Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38441821›Full record

ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2024

A Review of Shared Decision-Making, Published Protocols, and Post-desensitization Strategies in Oral Immunotherapy (OIT).

Susan Laubach, Edwin H Kim, Matthew Greenhawt, Sally Bailey, Aikaterini Anagnostou

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Goldilocks zone: Allergists' perceptions of family anxiety and investment in food allergy oral immunotherapy.Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Oral Immunotherapy Should Play a Key Role in Preschool Food Allergy Management.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Selecting patients for food allergy therapy.Journal of food allergy · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Susan LaubachDepartment of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. slaubach@ucsd.edu.
Edwin H KimDivision of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Matthew GreenhawtSection of Allergy and Immunology, Food Challenge and Research Unit, Children's Hospital Colorado, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Sally BaileyDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Aikaterini AnagnostouDepartment of Pediatrics, Section of Immunology, Allergy and Retrovirology, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Baylor College of Medicine · USChildren's Hospital Colorado · USGeorgetown University · USUniversity of California, San Diego · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use. RECENT

findingsWith food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients.

Indexed as

Desensitization, ImmunologicFood HypersensitivityAdministration, OralHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDose escalationFood allergyMaintenance therapyOral immunotherapyShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID38441821
PMCPMC11008063
OpenAlexW4392470116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.