Trial reportThe Journal of allergy and clinical immunology2015
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy.
Trial report in The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01084174 (A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study of Sublingual/Oral Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Peanut Allergy), which is not on this map. Cited by 98 papers, 3 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.
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study of Sublingual/Oral Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Peanut Allergy
Who cites it
98 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 274 citations in OpenAlex.
- Allergen immunotherapy and/or biologicals for IgE-mediated food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Allergy · 2022Pooled it
- Adverse events associated with peanut oral immunotherapy in children - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Understanding the Variability of Peanut-Oral Immunotherapy Responses by Multi-Omics Profiling of Immune Cells.Allergy · 2025Trial
- Peanut allergy oral immunotherapy drives single-cell multi-omic changes in peanut-reactive T cells associated with sustained unresponsiveness.Nature immunology · 2025Trial
- Desensitization and remission after peanut sublingual immunotherapy in 1- to 4-year-old peanut-allergic children: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2024Trial
- 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
- CD8Nature communications · 2022Trial
- Sustained successful peanut oral immunotherapy associated with low basophil activation and peanut-specific IgE.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2020Trial
- Long-term sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: Clinical and immunologic evidence of desensitization.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2019Trial
- Predicting development of sustained unresponsiveness to milk oral immunotherapy using epitope-specific antibody binding profiles.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 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
- Epicutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy in children and young adults.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2017Trial
- Omalizumab facilitates rapid oral desensitization for peanut allergy.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2017Trial
- Early oral immunotherapy in peanut-allergic preschool children is safe and highly effective.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2017Trial
- Long-term treatment with egg oral immunotherapy enhances sustained unresponsiveness that persists after cessation of therapy.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2016Trial
- A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of omalizumab combined with oral immunotherapy for the treatment of cow's milk allergy.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2016Trial
- Utility of component analyses in subjects undergoing sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2016Trial
- Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Sublingual Immunotherapy for Food Allergy: Updates in Safety, Efficacy, and Future Considerations.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2026Review
38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough promising results have emerged regarding oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of peanut allergy (PA), direct comparisons of these approaches are limited.
objectiveThis study was conducted to compare the safety, efficacy, and mechanistic correlates of peanut OIT and SLIT.
methodsIn this double-blind study children with PA were randomized to receive active SLIT/placebo OIT or active OIT/placebo SLIT. Doses were escalated to 3.7 mg/d (SLIT) or 2000 mg/d (OIT), and subjects were rechallenged after 6 and 12 months of maintenance. After unblinding, therapy was modified per protocol to offer an additional 6 months of therapy. Subjects who passed challenges at 12 or 18 months were taken off treatment for 4 weeks and rechallenged.
resultsTwenty-one subjects aged 7 to 13 years were randomized. Five discontinued therapy during the blinded phase. Of the remaining 16, all had a greater than 10-fold increase in challenge threshold after 12 months. The increased threshold was significantly greater in the active OIT group (141- vs 22-fold, P = .01). Significant within-group changes in skin test results and peanut-specific IgE and IgG4 levels were found, with overall greater effects with OIT. Adverse reactions were generally mild but more common with OIT (P < .001), including moderate reactions and doses requiring medication. Four subjects had sustained unresponsiveness at study completion.
conclusionOIT appeared far more effective than SLIT for the treatment of PA but was also associated with significantly more adverse reactions and early study withdrawal. Sustained unresponsiveness after 4 weeks of avoidance was seen in only a small minority of subjects.
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.