Trial reportLancet (London, England)2014
Assessing the efficacy of oral immunotherapy for the desensitisation of peanut allergy in children (STOP II): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05138757 (Fiber Supplementation In Children With Peanut Allergy On Oral Immunotherapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 142 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Fiber Supplementation In Children With Peanut Allergy On Oral Immunotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study
Who cites it
142 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 420 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Oral Immunotherapy Effect on Food Allergy-Related Quality of Life.Allergy · 2025Pooled it
- Re-evaluating treatment success in trials of peanut oral-immunotherapy: impact of different definitions on efficacy outcomes.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Pooled it
- Allergen immunotherapy and/or biologicals for IgE-mediated food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Allergy · 2022Pooled it
- Improvement in Health-Related Quality of Life in Food-Allergic Patients: A Meta-Analysis.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2021Pooled it
- Using data from food challenges to inform management of consumers with food allergy: A systematic review with individual participant data meta-analysis.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2021Pooled it
- Adverse events associated with peanut oral immunotherapy in children - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Dosing Reactions and Missed Doses Affect Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Outcomes.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2026Trial
- Pragmatic Low-Dose Oral Immunotherapy for Preschool Children With Peanut Allergy: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Open-label study of the efficacy, safety, and durability of peanut sublingual immunotherapy in peanut-allergic children.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2023Trial
- Kinetics of basophil hyporesponsiveness during short-course peanut oral immunotherapy.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2022Trial
- Maximum Dose Food Challenges Reveal Transient Sustained Unresponsiveness in Peanut Oral Immunotherapy (POIMD Study).The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2022Trial
- Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Responses in a Longitudinal, Randomized Trial of Peanut Oral Immunotherapy.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021Trial
- Sustained successful peanut oral immunotherapy associated with low basophil activation and peanut-specific IgE.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2020Trial
- Effect of sleep deprivation and exercise on reaction threshold in adults with peanut allergy: A randomized controlled study.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2019Trial
- Sustained outcomes in oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (POISED study): a large, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.Lancet (London, England) · 2019Trial
- High- and low-dose oral immunotherapy similarly suppress pro-allergic cytokines and basophil activation in young children.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2019Trial
- Anti-IgE treatment with oral immunotherapy in multifood allergic participants: a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2018Trial
- Baseline Gastrointestinal Eosinophilia Is Common in Oral Immunotherapy Subjects With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy.Frontiers in immunology · 2018Trial
82 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSmall studies suggest peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) might be effective in the treatment of peanut allergy. We aimed to establish the efficacy of OIT for the desensitisation of children with allergy to peanuts.
methodsWe did a randomised controlled crossover trial to compare the efficacy of active OIT (using characterised peanut flour; protein doses of 2-800 mg/day) with control (peanut avoidance, the present standard of care) at the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Cambridge Clinical Research Facility (Cambridge, UK). Randomisation (1:1) was by use of an audited online system; group allocation was not masked. Eligible participants were aged 7-16 years with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction after peanut ingestion, positive skin prick test to peanuts, and positive by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). We excluded participants if they had a major chronic illness, if the care provider or a present household member had suspected or diagnosed allergy to peanuts, or if there was an unwillingness or inability to comply with study procedures. Our primary outcome was desensitisation, defined as negative peanut challenge (1400 mg protein in DBPCFC) at 6 months (first phase). Control participants underwent OIT during the second phase, with subsequent DBPCFC. Immunological parameters and disease-specific quality-of-life scores were measured. Analysis was by intention to treat. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of those with desensitisation to peanut after 6 months between the active and control group at the end of the first phase. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN62416244.
findingsThe primary outcome, desensitisation, was recorded for 62% (24 of 39 participants; 95% CI 45-78) in the active group and none of the control group after the first phase (0 of 46; 95% CI 0-9; p<0·001). 84% (95% CI 70-93) of the active group tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein (equivalent to roughly five peanuts). Median increase in peanut threshold after OIT was 1345 mg (range 45-1400; p<0·001) or 25·5 times (range 1·82-280; p<0·001). After the second phase, 54% (95% CI 35-72) tolerated 1400 mg challenge (equivalent to roughly ten peanuts) and 91% (79-98) tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein. Quality-of-life scores improved (decreased) after OIT (median change -1·61; p<0·001). Side-effects were mild in most participants. Gastrointestinal symptoms were, collectively, most common (31 participants with nausea, 31 with vomiting, and one with diarrhoea), then oral pruritus after 6·3% of doses (76 participants) and wheeze after 0·41% of doses (21 participants). Intramuscular adrenaline was used after 0·01% of doses (one participant).
interpretationOIT successfully induced desensitisation in most children within the study population with peanut allergy of any severity, with a clinically meaningful increase in peanut threshold. Quality of life improved after intervention and there was a good safety profile. Immunological changes corresponded with clinical desensitisation. Further studies in wider populations are recommended; peanut OIT should not be done in non-specialist settings, but it is effective and well tolerated in the studied age group.
fundingMRC-NIHR partnership.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.