Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24485709›Full record

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.

Katherine Anagnostou, Sabita Islam, Yvonne King, Loraine Foley, Laura Pasea, Simon Bond, Chris Palmer, John Deighton, Pamela Ewan, Andrew Clark

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
142citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
29.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05138757 phase1 / phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Fiber Supplementation In Children With Peanut Allergy On Oral Immunotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ChicagoRan2021 to 2025Enrolled20ConditionsPeanut AllergyArmsPrebiotic, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

142 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 420 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Improvement in Health-Related Quality of Life in Food-Allergic Patients: A Meta-Analysis.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  8. Dosing Reactions and Missed Doses Affect Peanut Oral Immunotherapy Outcomes.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2026
    Trial
  9. 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 · 2025
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. 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 · 2021
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. 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 · 2019
    Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

82 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine AnagnostouDepartment of Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Sabita IslamDepartment of Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Yvonne KingDepartment of Allergy, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Loraine FoleyDepartment of Allergy, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Laura PaseaCentre for Applied Medical Statistics, University of Cambridge, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
Simon BondCambridge Clinical Trials Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
Chris PalmerCentre for Applied Medical Statistics, University of Cambridge, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
John DeightonDepartment of Allergy, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Pamela EwanDepartment of Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Department of Allergy, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Andrew ClarkDepartment of Medicine, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Department of Allergy, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: andrew.clark@addenbrookes.nhs.uk.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_G1002461Medical Research Council MC_UP_1302/2Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Administration, OralAdolescentChildCross-Over StudiesDesensitization, ImmunologicEnglandFemaleHumansImmunotherapyMalePeanut HypersensitivityQuality of LifeSkin TestsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24485709
PMCPMC4255069
OpenAlexW1991498260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.