Sampson Hugh A, Shreffler Wayne G, Yang William H, Sussman Gordon L, Brown-Whitehorn Terri F, Nadeau Kari C, Cheema Amarjit S, Leonard Stephanie A, Pongracic Jacqueline A, Sauvage-Delebarre Christine, Assa'ad Amal H, de Blay Frederic, Bird J Andrew, Tilles Stephen A, Boralevi Franck, Bourrier Thierry, Hébert Jacques, Green Todd D, Gerth van Wijk Roy, Knulst André C, Kanny Gisèle, Schneider Lynda C, Kowalski Marek L, Dupont Christophe
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
DBV Technologies, Montrouge, France.
JAMA. 2017 Nov 14;318(18):1798-1809. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.16591.
Epicutaneous immunotherapy may have potential for treating peanut allergy but has been assessed only in preclinical and early human trials.
To determine the optimal dose, adverse events (AEs), and efficacy of a peanut patch for peanut allergy treatment.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Phase 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.
Randomly 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.
The 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).
Of 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%.
In 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.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01675882.
经皮免疫疗法可能具有治疗花生过敏的潜力,但仅在临床前和早期人体试验中进行了评估。
确定用于花生过敏治疗的花生贴片的最佳剂量、不良事件(AE)和疗效。
设计、设置和参与者:一项2b期双盲、安慰剂对照、剂量范围试验,对来自22个中心的花生过敏患者(6至55岁)使用花生贴片,并进行为期2年的开放标签扩展(2012年7月31日至2014年7月31日;扩展于2016年9月29日完成)。患者(n = 221)对花生敏感,且在双盲、安慰剂对照食物激发试验中对300毫克或更少花生蛋白的激发剂量呈阳性反应。
将患者随机分配(1:1:1:1),分别接受含有50微克(n = 53)、100微克(n = 56)或250微克(n = 56)花生蛋白的经皮花生贴片或安慰剂贴片(n = 56)。在每天贴敷贴片12个月后,患者接受双盲、安慰剂对照食物激发试验,以确定激发剂量的变化。
主要疗效终点是每组治疗反应者(激发剂量:增加≥10倍和/或达到≥1000毫克花生蛋白)在12个月后与安慰剂贴片相比的百分比。次要终点包括按年龄分层的反应者百分比和治疗中出现的不良事件(TEAE)。
在随机分组的221例患者中(中位年龄11岁[四分位数1,四分位数3:8,16];37.6%为女性),93.7%完成了试验。在第12个月时,观察到250微克组(n = 28;50.0%)和安慰剂组(n = 14;25.0%)贴片的反应率存在显著绝对差异(差异为25.0%;95%CI,7.7% - 42.3%;P = 0.01)。安慰剂贴片与100微克贴片之间未观察到显著差异。由于统计检验分层规则,未将50微克贴片与安慰剂进行比较。年龄组间的交互作用仅在250微克贴片组中显著(P = 0.04)。在6至11岁年龄层中,250微克组(n = 15;53.6%)和安慰剂组(n = 6;19.4%)贴片的反应率差异为34.2%(95%CI,11.1% - 57.3%;P = 0.008);青少年/成人中,250微克组(n = 13;46.4%)和安慰剂组(n = 8;32.0%)贴片之间无差异:14.4%(95%CI,-11.6%至40.4%;P = 0.40)。未观察到与剂量相关的严重不良事件。在第1年,所有组中出现1种或更多TEAE(主要为局部皮肤反应)的患者百分比相似:50微克贴片组 = 100%,100微克贴片组 = 98.2%,250微克贴片组 = 100%,安慰剂贴片组 = 92.9%。1年后总体中位依从率为97.6%;与治疗相关不良事件的退出率为0.9%。
在这项花生过敏患者的剂量范围试验中,经过12个月治疗,250微克花生贴片与安慰剂贴片相比产生了显著的治疗反应。这些发现值得进行3期试验。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT01675882。