SummaryBackgroundSmall studies suggest peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) might be effective in the treatment of peanut allergy. We aimed to establish the efficacy of OIT for the desensitisation of children with allergy to peanuts.MethodsWe did a randomised controlled crossover trial to compare the efficacy of active OIT (using characterised peanut flour; protein doses of 2–800 mg/day) with control (peanut avoidance, the present standard of care) at the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Cambridge Clinical Research Facility (Cambridge, UK). Randomisation (1:1) was by use of an audited online system; group allocation was not masked. Eligible participants were aged 7–16 years with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction after peanut ingestion, positive skin prick test to peanuts, and positive by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). We excluded participants if they had a major chronic illness, if the care provider or a present household member had suspected or diagnosed allergy to peanuts, or if there was an unwillingness or inability to comply with study procedures. Our primary outcome was desensitisation, defined as negative peanut challenge (1400 mg protein in DBPCFC) at 6 months (first phase). Control participants underwent OIT during the second phase, with subsequent DBPCFC. Immunological parameters and disease-specific quality-of-life scores were measured. Analysis was by intention to treat. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of those with desensitisation to peanut after 6 months between the active and control group at the end of the first phase. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN62416244.FindingsThe primary outcome, desensitisation, was recorded for 62% (24 of 39 participants; 95% CI 45–78) in the active group and none of the control group after the first phase (0 of 46; 95% CI 0–9; p<0·001). 84% (95% CI 70–93) of the active group tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein (equivalent to roughly five peanuts). Median increase in peanut threshold after OIT was 1345 mg (range 45–1400; p<0·001) or 25·5 times (range 1·82–280; p<0·001). After the second phase, 54% (95% CI 35–72) tolerated 1400 mg challenge (equivalent to roughly ten peanuts) and 91% (79–98) tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein. Quality-of-life scores improved (decreased) after OIT (median change −1·61; p<0·001). Side-effects were mild in most participants. Gastrointestinal symptoms were, collectively, most common (31 participants with nausea, 31 with vomiting, and one with diarrhoea), then oral pruritus after 6·3% of doses (76 participants) and wheeze after 0·41% of doses (21 participants). Intramuscular adrenaline was used after 0·01% of doses (one participant).InterpretationOIT successfully induced desensitisation in most children within the study population with peanut allergy of any severity, with a clinically meaningful increase in peanut threshold. Quality of life improved after intervention and there was a good safety profile. Immunological changes corresponded with clinical d...

Common drugsCommon drugs containing PEG: laxatives, Gaviscon double action, depotcorticosteroids, for example methylprednisolone, Depo Provera, penicillin Importance of brand Depends on brand (checklist of excipients 6.1 on SmPC or contents 6 on PIL). PEG is also called macrogol PEG Molecular Weight Higher PEG MWs appear more allergenic, and molecular weight and amount of PEG determines whether an allergic reaction occurs Topical products Mild usually cutaneous reactions (pruritus, rhino-conjunctivitis) to cosmetics, toothpaste, mouthwashes, shower gels, moisturizers, hand sanitizers and soaps often with lower PEG molecular weights. Vaccine reaction Immediate-onset (minutes) severe systemic allergic reaction to an mRNA COVID−19 vaccine Abbreviations: MW, molecular weight; PEG, polyethylene glycol; SmPC, summary of product characteristics. TA B L E 1 The clinical features of a PEG-allergic patient may help identify at-risk patients before vaccination or if a COVID-19 vaccine reaction was likely due to PEG Key messages 1. The Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine can cause severe anaphylaxis of unknown cause 2. Here, we show polyethylene glycol allergy caused one of the first cases of anaphylaxis to the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine 3. Allergy skin prick testing with polyethylene glycol triggered anaphylaxis, highlighting the importance of safety procedures during investigation | 863 RESEARCH LETTER

BackgroundMost children with detectable peanut-specific IgE (P-sIgE) are not allergic to peanut. We addressed 2 non–mutually exclusive hypotheses for the discrepancy between allergy and sensitization: (1) differences in P-sIgE levels between children with peanut allergy (PA) and peanut-sensitized but tolerant (PS) children and (2) the presence of an IgE inhibitor, such as peanut-specific IgG4 (P-sIgG4), in PS patients.MethodsTwo hundred twenty-eight children (108 patients with PA, 77 PS patients, and 43 nonsensitized nonallergic subjects) were studied. Levels of specific IgE and IgG4 to peanut and its components were determined. IgE-stripped basophils or a mast cell line were used in passive sensitization activation and inhibition assays. Plasma of PS subjects and patients submitted to peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT) were depleted of IgG4 and retested in inhibition assays.ResultsBasophils and mast cells sensitized with plasma from patients with PA but not PS patients showed dose-dependent activation in response to peanut. Levels of sIgE to peanut and its components could only partially explain differences in clinical reactivity between patients with PA and PS patients. P-sIgG4 levels (P = .023) and P-sIgG4/P-sIgE (P < .001), Ara h 1–sIgG4/Ara h 1–sIgE (P = .050), Ara h 2–sIgG4/Ara h 2–sIgE (P = .004), and Ara h 3–sIgG4/Ara h 3–sIgE (P = .016) ratios were greater in PS children compared with those in children with PA. Peanut-induced activation was inhibited in the presence of plasma from PS children with detectable P-sIgG4 levels and POIT but not from nonsensitized nonallergic children. Depletion of IgG4 from plasma of children with PS (and POIT) sensitized to Ara h 1 to Ara h 3 partially restored peanut-induced mast cell activation (P = .007).ConclusionsDifferences in sIgE levels and allergen specificity could not justify the clinical phenotype in all children with PA and PS children. Blocking IgG4 antibodies provide an additional explanation for the absence of clinical reactivity in PS patients sensitized to major peanut allergens.