Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Aug 5;18(1):302.
doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02466-x.

Therapeutic perspectives in food allergy

Affiliations
Review

Therapeutic perspectives in food allergy

Francesco Marcucci et al. J Transl Med. .

Abstract

Background: In the last twenty years, several studies have been conducted in the search for new therapeutic strategies in patients with food allergy; in particular, after the failure of injection immunotherapy, three different routes of administration, oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), have been tested. The aim of this manuscript is to review OIT, SLIT, and EPIT clinical trials on food allergies and to suggest advantages and limits of the different routes of immunotherapy administration.

Main body: Of the three different routes of immunotherapy used in the treatment of food allergy, OIT is, at present, the only one actually able to induce an increase in tolerance in the majority of patients. However, its use is affected by serious secondary effects, such as major abdominal symptoms and anaphylaxis. The combination with omalizumab reduces the percentage of serious side effects. There are not many studies with SLIT for food allergy, but they have nevertheless shown that it is possible to obtain an increase in tolerance; however, this increase is modest in comparison with that obtained by OIT. EPIT, performed through the diffusion of allergens on intact skin, is the most recent form of immunotherapy. Although there are many works on EPIT carried out in laboratory animals, only few clinical studies have been published in humans. EPIT, unlike OIT and SLIT, is not responsible for systemic secondary effects such as anaphylaxis and eosinophilic oesophagitis but only for local and mild effects in areas where the devices are applied. Moreover, EPIT is characterized by high patient adherence.

Conclusion: OIT seems to have a prevalent application in patients who do not report previous symptoms of systemic or gastroenteric anaphylaxis, while SLIT and EPIT, in particular, could be more preferentially used in patients with a risk of anaphylaxis.

Keywords: Anaphylaxis; Epicutaneous immunotherapy; Food allergy; Key-words; Oral immunotherapy; Subcutaneous immunotherapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Gupta RS, Springston EE, Warrier MR, Smith B, Kumar R, Pongracic J, et al. The prevalence, severity, and distribution of childhood food allergy in the United States. Pediatrics. 2011;128:e9–e17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-0204. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nwaru BI, Hickstein L, Panesar SS, Roberts G, Muraro A, Sheikh A, et al. Prevalence of common food allergies in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy. 2014;69:992–1007. doi: 10.1111/all.12423. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Scherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy: a review and update on epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis prevention and management. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;141:41–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2017.11.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sampson HA, Aceves S, Bock SA, James J, Jones S, Lang D, et al. Food allergy: a practice parameter update- 2014. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134:16–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.05.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chad L, Ben-Shoshan M, Asai Y, Cherkaoui S, Alizadehfar R, St-Pierre Y, et al. A majority of parents of children with peanut allergy fear using the epinephrine auto-injector. Allergy. 2013;68:1605–1609. doi: 10.1111/all.12262. - DOI - PubMed