View clinical trials related to Peanut Hypersensitivity.
Filter by:The study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of Viaskin Peanut to induce desensitization to peanut in peanut-allergic children 1 to 3 years of age after a 12-month treatment by EPicutaneous ImmunoTherapy (EPIT).
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of AR101 through oral immunotherapy (OIT) in peanut-allergic children.
This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled safety study of AR101 using the characterized oral desensitization immunotherapy (CODIT™) regimen in peanut-allergic children.
Open label, cross-over, local pharmacokinetics study of a sublingual film with peanut extract in healthy adults and children
The recent finding that early introduction of peanut can prevent ~70-90% of peanut allergy is a major step towards prevention of food allergy. However, because that finding was from a clinical trial in a very select population, there are several major questions that must be answered in order to implement these findings into clinical practice without causing more harm than good. These questions include who, if anyone, should be screened prior to early introduction for peanut allergy, how this screening should be done, and what quantity of peanut ingestion is needed to prevent peanut allergy. The goal of this project is to answer these critical questions so that the potential of these recent findings can be realized. To that end, 400 infants at high-risk of peanut allergy will be enrolled. These infants will be given a peanut skin prick test, peanut food challenge and have blood drawn for measurement of peanut IgE, and then will be followed for assessment of peanut consumption and development of peanut allergy until 3 years of age.
This is an open-label, follow-up study for subjects who completed the PEPITES study. Subjects will be offered enrollment in this follow-up study to receive Viaskin Peanut 250 μg for 2 additional years if previously on active treatment in the PEPITES study, or for 3 years if previously on placebo in the PEPITES study.
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AR101 through oral immunotherapy (OIT) in peanut-allergic children and adults who have completed the ARC003 study.
The aim of this study is to confirm safety and tolerability of incremental doses of HAL-MPE1 subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in peanut allergic adults, and subsequently assess the safety and tolerability in adolescents and children with peanut allergy.
An oral tolerance induction (OTI) protocol is conducted at the allergy Unit of Saint Vincent Hospital of Lille (France) in standard care since 2006. This protocol consists in exposing patients to regularly increasing doses of allergen. This protocol induces an increase of the threshold reactive dose (the minimum dose of allergen that triggered a reactive reaction) and a decrease of the quantity of specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) against peanut proteins. The protocol is ended when the patient reaches a threshold reactive dose of 2942mg of peanut proteins, corresponding to 14 peanuts of middle size, which is the maximum dose of peanut that can be found in standard product in France. The investigators wish to study the evolution of the threshold reactive dose and of the sIgE of patients that have followed the OTI protocol. All the needed data are available in the medical records so the study will be conducted on retrospective data.
Food allergies are constantly increasing. Peanut and nut allergies are a major cause of allergic reactions. Diagnosed patients are also at risk, because 27% of the patients that had an allergic reaction have another one in the following year with the same food, despite a real improvement in industrial products labeling. The investigators have observed in the allergy Unit that patients (and/or their family) following an elimination diet, sometimes since several years, use very strict elimination strategies. Those strategies sometimes lead to incapacities to recognize the allergens. Yet, a good identification of the allergen is the key to a successful elimination and the non-identification a known risk factor. Ferdman shown in 2006 that 27% of the patients didn't recognize the allergen there were allergic to. However, this is a US study, and geographical specificities have an impact on food consumption and culture. Food allergology needs to take those two elements into account. For example, in France, a single food can have two names. It is the case of peanut, which can be called "arachide", or more frequently "cacahuète". The goal of the study is to observe patient aptitudes to recognize peanut (and the association between the two names) and other nuts available in France and define by the European law, using a plate with various food samples in seed or in shell. Thus, patients in care at the allergy Unit of Saint Vincent Hospital of Lille (France) and their families were surveyed with a standardized procedure at the beginning of their therapeutic education and their capacity to recognize various nuts, to identify peanut ("cacahuète" or "arachide") and to associate the two words "cacahuète" and "arachide" was assessed. It is a standard procedure in therapeutic education, and the responses have been systematically entered in the medical record. The main objective of this study is to describe peanut or nut allergic patient capacity (adult, children and/or the family) to visually identify the foods there are allergic to. The secondary objective of this study is to describe the capacity of patient that describe themselves as allergic to "arachide" to associate this word to the word "cacahuète".