ReviewFrontiers in immunology2025
Considerations for biologics as front-line treatment in allergic diseases.
Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Indications for Biological Treatment Combined with Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy: Who Is It Really Intended for?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Therapeutic Applications of Immunobiologics in Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- The JAK-STAT pathway in allergic diseases: from pathogenesis to targeted therapy.Biomarker research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The therapeutic landscape of allergic diseases has been transformed by the advent of biologics targeting key immunologic pathways. These therapies offer disease-modifying potential across a spectrum of conditions including asthma, atopic dermatitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, and food allergy. However, their high cost, limited long-term safety data in some populations, and evolving eligibility criteria raise critical questions about when biologics such as monoclonal antibodies are truly warranted, especially in the context of food allergy. Agents such as omalizumab have demonstrated efficacy in raising the threshold of allergic response with monotherapy and during oral immunotherapy, improving safety profiles and accelerating desensitization. Recent developments in pharmaceutical-grade food immunotherapy and adjunctive/alternative biologic use further complicate decision-making. This expanding therapeutic toolbox necessitates a critical reassessment of when biologics are justified as front-line in allergic diseases such as food allergy. Monoclonal antibodies, in particular, are usually reserved for step-wise treatment of other diseases. It is important to have ongoing assessments as to which new and upcoming treatment modalities should be first-line. As food allergy management becomes increasingly interventional, providers must weigh the benefits of biologic therapies against real-world feasibility, health economics, and patient preference among other alternatives. Here, we discuss the current management of IgE-mediated food allergy as well as emerging therapeutics including immunotherapies and biologics. We evaluate the positioning of omalizumab in food allergy, compared with other biologics and off the shelf food-based approaches used in food allergy, and discuss clinical and research implications.
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.