Pamela H. Steele

Clinical efficacy and immune regulation with peanut oral immunotherapy

BACKGROUND Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been thought to induce clinical desensitization to allergenic foods, but trials coupling the clinical response and immunologic effects of peanut OIT have not been reported. OBJECTIVE The study objective was to investigate the clinical efficacy and immunologic changes associated with OIT. METHODS Children with peanut allergy underwent an OIT protocol including initial day escalation, buildup, and maintenance phases, and then oral food challenge. Clinical response and immunologic changes were evaluated. RESULTS Of 29 subjects who completed the protocol, 27 ingested 3.9 g peanut protein during food challenge. Most symptoms noted during OIT resolved spontaneously or with antihistamines. By 6 months, titrated skin prick tests and activation of basophils significantly declined. Peanut-specific IgE decreased by 12 to 18 months, whereas IgG(4) increased significantly. Serum factors inhibited IgE-peanut complex formation in an IgE-facilitated allergen binding assay. Secretion of IL-10, IL-5, IFN-gamma, and TNF-alpha from PBMCs increased over a period of 6 to 12 months. Peanut-specific forkhead box protein 3 T cells increased until 12 months and decreased thereafter. In addition, T-cell microarrays showed downregulation of genes in apoptotic pathways. CONCLUSION Oral immunotherapy induces clinical desensitization to peanut, with significant longer-term humoral and cellular changes. Microarray data suggest a novel role for apoptosis in OIT.

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.

Open-label maintenance after milk oral immunotherapy for IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy.

Maria D. Rivas, PhD Javier Molina-Infante, MD Maria A. Gonzalez-Nuñez, MD Moises Perez-G, BSc Juan F. Masa, MD Juan F. Sanchez, MD Jose Zamorano, PhD From Unidad de Investigación, Servicio de Digestivo, Servicio de Anatomia Patologica, Servicio de Neumologia-Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias (CiberRes), and Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital San Pedro de Alcantara, Caceres, Spain. E-mail: jose.zamorano@ses.juntaextremadura.net. Supported by Fondo Europeo Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) Funds, Spanish public funds Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria 06/1431, and Junta de Extremadura PRI06A035 and SCSS0744. M.D.R. was supported by Subdireccion General de Investigacion Sanitaria CA06/0110. Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: The authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.

Adverse reactions during peanut oral immunotherapy home dosing

To The Editor: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is increasingly being investigated as a potential treatment for peanut and other food allergies, with a recent study demonstrating evidence of clinical desensitization and immunologic changes suggesting the development of long-term tolerance1. Unlike traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy for inhalant allergens, peanut OIT is administered daily, with the vast majority of doses given at home. In our peanut OIT protocols, subjects are seen in the research unit for observed dose escalations every two weeks, and subsequent doses are given at home. In the open-label study of peanut OIT, home doses were generally well-tolerated2. The incidence of allergic reactions with any home dose was 3.5%, with mild upper respiratory and skin symptoms being the most common complaints. Despite the infrequent incidence of symptoms with peanut OIT home dosing, certain patterns of reactions have surfaced during this phase. Characterizing these reactions and identifying potential triggers or factors which predispose to reactions may improve the safety of home dosing. Reactions occurring during investigational OIT or any immunotherapy protocol are challenging to study prospectively, due to ongoing modifications in the protocol and recommendations that are instituted to prevent further reactions. In subcutaneous aeroallergen immunotherapy, asthma has been identified as a risk factor for systemic reactions, prompting recommendations to evaluate respiratory symptoms and consider objective measures of airway function during administration3. Researchers studying milk and egg OIT noted certain “augmentation factors” that lowered threshold doses – namely, infection, exercise, pollen allergy, and irregular intake4 – and identifying these factors and reducing the immunotherapy dose prevented further allergic reactions. We have noted five patterns associated with a propensity to react to a previously tolerated dose of peanut OIT, including several not previously described. It is interesting that these factors would provoke symptoms after a given OIT dose when, in many of the examples noted, the dose had been tolerated for weeks to months without symptoms. Table I lists selected examples illustrating the observed patterns – (1) concurrent illness, (2) suboptimally-controlled asthma, (3) timing of dose administration after food ingestion, (4) physical exertion after dosing, and (5) dosing during menses. Addressing these factors (see Table II) has improved the safety profile of our peanut OIT protocol. While some of our recommendations mirror those instituted in subcutaneous immunotherapy protocols, most are unique to OIT administration. We expand on reports from other research centers4, 5, which have described triggers such as infection, exercise, pollen allergy, and irregular intake, and this is the first report involving protocols for peanut allergy. Table I Examples of Reactions during Peanut OIT Home Dosing Table II Recommendations for Future OIT Investigations We have observed that dosing during febrile illnesses has been associated with systemic reactions to previously tolerated peanut OIT doses. We recommend withholding OIT during acute illnesses and advise subjects to resume dosing at home if fewer than three doses are missed. If three to five doses are missed, subjects return to the research unit for observed dosing. Those who miss more than five days of dosing may require significant dose reduction or repeat desensitization. In our open-label study2, asthma was associated with a higher rate of chest symptoms during OIT. Of the subjects reporting chest symptoms during home dosing, 82% had co-existing asthma. Several subjects receiving peanut OIT noted cough and wheezing after doses. Some also had chronic cough or exercise-induced respiratory symptoms. Although we did not observe changes in pulmonary function in these subjects, their symptoms improved with the initiation of asthma controller medications (see Table I), highlighting the importance of diagnosing and treating co-morbid atopic conditions. Regular peak flow measurements and pulmonary function testing has been implemented to optimize asthma control. It has not been uncommon for a subject taking a daily OIT dose without eating a meal or snack in the two hours before dosing to have symptoms with a dose that has been previously tolerated; taking the same dose with food the next day and thereafter prevents further reactions. Additionally, several subjects have experienced allergic symptoms with exercise after OIT dosing, and we advise these individuals to avoid exertion for two hours after dosing. Finally, one subject had several systemic reactions when menses was coupled with exercise despite no symptoms with daily dosing in the interval between episodes and was eventually withdrawn from the study. She was not taking other medications (e.g. non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Of note, she did not have systemic reactions each time she exercised during menses. At this time, the role of menses is unclear, and further study is needed. In the studies to date, peanut and food OIT have a good safety profile, and home dosing is infrequently associated with adverse reactions2, 6. However, allergic symptoms should be expected, and subjects and their families should be counseled about circumstances associated with an increased possibility of reacting to previously tolerated OIT doses. As OIT for food allergy becomes increasingly studied in research settings, implementing these recommendations and modifications can improve the safety of these experimental protocols.

Individualized IgE-based dosing of egg oral immunotherapy and the development of tolerance

BACKGROUND Hens egg allergy is among the most common food allergies in childhood and predicts later development of allergic disease. The optimal efficacy and mechanism(s) of egg allergen immunotherapy are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE To enhance immunologic and clinical outcomes of egg oral immunotherapy (OIT) using a conditionally increased dosing strategy. METHODS In an open-label clinical trial of egg OIT, egg-allergic children ingested daily doses of egg protein that were gradually increased based on the egg white (EW) IgE level. Skin prick test reactivity and EW- and ovomucoid-specific cellular and humoral responses were measured longitudinally. To confirm clinical tolerance, patients underwent double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenges 1 month after completing the dosing protocol. RESULTS Children aged 3 to 13 years with characteristics of clinical egg allergy were enrolled. All 6 patients who completed the entire protocol developed clinical tolerance to egg during the study. The median wheal diameter on EW skin prick testing decreased from 10 to 2.5 mm during OIT (P = .03). Both EW and ovomucoid IgE levels significantly decreased during the study (median EW IgE level: from 18.8 kU/L at baseline to 3.9 kU/L, P = .03), and corresponding IgG4 levels increased (median EW IgG4 level: from 0.65 mg/L at baseline to 86.15 mg/L, P = .03). Transient increases were seen in egg-induced interleukin 10 (P = .06) and transforming growth factor β (P = .18) levels, and the ratio of T(H)2:T(H)1 cytokine production was decreased (P = .25). CONCLUSIONS Egg OIT is associated with tolerance acquisition in children with persistent egg allergy. Individualized dosing regimens may be necessary to achieve a full therapeutic effect in some patients.

Peanut oral immunotherapy modifies IgE and IgG4 responses to major peanut allergens.

BACKGROUND Patients with peanut allergy have highly stable pathologic antibody repertoires to the immunodominant B-cell epitopes of the major peanut allergens Ara h 1 to 3. OBJECTIVE We used a peptide microarray technique to analyze the effect of treatment with peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) on such repertoires. METHODS Measurements of total peanut-specific IgE (psIgE) and peanut-specific IgG(4) (psIgG(4)) were made with CAP-FEIA. We analyzed sera from 22 patients with OIT and 6 control subjects and measured serum specific IgE and IgG(4) binding to epitopes of Ara h 1 to 3 using a high-throughput peptide microarray technique. Antibody affinity was measured by using a competitive peptide microarray, as previously described. RESULTS At baseline, psIgE and psIgG(4) diversity was similar between patients and control subjects, and there was broad variation in epitope recognition. After a median of 41 months of OIT, polyclonal psIgG(4) levels increased from a median of 0.3 μg/mL (interquartile range [25% to 75%], 0.1-0.43 μg/mL) at baseline to 10.5 μg/mL (interquartile range [25% to 75%], 3.95-45.48 μg/mL; P < .0001) and included de novo specificities. psIgE levels were reduced from a median baseline of 85.45 kU(A)/L (23.05-101.0 kU(A)/L) to 7.75 kU(A)/L (2.58-30.55 kU(A)/L, P < .0001). Affinity was unaffected. Although the psIgE repertoire contracted in most OIT-treated patients, several subjects generated new IgE specificities, even as the total psIgE level decreased. Global epitope-specific shifts from IgE to IgG(4) binding occurred, including at an informative epitope of Ara h 2. CONCLUSION OIT differentially alters Ara h 1 to 3 binding patterns. These changes are variable between patients, are not observed in control subjects, and include a progressive polyclonal increase in IgG(4) levels, with concurrent reduction in IgE amount and diversity.

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.

Early oral immunotherapy in peanut-allergic preschool children is safe and highly effective

Background: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an effective experimental food allergy treatment that is limited by treatment withdrawal and the frequent reversibility of desensitization if interrupted. Newly diagnosed preschool children may have clinical and immunological characteristics more amenable to treatment. Objective: We sought to test the safety, effectiveness, and feasibility of early OIT (E‐OIT) in the treatment of peanut allergy. Methods: We enrolled 40 children aged 9 to 36 months with suspected or known peanut allergy. Qualifying subjects reacted to peanut during an entry food challenge and were block‐randomized 1:1 to receive E‐OIT at goal maintenance doses of 300 or 3000 mg/d in a double‐blinded fashion. The primary end point, sustained unresponsiveness at 4 weeks after stopping early intervention oral immunotherapy (4‐SU), was assessed by double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled food challenge either upon achieving 4 prespecified criteria, or after 3 maintenance years. Peanut‐specific immune responses were serially analyzed. Outcomes were compared with 154 matched standard‐care controls. Results: Of 40 consented subjects, 3 (7.5%) did not qualify. Overall, 29 of 37 (78%) in the intent‐to‐treat analysis achieved 4‐SU (300‐mg arm, 17 of 20 [85%]; 3000 mg, 12 of 17 [71%], P = .43) over a median of 29 months. Per‐protocol, the overall proportion achieving 4‐SU was 29 of 32 (91%). Peanut‐specific IgE levels significantly declined in E‐OIT‐treated children, who were 19 times more likely to successfully consume dietary peanut than matched standard‐care controls, in whom peanut‐specific IgE levels significantly increased (relative risk, 19.42; 95% CI, 8.7‐43.7; P < .001). Allergic side effects during E‐OIT were common but all were mild to moderate. Conclusions: At both doses tested, E‐OIT had an acceptable safety profile and was highly successful in rapidly suppressing allergic immune responses and achieving safe dietary reintroduction.