MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376107031 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2212895

Phase 3 Trial of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Toddlers with Peanut Allergy

2023· article· en· W4376107031 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Greenhawt, Sayantani Sindher, Julie Wang, Michael O’Sullivan, George Du Toit, Edwin Kim, Deborah Albright, Sara Anvari, Nicolette Arends, Peter D. Arkwright, Philippe Bégin, Katharina Blümchen, T. Bourrier, Terri Brown‐Whitehorn, Heather Cassell, Edmond S. Chan, Christina E. Ciaccio, A. Deschildre, Amandine Divaret‐Chauveau, Stacy Dorris, Morna J. Dorsey, Thomas Eiwegger, Michel Erlewyn‐Lajeunesse, David M. Fleischer, Lara S. Ford, Maria Garcia-Lloret, Lisa Giovannini‐Chami, Jonathan O’B Hourihane, Nicola Jay, Stacie M. Jones, Leigh Ann Kerns, Kirsten M. Kloepfer, Stephanie A. Leonard, Guillaume Lezmi, Phil Lieberman, Jeanne Lomas, Melanie Makhija, Christopher Parrish, Jane Peake, Kirsten P. Perrett, Daniel Petroni, Wolfgang Pfützner, Jacqueline A. Pongracic, Patrick Quinn, Rachel G. Robison, Georgiana Sanders, Lynda C. Schneider, Hemant Sharma, Juan Trujillo, Paul Turner, Katherine R. Tuttle, Julia Upton, Pooja Varshney, Brian P. Vickery, Christian Vogelberg, Brynn Wainstein, R.J.K. Wood, Katharine J. Bee, Dianne E. Campbell, Todd D. Green, R. Rouissi, Aurélie Peillon, Henry T. Bahnson, Timothée Bois, Hugh A. Sampson, A. Wesley Burks

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersDBV Technologies
KeywordsPeanut allergyAllergyMedicineImmunotherapyOral immunotherapyImmunologyFood allergyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations133
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207