Trial reportClinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology2016
Utility of component analyses in subjects undergoing sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy.
Trial report in Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Long-term sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: Clinical and immunologic evidence of desensitization.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2019Trial
- Article
- Peanut Oral Immunotherapy in Children: An Italian Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Peanut Allergy and Component-Resolved Diagnostics Possibilities-What Are the Benefits?Nutrients · 2023Review
- Biomarkers and mechanisms of tolerance induction in food allergic patients drive new therapeutic approaches.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Ara h 2 is the dominant peanut allergen despite similarities with Ara h 6.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2020Article
- A WAO - ARIA - GAThe World Allergy Organization journal · 2020Article
- Evolution of Immune Responses in Food Immunotherapy.Immunology and allergy clinics of North America · 2020Review
- Biomarkers in Food Allergy Immunotherapy.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2019Review
- Oral and Sublingual Immunotherapy for Treatment of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2018Review
- Desensitization for Peanut Allergies in Children.Current treatment options in allergy · 2016Article
- Using Component-Resolved Diagnostics in the Management of Peanut-Allergic Patients.Current treatment options in allergyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with peanut changes clinical and immune responses in most peanut-allergic individuals, but the response is highly variable.
objectiveWe sought to examine the component-specific effects of peanut SLIT and determine whether peanut component testing could predict the outcome of a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 12 months of peanut SLIT.
methodsWe included 33 subjects who underwent peanut SLIT with a DBPCFC of 2500 mg of peanut protein performed after 12 months of therapy. Plasma samples from baseline and after 12 months of peanut SLIT were assayed using ImmunoCAP for IgE and IgG4 against whole peanut, Ara h 1, Ara h 2, Ara h 3, Ara h 8, and Ara h 9.
resultsFollowing 12 months of SLIT, 10 subjects (30%) passed the DBPCFC without symptoms and were considered desensitized. Subjects that failed the DBPCFC tolerated a median of 460 mg peanut protein (range: 10-1710 mg). The desensitized group had significantly lower baseline levels of IgE against peanut (median 40.8 vs. 231 kUA /L, P = 0.0082), Ara h 2 (median 17 vs. 113 kUA /L, P = 0.0082), and Ara h 3 (median 0.3 vs. 8.5 kUA /L, P = 0.0396). ROC curves indicated that baseline IgE against peanut and Ara h 2 were equally effective at discriminating between the two groups (AUC = 0.7957, P = 0.007752 for both). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this cohort of subjects undergoing SLIT for peanut allergy, lower baseline levels of IgE against Ara h 2, Ara h 3, and peanut were associated with successful desensitization.
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.