J. Kamilaris

A randomized controlled study of peanut oral immunotherapy: Clinical desensitization and modulation of the allergic response

BACKGROUND Open-label oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols have been used to treat small numbers of patients with peanut allergy. Peanut OIT has not been evaluated in double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. OBJECTIVE To investigate the safety and effectiveness of OIT for peanut allergy in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS In this multicenter study, children ages 1 to 16 years with peanut allergy received OIT with peanut flour or placebo. Initial escalation, build-up, and maintenance phases were followed by an oral food challenge (OFC) at approximately 1 year. Titrated skin prick tests (SPTs) and laboratory studies were performed at regular intervals. RESULTS Twenty-eight subjects were enrolled in the study. Three peanut OIT subjects withdrew early in the study because of allergic side effects. During the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge, all remaining peanut OIT subjects (n = 16) ingested the maximum cumulative dose of 5000 mg (approximately 20 peanuts), whereas placebo subjects (n = 9) ingested a median cumulative dose of 280 mg (range, 0-1900 mg; P < .001). In contrast with the placebo group, the peanut OIT group showed reductions in SPT size (P < .001), IL-5 (P = .01), and IL-13 (P = .02) and increases in peanut-specific IgG(4) (P < .001). Peanut OIT subjects had initial increases in peanut-specific IgE (P < .01) but did not show significant change from baseline by the time of OFC. The ratio of forkhead box protein 3 (FoxP3)(hi): FoxP3(intermediate) CD4+ CD25+ T cells increased at the time of OFC (P = .04) in peanut OIT subjects. CONCLUSION These results conclusively demonstrate that peanut OIT induces desensitization and concurrent immune modulation. The current study continues and is evaluating the hypothesis that peanut OIT causes long-term immune tolerance.

Safety of a peanut oral immunotherapy protocol in children with peanut allergy

BACKGROUND Oral immunotherapy (OIT) offers a promising therapeutic option for peanut allergy. Given that during OIT an allergic patient ingests an allergen that could potentially cause a serious reaction, the safety of OIT is of particular concern. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to examine safety during the initial escalation day, buildup phase, and home dosing phase in subjects enrolled in a peanut OIT study. METHODS Skin, upper respiratory tract, chest, and abdominal symptoms were recorded with initial escalation day and buildup phase dosings. Subjects also maintained daily diaries detailing symptoms after each home dosing. A statistical analysis of these data was performed. RESULTS Twenty of 28 patients completed all phases of the study. During the initial escalation day, upper respiratory tract (79%) and abdominal (68%) symptoms were the most likely symptoms experienced. The risk of mild wheezing during the initial escalation day was 18%. The probability of having any symptoms after a buildup phase dose was 46%, with a risk of 29% for upper respiratory tract symptoms and 24% for skin symptoms. The risk of reaction with any home dose was 3.5%. Upper respiratory tract (1.2%) and skin (1.1%) symptoms were the most likely after home doses. Treatment was given with 0.7% of home doses. Two subjects received epinephrine after 1 home dose each. CONCLUSIONS Subjects were more likely to have significant allergic symptoms during the initial escalation day when they were in a closely monitored setting than during other phases of the study. Allergic reactions with home doses were rare.

Sustained unresponsiveness to peanut in subjects who have completed peanut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND Although peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been conclusively shown to cause desensitization, it is currently unknown whether clinical protection persists after stopping therapy. OBJECTIVE Our primary objective was to determine whether peanut OIT can induce sustained unresponsiveness after withdrawal of OIT. METHODS We conducted a pilot clinical trial of peanut OIT at 2 US centers. Subjects age 1 to 16 years were recruited and treated for up to 5 years with peanut OIT. The protocol was modified over time to permit dose increases to a maximum of 4000 mg/d peanut protein. Blood was collected at multiple time points. Clinical end points were measured with 5000-mg double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenges once specific criteria were met. RESULTS Of the 39 subjects originally enrolled, 24 completed the protocol and had evaluable outcomes. Twelve (50%) of 24 successfully passed a challenge 1 month after stopping OIT and achieved sustained unresponsiveness. Peanut was added to the diet. At baseline and the time of challenge, such subjects had smaller skin test results, as well as lower IgE levels specific for peanut, Ara h 1, and Ara h 2 and lower ratios of peanut-specific IgE/total IgE compared with subjects not passing. There were no differences in peanut IgG₄ levels or functional activity at the end of the study. CONCLUSIONS This is the first demonstration of sustained unresponsiveness after peanut OIT, occurring in half of subjects treated for up to 5 years. OIT favorably modified the peanut-specific immune response in all subjects completing the protocol. Smaller skin test results and lower allergen-specific IgE levels were predictive of successful outcome.

Sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children: A retrospective comparison

To the Editor: There has been considerable recent interest in developing therapies for food allergy, an increasingly common and highly morbid disorder for which strict dietary elimination and ready access to epinephrine remain the standard of care.(1) While both oral immunotherapy (OIT)(2-4) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)(5) have been shown to induce clinical desensitization to foods (reviewed in 6), no head-to-head comparative analysis of the two treatments has been published. We conducted a retrospective study of two previously published protocols for peanut allergy(2,3). This new analysis includes additional subjects, compares the 12-month oral food challenge outcomes, and extends analysis of immunologic parameters out to 24 months. Eligible peanut-allergic subjects were recruited into one of two concurrent clinical trials: OIT (maintenance dose of 4000 mg/day and cumulative double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge (DBPCFC) dose of 5000 mg); or SLIT, (2 mg/day, and 2500 mg, respectively) [all quantities refer to peanut protein]. Although the optimal immunotherapy dose remains unknown, the doses chosen in these trials were based on preliminary data from pilot studies. Of note, unique properties of the oral mucosal immune response are hypothesized to account for SLIT’s efficacy at log-fold lower doses (reviewed in 7). Both trials utilized randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled designs. Mechanistic studies were performed longitudinally as previously described using blood drawn from subjects within 24 hours of their last immunotherapy dose.(2, 3) At 12 months, subjects underwent DBPCFC to assess clinical desensitization; OIT subjects received a maximal 5000 mg cumulative protein dose, and for safety reasons SLIT challenges were limited to 2500 mg (Online Repository Tables E1/E2). We compared laboratory data between OIT and SLIT at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months, as well as DBPCFC pass/fail outcomes, using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (STATA 12; College Station, TX) and Mann-Whitney U test (GraphPad Prism; La Jolla, CA). Twenty-three subjects on OIT and 27 subjects on SLIT were evaluated after receiving 2 years of treatment (Table 1). We did not undertake a formal comparison of safety parameters between the two studies, and upcoming interval reports of each study will include these data. However, there were no serious adverse events reported in either study. No SLIT and two OIT subjects (one active, one placebo) required four total doses of epinephrine for dose-related reactions. At baseline, the peanut-specific IgE was similar between OIT and SLIT subjects (Fig 1A). Twelve months of treatment led to higher median peanut-specific IgE levels in the OIT group compared to the SLIT group (204.5 kU/L versus 66.7 kU/L, p=0.0382); however, levels were not significantly different between the groups at 24 months (Fig 1A). While peanut-specific IgG4 increased over time in both groups (Fig 1B), the effect was greater with OIT at 12 (20.1 mg/L versus 3.1 mg/L) and 24 months (20.3 mg/L versus 7.9 mg/L, p<0.001). Although decreased in both groups, median peanut-specific IgE/IgG4 ratios were significantly lower at 12 and 24 months for subjects receiving OIT (Fig 1C). Thirty-four subjects (14 OIT, 20 SLIT) had basophil activation assessed by CD63 up-regulation at baseline and 12 months. After 12 months, a significantly lower percentage of CD63+ basophils was found in the OIT group compared with the SLIT group when stimulated with 100 (median 5.90% versus 21.50%) and 10−1 μg/mL (median 6.34% versus 30.75%) crude peanut extract (p<0.01). No between-group difference was seen after stimulation with weaker dilutions of 10−2 and 10−3 μg/mL crude peanut extract. Too few samples were obtained at 24 months to perform an analysis. FIG 1 A and B, Change in serum peanut-IgE and peanut-IgG4 (SLIT/OIT). C, IgE/IgG4 ratio to peanut (SLIT/OIT). D, Cumulative amount tolerated during DBPCFC (SLIT/OIT). E, Serum peanut-IgE (Pass/Fail). F, Fold change in serum peanut-IgG4 from baseline to 12 months ... Table 1 Baseline subject characteristics Eighteen subjects on OIT and 27 subjects on SLIT underwent 12 month desensitization DBPCFCs, results of which are shown in Figure 1D. Despite differences in DBPCFC protocols, SLIT subjects reacted at lower eliciting dose thresholds. A Fisher’s exact test was used to calculate the difference in proportions and relative risk for passing or failing the DBPCFC according to treatment group. The difference in proportions was statistically significant (p=0.002), with OIT-treated subjects 3 times more likely to pass the 12 month desensitization DBPCFC than SLIT-treated subjects (RR=3.00, 95% CI 1.64-5.49). In an attempt to identify candidate biomarkers, we combined all SLIT and OIT subjects and then categorized them by “pass” or “fail” based upon their ability to complete the DBPCFC without symptoms. Consistent with other studies, subjects passing the 12 month desensitization DBPCFC tended to have lower baseline peanut-specific IgE levels (34.6 kU/L versus 167 kU/L, p=0.0575) (Fig 1E). Peanut-specific IgG4 was increased by 27-fold in the “pass” group compared to a 6.5-fold increase in the “fail” group (p=0.01; Fig 1F). Interestingly, the percentage of CD63+ basophils was significantly lower at 12 months in the “pass” group compared with the “fail” group when stimulated with 100 (median 5.90% versus 21.50%) and 10−1 μg/mL (median 6.34% versus 34.75%) crude peanut extract (p<0.01). Again no differences were seen between groups after stimulation with weaker dilutions. Skin prick tests decreased over time in all subjects. Wheal size, serum peanut-specific IgA and peanut-specific IgG, and CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ T-regulatory cells were not significantly different between the OIT and SLIT groups or the “pass” and “fail” groups. In summary, our results suggest that after two years of treatment, OIT produces greater immunologic changes than SLIT in peanut-allergic children. Specifically, peanut OIT resulted in greater changes in peanut-specific IgE, IgG4, and IgE/IgG4 ratio as well as basophil activation. In addition, eliciting dose thresholds were lower and more variable during DBPCFC at 12 months in SLIT-treated subjects, compared to OIT-treated subjects. Subjects who passed the DBPCFC tended to have lower baseline peanut-IgE levels, in addition to a larger fold change in peanut-IgG4 and less basophil activation at 12 months. The major limitation of this study is that it was not a randomized prospective study designed to directly compare the two modalities with a uniform protocol and consecutive enrollment. It is important to also note that interim clinical endpoints measured after only 12 months of immunotherapy likely do not provide a full assessment of the efficacy of either method. Further research is needed to determine the optimal length of treatment, dose, and ideal immunotherapy candidate for each modality.