Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy With Viaskin Milk vs Placebo in Children With Cow's Milk Allergy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: No approved treatment exists for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk allergy (CMA), a common childhood food allergy. Objective: To assess dose, efficacy, and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin milk in children with IgE-mediated CMA. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 1/2, 2-part, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging clinical trial in children aged 2 to 17 years with IgE-mediated CMA was conducted between November 2014 through December 2017. It took place at 17 trial sites in the US and Canada. Current CMA was confirmed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at study entry. Part A assessed the short-term safety of 150 µg, 300 µg, or 500 µg of Viaskin milk; part B evaluated the efficacy and safety of the 3 doses vs placebo over 12 months of treatment. Of the 308 screened participants with physician-diagnosed CMA, 198 met eligibility criteria (including an eliciting dose 300 mg or less) and were randomized. Intervention: Safety of Viaskin milk (150-µg, 300-µg, or 500-µg doses) was evaluated over a 3-week period (part A). In part B, 180 additional participants were randomized to receive Viaskin milk at doses of 150 µg, 300 µg, or 500 µg or placebo (1:1:1:1) for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of treatment responders, defined as a 10-fold or more increase in the cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein (reaching at least 144 mg) or a cumulative reactive dose of cow's milk protein at 1444 mg or more at the month 12 double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Results: A total of 95.5% of the randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 8 [4.17] years; 124 of 198 were male [62.6%]) completed treatment. The highest response rate was observed in participants who received Viaskin milk at the 300-µg dose with 24 of 49 responders (49.0%) overall vs 16 of 53 responders (30.2%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.91-5.41; P = .09), highest in the 2 to 11 years age group (22 of 38 [57.9%] vs 13 of 40 [32.5%]; P = .04). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate application-site reactions. One participant in the 500-µg Viaskin milk dose group experienced treatment-related anaphylaxis. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, 12 months of daily epicutaneous immunotherapy with a dose of Viaskin milk at 300 µg was associated with a statistically significant treatment response in 2- to 11-year-old children with IgE-mediated CMA. Treatment-related anaphylaxis and treatment-related discontinuation rates were low. Further research is needed to explore Viaskin milk as a viable treatment option for children with IgE-mediated CMA. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02223182.

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.).

Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Peanut-Allergic Children: REALISE Randomized Clinical Trial Results.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for peanut allergy are limited. In previous clinical trials, epicutaneous immunotherapy with a patch containing 250-µg peanut protein (Viaskin Peanut 250 µg [VP250]) was well tolerated and statistically superior to placebo in desensitizing peanut-allergic children. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety of VP250 in children, using a study design approximating potential real-world use. METHODS: REAL LIfe Use and Safety of EPIT (REALISE) is a phase 3 multicenter study consisting of a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled period followed by open-label active treatment. Children aged 4 to 11 years with physician diagnosis of peanut allergy received daily treatment with placebo (6 months) or VP250 (up to 36 months). Data from the 6-month, randomized, controlled phase of REALISE are reported. RESULTS: Three hundred ninety-three children were randomized 3:1 to receive VP250 (n = 294) or placebo (n = 99) for 6 months; 284 (72.3%) children had a history of peanut anaphylaxis. According to parent diary, all participants receiving VP250 and 83.8% receiving placebo reported at least 1 episode of local skin reaction, with frequency decreasing over time. Only 4 participants (1.4%) receiving VP250 discontinued because of adverse events (AEs). Epinephrine was administered for allergic reactions attributed to VP250 in 7 children (2.4%), of whom 5 remained in the study; none involved severe anaphylaxis. Overall, AE rates were similar among participants with and without a history of peanut anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: In a study designed to mirror real-world use, VP250 was observed to be well tolerated in peanut-allergic children, consistent with previous phase 2b and 3 studies.

Use of omalizumab for management of idiopathic anaphylaxis: A systematic review and retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Patients with idiopathic anaphylaxis (IA) may fail to respond to a combination of high-dose H1 and H2 antihistamines and mast cell stabilizers. Treatment options for these patients are currently limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical experience of omalizumab use for the treatment of patients with IA with no evidence of underlying clonal mast cell disorders. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review at 2 separate institutions of medical records of patients with a diagnosis of IA without evidence of mast cell clonality who had received treatment with omalizumab. We searched PubMed for studies describing omalizumab use in similar patients. Information on symptoms and omalizumab therapy was compiled, and response pattern of anaphylaxis was determined. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients with IA and no evidence of mast cell clonality who received omalizumab were identified. The median age was 36 years at the start of omalizumab (range, 11-54 years; n = 29). The frequency of anaphylaxis episodes before omalizumab treatment varied from 2 total episodes to several episodes per month. The most often used initial omalizumab dose was 300 mg every 4 weeks (n = 16). Most patients ultimately achieved clinical response after starting omalizumab: complete response (63%, n = 22), partial response (28.5%, n = 10), with 3 nonresponders. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab may be an effective treatment option for patients with IA who do not have evidence of mast cell clonality and fail to respond to antihistamines and mast cell stabilizers.

Continuous and Daily Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: Results from a 2-Year Open-Label Follow-On Study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled PALISADE trial demonstrated the benefit of daily oral immunotherapy with Peanut (Arachis Hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH, formerly AR101) in peanut-allergic children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: ARC004, the open-label follow-on study to PALISADE, used 5 dosing cohorts to explore PTAH treatment beyond 1 year and alternative dosing regimens in peanut-allergic individuals. METHODS: Active arm (PTAH-continuing) PALISADE participants who tolerated 300-mg peanut protein at the exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge and placebo arm (PTAH-naive) participants could enter ARC004. PTAH-continuing participants were assigned to receive daily (cohorts 1 and 3A) or non-daily (cohorts 2, 3B, and 3C) dosing regimens; PTAH-naive participants were built up to 300 mg/d PTAH, followed by maintenance dosing. At study completion, participants underwent an exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with doses up to 2000 mg peanut protein. Data were assessed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 358 (87.5%) eligible participants (4-17 years) entered ARC004 (PTAH-continuing, n = 256; PTAH-naive, n = 102). Among PTAH-continuing participants, exposure-adjusted adverse event rates were 12.94 to 17.54/participant-year and 25.95 to 42.49/participant-year in daily and non-daily dosing cohorts, respectively; most participants (83%) experienced mild or moderate adverse events. Daily dosing cohorts appeared to have higher desensitization rates than non-daily dosing cohorts. Of all PTAH-continuing cohorts, cohort 3A had the longest daily dosing duration and the highest desensitization rates. Changes in immune markers with PTAH continuation demonstrated ongoing immunomodulation. Outcomes in PTAH-naive participants mirrored those of the PALISADE active arm. CONCLUSIONS: Continued daily PTAH treatment beyond 1 year showed sustained safety and efficacy. Ongoing immunomodulation was observed during the second year of treatment.

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.

Phase 2a randomized, placebo-controlled study of anti-IL-33 in peanut allergy.

BACKGROUNDIL-33, found in high levels in participants with allergic disorders, is thought to mediate allergic reactions. Etokimab, an anti-IL-33 biologic, has previously demonstrated a good safety profile and favorable pharmacodynamic properties in many clinical studies.METHODSIn this 6-week placebo-controlled phase 2a study, we evaluated the safety and the ability of a single dose of etokimab to desensitize peanut-allergic adults. Participants received either etokimab (n = 15) or blinded placebo (n = 5). Clinical tests included oral food challenges and skin prick tests at days 15 and 45. Blood samples were collected for IgE levels and measurement of ex vivo peanut-stimulated T cell cytokine production.RESULTSEfficacy measurements for active vs. placebo participants at the day 15 and 45 food challenge (tolerating a cumulative 275 mg of peanut protein, which was the food challenge outcome defined in this paper) demonstrated, respectively, 73% vs. 0% (P = 0.008) to 57% vs. 0% (ns). The etokimab group had fewer adverse events compared with placebo. IL-4, IL-5, IL-9, IL-13, and ST2 levels in CD4+ T cells were reduced in the active vs. placebo arm upon peanut-induced T cell activation (P = 0.036 for IL-13 and IL-9 at day 15), and peanut-specific IgE was reduced in active vs. placebo (P = 0.014 at day 15).CONCLUSIONThe phase 2a results suggest etokimab is safe and well tolerated and that a single dose of etokimab could have the potential to desensitize peanut-allergic participants and possibly reduce atopy-related adverse events.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT02920021.FUNDINGThis work was supported by NIH grant R01AI140134, AnaptysBio, the Hartman Vaccine Fund, and the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University.

A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Multisite Study Using Omalizumab-facilitated Rapid Desensitization to Test Continued vs Discontinued Dosing in Multifood Allergic Individuals.

BACKGROUND: As there is limited data on the sustainability of desensitization of multifood-oral immunotherapy (multifood-OIT), we conducted a multisite multifood-OIT study to compare the efficacy of successful desensitization with sustained dosing vs discontinued dosing after multifood-OIT. METHODS: We enrolled 70 participants, aged 5-22 years with multiple food allergies confirmed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs). In the open-label phase of the study, all participants received omalizumab (weeks 1-16) and multi-OIT (2-5 allergens; weeks 8-30) and eligible participants (on maintenance dose of each allergen by weeks 28-29) were randomized 1:1:1 to 1 g, 300 mg, or 0 mg arms (blinded, weeks 30-36) and then tested by food challenge at week 36. Success was defined as passing 2 g food challenge to at least 2 foods in week 36. FINDINGS: Most participants were able to reach a dose of 2 g or higher of each of 2, 3, 4, and 5 food allergens (as applicable to the participant's food allergens in OIT) in week 36 food challenges. Using an intent-to-treat analysis, we did not find evidence that a 300 mg dose was effectively different than a 1 g dose in maintaining desensitization, and both together were more effective than OIT discontinuation (0 mg dose) (85% vs 55%, P = 0.03). Fifty-five percent of the intent-to-treat participants and 69% of per protocol participants randomized to the 0 mg arm showed no objective reactivity after 6 weeks of discontinuation. Cross-desensitization was found between cashew/pistachio and walnut/pecan when only one of the foods was part of OIT. No statistically significant safety differences were found between the three arms. INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that sustained desensitization after omalizumab-facilitated multi-OIT best occurs through continued maintenance OIT dosing of either 300 mg or 1 g of each food allergen as opposed to discontinuation of multi-OIT. FUNDING: Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, NIAID AADCRC U19AI104209. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02626611.

Current management and use of oral immunotherapy in the United States for patients with peanut allergy.

Background: Peanut allergy is a major health burden in the United States. Treatment is limited to avoidance and acute reaction management. No drug or medical product is approved for use as a peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) agent. Objective: To examine peanut allergy diagnosis and treatment, peanut challenge protocols, nonpublished POIT approaches, POIT practice requirements and logistical considerations, and barriers to providing POIT. Methods: Qualitative in-depth telephonic interviews were conducted with 34 allergists and nurse food allergy specialists across the United States between April and June 2016. Interviewed clinicians managed > 100 patients with peanut allergy per year; 50% of the interviewed allergists offered POIT in clinical studies or used self-developed approaches. Results: The physicians consistently reported conducting food challenges in 5-10% of patients to confirm a peanut allergy diagnosis. The allergists who offered POIT described using a variety of approaches. Areas of divergence included patient selection (ages, 4-7 years), peanut material (crushed peanuts, peanut flour, peanut protein, peanut butter, peanut extract), starting and ending doses, and updosing intervals (1 to 2 weeks). Generally, POIT administration and observation occupied an examination room for up to 2 hours; some practices reported accommodating 2 to 5 patients who received POIT simultaneously. Among physicians who did not offer POIT, barriers included medicolegal risks and the lack of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapy. Conclusion: Although POIT is currently not supported in treatment guidelines, some allergists have developed experimental POIT approaches to support patient needs. In the absence of a product that has approval by the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA) or other national competent authority, substantial variability in POIT approaches exists. Although logistical factors are not major obstacles to adoption, POIT dose preparation can be perceived as burdensome, and observation requires a dedicated staff. All the physicians interviewed suggested a need for effective, FDA-approved, disease-modifying treatments.

Effect of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Ingestion Among Children With Peanut Allergy: The PEPITES Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are currently no approved treatments for peanut allergy. Objective: To assess the efficacy and adverse events of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch among peanut-allergic children. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 31 sites in 5 countries between January 8, 2016, and August 18, 2017. Participants included peanut-allergic children (aged 4-11 years [n = 356] without a history of a severe anaphylactic reaction) developing objective symptoms during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein. Interventions: Daily treatment with peanut patch containing either 250 µg of peanut protein (n = 238) or placebo (n = 118) for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the percentage difference in responders between the peanut patch and placebo patch based on eliciting dose (highest dose at which objective signs/symptoms of an immediate hypersensitivity reaction developed) determined by food challenges at baseline and month 12. Participants with baseline eliciting dose of 10 mg or less were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 300 mg or more; participants with baseline eliciting dose greater than 10 to 300 mg were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 1000 mg or more. A threshold of 15% or more on the lower bound of a 95% CI around responder rate difference was prespecified to determine a positive trial result. Adverse event evaluation included collection of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Among 356 participants randomized (median age, 7 years; 61.2% male), 89.9% completed the trial; the mean treatment adherence was 98.5%. The responder rate was 35.3% with peanut-patch treatment vs 13.6% with placebo (difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 12.4%-29.8%; P < .001]). The prespecified lower bound of the CI threshold was not met. TEAEs, primarily patch application site reactions, occurred in 95.4% and 89% of active and placebo groups, respectively. The all-causes rate of discontinuation was 10.5% in the peanut-patch group vs 9.3% in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among peanut-allergic children aged 4 to 11 years, the percentage difference in responders at 12 months with the 250-µg peanut-patch therapy vs placebo was 21.7% and was statistically significant, but did not meet the prespecified lower bound of the confidence interval criterion for a positive trial result. The clinical relevance of not meeting this lower bound of the confidence interval with respect to the treatment of peanut-allergic children with epicutaneous immunotherapy remains to be determined. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02636699.