Post hoc analysis examining symptom severity reduction and symptom absence during food challenges in individuals who underwent oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: results from three trials.

PURPOSE: Peanut allergy and its current management, involving peanut avoidance and use of rescue medication during instances of accidental exposure, are burdensome to patients and their caregivers and can be a source of stress, uncertainty, and restriction. Physicians may also be frustrated with a lack of effective and safe treatments other than avoidance in the current management of peanut allergy. Efficacy, determined using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs), of oral immunotherapy with peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH; Palforzia®) was demonstrated versus placebo in children and adolescents aged 4 to 17 years in multiple phase 3 trials; continued benefit of PTAH was shown in a follow-on trial. The DBPCFC is a reproducible, rigorous, and clinically meaningful assessment accepted by regulatory authorities to evaluate the level of tolerance as an endpoint for accidental exposures to peanut in real life. It also provides useful clinical and patient-relevant information, including the amount of peanut protein an individual with peanut allergy can consume without experiencing dose-limiting symptoms, severity of symptoms, and organs affected upon ingestion of peanut protein. We explored symptoms of peanut exposure during DBPCFCs from phase 3 and follow-on trials of PTAH to further characterize treatment efficacy from a perspective relevant to patients, caregivers, and clinicians. METHODS: Symptom data recorded during screening and/or exit DBPCFCs from participants aged 4 to 17 years receiving PTAH or placebo were examined post hoc across three PTAH trials (PALISADE [ARC003], ARC004 [PALISADE follow-on], and ARTEMIS [ARC010]). The maximum peanut protein administered as a single dose during DBPCFCs was 1000 mg (PALISADE and ARTEMIS) and 2000 mg (ARC004). Symptoms were classified by system organ class (SOC) and maximum severity. Endpoints were changes in symptom severity and freedom from symptoms (ie, asymptomatic) during DBPCFC. Relative risk (RR) was calculated for symptom severity by SOC and freedom from symptoms between groups; descriptive statistics were used to summarize all other data. RESULTS: The risk of any respiratory (RR 0.42 [0.30-0.60], P < 0.0001), gastrointestinal (RR 0.34 [0.26-0.44], P < 0.0001), cardiovascular/neurological (RR 0.17 [0.08-0.39], P < 0.001), or dermatological (RR 0.33 [0.22-0.50], P < 0.0001) symptoms was significantly lower in participants treated with PTAH versus placebo upon exposure to peanut at the end of the PALISADE trial (ie, exit DBPCFC). Compared with placebo-treated participants (23.4%), the majority (76.3%) of PTAH-treated participants had no symptoms at the exit DBPCFC when tested at the peanut protein dose not tolerated (ie, reactive dose) during the screening DBPCFC. Significantly higher proportions of PTAH-treated participants were asymptomatic at doses ≤ 100 mg in the exit DBPCFC compared with placebo-treated participants (PALISADE: 69.35% vs 12.10%, RR 5.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.55-9.26]; P < 0.0001; ARTEMIS: 67.42% vs 13.95%, RR 4.83 [95% CI 2.28-10.25]; P < 0.0001); findings were similar at peanut protein doses ≤ 1000 mg (PALISADE: RR 15.56 [95% CI 5.05-47.94]; P < 0.0001; ARTEMIS: RR 34.74 [95% CI 2.19-551.03]; P < 0.0001). In ARC004, as the period of PTAH maintenance became longer, greater proportions of participants were asymptomatic at doses of peanut protein ≤ 1000 mg in the exit DBPCFC (from 37.63% after ~ 6 months of maintenance treatment [exit DBPCFC of PALISADE] to 45.54% after ~ 13 months and 58.06% after ~ 20 months of overall PTAH maintenance treatment). CONCLUSIONS: PTAH significantly reduced symptom severity due to exposure to peanut, which is clinically relevant. When exposed to peanut, participants with peanut allergy treated with PTAH rarely had moderate or severe respiratory or cardiovascular/neurological symptoms. Oral immunotherapy with PTAH appears to reduce frequency and severity of allergic reactions in individuals with peanut allergy after accidental exposure to peanut and may enable them and their families to have an improved quality of life. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02635776, registered 17 December 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02635776?term=AR101&draw=2&rank=7 ; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02993107, registered 08 December 2016, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02993107?term=AR101&draw=2&rank=6 ; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03201003, registered 22 June 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03201003 ? term = AR101&draw = 2&rank = 9.

Children and caregiver proxy quality of life from peanut oral immunotherapy trials.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is significantly and substantially reduced in individuals with peanut allergy due to many factors associated with unanticipated or potentially fatal reactions. Further insight on the impact of peanut oral immunotherapy in managing peanut allergy on HRQoL is needed. The aim of this analysis was to assess effects of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH), a biologic drug for peanut oral immunotherapy, on HRQoL from three phase 3 and two follow-on trials of PTAH. METHODS: HRQoL assessments from participants aged 4-17 in the PALISADE (ARC003), ARC004 (PALISADE follow-on), ARTEMIS (ARC010), RAMSES (ARC007), and ARC011 (RAMSES follow-on) trials were included in this analysis. Responses on the Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaire (FAQLQ) and Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM) were evaluated by age group and respondent (self or caregiver proxy). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Student t tests. RESULTS: Baseline FAQLQ and FAIM total scores appeared comparable between PTAH- and placebo-treated participants. Self and caregiver proxy-reported total scores on the FAQLQ for PTAH-treated participants generally improved at trial exit versus baseline; FAIM total scores improved throughout all trials. The tendency for improvement in FAQLQ total scores from baseline for PTAH appeared larger in self versus caregiver proxy-reports. Between treatment groups, PTAH was generally favored in the PALISADE and ARTEMIS trials; differences varied in the RAMSES trial based on age and respondent types. CONCLUSIONS: PTAH for the management of peanut allergy in children appeared to have a beneficial effect on HRQoL in trials. Improvements were seen despite rigors of trial participation.

Safety of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp in children and teenagers with peanut allergy: Pooled summary of phase 3 and extension trials.

BACKGROUND: Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH; previously known as AR101) is a daily oral immunotherapy approved to mitigate allergic reactions after accidental peanut exposure in peanut-allergic individuals aged 4-17 years. OBJECTIVE: We sought to comprehensively summarize the PTAH safety profile for up to ∼2 years of treatment. METHODS: Safety and adverse event (AE) data from participants aged 4-17 years from 3 controlled, phase 3 and 2 open-label extension trials were pooled and assessed. RESULTS: Of the 944 individuals receiving ≥1 PTAH dose, median exposure was ∼49 weeks; most participants experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE (TRAE; n = 853; 90.4%). A total of 829 participants experienced TRAEs with a maximum severity of mild (497, 52.6%) or moderate (332, 35.2%); 24 participants (2.5%) experienced TRAEs graded as severe. Overall, 80 participants (9.5%) discontinued as a result of AEs; most experienced gastrointestinal symptoms and discontinued during the first 6 months. When adjusted for exposure, AEs and TRAEs occurred at a rate of 76.4 and 58.7 events per participant-year of exposure (PYE), respectively, during updosing; AEs and TRAEs decreased to 23.0 and 14.2, respectively, during 300 mg maintenance. Overall, exposure-adjusted rates of systemic allergic reactions were 0.12 events/PYE (mild), 0.11 events/PYE (moderate), and 0.01 events/PYE (severe [anaphylaxis]). CONCLUSION: The safety profile of PTAH was consistent across trials, manageable, and improved over time. AEs were predominantly mild to moderate, and all grades declined in frequency with continued treatment. These data can be used to facilitate shared decision-making discussions with patients and families considering treatment with PTAH.

Efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy with AR101 in European children with a peanut allergy (ARTEMIS): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Peanut allergy is the leading cause of food-related anaphylaxis. Current management options can negatively affect food allergy-related quality of life. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of an investigational oral biologic drug (AR101). METHODS: The AR101 Trial in Europe Measuring Oral Immunotherapy Success in peanut-allergic children (ARTEMIS) trial was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial done at 18 hospitals in Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Children and adolescents with peanut allergy, aged 4-17 years, who developed dose-limiting symptoms to 300 mg or less peanut protein (equivalent to approximately one peanut kernel) during a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test at study entry were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive daily doses of either AR101 oral immunotherapy (AR101 group) or a taste-masked placebo (placebo group). All participants, investigators, and care providers were masked to treatment allocation until the study was completed. Doses were increased every 2 weeks over 6 months until a dose of 300 mg was reached and maintained for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants in the intention-to-treat or safety population (defined as those participants who had been randomly assigned and had received at least one dose of the assigned drug) who could consume a single dose of 1000 mg (cumulative dose 2043 mg) peanut protein without developing dose-limiting allergic symptoms at an exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge after 9 months of treatment. Additional endpoints included safety (ie, the frequency and severity of adverse events) and changes in food allergy-related quality of life, assessed by use of age-appropriate Food Allergy Quality of Life Questionnaires (FAQLQs) and the Food Allergy Independent Measure (FAIM). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03201003, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 12, 2017, and Feb 15, 2018, 227 patients were screened, of whom 175 were randomly assigned to the AR101 group (n=132) and the placebo group (n=43). All primary and secondary endpoints were met. 77 (58%) of 132 participants in the AR101 group tolerated 1000 mg peanut protein at the exit food challenge versus one (2%) of 43 participants in the placebo group (AR101-placebo treatment difference 56·0% [95% CI 44·1-65·2], p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported by almost all participants. The maximum severity of adverse events reported was mild or moderate for most participants who received AR101 (mild, 66 [50%] of 132 participants; moderate, 63 [48%]; and severe, one [1%]) or placebo (mild, 24 [56%] of 43 participants; moderate, 18 [42%]; severe, none). Participants aged 8-12 years in the AR101 group reported improvements that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference between the two groups across all FAQLQ domains. Additionally, participants in the AR101 group and their caregivers reported improvements that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference in FAIM domains related to the perceived likelihood and outcomes of a severe allergic reaction. INTERPRETATION: AR101 oral immunotherapy treatment led to rapid desensitisation to peanut protein, with a predictable safety profile that improved with treatment, and an associated improvement in self-reported and caregiver-reported food allergy-related quality of life. These patient-oriented outcomes provide invaluable data to help physicians, patients, and caregivers make informed, shared decisions on the management of peanut allergy. FUNDING: Aimmune Therapeutics.