Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40766832›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in allergy2025

Shrimp oral immunotherapy outcomes in the phase 2 clinical trial: MOTIF.

Shirley Y Jiang, Shu Cao, Kristine Martinez, Reyna Sharma, Olivia Raeber, Andrea Fernandes, Dinara Bogetic, Abhinav Kaushik, Sheena Gupta, Monali Manohar and 8 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in allergy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03504774 (T Cell Reagent Research for Monitoring T Cells in Food Allergy), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03504774 phase2terminatednot on this map

T Cell Reagent Research for Monitoring T Cells in Food Allergy (MOTIF) Phase 2 Study Using Food Allergen Oral Immunotherapy for Shrimp or Cashew Allergies

TypeinterventionalSponsorSayantani B. SindherRan2019 to 2023Enrolled58ConditionsAllergy, Food, Allergy to Shrimp, Allergy to Cashew Nut (Disorder)ArmsCashew or Shrimp Oral Immunotherapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

18 authors.

Shirley Y JiangSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Shu CaoSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Kristine MartinezSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Reyna SharmaSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Olivia RaeberSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Andrea FernandesSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Dinara BogeticSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Abhinav KaushikSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Sheena GuptaInstitute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Monali ManoharSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Holden T MaekerInstitute for Immunity, Transplantation and Infection, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Andrew R ChinSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Andrew J LongSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Catherine FeightSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Margaret WochSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Kari C NadeauDepartment of Environmental Health, T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States.
R Sharon ChinthrajahSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Sayantani B SindherSean N Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford University, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Shrimp is a common but understudied food allergen with relatively high rates of emergency department visits. Here we report the shrimp OIT outcomes in the MOTIF (NCT03504774) clinical trial and discuss some of the challenges with performing this study. Methods: In this phase 2 clinical trial, 12 shrimp allergic participants aged 7-55 years (median age 21.5 years) were enrolled to receive shrimp OIT. Shrimp OIT was performed up to a maintenance dose of 1,000 mg shrimp protein by week 28 with desensitization to shrimp assessed by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge at week 52 followed by switching to avoidance and assessing sustained unresponsiveness (SU) at week 58. The primary endpoint was the change in CD28 in CD4+ allergen specific (CD154+) T-cells at baseline and 52 weeks. Results: Shrimp OIT induced desensitization to a cumulative 4,043 mg shrimp protein in 58.3% (7/12) of the intention to treat and 87.5% (7/8) of the per protocol group after 52 weeks of shrimp OIT. Most shrimp OIT participants who remained in the study after desensitization (87.5%, 7/8) achieved SU. Although adverse events were common during shrimp OIT (75%), most were mild (Bock grade 1, 88%) and there were no severe (Bock grade 3+) reactions or use of epinephrine. No significant differences in CD28 expression were observed after shrimp OIT. Conclusions: Shrimp OIT is safe and effective for the treatment of shrimp allergy. Most participants were successful and achieved SU after 6 weeks of avoidance.

Indexed as

allergyclinical trialdouble-blind placebo-controlled food challengeoral immunotherapyshrimp

Identifiers

PMID40766832
PMCPMC12321884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.