ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2026
Cassava oral immunotherapy in cassava-latex allergy: A pilot study.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cassava allergy is rare; however, because of the cross-reactivity of cassava with latex, it is clinically significant, affecting patient safety and quality of life. Oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been studied for use in patients with allergy to foods such as milk, egg, and peanut, but no studies have evaluated its use in patients with allergy to cassava. Objective: Our aim was to conduct a pilot study evaluating the feasibility, safety, and immunologic effects of a cassava OIT protocol in patients with IgE-mediated cassava and latex allergy. Methods: We conducted a prospective longitudinal study involving 5 patients. The OIT protocol included a hospital-based induction phase (weekly escalation until tolerance to 100 g of cooked cassava had been achieved) and a 6-month home-based maintenance phase. Skin prick test results and specific IgE/IgG4 levels in response to latex and its components were evaluated at baseline and after maintenance, as were the results of latex use tests after maintenance. Results: All 5 patients reached the 100-g target in induction (a 100% success rate). After 6 months, 3 patients (60%) maintained full desensitization, with the remaining 2 experiencing a reduction of tolerance to 10 g. Adverse reactions were mostly mild (oropharyngeal pruritus and cough) and managed with antihistamines; no epinephrine use was required. Skin prick test wheal sizes in response to cassava decreased after OIT. No significant changes in IgE and IgG4 levels in response to latex occurred. The results of latex use testing were negative in 3 of 4 patients tested. Conclusion: This pilot study suggests that cassava OIT is a feasible and safe strategy for inducing desensitization in patients with casava allergy. We observed a suggestive signal of improved clinical tolerance to latex in some patients following therapy; however, the lack of a baseline latex challenge precludes definitive conclusions regarding cross-desensitization. These preliminary findings support the need for larger, controlled trials to confirm efficacy and further investigate this potential cross-reactive benefit
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.