SynthesisCurrent opinion in allergy and clinical immunology2025
Re-evaluating treatment success in trials of peanut oral-immunotherapy: impact of different definitions on efficacy outcomes.
Synthesis in Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Eating away at food allergy.Pediatric allergy and immunology : official publication of the European Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · 2025Review
- Advances in Shellfish Allergy Therapy: From Current Approaches to Future Strategies.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewAllergen immunotherapy (AIT) is increasingly popular as a treatment strategy for food allergy. Unfortunately, there is significant heterogeneity in reported outcomes, specifically in the dose-thresholds selected for evaluation and the symptoms used to define a "tolerated dose". These considerations are often investigator-driven and do not consider patient perspectives. RECENT
findingsA systematic review by the EAACI CO-FAITH taskforce recently flagged the need to better standardize and harmonize outcomes used in clinical trials of food-AIT. Using less objective symptoms to define dose-limiting symptoms can underestimate the reaction threshold determined at baseline food challenge. As a consequence, this can overestimate the efficacy of food-AIT by 15%. In this review, we perform an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis using data from three randomized-controlled trials and one real-world registry, to evaluate how the definition of dose "tolerance" impacts upon reported desensitization rates. SUMMARY: This analysis provides insight into how clinical efficacy rates for food-AIT are impacted by using different dose thresholds and definitions for when a dose might be consider tolerated. Using more patient-centric outcomes may be a more useful metric to harmonize reporting of outcomes and inform clinical practice, paving the way towards reaching a consensus on outcome reporting in trials of food-AIT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.