Sustained silencing peanut allergy by xanthopurpurin is associated with suppression of peripheral and bone marrow IgE-producing B cell.

Introduction: Peanut allergy is an immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated food allergy. Rubia cordifolia L. (R. cordifolia), a Chinese herbal medicine, protects against peanut-induced anaphylaxis by suppressing IgE production in vivo. This study aims to identify IgE-inhibitory compounds from the water extract of R. cordifolia and investigate the underlying mechanisms using in vitro and in vivo models. Methods: Compounds were isolated from R. cordifolia water extract and their bioactivity on IgE production was assessed using a human myeloma U266 cell line. The purified active compound, xanthopurpurin (XPP), was identified by LC-MS and NMR. Peanut-allergic C3H/HeJ mice were orally administered with or without XPP at 200µg or 400µg per mouse per day for 4 weeks. Serum peanut-specific IgE levels, symptom scores, body temperatures, and plasma histamine levels were measured at challenge. Cytokines in splenocyte cultures were determined by ELISA, and IgE + B cells were analyzed by flow cytometry. Acute and sub-chronic toxicity were evaluated. IL-4 promoter DNA methylation, RNA-Seq, and qPCR analysis were performed to determine the regulatory mechanisms of XPP. Results: XPP significantly and dose-dependently suppressed the IgE production in U266 cells. XPP significantly reduced peanut-specific IgE (>80%, p <0.01), and plasma histamine levels and protected the mice against peanut-allergic reactions in both early and late treatment experiments (p < 0.05, n=9). XPP showed a strong protective effect even 5 weeks after discontinuing the treatment. XPP significantly reduced the IL-4 level without affecting IgG or IgA and IFN-γ production. Flow cytometry data showed that XPP reduced peripheral and bone marrow IgE + B cells compared to the untreated group. XPP increased IL-4 promoter methylation. RNA-Seq and RT-PCR experiments revealed that XPP regulated the gene expression of CCND1, DUSP4, SDC1, ETS1, PTPRC, and IL6R, which are related to plasma cell IgE production. All safety testing results were in the normal range. Conclusions: XPP successfully protected peanut-allergic mice against peanut anaphylaxis by suppressing IgE production. XPP suppresses murine IgE-producing B cell numbers and inhibits IgE production and associated genes in human plasma cells. XPP may be a potential therapy for IgE-mediated food allergy.

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.).

Desensitization and remission after peanut sublingual immunotherapy in 1- to 4-year-old peanut-allergic children: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have suggested a potential advantage with younger age at treatment initiation. OBJECTIVE: We studied the safety and efficacy of SLIT for peanut allergy in 1- to 4-year-old children. METHODS: Peanut-allergic 1- to 4-year-old children were randomized to receive 4 mg peanut SLIT versus placebo. Desensitization was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 36 months of treatment. Participants desensitized to at least 443 mg peanut protein discontinued therapy for 3 months and then underwent DBPCFC to assess for remission. Biomarkers were measured at baseline and longitudinally during treatment. RESULTS: Fifty participants (25 peanut SLIT, 25 placebo) with a median age of 2.4 years were enrolled across 2 sites. The primary end point of desensitization was met with actively treated versus placebo participants having a significantly greater median cumulative tolerated dose (4443 mg vs 143 mg), higher likelihood of passing the month 36 DBPCFC (60% vs 0), and higher likelihood of demonstrating remission (48% vs 0). The highest rate of desensitization and remission was seen in 1- to 2-year-olds, followed by 2- to 3-year-olds and 3- to 4-year-olds. Longitudinal changes in peanut skin prick testing, peanut-specific IgG4, and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio were seen in peanut SLIT but not placebo participants. Oropharyngeal itching was more commonly reported by peanut SLIT than placebo participants. Skin, gastrointestinal, upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and multisystem adverse events were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Peanut SLIT safely induces desensitization and remission in 1- to 4-year-old children, with improved outcomes seen with younger age at initiation.

Interaction Between Baseline Participant Factors and Treatment Effects Following Peanut Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The Probiotic Peanut Oral Immunotherapy-003 multicenter randomized trial found that both probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) and peanut OIT alone (OIT) were effective compared with placebo in inducing clinical remission after 18 months of treatment, and improving health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 12 months after treatment. Understanding treatment effect modifiers can optimize outcomes through precision care. OBJECTIVES: This post hoc study examined baseline clinical and demographic participant factors that modified treatment effects. METHODS: The study sample included 201 children (aged 1-10 years) with challenge-confirmed peanut allergy. Exposure variables were baseline clinical and demographic factors. Outcomes were remission (double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, cumulative 4,950-mg peanut protein at 8 weeks after treatment) and HRQL (change in Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire-Parent Form score). Interactions between baseline factors and treatment effects on remission and HRQL were explored with regression models. RESULTS: A higher degree of peanut sensitivity (large peanut skin prick test, high peanut specific IgE, and low reaction-eliciting dose at study entry challenge) and other concurrent allergic conditions (multiple food allergies, asthma, or wheeze) were associated with the decreased likelihood of attaining remission after both PPOIT and OIT treatment. History of anaphylaxis was associated with the reduced likelihood of remission after PPOIT compared with OIT. For the HRQL outcome, there was evidence that sex, history of anaphylaxis, and age modified treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline participant factors modify PPOIT and OIT effects on remission and HRQL. Considering modifiers of treatment effect during participant selection may optimize treatment success and clinical trial design toward specific outcomes, such as the achievement of remission.

Epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin™ Peanut in toddlers: a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article published in The New England Journal of Medicine about the EPITOPE clinical study, which tested a skin patch called ViaskinTM Peanut 250 µg (micrograms) as a treatment option for peanut allergy in children aged 1 through 3 years. The patch is a form of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), which is a new approach to allergen immunotherapy that delivers a small amount of peanut protein to the immune system through the skin. Viaskin Peanut is an investigational therapy, meaning it has not yet been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that has been studied before in young children aged 4 through 11 years. In those studies, the children who received the patch were desensitized and were less likely to experience anaphylaxis when they ate peanut at the end of the study. The EPITOPE study included children aged 1 through 3 years with peanut allergy and looked at how well the peanut patch worked and how safe it was compared to a patch with no medicine (placebo, no medicine) after 12 months. WHAT WERE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: The study showed that the peanut patch was better in desensitizing children to peanuts than the placebo patch. Most of the children in the study who received the peanut patch for 12 months (the treatment group) were able to eat and tolerate more peanut at the end of the study than those who received only the placebo patch (the control group). This demonstrates that the children in the treatment group were less likely to have an allergic reaction if they ate peanut by accident at the end of the study. The children in the treatment group also had less severe symptoms when they were given peanut during the oral food challenges at the end of the study. Most children in both groups experienced side effects. Mild to moderate local skin reactions where the patch was applied were most common. These side effects happened less often and were less serious over the 12-month treatment period. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Overall, these results show the peanut patch may be a possible treatment option to help desensitize young children with peanut allergy to peanut.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) versus placebo in Australian children with peanut allergy alongside a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compared the cost-effectiveness of coadministration of a probiotic adjuvant with peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) with placebo (no treatment) in children with peanut allergy. DESIGN: Prospectively planned cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised control trial. SETTING: The Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 56 children with peanut allergy aged 1-10 years at recruitment. INTERVENTION: A daily dose of probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC 1.3724 (NCC4007) and peanut oral immunotherapy administered for 1.5 years. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Costs were considered from a healthcare system perspective and included costs of treatment delivery and adverse events. Effectiveness outcomes included rate of sustained unresponsiveness (SU) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The cost-effectiveness of PPOIT versus placebo was analysed using patient-level data. Time horizon was 10 years from commencement of PPOIT treatment, comprising 1.5 years of treatment (actual data), 4 years of post-treatment follow-up (actual data), and 4.5 years of extrapolation thereafter (modelling). RESULTS: Healthcare cost per patient over 10 years was higher for PPOIT compared with placebo ($A9355 vs $A1031, p<0.001). Over half of the per patient healthcare cost (53%) in the PPOIT group was attributable to treatment delivery, while the remaining cost was attributable to adverse events. Both measures of effectiveness were superior in the PPOIT group: the average SU rate over 10 years was 54% for PPOIT versus 6% for placebo (p<0.001); QALYs over 10 years were 9.05 for PPOIT versus 8.63 for placebo (p<0.001). Overall, cost per year of SU achieved was $A1694 (range $A1678, $A1709) for PPOIT compared with placebo, and cost per additional QALY gained was $A19 386 (range $A19 024, $A19 774). CONCLUSIONS: Cost per QALY gained using PPOIT compared with no treatment is approximately $A20 000 (£10 000) and is well below the conventional value judgement threshold of $A50 000 (£25 000) per QALY gained, thus deemed good value for money ($A1= £0.5 approximately). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000594325; Post-results.

Phase 3 Trial of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Toddlers with Peanut Allergy.

BACKGROUND: No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).

Food Oral Immunotherapy: A Survey Among US Practicing Allergists Conducted as a AAAAI Leadership Institute Project and Work Group Report.

BACKGROUND: Food oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an active form of treatment for food allergies. Although research in this area has been ongoing for many years, the first US Food and Drug Administration-approved product for peanut allergy treatment became available only in January 2020. Limited data exist on OIT services offered by physicians in the United States. OBJECTIVE: This workgroup report was developed to evaluate OIT practices among allergists practicing in the United States. METHODS: The authors developed an anonymous 15-question survey and was subsequently reviewed and approved by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Practices, Diagnostics and Therapeutics Committee before distribution to the membership. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology electronically distributed the survey to a random sample of 780 members in November 2021. In addition to questions specific to food OIT, the survey included questions on demographics and professional characteristics of the responders. RESULTS: A total of 78 members completed the survey, yielding a 10% response rate. Fifty percent of responders were offering OIT in their practice. There was a significant difference in experience in OIT originating from research trials in academic versus nonacademic centers. Generally, OIT practices were similar in both settings for the number of foods offered, the performance of oral food challenges before initiating treatment, the number of new patients to whom OIT was offered to per month, and age groups OIT to whom was offered. Almost all of the reported barriers to OIT were similar between settings: staff and time limitations, concerns about safety and anaphylaxis, the need for more education on how to perform, inadequate compensation, and that it was not a significant demand from patients. Clinic space limitations were significantly different and more prominent in academic settings. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey revealed interesting trends in the practice of OIT across the United States, with some significant differences arising when academic and nonacademic settings were compared.

Oral Immunotherapy: An Overview.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an alternative treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy that has been shown to increase tolerance threshold to many of the top food allergens, although this effect may be dependent on age, dose, frequency, and duration. OIT has been shown to be effective and safe in infants, and early initiation can improve rates of desensitization even for those foods whose natural history favors loss of allergy. Studies looking at protocol modification to improve OIT success are ongoing as is the evaluation of clinical tools to help monitor OIT effects.

Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of E-B-FAHF-2 in Combination With Omalizumab-Facilitated Multiallergen Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is limited by adverse events, and most patients require continued treatment to maintain their increased threshold. Adjunctive treatments have been explored to increase the safety and efficacy of OIT. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of enhanced, butanol purified Food Allergy Herbal Formula-2 (E-B-FAHF-2) for inducing remission in subjects undergoing omalizumab-facilitated multiallergen OIT (multi-OIT). METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive either E-B-FAHF-2 or placebo, starting 2 months before OIT and continuing throughout OIT. All subjects received a 4-month course of omalizumab, starting 2 months before OIT through the 2-month OIT build-up phase. After 24 months of multi-OIT (maintenance dose of 1000 mg of each allergen), desensitization and remission were assessed. The primary objective was to determine if subjects in the E-B-FAHF-2 group (EOIT) were more likely than the placebo group (OIT) to develop remission to all 3 allergens treated with multi-OIT, as defined by the absence of dose-limiting symptoms to a cumulative dose of 4444 mg of protein after discontinuing treatment for 3 months. RESULTS: Thirty-three subjects were randomized. A total of 63.6% were desensitized to 4444 mg of protein for each allergen at 26 months, and 24.2% met the primary outcome of remission at 29 months, with no difference between the treatment groups. There was good adherence (>85%) with study medications, with no difference between the treatment groups. There was no difference in reported overall adverse events between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab-facilitated multifood OIT was safe and effective, and remission was achieved in about a quarter of subjects. However, outcomes were not improved by the addition of E-B-FAHF-2.

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.

Validated anxiety assessments among pediatric patients with peanut allergy on oral immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Although efficacy, safety, and quality of life measures associated with peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) have been studied, the relationship between peanut OIT and clinical anxiety has not yet been evaluated. The latter is important to help providers and families have an improved shared medical decision discussion around the benefits of initiating OIT. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between undergoing OIT and anxiety in patients with peanut allergy. METHODS: In this prospective cross-sectional cohort study, using validated and age-appropriate anxiety scales administered with electronic survey questionnaires, we used generalized linear regressions to compare anxiety between patients undergoing OIT and similar patients with peanut allergy but not on OIT (controls). RESULTS: In the younger cohort (<7 years, n = 80), there was generally a low prevalence of diagnosable anxiety across patients on OIT and controls. In the older cohort (>7 years, n = 125), there was a higher prevalence of anxiety but no clinically meaningful difference between anxiety scores of patients on OIT and controls. In the older cohort, patients with asthma were more likely to have higher mean anxiety scores (P = .04), as were female patients compared with male patients (P = .004). A subanalysis of separation anxiety scores in the older cohort revealed that younger age (7-12 years vs >12 years, P < .001), non-White race (P = .04), and eczema (P = .02) were found to be meaningful predictors of higher scores. A subanalysis of social anxiety on the older cohort pointed toward non-White race as a meaningful predictor of higher scores (P < .02). CONCLUSION: The clinical implications of these findings suggest that allergists should particularly consider screening children with food allergy for anxiety and anxiety subtypes among patients who are non-White, female, or have asthma.

Real-World Safety Analysis of Preschool Tree Nut Oral Immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Our group previously described preschool peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in a real-world, multicenter setting, suggesting that this therapy is safe for most preschoolers. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and tolerability of tree nut (TN) OIT in preschoolers in the real world. METHODS: As part of a Canada-wide quality improvement project, TN-OIT (cashew/pistachio, walnut/pecan, hazelnut, almond, and macadamia nut) was performed in preschoolers who had (1) a skin prick test wheal diameter greater than or equal to 3 mm or a specific IgE level greater than or equal to 0.35 kU/L and a convincing objective IgE-mediated reaction or (2) no ingestion history and a specific IgE level greater than or equal to 5 kU/L. Dose escalations were performed every 2 to 4 weeks till a maintenance dose of 300 mg of TN protein was reached. Symptoms were recorded and classified using the modified World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Reaction Grading System (1, mildest; 5, fatal). RESULTS: Of the 92 patients who started TN-OIT from 2018 to 2021, 79 (85.9%) underwent single-food TN-OIT and 13 (14.1%) underwent multifood TN-OIT to 2 (10.8%) or 3 (3.3%) TNs. Eighty-nine (96.7%) patients reached maintenance, and 4 (4.3%) dropped out. Sixty-five (70.7%) patients experienced reactions during buildup: 35 (38.0%) grade 1 reactions, 30 (32.6%) grade 2 reactions, no grade 3 or 4 reactions, and 2 (2.17%) received epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: Preschool TN-OIT in a real-world, multicenter setting appears safe and tolerable, with results comparable with our previously reported peanut OIT findings.