Background-There are no treatments currently available for peanut allergy. Sublingual immunotherapy is a novel approach to the treatment of peanut allergy.

Background Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an effective experimental food allergy treatment that is limited by treatment withdrawal and the frequent reversibility of desensitization if interrupted. Newly-diagnosed preschool children may have clinical and immunological characteristics more amenable to treatment. Objective To test the safety, effectiveness, and feasibility of early OIT (E-OIT) in the treatment of peanut allergy. Methods We enrolled 40 children aged 9–36 months with suspected or known peanut allergy. Qualifying subjects reacted to peanut during an entry food challenge and were block-randomized 1:1 to receive E-OIT at goal maintenance doses of 300 or 3000 mg/day in a double-blinded fashion. The primary endpoint, sustained unresponsiveness at four weeks after stopping E-OIT (4-SU), was assessed by DBPCFC either upon achieving four pre-specified criteria, or after three maintenance years. Peanut-specific immune responses were serially analyzed. Outcomes were compared to 154 matched standard-care controls. Results Of 40 consented subjects, three (7.5%) did not qualify. Overall, 29/37 (78%) in the intent-to-treat analysis achieved 4-SU (300 mg arm, 17/20 [85%]; 3000 mg, 12/17 [71%], p=0.43) over a median of 29 months. Per-protocol, the overall proportion achieving 4-SU was 29/32 (91%). Peanut-specific IgE levels significantly declined in E-OIT-treated children, who were 19 times more likely to successfully consume dietary peanut than matched standard-care controls, in whom peanut-specific IgEs significantly increased (RR 19.42 [95%CI 8.7 – 43.7], p<0.001). Allergic side effects during E-OIT were common but all were mild-moderate. Conclusion At both doses tested, E-OIT had an acceptable safety profile and was highly successful in rapidly suppressing allergic immune responses and achieving safe dietary reintroduction.

Bacteria of the genus Deinococcus are extremely resistant to ionizing radiation (IR), ultraviolet light (UV) and desiccation. The mesophile Deinococcus radiodurans was the first member of this group whose genome was completely sequenced. Analysis of the genome sequence of D. radiodurans, however, failed to identify unique DNA repair systems. To further delineate the genes underlying the resistance phenotypes, we report the whole-genome sequence of a second Deinococcus species, the thermophile Deinococcus geothermalis, which at its optimal growth temperature is as resistant to IR, UV and desiccation as D. radiodurans, and a comparative analysis of the two Deinococcus genomes. Many D. radiodurans genes previously implicated in resistance, but for which no sensitive phenotype was observed upon disruption, are absent in D. geothermalis. In contrast, most D. radiodurans genes whose mutants displayed a radiation-sensitive phenotype in D. radiodurans are conserved in D. geothermalis. Supporting the existence of a Deinococcus radiation response regulon, a common palindromic DNA motif was identified in a conserved set of genes associated with resistance, and a dedicated transcriptional regulator was predicted. We present the case that these two species evolved essentially the same diverse set of gene families, and that the extreme stress-resistance phenotypes of the Deinococcus lineage emerged progressively by amassing cell-cleaning systems from different sources, but not by acquisition of novel DNA repair systems. Our reconstruction of the genomic evolution of the Deinococcus-Thermus phylum indicates that the corresponding set of enzymes proliferated mainly in the common ancestor of Deinococcus. Results of the comparative analysis weaken the arguments for a role of higher-order chromosome alignment structures in resistance; more clearly define and substantially revise downward the number of uncharacterized genes that might participate in DNA repair and contribute to resistance; and strengthen the case for a role in survival of systems involved in manganese and iron homeostasis.

BACKGROUNDPeanut allergy, for which there are no approved treatment options, affects patients who are at risk for unpredictable and occasionally life-threatening allergic reactions. METHODS Randomization and BlindingEligible participants were randomly assigned, in a 3:1 ratio, to receive either AR101, a peanut-derived pharmaceutical product that was manufactured

IMPORTANCE There are currently no approved treatments for peanut allergy. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and adverse events of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch among peanut-allergic children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 31 sites in 5 countries between January 8, 2016, and August 18, 2017. Participants included peanut-allergic children (aged 4-11 years [n = 356] without a history of a severe anaphylactic reaction) developing objective symptoms during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge at an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein. INTERVENTIONS Daily treatment with peanut patch containing either 250 μg of peanut protein (n = 238) or placebo (n = 118) for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the percentage difference in responders between the peanut patch and placebo patch based on eliciting dose (highest dose at which objective signs/symptoms of an immediate hypersensitivity reaction developed) determined by food challenges at baseline and month 12. Participants with baseline eliciting dose of10mgorlesswererespondersiftheposttreatmentelicitingdosewas300mgormore;participants with baseline eliciting dose greater than 10 to 300 mg were responders if the posttreatment eliciting dose was 1000 mg or more. A threshold of 15% or more on the lower bound of a 95% CI around responder rate difference was prespecified to determine a positive trial result. Adverse event evaluation included collection of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS Among 356 participants randomized (median age, 7 years; 61.2% male), 89.9% completed the trial; the mean treatment adherence was 98.5%. The responder rate was 35.3% with peanut-patch treatment vs 13.6% with placebo (difference, 21.7% [95% CI, 12.4%-29.8%; P < .001]). The prespecified lower bound of the CI threshold was not met. TEAEs, primarily patch application site reactions, occurred in 95.4% and 89% of active and placebo groups, respectively. The all-causes rate of discontinuation was 10.5% in the peanut-patch group vs 9.3% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among peanut-allergic children aged 4 to 11 years, the percentage difference in responders at 12 months with the 250-μg peanut-patch therapy vs placebo was 21.7% and was statistically significant, but did not meet the prespecified lower bound of the confidence interval criterion for a positive trial result. The clinical relevance of not meeting this lower bound of the confidence interval with respect to the treatment of peanut-allergic children with epicutaneous immunotherapy remains to be determined.