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

IF 4 2区 医学 Q2 ALLERGY Clinical and Translational Allergy Pub Date : 2025-03-02 DOI:10.1002/clt2.70045
Péter Csonka, Bohee Lee, Ilari Kuitunen
{"title":"Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Péter Csonka,&nbsp;Bohee Lee,&nbsp;Ilari Kuitunen","doi":"10.1002/clt2.70045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Food allergies pose a global healthcare challenge, underscoring the need for effective interventions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergen desensitisation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials by searching Ovid EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus in April 2024. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the clinical effectiveness and harms of EPIT, reporting results as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>After screening 460 abstracts and 35 full reports, 11 were included: nine on peanuts and two on cow's milk (CM). Peanut EPIT had a 51.2% treatment response versus 22.4% for placebo (RR 2.16, CI 1.49–3.12; four studies; moderate certainty). The RR for milk EPIT response rate was 1.78 (CI 1.06–3.00; one study). Five peanut studies (1396 patients) reported EPIT-related adverse events (RR 1.39, CI 0.94–2.05; low certainty).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>EPIT offers a moderate treatment response with a favourable safety profile and significant improvements in quality of life. Current knowledge of EPIT remains limited, with evidence confined to peanut and CM allergies. There is a lack of research on sustained unresponsiveness achieved through food EPIT.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10334,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Allergy","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/clt2.70045","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clt2.70045","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Food allergies pose a global healthcare challenge, underscoring the need for effective interventions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergen desensitisation.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials by searching Ovid EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus in April 2024. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the clinical effectiveness and harms of EPIT, reporting results as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

After screening 460 abstracts and 35 full reports, 11 were included: nine on peanuts and two on cow's milk (CM). Peanut EPIT had a 51.2% treatment response versus 22.4% for placebo (RR 2.16, CI 1.49–3.12; four studies; moderate certainty). The RR for milk EPIT response rate was 1.78 (CI 1.06–3.00; one study). Five peanut studies (1396 patients) reported EPIT-related adverse events (RR 1.39, CI 0.94–2.05; low certainty).

Conclusions

EPIT offers a moderate treatment response with a favourable safety profile and significant improvements in quality of life. Current knowledge of EPIT remains limited, with evidence confined to peanut and CM allergies. There is a lack of research on sustained unresponsiveness achieved through food EPIT.

Abstract Image

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
食物过敏是一个全球性的卫生保健挑战,强调需要有效的干预措施。本研究评估了表皮免疫疗法(EPIT)对食物过敏原脱敏的有效性和安全性。方法通过检索Ovid EMBASE、PubMed和Scopus,于2024年4月对随机对照试验进行系统评价。采用随机效应荟萃分析,我们评估了EPIT的临床疗效和危害,并以95%置信区间(CI)的风险比报告结果。结果筛选460篇摘要和35篇完整报道,最终纳入11篇:9篇花生,2篇牛奶。花生EPIT治疗有效率为51.2%,安慰剂为22.4% (RR 2.16, CI 1.49-3.12;四个研究;温和的确定性)。牛奶EPIT反应率的RR为1.78 (CI 1.06-3.00;一项研究)。5项花生研究(1396例患者)报告了epit相关不良事件(RR 1.39, CI 0.94-2.05;低确定性)。结论:EPIT提供了一个中等的治疗反应,具有良好的安全性和显著的生活质量改善。目前对EPIT的了解仍然有限,证据仅限于花生和CM过敏。缺乏通过食品EPIT实现的持续无反应性的研究。
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
Clinical and Translational Allergy
Clinical and Translational Allergy Immunology and Microbiology-Immunology
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
117
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Allergy, one of several journals in the portfolio of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, provides a platform for the dissemination of allergy research and reviews, as well as EAACI position papers, task force reports and guidelines, amongst an international scientific audience. Clinical and Translational Allergy accepts clinical and translational research in the following areas and other related topics: asthma, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, drug hypersensitivity, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic skin diseases, atopic eczema, urticaria, angioedema, venom hypersensitivity, anaphylaxis, food allergy, immunotherapy, immune modulators and biologics, animal models of allergic disease, immune mechanisms, or any other topic related to allergic disease.
期刊最新文献
Real-Life Safety of Japanese Cedar Pollen Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets: A Post-Marketing Survey. Adult-Onset Compared to Childhood-Onset Asthma: Multifaceted Symptoms, Comorbidity, and Healthcare Burden. Issue Information Importance of Smell Loss to Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: Options for Management and Recovery Real-World Effectiveness of Mepolizumab in Patients With Chronic Rhinosinusitis With Nasal Polyps: Findings From the European CRS Outcome Registry (CHRINOSOR)
×
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:604180095
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