Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42017175›Full record

ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2026

Peanut oral immunotherapy at a single academic medical center using a volume-based approach with store-purchased peanut products.

Ashley L Devonshire, Adam Z Magier, Bridget E Wilson, Chen Rosenberg, Andrew Winslow, Kimberly A Risma, J Pablo Abonia, Michael G Sherenian, Amal H Assa'ad, Sandra Andorf and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.

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

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

11 authors.

Ashley L DevonshireDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Adam Z MagierDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Bridget E WilsonDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Chen RosenbergDivision of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass.
Andrew WinslowDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Kimberly A RismaDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
J Pablo AboniaDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Michael G SherenianDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Amal H Assa'adDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sandra AndorfDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Justin T SchwartzDivision of Allergy and Immunology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Incorporation of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) into clinical practice is increasing, but the approaches used and reported outcomes vary. Objective: Our aim was to describe a volume-based dosing approach for OIT using store-bought peanut powder in a pediatric population and report initial outcomes. Methods: A standardized, volume-based OIT protocol using non-pharmaceutical-grade peanut powder was developed at a single academic center. Retrospective chart review was completed for patients (aged 8 months-18 years) who underwent single-food peanut OIT using this approach. OIT effectiveness was evaluated by determining the proportion of patients who (1) reached maintenance therapy and (2) tolerated a cumulative desensitization challenge using 6 g of peanut protein after 1 year of high-dose maintenance therapy. Tolerance to alternative peanut products with estimated equivalent peanut protein was also evaluated. Safety was assessed through clinical reporting of adverse reactions, retrospective assessment of severity of reaction symptoms, epinephrine use, and diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis. Results: Of the 76 patients, 82% reached maintenance therapy. The 31 patients who achieved a high daily maintenance dose for at least 1 year completed a desensitization challenge; 94% demonstrated clinical tolerance. All patients challenged with equivalent doses of alternative peanut products were tolerant. The most common adverse symptoms were gastrointestinal symptoms (43%); 5 patients (6.6%) received treatment with epinephrine, and 1 patient (1.3%) was diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis. Conclusions: A volume-based approach using store-bought peanut powder can be implemented in clinical practice for oral desensitization in pediatric patients with peanut allergy. Although mild adverse symptoms are common, patients can tolerate transitions between peanut products, and some tolerate desensitization challenge, allowing for limited dietary consumption.

Indexed as

adverse reactionsdesensitizationeffectivenessequivalency challengefood allergyoral immunotherapyPeanut allergypeanut oral immunotherapypediatricssafety

Identifiers

PMID42017175
PMCPMC13094430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.