Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2025-01-02 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02727-6
Xiaohong Xiang, Jingwei Hu, Rangui Sachu, Chonghua Gao, Hongyan Niu, Yi Gao, Shiju Chen, Xiaotian Cui, Xiang Li
{"title":"Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Xiaohong Xiang, Jingwei Hu, Rangui Sachu, Chonghua Gao, Hongyan Niu, Yi Gao, Shiju Chen, Xiaotian Cui, Xiang Li","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02727-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is ongoing debate about the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) in treating food allergies. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EPIT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched international trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov), PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science from the inception of the database until June 25, 2023. Two authors independently screened potential studies based on the following criteria: food allergy, epidermal immunotherapy, and randomized controlled trials(RCTs). The risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. The primary outcomes included desensitization, local adverse events, systemic adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included epinephrine utilization, topical medication utilization, and severe adverse events. We assessed certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies involving 1970 participants were included. Ten high-quality RCTs focusing on peanut allergy and cow's milk allergy were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that EPIT promoted desensitization in patients with food allergy (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.72-2.58; I <sup>2</sup> = 0%, high certainty), particularly in aged ≤ 11 years (RR 3.84, 95% CI 2.39-6.26; I <sup>2</sup> = 34%). Additionally, treatment duration ≥ 52 weeks was found to increase immune tolerance (RR 3.37, 95% CI 2.39-4.75; I <sup>2</sup> = 13%). Patients who undergo EPIT treatment not only raised the local adverse reactions (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.10-2.41; I <sup>2</sup> = 82%, low certainty) but also raised systemic adverse reactions (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01-2.28; I <sup>2</sup> = 0%, high certainty).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>After EPIT treatment, patients with food allergy can effectively increase their immune tolerance to food. However, it also significantly increases mild-to-moderate anaphylaxis. There is limited data on the impact of EPIT on quality of life and other food allergic diseases, indicating a need for further research.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11697646/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02727-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is ongoing debate about the safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) in treating food allergies. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EPIT.

Methods: We systematically searched international trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov), PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science from the inception of the database until June 25, 2023. Two authors independently screened potential studies based on the following criteria: food allergy, epidermal immunotherapy, and randomized controlled trials(RCTs). The risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. The primary outcomes included desensitization, local adverse events, systemic adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included epinephrine utilization, topical medication utilization, and severe adverse events. We assessed certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach.

Results: Ten studies involving 1970 participants were included. Ten high-quality RCTs focusing on peanut allergy and cow's milk allergy were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that EPIT promoted desensitization in patients with food allergy (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.72-2.58; I 2 = 0%, high certainty), particularly in aged ≤ 11 years (RR 3.84, 95% CI 2.39-6.26; I 2 = 34%). Additionally, treatment duration ≥ 52 weeks was found to increase immune tolerance (RR 3.37, 95% CI 2.39-4.75; I 2 = 13%). Patients who undergo EPIT treatment not only raised the local adverse reactions (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.10-2.41; I 2 = 82%, low certainty) but also raised systemic adverse reactions (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01-2.28; I 2 = 0%, high certainty).

Conclusion: After EPIT treatment, patients with food allergy can effectively increase their immune tolerance to food. However, it also significantly increases mild-to-moderate anaphylaxis. There is limited data on the impact of EPIT on quality of life and other food allergic diseases, indicating a need for further research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
表皮免疫疗法治疗食物过敏:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:关于表皮免疫疗法(EPIT)治疗食物过敏的安全性和有效性一直存在争议。系统回顾和荟萃分析旨在评价EPIT的安全性和有效性。方法:从数据库建立到2023年6月25日,我们系统地检索了国际试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov)、PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials (Central)和Web of Science。两位作者根据以下标准独立筛选了潜在的研究:食物过敏、表皮免疫治疗和随机对照试验(rct)。偏倚风险评估采用Cochrane风险-偏倚2 (ROB 2)工具进行。主要结局包括脱敏、局部不良事件、全身不良事件和生活质量。次要结局包括肾上腺素使用、局部药物使用和严重不良事件。我们通过GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。结果:纳入10项研究,涉及1970名受试者。10项高质量的花生过敏和牛奶过敏随机对照试验纳入分析。荟萃分析显示,EPIT促进食物过敏患者的脱敏(RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.72-2.58;i2 = 0%,高确定性),特别是年龄≤11岁(RR 3.84, 95% CI 2.39-6.26;i2 = 34%)。此外,治疗时间≥52周发现免疫耐受增加(RR 3.37, 95% CI 2.39-4.75;i2 = 13%)。接受EPIT治疗的患者不仅提高了局部不良反应(RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.10-2.41;i2 = 82%,低确定性),但也会增加全身不良反应(RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.01-2.28;i2 = 0%,高确定性)。结论:食物过敏患者经EPIT治疗后,可有效提高对食物的免疫耐受。然而,它也显著增加轻至中度过敏反应。关于EPIT对生活质量和其他食物过敏性疾病的影响的数据有限,表明需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids for stroke and traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultra-processed foods and risk of all-cause mortality: an updated systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Using virtual patients to enhance empathy in medical students: a scoping review protocol. Research priority setting for implementation science and practice: a living systematic review protocol. Self-care interventions among women with gestational diabetes mellitus in low and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1