Dataset Information

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy.

ABSTRACT: Although promising results have emerged regarding oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of peanut allergy (PA), direct comparisons of these approaches are limited.This study was conducted to compare the safety, efficacy, and mechanistic correlates of peanut OIT and SLIT.In this double-blind study children with PA were randomized to receive active SLIT/placebo OIT or active OIT/placebo SLIT. Doses were escalated to 3.7 mg/d (SLIT) or 2000 mg/d (OIT), and subjects were rechallenged after 6 and 12 months of maintenance. After unblinding, therapy was modified per protocol to offer an additional 6 months of therapy. Subjects who passed challenges at 12 or 18 months were taken off treatment for 4 weeks and rechallenged.Twenty-one subjects aged 7 to 13 years were randomized. Five discontinued therapy during the blinded phase. Of the remaining 16, all had a greater than 10-fold increase in challenge threshold after 12 months. The increased threshold was significantly greater in the active OIT group (141- vs 22-fold, P = .01). Significant within-group changes in skin test results and peanut-specific IgE and IgG4 levels were found, with overall greater effects with OIT. Adverse reactions were generally mild but more common with OIT (P < .001), including moderate reactions and doses requiring medication. Four subjects had sustained unresponsiveness at study completion.OIT appeared far more effective than SLIT for the treatment of PA but was also associated with significantly more adverse reactions and early study withdrawal. Sustained unresponsiveness after 4 weeks of avoidance was seen in only a small minority of subjects.

SUBMITTER: Narisety SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4430665 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy.

Narisety Satya D SD Frischmeyer-Guerrerio Pamela A PA Keet Corinne A CA Gorelik Mark M Schroeder John J Hamilton Robert G RG Wood Robert A RA

The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 20141218 5

<h4>Background</h4>Although promising results have emerged regarding oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of peanut allergy (PA), direct comparisons of these approaches are limited.<h4>Objective</h4>This study was conducted to compare the safety, efficacy, and mechanistic correlates of peanut OIT and SLIT.<h4>Methods</h4>In this double-blind study children with PA were randomized to receive active SLIT/placebo OIT or active OIT/placebo SLIT. Doses were e ...[more]

PMID: 25528358

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dietary avoidance is recommended for peanut allergies. We evaluated the sustained effects of peanut allergy oral immunotherapy (OIT) in a randomised long-term study in adults and children. METHODS:In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, we enrolled participants at the Sean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University (Stanford, CA, USA) with peanut allergy aged 7-55 years with a positive result from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC; ?500 mg of peanut protein), a positive skin-prick test (SPT) result (?5 mm wheal diameter above the negative control), and peanut-specific immunoglobulin (Ig)E concentration of more than 4 kU/L. Participants were randomly assigned (2·4:1·4:1) in a two-by-two block design via a computerised system to be built up and maintained on 4000 mg peanut protein through to week 104 then discontinued on peanut (peanut-0 group), to be built up and maintained on 4000 mg peanut protein through to week 104 then to ingest 300 mg peanut protein daily (peanut-300 group) for 52 weeks, or to receive oat flour (placebo group). DBPCFCs to 4000 mg peanut protein were done at baseline and weeks 104, 117, 130, 143, and 156. The pharmacist assigned treatment on the basis of a randomised computer list. Peanut or placebo (oat) flour was administered orally and participants and the study team were masked throughout by use of oat flour that was similar in look and feel to the peanut flour and nose clips, as tolerated, to mask taste. The statistician was also masked. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who passed DBPCFCs to a cumulative dose of 4000 mg at both 104 and 117 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02103270. FINDINGS:Between April 15, 2014, and March 2, 2016, of 152 individuals assessed, we enrolled 120 participants, who were randomly assigned to the peanut-0 (n=60), peanut-300 (n=35), and placebo groups (n=25). 21 (35%) of peanut-0 group participants and one (4%) placebo group participant passed the 4000 mg challenge at both 104 and 117 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 12·7, 95% CI 1·8-554·8; p=0·0024). Over the entire study, the most common adverse events were mild gastrointestinal symptoms, which were seen in 90 of 120 patients (50/60 in the peanut-0 group, 29/35 in the peanut-300 group, and 11/25 in the placebo group) and skin disorders, which were seen in 50/120 patients (26/60 in the peanut-0 group, 15/35 in the peanut-300 group, and 9/25 in the placebo group). Adverse events decreased over time in all groups. Two participants in the peanut groups had serious adverse events during the 3-year study. In the peanut-0 group, in which eight (13%) of 60 participants passed DBPCFCs at week 156, higher baseline peanut-specific IgG4 to IgE ratio and lower Ara h 2 IgE and basophil activation responses were associated with sustained unresponsiveness. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION:Our study suggests that peanut OIT could desensitise individuals with peanut allergy to 4000 mg peanut protein but discontinuation, or even reduction to 300 mg daily, could increase the likelihood of regaining clinical reactivity to peanut. Since baseline blood tests correlated with week 117 treatment outcomes, this study might aid in optimal patient selection for this therapy. FUNDING:National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compared the cost-effectiveness of coadministration of a probiotic adjuvant with peanut oral immunotherapy (PPOIT) with placebo (no treatment) in children with peanut allergy.DesignProspectively planned cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised control trial.SettingThe Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.Participants56 children with peanut allergy aged 1-10 years at recruitment.InterventionA daily dose of probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus CGMCC 1.3724 (NCC4007) and peanut oral immunotherapy administered for 1.5 years.Main outcomes measuresCosts 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).ResultsHealthcare 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).ConclusionsCost 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 numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12608000594325; Post-results.

Dataset Information

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy.

Publications

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets