The safety and efficacy of oral immunotherapy compared to epicutaneous immunotherapy in peanut allergen desensitisation amongst the paediatric cohort-a narrative review.
{"title":"The safety and efficacy of oral immunotherapy compared to epicutaneous immunotherapy in peanut allergen desensitisation amongst the paediatric cohort-a narrative review.","authors":"Ehtesam A Chowdhury, Olivia C Jadeja","doi":"10.3389/falgy.2025.1613237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peanut allergies result from a type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, with a prevalence of approximately 1% in children under 5 years of age. The allergens that instigate this reaction are the peanut proteins (Ara h 1-Ara h 8) for which IgE antibodies are specifically produced. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), despite the uncertainty regarding its mode of action, has been increasingly utilised with the aim of desensitisation against these allergens. AIT encompasses various modes of administration, including epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) and oral immunotherapy (OIT). The review adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with a comprehensive literature search conducted using databases including MEDLINE®, Embase™, PubMed®, and Google Scholar™. Search terms targeted OIT and EPIT in the desensitisation and management of peanut allergy in children, with studies spanning the past 20 years included based on predefined eligibility criteria. The extent of the immunotherapies' efficacy and safety in children is yet to be thoroughly established; however, OIT demonstrated increased desensitisation rates amongst children when compared to EPIT. The long-term efficacy has not been fully established, with sustained unresponsiveness not reported within most studies. Both modes of administration had a high proportion of participants experiencing adverse effects (AEs), with gastrointestinal symptoms more common with OIT and cutaneous reactions with EPIT. Serious AEs were observed less frequently, however, systemic reactions such as anaphylaxis were more apparent with OIT. Future research should focus on peanut EPIT, as the literature was relatively scarce. Furthermore, research studies should assess sustained unresponsiveness to fully gauge the long-term effects of AIT in children.</p>","PeriodicalId":73062,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in allergy","volume":"6 ","pages":"1613237"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12129782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in allergy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2025.1613237","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Peanut allergies result from a type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, with a prevalence of approximately 1% in children under 5 years of age. The allergens that instigate this reaction are the peanut proteins (Ara h 1-Ara h 8) for which IgE antibodies are specifically produced. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), despite the uncertainty regarding its mode of action, has been increasingly utilised with the aim of desensitisation against these allergens. AIT encompasses various modes of administration, including epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) and oral immunotherapy (OIT). The review adheres to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with a comprehensive literature search conducted using databases including MEDLINE®, Embase™, PubMed®, and Google Scholar™. Search terms targeted OIT and EPIT in the desensitisation and management of peanut allergy in children, with studies spanning the past 20 years included based on predefined eligibility criteria. The extent of the immunotherapies' efficacy and safety in children is yet to be thoroughly established; however, OIT demonstrated increased desensitisation rates amongst children when compared to EPIT. The long-term efficacy has not been fully established, with sustained unresponsiveness not reported within most studies. Both modes of administration had a high proportion of participants experiencing adverse effects (AEs), with gastrointestinal symptoms more common with OIT and cutaneous reactions with EPIT. Serious AEs were observed less frequently, however, systemic reactions such as anaphylaxis were more apparent with OIT. Future research should focus on peanut EPIT, as the literature was relatively scarce. Furthermore, research studies should assess sustained unresponsiveness to fully gauge the long-term effects of AIT in children.
花生过敏是由1型超敏反应引起的,在5岁以下儿童中患病率约为1%。引发这种反应的过敏原是花生蛋白(Ara h 1-Ara h 8),专门为其产生IgE抗体。过敏原免疫疗法(AIT),尽管其作用方式的不确定性,已越来越多地用于对这些过敏原脱敏的目的。AIT包括多种给药模式,包括表皮免疫疗法(EPIT)和口服免疫疗法(OIT)。本综述遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,并使用MEDLINE®、Embase™、PubMed®和谷歌Scholar™等数据库进行了全面的文献检索。在儿童花生过敏的脱敏和管理中,针对OIT和EPIT的搜索词包括过去20年的研究,这些研究基于预定义的资格标准。免疫疗法在儿童中的有效性和安全性的程度尚未完全确定;然而,与EPIT相比,OIT显示出儿童的脱敏率增加。长期疗效尚未完全确定,大多数研究中未报告持续无反应。两种给药方式都有很高比例的参与者出现不良反应(ae),胃肠道症状更常见于OIT和EPIT的皮肤反应。严重不良反应的发生率较低,然而,全身反应如过敏反应在OIT中更为明显。由于文献相对较少,未来的研究应侧重于花生EPIT。此外,研究应评估持续无反应,以充分衡量儿童AIT的长期影响。