Literature DB >> 32030829

A randomized trial of the acceptability of a daily multi-allergen food supplement for infants.

Jane L Holl1, Lucy A Bilaver2, Daniel J Finn3, Kay Savio4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32030829      PMCID: PMC7318591          DOI: 10.1111/pai.13223

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatr Allergy Immunol        ISSN: 0905-6157            Impact factor:   6.377


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor, Many studies demonstrate the protective benefits of early dietary introduction and consistent inclusion of allergenic foods in infant diets, including those at increased risk.1 While some recommendations encourage early food introduction for all infants, even those at higher risk,2 adherence to a consistent, multifood dietary inclusion protocol can be difficult in infants and children.3 Multiple studies justify a minimally adequate daily dose of food allergenic protein, even in children with a food allergy.4, 5 This study evaluates the acceptability by parents/caregivers (parents) and tolerability by infants of a daily, single‐dose, powdered food supplement containing 30 mg of protein from each of the 16 commonly allergenic foods. The blinded, randomized, controlled 28‐day trial recruited healthy infants in the United States, without severe eczema, aged 5‐11 months at enrollment. Eligibility was determined by an online questionnaire administered to a parent. Infants were excluded if they were born at <37 weeks’ gestation or had parent‐reported severe eczema, a health condition lasting ≥3 months, ≥2 hospitalizations since birth, or a prior or current specialist diagnosis of food allergy. If more than one eligible infant lived in a household, parents selected one infant. The consented parents received study instructions via email and study materials by mail. All study documents were reviewed by the Northwestern University (NU) Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt under Category 6 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46.6 The study was not subject to the Federal Drug Administration's premarket review or approval as a food additive because content of both the placebo and the supplement was certified as Generally Regarded As Safe. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as “Introduction and Maintenance of Still Eating Protein Blends in Support of Infant Nutritional Goals,” Registration # NCT03667118. Households were randomized, using Research Randomizer in a 1:1 ratio, to placebo or food supplement. Parents were instructed to mix or sprinkle a single‐dose packet of powder into a small amount of liquid, soft, or solid food and feed it to their infant once a day, observe their infant for 2 hours for any reaction/symptom (“symptom”), and record in an online daily diary any symptom and any medication or medical care received for the symptom. For any reported symptom, a blinded investigator called the parent to confirm the timing of the symptom and to determine whether it was in fact an IgE‐type reaction. The powdered placebo was a commercially compounded blend of flax seeds, sugar, and 400 IU of vitamin D with natural coloring. The powdered food supplement was a patented,7 commercially compounded blend of 30 mg of each of the 16 most common allergenic foods (peanut, soy, almond, cashew, hazelnut, pecan, pistachio, walnut, wheat, oat, milk, egg, cod, shrimp, salmon, and sesame), 400 IU of vitamin D, sugar, and natural flavoring. The food supplement composition and levels of each allergenic protein were developed to support safe ingestion in a non–food‐allergic population, while providing a dietary training exposure capable of generating immunomodulatory benefits, based on studies of therapeutic oral immunotherapy for food allergy that demonstrate equivalent efficacy using low doses of protein.4, 5, 8 The primary outcome was the difference in proportion of infants with a reported symptom(s) within 2 hours of ingestion in the supplement vs placebo arms. Sample size calculation was based on the 4% difference in reported symptoms in the EAT study9 and 11% difference from data submitted for the patent.7 The primary end‐point would be achieved if the supplement caused no more than 5% more symptoms compared to the placebo (non‐inferiority margin of 5%). A sample size of 125 infants per arm was calculated and deemed sufficient for a 4% proportion difference with a 0.05 significance level and 80% power with a 5% non‐inferiority margin. Two‐sample t tests and chi‐square test statistics were used for continuous and categorical variables. After the trial, a non‐inferiority, intention‐to‐treat analysis using Wald's tests was conducted at the ingestion and child levels with margins of 0.05 to 0.01. In an exploratory analysis, we tested the hypothesis that the proportion of reported symptoms between groups was equal. A total of 705 infants were randomized to the placebo (339) or food supplement (366); trial completion was equivalent for both arms (88%; 298 and 321, respectively) with 10% in each arm withdrawing (4 in both groups) or being withdrawn (37 and 41, respectively) due to non‐compliance with recording in the daily diary. No infants were withdrawn due to any symptoms or reactions. Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of the infants. There were no significant racial/ethnic differences between the two groups, although the proportion of black infants was higher and that of Hispanic infants was lower than the proportion of each group born in the United States (15% and 23%, respectively) in 2016. The supplement group had a slightly higher proportion of infants with a family income ≥$75 000/y (P = .016).
Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled infants

 PlaceboFood supplementTotal
Demographics
Age at enrollment (mean in months)777
Sex (F)50%52%51%
Parent/caregiver race
White not Hispanic (%)51%51%51%
Black not Hispanic (%)30%31%31%
Hispanic (%)12%9%11%
Family income (% < $75 000/y)47%* 57%* 52%*
Parent/caregiver education (% with college degree)66%66%66%
Clinical characteristics
Mostly being fed breast milk (%)28%25%26%
Overall reported infant's health (% excellent)93%92%92%
Eczema
Mild (%)1%2%2%
Moderate (%)3%2%2%
Sibling with food allergy/severe eczema/chronic condition for >3 mo (%)7%5%6%

Significant chi‐square test of association between groups, P = .0156.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled infants Significant chi‐square test of association between groups, P = .0156. There were 8803 supplement and 8087 placebo ingestions. The non‐inferiority of the supplement is supported at a margin of 5% (11.5% vs 10.7%; P < .05) of having at least one reported symptom (Table 2). A two‐sided test of equivalence of the proportions between the two groups was accepted (P = .76), meaning there was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of any specific reported symptoms. Of the supplement and placebo ingestions, 0.75% and 0.64%, respectively, had a reported symptom (Table 3). The non‐inferiority of the supplement is supported at a margin of 1% (P < .0001) (Table 3). No infant had any IgE‐type reaction to the supplement or received any related prescribed medication or medical care.
Table 2

Proportion of infants with any self‐reported symptom during the trial period

Symptoms (any)Food supplement (n = 321) (%)Placebo (n = 298) (%)Proportion differenceProportion equivalence P‐valueNon‐inferiority P‐value at .05 margin
Any symptom11.510.70.0079.755.048
Rash1.93.0−0.0115.356<.0001
Cough0.61.7−0.0105.222<.0001
Stuffy nose0.91.0−0.0007.927<.0001
Diarrhea3.12.00.0110.384.001
Throw‐up/spit‐up4.73.40.0132.403.010
Other symptoms1.61.30.0022.823<.0001
Table 3

Proportion of ingestions with self‐reported symptom during the trial period

Symptom (any)Food supplement (8803 ingestions) (%)Placebo (8087 ingestions) (%)Proportion differenceProportion equivalence P‐valueNon‐inferiority P‐value at .01 margin
Any symptom0.750.640.0011.404<.0001
Rash0.080.25−0.0017.008<.0001
Cough0.020.10−0.0008.048<.0001
Stuffy nose0.030.06−0.0003.413<.0001
Diarrhea0.400.090.0031<.0001<.0001
Throw‐up/spit‐up0.200.140.0700.279<.0001
Other symptoms0.060.050.0100.836<.0001
Proportion of infants with any self‐reported symptom during the trial period Proportion of ingestions with self‐reported symptom during the trial period This trial strongly suggests that feeding a single daily dose of a multiple allergenic protein food supplement to healthy infants is accepted by parents, given the high trial completion rate. The absence of any reported IgE‐type reactions or need for medication or medical care supports tolerability in infants. The null hypothesis in a non‐inferiority analysis of the proportion of reported symptoms was rejected. Infants with severe eczema because current guidelines require introduction of allergenic foods under physician care, as well as infants with a food allergy diagnosis, were excluded. Limitations of the study include a 28‐day trial only; inability to verify ingestions in a clinical setting and, instead, reliance on daily diary entries; and possible under‐ or over‐parent‐reporting of symptoms and/or allergic reactions (although unlikely for a serious allergic reaction such as anaphylaxis, prescribed medication, or medical care). This is the first study to show acceptability by parents and tolerability by healthy infants of a daily serving of a powdered food supplement that includes the 16 most common allergenic food proteins, thus offering an acceptable and tolerable option to achieve early, consistent dietary exposure to potential food allergens in healthy infants. Given the acknowledged role of a diverse diet in immune diversification,10 tolerability of a highly diverse protein blend is a plausible avenue for further exploration, related to the “multiplicity‐of‐effect” mechanism of dietary exposure to a wide range of allergenic food proteins, of the supplement's potential to decrease the risk of food allergy.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The study was funded through a grant from Before Brands, Inc. None of the authors have any affiliation with Before Brands, Inc. The authors received support to conduct the study but have not received any prior support nor currently receive any support from Before Brands, Inc.
  8 in total

1.  Efficacy, Safety, and Quality of Life in a Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Low-Dose Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children with Peanut Allergy.

Authors:  Katharina Blumchen; Valerie Trendelenburg; Frank Ahrens; Armin Gruebl; Eckard Hamelmann; Gesine Hansen; Andrea Heinzmann; Katja Nemat; Thomas Holzhauser; Martin Roeder; Leonard Rosenfeld; Oliver Hartmann; Bodo Niggemann; Kirsten Beyer
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract       Date:  2018-11-10

2.  High- and low-dose oral immunotherapy similarly suppress pro-allergic cytokines and basophil activation in young children.

Authors:  Michael Kulis; Xiaohong Yue; Rishu Guo; Huamei Zhang; Kelly Orgel; Ping Ye; Quefeng Li; Yutong Liu; Edwin Kim; Arvil Wesley Burks; Brian P Vickery
Journal:  Clin Exp Allergy       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 5.018

3.  Timing of food introduction and development of food sensitization in a prospective birth cohort.

Authors:  Maxwell M Tran; Diana L Lefebvre; David Dai; Christoffer Dharma; Padmaja Subbarao; Wendy Lou; Meghan B Azad; Allan B Becker; Piush J Mandhane; Stuart E Turvey; Malcolm R Sears
Journal:  Pediatr Allergy Immunol       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 6.377

4.  The National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored guidelines on preventing peanut allergy: A new paradigm in food allergy prevention.

Authors:  Matthew Greenhawt
Journal:  Allergy Asthma Proc       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 2.587

Review 5.  Newly identified T cell subsets in mechanistic studies of food immunotherapy.

Authors:  Vanitha Sampath; Kari C Nadeau
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 14.808

6.  Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT) study: Feasibility of an early allergenic food introduction regimen.

Authors:  Michael R Perkin; Kirsty Logan; Tom Marrs; Suzana Radulovic; Joanna Craven; Carsten Flohr; Gideon Lack
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 10.793

Review 7.  The challenges of preventing food allergy: Lessons learned from LEAP and EAT.

Authors:  Helen R Fisher; George Du Toit; Henry T Bahnson; Gideon Lack
Journal:  Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 6.347

8.  Randomized Trial of Introduction of Allergenic Foods in Breast-Fed Infants.

Authors:  Michael R Perkin; Kirsty Logan; Anna Tseng; Bunmi Raji; Salma Ayis; Janet Peacock; Helen Brough; Tom Marrs; Suzana Radulovic; Joanna Craven; Carsten Flohr; Gideon Lack
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 91.245

  8 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  Current insights: a systemic review of therapeutic options for peanut allergy.

Authors:  Eimear O'Rourke; Hilary Tang; Andrew Chin; Andrew Long; Sayantani Sindher; R Sharon Chinthrajah
Journal:  Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2022-03-11

2.  Early Introduction of Multi-Allergen Mixture for Prevention of Food Allergy: Pilot Study.

Authors:  Antonia Zoe Quake; Taryn Audrey Liu; Rachel D'Souza; Katherine G Jackson; Margaret Woch; Afua Tetteh; Vanitha Sampath; Kari C Nadeau; Sayantani Sindher; R Sharon Chinthrajah; Shu Cao
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 5.717

3.  A pragmatic approach to infant feeding for food allergy prevention.

Authors:  Vicki McWilliam; Carina Venter; Matthew Greenhawt; Kirsten P Perrett; Mimi L K Tang; Jennifer J Koplin; Rachel L Peters
Journal:  Pediatr Allergy Immunol       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 5.464

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.