ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2025
Recent Advances in Oral Immunotherapy for Food Allergies.
Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- High- and Low-Dose Oral Sesame Immunotherapy: Interim Analysis of a Randomized Single-Center Open-Label Trial.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Trial
- Recent advances in allergen immunotherapy.Chinese medical journal · 2026Review
- Predictive Biomarkers for Sustained Unresponsiveness Following Oral Immunotherapy.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026Article
- Hazelnut oral immunotherapy in children: An Italian single-center retrospective cohort study.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2026Article
- The Potential Link Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Food Allergy: Inflammatory Pathogenesis and Management.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- Current challenges in allergic diseases and computational solutions towards personalized medicine.Frontiers in allergy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Food allergies affect 6-8% of children worldwide and can significantly impact quality of life, with potentially severe reactions including anaphylaxis. Over recent decades, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as a treatment option for food allergies, but safety concerns with conventional high-dose protocols have limited its broader adoption. Low-dose OIT protocols have been developed to address these safety issues while maintaining therapeutic efficacy. This review focuses specifically on low-dose OIT protocols, their clinical outcomes, and evidence-based patient selection strategies. Low-dose OIT has demonstrated efficacy for several food allergens via successful desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness (SU). Clinical trials have reported SU achievements of 33-50% for milk, up to 71% for eggs, 25-37.5% for wheat, and 33-74% for peanut allergies after treatment. Notably, these protocols have shown improved safety profiles compared to conventional higher dose approaches, with substantially reduced rates of severe adverse reactions. Long-term follow-up studies of up to 6 years have shown progressively improving SU rates and a decrease in adverse events over time, supporting the durability of low-dose approaches. Critical factors for successful low-dose OIT implementation include appropriate patient selection based on age, risk stratification, and individual clinical characteristics. Integration with biological agents such as omalizumab may further enhance safety and efficacy in selected high-risk patients. While low-dose OIT offers a safer therapeutic option for persistent food allergies, careful patient selection remains essential to optimize treatment outcomes and minimize risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41087776What 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.