TY - JOUR
T1 - Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy
T2 - The con argument
AU - Fiocchi, Alessandro
AU - Artesani, Maria Cristina
AU - Fierro, Vincenzo
AU - Riccardi, Carla
AU - Dahdah, Lamia
AU - Mennini, Maurizio
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr. Fiocchi reports currently sponsored research by Danone/Nutricia, the Netherlands, Sanofi/Regeneron, U.S.A., Hipp, Germany, Ferrero, Italy. He is on advisory boards of Danone, Stallergenes, France, Menarini, Italy, Abbott, U.S.A., DBV, U.S.A. - France, Novartis, Switzerland, and Hipp. Dr. Mennini is on advisory board of Biogaia, Sweden.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Authors
PY - 2020/8
Y1 - 2020/8
N2 - Background: In some countries of the world, peanut allergy represents an important source of anaphylactic reactions. Traditionally treated with the avoidance of responsible allergens, this condition can also be targeted by oral peanut immunotherapy. Methods: In this study, we review the beneficial and side effects of currently available forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT). We report the discussions resulting from the publication of a meta-analysis that brought to light the downsides of oral immunotherapy for peanuts. Results: In some clinical situations, the risk-benefit ratio can favor peanut oral immunotherapy over avoidance. In many other situations, this is not the case. The decision must be based on the values and preferences of clinicians and patients. Those not ready to accept serious adverse effects from POIT are likely to continue the elimination diet; those motivated to achieving desensitization, and prepared to accept serious adverse effects, may choose to undergo POIT. Conclusions: Without being prejudiced against peanut oral immunotherapy, we indicate the possible evolution of treatment for this condition is in a rapidly evolving broader scenario. Among the future options, sublingual immunotherapy, parenteral immunotherapy with modified allergens, transcutaneous immunotherapy, and the use of biologics will become important options.
AB - Background: In some countries of the world, peanut allergy represents an important source of anaphylactic reactions. Traditionally treated with the avoidance of responsible allergens, this condition can also be targeted by oral peanut immunotherapy. Methods: In this study, we review the beneficial and side effects of currently available forms of peanut oral immunotherapy (POIT). We report the discussions resulting from the publication of a meta-analysis that brought to light the downsides of oral immunotherapy for peanuts. Results: In some clinical situations, the risk-benefit ratio can favor peanut oral immunotherapy over avoidance. In many other situations, this is not the case. The decision must be based on the values and preferences of clinicians and patients. Those not ready to accept serious adverse effects from POIT are likely to continue the elimination diet; those motivated to achieving desensitization, and prepared to accept serious adverse effects, may choose to undergo POIT. Conclusions: Without being prejudiced against peanut oral immunotherapy, we indicate the possible evolution of treatment for this condition is in a rapidly evolving broader scenario. Among the future options, sublingual immunotherapy, parenteral immunotherapy with modified allergens, transcutaneous immunotherapy, and the use of biologics will become important options.
KW - Efficacy
KW - Oral immunotherapy
KW - Peanut allergy
KW - Quality of life
KW - Safety
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091209915&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85091209915&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100445
DO - 10.1016/j.waojou.2020.100445
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85091209915
SN - 1939-4551
VL - 13
JO - World Allergy Organization Journal
JF - World Allergy Organization Journal
IS - 8
M1 - 100445
ER -