Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy

Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy

(Review)

Nurmatov U, Venderbosch I, Devereux G, Simons FER, Sheikh A

This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library2012, Issue 9

http://www.thecochranelibrary.com

Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (Review)

Copyright © 2012 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

http://www.thecochranelibrary.com

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1HEADER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20DATA AND ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20ADDITIONAL TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

23HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23CONTRIBUTIONS OF AUTHORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24SOURCES OF SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PROTOCOL AND REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iAllergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (Review)


[Intervention Review]

Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy

Ulugbek Nurmatov1, Iris Venderbosch2, Graham Devereux3, F Estelle R Simons4, Aziz Sheikh5

1Allergy & Respiratory Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.2Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands. 3Department of Child Health, Royal Aberdeen Children’s

Hospital, The University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 4Department of Pediatrics & Child Health; Department of Immunology, Faculty

of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. 5Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh,

Edinburgh, UK

Contact address: Aziz Sheikh, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Doorway 3,

Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK. [email protected].

Editorial group: Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group.

Publication status and date: New, published in Issue 9, 2012.

Review content assessed as up-to-date: 13 April 2012.

Citation: Nurmatov U, Venderbosch I, Devereux G, Simons FER, Sheikh A. Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD009014. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009014.pub2.


A B S T R A C T

Background

Peanut allergy is one of the most common forms of food allergy encountered in clinical practice. In most cases, it does not spontaneously

resolve; furthermore, it is frequently implicated in acute life-threatening reactions. The current management of peanut allergy centres

on meticulous avoidance of peanuts and peanut-containing foods. Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy (OIT) for peanut allergy

aims to induce desensitisation and then tolerance to peanut, and has the potential to revolutionise the management of peanut allergy.

However, at present there is still considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of this approach.

Objectives

To establish the effectiveness and safety of OIT in people with IgE-mediated peanut allergy who develop symptoms after peanut

ingestion.

Search methods

We searched in the following databases: AMED, BIOSIS, CAB, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, Google

Scholar, IndMed, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, MEDLINE, PakMediNet and TRIP. We also searched registers of on-going and

unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or controlled clinical trials involving children or adults with clinical features indicative

of IgE-mediated peanut allergy treated with allergen-specific OIT, compared with control group receiving either placebo or no treatment,

were eligible for inclusion.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently checked and reviewed titles and abstracts of identified studies and assessed risk of bias. The full text

of potentially relevant trials was assessed. Data extraction was independently performed by two reviewers with disagreements resolved

through discussion.

1Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (Review)


mailto:[email protected]

Main results

We found one small RCT, judged to be at low risk of bias, that enrolled 28 children aged 1 to 16 years with evidence of sensitisation

to peanut and a clinical history of reaction to peanut within 60 minutes of exposure. The study did not include children who had

moderate to severe asthma or who had a history of severe peanut anaphylaxis. Randomisation was in a 2:1 ratio resulting in 19 children

being randomised to the intervention arm and nine to the placebo arm. Intervention arm children received OIT with peanut flour and

control arm participants received placebo comprising of oat flour. The primary outcome was assessed using a double-blind, placebo

controlled oral food challenge (OFC) at approximately one year. No data were available on longer term outcomes beyond the OFC

conducted at the end of the study.

Because of adverse events, three patients withdrew from the intervention arm before the completion of the study. Therefore, only 16

participants received the full course of peanut OIT, whereas all nine patients receiving placebo completed the trial. The per-protocol

analysis found a significant increase in the threshold dose of peanut allergen required to trigger a reaction in those in the intervention

arm with all 16 participants able to ingest the maximum cumulative dose of 5000 mg of peanut protein (which the authors equate as

being equivalent to approximately 20 peanuts) without developing symptoms, whereas in the placebo group they were able to ingest

a median cumulative dose of 280 mg (range: 0 to 1900 mg, P < 0.001) before experiencing symptoms. Per-protocol analyses also

demonstrated that peanut OIT resulted in reductions in skin prick test size (P < 0.001), interleukin-5 (P = 0.01), interleukin-13 (P =

0.02) and an increase in peanut-specific immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) (P < 0.01).

Children in the intervention arm experienced more adverse events during treatment than those in the placebo arm. In the initial day

escalation phase, nine (47%) of the 19 participants initially enrolled in the OIT arm experienced clinically-relevant adverse events

which required treatment with H1-antihistamines, two of which required additional treatment with epinephrine (adrenaline).

Authors’ conclusions

The one small RCT we found showed that allergen-specific peanut OIT can result in desensitisation in children, and that this is

associated with evidence of underlying immune-modulation. However, this treatment approach was associated with a substantial risk

of adverse events, although the majority of these were mild. In view of the risk of adverse events and the lack of evidence of long-

term benefits, allergen-specific peanut OIT cannot currently be recommended as a treatment for the management of patients with IgE-

mediated peanut allergy. Larger RCTs are needed to investigate the acceptability, long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of safer

treatment regimens, particularly in relation to the induction of clinical and immunological tolerance.

P L A I N L A N G U A G E S U M M A R Y

Oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy

Allergy to peanut can result in potentially life-threatening reactions and, on occasions, death. Unlike many other forms of food allergy,

allergy to peanut is typically life-long. There is currently no cure for peanut allergy and people with this allergy must constantly be

careful to avoid accidentally eating peanut or peanut-containing foods. If a person with a peanut allergy accidentally ingests peanut,

he or she may develop serious allergic reactions necessitating emergency treatment with epinephrine (adrenaline).

The overall goal of allergen-specific oral immunotherapy (OIT) for peanut allergy is to reduce and, if possible, eliminate the risk

of further reactions associated with exposure to peanuts. Most people who have reactions to peanut have an immediate type (also

sometimes known as IgE-mediated) reaction in which symptoms typically develop within minutes of exposure to peanut protein and

it is for this group that allergen-specific OIT is a potential treatment approach. It is not considered suitable for those who experience

more delayed (also sometimes known as non-IgE mediated) reactions. Treatment involves giving people with peanut allergy very small

doses of peanut protein by mouth and gradually increasing the amount being administered (the build-up phase). Once the desired

dose has been achieved, this is followed by the patient taking the same dose of peanut every day for a set period of time (maintenance

phase). As giving doses of peanut to someone with a peanut allergy has the potential to introduce allergic reactions, participants’ safety

needs to be carefully monitored during studies of peanut OIT.

We found one small trial undertaken in 28 children aged 1 to 16 years with confirmed peanut allergy. The study did not include children

who had moderate to severe asthma or who had had severe anaphylaxis (a severe allergic reaction that may result in death) because

of their peanut allergy. The authors randomised children to intervention or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. Intervention arm children received

peanut flour whereas control arm participants received oat flour. The 48-week trial showed that treatment with peanut OIT enabled

children receiving OIT to substantially increase the amount of peanut flour they ate in comparison with those in the placebo arm



without having an allergic reaction. However, almost half of the children (nine out of 19) receiving OIT had an allergic reaction due to

the OIT which required antihistamines, and two had more serious reactions to the treatment which required adrenaline (epinephrine).

Although promising, based on the findings of this one small trial, we cannot recommend that peanut OIT be used routinely for

people with peanut allergy. There is a need for further larger studies investigating safer OIT regimens and establishing the long-term

effectiveness of OIT after treatment is stopped.

B A C K G R O U N D

Description of the condition

Peanut allergy is one of the most common food allergies in west-

ernised countries affecting, for example, up to 1.8% of young

children in the United Kingdom (Hourihane 2007) and approx-

imately 1% of children and 0.6% of adults in North America

(Sicherer 2010b). The prevalence of challenge-proven peanut al-

lergy was 3.0% in Australian infants (Osborne 2011). The preva-

lence of peanut allergy may (Mullins 2009; Sicherer 2010a) or

may not (Ben-Shoshan 2009; Kotz 2011) be increasing.

Of the eight major allergenic proteins in peanut, the components

Ara h1 and Ara h2 (particularly the latter) are the most impor-

tant predictors of clinical symptoms on exposure (de Leon 2007;

Nicolaou 2010).

IgE antibody-mediated allergic reactions to peanut involve specific

sensitisation of tissue mast cells and blood basophils by the binding

of IgE to the high-affinity IgE receptors on these cells. On re-

exposure, peanut proteins bind to the IgE antibody specific to them

and this triggers the release of histamine, tryptase and a variety

of other inflammatory mediators (Burks 2008). Symptoms of an

acute allergic reaction typically develop within minutes to a few

hours after peanut ingestion. Severity is unpredictable and ranges

from mild skin symptoms (e.g. hives, flushing), gastrointestinal

symptoms (e.g. vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhoea), to severe

or fatal anaphylaxis involving obstruction of the upper or lower

airways and respiratory distress and/or cardiovascular collapse (

Burks 2008; Simons 2011; Soar 2008 ).

There is currently no disease-modifying treatment or cure for

peanut allergy (Sheikh 2010). Current management involves strict

avoidance of peanut in all forms, including the minute quan-

tities present in many packaged foods, as well as more obvious

sources such as desserts, cookies and candies. Accidental expo-

sures occur annually in more than 15% of patients at risk (Clark

2008; Yu 2006). The quality of life of affected people and their

caregivers can be substantially reduced due to fear of incorrect

food choices, ingestion of food containing hidden allergens, and

the ever-present threat of anaphylaxis (Akeson 2007; King 2009;

Cummings 2010).

Pharmacological treatment of peanut allergy involves teaching

patients and caregivers to recognise symptoms of anaphylaxis

(Gallagher 2011), to promptly use an epinephrine (adrenaline)

auto-injector, and to activate emergency medical services (Simons

2009).

Clinical peanut allergy is typically life-long (Sicherer 2007). Ther-

apeutic interventions that provide permanent protection against

unintentional peanut ingestion are therefore needed. Two decades

ago, placebo-controlled trials of subcutaneous immunotherapy

in patients with clinical peanut allergy showed promising re-

sults, but there was an unacceptably high rate of adverse events

(Oppenheimer 1992; Nelson 1997). Peanut oral immunotherapy

(OIT) has been studied recently in patients with clinical peanut

allergy, building on an approach successfully used more than a cen-

tury ago to desensitise a child with egg allergy (Schofield 1908).

In peanut OIT, incremental doses of peanut protein are admin-

istered to carefully selected patients in physician-monitored, con-

trolled clinical settings. Up-dosing in such settings is interspersed

with periods of maintenance dosing at home (Burks 2008; Sicherer

2010b). The initial aim however is to provide clinical desensitisa-

tion - i.e. to increase the threshold dose of exposure to peanut, and

reduce the risk of allergic reactions from unintentional ingestion

of peanut. The ultimate aim is to produce clinical and immuno-

logic tolerance through down-regulation of the Th2 response to

peanut that will endure irrespective of whether a previously clini-

cally reactive patient continues to eat peanut on a regular basis or

does not eat peanut at all (Clark 2009; Jones 2009).

There are different types/regimens of OIT protocols (e.g. rush,

slow). In peanut OIT, peanut allergen can be delivered in a range

of forms (e.g. crushed roasted peanuts, peanut flour and whole

peanut kernels) and is swallowed thereby facilitating contact of

the allergen with the gastro-intestinal mucosa.

Three non-randomised open studies of peanut OIT have been

published to-date (Blumchen 2010; Clark 2009; Jones 2009) and

the findings from these have been synthesised in an earlier system-

atic review (Sheikh 2012). Although at inherently high risk of bias,

these studies suggested that peanut OIT may achieve desensitisa-

tion. For example, in one study, peanut OIT resulted in clinical

desensitisation (defined as the ability to tolerate 3.9 g of peanut

protein during an oral food challenge) for 27 of the 29 children



who completed at least eight months of treatment. Down-regula-

tion of the Th2 response to peanut was also documented: by 6 to

12 months, the size of the peanut skin prick test (SPT) decreased,

basophil activation by peanut decreased, and cytokine production

from peripheral blood mononuclear cells stimulated with peanut

was modulated and by 12 to 18 months, peanut specific IgE de-

creased and peanut specific IgG4 increased (Jones 2009). These

studies also demonstrated the high risk of adverse events associated

with OIT.

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of peanut

OIT are now ongoing. Important questions that need to be ad-

dressed before such an approach can be considered for routine clin-

ical use include issues to do with the effectiveness and cost-effec-

tiveness of OIT and the need to better appreciate the risks associ-

ated with treatment and how these can be minimised (Thyagarajan

2010).

Description of the intervention

As early as 1908, Schofield’s case report suggested that OIT can

lead to desensitisation in those with egg allergy (Schofield 1908).

Over the last hundred years, there has been considerable use of

immunotherapy, but the majority of this relates to the manage-

ment of people with allergic rhinitis who have pollen and other

inhalant allergies. It is typically delivered through the subcu-

taneous route and, more recently, by sublingual administration

(Calderon 2011a; Calderon 2011b; Radulovic 2010). Two decades

ago, small placebo-controlled trials of subcutaneous immunother-

apy in peanut allergy were undertaken. Although the results were

in some respects promising, the frequency of adverse events was

high (Oppenheimer 1992; Nelson 1997). OIT is now being in-

vestigated as an effective safer mode of immunotherapy in people

with peanut allergy.

Recent studies using oral (and sublingual) immunotherapy appear

to be promising. OIT is in particular of considerable interest as

a possible treatment for peanut allergy (Sheikh 2010). The aim

of treatment is initially to desensitise patients to peanut allergen,

which by increasing the threshold dose of exposure, reduces the

risk of reactions resulting from accidental ingestion whilst on treat-

ment (Burks 2008). The ultimate aim is to induce a state of cure

or tolerance, i.e. following the completion of OIT, allowing peo-

ple to eat peanut whenever they want and in whatever quantity

they want without developing symptoms. There is early evidence

that OIT can induce significant longer-term humoral and cellular

changes, which are suggestive of the development of immunolog-

ical tolerance (Clark 2009; Jones 2009).

How the intervention might work

OIT involves the administration of initially very small doses (usu-

ally micro or milligrams) of food allergen to food-allergic patients

in a controlled clinical setting. The dose of the administered food

allergen is then systematically increased until a maximum toler-

ated dose of food allergen is achieved (Jones 2009). Regular dos-

ing with this maximal dose is then maintained at home by the

patient. Successful desensitisation is thought to induce immuno-

logical tolerance by generating allergen specific IL-10 secreting

Tr1 and/or TGF-secreting Th3 regulatory T-cells (Sicherer 2006;

Moneret-Vautrin 2011). OIT is intended for patients with IgE-

mediated peanut allergy. Mechanisms of non-IgE mediated food

allergy are less well understood and currently OIT is not an ap-

propriate form of treatment for non-IgE mediated disease.

Why it is important to do this review

OIT is a treatment approach that has the potential to revolutionise

the management of people with peanut allergy. However, at present

there is still considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness and

safety of this approach (Sheikh 2010). There is therefore a need to

systematically identify, critically appraise and summarise available

evidence on the benefits and harms associated with OIT for the

management of people with peanut allergy.

O B J E C T I V E S

To determine the effectiveness and safety of OIT in people with

IgE-mediated peanut allergy. In this context, effectiveness means

that a patient who is sensitised to peanut and was previously un-

able to tolerate ingestion of peanut without developing symptoms

within minutes or hours, is, after undergoing peanut OIT, able

to ingest peanut and tolerate it without developing any clinical

symptoms.

M E T H O D S

Criteria for considering studies for this review

Types of studies

We were primarily interested in randomised controlled trials

(RCTs). However, anticipating a limited number of RCTs in this

area, we also planned to include studies using quasi-RCT and con-

trolled clinical trial (CCT) designs. Our working definition for

these designs are:

• RCTs: All participants are allocated at random (e.g. random

number generation, coin flips).

• Quasi-RCTs: The intervention is allocated in a way that is

not truly random: for example, allocation by birth, day of the

week, month of the year.



• CCTs: Trials that contains at least two groups, one which

receives the treatment and one which acts as a comparison group.

The comparison group receives placebo/no treatment other than

usual care.

Types of participants

We were interested in studies conducted in children or adults

with confirmed peanut allergy. For the purposes of this review,

peanut allergy was defined as a history of systemic clinical symp-

toms within minutes to hours after the ingestion of peanut in

those with objective evidence of sensitisation to peanut protein

(Sicherer 2010b). Objective evidence of sensitisation consisted of

an elevated serum peanut-specific IgE (ImmunoCAP) level (using

cut-points defined by the centre/study) or a positive skin prick test

(SPT) response to peanut, where this was defined as a wheal of ≥3

mm than that produced by the saline control.

Types of interventions

We were interested in studies investigating peanut OIT compared

either with a placebo group, an alternative way of administering

desensitisation therapy or treatment with a peanut avoidance con-

trol group. We did not include studies which investigated OIT in

combination with another treatment if the effect of OIT could

not be evaluated independently from the additional treatment.

Types of outcome measures

We consider outcomes measured at any time period during or

after treatment. We only included studies which assessed either

one or both of our primary outcomes of interest, but we did not

restrict studies to those with pre-/post-intervention double-blind,

placebo-controlled oral food challenge (OFC) (Plaut 2009).

Primary outcomes

Our primary outcome measures of interest were:

• Increase in the amount of peanut that can be ingested and

tolerated while receiving OIT (i.e. evidence of desensitisation)

• Complete recovery from peanut allergy after completion of

OIT whether or not peanut is eaten (i.e. induction of

immunologic tolerance).

Secondary outcomes

Our secondary outcome measures of interest were:

• Changes in generic and disease specific quality of life

• Satisfaction (patients and carers)

• Frequency and severity of further reactions

• Adverse events

• Drop-outs

• Impact on co-morbidities

• Medication use

• Health care utilisation

• Cost-effectiveness

• Immunological changes suggestive of the induction of

tolerance (e.g. decreased peanut-specific IgE, increased peanut

specific IgG4, and modulation of cytokine production from

peanut-stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells).

Search methods for identification of studies

We conducted systematic searches for RCTs, quasi-RCTs and

CCTs regardless of language, geographical area or publication sta-

tus. The date of the last search of all databases was 21 January

2011.

Electronic searches

We searched the following databases: AMED, BIOSIS, CAB,

CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health,

Google Scholar, IndMed, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, MED-

LINE, PakMediNet, and TRIP. We restricted our searches to the

period 1990 to 2012, as peanut OIT was not studied prior to

1990.

MEDLINE search strategies are detailed in Appendix 1 and the

search strategies used for other databases are found in Appendix

2. We combined subject search strategies with adaptations of the

highly sensitive search strategy designed by the Cochrane Col-

laboration for identifying randomised controlled trials and con-

trolled clinical trials (as described in the Cochrane Handbook Ver-

sion 5.1.0., Box 6.4.b, Higgins 2011).

Searching other resources

In order to identify unpublished and ongoing work we searched

key relevant internet-based databases: Current Controlled Tri-

als (http://www.controlled-trials.com); ClinicalTrials.gov (http://

www.clinicaltrials.gov); and Australian New Zealand Clinical Tri-

als Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au). We contacted experts in

the field for information on ongoing and unpublished work (Table

1). We also searched the references of all studies identified by the

above methods.

Data collection and analysis

Selection of studies

Two reviewers (UN and IV) independently reviewed the titles and

abstracts retrieved during the search process and selected all stud-

ies that potentially satisfied our inclusion criteria. Both review-

ers (UN and IV) then independently assessed the full text copies



http://www.controlled-trials.com




http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/



http://www.anzctr.org.au



of these potentially eligible studies against the inclusion criteria.

Disagreements were resolved through discussion between UN and

IV and AS arbitrated in instances where an agreement was not

reached. For a PRISMA diagram of study selection, see Appendix

3.

Data extraction and management

We collected included study details using a form designed for this

purpose. Two reviewers (UN and IV) only included data if there

was an independently reached consensus. If no agreement was

reached, a third reviewer (AS) arbitrated.

The following data were, where available, independently extracted

from the included study:

• Trial methods

• Country and setting

• Participants (N, mean age, age range)

• Description of intervention

• Outcome measures (primary and secondary)

• Study withdrawal

• Adverse events.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

Risk of bias was assessed and documented following the domain-

based evaluation described in the Cochrane Handbook for SystematicReviews of Interventions 5.1.0 (Higgins 2011). We compared the

evaluations and discussed and resolved any inconsistencies and

disagreements. We assessed the following domains as low, high, or

unclear risk of bias:

• Random sequence generation

• Allocation concealment

• Blinding of participants and personnel

• Blinding of outcome assessment

• Incomplete outcome data

• Selective reporting

• Other bias.

Data synthesis

Due to finding only one included study, we were unable to perform

meta-analysis in this review. Had sufficient data been available, we

planned to use Review Manager for data analysis and quantitative

data synthesis. For dichotomous data, we planned to calculate

individual and pooled statistics as relative risks (RR) with 95%

confidence intervals (CI). For continuous data, we planned to

calculate individual and pooled statistics as mean differences (MD)

and/or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI. We

planned to conduct meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model.

Quantitative analyses of outcomes are, wherever possible, on an

intention to treat basis. If we had found sufficient studies, we

would have assessed evidence of publication bias graphically using

Funnel plots and statistically using Begg and Egger tests (Begg

1994; Egger 1997).

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

We planned to considerthe appropriateness of meta-analysis in the

presence of significant clinical or statistical heterogeneity. In future

iterations of this review, relevant heterogeneity will be tested for

using the I2 statistic and significant heterogeneity assumed if I2 is

greater than 40% (i.e. more than 40% of the variability in outcome

between trials could not be explained by sampling variation).

In future updates of this review, if data allow, we plan to undertake

subgroup analyses in relation to:

• Isolated peanut allergy vs. multiple food allergies

• Oral immunotherapy regimen (rush vs. standard)

• Duration of treatment

• Time since completion of treatment.

Sensitivity analysis

We did not find sufficient studies to conduct sensitivity analyses.

We planned to undertake sensitivity analyses for the allocation of

missing data by best and worst case analysis, and also to undertake

a sensitivity analysis on the basis of only including studies judged

to be at low risk of bias. We also planned to undertake sensitivity

analysis using random effects modelling, comparing the pooled

estimates with those derived from undertaking fixed-effect meta-

analysis.

Systematic review protocol

The methods used in this review were specified in advance and

documented in a protocol which has been published (Nurmatov

2011).

R E S U L T S

Description of studies

See: Characteristics of included studies; Characteristics of excluded

studies; Characteristics of ongoing studies.

Results of the search

Our searches identified a total of 746 titles, 16 of which we selected

for more detailed interrogation. See Appendix 3 for a study flow

diagram.



Included studies

We found one small, US-based RCT (Varshney 2011) that en-

rolled 28 children aged 1 to 16 years: 19 in the intervention arm

and nine in the placebo arm. Subjects were patients with a clini-

cal history of peanut allergy and evidence of allergic sensitisation

to peanut protein. The active treatment was peanut flour, com-

pared with a placebo of oat flour. Patients with a history of severe

peanut anaphylaxis, moderate-to-severe persistent asthma, poorly

controlled atopic dermatitis, oat allergy (due to use as placebo)

or inability to discontinue antihistamines for a short period of

time were excluded from the study population. The average length

of oral immunotherapy (OIT) was 48 weeks: the initial day es-

calation phase lasted two days; the dose escalation period (with

home dosing and build-up visits) lasted approximately 44 weeks

and the maintenance phase lasted approximately four weeks. A

double-blind, placebo controlled oral food challenge (OFC) was

conducted at week 48. Adverse events were recorded and peanut-

specific IgE, IgG and IgG4 were measured. Secreted cytokine as-

says and T-cell analyses were conducted in subsets of patients.

See Characteristics of included studies for further details.

Excluded studies

We excluded 15 of the 16 studies we identified from screening,

as they did not meet our specified inclusion criteria. Eight stud-

ies were either case series or open trials without a control group

(Anagnostou 2011; Blumchen 2010; Buchanan 2006; Clark 2009;

Jones 2009; Moneret-Vautrin 2010; Nash 2008; Wassermann

2010), two were case reports (Aruanno 2009; Mansfield 2006),

two studied forms of immunotherapy other than OIT (Bird 2010;

Kim 2011), and three did not report either of our primary out-

comes (Hofmann 2009 and Weldon 2011 reported only on safety,

and Thyagarajan 2008 reported only immunological outcomes).

See Characteristics of excluded studies for further information.

Ongoing studies

Searches of clinical trials registries revealed eight studies of peanut

OIT for which results had yet to be published. Five of these

eight studies were RCTs: NCT00815035 and NCT01324401

compare OIT with placebo and OIT with control, respec-

tively; NCT01084174 compares OIT with sublingual im-

munotherapy; NCT00932282 compares two lengths of treat-

ment with a combination of anti-IgE therapy and OIT; and

ACTRN12608000594325 studies the combination of a probi-

otic and OIT, with the intervention group receiving OIT and a

probiotic and the control group receiving the same probiotic and

placebo OIT. Further details can be found in Characteristics of

ongoing studies.

Risk of bias in included studies

The one included RCT (Varshney 2011) was judged to be at low

risk of bias in all domains. Further details of the risk of bias as-

sessment can be found in the Characteristics of included studies

table.

Effects of interventions

Effectiveness of OIT on increasing peanut threshold

dose

During the initial day of treatment escalation, 26 out of 28 (93%)

individuals reached the maximum cumulative dose of 12mg of

peanut protein (equivalent to approximately 1/25th of a peanut)

or placebo. Two patients in the intervention arm did not reach

the 1.5 mg dose and were therefore deemed initial day escalation

failures.

Because of adverse events, three patients withdrew from the inter-

vention arm (i.e. the two escalation day failures and one additional

patient); only 16 participants therefore received the full course of

peanut OIT. All nine patients in the placebo arm completed the

trial. In those who completed the study, there was a significant

increase in the threshold dose of peanut allergen required to trig-

ger a reaction in those in the intervention arm compared to those

in the placebo arm at the 48 week OFC. All 16 participants who

received the full course of active treatment were able to ingest the

maximum cumulative dose of 5000 mg (reported by the authors

as equivalent to approximately 20 peanuts), compared to a me-

dian cumulative dose of 280 mg in the placebo group (range: 0 to

1900; P < 0.001), which equates to approximately one peanut.

Adverse events

Forty-seven per cent (n = 9) of subjects in the intervention arm

experienced clinically relevant adverse events during initial day

escalation. No placebo subjects had clinically relevant symptoms

during initial day escalation. During the build-up phase, peanut

OIT subjects had clinically relevant symptoms after 1.2% of 407

build-up doses. One subject treated with peanut OIT experienced

mild gastrointestinal symptoms during up-dosing. During home

dosing, one placebo group subject experienced adverse events, but

no further details about the nature of these symptoms were given.

At OFC, one peanut OIT-treated subject experienced mild up-

per respiratory symptoms and moderate urticaria. In the placebo

treated group, eight subjects experienced clinically relevant symp-

toms: one had gastrointestinal symptoms and oral pruritus and a

further three subjects had more severe symptoms, but no further

details about the nature of these reactions of these were available.



Medication use

Nine (47%) of the OIT subjects received antihistamine treatment

during initial day escalation and two of these subjects required

epinephrine. None of the placebo subjects required treatment dur-

ing initial day escalation. During build-up dosing, none of the sub-

jects required medication. No detailed information about other

medication use during this phase was given. During home dosing,

one of the children in the placebo group required treatment with

epinephrine. During OFC, one of the peanut OIT treated sub-

jects required antihistamines. Three of the placebo group subjects

required treatment with epinephrine during OFC. No further de-

tails were given about the reason for the use of epinephrine.

Titrated skin prick test (SPT)

In the peanut OIT group, the titrated SPT size decreased from a

median of 7 mm (range: 5.5 to 15 mm) at baseline to 1.75 mm

(range: 0 to10 mm) by the time of the OFC, which was performed

after four weeks of maintenance therapy. In the placebo group,

there was a smaller reduction in the titrated SPT size from 7 mm

(range; 5.5 to 13 mm) at baseline to 4 mm (range: 0 to 12.5 mm)

at OFC.

Changes in peanut-specific IgE

Peanut-specific IgE was measured at the beginning of the study

and then at two, six and nine months and at OFC. The median

baseline peanut IgE levels in the peanut OIT and placebo groups

were 104 kU/L (range; 31 to 685 kU/L) and 57 kU/L (range;

20 to 188 kU/L), respectively (P = 0.02). After two months, the

median peanut-specific IgE of peanut OIT subjects increased to

308 kU/L (P < 0.01). At OFC, median peanut-specific IgE was

not significantly different from baseline. Placebo subjects showed

no changes.

Changes in peanut-specific IgG4

Peanut-specific IgG4 significantly increased from baseline at all

time-points in peanut OIT treated subjects, but did not change

in placebo subjects (P < 0.001).

Other immunological changes

Peanut OIT treated subjects had an initial increase in specific-IgE

(P < 0.01), but did not show any significant changes from baseline

by the time of the OFC.

Cytokines and T-cell parameters were measured at baseline, nine

months, and at the time of OFC in eight peanut subjects and nine

placebo subjects who had cultured peripheral blood mononuclear

cells (PBMCs) at these time points. At nine months and OFC, IL-

5 and IL-13 were significantly decreased from baseline in peanut

OIT subjects (P < 0.03). There was a transient increase in TGF-

β levels in peanut OIT subjects at 9 months (P = 0.03), but levels

returned to baseline by the time of the OFC. In placebo arm

subjects, there was no change in IL-5, IL-13 or TGF-β. There was

no significant change found in IL-10 or IFN-γ in either peanut

OIT or placebo subjects.

Drop-outs

Two subjects in the peanut OIT treated arm did not reach the

1.5 mg dose and therefore did not continue the study. During

the build-up phase, one additional peanut OIT subject withdrew

from the study after the first dose escalation because of mild gas-

trointestinal symptoms precluding further up-dosing.

Other outcomes

No other outcomes specified in the protocol were reported in the

included study.

D I S C U S S I O N

Summary of main results

This review identified one small RCT at low risk of bias. This

RCT demonstrated that it is possible to induce desensitisation in

children treated with allergen-specific peanut OIT, enabling a sub-

stantial increase in the amount of peanut to be safely consumed

whilst receiving OIT. There was a significant increase in threshold

dose of peanut allergen tolerated by children after peanut OIT; in

the intervention group, the children ingested the maximum cumu-

lative dose of 5000 mg (equivalent to approximately 20 peanuts),

whereas in the placebo group the mean amount of peanut allergen

ingested was 280 mg (range, 0 to 1900 mg, P < 0.001). Treat-

ment was associated with relevant immune-modulatory changes

suggesting that OIT may have longer-term benefits, but data were

not available on induction of tolerance. However, adverse events

associated with treatment were common and in some cases these

reactions were severe, raising important concerns about the safety

of the OIT regimen employed in this trial. There is no evidence

on the cost-effectiveness of this treatment approach. Concerns

around safety and cost-effectiveness mean that although OIT for

peanut allergy should at present be regarded as a promising line of

enquiry, it is not as yet appropriate for incorporating into clinical

care.

Overall completeness and applicability ofevidence



Although the evidence identified in this review is consistent with

that reported in our earlier systematic review of peanut OIT case

series (Sheikh 2012), the only rigorous evidence on this subject

comes from one small eligible RCT in children (Varshney 2011).

There is therefore at present only limited evidence to inform care

provision and, given the concerns about safety, the applicability of

this evidence is limited. We found no evidence in relation to the

management of adults.

Quality of the evidence

The one included trial was well-conducted, but it was small and

involved children from only two centres (Varshney 2011), limiting

its external validity.

Potential biases in the review process

We have undertaken comprehensive searches of a range of data

sources. That said, there remains the possibility that we may have

failed to uncover some potentially eligible studies. We are not

aware of any other sources of bias in the review process.

Agreements and disagreements with otherstudies or reviews

The findings from our systematic review are broadly consistent

with other reviews on this subject (Fisher 2011; Sheikh 2012),

which suggest that whilst desensitisation can be achieved through

peanut OIT there is at present no evidence in relation to the

induction of tolerance. In a Phase I trial from the USA (Weldon

2011), 24 subjects aged 5 to 45 years old received 3777 doses of

OIT. Twenty-one out of 24 patients reported reactions; 85 per cent

of those were mild and resolved with antihistamines (abdominal

pain 28%, oropharyngeal pruritus 27% and lip pruritis 11%) and

three reactions were severe and resolved with epinephrine.

A U T H O R S ’ C O N C L U S I O N S

Implications for practice

Peanut OIT represents a promising, potentially disease-modifying

therapeutic approach for the management of IgE-mediated peanut

allergy. However, currently there is insufficient evidence in terms

of long-term effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of peanut

OIT to recommend its routine use in clinical practice.

Implications for research

Further research is needed to better establish the effectiveness, sa-

fety, and cost-effectiveness of allergen-specific peanut OIT. In

particular, future trials need to establish whether clinical and im-

munologic tolerance can successfully be achieved after OIT is dis-

continued, and to understand the impact of treatment on the qual-

ity of life of patients and relevant family members. There is also

a need to ensure that the full age spectrum of patients affected by

peanut allergy is reflected in future trials. The results of on-going

trials will, in the future, shed light on long-term oral immune tol-

erance issues in subjects with IgE-mediated peanut allergy.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

We wish to thank to the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Gov-

ernment for their funding our previous grant “Establishing the ef-

fectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of oral desensitisation for

food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention

studies” (CZG/2/493).

We also thank Managing Editors from the Cochrane Tobacco

Addiction Group, Dr. Monaz Mehta, Lindsay Stead and Jamie

Hartmann-Boyce for their assistance during the review process.

R E F E R E N C E S

References to studies included in this review

Varshney 2011 {published data only}

Varshney P, Jones S, Scurlock AM, Perry TT, Kemper A,

Steele P, et al.A randomized controlled study of peanut oral

immunotherapy: clinical desensitization and modulation

of the allergic response. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology 2011;127:654–60.

References to studies excluded from this review

Anagnostou 2011 {published data only}

Anagnostou K, Clark A, King Y, Islam S, Deighton J,

Ewan P. Efficacy and safety of high-dose peanut oral

immunotherapy with factors predicting outcome. Clinical

& Experimental Allergy 2011;41(9):1273–81.

Aruanno 2009 {published data only}

Aruanno A, Nucera E, et al.Oral specific desensitisation

in food allergy and loss of tolerance after interruption of

the maintenance phase: five case reports. Allergy 2009;64

(Suppl.90):167.

Bird 2010 {published data only}

Bird JA, Pons L, Kulis M, Kemper AR, Laubach S, Kim



E, et al.Double-blinded placebo controlled sublingual

immunotherapy (SLIT) trial for peanut allergy. Journal ofAllergy and Clinical Immunology 2010;125(2):AB20–78.

Blumchen 2010 {published data only}

Blumchen K, Ulbricht H, Staden U, Dobberstein K,

Beschomer J, Lopes de Oliveira LC, et al.Oral peanut

immunotherapy in children with peanut anaphylaxis.

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2010;126:83–91.

Buchanan 2006 {published data only}

Buchanan A, Scurlock AM, Jones SM, Christie L, Althage

KM, Pons L, et al.Oral desensitization and induction of

tolerance in peanut-allergic children. Journal of Allergy andClinical Immunology 2006;117:S327.

Clark 2009 {published data only}

Clark AT, Islam S, King Y, Deighton J, Anagnostou K,

Ewan PW. Successful oral tolerance induction in severe

peanut allergy. Allergy 2009;64(8):1218–20.

Hofmann 2009 {published data only}

Hofmann AM, Scurlock AM, Jones SM, Palmer KP,

Lokhnygina Y, Steele PH, et al.Safety of a peanut oral

immunotherapy protocol in children with peanut allergy.

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2009;124(2):

286–91.

Jones 2009 {published data only}

Jones SM, Pons L, Roberts JL, Scurlock AM, Perry TT,

Kulis M, et al.Clinical efficacy and immune regulation with

peanut oral immunotherapy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Imunology 2009;124(2):292–300.

Kim 2011 {published data only}

Kim EH, Bird JA, Kulis M, Laubach S, Pons L, Shreffler W,

et al.Sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy: clinical

and immunological evidence of desensitization. Journal ofAllergy and Clinical Immunology 2011;127(3):640–6.

Mansfield 2006 {published data only}

Mansfield L. Sussessful oral desensitisation for systemic

peanut allergy. Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology2006;97(2):266–7.

Moneret-Vautrin 2010 {published data only}

Moneret-Vautrin DA, Petit N, Parisot L, Dumont P,

Morisset M, Beadouin E, et al.Efficiency and safety of oral

immunotherapy protocols in peanut allergy: Pilot study on

51 patients. Revue Française d’Allergologie et d’Immunologie

Clinique 2010;50(5):434–42.

Nash 2008 {published data only}

Nash SD, Steele PH, Kamilaris JS, Pons L, Kulis MD, Lee

LA, et al.Oral immunotherapy for children with peanut

allergy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical immunology 2008;

121:S136.

Thyagarajan 2008 {published data only}

Thyagarajan A, Jones SM, Pons L, Kulis M, Smith PB,

Steele PH, et al.Immunoglobulin changes using different

dosing regimens of peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT)

in peanut allergic patients. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology 2008;125(2):AB21.

Wassermann 2010 {published data only}

Wassermann RL, Mansfield LE, Gallucci AR, Hutteman

HR, Ruvalcaba AM, Long NA, et al.Office based oral

desensitization of patients with anaphylactic sensitivity to

foods is safe and effective. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology 2010;125:AB59(233).

Weldon 2011 {published data only}

Weldon B, Yu G, Neale-May S, Hunter TT, Nadeau K.

THe safety of peanut oral immunotherapy in peanut allergic

subjects in a single center trial. Journal of Allergy and

Clinical Immunology 2011;127(2):AB25.

References to ongoing studies

ACTRN12608000594325 {unpublished data only}

Study of the effectiveness of Probiotics and Peanut Oral

Immunotherapy (P-POIT) in inducing desensitisation or

tolerance in children with peanut allergy. Ongoing study

December 2008.

NCT00598039 {unpublished data only}

Oral Peanut Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergic Patients.

Ongoing study March 2003.


Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy. Ongoing study

June 2009.


Peanut Oral Immunotherapy and Anti-IgE for Peanut

Allergy. Ongoing study July 2009.


A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot

Study of Sublingual/Oral Immunotherapy for the Treatment

of Peanut Allergy. Ongoing study March 2010.


Efficacy and Safety of High-dose Peanut Oral

Immunotherapy With Factors Predicting Outcome.

Ongoing study Jan 2008.


Peanut Oral Immunotherapy (OIT) - Initial Pilot Study in

Adults. Ongoing study Dec 2010.


Oral Peanut Immunotherapy. Ongoing study March 2011.

Additional references

Akeson 2007

Akeson N, Worth A, Sheikh A. The psychosocial impact of

anaphylaxis on young people and their parents. Clinical and

Experimantal Allergy 2007;37(8):1213–20.

Begg 1994

Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank

correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50(4):

1088–101.

Ben-Shoshan 2009

Ben-Shoshan M, Kagan RS, Alizadehfar R, Joseph L,

Turnbull E, St Pierre Y, et al.Is the prevalence of peanut

allergy increasing? A 5-year follow-up study in children in



Montreal. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2009;

123(4):783–8.

Burks 2008

Burks AW. Peanut allergy. Lancet 2008;371:1538–46.

Calderon 2011a

Calderon MA, Penagos M, Sheikh A, Canonica GW,

Durham SR. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic

conjunctivitis: Cochrane systematic review and meta-

analysis. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 2011;41(9):

1263–72.

Calderon 2011b

Calderon MA, Boyle RJ, Penagos M, Sheikh A.

Immunotherapy: The meta-analysis. What have we

learned?. Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America2011;31(2):159–73.

Clark 2008

Clark AT, Ewan PW. Good prognosis, clinical features, and

circumstances of peanut and tree nut reactions in children

treated by a specialist allergy center. Journal of Allergy andClinical Immunology 2008;122(2):286–9.

Cummings 2010

Cummings AJ, Knibb RC, Erlewyn-Lajenesse M, King RM,

Roberts G, Lucas JSA. Management of nut allergy influences

quality of life and anxiety in children and their mothers.

Pediatric Allergy and Immunology 2010;21:586–94.

de Leon 2007

de Leon MP, Rolland JM, O’Hehir RE. The peanut allergy

epidemic: Allergen molecular characterisation and prospects

for specific therapy. Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine

2007;9(1):1–18.

Egger 1997

Egger M, Smith GD, Phillips AN. Meta-analysis: principles

and procedures. BMJ 1997;315(7121):1533–7.

Fisher 2011

Fisher HR, du Toit G, Lack G. Specific oral tolerance

induction in food allergic children: is oral desensitisation

more effective than allergen avoidance. Archives of Disease

in Childhood 2011;96:259–64.

Gallagher 2011

Gallagher M, Worth A, Cunningham-Burley S, Sheikh

A. Epinephrine auto-injector use in adolescents at risk of

anaphylaxis: a qualitative study in Scotland, UK. Clinicaland Experimental Allergy 2011;41(6):869–77.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook forSystematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated

March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011, available

from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Hourihane 2007

Hourihane JO, Aiken R, Briggs R, Gudgeon LA, Grimshaw

KE, DunnGalvin A, et al.The impact of government advice

to pregnant mothers regarding peanut avoidance on the

prevalence of peanut allergy in United Kingdom children at

school entry. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

2007;119:1197–202.

King 2009

King RM, Knibb RC, Hourihane JO’B. Impact of peanut

allergy on quality of life, stress and anxiety in the family.

Allergy 2009;64(3):461–8.

Kotz 2011

Kotz D, Simpson CR, Sheikh A. Incidence, prevalence,

and trends of general practitioner-recorded diagnosis of

peanut allergy in England, 2001-2005. Journal of Allergyand Clinical Immunology 2011;127(3):623–30.

Moneret-Vautrin 2011

Moneret-Vautrin DA. Sublingual and oral immunotherapy

for food allergy: outcome and immunological modifications.

Review Francaise D’Allergologie 2011;51:286–294.

Mullins 2009

Mullins RJ, Dear KBG, Tang MLK. Characteristics of

childhood peanut allergy in the Australian Capital Territory,

1995 to 2007. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

2009;123(3):689–93.

Nelson 1997

Nelson HS. Treatment of anaphylactic sensitivity to peanuts

by immunotherapy with injections of aqueous peanut

extract. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 1997;99

(6 Pt 1):744–51.

Nicolaou 2010

Nicolaou N, Poorafshar M, Murray C, Simpson A, Winell

H, Kerry G, et al.Allergy or tolerance in children sensitized

to peanut: prevalence and differentiation using component-

resolved diagnostics. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology 2010;125(1):191–7.

Nurmatov 2011

Nurmatov U, Venderbosch I, Devereux G, Simons FE,

Sheikh A. Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. Cochrane

Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 2. [DOI:

10.1002/14651858.CD009014]

Oppenheimer 1992

Oppenheimer JJ, Nelson HS, Bock SA, Christensen

F, Leung DY. Treatment of peanut allergy with rush

immunotherapy. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology1992;90(2):256–62.

Osborne 2011

Osborne NJ, Koplin JJ, Martin PE, Gurrin LC, Lowe AJ,

Matheson MC, et al.Prevalence of challenge-proven IgE-

mediated food allergy using population-based sampling

and predetermined challenge criteria in infants. Journal of

Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2011;127:668–76.

Plaut 2009

Plaut M, Sawyer RT, Fenton MJ. Summary of the 2008

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases-

US Food and Drug Administration Workshop on Food

Allergy Clinical Trial Design. Journal of Allergy and ClinicalImmunology 2009;124(4):671–8.

Radulovic 2010

Radulovich S, Calderon MA, Wilson D, Durham S.

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis. Cochrane



Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 12. [DOI:

10.1002/14651858.CD002893.pub2]

Schofield 1908

Schofield AT. A Case of Egg Poisoning. Lancet 1908;171:

716.

Sheikh 2010

Sheikh A, Venderbosch I, Nurmatov U. Oral

immunotherapy for peanut allergy. BMJ 2010;340:c2938.

Sheikh 2012

Sheikh A, Nurmatov U, Venderbosch I, Bichoff E. Oral

immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy:

systematic review of six case series studies. Primary Care

Respiratory Journal 2012;21(1):41–9.

Sicherer 2006

Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy. Journal of Allergyand Clinical Immunology 2006;117(2):S470–475.

Sicherer 2007

Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Peanut allergy: emerging

concepts and approaches for an apparent epidemic. Journalof Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2007;120(3):491–503.

Sicherer 2010a

Sicherer SH, Munoz-Furlong A, Godbold JH, Sampson

HA. US prevalence of self-reported peanut, tree nut, and

sesame allergy: 11-year follow-up. Journal of Allergy and

Clinical Immunology 2010;125(6):1322–6.

Sicherer 2010b

Sisherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy. Journal of Allergyand Clinical Immunology 2010;125(2 Suppl 2):S116–25.

Simons 2009

Simons FER. Anaphylaxis: recent advances in assessment

and treatment. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

2009;124(4):625–36.

Simons 2011

Simons FE, Ardusso LR, Bilo MB, El-Gamal YM, Ledford

DK, Ring J, et al.World Allergy Organization anaphylaxis

guidelines: Summary. Journal of Allergy and Clinical

Immunology 2011;127(3):587-93, e1-22.

Soar 2008

Soar J, Pumphrey R, Cant A, Clarke S, Corbett A, Dawson

P, et al.Emergency treatment of anaphylactic reactions-

guidelines for healthcare providers. Working Group of

the Resuscitation Council (UK). Resuscitation 2008;77(2):

157–69.

Thyagarajan 2010

Thyagarajan A, Varshney P, Jones SM, Sicherer S, Wood R,

Vickery BP, et al.Peanut oral immunotherapy is not ready

for clinical use. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology2010;126(1):31–2.

Yu 2006

Yu JW, Kagan R, Verreault N, Nicolas N, Joseph L, St Pierre

Y, et al.Accidental ingestions in children with peanut allergy.

Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2006;118(2):

466–72.∗ Indicates the major publication for the study



C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F S T U D I E S

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Varshney 2011

Methods Randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Setting: University health centres, USA

Participants 28 children aged 1 to 16 years from local allergy and immunology clinics or surrounding

community physician offices (19 intervention, 9 control). Av. age 7 years

Inclusion criteria: clinical history of reaction to peanut within 60min of ingestion; peanut

CAP-FEIA >15 kU/L or >7 kU/L if a significant reaction occurred within 6m of enrol-

ment; positive skin prick test

Excluded if: history of severe peanut anaphylaxis; moderate to severe persistent asthma;

poorly controlled atopic dermatitis; oat allergy; or inability to discontinue antihistamines

during OFC or skin testing

Interventions Oral immunotherapy for approx. 48wks (home dosing/build-up visits approx. 44wks;

maintenance phase approx. 4wks; OFC at wk 48)

Active = peanut flour; placebo = oat flour

Initial day escalation phase: Day 1: dosing started at 0.1 mg peanut protein or placebo,

approx. doubled every 30min until 6 mg reached/subject had symptoms. Day 2: Dosing

began at highest tolerated dose during day 1

Home dosing: Children instructed to ingest each dose mixed in a food vehicle daily

Dose escalations: Every 2 wks, doses increased 50 - 100% until 75 mg dose, 25-33% until

400 mg maintenance dose reached

Maintenance phase: Ingest 400 mg dose daily for 1m

Outcomes Double-blind, placebo controlled OFC (increasing doses of peanut or oat flour every 10

to 20mins up to cumulative dose of 5000 mg); adverse events; peanut-specific IgE, IgG,

and IgG4; secreted cytokine assays and T-cell analyses in subset of participants

Notes Small sample size

Participants followed up after wk 48, investigating long-term immune tolerance (data

not yet available)

Risk of bias

Bias Authors’ judgement Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection

bias)

Low risk “A randomization table was generated to

assign subjects in a 2:1 ratio to receive

peanut flour or placebo”

Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk “Allocation was performed before enrol-

ment and saved in a locked database acces-

sible only by laboratory personnel to keep

clinical staff and subjects unaware of up-



Varshney 2011 (Continued)

coming assignments”

Blinding of participants and personnel

(performance bias)

All outcomes

Low risk “Investigators, subjects, and families re-

mained blind to the assigned intervention

as well laboratory studies until completion

of the food challenge”

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection

bias)

All outcomes

Low risk “Challenges were administered by a nurse

or physician who was also blind to testing

materials”

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)

All outcomes

Low risk Final data excludes 3 participants from

treatment group who were removed from

the study before completion due to adverse

events

Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk All prespecified outcomes reported

m: month; min: minute; OFC: oral food challenge; OIT: oral immunotherapy; wk(s): week(s)

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study Reason for exclusion

Anagnostou 2011 Open trial without a control group

Aruanno 2009 Case reports

Bird 2010 Sublingual immunotherapy (not a study of OIT)

Blumchen 2010 Case series

Buchanan 2006 Case series

Clark 2009 Open trial without a control group

Hofmann 2009 Immunological outcomes only (tolerance and desensitisation not measured)

Jones 2009 Case series

Kim 2011 Sublingual immunothertapy (not a study of OIT)

Mansfield 2006 Case report



(Continued)

Moneret-Vautrin 2010 Open trial without a control group

Nash 2008 Case series

Thyagarajan 2008 Immunological outcomes only (tolerance and desensitisation not measured)

Wassermann 2010 Case series

Weldon 2011 Safety analysis only (tolerance and desensitisation not measured)

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

ACTRN12608000594325

Trial name or title Study of the effectiveness of Probiotics and Peanut Oral Immunotherapy (P-POIT) in inducing desensitisation

or tolerance in children with peanut allergy

Methods Randomized controlled trial

Participants Approx. 90 children aged 1 to 10 with confirmed diagnosis of peanut allergy and no history of severe

anaphylaxis to peanut

Interventions Intervention: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) + peanut OIT

Control: LGG + placebo OIT

LGG: 2x10E10 daily for 18m

OIT: 18m. Modified rush phase: increasing doses, starting at 0.1 mg peanut protein, doubling every 30min

to reach dose of 12 mg of peanut protein. Build-up phase: daily dose starting at 24 mg, increased every 2wks

until dose of 2 g is reached (expected to take 8m). Dose then maintained at 2 g for approx 10m. Same for

placebo OIT

Outcomes Primary: increase in tolerance by combining peanut OIT with probiotics

Secondary: Desensitisation, immunologic changes

Starting date December 2008

Contact information A/Prof Mimi Tang: [email protected]

Notes Expected completion date not specified



NCT00598039

Trial name or title Oral Peanut Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergic Patients

Methods Safety/efficacy study, open label, no control group

Participants Approx. 40 subjects 1 to 16 years old with diagnosed peanut allergy. Subjects with history of severe anaphylaxis

to peanut excluded

Interventions Peanut OIT (open intervention), no further details provided

Outcomes Primary: Double-blind, placebo controlled OFC and second food challenge 1m after being off of peanut

Secondary: IgE to peanut decrease below a level of 2

Starting date March 2003

Contact information Contact information not provided. PI: Wesley Burks, MD, Duke University

Notes Est. study completion date July 2012

NCT00815035

Trial name or title Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy

Methods Randomized, double-blind, crossover safety/efficacy study

Participants Approx. 60 participants aged 1 to 6 years with presence of peanut-specific IgE and history of significant

clinical symptoms occurring within 60mins of ingesting peanuts. Participants excluded if they have history

of severe anaphylaxis to peanut

Interventions Intervention: Peanut OIT

Control 1: Placebo OIT

Control 2: No treatment

Peanut OIT and placebo: modified rush immunotherapy on day 1 followed by daily dose with increase in

dose at least every 2 wks up to maintenance dose of 4 g

Outcomes Primary: lower risk of anaphylactic reactions, long-term tolerance

Secondary: molecular level effect on humoral activity/response

Starting date June 2009

Contact information Contact information not provided. PI: Wesley Burks, MD, Duke University

Notes Est. completion date Nov 2013



NCT00932282

Trial name or title Peanut Oral Immunotherapy and Anti-IgE for Peanut Allergy

Methods Randomized, open label safety/efficacy study

Participants Approx. 10 subjects aged 12 or older with peanut-specific IgE and history of clinical symptoms occurring

within 60mins of peanut ingestion. Participants with history of severe anaphylaxis to peanut not included

Interventions Peanut OIT + omalizumab (anti-IgE): 12m vs 24m maintenance therapy

4m omalizumab treatment before peanut OIT, omalizumab continued until 1m post maintenance therapy.

Initial desensitization phase over 2d to goal of 950 mg peanut powder followed by build up phase over 4m

to goal maintenance dose of 8000 mg peanut powder

Outcomes Primary: Tolerate a dose of 20gm peanut flour during OFC

Secondary: Incidence of adverse events during initial escalation and build up phase

Starting date July 2009

Contact information [email protected]; [email protected]

Notes Est. completion date July 2014

NCT01084174

Trial name or title A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study of Sublingual/Oral Immunotherapy for the

Treatment of Peanut Allergy

Methods Randomized, double-blind, parallel assignment safety/efficacy study

Participants 30 subjects aged 6 to 21 with clinical history of peanut allergy, confirmed by peanut specific IgE and skin

prick test

Interventions Active sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for peanut allergy + placebo peanut OIT vs active peanut OIT +

placebo SLIT

SLIT and OIT dose increases for 16wks, then daily maintenance dose for 12m

Outcomes Primary: 10 fold increase in tolerance

Secondary: Adverse events, changes in clinical and mechanistic endpoints, peanut tolerance


Contact information Contact information not provided, PI: Robert Wood, MD, Johns Hopkins University

Notes Est. completion date Jan 2012



NCT01259804

Trial name or title Efficacy and Safety of High-dose Peanut Oral Immunotherapy With Factors Predicting Outcome

Methods Open pilot study, no control group

Participants 22 children with peanut allergy aged 7-17

Interventions Peanut OIT: gradual updosing with every 2 wks (8-38wks) to 800 mg protein (5 peanuts/day); then 30wks

maintenance

Outcomes Primary: Pass/fail peanut challenge

No secondary outcomes listed

Starting date Jan 2008

Contact information Contact information not provided. PI: Andrew T. Clark, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of

Cambridge

Notes Est. completion date Jan 2012

NCT01274429

Trial name or title Peanut Oral Immunotherapy (OIT) - Initial Pilot Study in Adults

Methods Open label, no control group

Participants Approx. 20 adults aged 18 to 50 with diagnosis of peanut allergy or clinical history of peanut allergy, positive

SPT, and peanut-specific IgE. Subjects with severe anaphylaxis to peanut excluded

Interventions Peanut OIT (no control).

Begins with modified rush (0.1 mg of peanut protein, dose doubled every 30min up to 6 mg peanut protein)

. Dose given daily, escalation visits every 2wks. Maintenance phase starts at 2300 mg, taken daily

Outcomes Primary: lower risk of anaphylactic reactions in adults, long-term tolerance

Secondary: molecular level effect on humoral activity/response in adults

Starting date Dec 2010


Notes Est. completion date Sept 2014



NCT01324401

Trial name or title Oral Peanut Immunotherapy

Methods Randomized, open-label, parallel-assignment safety/efficacy study of clinical symptoms after ingestion of

peanuts

Participants 32 subjects 7 to 12 years old with diagnosis of peanut allergy via skin prick test and history. Excludes

participants with history of severe anaphylactic reaction to peanut requiring treatment with 2+ administrations

of epinephrine or hospitalisation

Interventions Intervention: Peanut OIT, daily escalating dosages as determined in modified rush phase, escalated until daily

dose of 4000 mg is reached

Control: No treatment

Outcomes Primary: tolerance

Secondary: desensitisation; adverse events



Notes Est. completion date August 2012

OIT: oral immunotherapy; m: month; min: minutes; wk(s): week(s)



D A T A A N D A N A L Y S E S

This review has no analyses.

A D D I T I O N A L T A B L E S

Table 1. List of experts contacted

Name of author Country

Dr. Egidio Barbi Italy

Dr. Kirsten Beyer Germany

Prof. Wesley Burks USA

Dr. Andrew T Clark UK

Dr. Ernesto Enrique Spain

Dr. Mansouri Iran

Dr. Paolo Meglio Italy

Professor Moneret-Vautrin DA France

Dr. Martine Morisset France

Prof. Bodo Niggemann Germany

Prof. Giovanni Pajno Italy

Prof. G Patriarca Italy

Dr. Lydia Zapatero Remon Spain

Dr. Fernandez-Rivas Spain

Prof. Robert A Wood USA



A P P E N D I C E S

Appendix 1. Medline search strategy

Nr. Search term

1 Peanut Hypersensitivity (MESH)

2 Peanut allerg*

3 Peanut-allergic

4 Arachis hypogaea allergy

5 Food allergy

6 Food hypersen*

7 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 OR 5 OR 6

8 Desensitization, immunologic (MESH)

9 Desensiti*

10 Immunotherapy (MESH)

11 Immunotherapy

12 Oral immunotherapy

13 Oral desensiti*

14 Rush immunotherapy

15 Specific oral tolerance induction

16 8 OR 9 OR 10 OR 11 OR 12 OR 13 OR 14 OR 15

17 Analytical stud*

18 Intervention studies (MESH)

19 Experimental stud*

20 Etiology

21 Trial

22 Clinical trial (MESH)



(Continued)

23 Clinical trial

24 Controlled clinical trial

25 Uncontrolled trial

26 Randomized controlled trial (MESH)

27 Randomi* controlled trial

28 Quasi-randomi* controlled trial

29 Non-randomi* trial

30 Placebos (MESH)

31 Random allocation (MESH)

32 Double-blind method (MESH)

33 Double-blind design

34 Single-blind method

35 Random*

36 Controlled before after design

37 Interrupted time series

38 Case series

39 17 OR 18 OR 19 OR 20 OR 21 OR 22 OR 23 OR 24 OR 25 OR 26 OR 27 OR 28 OR 29 OR 30 OR 31 OR 32 OR 33

OR 34 OR 35 OR 36 OR 37 OR 38

40 7 AND 16 AND 39

Appendix 2. Other databases search strategy

Search terms for (The Cochrane Library, LILACS, TRIP, CINAHL, ISI Web of Science, BIOSIS, PakMediNet, IndMed, Google

Scholar) 1990-2012

(peanut allergy or arachis hypogaea or legume* or nut allergy or food hypersensitivity or food allergy)

AND

(immunologic, desensiti* or immunotherapy or oral immunotherapy or oral desensiti* or specific oral tolerance induction or oral

tolerance induction)

AND

(intervention stud* or experimental stud* or trial or clinical trial* or controlled clinical trial or random* or randomi* controlled trial

or quasi randomi* or non randomi* or random allocation or single blind method or double blind method or triple blind method)



Appendix 3. PRISMA flow diagram of study selection

Figure 1

Figure 1. PRISMA search flow diagram. Top level does not include searches that returned no results

(AMED, PakMediNet, IndMed, LILACS).

H I S T O R Y

Protocol first published: Issue 2, 2011

Review first published: Issue 9, 2012

C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F A U T H O R S

UN developed the protocol, undertook searches, study selection, critical appraisal and drafting the review. IV developed the protocol,

undertook searches, study selection, critical appraisal and commented on drafts of the review. GD helped with the design of the review

protocol and commented on drafts of the final review. FER helped with the drafting the review protocol and commented on drafts

of the review manuscript. AS conceived this review, oversaw all aspects of the development of the protocol and the conducting of the

review and commented on drafts of this review.



D E C L A R A T I O N S O F I N T E R E S T

None known.

S O U R C E S O F S U P P O R T

Internal sources

• No sources of support supplied

External sources

• Chief Scientist’s Office of the Scottish Government, UK.

D I F F E R E N C E S B E T W E E N P R O T O C O L A N D R E V I E W

In the protocol, we implied but did not clearly specify that this review was focused on studying allergen-specific OIT; the title and

background have now been revised to better reflect the focus of this work. We have removed a reference from the protocol (Li 2001).



Date post:	18-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy

Documents