Association of STAT6 gene variants with food allergy diagnosed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: van Ginkel CD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6032865 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere are presently no available therapeutic options for patients with peanut allergy.ObjectiveWe sought to investigate the safety, efficacy, and immunologic effects of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).MethodsAfter a baseline oral food challenge (OFC) of up to 2 g of peanut powder (approximately 50% protein; median successfully consumed dose [SCD], 46 mg), 40 subjects, aged 12 to 37 years (median, 15 years), were randomized 1:1 across 5 sites to daily peanut or placebo SLIT. A 5-g OFC was performed after 44 weeks, followed by unblinding; placebo-treated subjects then crossed over to higher dose peanut SLIT, followed by a subsequent crossover Week 44 5-g OFC. Week 44 OFCs from both groups were compared with baseline OFCs; subjects successfully consuming 5 g or at least 10-fold more peanut powder than the baseline OFC threshold were considered responders.ResultsAfter 44 weeks of SLIT, 14 (70%) of 20 subjects receiving peanut SLIT were responders compared with 3 (15%) of 20 subjects receiving placebo (P < .001). In peanut SLIT responders, median SCD increased from 3.5 to 496 mg. After 68 weeks of SLIT, median SCD significantly increased to 996 mg (compared with Week 44, P = .05). The median SCD at the Week 44 Crossover OFC was significantly higher than baseline (603 vs 71 mg, P = .02). Seven (44%) of 16 crossover subjects were responders; median SCD increased from 21 to 496 mg among responders. Of 10,855 peanut doses through the Week 44 OFCs, 63.1% were symptom free; excluding oral-pharyngeal symptoms, 95.2% were symptom free.ConclusionsPeanut SLIT safely induced a modest level of desensitization in a majority of subjects compared with placebo. Longer duration of therapy showed statistically significant increases in the SCD.
| S-EPMC3550002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Multicentre trials investigating food allergies by double blind placebo controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) need standardized procedures, challenge meals and evaluation criteria. We aimed at developing a standardized approach for identifying patients with birch related soy allergy by means of DBPCFC to soy, including determination of threshold levels, in a multicentre setting. METHODS:Microbiologically stable soy challenge meals were composed of protein isolate with consistent Gly m 4 levels. Patients sensitized to main birch allergen Bet v 1 and concomitant sensitization to its soy homologue Gly m 4 underwent DBPCFC. Outcome was defined according to presence and/or absence of ten objective signs and intensity of eight subjective symptoms as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS:138 adult subjects (63.8% female, mean age 38 years) underwent DBPCFC. Challenge meals and defined evaluation criteria showed good applicability in all centres involved. 45.7% presented with objective signs and 65.2% with subjective symptoms at soy challenge. Placebo challenge meals elicited non-cardiovascular objective signs in 11.6%. In 82 (59.4%) subjects DBPCFC was judged as positive. 70.7% of DPBCFC+ showed objective signs and 85.4% subjective symptoms at soy challenge. Subjective symptoms to soy challenge meal in DBPCFC+ subjects started at significantly lower dose levels than objective signs (p < 0.001). Median cumulative eliciting doses for first objective signs in DBPCFC+ subjects were 4.7 g [0.7-24.7] and 0.7 g [0.2-4.7] total soy protein for first subjective symptoms (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:We present the hitherto largest group of adults with Bet v 1 and Gly m 4 sensitization being investigated by DBPCFC. In this type of food allergy evaluation of DBPCFC outcome should not only include monitoring of objective signs but also scoring of subjective symptoms. Our data may contribute to standardize DBPCFC in pollen-related food allergy in multicentre settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:EudraCT: 2009-011737-27.
| S-EPMC5098282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few studies with a limited number of patients have provided indications that cashew-allergic patients may experience severe allergic reactions to minimal amounts of cashew nut. The objectives of this multicentre study were to assess the clinical relevance of cashew nut sensitisation, to study the clinical reaction patterns in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests and to establish the amount of cashew nuts that can elicit an allergic reaction.A total of 179 children were included (median age 9.0 years; range 2-17 years) with cashew nut sensitisation and a clinical history of reactions to cashew nuts or unknown exposure. Sensitised children who could tolerate cashew nuts were excluded. The study included three clinical visits and a telephone consultation. During the first visit, the medical history was evaluated, physical examinations were conducted, blood samples were drawn and skin prick tests were performed. The children underwent a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test with cashew nut during the second and third visits. The study showed that 137 (76.5%) of the sensitised children suspected of allergy to cashew nut had a positive double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge test, with 46% (63) manifesting subjective symptoms to the lowest dose of 1 mg cashew nut protein and 11% (15) developing objective symptoms to the lowest dose. Children most frequently had gastro-intestinal symptoms, followed by oral allergy and skin symptoms. A total of 36% (49/137) of the children experienced an anaphylactic reaction and 6% (8/137) of the children were treated with epinephrine.This prospective study demonstrated a strikingly high percentage of clinical reactions to cashew nut in this third line population. Severe allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis requiring epinephrine, were observed. These reactions were to minimal amounts of cashew nut, demonstrated the high potency of this allergens.www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed NTR3572.
| S-EPMC4788393 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We have recently demonstrated that the exopolysaccharides (EPSs) produced by a plant-derived lactic acid bacterium, Lactobacillus paracasei IJH-SONE68, prevent and ameliorate allergic reaction on contact in dermatitis model mice. In the present study, we conducted a clinical trial using a capsule containing spray-dried powder from pineapple juice broth fermented with the LAB strain as an experimental diet. The clinical trial was conducted as a double-blind and placebo-controlled randomized comparative study from May 2019 to July 2021. Males and females between the ages of 21 and 70 who experience chronic allergies participated in the study. Sixty subjects were instructed to orally take a capsule containing the IJH-SONE68 powder or placebo, every day for 12 weeks. After the clinical trial was over, the scores based on subjects' self-assessment of allergic status were significantly improved in the intervention group, as compared with the placebo group. Some serum biochemicals associated with inflammation response were also significantly improved by intake of the experimental diet. In conclusion, the IJH-SONE68-derived EPS improves chronic allergy status in humans and is expected to decrease their inconvenience.
| S-EPMC8623948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperprolactinaemia is a troublesome side-effect of treatment with antipsychotics.This double-blind, placebo-controlled study aimed at examining the effect of adjunctive treatment with 10?mg aripiprazole on prolactin levels and sexual side-effects in patients with schizophrenia symptomatically maintained on risperidone.Thirty patients taking risperidone were enrolled into the trial (CTRI/2012/11/003114). Aripiprazole was administered at a fixed daily dose of 10?mg/day for 8 weeks. Serum prolactin was measured at baseline and at 8 weeks. Hyperprolactinaemia-related problems, psychopathology and side-effects were evaluated every 2 weeks.Prolactin levels decreased by 58% in the aripiprazole group compared with an increase by 22% in the placebo group. Prolactin levels normalised in 46% of patients in the aripiprazole group (number needed to treat, NNT=2). Aripiprazole improved erectile dysfunction in five out of six patients. There were no significant differences in change in psychopathology or side-effects between groups.Adjunctive aripiprazole reduced prolactin levels in those treated with risperidone, with no effect on psychopathology and extrapyramidal symptoms. This is a potential treatment for hyperprolactinaemia observed during treatment with second-generation antipsychotics.None.© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2015. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) licence.
| S-EPMC4998932 | biostudies-other
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC4430665 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6903389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough studies of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy have shown promise, treatment is frequently complicated by adverse reactions and, even when successful, has limited long-term efficacy because benefits usually diminish when treatment is discontinued.ObjectiveWe sought to examine whether the addition of omalizumab to milk OIT reduces treatment-related reactions, improves outcomes, or both.MethodsThis was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with subjects randomized to omalizumab or placebo. Open-label milk OIT was initiated after 4 months of omalizumab/placebo with escalation to maintenance over 22 to 40 weeks, followed by daily maintenance dosing through month 28. At month 28, omalizumab was discontinued, and subjects passing an oral food challenge (OFC) continued OIT for 8 weeks, after which OIT was discontinued with rechallenge at month 32 to assess sustained unresponsiveness (SU).ResultsFifty-seven subjects (7-32 years) were randomized, with no significant baseline differences in age, milk-specific IgE levels, skin test results, or OFC results. At month 28, 24 (88.9%) omalizumab-treated subjects and 20 (71.4%) placebo-treated subjects passed the 10-g "desensitization" OFC (P = .18). At month 32, SU was demonstrated in 48.1% in the omalizumab group and 35.7% in the placebo group (P = .42). Adverse reactions were markedly reduced during OIT escalation in omalizumab-treated subjects for percentages of doses per subject provoking symptoms (2.1% vs 16.1%, P = .0005), dose-related reactions requiring treatment (0.0% vs 3.8%, P = .0008), and doses required to achieve maintenance (198 vs 225, P = .008).ConclusionsIn this first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of omalizumab in combination with food OIT, we found significant improvements in measurements of safety but not in outcomes of efficacy (desensitization and SU).
| S-EPMC5395304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES: Gastroesophageal reflux is considered to cause sleep disturbance, whereas proton pump inhibitor (PPI) administration is reported to improve insomnia associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The majority of patients with gastroesophageal reflux are asymptomatic and a significant number with erosive esophagitis are also reported to be asymptomatic. We examined whether PPI administration has a therapeutic effect for improving insomnia in patients without reflux symptoms in the same manner as patients with reflux symptoms. METHODS: We performed a randomized multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial using 176 patients with insomnia regardless of the presence of reflux symptoms. The patients were divided into those administered omeprazole (20 mg) or a placebo for 14 days. Four self-reporting questionnaires, QOLRAD-J (Japanese translation of Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), and a sleep diary, were used for evaluating GERD-related quality of life (QOL) and sleep disturbance. RESULTS: We evaluated 171 patients with insomnia, of whom 69 had typical reflux symptoms. Omeprazole statistically significantly improved GERD-related QOL from 30.8±0.7 to 33.0±0.5 (P<0.01) (QOLRAD-J, total) and from 6.0±0.2 to 6.6±0.1 (P<0.01) (QOLRAD-J, sleep-related) when administrated to patients with reflux symptoms. Omeprazole also improved insomnia significantly better than the placebo in patients with reflux symptoms; PSQI, from 9.3±0.5 to 7.9±0.5 (P<0.01) and sleep diary, from 2.1±0.1 to 1.8±0.1 (P<0.01). On the other hand, the therapeutic effects of omeprazole and the placebo were not different in patients without reflux symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that PPI administration is effective only for insomnia in patients with reflux symptoms.
| S-EPMC4077042 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMyeloma causes profound immunodeficiency and recurrent, serious infections. Around 5500 new cases of myeloma are diagnosed per year in the UK, and a quarter of patients will have a serious infection within 3 months of diagnosis. We aimed to assess whether patients newly diagnosed with myeloma benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection, and to investigate the effect on antibiotic-resistant organism carriage and health care-associated infections in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma.MethodsTEAMM was a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in patients aged 21 years and older with newly diagnosed myeloma in 93 UK hospitals. All enrolled patients were within 14 days of starting active myeloma treatment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to levofloxacin or placebo with a computerised minimisation algorithm. Allocation was stratified by centre, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and intention to proceed to high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation. All investigators, patients, laboratory, and trial co-ordination staff were masked to the treatment allocation. Patients were given 500 mg of levofloxacin (two 250 mg tablets), orally once daily for 12 weeks, or placebo tablets (two tablets, orally once daily for 12 weeks), with dose reduction according to estimated glomerular filtration rate every 4 weeks. Follow-up visits occurred every 4 weeks up to week 16, and at 1 year. The primary outcome was time to first febrile episode or death from all causes within the first 12 weeks of trial treatment. All randomised patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis of the primary endpoint. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN51731976, and the EU Clinical Trials Register, number 2011-000366-35.FindingsBetween Aug 15, 2012, and April 29, 2016, we enrolled and randomly assigned 977 patients to receive levofloxacin prophylaxis (489 patients) or placebo (488 patients). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 8-13). 95 (19%) first febrile episodes or deaths occurred in 489 patients in the levofloxacin group versus 134 (27%) in 488 patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·86; p=0·0018. 597 serious adverse events were reported up to 16 weeks from the start of trial treatment (308 [52%] of which were in the levofloxacin group and 289 [48%] of which were in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were similar between the two groups except for five episodes (1%) of mostly reversible tendonitis in the levofloxacin group.InterpretationAddition of prophylactic levofloxacin to active myeloma treatment during the first 12 weeks of therapy significantly reduced febrile episodes and deaths compared with placebo without increasing health care-associated infections. These results suggest that prophylactic levofloxacin could be used for patients with newly diagnosed myeloma undergoing anti-myeloma therapy.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research.
| S-EPMC6891230 | biostudies-literature