Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Jan;139(1):173-181.e8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.05.027. Epub 2016 Aug 10.

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

Brian P Vickery  1 , Jelena P Berglund  2 , Caitlin M Burk  1 , Jason P Fine  1 , Edwin H Kim  1 , Jung In Kim  1 , Corinne A Keet  3 , Michael Kulis  1 , Kelly G Orgel  1 , Rishu Guo  1 , Pamela H Steele  1 , Yamini V Virkud  4 , Ping Ye  1 , Benjamin L Wright  5 , Robert A Wood  3 , A Wesley Burks  6
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Brian P Vickery et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017 Jan.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Oral immunotherapy; desensitization; early intervention; peanut allergy; randomized clinical trial; sustained unresponsiveness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Progression of subjects through the study. DBPCFC, double-blinded, placebo-controlled food challenge; EoE, eosinophilic esophagitis; OFC, oral food challenge; SU, sustained unresponsiveness.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Outcomes of E-OIT and standard-care treatment. (A) Clinical outcomes of E-OIT. The proportion of overall subjects, and those in each treatment arm, achieving sustained unresponsiveness are shown for both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.(B) The distributions of peanut-specific IgE among E-OIT participants and matched controls practicing allergen avoidance at baseline and end-of study periods (median 29 and 43 months, respectively). Note all peanut-specific IgE levels > 100 were transformed to 101 for these analyses because dilutional analysis was not available for all high-titer samples. (C) The proportions of E-OIT and control participants able to reintroduce peanut-containing foods in the diet at the end of study period. (D) The imputed proportions able to reintroduce peanut-containing foods in the diet with evidence-based worst-case assumptions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Outcomes of E-OIT and standard-care treatment. (A) Clinical outcomes of E-OIT. The proportion of overall subjects, and those in each treatment arm, achieving sustained unresponsiveness are shown for both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.(B) The distributions of peanut-specific IgE among E-OIT participants and matched controls practicing allergen avoidance at baseline and end-of study periods (median 29 and 43 months, respectively). Note all peanut-specific IgE levels > 100 were transformed to 101 for these analyses because dilutional analysis was not available for all high-titer samples. (C) The proportions of E-OIT and control participants able to reintroduce peanut-containing foods in the diet at the end of study period. (D) The imputed proportions able to reintroduce peanut-containing foods in the diet with evidence-based worst-case assumptions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Outcomes of E-OIT and standard-care treatment. (A) Clinical outcomes of E-OIT. The proportion of overall subjects, and those in each treatment arm, achieving sustained unresponsiveness are shown for both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.(B) The distributions of peanut-specific IgE among E-OIT participants and matched controls practicing allergen avoidance at baseline and end-of study periods (median 29 and 43 months, respectively). Note all peanut-specific IgE levels > 100 were transformed to 101 for these analyses because dilutional analysis was not available for all high-titer samples. (C) The proportions of E-OIT and control participants able to reintroduce peanut-containing foods in the diet at the end of study period. (D) The imputed proportions able to reintroduce peanut-containing foods in the diet with evidence-based worst-case assumptions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Outcomes of E-OIT and standard-care treatment. (A) Clinical outcomes of E-OIT. The proportion of overall subjects, and those in each treatment arm, achieving sustained unresponsiveness are shown for both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.(B) The distributions of peanut-specific IgE among E-OIT participants and matched controls practicing allergen avoidance at baseline and end-of study periods (median 29 and 43 months, respectively). Note all peanut-specific IgE levels > 100 were transformed to 101 for these analyses because dilutional analysis was not available for all high-titer samples. (C) The proportions of E-OIT and control participants able to reintroduce peanut-containing foods in the diet at the end of study period. (D) The imputed proportions able to reintroduce peanut-containing foods in the diet with evidence-based worst-case assumptions.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Association of baseline peanut-specific IgE characteristics and outcomes. (A) Both the baseline peanut-specific IgE, and the ratio of peanut-specific to total IgE, are significantly lower among successes than failures in the ITT population. (B) Length of treatment broken down by tertiles of baseline peanut-specific IgE. Significance testing by one-way ANOVA.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Association of baseline peanut-specific IgE characteristics and outcomes. (A) Both the baseline peanut-specific IgE, and the ratio of peanut-specific to total IgE, are significantly lower among successes than failures in the ITT population. (B) Length of treatment broken down by tertiles of baseline peanut-specific IgE. Significance testing by one-way ANOVA.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Immunoregulation during E-OIT at both doses tested. Log-transformed peanut-specific IgE (A) and IgG4 (B), and raw data for mean wheal diameter of peanut skin tests (C) are plotted separately by group, with data from individuals connected by colored lines and the fitted time trajectory curve displayed with the raw data for these models. P-values comparing the parameter estimates for the two groups for each outcome are also provided.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Immunoregulation during E-OIT at both doses tested. Log-transformed peanut-specific IgE (A) and IgG4 (B), and raw data for mean wheal diameter of peanut skin tests (C) are plotted separately by group, with data from individuals connected by colored lines and the fitted time trajectory curve displayed with the raw data for these models. P-values comparing the parameter estimates for the two groups for each outcome are also provided.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Immunoregulation during E-OIT at both doses tested. Log-transformed peanut-specific IgE (A) and IgG4 (B), and raw data for mean wheal diameter of peanut skin tests (C) are plotted separately by group, with data from individuals connected by colored lines and the fitted time trajectory curve displayed with the raw data for these models. P-values comparing the parameter estimates for the two groups for each outcome are also provided.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • Recent advances in food allergy prevention and treatment.
    Fineman SM, Lang DM, Oppenheimer JJ, Tilles SA. Fineman SM, et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018 Mar;120(3):241-244. doi: 10.1016/j.anai.2018.01.023. Epub 2018 Feb 2. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018. PMID: 29409852 No abstract available.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Godbold JH, Sampson HA. US prevalence of self-reported peanut, tree nut, and sesame allergy: 11-year follow-up. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2010;125(6):1322–1326. - PubMed
    1. Osborne NJ, Koplin JJ, Martin PE, Gurrin LC, Lowe AJ, Matheson MC, et al. Prevalence of challenge-proven IgE-mediated food allergy using population-based sampling and predetermined challenge criteria in infants. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2011;127(3):668–676. e1–e2. - PubMed
    1. Varshney P, Jones SM, Scurlock AM, Perry TT, Kemper A, Steele P, et al. A randomized controlled study of peanut oral immunotherapy: clinical desensitization and modulation of the allergic response. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2011;127(3):654–660. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Anagnostou K, Islam S, King Y, Foley L, Pasea L, Bond S, et al. Assessing the efficacy of oral immunotherapy for the desensitisation of peanut allergy in children (STOP II): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9925):1297–1304. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Narisety SD, Frischmeyer-Guerrerio PA, Keet CA, Gorelik M, Schroeder J, Hamilton RG, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2014 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types