria included eosinophilic oesophagitis and severe asthma. Participants were randomised (3:1) with a block size of four, to receive multifood oral immunotherapy to two to five foods, together with omalizumab (n=36) or placebo (n=12). 12 individuals who fulfilled the same inclusion and exclusion criteria were included as controls. These individuals were not randomised and received neither omalizumab nor oral immunotherapy. Omalizumab or placebo was administered subcutaneously for 16 weeks, with oral immunotherapy starting at week 8, and was stopped 20 weeks before the exit double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at week 36. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who passed double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to at least two of their offending foods. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02643862. FINDINGS: Between March 25, 2015, and Aug 18, 2016, 165 participants were assessed for eligibility, of whom 84 did not meet the inclusion criteria and 21 declined to participate. We enrolled and randomised 48 eligible participants and the remaining 12 patients were included as nonrandomised, untreated controls. At week 36, a significantly greater proportion of the omalizumab-treated (30 [83%] of 36) versus placebo (four [33%] of 12) participants passed double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to 2 g protein for two or more of their offending foods (odds ratio 10·0, 95% CI 1·8-58·3, p=0·0044). All participants completed the study. There were no serious or severe (grade 3 or worse) adverse events. Participants in the omalizumab group had a significantly lower median per-participant percentage of oral immunotherapy doses associated with any adverse events (27% vs 68%; p=0·0082). The most common adverse events in both groups were gastrointestinal events. INTERPRETATION: In multifood allergic patients, omalizumab improves the efficacy of multifood oral immunotherapy and enables safe and rapid desensitisation. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Mechanistic correlates of clinical responses to omalizumab in the setting of oral immunotherapy for milk allergy.

BACKGROUND: In our recent clinical trial, the addition of omalizumab to oral immunotherapy (OIT) for milk allergy improved safety, but no significant clinical benefit was detected. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate mechanisms by which omalizumab modulates immunity in the context of OIT and to identify baseline biomarkers that predict subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from omalizumab. METHODS: Blood was obtained at baseline and multiple time points during a placebo-controlled trial of OIT for milk allergy in which subjects were randomized to receive omalizumab or placebo. Immunologic outcomes included measurement of basophil CD63 expression and histamine release and casein-specific CD4+ regulatory T-cell proliferation. Biomarkers were analyzed in relationship to measurements of safety and efficacy. RESULTS: Milk-induced basophil CD63 expression was transiently reduced in whole blood samples from both omalizumab- and placebo-treated subjects. However, IgE-dependent histamine release increased in washed cell preparations from omalizumab- but not placebo-treated subjects. No increase in regulatory T-cell frequency was evident in either group. Subjects with lower rates of adverse reactions, regardless of arm, experienced better clinical outcomes. Pre-OIT basophil reactivity positively associated with occurrence of symptoms during OIT, whereas the baseline milk IgE/total IgE ratio correlated with the likelihood of achieving sustained unresponsiveness. A combination of baseline basophil and serologic biomarkers defined a subset of patients in which adjunctive therapy with omalizumab was associated with attainment of sustained unresponsiveness and a reduction in adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Combining omalizumab therapy with milk OIT led to distinct alterations in basophil reactivity but not T-cell responses. Baseline biomarkers can identify subjects most likely to benefit from adjunctive therapy with omalizumab.