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 Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Enrollment
148
Dupilumab will be administered subcutaneously (SC) in a single-use, pre-filled glass syringe every two weeks (Q2W)
Placebo matching dupilumab is prepared in the same formulation without the addition of protein
AR101 will be provided in dose-escalating capsules and then sachets during maintenance phase
Regeneron Investigational Site
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Tucson, Arizona, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Los Angeles, California, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Los Angeles, California, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Mission Viejo, California, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Mountain View, California, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Rolling Hills Estates, California, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Denver, Colorado, United States
Regeneron Investigational Site
Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States
...and 15 more locations
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).
Time frame: At Visit 16 (Week 28 to 40)
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).
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)
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).
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 (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.
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)
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).
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
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).
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)
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).
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
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).
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)
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).
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)
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).
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)
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).
Time frame: Baseline up to Visit 25 (Weeks 64 to 76)
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.