Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Fleischer DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6439674 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceEpicutaneous immunotherapy may have potential for treating peanut allergy but has been assessed only in preclinical and early human trials.ObjectiveTo determine the optimal dose, adverse events (AEs), and efficacy of a peanut patch for peanut allergy treatment.Design, setting, and participantsPhase 2b double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of a peanut patch in peanut-allergic patients (6-55 years) from 22 centers, with a 2-year, open-label extension (July 31, 2012-July 31, 2014; extension completed September 29, 2016). Patients (n = 221) had peanut sensitivity and positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein.InterventionsRandomly assigned patients (1:1:1:1) received an epicutaneous peanut patch containing 50 μg (n = 53), 100 μg (n = 56), or 250 μg (n = 56) of peanut protein or a placebo patch (n = 56). Following daily patch application for 12 months, patients underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge to establish changes in eliciting dose.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary efficacy end point was percentage of treatment responders (eliciting dose: ≥10-times increase and/or reaching ≥1000 mg of peanut protein) in each group vs placebo patch after 12 months. Secondary end points included percentage of responders by age strata and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsOf 221 patients randomized (median age, 11 years [quartile 1, quartile 3: 8, 16]; 37.6% female), 93.7% completed the trial. A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at month 12 between the 250-μg (n = 28; 50.0%) and placebo (n = 14; 25.0%) patches (difference, 25.0%; 95% CI, 7.7%-42.3%; P = .01). No significant difference was seen between the placebo patch vs the 100-μg patch. Because of statistical testing hierarchical rules, the 50-μg patch was not compared with placebo. Interaction by age group was only significant for the 250-μg patch (P = .04). In the 6- to 11-year stratum, the response rate difference between the 250-μg (n = 15; 53.6%) and placebo (n = 6; 19.4%) patches was 34.2% (95% CI, 11.1%-57.3%; P = .008); adolescents/adults showed no difference between the 250-μg (n = 13; 46.4%) and placebo (n = 8; 32.0%) patches: 14.4% (95% CI, -11.6% to 40.4%; P = .40). No dose-related serious AEs were observed. The percentage of patients with 1 or more TEAEs (largely local skin reactions) was similar across all groups in year 1: 50-μg patch = 100%, 100-μg patch = 98.2%, 250-μg patch = 100%, and placebo patch = 92.9%. The overall median adherence was 97.6% after 1 year; the dropout rate for treatment-related AEs was 0.9%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this dose-ranging trial of peanut-allergic patients, the 250-μg peanut patch resulted in significant treatment response vs placebo patch following 12 months of therapy. These findings warrant a phase 3 trial.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01675882.

Project description:ImportanceNo approved treatment exists for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated cow's milk allergy (CMA), a common childhood food allergy.ObjectiveTo assess dose, efficacy, and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with Viaskin milk in children with IgE-mediated CMA.Design, setting, and participantsA 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.InterventionSafety 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 measuresThe 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceIn 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 registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02223182.

Project description:BackgroundPeanut allergy is common, life-threatening, and without therapeutic options. We evaluated peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) by using Viaskin Peanut for peanut allergy treatment.ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate the clinical, safety, and immunologic effects of EPIT for the treatment of peanut allergy.MethodsIn this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, 74 participants with peanut allergy (ages 4-25 years) were treated with placebo (n = 25), Viaskin Peanut 100 μg (VP100; n = 24) or Viaskin Peanut 250 μg (VP250; n = 25; DBV Technologies, Montrouge, France). The primary outcome was treatment success after 52 weeks, which was defined as passing a 5044-mg protein oral food challenge or achieving a 10-fold or greater increase in successfully consumed dose from baseline to week 52. Adverse reactions and mechanistic changes were assessed.ResultsAt week 52, treatment success was achieved in 3 (12%) placebo-treated participants, 11 (46%) VP100 participants, and 12 (48%) VP250 participants (P = .005 and P = .003, respectively, compared with placebo; VP100 vs VP250, P = .48). Median change in successfully consumed doses were 0, 43, and 130 mg of protein in the placebo, VP100, and VP250 groups, respectively (placebo vs VP100, P = .014; placebo vs VP250, P = .003). Treatment success was higher among younger children (P = .03; age, 4-11 vs >11 years). Overall, 14.4% of placebo doses and 79.8% of VP100 and VP250 doses resulted in reactions, predominantly local patch-site and mild reactions (P = .003). Increases in peanut-specific IgG4 levels and IgG4/IgE ratios were observed in peanut EPIT-treated participants, along with trends toward reduced basophil activation and peanut-specific TH2 cytokines.ConclusionsPeanut EPIT administration was safe and associated with a modest treatment response after 52 weeks, with the highest responses among younger children. This, when coupled with a high adherence and retention rate and significant changes in immune pathways, supports further investigation of this novel therapy.

Project description:BackgroundConsortium for Food Allergy Research investigators previously reported 52-week outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy, observing modest and statistically significant induction of desensitization, highest in children ages 4 to 11 years.ObjectiveWe sought to evaluate changes in efficacy, safety, and mechanistic parameters following extended open-label peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy.MethodsPeanut-allergic participants (4-25 years) received 52 weeks of placebo (PLB), Viaskin Peanut 100 μg (VP100) or 250 μg (VP250), and then crossed over to VP250 for PLB (PLB-VP250) and VP100 (VP100-VP250) participants and continued treatment for VP250 participants (total = 130 weeks of active epicutaneous immunotherapy). Efficacy was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (5044 mg peanut protein), and adherence, safety, and mechanistic parameters were evaluated.ResultsAt week 130, desensitization success was achieved in 1 of 20 (5%) PLB-VP250, 5 of 24 (20.8%) VP100-VP250, and 9 of 25 (36%) VP250 participants, with median successfully consumed dose change from baseline of 11.5 mg, 141.5 mg, and 400 mg, respectively. Median age (years) for week 130 desensitization success was 6.2 years (interquartile range, 5.2-9.1) versus 9.4 years (interquartile range, 7.6-12.8) for failures (P < .001). Adherence was 96%. Adverse reactions were predominantly local patch-site reactions. Significant increases in peanut- and Ara h2-specific IgG4 observed at week 52 persisted to week 130. By a post hoc analysis, there were no statistically significant increases from week 52 to week 130 in either desensitization success or successfully consumed dose.ConclusionsExtended treatment with VP250 was well tolerated, and desensitization observed at week 52 persisted between weeks 52 and 130. Treatment success was observed predominantly in younger participants, with younger age at initiation of active therapy an important predictor of success.

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.

Project description:Given the potent immunological properties of the skin, epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) emerges as a promising treatment approach for inducing immune tolerance, particularly for food allergies. Targeting the highly immunocompetent, non-vascularized epidermis allows for the application of microgram amounts of allergen while significantly reducing the risk of allergen passage into the bloodstream, thus limiting systemic allergen exposure and distribution. This makes EPIT highly suitable for the treatment of potentially life-threatening allergies such as food allergies. Multiple approaches to EPIT are currently under investigation for the treatment of food allergy, and these include the use of allergen-coated microneedles, application of allergen on the skin pretreated by tape stripping, abrasion or laser-mediated microperforation, or the application of allergen on the intact skin using an occlusive epicutaneous system. To date, the most clinically advanced approach to EPIT is the Viaskin technology platform. Viaskin is an occlusive epicutaneous system (patch) containing dried native allergen extracts, without adjuvants, which relies on frequent application for the progressive passage of small amounts of allergen to the epidermis through occlusion of the intact skin. Numerous preclinical studies of Viaskin have demonstrated that this particular approach to EPIT can induce potent and long-lasting T-regulatory cells with broad homing capabilities, which can exert their suppressive effects in multiple organs and ameliorate immune responses from different routes of allergen exposure. Clinical trials of the Viaskin patch have studied the efficacy and safety for the treatment of life-threatening allergies in younger patients, at an age when allergic diseases start to occur. Moreover, this treatment approach is designed to provide a non-invasive therapy with no restrictions on daily activities. Taken together, the preclinical and clinical data on the use of EPIT support the continued investigation of this therapeutic approach to provide improved treatment options for patients with allergic disorders in the near future.