The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
Original ArticlePreparation and Analysis of Peanut Flour Used in Oral Immunotherapy Clinical Trials
Section snippets
Drug manufacturing process
The overall process of drug manufacturing occurs in several stages: (1) bulk peanut flour is received; (2) the bulk flour is tested for compliance with established US Pharmacopeia guidelines for the presence of microbes (see Table I); (3) the bulk flour is examined for the presence of Ara h 1 and 2 and their consistency in relative quantity to a reference standard and the previous lot of peanut flour; (4) finally, the peanut flour is used to manufacture drug product doses. For the initial
Ara h 1 and Ara h 2 are present in lightly roasted peanut flour
As part of the process for the acceptance of the raw material (drug substance, ie, bulk peanut flour) our group performed analysis of every peanut flour lot before being used for the manufacturing of the drug product. Part of the assessment is confirming the identity of the product. Our group and others have demonstrated the presence of Ara h 1 and Ara h 2 in peanut flour.22, 23 The native proteins have been isolated and their genes cloned.24 Figure 1 shows an SDS-PAGE gel with purified Ara h 1
Discussion
OIT holds great promise as a treatment modality for food allergies, including peanut allergy.28 OIT is administered in exact quantities using an investigational drug product manufactured from peanut flour. Peanut flour is a fairly crude drug product in that it contains the active ingredients (ie, peanut allergens) along with presumably inert ingredients including nonallergenic proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, micronutrients, and so forth. Therefore, the source material needs to be consistent
References (34)
- et al.
Akdis, International consensus on allergy immunotherapy
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(2015) - et al.
Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter third update
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(2011) - et al.
Sublingual grass and ragweed immunotherapy: clinical considerations—a PRACTALL consensus report
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(2016) Peanut allergy
Lancet
(2008)- et al.
ICON: food allergy
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(2012) - et al.
Treatment of peanut allergy with rush immunotherapy
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(1992) - et al.
Treatment of anaphylactic sensitivity to peanuts by immunotherapy with injections of aqueous peanut extract
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(1997) - et al.
A randomized controlled study of peanut oral immunotherapy: clinical desensitization and modulation of the allergic response
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(2011) - et al.
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of milk oral immunotherapy for cow's milk allergy
J Allergy Clin Immunol
(2008) - et al.
Assessing the efficacy of oral immunotherapy for the desensitisation of peanut allergy in children (STOP II): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial
Lancet
(2014)
Identification and characterization of a second major peanut allergen, Ara h II, with use of the sera of patients with atopic dermatitis and positive peanut challenge
J Allergy Clin Immunol
Identification of a major peanut allergen, Ara h I, in patients with atopic dermatitis and positive peanut challenges
J Allergy Clin Immunol
Increasing the accuracy of peanut allergy diagnosis by using Ara h 2
J Allergy Clin Immunol
Future therapies for food allergies
J Allergy Clin Immunol
Vaccine development for allergen-specific immunotherapy based on recombinant allergens and synthetic allergen peptides: lessons from the past and novel mechanisms of action for the future
J Allergy Clin Immunol
Peanut T-cell epitope discovery: Ara h 1
J Allergy Clin Immunol
Current and emerging therapies for IgE-mediated food allergy
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep
Cited by (0)
This work was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (Award Number AI068074) and by the National Center For Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (Award Number UL1TR001117).
Conflicts of interest: J. P. Berglund has received consultancy fees from the University of North Carolina and Etubics Corporation. B. Burnett is employed by Duke University. A. W. Burks has received research support from the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Wallace Research Foundation; has received personal fees from Food Allergy Research and Education for being Chairman (2013-2015) and a member of the research advisory board; was a board member for the NIH Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee Review Panel, NIH Hypersensitivity, Autoimmune, and Immune-mediated Diseases Study Section, and World Allergy Organization; has received consultancy fees from Aimmune Therapeutics, Epiva Biosciences, Genentech, Merck, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Stallergenes, Sanofi US Services, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America; received personal fees as an independent contractor for pharmaceutical product development; and is a minority stockholder of Allertein. M. Kulis has received research support from NIH-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Department of Defense and is employed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The rest of the authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest.