Peanut Oral Immunotherapy With or Without H


Journal

The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice
ISSN: 2213-2201
Titre abrégé: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101597220

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2022
Historique:
received: 01 04 2022
revised: 02 05 2022
accepted: 09 05 2022
pubmed: 2 6 2022
medline: 14 9 2022
entrez: 1 6 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Current forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) are associated with side effects, and there is a lack of evidence addressing how to mitigate them. To determine whether premedication with desloratadine and ranitidine results in fewer side effects during peanut OIT/desensitization. A total of 43 patients with peanut allergy (mean age, 7.6 ± 2.1 years, 37% females, 63% males, baseline eliciting dose, 33 ± 26 mg) were randomized to OIT with or without concomitant H Adverse reactions occurred more in the OIT groups compared with the double-placebo group (OIT with antihistamines vs double-placebo hazard ratio, 3.75 [95% CI, 2.79-4.72]; OIT with placebo antihistamines vs double-placebo, hazard ratio, 4.62 [95% CI, 3.61-5.62]). Patients given antihistamines cotreatment with OIT had a similar risk of adverse events compared with those who did not use antihistamines with OIT (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.49-1.97]). OIT with and without antihistamines accelerated the incidence rate of adverse events compared with double-placebo (4.8 and 6.4 events per patient vs 3.5 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.36-4.56] and 2.04 [95% CI, 1.01-4.15], respectively). Antihistamines pretreatment modestly reduced the frequency of moderate to severe adverse reactions among OIT-treated groups (1.9 per patient vs 4.2 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.24-0.89]), primarily urticaria (0.6 vs 2.1 per patient) followed by abdominal pain (2.6 vs 4.2 per patient), but increased neuropsychiatric adverse events (primarily tiredness and sedation, 2.3 vs 0.7 per patient). Eliciting doses after treatment were similar in all groups. Quality of life improved similarly regardless of treatment with peanut OIT or placebo OIT. Peanut OIT with antihistamines modestly reduce the skin and gastrointestinal components of the high incidence of adverse reactions during OIT, and there are no clear differences in improvement in quality of life whether treated with OIT, OIT with antihistamines, or placebo OIT despite OIT being effective in inducing desensitization. Safer food allergy treatment approaches that importantly improve quality of life need to be proved in future robust randomized trials.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Current forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) are associated with side effects, and there is a lack of evidence addressing how to mitigate them.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether premedication with desloratadine and ranitidine results in fewer side effects during peanut OIT/desensitization.
METHODS
A total of 43 patients with peanut allergy (mean age, 7.6 ± 2.1 years, 37% females, 63% males, baseline eliciting dose, 33 ± 26 mg) were randomized to OIT with or without concomitant H
RESULTS
Adverse reactions occurred more in the OIT groups compared with the double-placebo group (OIT with antihistamines vs double-placebo hazard ratio, 3.75 [95% CI, 2.79-4.72]; OIT with placebo antihistamines vs double-placebo, hazard ratio, 4.62 [95% CI, 3.61-5.62]). Patients given antihistamines cotreatment with OIT had a similar risk of adverse events compared with those who did not use antihistamines with OIT (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.49-1.97]). OIT with and without antihistamines accelerated the incidence rate of adverse events compared with double-placebo (4.8 and 6.4 events per patient vs 3.5 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 2.49 [95% CI, 1.36-4.56] and 2.04 [95% CI, 1.01-4.15], respectively). Antihistamines pretreatment modestly reduced the frequency of moderate to severe adverse reactions among OIT-treated groups (1.9 per patient vs 4.2 per patient, incidence rate ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.24-0.89]), primarily urticaria (0.6 vs 2.1 per patient) followed by abdominal pain (2.6 vs 4.2 per patient), but increased neuropsychiatric adverse events (primarily tiredness and sedation, 2.3 vs 0.7 per patient). Eliciting doses after treatment were similar in all groups. Quality of life improved similarly regardless of treatment with peanut OIT or placebo OIT.
CONCLUSIONS
Peanut OIT with antihistamines modestly reduce the skin and gastrointestinal components of the high incidence of adverse reactions during OIT, and there are no clear differences in improvement in quality of life whether treated with OIT, OIT with antihistamines, or placebo OIT despite OIT being effective in inducing desensitization. Safer food allergy treatment approaches that importantly improve quality of life need to be proved in future robust randomized trials.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35643280
pii: S2213-2198(22)00503-7
doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2022.05.015
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Allergens 0
Histamine Antagonists 0
Histamine H1 Antagonists 0
Immunologic Factors 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2386-2394

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Derek K Chu (DK)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; The Research Institute of St Joe's Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Electronic address: chudk@mcmaster.ca.

Tosha Freitag (T)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Andrea Marrin (A)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Tina D Walker (TD)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Ernie Avilla (E)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Andeas Freitag (A)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Paul Spill (P)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Gary A Foster (GA)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; The Research Institute of St Joe's Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Lehana Thabane (L)

Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; The Research Institute of St Joe's Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Manel Jordana (M)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Susan Waserman (S)

Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Electronic address: waserman@mcmaster.ca.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH