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.

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.

Probiotic peanut oral immunotherapy versus oral immunotherapy and placebo in children with peanut allergy in Australia (PPOIT-003): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy is effective at inducing desensitisation to allergens and induces sustained unresponsiveness (ie, clinical remission) in a subset of patients, but causes frequent reactions. We aimed to investigate whether addition of a probiotic adjuvant improved the efficacy or safety of peanut oral immunotherapy. METHODS: PPOIT-003, a multicentre, randomised, phase 2b trial, was conducted in three tertiary hospitals in Australia (Adelaide [SA], Melbourne [VIC], and Perth [WA]) in children aged 1-10 years, weighing more than 7 kg, with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (cumulative 4950 mg dose of peanut protein) and positive peanut skin prick test (≥3 mm) or peanut-specific IgE (≥0·35 kU/L). Children were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT), placebo probiotic and peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT), or placebo probiotic and placebo OIT (placebo) for 18 months, and were followed up until 12 months after completion of treatment. Oral immunotherapy consisted of increasing doses of peanut protein (commercially available food-grade 12% defatted peanut flour [50% peanut protein]) until a 2000 mg daily maintenance dose was reached. The probiotic adjuvant was a daily dose of 2 × 1010 colony-forming units of the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 53103. Placebo immunotherapy comprised maltodextrin, brown food colouring, and peanut essence, and placebo probiotic was maltodextrin. Dual primary outcomes were 8-week sustained unresponsiveness, defined as no reaction to a cumulative dose of 4950 mg peanut protein at treatment completion and 8 weeks after treatment completion, in the PPOIT versus placebo groups and the PPOIT versus OIT groups, analysed by intention to treat. Safety endpoints were adverse events during the treatment phase, and peanut ingestion and reactions in the 12-month post-treatment period. This study is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, 12616000322437. FINDINGS: Between July 4, 2016, and Sept 21, 2020, 201 participants were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 36 (46%) of 79 children in the PPOIT group and 42 (51%) of 83 children in the OIT group achieved sustained unresponsiveness compared with two (5%) of 39 children in the placebo group (risk difference 40·44% [95% CI 27·46 to 53·42] for PPOIT vs placebo, p<0·0001), with no difference between PPOIT and OIT (-5·03% [-20·40 to 10·34], p=0·52). Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 72 (91%) of 79 children in the PPOIT group, 73 (88%) of 83 children in the OIT group, and 28 (72%) of 39 children in the placebo group. Exposure-adjusted incidence of adverse events was 10·58 in the PPOIT group, 11·36 in the OIT, and 2·09 in the placebo group (ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·85 to 0·99] for PPOIT vs OIT, p=0·042; 4·98 [4·11-6·03] for PPOIT vs placebo, p<0·0001; 5·42 [4·48-6·56] for OIT vs placebo, p<0·0001), with differences seen primarily in gastrointestinal symptoms and in children aged 1-5 years. During the 12-month post-treatment period, 60 (85%) of 71 participants in the PPOIT group, 60 (86%) of 70 participants in the OIT group, and six (18%) of 34 participants in the placebo group were eating peanut; rescue epinephrine use was infrequent (two [3%] of 71 in the PPOIT group, four [6%] of 70 in the OIT group, and none in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Both PPOIT and OIT were effective at inducing sustained unresponsiveness. Addition of a probiotic did not improve efficacy of OIT, but might offer a safety benefit compared with OIT alone, particularly in preschool children. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council Australia and Prota Therapeutics.

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: State of the Art.

Cumulative evidence shows that peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective at inducing desensitization through downregulation of effector pathways in the allergic reaction cascade; however, only a subset of patients achieve sustained unresponsiveness (remission), which requires redirection of the underlying allergic response toward tolerance. A recent meta-analysis of peanut OIT randomized trials found that OIT is associated with a threefold greater risk of anaphylaxis and twofold greater risk of epinephrine use than allergen avoidance. Strategies to reduce adverse events associated with OIT and improve the ability for OIT to induce sustained unresponsiveness are required to improve the benefit-risk of peanut OIT.

Cow's Milk Protein Allergy from Diagnosis to Management: A Very Different Journey for General Practitioners and Parents.

Cow's milk protein allergy (CMPA) is the most common food allergy in infants and can affect a family's quality of life. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the knowledge and experience of general practitioners (GPs) in terms of CMPA diagnosis and management and to explore the views of parents on the current diagnostic process. Two surveys were conducted in June 2014, which collected data from GPs and parents of infants diagnosed with CMPA in the United Kingdom. The questionnaires included quantitative and qualitative questions, which measured self-reported knowledge, management and perceived treatment progression, and the educational needs of GPs. We also explored parents' experiences of local healthcare support in relation to CMPA. A total of 403 GPs and 300 parents completed the surveys. The main symptoms of CMPA and diagnosis period differed between GPs and parents. Other key points include different perceptions on symptom presentation and improvement, lack of awareness from GPs about current guidelines, and the significant burden on both families and GPs. This is the first study attempting to establish GP and parental experience in diagnosing CMPA. It is notable that the difference can be improved through training, appropriate diagnostic tools and improved communication between physicians and parents.