Efficacy and Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy in Peanut-Allergic Toddlers: Open-Label Extension to EPITOPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pivotal phase 3 EPITOPE trial, a 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of epicutaneous immunotherapy with the VIASKIN patch containing 250 μg of peanut protein (VP250), previously reported significant treatment response versus placebo in peanut-allergic toddlers aged 1 through 3 years. OBJECTIVE: To assess the interim efficacy and safety of VP250 from the first year of the EPITOPE open-label extension (OLE) study. METHODS: Eligible participants enrolled in the OLE study for up to 3 years of total treatment with annual double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFCs) and safety assessments; here we report the first-year OLE (year 2) results. RESULTS: A total of 266 EPITOPE participants enrolled in the OLE study; 244 underwent month 24 DBPCFC (n = 166 VP250; n = 78 placebo). After 24 months of VP250, 81.3% reached an eliciting dose (ED) ≥1000 mg, 63.8% reached an ED ≥2000 mg, and 55.9% completed the DBPCFC (cumulative dose: 3444 mg) without meeting stopping criteria. No treatment-related anaphylaxis or serious treatment-related adverse events occurred during year 2 in this treatment arm. Local application-site reactions occurred less frequently in year 2 versus year 1. In placebo-treated EPITOPE participants, outcomes after 1 year of open-label VP250 were consistent with EPITOPE treatment results: 62.7% reached an ED ≥1000 mg, 36.5% reached an ED ≥2000 mg, and 28.4% completed the DBPCFC without meeting stopping criteria; and there was 1 treatment-related anaphylaxis event. CONCLUSIONS: Two years of VP250 in young peanut-allergic children demonstrated continued increases in treatment effect without new safety signals. This supports the potential of VP250 as a safe and effective treatment for peanut allergy in young children. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT03859700.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".