Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41860551›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2026

Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Immunotherapy Treatments vs No Treatment for Peanut Allergy in Children.

Li Huang, Melanie Lloyd, Adam Franz, Paxton Loke, Michael O'Sullivan, Michael Gold, Patrick Quinn, Mimi L K Tang, Kim Dalziel

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Li HuangChild Health Economics Unit, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Melanie LloydAllergy Immunology, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victoria, Australia.
Adam FranzChild Health Economics Unit, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paxton LokeAllergy Immunology, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victoria, Australia.
Michael O'SullivanImmunology Department, Perth Children's Hospital, Western Australia, Australia.
Michael GoldDepartment of Allergy and Immunology, Women's and Children's Hospital, South Australia, Australia.
Patrick QuinnDepartment of Allergy and Immunology, Women's and Children's Hospital, South Australia, Australia.
Mimi L K TangAllergy Immunology, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Victoria, Australia.
Kim DalzielChild Health Economics Unit, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The first peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) for children was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020. While clinical efficacy is established, evidence on cost-effectiveness-whether the benefits outweigh the costs and adverse effects-remains limited. A variant of OIT, known as probiotic and peanut OIT (PPOIT), has shown similar efficacy in trials. Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of PPOIT, OIT, and no treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in Australia between 2016 and 2019. Time horizon was 10 years, including 1.5 years of active treatment, 2 years of posttreatment follow-up, and 6.5 years of extrapolation. Data were analyzed from May 2024 to August 2025. Interventions: PPOIT and OIT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness was measured using remission achieved and patient quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Costs were evaluated from a health care payer perspective, including active treatment and adverse event costs, and were calculated in Australian dollars. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to capture uncertainty. Results: A total of 201 children aged 1 to 10 years were recruited, 79 in PPOIT, 83 in OIT, and 39 in no treatment (mean [SD] age, 5.9 [2.8] years; 129 [64.2%] male). Over a 10-year horizon, mean (SD) cost per patient was A$3956 (A$67) for PPOIT (treatment, A$3579 [A$0]; adverse events, A$377 [A$67]), A$3582 [A$57] for OIT (treatment, A$3179 [A$0]; adverse events, A$402 [A$57]), and A$249 (A$87) for no treatment (treatment, A$0 [A$0]; adverse events, A$249 [A$87]). Mean (SD) annual remission was 34.1% (12.7%) for PPOIT, 35.1% (15.4%) for OIT, and 7.3% (8.1%) for no treatment. The total QALYs gained for PPOIIT, OIT, and no treatment were 0.096, 0.055, and 0, respectively. PPOIT was slightly more costly than OIT, achieved similar remission, and achieved better quality-of-life. Compared with no treatment, both treatments were more costly with minor risks, achieved higher remission (PPOIT, A$1384; 95% CI, A$1269-A$1415; and OIT, A$1199; 95% CI, A$1091-A$1217 per year of remission achieved, respectively), and improved quality of life (PPOIT, A$38 435; 95% CI, A$31 058-A$48 668 and OIT, A$60 840; 95% CI, A$49 479-A$86 531 per QALY gained, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation found that for remission, both PPOIT and OIT were cost-effective and good value compared with no treatment, with OIT associated with a larger effect size but no clinically meaningful difference. When QALYs are prioritized, PPOIT offers the best value. Key factors associated with cost-effectiveness were treatment product pricing and patient quality of life.

Indexed as

Desensitization, ImmunologicPeanut HypersensitivityProbioticsAdministration, OralArachisAustraliaChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleQuality-Adjusted Life YearsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41860551
PMCPMC13005161

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.