Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2025
Re-evaluating treatment success in trials of peanut oral-immunotherapy: impact of different definitions on efficacy outcomes.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Berkes Stefanie, Liddell Klara, Beyer Kirsten, Blumchen Katharina, Deschildre Antoine, Kukkonen Kaarina, Mäkelä Mika J, Patel Nandinee, Turner Paul J
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Allergen 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 FINDINGS: A 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.
RECENT FINDINGS: A 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.