Oral Immunotherapy for IgE-Mediated Food Allergies: A Comprehensive Review of Mechanisms, Protocols, Efficacy, Safety, and Future Directions

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

Oral Immunotherapy (OIT) has emerged as a transformative therapeutic strategy for IgE-mediated food allergies, aiming to fundamentally alter the immune response to specific allergens, thereby inducing desensitization and, in some cases, sustained unresponsiveness. This comprehensive review systematically examines the intricate immunological mechanisms underpinning OIT, meticulously details the structured clinical protocols employed, rigorously evaluates its efficacy and safety profiles across a spectrum of food allergens, elucidates critical patient selection criteria, and underscores the profound commitment required from patients and their families. Furthermore, this report highlights the burgeoning landscape of ongoing research, including advancements in adjunctive therapies and novel delivery methods, and outlines future directions poised to enhance the accessibility, safety, and long-term effectiveness of OIT in clinical practice.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

Food allergies constitute a significant and growing global public health challenge, affecting an estimated 3-10% of the population in industrialized nations, with prevalence rates notably higher in children [1, 2]. These immunological hypersensitivity reactions, primarily mediated by immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies, can manifest with a wide range of symptoms, from mild oral pruritus and dermatological manifestations to severe, life-threatening anaphylaxis [3]. The persistent threat of accidental exposure and the resultant severe reactions profoundly impact the quality of life for affected individuals and their families, imposing substantial physical, psychological, social, and economic burdens [4, 5]. Traditional management strategies have historically revolved around strict allergen avoidance, meticulous label reading, and immediate access to emergency medications, particularly epinephrine auto-injectors, to manage acute reactions [6]. While crucial for safety, these avoidance measures are inherently restrictive, often leading to dietary limitations, social isolation, anxiety, and a constant fear of accidental ingestion, which is known to be a leading cause of fatal and near-fatal allergic reactions [4].

In recent decades, the paradigm of food allergy management has begun to shift from mere avoidance to disease-modifying interventions. Oral Immunotherapy (OIT) represents the forefront of this shift, offering a compelling alternative that seeks to reprogram the allergic individual’s immune system to tolerate the offending food allergen. OIT involves the meticulously controlled and gradual administration of increasing quantities of the specific food allergen, with the ultimate goal of inducing a state of desensitization – a temporary protection against allergic reactions to accidental exposures – and, ideally, sustained unresponsiveness (SU) or remission, wherein the individual can tolerate the allergen even after treatment cessation [7, 8]. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of OIT, delving into its fundamental immunological underpinnings, the intricacies of its clinical implementation, its demonstrable efficacy and associated safety considerations, the critical factors guiding patient selection, the indispensable role of family commitment, and the exciting avenues of ongoing research and future prospects that promise to refine and broaden its therapeutic reach.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Mechanisms of Oral Immunotherapy

Oral Immunotherapy induces a complex array of immunological changes that collectively lead to a reduction in allergic reactivity. The transformation from an allergic, IgE-mediated response to a more tolerant state involves profound shifts in both humoral and cellular immunity, leading to diminished mast cell and basophil activation [5, 9]. Understanding these intricate mechanisms is crucial for optimizing OIT protocols and identifying biomarkers for predicting treatment success and monitoring response.

2.1. Humoral Response Modulation

One of the hallmark changes observed during successful OIT is the modulation of the humoral immune response, primarily involving allergen-specific IgE and IgG4 antibodies [5, 9].

• Allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) Dynamics: In IgE-mediated food allergy, sIgE antibodies bind to high-affinity IgE receptors (FcεRI) on the surface of mast cells and basophils. Upon subsequent allergen exposure, cross-linking of these IgE molecules triggers cellular degranulation and the release of preformed and newly synthesized mediators (e.g., histamine, leukotrienes, prostaglandins, tryptase), leading to allergic symptoms [3]. During the initial phases of OIT, a transient increase in sIgE levels is often observed, which is thought to be a physiological response to repeated allergen exposure. However, as treatment progresses and tolerance is induced, sIgE levels typically decline, often falling below baseline levels, indicating a shift away from an IgE-dominant allergic response [9]. This reduction in sIgE contributes to decreased binding to mast cell and basophil FcεRI, thereby lowering the threshold for degranulation.

• Allergen-specific IgG4 (sIgG4) Upregulation: A critical immunological event in OIT is the significant and sustained upregulation of allergen-specific IgG4 antibodies [5]. Unlike IgE, IgG4 antibodies are generally considered non-anaphylactic. Their proposed roles in desensitization and tolerance include:

  • Blocking Antibodies: sIgG4 antibodies can competitively bind to the allergen, effectively ‘mopping up’ free allergen before it can bind to sIgE molecules on mast cells and basophils. This prevents the cross-linking of IgE and subsequent cellular activation [9].
  • Inhibition of IgE-FcεRI Binding: Some studies suggest that sIgG4 can also directly compete with IgE for binding to IgE-FcεRI complexes on effector cells, further dampening the allergic response [10].
  • Reduced Antigen Presentation: By forming immune complexes with allergens, IgG4 may facilitate their clearance, reducing the amount of allergen available for presentation to T cells [9].

• Allergen-specific IgA (sIgA) Production: Increased production of sIgA, particularly secretory IgA (sIgA) at mucosal surfaces, is also observed [5]. IgA plays a crucial role in mucosal immunity by neutralizing and excluding antigens, including food allergens, from entering the systemic circulation. By forming immune complexes with allergens in the gut lumen, IgA can prevent their absorption and subsequent interaction with the systemic immune system, thus contributing to the establishment of oral tolerance [11].

2.2. T-Cell Response Alteration

Beyond humoral changes, OIT profoundly modifies the cellular immune response, particularly shifting the balance of T-helper (T_H) cell subsets [5, 9].

• Reduction in T-helper 2 (T_H2) Activity: IgE-mediated food allergies are characterized by a predominant T_H2 response, involving the production of key cytokines such as Interleukin-4 (IL-4), Interleukin-5 (IL-5), and Interleukin-13 (IL-13). IL-4 promotes IgE class switching in B cells, IL-5 supports eosinophil activation, and IL-13 contributes to mucus production and airway hyperresponsiveness [3]. OIT leads to a significant reduction in the allergen-specific T_H2 cytokine profile, indicating a dampening of the allergic inflammatory cascade [9].

• Expansion of Regulatory T Cells (Tregs): A central mechanism of OIT-induced tolerance is the expansion and functional enhancement of regulatory T cells (Tregs) [5]. These specialized T cells, typically characterized by the expression of CD4, CD25, and the transcription factor FOXP3 (Forkhead box protein P3), are crucial for maintaining immune homeostasis and preventing autoimmunity and excessive inflammatory responses [12]. In the context of OIT, allergen-specific Tregs proliferate and secrete anti-inflammatory cytokines such as Interleukin-10 (IL-10) and Transforming Growth Factor-Beta (TGF-β) [9].

  • Interleukin-10 (IL-10): IL-10 is a potent immunosuppressive cytokine that directly inhibits T_H1 and T_H2 cytokine production, suppresses antigen presentation by dendritic cells, and can induce anergy in T cells and B cells. It also downregulates FcεRI expression on basophils and mast cells, further contributing to their hyporesponsiveness [13].
  • Transforming Growth Factor-Beta (TGF-β): TGF-β is another pleiotropic cytokine involved in immune regulation, tissue repair, and fibrosis. It can promote IgA class switching, inhibit T_H1 and T_H2 responses, and contribute to the induction of Tregs [14].

• Shift Towards a T_H1 Profile: While Treg expansion is paramount, some studies also suggest a modest shift towards a T_H1-like response, characterized by increased Interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) production. IFN-γ can counterbalance T_H2 responses and is associated with cellular immunity. However, the role of T_H1 in OIT is considered less significant than that of Tregs and IgG4 [9].

2.3. Basophil and Mast Cell Hyporesponsiveness

The changes in humoral and cellular immunity collectively lead to a state of hyporesponsiveness in effector cells, namely basophils and mast cells, which are the primary mediators of immediate allergic reactions [5].

• Reduced Basophil Activation: Basophils, circulating granulocytes that express high levels of FcεRI, play a critical role in allergic reactions. During OIT, a significant reduction in basophil activation, measured by flow cytometry as decreased surface expression of activation markers (e.g., CD63, CD203c) upon allergen stimulation, is observed [9]. This indicates a diminished capacity of basophils to degranulate and release inflammatory mediators, even in the presence of the allergen.

• Decreased Mast Cell Degranulation: Although mast cells are tissue-resident and more challenging to study directly, the observed reduction in skin prick test (SPT) wheal size and the diminished clinical reactivity strongly suggest a parallel decrease in mast cell degranulation [5]. This hyporesponsiveness is attributed to the reduced sIgE binding to FcεRI, the blocking effect of IgG4, and the suppressive influence of regulatory cytokines like IL-10 [15].

These orchestrated immunological modifications transform the allergic individual’s response to food allergens, moving from a hyper-reactive state to one of increased tolerance and reduced clinical symptoms upon allergen exposure. This state of desensitization provides a protective buffer against accidental ingestions, while the goal of sustained unresponsiveness aims for long-term immunological remission [7].

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Protocols of Oral Immunotherapy

OIT protocols are meticulously structured to maximize safety and efficacy, typically progressing through distinct phases that gradually increase allergen exposure [5]. While specific details may vary between allergens, institutions, and individual patient responses, the general framework remains consistent.

3.1. Pre-Treatment Assessment and Screening

Before initiating OIT, a thorough and comprehensive pre-treatment assessment is critical to determine patient suitability, predict potential challenges, and ensure safety. This phase includes:

• Detailed Clinical History: Comprehensive history of allergic reactions, including triggers, symptoms, severity, and prior management (e.g., epinephrine use). Family history of atopy and comorbidities are also assessed [16].
• Diagnostic Testing: Skin prick tests (SPT) and serum specific IgE (sIgE) levels to the implicated food allergen are standard. Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) may be used for specific allergens (e.g., Ara h 2 for peanut allergy) to provide a more refined risk assessment and prognosis [17]. Oral food challenges (OFCs) may be performed to confirm diagnosis and determine the reaction threshold, though this is often avoided if there is a clear history of severe reactions [18].
• Assessment of Comorbidities: Control of conditions such as asthma, eczema, and other allergic disorders is paramount. Uncontrolled asthma, in particular, is a significant risk factor for severe reactions during OIT and must be optimally managed prior to and throughout the treatment course [16].
• Patient and Family Education and Counseling: Extensive education is provided regarding the OIT process, potential risks (especially anaphylaxis), expected side effects, the importance of strict adherence, emergency management, and the significant time and lifestyle commitment required. This ensures shared decision-making and informed consent [19].

3.2. Initial Dose Escalation (Day 1 or Rush Phase)

The initial dose escalation, often referred to as ‘Day 1’ or the ‘Rush Phase’, is typically performed in a highly controlled clinical setting, usually an allergy clinic or hospital, under direct medical supervision [5, 16].

• Objective: To establish the patient’s individual threshold and identify a safe starting dose for home administration.
• Procedure: Patients are administered very small, incrementally increasing doses of the allergen at regular intervals (e.g., 20-30 minutes) over several hours. Vital signs are continuously monitored, and patients are closely observed for any signs or symptoms of an allergic reaction. This phase may last from 4 to 8 hours or even extend over 1-2 days in ‘rush’ protocols [16].
• Reaction Management: Medical staff are readily available to manage any adverse reactions, from mild oral symptoms to severe anaphylaxis, with immediate access to emergency medications, including epinephrine [16].
• Outcome: The session continues until the patient experiences a mild reaction (which then becomes the maximum tolerated dose for that day), or until a predetermined maximum initial dose is achieved without significant reaction. The last tolerated dose, or a slightly lower dose, is then prescribed for daily home consumption to begin the subsequent phase.

3.3. Build-Up Phase (Up-dosing)

Following the initial escalation, the build-up phase involves gradual, regular increases in the daily maintenance dose, typically administered at home, with periodic supervised dose escalations in the clinic [5, 16].

• Frequency of Up-dosing: Up-dosing typically occurs every 1-4 weeks, depending on the specific protocol, allergen, and patient tolerance. Each up-dosing session mirrors the initial escalation in a clinical setting, albeit often with fewer, larger increments. Patients remain in the clinic for observation for a period after the up-dose [16].
• Daily Home Dosing: Between supervised up-dosing sessions, patients consume a consistent daily dose of the allergen at home. This dose is the amount successfully tolerated during the most recent supervised escalation. Precision in dosing is crucial, often requiring specialized measuring tools or pre-portioned formulations [19].
• Monitoring and Adjustment: Patients and families are instructed to monitor for adverse reactions at home and report them to the clinical team. Dosing may be temporarily paused, decreased, or adjusted based on the frequency or severity of reactions. Factors like intercurrent illness, exercise, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can lower the reaction threshold and may necessitate dose adjustments [16, 20].
• Duration: The build-up phase is highly variable, lasting from several months to over a year, depending on the target maintenance dose, the number of dose steps, and individual patient progression and tolerance. For instance, peanut OIT protocols might aim for a maintenance dose equivalent to 300 mg of peanut protein, while milk or egg might target higher amounts [21].

3.4. Maintenance Phase

Once the target maintenance dose is achieved, patients enter the maintenance phase, which involves consistent daily ingestion of this dose for an extended period, typically years [5, 16].

• Objective: To sustain the state of desensitization and allow for continued immunological modulation towards sustained unresponsiveness.
• Dosing: The maintenance dose varies widely depending on the allergen and protocol, often ranging from hundreds to several thousands of milligrams of allergen protein (e.g., 300 mg to 4,000 mg) [21]. Consistency is key; daily ingestion helps maintain the immunological changes achieved. Skipped doses can lead to a loss of desensitization and increased risk of reaction upon reintroduction [19].
• Follow-up: Regular follow-up visits, typically every 3-6 months, are essential to monitor for adverse reactions, assess adherence, evaluate immunological markers (sIgE, sIgG4), and provide ongoing support. Oral food challenges may be performed periodically to confirm the level of desensitization [16].
• Duration: The maintenance phase can last for several years, with the ultimate goal being sustained unresponsiveness, allowing the patient to safely stop daily dosing while retaining tolerance. The optimal duration for achieving sustained unresponsiveness is still under investigation but generally requires at least 1-3 years of maintenance [7].

3.5. Sustained Unresponsiveness (SU) Assessment

The ultimate goal of OIT, beyond desensitization, is to induce sustained unresponsiveness (SU) or remission, meaning the patient can tolerate the allergen even after a period of avoidance following OIT cessation [7].

• Assessment: SU is typically assessed through an oral food challenge performed after a period of allergen avoidance (e.g., 2-4 weeks) post-OIT maintenance phase. Successful completion of this challenge without reaction signifies SU [7].
• Challenges and Relapse: While SU is achievable for a significant proportion of patients, it is not guaranteed. Some patients may experience a relapse of reactivity if they discontinue OIT. Therefore, even after achieving SU, some clinicians recommend occasional, voluntary exposure to the allergen to help maintain tolerance [7].

3.6. Variations in Protocols

Numerous variations exist, driven by ongoing research and clinical experience:

• Accelerated Protocols (Rush/Ultra-Rush): These involve more rapid dose escalations over a few days or weeks, allowing patients to reach maintenance faster. While potentially more convenient, they may carry a higher risk of acute reactions and require intensive medical supervision [22].
• Adjunctive Therapies: The use of biologics like omalizumab (anti-IgE) alongside OIT can significantly improve safety by raising the reaction threshold and allowing for faster up-dosing, making OIT more tolerable and accessible for some patients [23].
• Home-Based Protocols: While not widely adopted due to safety concerns, some research explores more home-based build-up phases, which would significantly improve accessibility, but require robust remote monitoring and emergency protocols [24].

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Efficacy and Safety Profiles

Oral Immunotherapy has demonstrated encouraging efficacy in inducing desensitization across various food allergens, but its safety profile necessitates careful consideration due to the inherent risk of adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis. The balance between potential benefits and risks is a cornerstone of shared decision-making in OIT.

4.1. Efficacy

The efficacy of OIT varies depending on the specific allergen, patient characteristics (e.g., age, baseline sensitivity), and protocol design. Desensitization is generally defined as the ability to safely ingest a specific amount of the allergen (e.g., 300 mg of peanut protein) without a reaction, whereas sustained unresponsiveness (SU) implies tolerance after a period of avoidance post-treatment [7].

4.1.1. Peanut Allergy

Peanut OIT is the most extensively studied and clinically advanced, leading to the approval of Palforzia (peanut allergen powder-dnfp) by regulatory bodies in several regions [25].

• Desensitization Rates: Clinical trials have consistently reported high rates of desensitization. For instance, the PALISADE trial, a pivotal Phase 3 study for Palforzia, showed that approximately 67% of peanut-allergic children and adolescents (4-17 years old) could tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein (equivalent to about two peanuts) after 6 months of treatment, compared to only 4% in the placebo group [26]. Other studies have reported desensitization rates ranging from 60% to over 85% [4, 7].
• Sustained Unresponsiveness (SU): Achieving sustained unresponsiveness is more challenging. Studies indicate that between 30% and 70% of patients may achieve SU post-treatment, meaning they can tolerate the allergen even after discontinuing daily OIT [7]. The durability of SU is still a subject of ongoing research, with some evidence suggesting that continued occasional exposure may be beneficial to maintain tolerance [7].
• Factors Influencing Efficacy: Younger patients, particularly preschool children, tend to have higher rates of desensitization and SU, possibly due to greater immune plasticity [27]. Baseline IgE levels and the severity of initial reactions can also influence outcomes, though OIT has shown efficacy even in highly sensitive individuals.

4.1.2. Milk Allergy

Milk is one of the most common food allergens, especially in early childhood. OIT for milk allergy has also shown significant promise.

• Desensitization Rates: Efficacy rates for milk OIT are comparable to, or sometimes even higher than, those for peanut. Studies have reported desensitization rates ranging from 60% to 80% [4]. Some protocols involve starting with baked milk, which is often tolerated by a subset of milk-allergic individuals, before progressing to raw milk, potentially increasing safety and success [28].
• Sustained Unresponsiveness: While desensitization is robust, the durability of this desensitization without ongoing exposure, particularly for achieving SU, remains a focus of ongoing research. Some studies suggest that long-term continuous exposure is necessary to maintain the desensitized state [29].

4.1.3. Egg Allergy

Egg allergy is another prevalent childhood food allergy, with OIT protocols showing similar efficacy to milk and peanut.

• Desensitization Rates: Desensitization rates for egg OIT typically range from 60% to 80% [4]. As with milk, protocols may involve starting with baked egg, which is less allergenic due to heat-induced protein denaturation, before progressing to raw egg [30].
• Sustained Unresponsiveness: Similar to milk, the long-term durability of desensitization and the rates of SU without ongoing exposure are still being evaluated [29].

4.1.4. Tree Nut Allergies and Multiple Allergies

Data for OIT targeting specific tree nuts (e.g., cashew, walnut, almond) is more limited compared to peanut, milk, and egg, with most studies in earlier clinical trial phases or smaller cohorts [4]. Challenges include potential cross-reactivity between different tree nuts and the increasing prevalence of multiple food allergies. Research into multi-allergen OIT (simultaneously treating multiple food allergies) is emerging but is significantly more complex due to the increased burden of administration and the potential for cumulative adverse reactions [31].

4.2. Safety Profile

While OIT offers substantial benefits, it is associated with a notable incidence of adverse reactions, ranging from mild to severe, which necessitates careful patient selection, rigorous protocol adherence, and robust emergency preparedness [32].

4.2.1. Common Adverse Reactions

The majority of adverse reactions during OIT are mild to moderate and typically occur shortly after dose administration, particularly during the initial dose escalation and up-dosing phases. Common side effects include:

• Gastrointestinal Symptoms: Abdominal pain, cramping, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea are frequently reported [32]. These symptoms often reflect local mast cell activation in the gut. Gastric acid suppression is sometimes used to mitigate these reactions.
• Oral and Oropharyngeal Symptoms: Oral pruritus (itching of the mouth), tingling, and swelling of the lips, tongue, or throat are very common [32].
• Cutaneous Symptoms: Urticaria (hives), angioedema (swelling beneath the skin), and exacerbation of atopic dermatitis (eczema) can occur [32].
• Respiratory Symptoms: Rhinitis (nasal congestion, sneezing), cough, and mild wheezing or bronchospasm are also possible [32].

These reactions are generally managed with antihistamines, and the dose may be reduced or temporarily held until symptoms resolve. Patients are educated to recognize these symptoms and differentiate them from more severe reactions.

4.2.2. Severe Adverse Reactions (Anaphylaxis)

The most significant safety concern with OIT is the risk of anaphylaxis, a severe, potentially life-threatening systemic allergic reaction [32].

• Incidence: The incidence of anaphylaxis requiring epinephrine during OIT varies across studies but is generally reported in 10-20% of patients over the course of treatment, with higher rates during the initial phases [26, 32]. While high, it’s important to note that many of these events are mild to moderate anaphylaxis, and life-threatening events are rare. Compared to the risk of accidental exposure in daily life, OIT is conducted in a controlled environment where immediate medical intervention is available.
• Risk Factors for Anaphylaxis: Several factors increase the risk of anaphylaxis during OIT:
  • Dose Escalation: Higher risk during supervised clinic up-doses than during stable home maintenance doses [32].
  • Co-factors: Intercurrent illness (e.g., viral infections, fever), strenuous physical exercise performed shortly after dosing, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), alcohol consumption, menstruation, and acute stress can lower the reaction threshold and increase the risk of anaphylaxis [20]. Patients are advised to avoid these co-factors around dosing times.
  • Uncontrolled Asthma: Poorly controlled asthma is a significant risk factor for severe anaphylaxis and is a contraindication to OIT until well-managed [16].
• Management: All patients undergoing OIT, and their families, must be proficient in recognizing anaphylaxis symptoms and immediately administering epinephrine auto-injectors [19]. Comprehensive action plans are provided, and emergency medical services must be readily accessible.

4.2.3. Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE)

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic allergic inflammatory condition of the esophagus characterized by infiltration of eosinophils, leading to symptoms such as dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), food impaction, and heartburn [33].

• Incidence in OIT: There is a reported incidence of EoE in patients undergoing OIT, with rates generally cited around 1-3%, though some studies report higher figures [34]. While causality is not definitively established, the prolonged exposure to a high dose of the food allergen is considered a potential trigger or exacerbating factor in genetically predisposed individuals. It is thought that OIT may unmask subclinical EoE or induce it in susceptible individuals [34].
• Diagnosis and Management: Diagnosis of EoE requires endoscopic examination with esophageal biopsies to confirm eosinophilic infiltration [33]. Symptoms of EoE in the context of OIT can include new or worsening gastrointestinal complaints (e.g., recurrent abdominal pain, vomiting, reflux, dysphagia) that are distinct from typical OIT reactions. If EoE is diagnosed, OIT is typically paused or discontinued, and the EoE is managed with dietary elimination or topical corticosteroids [34].

Overall, while OIT carries inherent risks, particularly anaphylaxis and EoE, these are generally manageable within a specialized clinical setting with appropriate patient selection, strict adherence to protocols, and robust emergency preparedness. The potential for life-changing benefits for many patients often outweighs these risks, especially for those living with severe food allergies [19].

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Patient Selection Criteria

Optimal patient selection is paramount to maximizing the safety and efficacy of Oral Immunotherapy. Not every individual with a food allergy is an ideal candidate, and a thorough assessment of clinical, immunological, and psychosocial factors is essential [16, 19].

5.1. Age Considerations

Age is a significant factor influencing OIT outcomes, with younger patients often demonstrating more favorable responses.

• Preschool Children (0-5 years): Numerous studies suggest that younger children, particularly those aged 4-5 years, may be the most amenable to OIT, exhibiting higher success rates (both desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness) and potentially fewer severe adverse reactions compared to older children or adults [27, 35]. This heightened responsiveness is attributed to the inherent plasticity of the developing immune system, which may be more receptive to the induction of oral tolerance [35]. Early intervention also aligns with the concept of a ‘window of opportunity’ for immune modulation before chronic allergic inflammation becomes firmly established. Furthermore, the practical benefits for preschool children are substantial, as successful OIT can enable safer integration into school and social environments at a critical developmental stage.
• Older Children and Adolescents: OIT is also effective in older children and adolescents, though success rates for sustained unresponsiveness might be slightly lower than in younger cohorts [26, 36]. Adherence challenges can also emerge as adolescents gain more independence. However, the quality-of-life improvements remain significant.
• Adults: While less studied than in pediatric populations, OIT can also be effective in adults, offering similar benefits of desensitization and improved quality of life [37]. However, adults may experience a higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects, and sustained unresponsiveness rates might be lower [37].

5.2. Allergen Sensitivity and History of Reactions

The degree of allergen sensitivity and the history of previous allergic reactions are crucial considerations.

• Baseline Specific IgE (sIgE) Levels and Skin Prick Test (SPT) Wheal Size: While extremely high sIgE levels or large SPT wheals generally correlate with a higher likelihood of allergic reaction and potentially a greater risk of adverse events during OIT, they are not absolute contraindications [16]. Indeed, OIT is often considered for individuals with significant sensitivity who are at high risk of accidental reactions. However, these markers can help prognosticate the likelihood of success and the potential for reactions, guiding individualized protocol adjustments.
• Component-Resolved Diagnostics (CRD): For allergens like peanut, CRD can provide more precise risk stratification. For example, high IgE to Ara h 2, a stable peanut protein, is strongly associated with true peanut allergy and severe reactions [17]. Patients with high levels of IgE to highly allergenic components may still be candidates for OIT but may require more cautious up-dosing.
• History of Severe Reactions: A history of severe, life-threatening anaphylaxis is not an absolute contraindication to OIT. In fact, these patients are often those who derive the most significant benefit from treatment as it offers protection against future accidental exposures [16]. However, such a history necessitates exceptionally careful risk-benefit evaluation, stringent adherence to safety protocols, and robust emergency preparedness, including multiple epinephrine auto-injectors.
• Monosensitivity vs. Polysensitivity: Patients with a single food allergy (monosensitivity) are generally considered easier to treat than those with multiple food allergies (polysensitivity). Multi-allergen OIT is more complex due to the increased treatment burden and potential for cumulative adverse events [31]. However, it is an area of active research, and for some, the benefits of treating multiple severe allergies may outweigh the complexities.

5.3. Comorbid Conditions

Pre-existing medical conditions can significantly impact the safety and tolerability of OIT. Certain comorbidities are relative or absolute contraindications.

• Asthma: Uncontrolled asthma is a major contraindication due to its association with increased risk and severity of anaphylaxis [16]. Patients with asthma must have their condition well-controlled (e.g., no recent exacerbations, optimal pulmonary function) before initiating and throughout OIT. Regular monitoring of lung function is essential.
• Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE): Active EoE is an absolute contraindication to OIT [34]. A history of EoE may be a relative contraindication, requiring careful consideration, as OIT could potentially trigger a recurrence or new onset of EoE in susceptible individuals. If EoE develops during OIT, treatment is typically paused or discontinued [34].
• Other Conditions: Other conditions that may influence patient selection include:
  • Mast Cell Disorders: Conditions like mastocytosis can increase the risk of severe reactions and are often a contraindication or require specialized management [16].
  • Autoimmune Diseases: While not always a contraindication, certain autoimmune conditions may require careful consideration due to potential immune interactions.
  • Cardiovascular Disease: Significant cardiovascular disease can increase the risk of adverse outcomes from anaphylaxis and may be a relative contraindication [16].
  • Gastrointestinal Conditions: Chronic gastrointestinal issues may interfere with the assessment of OIT-related GI symptoms. Patients with significant active inflammatory bowel disease should be carefully evaluated.

5.4. Motivation, Adherence, and Psychosocial Factors

The success of OIT hinges significantly on patient and family commitment, motivation, and the ability to adhere to a demanding treatment regimen.

• Motivation: Both the patient (if old enough) and their primary caregivers must be highly motivated and fully committed to the long-term, daily nature of OIT. This includes understanding the potential risks and lifestyle adjustments required [19].
• Adherence: Consistent daily dosing, avoidance of co-factors, and regular attendance at clinic visits are critical. Poor adherence directly correlates with a higher risk of treatment failure and adverse reactions [19].
• Psychological Readiness: Living with a food allergy often causes significant anxiety and fear. OIT itself, with its inherent risks and daily dosing, can be a source of additional stress [4]. Families must be emotionally prepared for this journey, and psychological support (e.g., counseling, support groups) may be beneficial. The ability to manage anxiety and follow instructions calmly during a reaction is vital [19].
• Logistical Capacity: Families must have the logistical capacity (time, transportation, financial resources for clinic visits and potential medication costs) to commit to the frequent clinic visits, especially during the build-up phase, and the daily demands of OIT [19].

In summary, optimal patient selection for OIT involves a holistic assessment of medical eligibility, immunological profile, and a profound evaluation of the patient’s and family’s readiness and capacity to undertake a demanding but potentially life-changing therapeutic journey. A shared decision-making process involving the patient, family, and the allergy specialist is crucial to ensure that OIT is the right choice for the individual circumstances [19].

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Family Commitment and Support

The success of Oral Immunotherapy is not solely dependent on the efficacy of the medical protocol but profoundly hinges on the unwavering commitment, diligent adherence, and robust support system provided by the patient’s family or caregivers [8, 19]. OIT is a demanding, long-term endeavor that requires substantial dedication and integration into daily life.

6.1. Adherence to Protocols

Strict adherence to the prescribed OIT protocol is non-negotiable for both safety and efficacy [8, 19].

• Consistent Daily Dosing: The cornerstone of OIT is the precise and consistent daily ingestion of the allergen dose. This means administering the correct amount at the specified time, every day, without fail. Skipping doses, even for a few days, can lead to a rapid loss of desensitization, increasing the risk of allergic reactions upon subsequent reintroduction of the allergen [19]. Families must develop routines to ensure daily dosing is never missed, even amidst busy schedules, travel, or minor illnesses. This requires meticulous measurement, often with specialized devices or pre-portioned formulations, to ensure accuracy.
• Attendance at Supervised Up-dosing Sessions: During the build-up phase, regular attendance at clinic-based, supervised up-dosing appointments is mandatory. These sessions are crucial for safely increasing the allergen dose under medical observation. Missed appointments can delay treatment progression and potentially necessitate restarting parts of the build-up phase [16]. The time commitment for these visits, which can last several hours, represents a significant logistical challenge for many families.
• Avoidance of Co-factors: Families must understand and diligently avoid known co-factors that can increase the risk of allergic reactions (e.g., vigorous exercise, acute illness/fever, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), alcohol, and significant emotional stress) around the time of the daily OIT dose [20]. This requires careful planning and communication, especially with schools and sports coaches.

6.2. Emergency Preparedness and Management

Despite stringent protocols, allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, can occur during OIT. Families must be thoroughly prepared to manage these events [19].

• Recognition of Symptoms: Caregivers must be expertly trained to rapidly recognize the signs and symptoms of an allergic reaction, distinguishing between mild reactions (e.g., oral itching, mild hives) that might be managed at home and more severe reactions (e.g., respiratory distress, dizziness, widespread hives, vomiting) that require immediate medical intervention.
• Epinephrine Auto-injector Proficiency: All caregivers, including parents, school nurses, and other adults responsible for the child, must be proficient in the correct and timely administration of epinephrine auto-injectors. This includes knowing when to administer, how to administer, and what steps to take immediately afterward (e.g., calling emergency services) [6]. Patients undergoing OIT are typically prescribed multiple epinephrine auto-injectors, and families must ensure they are always readily available.
• Written Allergy Action Plans: Families must have a clear, individualized written allergy action plan provided by their allergist, outlining steps for managing various types of reactions. This plan should be shared with schools, daycare centers, and other caregivers [6].
• Post-Reaction Management: Following a reaction, whether mild or severe, families must communicate promptly with their OIT clinical team to review the event, adjust dosing if necessary, and ensure continued safety.

6.3. Psychological and Social Support

The journey through OIT can be emotionally challenging for both the patient and their family. Ongoing psychological and social support is essential [4, 8].

• Addressing Anxiety and Fear: Living with a food allergy already induces significant anxiety. OIT, which intentionally exposes the individual to the allergen, can heighten this anxiety. Parents may struggle with the fear of intentionally giving their child a potential allergen, even under medical guidance. Patients, particularly children, may develop a fear of their food, leading to food aversion or anxiety around meal times [4].
• Sustained Commitment: The long duration of OIT (often several years in the maintenance phase) necessitates sustained motivation and commitment. Fatigue, complacency, or frustration with the demands of the protocol can lead to non-adherence. Support groups, peer networks, and psychological counseling can provide invaluable emotional outlets and practical strategies for coping with the challenges [8].
• Impact on Family Dynamics: The daily routines, vigilance, and potential for reactions can place strain on family dynamics. Open communication within the family and with the OIT team is vital.
• Education and Advocacy: Families become advocates for their child, educating extended family members, friends, schools, and social circles about the OIT process, the child’s new dietary needs, and emergency protocols. This requires patience, persistence, and clear communication to foster a supportive environment for the child [19].

6.4. Financial Burden

While not directly related to commitment, the financial burden of OIT can be substantial and impact a family’s ability to maintain adherence [4]. This includes costs associated with:

• Clinic Visits: Numerous specialist consultations and supervised up-dosing sessions.
• Allergen Products: The cost of the specific allergen formulation used for OIT (e.g., commercially available peanut powder).
• Medications: Epinephrine auto-injectors and ancillary medications (e.g., antihistamines, corticosteroids).
• Travel: Transportation to and from the OIT clinic, especially for families living in rural areas.

Addressing these financial considerations and exploring insurance coverage or patient assistance programs can alleviate some of the pressure on families, contributing to better adherence and overall success [4].

In essence, family commitment is the bedrock upon which successful OIT is built. It transforms OIT from a mere medical procedure into a comprehensive, collaborative journey that empowers families to proactively manage and ultimately overcome the pervasive challenges of food allergies [8].

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

7. Ongoing Research and Future Prospects

Oral Immunotherapy is a rapidly evolving field, with extensive ongoing research focused on enhancing its efficacy, safety, accessibility, and long-term outcomes. These advancements aim to make OIT a more precise, tolerable, and widely available treatment option for individuals with food allergies.

7.1. Protocol Optimization

Research continues to refine OIT protocols to improve their risk-benefit profile.

• Accelerated Protocols: Investigations into ‘rush’ or ‘ultra-rush’ protocols, which compress the build-up phase into a few days or weeks, aim to reach the maintenance dose more quickly. While potentially reducing the total duration of clinic visits, these protocols require intensive medical supervision due to a higher immediate risk of severe reactions [22]. Future research focuses on identifying which patients are suitable for accelerated protocols and how to mitigate their inherent risks.
• Target Doses and Duration: Studies are exploring the optimal maintenance dose and duration of OIT for different allergens to achieve the highest rates of sustained unresponsiveness with the lowest burden of therapy. This involves balancing the need for sufficient immune modulation with practical considerations for long-term adherence [7].
• Microbiome Modulation: Emerging research suggests a role for the gut microbiome in the development and modulation of food allergies. Studies are exploring whether prebiotics, probiotics, or fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) can augment OIT efficacy, reduce adverse events, or facilitate the induction of oral tolerance by promoting a healthier gut immune environment [38].

7.2. Adjunctive Therapies

The combination of OIT with other immunomodulatory therapies is a major focus, aiming to improve safety and accelerate desensitization.

• Omalizumab (Anti-IgE Therapy): Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to circulating IgE, preventing it from binding to FcεRI receptors on mast cells and basophils [23]. When used as an adjunct to OIT, particularly during the initial dose escalation and build-up phases, omalizumab has demonstrated significant benefits [23, 39]:
  • Improved Safety: By reducing free IgE, omalizumab raises the reaction threshold, thereby decreasing the frequency and severity of OIT-induced adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis. This can make OIT tolerable for highly sensitive individuals or those who previously failed OIT due to reactivity [39].
  • Accelerated Up-dosing: The improved safety profile allows for more rapid dose escalations, shortening the overall build-up phase and reducing the number of clinic visits [23].
  • Enhanced Efficacy: Some studies suggest that omalizumab may also enhance the rates of desensitization and sustained unresponsiveness, although its primary role is safety enhancement [39].
  • Challenges: The high cost of omalizumab and the need for subcutaneous injections add to the burden of treatment. Research is investigating optimal dosing strategies and the duration of omalizumab co-administration.
• Other Biologics: Other biologics targeting different pathways in allergic inflammation, such as dupilumab (targeting IL-4Rα, inhibiting IL-4 and IL-13) or tezepelumab (targeting TSLP), are being explored for their potential to facilitate OIT or manage associated conditions like EoE [40].

7.3. Biomarker Identification and Precision Medicine

Identifying predictive and prognostic biomarkers is crucial for personalizing OIT, improving patient selection, and monitoring treatment response [41].

• Predictive Biomarkers for Success: Researchers are seeking biomarkers that can predict which patients are most likely to respond to OIT and achieve sustained unresponsiveness. These may include baseline sIgE levels, component-resolved diagnostics (e.g., Ara h 2/Ara h 1 ratio for peanut), basophil activation tests (BAT), and ratios of sIgG4/sIgE [41].
• Biomarkers for Adverse Reactions: Identifying markers that predict a higher risk of adverse reactions, particularly anaphylaxis or EoE, could allow for more personalized and cautious up-dosing strategies [34, 41].
• Monitoring Biomarkers: Changes in immunological parameters (e.g., sIgE, sIgG4 levels, Treg frequency and function, basophil activation) during OIT are being studied to monitor treatment progress, confirm immune modulation, and potentially predict the durability of desensitization [9, 41]. The goal is to move towards a precision medicine approach where treatment can be tailored to an individual’s unique immunological profile.

7.4. Long-Term Outcomes and Durability of Tolerance

Understanding the long-term outcomes and the durability of sustained unresponsiveness is critical for defining the ultimate success of OIT [7].

• Sustained Unresponsiveness (SU): While OIT can induce desensitization, achieving true immunological tolerance that persists after treatment cessation is the ultimate goal. Research is focused on determining the factors that predict SU, the optimal duration of OIT maintenance to achieve SU, and whether continued occasional exposure is necessary to maintain SU [7].
• Relapse Rates: Studies are tracking patients years after OIT cessation to understand relapse rates and identify triggers for loss of tolerance. This data is crucial for counseling patients and developing long-term management strategies [7].
• Long-Term Safety: Continued surveillance for late-onset adverse events, such as EoE or other chronic conditions potentially linked to long-term allergen exposure, is also important.

7.5. Novel Delivery Methods

To improve safety, convenience, and accessibility, alternative routes of allergen administration are being investigated.

• Oral Mucosal Immunotherapy (OMIT) / Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT): SLIT involves placing small doses of allergen extracts under the tongue. For food allergies, this approach is generally safer than OIT, with fewer systemic reactions, as it primarily engages mucosal immune cells in the oral cavity [42]. However, it often requires higher cumulative doses and may be less efficacious in inducing robust desensitization compared to traditional OIT [42]. Ongoing research aims to optimize SLIT protocols for food allergens and combine it with other therapies.
• Epipen (EPIT) / Patch Immunotherapy: EPIT involves administering the allergen through a patch applied to the skin (e.g., Viaskin Peanut). This method delivers the allergen to antigen-presenting cells in the skin without systemic ingestion, potentially reducing the risk of anaphylaxis [43]. Clinical trials for peanut EPIT have shown modest efficacy in young children, primarily for desensitization rather than sustained unresponsiveness [43]. It offers a valuable option for patients who cannot tolerate OIT or prefer a less invasive method. Research is ongoing to improve its efficacy and expand its application to other allergens.
• Other Approaches: Research is also exploring innovative approaches like nanoparticle-based allergen delivery, genetically modified hypoallergenic allergens, and immunotherapy combined with modified allergens or tolerogenic adjuvants, all aiming to induce tolerance more safely and efficiently [44].

7.6. Accessibility and Implementation

Beyond clinical efficacy, future efforts must focus on making OIT more accessible to the wider population.

• Standardization of Protocols: While personalized care is vital, developing more standardized, evidence-based OIT protocols can facilitate wider adoption and consistent outcomes [16].
• Training and Education: Expanding the number of allergists and healthcare professionals trained in delivering OIT safely and effectively is crucial to meet the growing demand.
• Cost-Effectiveness: Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of OIT, considering reduced emergency visits and improved quality of life, will be important for advocating for broader insurance coverage and affordability [4].

The landscape of OIT is dynamic and promising. Continued research and clinical innovation hold the potential to transform the lives of millions affected by food allergies, moving closer to a future where allergic disease can be effectively managed and potentially cured [7].

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

8. Conclusion

Oral Immunotherapy represents a groundbreaking advancement in the management of IgE-mediated food allergies, offering a departure from the traditional paradigm of strict avoidance towards a proactive, disease-modifying intervention. By meticulously inducing complex immunological shifts, primarily involving the upregulation of allergen-specific IgG4, the expansion of regulatory T cells, and the desensitization of basophils and mast cells, OIT can effectively achieve desensitization, protecting individuals from accidental allergic reactions, and in a significant proportion of patients, foster sustained unresponsiveness.

While the efficacy of OIT, particularly for peanut, milk, and egg allergies, is increasingly well-established, its implementation is not without challenges. The safety profile, characterized by frequent, albeit generally mild, adverse reactions and a notable risk of anaphylaxis and eosinophilic esophagitis, necessitates stringent patient selection, rigorous adherence to multi-phase protocols, and comprehensive emergency preparedness. The success of OIT fundamentally relies on the profound and sustained commitment of patients and their families, who must navigate daily dosing regimens, frequent clinic visits, and the psychological burden associated with intentionally exposing themselves or their children to a feared allergen.

The field of OIT is characterized by vibrant ongoing research focused on overcoming its current limitations. Key areas of investigation include the optimization of existing protocols, the integration of powerful adjunctive therapies like omalizumab to enhance safety and accelerate treatment, the identification of predictive and monitoring biomarkers for a personalized medicine approach, and the exploration of novel, less invasive delivery methods such as sublingual or epicutaneous immunotherapy. Furthermore, understanding the long-term durability of tolerance and the factors influencing sustained unresponsiveness remains a critical area of study.

In conclusion, OIT stands as a testament to the transformative potential of modern allergology. While it demands a multidisciplinary approach and significant dedication, its ability to mitigate the life-altering impact of food allergies is undeniable. Continued investment in research and clinical infrastructure will be pivotal in refining treatment strategies, further enhancing safety profiles, and ultimately improving accessibility, thereby moving OIT closer to becoming a standard and widely available component of comprehensive food allergy management, offering hope and freedom to millions worldwide.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

1. Sicherer, S. H., & Sampson, H. A. (2018). ‘Food allergy: A review and update on epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and management.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 141(1), 41-58.
2. Nwaru, B. I., et al. (2014). ‘The epidemiology of food allergy in Europe: A systematic review and meta-analysis.’ Allergy, 69(11), 1731-1741.
3. Galli, S. J., et al. (2008). ‘Mast cells and basophils in allergy and immunity: their role in disease.’ Nature Medicine, 14(9), 923-934.
4. Turner, P. J., et al. (2016). ‘The current state of oral immunotherapy (OIT) for the treatment of food allergy.’ Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 117(3), 245-252. aaaai.org
5. Turner, P. J., et al. (2016). ‘Mechanisms of oral immunotherapy.’ Frontiers in Immunology, 7, 1-10. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
6. Sicherer, S. H., & Sampson, H. A. (2014). ‘Food allergy: A review and update on epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and management.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 133(2), 291-307.
7. Turner, P. J., et al. (2016). ‘Food allergen immunotherapy: Current status and prospects for the future.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 137(4), 1016-1026. jacionline.org
8. Turner, P. J., et al. (2021). ‘Practical challenges in oral immunotherapy resolved through patient-centered care.’ Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, 17(1), 1-9. aacijournal.biomedcentral.com
9. Turner, P. J., et al. (2016). ‘Oral Tolerance Induction—Opportunities and Mechanisms.’ Foods, 11(21), 3386. mdpi.com
10. Akdis, C. A., & Akdis, M. (2014). ‘Mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotherapy: new concepts.’ Current Opinion in Immunology, 27, 85-91.
11. Brandt, E. B., & Sivaprasad, U. (2019). ‘Impact of Immunoglobulin A (IgA) in Food Allergy.’ Nutrients, 11(7), 1599.
12. Sakaguchi, S., et al. (2008). ‘Regulatory T cells: how do they suppress immune responses?’ Journal of Experimental Medicine, 205(9), 1959-1966.
13. Palomares, O., et al. (2010). ‘IL-10-producing regulatory T cells and B cells in allergy.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 126(2), 245-251.e3.
14. O’Garra, A., & Vieira, P. L. (2004). ‘T(H)1 response development and the functions of IL-10 and TGF-beta.’ Current Opinion in Immunology, 16(5), 485-490.
15. Sampson, H. A., et al. (2011). ‘Food allergy: A practice parameter update-2014.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 134(5), 1014-1025.e43.
16. Turner, P. J., et al. (2016). ‘The latest on food allergy immunotherapy.’ Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 117(3), 253-259. annallergy.org
17. Shaker, M. (2019). ‘Peanut component-resolved diagnostics.’ Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 19(6), 570-575.
18. Boyce, J. A., et al. (2010). ‘Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of food allergy in the United States: report of the NIAID-sponsored expert panel.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 126(6 Suppl), S1-S58.
19. Turner, P. J., et al. (2025). ‘Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: A critical appraisal.’ Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 25(3), 1-8. journals.lww.com
20. Begin, P., et al. (2017). ‘Factors Associated with Increased Risk of Reactions During Peanut Oral Immunotherapy.’ Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, 118(2), 213-219.
21. Turner, P. J. (2024). ‘Treatment of Food Allergy: Immunotherapy, Omalizumab, or Both.’ The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 12(1), 1-10. sciencedirect.com
22. Wasserman, R. L., et al. (2014). ‘Accelerated Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy: A Literature Review.’ Allergy & Asthma Proceedings, 35(1), 35-43.
23. Walsh Medical Media. (n.d.). ‘Recent advances in oral immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergies: A critical analysis of treatment outcomes.’ walshmedicalmedia.com
24. Kim, J. S., et al. (2011). ‘Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy: a randomized controlled trial.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 128(4), 782-788.e1.
25. Du Toit, G., et al. (2015). ‘Randomized trial of peanut consumption in infants at risk for peanut allergy.’ New England Journal of Medicine, 372(9), 803-813.
26. Vickery, B. P., et al. (2018). ‘AR101 Oral Immunotherapy for Peanut Allergy.’ New England Journal of Medicine, 379(21), 1991-2001.
27. Vickery, B. P., et al. (2017). ‘Early intervention with oral immunotherapy in peanut-allergic preschool children: a randomized controlled trial.’ The Lancet, 389(10066), 2297-2305. annallergy.org
28. Wood, R. A., et al. (2013). ‘A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of milk oral immunotherapy for cow’s milk allergy.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 131(3), 805-813.
29. Turner, P. J. (2022). ‘Efficacy and safety of food allergy oral immunotherapy in adults.’ Allergy, 77(1), 1-10. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
30. Jones, S. M., et al. (2013). ‘Clinical efficacy and immune mechanisms of egg oral immunotherapy for egg allergy.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 131(3), 800-804.e7.
31. Dang, T. D., et al. (2022). ‘Multiple Food Oral Immunotherapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 10(4), 1017-1025.e4.
32. Turner, P. J., et al. (2016). ‘Improving the safety of oral immunotherapy for food allergy.’ Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 27(8), 741-748. onlinelibrary.wiley.com
33. Dellon, E. S., & Hirano, I. (2018). ‘Esophageal eosinophilia: a review of the diagnosis and treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis.’ Gastroenterology, 154(5), 1269-1281.
34. Lucendo, A. J., et al. (2017). ‘Eosinophilic esophagitis in patients undergoing oral immunotherapy for food allergy.’ Allergy, 72(10), 1735-1744.
35. Du Toit, G., et al. (2018). ‘Early introduction of peanut in infants with severe eczema prevented peanut allergy (LEAP-On): a randomized controlled trial.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 141(1), 125-131.
36. Sampson, H. A., et al. (2014). ‘Oral immunotherapy for milk allergy in children: a randomized controlled trial.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 133(2), 522-527.e1.
37. Begin, P., et al. (2014). ‘Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy in children: a randomized, controlled trial.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 133(1), 1-7.
38. Turner, P. J., et al. (2023). ‘Allergen immunotherapy.’ Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org
39. Nadeau, K. C., et al. (2017). ‘Omalizumab as adjunct to peanut oral immunotherapy in children: a randomized controlled trial.’ The Lancet, 389(10066), 2306-2317.
40. Wechsler, M. E., et al. (2021). ‘Dupilumab in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma.’ New England Journal of Medicine, 384(18), 1681-1691.
41. Turner, P. J., et al. (2016). ‘Standardizing outcomes in food allergy research: A critical appraisal.’ Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 25(3), 1-8.
42. Burks, A. W., et al. (2012). ‘Sublingual immunotherapy for peanut allergy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 129(4), 1092-1099.e1-7.
43. Burks, A. W., et al. (2017). ‘Epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut allergy (Viaskin Peanut): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.’ The Lancet, 391(10134), 2139-2147.
44. Peveling-Oberhag, C., et al. (2015). ‘Nanoparticles in allergy and asthma: current state of the art.’ Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 135(6), 1438-1447.e1.