Volume 124, Issue 2 , Pages 286-291.e6, August 2009
Safety of a peanut oral immunotherapy protocol in children with peanut allergy
Article Outline
- Abstract
- Methods
- Results
- Discussion
- Fig E1.
- Table E1.
- Table E2.
- Table E3.
- Table E4.
- Table E5.
- References
- Copyright
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.
Key words: Peanut, food allergy, oral immunotherapy
Abbreviations used: DCRU, Duke Clinical Research Unit, OIT, Oral immunotherapy
Peanut allergy is increasing in the United States. An estimate of the prevalence of peanut allergy in children was 0.8% in 2002 compared with 0.4% in 1997 in a self-reported population survey.1 Reactions to ingestion of peanuts in allergic patients include urticaria, angioedema, vomiting, diarrhea, wheezing, throat tightness, and dyspnea.2 Typically, peanut allergy is lifelong and can lead to severe reactions and possibly death. Only approximately 20% of children outgrow their peanut allergy.3, 4
Current management of peanut allergy includes avoidance and treatment with epinephrine and antihistamines in cases of accidental ingestion and anaphylaxis.2 There is no cure for peanut allergy. In a landmark study, 6 patients were treated with standard injection immunotherapy with aqueous peanut during a rush and a maintenance phase.5 Interestingly, these patients exhibited increased tolerance to higher peanut doses during food challenges and had decreased skin prick test reactivity to peanuts after therapy. However, systemic reactions occurred frequently during immunotherapy (23% of rush injections and 39% of maintenance injections), leading the authors to conclude that the high rate of systemic reactions observed during standard immunotherapy with aqueous peanut make this form of treatment unacceptable.5 Other researchers have modified the IgE-binding epitopes of Ara h 1, 2, and 3, the major peanut allergens, to decrease IgE-binding capacity while preserving T-cell activation capabilities in hopes of using this as a safer immunotherapeutic agent in patients with peanut allergy.6 Investigators are also studying the use of anti-IgE in the prevention of anaphylaxis in cases of accidental exposure in patients with peanut allergy.7
Another potential treatment for peanut allergy is oral immunotherapy (OIT).8, 9 Patriarca et al10 reported successful oral desensitization in 36 (85%) of 42 treatments to foods including milk, egg, codfish, apple, and wheat. In their study, 11 (30.5%) of 36 patients reported mild side effects, such as urticaria, vomiting, abdominal pain, or worsening of asthma. Five patients were unable to successfully complete the desensitization because of severe side effects. In a proof-of-concept study 7 subjects who underwent an egg OIT protocol tolerated more egg protein in food challenges at study conclusion, and 2 had evidence of oral tolerance to egg after discontinuation of the study.11 In a randomized controlled trial of specific oral tolerance induction in children with severe cow's milk allergy, 36% of children had complete tolerance to cow's milk, allowing reintroduction into the diet, and 54% had partial tolerance to increased milk ingestion.12
OIT offers a promising therapeutic option for peanut allergy. In OIT protocols allergic patients are desensitized to the allergic food, which protects them against reactions caused by accidental ingestions. OIT also has the potential to induce tolerance so that an allergic food can be reintroduced into the diet on a regular basis without fear of reaction. Given that during OIT an allergic patient is given an allergen that could potentially cause a serious reaction, the safety of OIT is a particular concern. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety of a peanut OIT protocol in a group of children with peanut allergy.
Methods
Patient selection
Twenty-eight patients 1 to 16 years of age with peanut allergy were recruited from the Duke Pediatric Allergy/Immunology Clinic or were referred from colleagues in the surrounding communities. Patients were confirmed to have peanut allergy based on the presence of specific IgE to peanut (a positive skin prick test response to peanut, which was defined as a wheal ≥3 mm larger than that produced by the saline control, and a positive in vitro serum peanut IgE [CAP-FEIA] result of >15 kU/L for children >2 years of age and >7 kU/L for children ≤2 years) and a history of significant clinical symptoms within 60 minutes after the ingestion of peanuts. Patients were also accepted into the study if they had a positive skin prick test response to peanut, an in vitro peanut IgE (CAP-FEIA) result of 7 kU/L or greater, and a clinical reaction to peanut ingestion within the past 6 months. Exclusion criteria were a history of severe, life-threatening anaphylaxis consisting of hypotension to peanut; severe or poorly controlled asthma; a medical history that would prevent a food challenge to peanut; inability to cooperate with challenge procedures; or unavailability by means of telephone for follow-up. For the duration of the study, the patients were asked to continue a strict peanut-elimination diet. The study was undertaken with the approval of the Duke University Institutional Review Board. The parents and patient were educated about the study, and informed consent was obtained.
OIT protocol
The OIT protocol consisted of 3 phases: (1) an initial escalation day, (2) a buildup phase, and (3) a home dosing phase. The goal of OIT was to achieve ingestion of a daily maintenance dose of 300 mg of peanut protein, which is the equivalent of 1 peanut and is greater than the amount that might cause an accidental allergic reaction.13
Initial escalation day
On the initial escalation day, subjects were admitted to the Duke Clinical Research Unit (DCRU), an intravenous catheter was inserted, and diphenhydramine, epinephrine, and albuterol were made immediately available. Each subject first ingested 0.1 mg of peanut protein (Golden Peanut Co, Alpharetta, Ga) mixed in a food vehicle. The dose was doubled every 30 minutes until a maximum dose of 50 mg of peanut protein (cumulative peanut protein, 99 mg) was ingested. If the subject had a mild reaction to a dose, the next dose was determined at the discretion of the investigator: the investigator administered the last previously tolerated dose, waited an additional amount of time between doses, or repeated the current dose. If the subject tolerated this dose, the desensitization process resumed. If the subject continued to have symptoms or if the symptoms were moderate or severe, the desensitization process was discontinued and the highest tolerated dose was recorded. Symptoms were treated as medically indicated. Vital signs were recorded before each dose was given. On completion of the initial escalation day, the patient was observed for a minimum of 2 hours. The subject was then discharged home with self-injectable epinephrine after instructions were given to the parents regarding its use. The subject returned to the DCRU the following day for an observed ingestion of the maximum tolerated dose of peanut protein. This dose became the starting dose for home dosing.
Buildup phase and home dosing phase
The subject ingested the daily dose every day at home for a minimum of 2 weeks. If the home doses were well tolerated, the subject underwent an observed dosage escalation schedule whereby the daily dose was increased by 25 mg every 2 weeks at the DCRU until a 300-mg dose was reached. The 300-mg dose was ingested daily for a period of either 4 or 24 months (2 different groups). All initial escalation day protocols and buildup phase dose increases were performed by trained practitioners in the DCRU. Symptoms and treatments were recorded every 30 minutes for at least 2 hours after the last dose. If the patient experienced any allergic symptoms, blood pressure was measured. Parents of patients were also given a daily symptom and treatment diary to complete with each home dosing. Symptom categories in the diary included skin, upper respiratory tract, chest, and abdominal symptoms. Parents were given an information sheet describing each category (see Fig E1 in this article's Online Repository at www.jacionline.org).
Statistical analysis
Clinical characteristics for patients enrolled in the study were described by using frequencies for categorical variables and means with ranges for continuous variables. The frequency of symptom occurrence during the initial escalation day was reported overall by body system and by severity in each symptom category. It should be noted that the frequency of symptom occurrence on a patient basis (number of patients with symptoms divided by total number of patients) during the initial escalation day estimates the risk (probability) of symptom occurrence among patients. For buildup and home dosing phases, the frequency of symptom occurrence on a dose basis (number of doses associated with symptoms relative to total number of doses in the study) is not generally equal to the estimated risk of symptom occurrence associated with a dose because of the correlation between symptom occurrence after doses administered to the same patient. Therefore for the buildup and home dosing phases, risk of symptom occurrence associated with any single dose was estimated (with 95% CIs) by using logistic regression, adjusting for correlation between multiple doses within patients. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS software (version 8.2; SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).
Results
Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in the peanut OIT study. The mean age of the patients at enrollment was 4.8 years (range, 1.1-9.4 years). Sixty-eight percent of the patients had asthma, 64% had atopic dermatitis, and 61% had allergic rhinitis (see Table E1 in this article's Online Repository at www.jacionline.org). All 28 patients completed the initial escalation day protocol. Three of the patients elected not to continue in the study after the initial escalation day for personal reasons. These 3 patients had reactions during the initial escalation day that were similar to those seen in the other 25 patients who continued in the study. Twenty of 28 patients had completed all 3 phases of the study at the time of data collection. Three patients were still in the buildup phase or receiving maintenance dosing. One patient dropped out during the buildup phase because of transportation difficulties. Another patient dropped out of the study during maintenance dosing because of documentation of eosinophilic esophagitis, which resolved several weeks after peanut OIT was discontinued.
Symptoms during the initial escalation day
Twenty-six (93%) of 28 patients experienced some symptoms during the initial escalation day. The relative risk of upper respiratory symptoms was 79%, with mild sneezing/itching and mild laryngeal symptoms reported most frequently (Table I and see Table E2 in this article's Online Repository at www.jacionline.org). Abdominal symptoms (68%) constituted the second most common symptom category noted during the initial escalation day (Fig 1). Symptoms in the skin category occurred with a frequency of 61%. Skin was the only symptom category in which patients had severe symptoms during the initial escalation day (Fig 1). Five patients experienced chest symptoms during the initial escalation day; all 5 had mild wheezing, and 2 progressed to moderate wheezing (Fig 1). Forty percent of patients with chest symptoms during the initial escalation day also had a diagnosis of asthma. No changes in blood pressure were noted during the initial escalation day.
Table I. Risk of symptom occurrence with 95% CIs during the initial escalation day, the buildup phase, and the home dosing phase
| Initial escalation day | Buildup phase | Home dosing phase | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Any symptom | 93% (77%-99%) | 46% (37%-56%) | 3.5% (2.3%-5.1%) |
| Upper respiratory tract | 79% (59%-92%) | 29% (20%-41%) | 1.2% (0.6%-2.5%) |
| Skin | 61% (41%-79%) | 24% (17%-32%) | 1.1% (0.7%-1.8%) |
| Abdominal | 68% (48%-84%) | 5.5% (3.2%-9.2%) | 0.9% (0.6%-1.4%) |
| Chest | 18% (6%-37%) | 1.7% (0.6%-5.1%) | 0.3% (0.1%-0.4%) |
Fig 1.
Estimated risk of specific symptoms during the initial escalation day. Symptoms were recorded during the initial escalation day in 4 categories: upper respiratory tract, skin, abdominal, and chest.
Symptoms during the buildup phase
The total number of buildup phase doses was 301 for the 25 patients who continued in the study after the initial escalation day. The mean number of buildup phase dose increases was 12 per patient. Seven patients required dose decreases during the buildup phase because of reactions that occurred at home, missed home doses caused by illness, or severity of reaction to a buildup phase dose. Six of these 7 patients were able to reach the 300-mg maintenance dose over time. One patient dropped out because of transportation issues.
The estimated risk of symptoms with a buildup phase dose was 46%. Upper respiratory tract symptoms were most likely (29%), followed by skin symptoms (24%). Abdominal symptoms (5.5%) and chest symptoms (1.7%) were less frequently recorded (Table I). In the upper respiratory tract category, the risks of mild sneezing/itching and mild laryngeal symptoms were 16.2% and 13.8% respectively, making them the most likely symptoms in this category (Fig 2 and see Table E3 in this article's Online Repository at www.jacionline.org). Only mild chest symptoms were experienced with buildup phase doses. There were no severe symptoms experienced in any of the 4 categories or any changes in blood pressure noted during the buildup phase.
Fig 2.
Estimated risk of specific symptoms during the buildup phase. Symptoms were recorded during the buildup phase in 4 categories: upper respiratory tract, skin, abdominal, and chest.
Symptoms during the home dosing phase
The total number of home dosings from study inception until August 2007 for all patients enrolled in this study was 10,184. The mean number of home dosings per patient was 391, with a range of 6 to 1,024. Two patients dropped out of the study in either the maintenance phase or the buildup phase; any home dosings they took before dropping out were included in this analysis.
The estimated risk of experiencing any symptoms with a home dose was 3.5%. Upper respiratory tract symptoms and skin symptoms were the 2 most frequently recorded symptom categories, with risks of 1.2% and 1.1%, respectively (Table I). One patient reported severe laryngeal symptoms with 1 home dose. Five minutes after the patient's home peanut dose, he experienced cough, hoarseness, and stridor with decreased peak flow. He was given diphenhydramine and albuterol, and his symptoms resolved in 30 minutes. Because he had tolerated his previous home doses and was stable, he was allowed to take a decreased peanut dose at home the following day. He tolerated this dose without any symptoms and was advanced back to his original home peanut dose the next day. Most of the skin symptoms experienced with home doses were classified as mild, with a 0.4% risk of mild urticaria/angioedema and a 0.4% risk of mild pruritus (Fig 3 and see Table E4 in this article's Online Repository at www.jacionline.org). One patient reported severe pruritus with 2 home doses. Abdominal symptoms (0.9%) were less likely to occur after home doses than upper respiratory tract (1.2%) and skin (1.1%) symptoms. Eleven patients experienced chest symptoms during home dosings; 82% of these patients had asthma. There were no accidental ingestions of peanut reported during the home dosing phase.
Fig 3.
Estimated risk of specific symptoms during the home dosing phase. Symptoms were recorded during the home dosing phase in 4 categories: upper respiratory tract, skin, abdominal, and chest.
Treatment during peanut OIT
During the initial escalation day, 71% of patients required treatment for symptoms. The most frequent treatment was diphenhydramine, with 50% of patients receiving this medication alone. Seven percent of patients were given both diphenhydramine and albuterol, and 15% received epinephrine (Table II). Fewer patients received treatment during the buildup phase than during the initial escalation day. Four (16%) patients were given any medications for reactions during the buildup phase. Overall, treatment was given with 1.7% of buildup phase doses. No patient received epinephrine during the buildup phase (Table II). All patients were monitored in the DCRU until completely recovered to baseline. No patients were admitted to the hospital during the OIT study.
Table II. Frequency of treatment during the initial escalation day, buildup phase, and home dosing phase of peanut OIT
| Treatment | Initial escalation days | Buildup doses | Home doses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Any | 71% (20/28) | 1.7% (5/301) | 0.7% (67/10,184) |
| Diphenhydramine alone | 50% (14/28) | 1% (3/301) | 0.4% (45/10,184) |
| Albuterol alone | 0% | 0% | 0.04% (4/10,184) |
| Diphenhydramine + albuterol | 7% (2/28) | 0.7% (2/301) | 0.2% (18/10,184) |
| Diphenhydramine + epinephrine | 11% (3/28) | 0% | 0% |
| Diphenhydramine + albuterol + epinephrine | 4% (1/28) | 0% | 0.02% (2/10,184) |
Treatment was given after 0.7% of home dosings. The most common treatment for symptoms experienced with home doses was diphenhydramine (0.4%), followed by albuterol and diphenhydramine (0.2%). Epinephrine was associated with 0.02% of home doses. Two patients received epinephrine after 1 home dose each (Table II). One patient received epinephrine at home after experiencing moderate laryngeal symptoms with ingestion of the daily peanut dose in the setting of fever. The patient was diagnosed with pneumonia the following day. Another patient had severe pruritus, mild laryngeal symptoms, mild wheeze, and mild nausea/pain after ingesting his daily peanut dose. The patient was given epinephrine in the local emergency department. Both patients were observed in the local emergency department until fully recovered; neither patient was admitted to the hospital. Both patients had tolerated the home peanut dose without symptoms the day before. Of the 2 patients, the second had been treated with epinephrine during the initial escalation day for moderate laryngeal symptoms, moderate pruritus, and moderate emesis/diarrhea. He also was one of the 4 patients who received treatment during the buildup phase. After this reaction at home, the first patient stopped the study for 2 weeks. She then re-entered the study and completed a second initial escalation day, buildup phase, and maintenance phase. The second patient underwent a dose reduction the next day at the DCRU and was able to eventually reach the maintenance dose.
Discussion
Peanut allergy is increasing across industrialized countries and is usually lifelong.2, 14 The standard treatment for peanut allergy is to follow a strict elimination diet and to treat any reactions caused by accidental ingestions with epinephrine and antihistamines. However, peanut is difficult to avoid given its ubiquitous presence in the food supply. Therefore OIT offers a promising treatment for peanut allergy. In OIT protocols the patient is given the allergic food in escalating doses in an attempt to increase tolerance. Because patients are given a food to which they might potentially react, the safety of OIT has been a concern. In this study, we show that a peanut OIT protocol consisting of an initial escalation day, a buildup phase, and a home dosing phase is overall safe and well tolerated in patients without a history of severe life-threatening anaphylaxis to peanut ingestion or severe or poorly controlled asthma.
In this study, reactions were most frequently observed during the initial escalation day when patients underwent an oral desensitization with peanut protein. Twenty-six of 28 patients had symptoms during the desensitization. However, the severity of symptoms varied widely across patients, and only 4 of 28 patients received epinephrine for severe symptoms. Six of the 28 patients were able to tolerate the final 50-mg peanut dose of the modified rush desensitization (see Table E5 in this article's Online Repository at www.jacionline.org). There was no significant difference in peanut-specific IgE levels between those who required epinephrine for severe reactions and those who tolerated the initial escalation day. It is likely that fewer patients would have reactions if the final dose of the initial escalation day was lower, thereby extending the duration of the buildup phase.
Doses were better tolerated during the buildup phase than during the initial escalation day. The estimated probability of a reaction with a buildup phase dose was 46%. These reactions were usually mild in nature, and there were no severe symptoms recorded during the buildup phase. Moderate symptoms were also less commonly experienced with buildup phase doses than during the initial escalation day. Peanut-specific IgE levels were similar between those who had reactions and those who tolerated buildup phase doses.
Home doses were rarely associated with any reactions. The estimated risk of a reaction with a home dose was quite low at 3.5%. When symptoms were recorded with home dosings, they were most commonly classified as mild, with rare occurrences of more severe symptoms. Although 2 patients were treated with epinephrine for reactions after home dosings, they were both able to reach the maintenance dose of peanut and complete the study.
One interesting finding was the relationship between asthma and chest symptoms during the OIT protocol. Asthma was prevalent in this study population; 68% of the patients had asthma. Of those patients who experienced chest symptoms during the initial escalation phase or the buildup phase, 40% and 100%, respectively, had asthma. Eighty-two percent of the patients who experienced chest symptoms with homes doses had asthma. Our experience suggests that having a diagnosis of asthma is associated with a higher rate of chest symptoms during OIT. Only 47% of the asthmatic children were receiving inhaled corticosteroid therapy during OIT. It is possible that starting asthmatic children on adequate controller medications with close monitoring of pulmonary function tests before and regularly during the OIT study could reduce the incidence of chest symptoms.
OIT has been studied as a treatment for other food allergies. However, OIT for peanut allergy has been described in the literature in only 2 case reports. In a letter to the editor, Mansfield15 describes an oral desensitization protocol using peanut kernels in a child with peanut allergy. After a rush desensitization followed by an 8-week buildup phase, the child was ingesting 2 whole peanuts twice a day and had tolerated an accidental exposure to peanut without symptoms. This child experienced wheezing and rash during the initial rush desensitization. Patriarca et al16 report a rush desensitization procedure to peanut followed by a maintenance phase in a woman with peanut allergy. Both the desensitization and maintenance phase were well tolerated without any side effects. After 6 months of therapy, skin prick tests, the results of which were initially positive, were absent, and peanut-specific IgE levels had decreased slightly. The woman was also able to tolerate peanut-containing foods in her diet.
Given the success of studies of OIT for milk and egg allergies and the increasing prevalence of peanut allergy, there seems to be a void of studies related to peanut OIT. This might be due to several interesting features of peanut allergy. Although milk, egg, and peanut allergies are all IgE mediated, there are differences between them. Peanut allergy has been associated with a high risk of severe anaphylaxis compared with egg allergy.17, 18 Several studies have found that peanut is the most common cause of fatal food-induced anaphylaxis.18, 19, 20 Studies have also shown that reactions can occur at very low doses of peanut protein (0.1 mg).14 The paucity of studies on peanut OIT might be related both to the high risk of anaphylaxis with peanut ingestion and the risk of reaction with very low doses of peanut.
In this study of peanut OIT, severe reactions requiring treatment were rare, which is much different than seen in previous studies of peanut immunotherapy.5 However, we caution that this was a select group of patients treated with peanut OIT in a controlled medical setting by personnel trained in the treatment of food-induced anaphylaxis. Further studies are needed in larger populations of children with peanut allergy to ensure the safety of this protocol. Studies are underway to determine the efficacy of peanut OIT and its duration of effect. In this study none of the children had an accidental ingestion of peanut while receiving the 300-mg dose of peanut protein. The subjects did have a peanut challenge of 3,900 mg at the conclusion of the original period of treatment, and 93% tolerated this challenge without symptoms.21 Each of these subjects had allergic symptoms to peanut ingestion of 50 mg or less with the daily dosing early in the study. The question remains whether peanut OIT will simply lead to desensitization or to true immune tolerance. If only desensitization is achieved, patients who are being treated with peanut OIT and who have an accidental ingestion will likely be protected from an allergic reaction. However, similar to drug desensitization, if peanut OIT only causes desensitization and is discontinued, the patient would be at risk for reactions if accidental ingestions occur. If immune tolerance is achieved by means of peanut OIT, then patients might be able to discontinue therapy and reintroduce peanut into their diet without fear of reaction. Even if peanut OIT only results in desensitization and not immune tolerance, it might offer protection for those who might have accidental peanut ingestions. Overall peanut OIT offers a promising therapy with a good safety profile for patients with peanut allergy.
Peanut OIT offers the promise of a novel therapy for peanut allergy and appears to be safe in children with peanut allergy treated in a controlled setting by trained personnel.
Fig E1.
Symptom scoring sheet for desensitization and dosage escalations. This figure is the description of the symptom classification of mild, moderate, and severe used by trained personnel and parents for recording symptoms during desensitizations, dose escalations, and home dosings.
Table E1.
Clinical characteristics of study patients
| Male sex | 21 (75%) |
| Additional atopic disease | 26 (93%) |
| Asthma | 19 (68%) |
| Atopic dermatitis | 18 (64%) |
| Allergic rhinitis | 16 (57%) |
| Clinical reaction to peanut | |
 Rash | 5 (18%) |
| Pruritis | 2 (7%) |
| Urticaria | 19 (68%) |
| Angioedema | 13 (46%) |
| Sneeze | 2 (7%) |
| Laryngeal | 4 (14%) |
| Chest | 6 (21%) |
| Abdominal pain/nausea | 2 (7%) |
| Vomit/diarrhea | 7 (25%) |
| No. of symptoms experienced by each patient | |
| 1 | 8 (29%) |
| 2 | 11 (39%) |
| 3 | 7 (25%) |
| ≥3 | 2 (7%) |
| Peanut IgE level (kU/L) at study entry∗ | |
| ≥7 and <15 | 2 (7%) |
| ≥15 and <50 | 7 (25%) |
| ≥50 and <100 | 6 (21%) |
| ≥100 and <400 | 9 (32%) |
| ≥400 | 3 (11%) |
∗One patient was referred to the Duke Clinic with a history of an increased peanut IgE level of greater than 7 kU/L. The patient was enrolled in the study. After enrollment, the patient was found to have a lower peanut IgE level than the criteria for study entry. Because he had been enrolled already, he was continued on the peanut OIT protocol, even though he did not meet the entry criteria. |
Table E2.
Frequency and risk of symptoms on the initial escalation day
| Symptom | No. of patients with symptoms/total no. of patients | Risk of symptom occurrence (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Upper respiratory tract | ||
| Rhinorrhea, moderate | 1/28 | 4% (<0.5%-18%) |
| Laryngeal, moderate | 4/28 | 14% (4%-33%) |
| Nasal congestion, mild | 7/28 | 25% (11%-45%) |
| Rhinorrhea, mild | 10/28 | 36% (19%-56%) |
| Laryngeal, mild | 12/28 | 43% (24%-63%) |
| Sneezing/itching, mild | 18/28 | 64% (44%-81%) |
| Abdominal | ||
| Emesis/diarrhea, moderate | 2/28 | 7% (1%-24%) |
| Nausea/pain, moderate | 8/28 | 29% (13%-49%) |
| Emesis/diarrhea, mild | 10/28 | 36% (19%-56%) |
| Nausea/pain, mild | 12/28 | 43% (24%-63%) |
| Skin | ||
| Pruritus, severe | 1/28 | 4% (<0.5%-18%) |
| Rash, severe | 1/28 | 4% (<0.5%-18%) |
| Urticaria/angioedema, severe | 2/28 | 7% (1%-24%) |
| Pruritus, moderate | 4/28 | 14% (4%-33%) |
| Rash, mild | 6/28 | 21% (8%-41%) |
| Urticaria/angioedema, mild | 10/28 | 36% (19%-56%) |
| Pruritus, mild | 15/28 | 54% (34%-72%) |
| Chest | ||
| Chest, moderate | 2/28 | 7% (1%-24%) |
| Chest, mild | 5/28 | 18% (6%-37%) |
Table E3.
Estimated risk of symptoms during the buildup phase with 95% CIs
| Symptom | Risk of symptom occurrence after a dose (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Upper respiratory tract | |
| Laryngeal, moderate | 0.3% (0.05%-2.3%) |
| Rhinorrhea, moderate | 0.3% (0.05%-2.4%) |
| Sneezing/itching, moderate | 0.3% (0.05%-2.3%) |
| Nasal congestion, moderate | 0.7% (0.1%-4.4%) |
| Rhinorrhea, mild | 4.1% (1.8%-9.1%) |
| Nasal congestion, mild | 4.1% (1.9%-8.9%) |
| Laryngeal, mild | 13.8% (8%-22.7%) |
| Sneezing/itching, mild | 16.2% (10.1%-24.9%) |
| Abdominal | |
| Emesis/diarrhea, moderate | 0.3% (0.05%-2.3%) |
| Emesis/diarrhea, mild | 2.4% (1.2%-4.9%) |
| Nausea/pain, mild | 2.8% (1.3%-5.6%) |
| Skin | |
| Urticaria/angioedema, moderate | 0.3% (0.05%-2.3%) |
| Urticaria/angioedema, mild | 8.3% (4.3%-15.2%) |
| Pruritus, mild | 12.4% (8.0%-18.8%) |
| Chest | |
| Chest, mild | 1.7% (0.6%-5.1%) |
Table E4.
Estimated risk of symptoms during the home dosing phase with 95% CIs
| Symptom | Risk of symptom occurrence after a dose (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Upper respiratory tract | |
| Laryngeal, severe | 0.01% (0.001%-0.07%) |
| Laryngeal, moderate | 0.02% (0.006%-0.07%) |
| Sneezing/itching, moderate | 0.02% (0.005%-0.08%) |
| Rhinorrhea, moderate | 0.03% (0.007%-0.13%) |
| Nasal congestion, moderate | 0.03% (0.01%-0.09%) |
| Laryngeal, mild | 0.2% (0.1%-0.5%) |
| Nasal congestion, mild | 0.2% (0.04%-0.9%) |
| Rhinorrhea, mild | 0.4% (0.1%-1.3%) |
| Sneezing/itching, mild | 0.5% (0.2%-1.1%) |
| Skin | |
| Pruritus, severe | 0.02% (0.003%-0.1%) |
| Rash, moderate | 0.08% (0.03%-0.2%) |
| Pruritus, moderate | 0.1% (0.05%-0.3%) |
| Urticaria/angioedema, moderate | 0.2% (0.09%-0.4%) |
| Rash, mild | 0.2% (0.03%-0.9%) |
| Urticaria/angioedema, mild | 0.4% (0.2%-0.7%) |
| Pruritus, mild | 0.4% (0.2%-0.7%) |
| Abdominal | |
| Nausea/pain, severe | 0.02% (0.003%-0.1%) |
| Emesis/diarrhea, moderate | 0.03% (0.009%-0.09%) |
| Nausea/pain, moderate | 0.06% (0.02%-0.17%) |
| Emesis/diarrhea, mild | 0.4% (0.2%-0.9%) |
| Nausea/pain, mild | 0.4% (0.2%-0.7%) |
| Chest | |
| Chest, moderate | 0.06% (0.009%-0.4%) |
| Chest, mild | 0.2% (0.1%-0.3%) |
Table E5.
Maximum tolerated peanut dose after initial escalation day
| Peanut dose | No. of patients |
|---|---|
| 1.5 mg | 1/28 (3.6%) |
| 3 mg | 1/28 (3.6%) |
| 6 mg | 6/28 (21%) |
| 12 mg | 3/28 (11%) |
| 25 mg | 11/28 (39%) |
| 50 mg | 6/28 (21%) |
References
- . Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of a random digit dial telephone survey: a 5-year follow-up study. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;112:1203–1207
- . Clinical features of acute allergic reactions to peanut and tree nuts in children. Pediatrics. 1998;102:e6
- . The natural history of peanut and tree nut allergy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2007;7:175–181
- . Peanut allergy: recurrence and its management. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114:1195–1201
- . Treatment of anaphylactic sensitivity to peanuts by immunotherapy with injections of aqueous peanut extract. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1997;99:744–751
- Allergenic characteristics of a modified peanut allergen. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2005;49:963–967
- Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Study Team Effect of anti-IgE therapy in patients with peanut allergy. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:986–993
- . Specific oral tolerance induction in food allergy. Allergy. 2006;61:808–811
- . A protocol for oral desensitization in children with IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy. Allergy. 2004;59:980–987
- Oral specific desensitization in food-allergic children. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52:1662–1672
- Egg oral immunotherapy in nonanaphylactic children with egg allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119:199–205
- Specific oral tolerance induction in children with very severe cow's milk-induced reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121:343–347
- International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research & Education Foundation. Nutrients in 1 ounce of tree nuts and peanuts. Available at:http://www.nuthealth.org/nutrition/nutrient1oz.html. Accessed September 2008.
- . Peanut allergy: emerging concepts and approaches for an apparent epidemic. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;120:491–503
- . Successful oral desensitization for systemic peanut allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;97:266–267
- Oral rush desensitization in peanut allergy: a case report. Dig Dis Sci. 2006;51:471–473
- . Egg allergy: are all childhood food allergies the same?. J Pediatr Child Health. 2007;43:214–218
- . Further fatalities caused by anaphylactic reactions to food, 2001-2006. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119:1016–1018
- . Fatal and near-fatal anaphylactic reactions to food in children and adolescents. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:380–384
- . Fatal food-induced anaphylaxis. JAMA. 1988;260:1450–1452
- Clinical Efficacy and Immune Regulation With Peanut Oral Immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:292–300
Supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, the Gerber Foundation, the Food Allergy Project, and the Dorothy and Frank Robins Family Foundation. The project described was supported by grant no. 1 UL1 RR024128-01 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, and its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NCRR or NIH.
Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: A. M. Hofmann has received research support from the Pediatric Scientist Development Program. A. M. Scurlock has received research support from Genocea Biosciences and NIH. S. M. Jones has received research support from the National Peanut Board, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dyax Corp and is on the Medical Advisory Board for the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network. A. W. Burks is a consultant for ActoGeniX NV, Novartis, McNeil Nutritionals, and Mead Johnson; is a minority stockholder with Allertein and MastCell, Inc; is on the Advisory Board of Dannon Co Probiotics; is on the speakers' bureau for EpiPen/Dey, LP; is on the Data Monitoring Committee for Genentech; is on the Expert Panel for Nutricia; has received research support from the National Institutes of Health, the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, Gerber, and Mead Johnson; has provided legal consultation regarding food allergy; is on the Medical Board of Directors for the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network; is a Dermatological Allergy Committee member of the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; is a study section member at the National Institutes of Health Hypersensitivity, Autoimmune, Immune-mediated Diseases; and is on the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reviewer board. The rest of the authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.
PII: S0091-6749(09)00556-9
doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.03.045
© 2009 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Volume 124, Issue 2 , Pages 286-291.e6, August 2009
