Peanut AllergyPhase 2NCT03682770
Study in Pediatric Subjects With Peanut Allergy to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab as Adjunct to AR101 (Peanut Oral Immunotherapy)
A Phase 2 study testing Dupilumab and AR101 in people with Peanut Allergy, run by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at 25 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Primary objective is to assess whether dupilumab as adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo improves desensitization at the completion of up-dosing, defined as an increase in the proportion of participants who pass a post up-dosing double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) at visit 16. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 6 to 17 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Peanut Allergy
- What is being tested?
- Dupilumab and AR101
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 148 participants
- Where
- 25 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 3 Oct 2018to 23 Jul 2021
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 6 to 17 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Experience dose-limiting symptoms at or before the challenge dose of peanut protein on screening and not experiencing dose-limiting symptoms to placebo as defined in the protocol
- Serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) to peanut of ≥10 kUA/L and/or a skin prick test (SPT) to peanut ≥8 mm compared to a negative control
- Participants/legal guardians must be trained on the proper use of the epinephrine autoinjector device to be allowed to enroll in the study
- Participants with other known food allergies must agree to eliminate these other food items from their diet so as not to confound the safety and efficacy data from the study
Who cannot join
- History of other chronic disease (other than asthma, Atopic Dermatitis (AD), or allergic rhinitis) requiring therapy (eg, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension) that would represent a risk to participant's health or safety in this study or ability to comply with study protocol
- History of frequent or recent severe, life-threatening episode of anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock
- History of eosinophilic Gastrointestinal (GI) disease
- Asthma at time of enrollment with any of the following:
- Forced Expiratory Volume 1 Second (FEV1) <80% of predicted or ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC) <75% of predicted with or without controller medications
- Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dosing of daily fluticasone (or equivalent ICS based on NHLBI dosing chart)
Show all 13Show fewer
- One hospitalization in the past year for asthma
- Emergency room visit for asthma within 6 months prior to screening
- Use of systemic corticosteroids within 2 months prior to screening
- Use of other forms of allergen immunotherapy or immunomodulatory therapy within 3 months prior to screening
- Use of any agents known or likely to interact with epinephrine (eg, beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors, tri-cyclic antidepressants, or other drugs), within 3 weeks prior to screening
- Allergy to oat (placebo in DBPCFC)
- Note: Other protocol Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria apply
Trial locations and contacts
25 sites in 1 country.
25 sites in 1 country
United States25 sites
Regeneron Investigational Site
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48106
Regeneron Investigational Site
Atlanta, Georgia, 30329
Regeneron Investigational Site
Baltimore, Maryland, 21287
Regeneron Investigational Site
Birmingham, Alabama, 35209
Regeneron Investigational Site
Boston, Massachusetts, 02114
Regeneron Investigational Site
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599
Regeneron Investigational Site
Chicago, Illinois, 60611
Regeneron Investigational Site
Denver, Colorado, 80206
Regeneron Investigational Site
Great Neck, New York, 11021
Regeneron Investigational Site
Little Rock, Arkansas, 72202
Regeneron Investigational Site
Los Angeles, California, 90027
Regeneron Investigational Site
Los Angeles, California, 90095
Regeneron Investigational Site
Marietta, Georgia, 30144
Regeneron Investigational Site
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55402
Regeneron Investigational Site
Mission Viejo, California, 92691
Regeneron Investigational Site
Mountain View, California, 94040
Regeneron Investigational Site
New York, New York, 10029
Regeneron Investigational Site
Ocean Township, New Jersey, 07712
Regeneron Investigational Site
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104
Regeneron Investigational Site
Rolling Hills Estates, California, 90274
Regeneron Investigational Site
Seattle, Washington, 98115
Regeneron Investigational Site
Tampa, Florida, 33612
Regeneron Investigational Site
Tucson, Arizona, 85724
Regeneron Investigational Site
Washington D.C., District of Columbia, 20010
Regeneron Investigational Site
Ypsilanti, Michigan, 48197
About this study
Official title: A Phase 2, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Study in Pediatric Subjects With Peanut Allergy to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab as Adjunct to AR101 (Peanut Oral Immunotherapy)
Primary objective is to assess whether dupilumab as adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo improves desensitization at the completion of up-dosing, defined as an increase in the proportion of participants who pass a post up-dosing double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) at visit 16.
Secondary objectives are:
- To assess whether dupilumab as adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo improves desensitization at the completion of up-dosing, defined as an increase in the cumulative tolerated dose (log transformed) of peanut protein during a post up-dosing DBPCFC at visit 16
- To assess whether dupilumab as (indefinite [continuously]) adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo maintains desensitization, defined as an increase in the proportion of participants who pass a post maintenance DBPCFC at visit 22
- To assess whether dupilumab as (limited [previously]) adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo maintains desensitization, defined as an increase in the proportion of participants who pass a post maintenance DBPCFC at visit 22
- To evaluate the safety and tolerability of dupilumab as adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo
- To assess the effect of dupilumab (compared to placebo) as adjunct to AR101 on the change in peanut-specific Immunoglobulin E (sIgE), Immunoglobulin G (IgG), Immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4), and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio
- To assess if dupilumab increases the tolerability of AR101 as measured by the daily symptoms (electronic diary [e-diary]) during the up-dosing phase
- Conditions
- Peanut Allergy
- Being tested
- Dupilumab, Placebo matching dupilumab, AR101
- Medical subject headings
- Peanut Hypersensitivity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
DupilumabDrug
Dupilumab will be administered subcutaneously (SC) in a single-use, pre-filled glass syringe every two weeks (Q2W)
Placebo matching dupilumabDrug
Placebo matching dupilumab is prepared in the same formulation without the addition of protein
AR101Drug
AR101 will be provided in dose-escalating capsules and then sachets during maintenance phase
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| dupilumab + AR101 | Experimental | Participant randomization of a ratio of 2 active dupilumab arms Receives: Drug: Dupilumab; Drug: AR101 |
| placebo matching dupilumab + AR101 | Experimental | Participant randomization of a ratio of 1 placebo arm Receives: Drug: Placebo matching dupilumab; Drug: AR101 |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percentage of Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Passed a Post Up-dosing Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Food Challenge (DBPCFC) With 2044 mg (Cumulative) Peanut Protein at Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Symptoms considered to be allergic were graded using the Consortium of Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions. The allergic reaction is measured on a 1-5 scale, with grade 1 being mild, grade 2 being moderate, grade 3 being severe, grade 4 being life threatening, and grade 5 as death. the higher the grade, the more severe the allergic reaction. Participants were considered to have passed the DBPCFC if they did not experience any objective Grade 1 reaction. Percentage of participants treated with dupilumab plus AR101 vs placebo plus AR101 who passed a post up-dosing DBPCFC with 2044 mg (Cumulative) peanut protein at Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) was reported. Cumulative data during the specified period was calculated as the average of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 28 to Week 40).
Measured: At Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Secondary outcomes (10)
Change From Baseline in Cumulative Tolerated Dose (Log Transformed) of Peanut Protein During a DBPCFC at Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) in Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101
Change from baseline in cumulative tolerated dose (log transformed) of peanut protein during a DBPCFC at Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) in participants treated with dupilumab plus AR101 vs placebo plus AR101 was reported. Cumulative tolerated dose during the specified period was calculated as the mean of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 28 to Week 40).
Measured: Baseline, Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Percentage of Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Reached the 300 mg/Day Dose of AR101 by Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Percentage of participants treated with dupilumab plus AR101 vs placebo plus AR101 who reached the 300 mg/day dose of AR101 by Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) was reported. Cumulative data during the specified period was calculated as the average of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 28 to Week 40).
Measured: At Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Time From Randomization to the First Time When Participants Reached the 300 mg/Day Dose of AR101 During the Up-dosing Treatment Phase by Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Time (in days) from randomization to the first time when participants reached the 300 mg/day dose of AR101 during the up-dosing treatment phase by Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) was reported. If participants did not reach the 300 mg/day dose of AR101 during the 28-week treatment period, they were censored at the date of their last visit during pre-AR101 dosing and AR101 up-dosing treatment period. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier Estimated method.
Measured: At Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Percentage of Participants (Continuously) Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Passed a Post Maintenance DBPCFC With 2044 mg (Cumulative) Peanut Protein at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Symptoms considered to be allergic were graded using the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions. The allergic reaction is measured on a 1-5 scale, with grade 1 being mild, grade 2 being moderate, grade 3 being severe, grade 4 being life threatening, and grade 5 as death. the higher the grade, the more severe the allergic reaction. Participants were considered to have passed the DBPCFC if they did not experience any objective Grade 1 reaction. Percentage of participants (continuously) treated with dupilumab plus AR101 vs placebo plus AR101 who passed a post maintenance DBPCFC with 2044 mg (cumulative) peanut protein at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) was reported. Cumulative data during the specified period was calculated as the average of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 52 to Week 64).
Measured: At Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Change From Baseline in Cumulative Tolerated Dose (Log Transformed) of Peanut Protein During a DBPCFC at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) in Participants (Continuously) Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101
Change from baseline in cumulative tolerated dose (log transformed) of peanut protein during a DBPCFC at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) in participants (continuously) treated with dupilumab plus AR101 vs placebo plus AR101 was reported. Cumulative tolerated dose during the specified period was calculated as the mean of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 52 to Week 64).
Measured: Baseline, Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Percentage of Participants (Previously) Treated With Dupilumab + AR101/Placebo +AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Passed a Post Maintenance DBPCFC With 2044 mg (Cumulative) Peanut Protein at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Symptoms considered to be allergic were graded using the CoFAR Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions. The allergic reaction is measured on a 1-5 scale, with grade 1 being mild, grade 2 being moderate, grade 3 being severe, grade 4 being life threatening, and grade 5 as death. the higher the grade, the more severe the allergic reaction. Participants were considered to have passed the DBPCFC if they did not experience any objective Grade 1 reaction. Percentage of participants (previously) treated with dupilumab plus AR101 (and re-randomized to placebo plus AR101) vs placebo plus AR101 who "pass" a post maintenance DBPCFC with 2044 mg (cumulative) peanut protein at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) was reported. Cumulative data during the specified period was calculated as the average of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 52 to Week 64).
Measured: At Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Change From Baseline in Cumulative Tolerated Dose (Log Transformed) of Peanut Protein During a DBPCFC at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) in Participants (Previously) Treated With Dupilumab + AR101/Placebo +AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101
Change from baseline in cumulative tolerated dose (log transformed) of peanut protein during a DBPCFC at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) in participants (previously) treated with dupilumab plus AR101 (and re-randomized to placebo plus AR101) vs placebo plus AR101 was reported. Cumulative tolerated dose during the specified period was calculated as the mean of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 52 to Week 64).
Measured: Baseline, Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Percent Change From Baseline in Peanut-specific IgE in Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 to Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Percent change from baseline in peanut-specific IgE in participants treated with dupilumab + AR101 vs placebo + AR101 to Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) was reported. Analysis was performed using Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method. Data reported during the specified period was calculated as the average of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 28 to Week 40).
Measured: Baseline up to Visit 16 (Weeks 28 to 40)
Percent Change From Baseline in Peanut-specific IgE in Participants (Continuously) Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 to Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Percent change from baseline in peanut-specific IgE in participants treated with dupilumab + AR101 vs placebo + AR101 to Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) was reported. Analysis was performed using LOCF method. Data reported during the specified period was calculated as the average of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 52 to Week 64).
Measured: Baseline up to Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Percent Change From Baseline in Peanut-specific IgE in Participants (Continuously) Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 to Visit 25 (Weeks 64 to 76)
Percent change from baseline in peanut-specific IgE in participants treated with dupilumab + AR101 vs placebo + AR101 to Visit 25 (Week 64 to 76) was reported. Analysis was performed using LOCF method. Data reported during the specified period was calculated as the average of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 64 to Week 76).
Measured: Baseline up to Visit 25 (Weeks 64 to 76)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Sep 2018
- Study start3 Oct 2018
- Primary completion16 Oct 2020
- Study completion23 Jul 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Peanut AllergyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Regeneron PharmaceuticalsThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 148 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- Sanofi, Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Clinical Trial Management, Study director, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03682770
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R668-ALG-16114
- Status last verified
- Jan 2024
- First submitted
- 21 Sep 2018
- Last updated
- 7 Feb 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- Yes
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Ghelli C, Costanzo G, Canonica GW, Heffler E, Paoletti G. New evidence in food allergies treatment. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024 Aug 1;24(4):251-256. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000999. Epub 2024 May 30.
PubMed 38814736
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 7 Feb 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Phase 2, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Study in Pediatric Subjects With Peanut Allergy to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Dupilumab as Adjunct to AR101 (Peanut Oral Immunotherapy)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03682770
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- R668-ALG-16114
- Conditions
- Peanut Allergy
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 148 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Regeneron PharmaceuticalsIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Collaborators
- Sanofi, Aimmune Therapeutics, Inc.
- Study start
- 3 Oct 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 16 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 23 Jul 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Sep 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 7 Feb 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Primary objective is to assess whether dupilumab as adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo improves desensitization at the completion of up-dosing, defined as an increase in the proportion of participants who pass a post up-dosing double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) at visit 16.
Secondary objectives are:
- To assess whether dupilumab as adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo improves desensitization at the completion of up-dosing, defined as an increase in the cumulative tolerated dose (log transformed) of peanut protein during a post up-dosing DBPCFC at visit 16
- To assess whether dupilumab as (indefinite [continuously]) adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo maintains desensitization, defined as an increase in the proportion of participants who pass a post maintenance DBPCFC at visit 22
- To assess whether dupilumab as (limited [previously]) adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo maintains desensitization, defined as an increase in the proportion of participants who pass a post maintenance DBPCFC at visit 22
- To evaluate the safety and tolerability of dupilumab as adjunct to AR101 compared to placebo
- To assess the effect of dupilumab (compared to placebo) as adjunct to AR101 on the change in peanut-specific Immunoglobulin E (sIgE), Immunoglobulin G (IgG), Immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4), and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio
- To assess if dupilumab increases the tolerability of AR101 as measured by the daily symptoms (electronic diary [e-diary]) during the up-dosing phase
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| dupilumab + AR101 | Experimental | Drug: Dupilumab, Drug: AR101Participant randomization of a ratio of 2 active dupilumab arms |
| placebo matching dupilumab + AR101 | Experimental | Drug: Placebo matching dupilumab, Drug: AR101Participant randomization of a ratio of 1 placebo arm |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 6 to 17 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Experience dose-limiting symptoms at or before the challenge dose of peanut protein on screening and not experiencing dose-limiting symptoms to placebo as defined in the protocol
- Serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) to peanut of ≥10 kUA/L and/or a skin prick test (SPT) to peanut ≥8 mm compared to a negative control
- Participants/legal guardians must be trained on the proper use of the epinephrine autoinjector device to be allowed to enroll in the study
- Participants with other known food allergies must agree to eliminate these other food items from their diet so as not to confound the safety and efficacy data from the study
Key exclusion criteria (13 listed)
- History of other chronic disease (other than asthma, Atopic Dermatitis (AD), or allergic rhinitis) requiring therapy (eg, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension) that would represent a risk to participant's health or safety in this study or ability to comply with study protocol
- History of frequent or recent severe, life-threatening episode of anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock
- History of eosinophilic Gastrointestinal (GI) disease
- Asthma at time of enrollment with any of the following:
- Use of systemic corticosteroids within 2 months prior to screening
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| DupilumabDupilumab will be administered subcutaneously (SC) in a single-use, pre-filled glass syringe every two weeks (Q2W) | Drug | dupilumab + AR101 |
| Placebo matching dupilumabPlacebo matching dupilumab is prepared in the same formulation without the addition of protein | Drug | placebo matching dupilumab + AR101 |
| AR101AR101 will be provided in dose-escalating capsules and then sachets during maintenance phase | Drug | dupilumab + AR101, placebo matching dupilumab + AR101 |
Primary outcome
Percentage of Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Passed a Post Up-dosing Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Food Challenge (DBPCFC) With 2044 mg (Cumulative) Peanut Protein at Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Time frame: At Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Symptoms considered to be allergic were graded using the Consortium of Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions. The allergic reaction is measured on a 1-5 scale, with grade 1 being mild, grade 2 being moderate, grade 3 being severe, grade 4 being life threatening, and grade 5 as death. the higher the grade, the more severe the allergic reaction. Participants were considered to have passed the DBPCFC if they did not experience any objective Grade 1 reaction. Percentage of participants treated with dupilumab plus AR101 vs placebo plus AR101 who passed a post up-dosing DBPCFC with 2044 mg (Cumulative) peanut protein at Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) was reported. Cumulative data during the specified period was calculated as the average of all available post-randomization values during the specified time period (Week 28 to Week 40).
10 secondary outcomes
Change From Baseline in Cumulative Tolerated Dose (Log Transformed) of Peanut Protein During a DBPCFC at Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) in Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101
Time frame: Baseline, Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Percentage of Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Reached the 300 mg/Day Dose of AR101 by Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Time frame: At Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Time From Randomization to the First Time When Participants Reached the 300 mg/Day Dose of AR101 During the Up-dosing Treatment Phase by Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Time frame: At Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Percentage of Participants (Continuously) Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Passed a Post Maintenance DBPCFC With 2044 mg (Cumulative) Peanut Protein at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Time frame: At Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Change From Baseline in Cumulative Tolerated Dose (Log Transformed) of Peanut Protein During a DBPCFC at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) in Participants (Continuously) Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101
Time frame: Baseline, Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Percentage of Participants (Previously) Treated With Dupilumab + AR101/Placebo +AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Passed a Post Maintenance DBPCFC With 2044 mg (Cumulative) Peanut Protein at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Time frame: At Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Change From Baseline in Cumulative Tolerated Dose (Log Transformed) of Peanut Protein During a DBPCFC at Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64) in Participants (Previously) Treated With Dupilumab + AR101/Placebo +AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101
Time frame: Baseline, Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Percent Change From Baseline in Peanut-specific IgE in Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 to Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
Time frame: Baseline up to Visit 16 (Weeks 28 to 40)
Percent Change From Baseline in Peanut-specific IgE in Participants (Continuously) Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 to Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Time frame: Baseline up to Visit 22 (Week 52 to 64)
Percent Change From Baseline in Peanut-specific IgE in Participants (Continuously) Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 to Visit 25 (Weeks 64 to 76)
Time frame: Baseline up to Visit 25 (Weeks 64 to 76)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 7 Feb 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38814736Ghelli C, Costanzo G, Canonica GW, Heffler E, Paoletti G. New evidence in food allergies treatment. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2024 Aug 1;24(4):251-256. doi: 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000999. Epub 2024 May 30.
Related trials for Peanut Allergy
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
A Safety and Efficacy Study of PVX108 in Children and Adolescents With Peanut Allergy
Peanut Allergy, Peanut Hypersensitivity
Not yet recruiting
Oral Immunotherapy for Children With Peanut Allergy
Peanut Allergic Subjects, Peanut Allergies
RecruitingObservational study
Study of Oral Food Challenge Biomarkers (SAFER)
Allergy
Active, not recruitingObservational study
EPAP, Interviewstudy
Food Allergy, Food Allergy Peanut
RecruitingPhase 2
Efficacy of Tezepelumab in Peanut Oral Immunotherapy
Peanut Allergy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Clinical Trial Management study director
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals
25 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Dupilumab and AR101 in people with Peanut Allergy, run by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at 25 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 13 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 7 Feb 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 25 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 7 Feb 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percentage of Participants Treated With Dupilumab Plus AR101 vs Placebo Plus AR101 Who Passed a Post Up-dosing Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Food Challenge (DBPCFC) With 2044 mg (Cumulative) Peanut Protein at Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40) (time frame: At Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03682770, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 7 Feb 2024; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 6 Nov 2026.