MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115193502 · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2020.12.029

Continuous and Daily Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: Results from a 2-Year Open-Label Follow-On Study

2020· article· en· W3115193502 on OpenAlexaff
Brian P. Vickery, Andrea Vereda, Caroline Nilsson, George Du Toit, Wayne G. Shreffler, A. Wesley Burks, Stacie M. Jones, Montserrat Fernández‐Rivas, Katharina Blümchen, Jonathan O’B Hourihane, Kirsten Beyer, Aikaterini Anagnostou, Amal Assa’ad, Moshe Ben‐Shoshan, J. Andrew Bird, Tara F. Carr, Warner Carr, Thomas B. Casale, Hey Chong, Christina E. Ciaccio, Morna J. Dorsey, Stanley M. Fìneman, Stephen B. Fritz, Alexander N. Greiner, Leon S. Greos, Frank C. Hampel, María Ibáñez-Vea, David Jeong, Douglas Johnston, Rita Kachru, Edwin Kim, Bruce J. Lanser, Stephanie A. Leonard, Mary C. Maier, Lyndon E. Mansfield, Antonella Muraro, Jason Ohayon, J. N. G. Oude Elberink, Daniel Petroni, Jacqueline A. Pongracic, Jay M. Portnoy, Rima Rachid, Ned T. Rupp, Georgiana Sanders, Hemant Sharma, Vibha Sharma, Ellen Sher, Lawrence Sher, Sayantani Sindher, Dareen Siri, Jonathan M. Spergel, A. B. Sprikkelman, Gordon L. Sussman, Marina Tsoumani, Pooja Varshney, Girish Vitalpur, Julie Wang, William H. Yang, José Manuel Zubeldia, Alex Smith, Robert Ryan, Daniel C. Adelman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa Allergy Research CorporationTriple Point Technology (Canada)Montreal Children's Hospital
FundersAimmune Therapeutics
KeywordsMedicineOral immunotherapyPeanut allergyOpen labelAllergyImmunotherapyInternal medicineFood allergyImmunologyAdverse effectCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The randomized, controlled PALISADE trial demonstrated the benefit of daily oral immunotherapy with Peanut (Arachis Hypogaea) allergen powder-dnfp (PTAH, formerly AR101) in peanut-allergic children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: ARC004, the open-label follow-on study to PALISADE, used 5 dosing cohorts to explore PTAH treatment beyond 1 year and alternative dosing regimens in peanut-allergic individuals. METHODS: Active arm (PTAH-continuing) PALISADE participants who tolerated 300-mg peanut protein at the exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge and placebo arm (PTAH-naive) participants could enter ARC004. PTAH-continuing participants were assigned to receive daily (cohorts 1 and 3A) or non-daily (cohorts 2, 3B, and 3C) dosing regimens; PTAH-naive participants were built up to 300 mg/d PTAH, followed by maintenance dosing. At study completion, participants underwent an exit double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge with doses up to 2000 mg peanut protein. Data were assessed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 358 (87.5%) eligible participants (4-17 years) entered ARC004 (PTAH-continuing, n = 256; PTAH-naive, n = 102). Among PTAH-continuing participants, exposure-adjusted adverse event rates were 12.94 to 17.54/participant-year and 25.95 to 42.49/participant-year in daily and non-daily dosing cohorts, respectively; most participants (83%) experienced mild or moderate adverse events. Daily dosing cohorts appeared to have higher desensitization rates than non-daily dosing cohorts. Of all PTAH-continuing cohorts, cohort 3A had the longest daily dosing duration and the highest desensitization rates. Changes in immune markers with PTAH continuation demonstrated ongoing immunomodulation. Outcomes in PTAH-naive participants mirrored those of the PALISADE active arm. CONCLUSIONS: Continued daily PTAH treatment beyond 1 year showed sustained safety and efficacy. Ongoing immunomodulation was observed during the second year of treatment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations90
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In PracticeSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207