Trial reportJAMA2017
Effect of Varying Doses of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy vs Placebo on Reaction to Peanut Protein Exposure Among Patients With Peanut Sensitivity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in JAMA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01675882 (A Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized Trial to Study the Viaskin Peanut's Efficacy and Safety for Treating Peanut Allergy in Children and Adults.), which is not on this map. Cited by 84 papers, 5 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 Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized Trial to Study the Viaskin Peanut's Efficacy and Safety for Treating Peanut Allergy in Children and Adults.
Who cites it
84 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- From Skin to Solution: Exploring Epicutaneous Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2024Pooled it
- Epithelial immunotherapy for food allergy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Pooled it
- Allergen immunotherapy and/or biologicals for IgE-mediated food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Allergy · 2022Pooled 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
- Epicutaneous immunotherapy for treatment of peanut allergy: Follow-up from the Consortium for Food Allergy Research.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2021Trial
- Expansion of the CD4The 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
- Trial
- The inhibition of pathological IgE in allergic diseases by natural compounds.Natural products and bioprospecting · 2026Review
- Wheat Allergy: Clinical Phenotypes, Diagnostic Approaches, and Management Strategies.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2026Review
- Microneedles in Allergy Immunotherapy: the Present and Future.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2025Review
- Novel approaches to prevent or cure allergic diseases.Current opinion in immunology · 2025Review
- Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: aligning clinical trials with patient priorities.Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2025Review
- Microarray Patch Based Transdermal Allergen Immunotherapy Prevents Gliadin-induced Anaphylaxis in a Murine Model.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2025Article
- Evolving Food Allergy Clinical Trials to Become More Patient-Centered.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2025Review
- Immunotherapeutic Approaches to Peanut Allergy Treatment-Pre-Clinical and Clinical Studies: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Review
- The Etiology of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy: Potential Therapeutics and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Review
24 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Epicutaneous immunotherapy may have potential for treating peanut allergy but has been assessed only in preclinical and early human trials. Objective: To determine the optimal dose, adverse events (AEs), and efficacy of a peanut patch for peanut allergy treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 2b double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial of a peanut patch in peanut-allergic patients (6-55 years) from 22 centers, with a 2-year, open-label extension (July 31, 2012-July 31, 2014; extension completed September 29, 2016). Patients (n = 221) had peanut sensitivity and positive double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges to an eliciting dose of 300 mg or less of peanut protein. Interventions: Randomly assigned patients (1:1:1:1) received an epicutaneous peanut patch containing 50 μg (n = 53), 100 μg (n = 56), or 250 μg (n = 56) of peanut protein or a placebo patch (n = 56). Following daily patch application for 12 months, patients underwent a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge to establish changes in eliciting dose. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was percentage of treatment responders (eliciting dose: ≥10-times increase and/or reaching ≥1000 mg of peanut protein) in each group vs placebo patch after 12 months. Secondary end points included percentage of responders by age strata and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Of 221 patients randomized (median age, 11 years [quartile 1, quartile 3: 8, 16]; 37.6% female), 93.7% completed the trial. A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at month 12 between the 250-μg (n = 28; 50.0%) and placebo (n = 14; 25.0%) patches (difference, 25.0%; 95% CI, 7.7%-42.3%; P = .01). No significant difference was seen between the placebo patch vs the 100-μg patch. Because of statistical testing hierarchical rules, the 50-μg patch was not compared with placebo. Interaction by age group was only significant for the 250-μg patch (P = .04). In the 6- to 11-year stratum, the response rate difference between the 250-μg (n = 15; 53.6%) and placebo (n = 6; 19.4%) patches was 34.2% (95% CI, 11.1%-57.3%; P = .008); adolescents/adults showed no difference between the 250-μg (n = 13; 46.4%) and placebo (n = 8; 32.0%) patches: 14.4% (95% CI, -11.6% to 40.4%; P = .40). No dose-related serious AEs were observed. The percentage of patients with 1 or more TEAEs (largely local skin reactions) was similar across all groups in year 1: 50-μg patch = 100%, 100-μg patch = 98.2%, 250-μg patch = 100%, and placebo patch = 92.9%. The overall median adherence was 97.6% after 1 year; the dropout rate for treatment-related AEs was 0.9%. Conclusions and Relevance: In this dose-ranging trial of peanut-allergic patients, the 250-μg peanut patch resulted in significant treatment response vs placebo patch following 12 months of therapy. These findings warrant a phase 3 trial. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01675882.
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.