MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281478573 · doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2022.05.015

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy With or Without H1 and H2 Antihistamine Premedication for Peanut Allergy (PISCES): A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial

2022· article· en· W4281478573 on OpenAlexaff
Derek K. Chu, Tosha Freitag, Andrea Marrin, Tina D. Walker, Ernie Avilla, Andeas Freitag, Paul Spill, Gary Foster, Lehana Thabane, Manel Jordana, Susan Waserman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology In Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversityImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboAntihistamineAdverse effectPremedicationHazard ratioDesloratadineInternal medicineAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialAllergyConfidence intervalPharmacologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundCurrent forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) are associated with side effects, and there is a lack of evidence addressing how to mitigate them.ObjectiveTo determine whether premedication with desloratadine and ranitidine results in fewer side effects during peanut OIT/desensitization.MethodsA 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 H1 and H2 antihistamine blockade, or double-placebo. Patients, study staff/investigators, and statisticians were blinded. The primary outcomes were the frequency and severity of OIT-induced adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and eliciting doses to blinded food challenge.ResultsAdverse 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.ConclusionsPeanut 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. 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 H1 and H2 antihistamine blockade, or double-placebo. Patients, study staff/investigators, and statisticians were blinded. The primary outcomes were the frequency and severity of OIT-induced adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and eliciting doses to blinded food challenge. 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.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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