In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, omalizumab was superior to MOIT for the primary endpoint (36% vs 19%; odds ratio [OR], 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.3; P =.03). This difference disappeared in the per-protocol population (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-3.3; P =.66), reflecting a substantially higher discontinuation rate in the MOIT arm (49%) compared with omalizumab (12%) most driven by adverse events.¹
Omalizumab Safety versus Multiallergen Oral Immunotherapy
Omalizumab also showed superiority across secondary endpoints in the ITT population, including cumulative tolerated dose of ≥ 4044 mg for ≥ 2 foods (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.3; P =.002) and for individual foods including peanuts (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.9-9.7; P <.001), milk (OR, 6.2; 95% CI, 1.4-27.6; P =.02), and eggs (OR, 11.7; 95% CI, 1.9-70.2; P =.004). For protection against small unintentional exposures, 72% of the omalizumab arm tolerated ≥ 444 mg of all 3 allergens compared with 39% of the MOIT arm.¹
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the OUTMATCH stage 2 trial show?
Omalizumab produced higher treatment success than omalizumab-facilitated multiallergen oral immunotherapy in the intention-to-treat population, but the difference largely disappeared once high MOIT discontinuation rates were accounted for in the per-protocol analysis.
How does omalizumab compare with oral immunotherapy for multifood allergy?
Both approaches showed similar efficacy among participants who completed treatment, but MOIT carried significantly higher rates of serious adverse events, epinephrine-treated reactions, and anaphylaxis, driving nearly half of MOIT participants to discontinue.
Is omalizumab safe for patients with multiple food allergies?
Across the full OUTMATCH program, no anaphylactic events were attributed to omalizumab injections, and reactions were largely limited to non-dose-limiting local injection-site reactions.
The MOIT arm carried a substantially heavier safety burden, with more serious adverse events (31% vs 0%), events treated with epinephrine (37% vs 7%) and events meeting anaphylaxis criteria (27% vs 2% [than the omalizumab arm. Investigators also identified 3 cases of biopsy-confirmed eosinophilic esophagitis in the MOIT group.¹
"The adverse event profile of omalizumab is very reassuring, and this phase of the study confirmed the adverse events are very small," Wood said. "We've now, in the entirety of OUTMATCH, not seen any anaphylactic events [with omalizumab].”
However, Wood noted that omalizumab has a black box warning for anaphylaxis with an estimated risk of 1 in 500 to 1 in 1000 patients.
“What that translates to is that the first doses are given under observation,” he said.
Wood noted reactions to omalizumab in the trial were largely limited to local injection-site reactions, consistent with prior stage 1 findings, and were not dose-limiting in any participant.
The investigators pointed to protocol-imposed rigidity in MOIT dosing, including the inability to adjust individual food doses, as a possible contributor to the arm's high discontinuation rate, suggesting real-world flexibility could improve tolerability. Additional trials comparing OIT with anti-IgE strategies, including cost-benefit analyses, are needed to guide personalized treatment selection.¹
Editor’s note: Reported disclosures for Wood include Genentech and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
References
Wood RA, Togias A, Burk CM, et al. Treatment of multifood allergy with omalizumab or multiallergen oral immunotherapy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. Published online July 27, 2026. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2026.2910