Two-year post-treatment outcomes following peanut oral immunotherapy in the Probiotic and Peanut Oral Immunotherapy-003 Long-Term (PPOIT-003LT) study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined long-term outcomes following oral immunotherapy (OIT); none have examined long-term risks and benefits associated with distinct clinical outcomes (desensitization, remission). METHODS: Participants completing the probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) -003 randomized trial were enrolled in a follow-on study, PPOIT-003LT. Peanut ingestion, reactions, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were monitored prospectively. Outcomes at 1-year and 2-years post-treatment were examined by treatment group and by post-OIT clinical outcome (remission, desensitization without remission [DWR], allergic). RESULTS: 86% (151/176) of eligible children enrolled. Post-treatment peanut ingestion at 2-years post-treatment were similar for PPOIT (86.7%) and OIT (78.7%) groups, both higher than placebo (10.3%). Reactions reduced over time for all treatment and clinical outcome groups (PPOIT 31.7% to 23.3%, OIT 37.7% to 19.7%, placebo 13.8% to 6.9%; remission 27.5% to 15.9%; DWR 57.9% to 36.8%; allergic 11.6% to 7%). At 2-years post-treatment, similar proportions of remission and allergic participants reported reactions (RD 0.09 (95%CI -0.03, 0.20), p = .127), whereas more DWR participants reported reactions than remission (remission vs DWR: RD -0.21 (95%CI -0.39; -0.03), p = .02) and allergic (DWR vs allergic: RD 0.30 (95%CI 0.13, 0.47), p = .001) participants. At 2-years post-treatment, 0% remission versus 5.3% DWR versus 2.3% allergic participants reported adrenaline injector usage. Remission participants had significantly greater HRQOL improvement (adjusted for baseline) compared with both DWR (MD -0.54 (95%CI -0.99, -0.10), p = .017) and allergic (MD -0.82 (95%CI -1.25, -0.38), p < .001). CONCLUSION: By 2-years post-treatment, remission participants reported fewer reactions, less severe reactions and greater HRQOL improvement compared with DWR and allergic participants, indicating that remission is the patient-preferred treatment outcome over desensitization or remaining allergic.

Open-label study of the efficacy, safety, and durability of peanut sublingual immunotherapy in peanut-allergic children.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the efficacy of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are limited. The durability of desensitization after SLIT has not been well described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4-mg peanut SLIT and persistence of desensitization after SLIT discontinuation. METHODS: Challenge-proven peanut-allergic 1- to 11-year-old children were treated with open-label 4-mg peanut SLIT for 48 months. Desensitization after peanut SLIT was assessed by a 5000-mg double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). A novel randomly assigned avoidance period of 1 to 17 weeks was followed by the DBPCFC. Skin prick test results immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation test results, TH1, TH2, and IL-10 cytokines were measured longitudinally. Safety was assessed through patient-reported home diaries. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants were enrolled and 47 (87%) completed peanut SLIT and the 48-month DBPCFC per protocol. The mean successfully consumed dose (SCD) during the DBPCFC increased from 48 to 2723 mg of peanut protein after SLIT (P < .0001), with 70% achieving clinically significant desensitization (SCD > 800 mg) and 36% achieving full desensitization (SCD = 5000 mg). Modeled median time to loss of clinically significant desensitization was 22 weeks. Peanut skin prick test; peanut-specific IgE, IgG4, and IgG4/IgE ratio; and peanut-stimulated basophil activation test, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IFN-γ, and IL-10 changed significantly compared with baseline, with changes seen as early as 6 months. Median rate of reaction per dose was 0.5%, with transient oropharyngeal itching being the most common, and there were no dosing symptoms requiring epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label, prospective study, peanut SLIT was safe and induced clinically significant desensitization in most of the children, lasting more than 17 weeks after discontinuation of therapy.

A clinical focus on oral tolerance in the development, prevention, and management of food allergy.

Food allergy impacts up to 10 % of the population and can result in life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. The pathogenesis of food allergy is not entirely understood but the disruption in naturally occurring oral tolerance is presumed to be involved. Research has been directed not only toward prevention of food allergy but on the restoration of oral tolerance by various means including immunotherapy (oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous), as well as adjunctive therapies including biologicals and probiotics. This review paper briefly discusses the involvement of oral tolerance in the pathogenesis of food allergy and how food allergy might be prevented; however, the main focus is on the potential for restoration of oral tolerance with various treatment modalities (oral immunotherapy with and without adjunctive therapies).

Sustained unresponsiveness development in wheat oral immunotherapy: predictive factors and flexible regimen in the maintenance phase.

Summary: Background. Immunotherapy may induce sustained unresponsiveness (SU )in which the patient can tolerate the allergen without any severe symptoms after discontinuing immunotherapy. The present study evaluated serum and cutaneous markers for predicting SU in patients with wheat anaphylaxiswho underwent oral immunotherapy. We investigated the effectiveness of a flexible regimen of 5 to 10 g wheat protein (WP) in the maintenance phase of oral immunotherapy (OIT). Methods.This study was conducted on 19 patients with wheat anaphylaxis who underwent OIT. The results of the skin prick test (SPT), besides specific serum IgE (sIgE) and IgG4 (sIgG4) to WP, were evaluated before the desensitization. The maintenance dose started from the preferred dose of 5 to 10 g WP after the build-up phase, if the patient could tolerate it. All patients were recruited 7 to 9 months after undergoing this flexible regimen, and the results of SPT and sIgE, and sIgG4l evels were obtained once more. The patients underwent oral food challenge (OFC) after a 3-4-week avoidance to evaluate SU. Results. There was anassociation between mean IgE reduction and SU (p < 0.0006), while no association was observed between the mean increase in specific IgG4 (p = 0.1), and the mean wheal diameter decrease (p = 0.29). A 50% reductionin sIgE was associated with SU. Thirteen patients were considered to havea SU. There was no association between the flexible regimen and the desensitization rate. Conclusions.The reduction of 50% sIgE is a predictive factor for SU in patients with IgE-mediated wheat allergy.

Longitudinal antibody responses to peanut following probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) in children with peanut allergy.

INTRODUCTION: Probiotic and Peanut Oral Immunotherapy (PPOIT) is effective at inducing sustained unresponsiveness (SU) at end-of-treatment and this effect persists up to four years post-treatment, referred to as persistent SU. We sought to evaluate (i) how PPOIT altered peanut-specific humoral immune indices, and (ii) how such longitudinal indices relate to persistent SU. METHODS: Longitudinal serum/plasma levels of whole peanut- and peanut component- (Ara-h1, -h2, -h3, -h8, -h9) specific-IgE (sIgE) and specific-IgG4 (sIgG4) antibodies were measured by ImmunoCAP and salivary peanut-specific-IgA (sIgA) by ELISA in children (n=62) enrolled in the PPOIT-001 randomised trial from baseline (T0) to 4-years post-treatment (T5). Multivariate regression analyses of log-transformed values were used for point-in-time between group comparisons. Generalised estimating equations (GEE) were used for longitudinal comparisons between groups. RESULTS: PPOIT was associated with changes in sIgE and sIgG4 over time. sIgE levels were significantly reduced post-treatment [T5, PPOIT v.s. Placebo ratio of geometric mean (GM): Ara-h1 0.07, p=0.008; Ara-h2 0.08, p=0.007; Ara-h3 0.15, p=0.021]. sIgG4 levels were significantly increased by end-of-treatment (T1, PPOIT v.s. Placebo ratio of GM: Ara-h1 3.77, p=0.011; Ara-h2 17.97, p<0.001; Ara-h3 10.42, p<0.001) but levels in PPOIT group decreased once treatment was stopped and returned to levels comparable with Placebo group by T5. Similarly, salivary peanut sIgA increased during treatment, as early as 4 months of treatment (PPOIT v.s. Placebo, ratio of GM: 2.04, p=0.014), then reduced post-treatment. CONCLUSION: PPOIT was associated with broad reduction in peanut specific humoral responses which may mediate the clinical effects of SU that persists to 4-years post-treatment.

Remission of peanut allergy is associated with rewiring of allergen-driven T helper 2-related gene networks.

BACKGROUND: The immunological changes underpinning acquisition of remission (also called sustained unresponsiveness) following food immunotherapy remain poorly defined. Limited access to effective therapies and biosamples from treatment responders has prevented progress. Probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy is highly effective at inducing remission, providing an opportunity to investigate immune changes. METHODS: Using a systems biology approach, we examined gene co-expression network patterns in peanut-specific CD4+ T cell responses before and after probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy in subjects enrolled in the PPOIT-001 randomized trial: Responders who attained remission (n = 16), placebo-treated who remained allergic (n = 16). RESULTS: Acquisition of remission was associated with rewiring of gene network patterns, which was characterized by integration of T helper 2 and interferon signalling modules, markedly reduced T helper 2 gene connectivity, and shutdown in co-expression activity between T helper 2 effectors and cell cycle regulators. CONCLUSION: The immunological changes underlying remission following peanut oral immunotherapy are mediated by reprogramming of T helper 2-associated gene networks in the CD4+ T cell compartment. Findings provide insight into immune mechanisms driving the acquisition of remission following oral immunotherapy, paving the way for the development of improved approaches to induce remission/sustained unresponsiveness in patients with food allergy.

Long-term outcome of omalizumab-assisted desensitisation to cow's milk and eggs in patients refractory to conventional oral immunotherapy: real-life study.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising approach to cow's milk and egg allergies, but reactions are frequent and some patients cannot be desensitized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term OIT outcomes with omalizumab (OMZ) in paediatric patients with severe egg and/or milk allergies. METHODS: This retrospective real-life study analysed findings in children with Immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy to cow's milk and/or hen eggs refractory to conventional OIT, who underwent OIT with OMZ in our department between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. RESULTS: In all, 41 patients were included (median age: 7 years; interquartile range [IQR]: 5.5-9.5); 26/41 (63.4%) underwent OIT for milk, 8/41 (19.5%) for egg and 7/41 (17.1%) for both. The median time between initiation of OMZ and OIT was 27 weeks (IQR: 22-33). Forty (97.56%) patients reached the maintenance phase (200 mL of cow's milk and 30 mL of raw egg or 1 cooked egg) in a median time of 27 weeks (IQR: 18-37). The median total time with OMZ was 117 weeks (IQR: 88-144). During the OMZ period, 2.44% (1/41) of patients presented anaphylaxis. After discontinuation of OMZ, 29.3% (12/41) presented anaphylaxis, 50% of them had a poor adherence to daily ingestion. One patient (2.44%) was diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis after 2 years of discontinuation of OMZ. Currently, after a median time of 9 years (IQR: 7-10) since the initiation of OMZ, 75.6% (31/41) are desensitized (27/31 without OMZ). CONCLUSIONS: Omalizumab allows desensitisation of children with severe allergies to cow's milk and/or egg without developing severe reactions while receiving this treatment. However, discontinuation of OMZ leads to severe allergic reactions, and hence must be monitored carefully.

Notch signaling contributes to the establishment of sustained unresponsiveness to food allergens by oral immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) aims to establish desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness (SU) in patients with food allergy by ingestion of gradually increasing doses of specific food allergens. However, little is known about the mechanisms by which OIT induces SU to specific allergens. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the role of Notch signaling, which controls cell fate decisions in many types of immune cells in the induction of SU by OIT treatment. METHODS: Two types of mouse models, ovalbumin-induced food allergy and OIT, were generated. To elucidate the role of Notch signaling in OIT-induced SU, mice were intraperitoneally injected with the Notch signaling inhibitor N-[(3,5-difluorophenyl)acetyl]-l-alanyl-2-phenylglycine-1,1-dimethylethyl ester during the OIT treatment period. RESULTS: Ovalbumin-sensitized mice were desensitized and also had SU induced by OIT treatment, whereas repeated challenges with ovalbumin caused the development of severe allergic reactions in ovalbumin-sensitized mice. Administration of N-[(3,5-difluorophenyl)acetyl]-l-alanyl-2-phenylglycine-1,1-dimethylethyl ester to mice during the OIT treatment period inhibited the establishment of SU to ovalbumin but did not affect the induction of desensitization. OIT induced a systemic expansion of IL-10-producing CD4+ T cells, including TH2 cells, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), particularly the monocytic MDSC subpopulation. Inhibition of Notch signaling prevented the OIT-induced expansion of those cells. In vitro cultures of bone marrow cells showed that Notch signaling directly promoted the generation of monocytic MDSCs. In addition, the contribution of MDSCs to OIT-induced SU was confirmed by MDSC depletion with the anti-Gr1 antibody. CONCLUSION: Notch signaling contributes to the establishment of SU induced by OIT through systemic expansion of immunosuppressive cells, such as IL-10-producing CD4+ T cells and MDSCs.

Oral tolerance and allergy.

Food allergy prevalence is increasing in the developed world. It's estimated that each year in the US, anaphylaxis to food results in 30,000 emergency room visits and 150 deaths. Over the past few decades, there has been a tremendous effort to better understand the pathogenesis of food allergy and mechanisms of food tolerance. In this article we review the structural of the gastrointestinal immune system and mechanisms of natural tolerance to food. We then review the factors that may result in the IgE mediated hypersensitivity reaction to food allergens resulting in clinical food allergy. Lastly, we provide a brief review of the efforts to induce immune tolerance to patients with food allergy.

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy.

Food allergy is a pathological, potentially deadly cascade of immune responses to molecules or molecular fragments that are normally innocuous when encountered in foods, such as milk, egg, or peanut. As the incidence and prevalence of food allergy rise, the standard of care is poised to advance beyond food allergen avoidance coupled with injectable epinephrine treatment of allergen-induced systemic reactions. Recent studies provide evidence that oral immunotherapy may effectively redirect the atopic immune responses of food allergy patients as they ingest small but gradually increasing allergen doses over many months, eliciting safer immune responses to these antigens. Research into the molecular and cellular bases of pathological and therapeutic immune responses, and into the possibilities for their safe and effective modulation, is generating tremendous interest in basic and clinical immunology. We synthesize developments, innovations, and key challenges in our understanding of the immune mechanisms associated with atopy and oral immunotherapy for food allergy.

Induction of sustained unresponsiveness after egg oral immunotherapy compared to baked egg therapy in children with egg allergy.

BACKGROUND: While desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness (SU) have been shown with egg oral immunotherapy (OIT), the benefits of baked egg (BE) therapy for egg allergy have not been well studied. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of BE ingestion compared with egg OIT in participants allergic to unbaked egg but tolerant to BE. METHODS: Children who are BE-tolerant but unbaked egg reactive ages 3 to 16 years were randomized to 2 years of treatment with either BE or egg OIT. Double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges were conducted after 1 and 2 years of treatment to assess for desensitization, and after 2 years of treatment followed by 8 to 10 weeks off of treatment to assess for SU. Mechanistic studies were conducted to assess for immune modulation. A cohort of participants who are BE-reactive underwent egg OIT and identical double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges as a comparator group. RESULTS: Fifty participants (median age 7.3 years) were randomized and initiated treatment. SU was achieved in 3 of 27 participants assigned to BE (11.1%) versus 10 of 23 participants assigned to egg OIT (43.5%) (P = .009). In the BE-reactive comparator group, 7 of 39 participants (17.9%) achieved SU. More participants who are BE-tolerant withdrew from BE versus from egg OIT (29.6% vs 13%). Dosing symptom frequency in participants who are BE-tolerant was similar with BE and egg OIT, but more frequent in participants who are BE-reactive. Egg white-specific IgE, skin testing, and basophil activation decreased similarly after BE and egg OIT. CONCLUSIONS: Among children allergic to unbaked egg but tolerant to BE, those treated with egg OIT were significantly more likely to achieve SU than were children ingesting BE.

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.

Can food allergy be cured? What are the future prospects?

Food allergies have become a significant heath burden as prevalence continues to rise, affecting 6%-13% of the global population. In the absence of drugs approved by regulatory agencies, the current standard of care remains avoidance of allergenic foods and management of acute allergic reactions with antihistamines and epinephrine autoinjectors. Allergen immunotherapy has been shown to increase the threshold of reactivity in the majority of food-allergic individuals. However, challenges include long treatment periods, high rates of adverse reactions, and lack of permanence of desensitization and established protocols. To address these limitations, adjunctive allergen-specific immunotherapy, vaccines, and non-allergen-specific therapies (eg, monoclonal antibodies) are being explored. The future of food allergy treatment is promising with a number of clinical trials in progress. Currently, although desensitization can be achieved for the majority of individuals with food allergy through immunotherapy, continued ingestion of allergen is needed for most individuals to maintain desensitization. Further understanding of the mechanisms of food allergy and identification of biomarkers to distinguish between temporary and permanent resolution of allergies is needed before a cure, where reactivity to the allergen is permanently lost enabling the individual to consume the allergen in any amount at any time, can be envisioned.

Food allergy immunotherapy: Oral immunotherapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy.

IgE-mediated food allergy remains a significant and growing problem across the globe. Of the various treatment modalities, oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) have been the best studied. Across various studies of OIT for egg, milk, and peanut allergy, strong levels of desensitization have been shown. With egg and peanut OIT, a limited remission, or sustained unresponsiveness (SU), has further been demonstrated. These advances have been further validated by successful phase 2 and phase 3 studies of peanut OIT. EPIT, using daily administrations of a proprietary patch, demonstrated efficacy as well as safety and tolerability in parallel phase 2 studies; however, its phase 3 study did not meet its primary efficacy outcome. Despite its good track record of desensitization, the safety and tolerability of OIT has remained a question. EPIT, on the other hand, has proven safe and tolerable; however, the adequacy of its desensitization has remained to be determined. As OIT and EPIT continue their march toward regulatory review, optimizations for immunotherapy and novel therapies continue to be developed providing hope for food allergy patients everywhere.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: a Current Perspective.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is one of the most studied experimental therapies for food allergy. With the recently FDA-approved peanut product, Palforzia, the goal of this article is to review the most recent data from clinical trials, discuss recent trends, and anticipate future developments. RECENT FINDINGS: The latest research suggests that peanut OIT could be a promising option for peanut-allergic patients, with the majority of participants in research studies achieving the primary efficacy endpoint of desensitization, as well as sustained unresponsiveness in select populations. Some studies also showed improvements in food allergy-related quality of life. However, peanut OIT is not without risk or side effects, including potentially serious allergic reactions. Future research will need to evaluate the short- and long-term effectiveness of the therapy in the real-world setting, predictors of important treatment outcomes, and the use of adjunctive therapies that may mitigate some of these allergic reactions.

Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of vital wheat gluten oral immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Wheat is a common food allergen that can cause anaphylaxis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of vital wheat gluten (VWG) oral immunotherapy (OIT). METHODS: After baseline double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), 46 patients with wheat allergy (median age, 8.7 years; range, 4.2-22.3 years) were randomized 1:1 to low-dose VWG OIT or placebo, with biweekly escalation to 1445 mg of wheat protein (WP). After a year 1 DBPCFC, active subjects continued low-dose VWG OIT for another year and underwent a year 2 DBPCFC and, if passed, a subsequent off-therapy DBPCFC. Placebo-treated subjects crossed over to high-dose VWG OIT (maximum, 2748 mg of WP). RESULTS: The median baseline successfully consumed dose (SCD) was 43 mg of WP in both groups. At year 1, 12 (52.2%) of 23 low-dose VWG OIT-treated and 0 (0%) of 23 placebo-treated subjects achieved the primary end point of an SCD of 4443 mg of WP or greater (P < .0001); median SCDs were 4443 and 143 mg, respectively. At year 2, 7 (30.4%) of 23 low-dose VWG OIT-treated subjects were desensitized to an SCD of 7443 mg of WP; 3 (13%) achieved sustained unresponsiveness 8 to 10 weeks off therapy. Among placebo-treated subjects who crossed over to high-dose VWG OIT, 12 (57.1%) of 21 were desensitized after 1 year (median SCD, 7443 mg of WP; nonsignificant vs low-dose VWG OIT). At year 1, skin prick test responses and wheat- and omega-5 gliadin-specific IgE levels did not differ between groups; the low-dose VWG OIT median specific IgG4 level was greater than placebo (wheat, P = .0005; omega-5 gliadin, P = .0001). Year 1 SCDs correlated with wheat-specific (rho = 0.55, P = .0003) and omega-5 gliadin-specific (rho = 0.51, P = .001) IgG4 levels in all subjects. Among 7822 low-dose VWG OIT doses in year 1, 15.4% were associated with adverse reactions: 0.04% were severe, and 0.08% subjects received epinephrine. Among 7921 placebo doses, 5.8% were associated with adverse reactions; none were severe. CONCLUSIONS: Low- and high-dose VWG OIT induced desensitization in about one half of the subjects after 1 year of treatment. Two years of low-dose VWG OIT resulted in 30% desensitization, and 13% had sustained unresponsiveness.

Evaluating primary end points in peanut immunotherapy clinical trials.

Food immunotherapy has been the focus of several allergy research initiatives over the last decade. Although many questions remain unanswered, the evidence suggests that this treatment might be available in the near future outside clinical trials. Additionally, pharmaceutical companies, in light of promising early-stage results, have shown interest in developing commercially available products, thus increasing the likelihood that new immunotherapy treatments will be introduced, especially for peanut allergy. Given this optimistic scenario and given the prospect of rigorously developed products for peanut allergy treatment, each allergist will need to understand the specificities of these treatments and their expected efficacy and adverse event profiles. Thus it is imperative that allergists understand the differences in efficacy between the different management options, as well as how the end points are measured in the relevant literature. However, given the significant heterogeneity detected among food immunotherapy trials, this task might not be as straightforward as desired. This article aims to dissect how primary efficacy end points are defined and assessed to facilitate understanding of the design of these trials and the potential effect that this variation might have on the reported outcomes.

Long-term sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: Clinical and immunologic evidence of desensitization.

BACKGROUND: Peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for 1 year has been shown to induce modest clinical desensitization in allergic children. Studies of oral immunotherapy, epicutaneous immunotherapy, and SLIT have suggested additional benefit with extended treatment. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the safety, clinical effectiveness, and immunologic changes with long-term SLIT in children with peanut allergy. METHODS: Children with peanut allergy aged 1 to 11 years underwent extended maintenance SLIT with 2 mg/d peanut protein for up to 5 years. Subjects with peanut skin test wheals of less than 5 mm and peanut-specific IgE levels of less than 15 kU/L were allowed to discontinue therapy early. Desensitization was assessed through a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) with up to 5000 mg of peanut protein after completion of SLIT dosing. Sustained unresponsiveness was further assessed by using identical DBPCFCs after 2 to 4 weeks without peanut exposure. RESULTS: Thirty-seven of 48 subjects completed 3 to 5 years of peanut SLIT, with 67% (32/48) successfully consuming 750 mg or more during DBPCFCs. Furthermore, 25% (12/48) passed the 5000-mg DBPCFC without clinical symptoms, with 10 of these 12 demonstrating sustained unresponsiveness after 2 to 4 weeks. Side effects were reported with 4.8% of doses, with transient oropharyngeal itching reported most commonly. Side effects requiring antihistamine treatment were uncommon (0.21%), and no epinephrine was administered. Peanut skin test wheals, peanut-specific IgE levels, and basophil activation decreased significantly, and peanut-specific IgG4 levels increased significantly after peanut SLIT. CONCLUSION: Extended-therapy peanut SLIT provided clinically meaningful desensitization in the majority of children with peanut allergy that was balanced with ease of administration and a favorable safety profile.

Predicting development of sustained unresponsiveness to milk oral immunotherapy using epitope-specific antibody binding profiles.

BACKGROUND: In a recent trial of milk oral immunotherapy (MOIT) with or without omalizumab in 55 patients with milk allergy treated for 28 months, 44 of 55 subjects passed a 10-g desensitization milk protein challenge; 23 of 55 subjects passed the 10-g sustained unresponsiveness (SU) challenge 8 weeks after discontinuing MOIT. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether IgE and IgG4 antibody binding to allergenic milk protein epitopes changes with MOIT and whether this could predict the development of SU. METHODS: By using a novel high-throughput Luminex-based assay to quantitate IgE and IgG4 antibody binding to 66 sequential epitopes on 5 milk proteins, serum samples from 47 subjects were evaluated before and after MOIT. Machine learning strategies were used to predict whether a subject would have SU after 8 weeks of MOIT discontinuation. RESULTS: MOIT profoundly altered IgE and IgG4 binding to epitopes, regardless of treatment outcome. At the initiation of MOIT, subjects achieving SU exhibited significantly less antibody binding to 40 allergenic epitopes than subjects who were desensitized only (false discovery rate ≤ 0.05 and fold change > 1.5). Based on baseline epitope-specific antibody binding, we developed predictive models of SU. Using simulations, we show that, on average, IgE-binding epitopes alone perform significantly better than models using standard serum component proteins (average area under the curve, >97% vs 80%). The optimum model using 6 IgE-binding epitopes achieved a 95% area under the curve and 87% accuracy. CONCLUSION: Despite the relatively small sample size, we have shown that by measuring the epitope repertoire, we can build reliable models to predict the probability of SU after MOIT. Baseline epitope profiles appear more predictive of MOIT response than those based on serum component proteins.