The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the efficacy of oral immunotherapy for the desensitisation of peanut allergy in children (STOP II): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Small studies suggest peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) might be effective in the treatment of peanut allergy. We aimed to establish the efficacy of OIT for the desensitisation of children with allergy to peanuts. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled crossover trial to compare the efficacy of active OIT (using characterised peanut flour; protein doses of 2-800 mg/day) with control (peanut avoidance, the present standard of care) at the NIHR/Wellcome Trust Cambridge Clinical Research Facility (Cambridge, UK). Randomisation (1:1) was by use of an audited online system; group allocation was not masked. Eligible participants were aged 7-16 years with an immediate hypersensitivity reaction after peanut ingestion, positive skin prick test to peanuts, and positive by double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). We excluded participants if they had a major chronic illness, if the care provider or a present household member had suspected or diagnosed allergy to peanuts, or if there was an unwillingness or inability to comply with study procedures. Our primary outcome was desensitisation, defined as negative peanut challenge (1400 mg protein in DBPCFC) at 6 months (first phase). Control participants underwent OIT during the second phase, with subsequent DBPCFC. Immunological parameters and disease-specific quality-of-life scores were measured. Analysis was by intention to treat. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of those with desensitisation to peanut after 6 months between the active and control group at the end of the first phase. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN62416244. FINDINGS: The primary outcome, desensitisation, was recorded for 62% (24 of 39 participants; 95% CI 45-78) in the active group and none of the control group after the first phase (0 of 46; 95% CI 0-9; p<0·001). 84% (95% CI 70-93) of the active group tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein (equivalent to roughly five peanuts). Median increase in peanut threshold after OIT was 1345 mg (range 45-1400; p<0·001) or 25·5 times (range 1·82-280; p<0·001). After the second phase, 54% (95% CI 35-72) tolerated 1400 mg challenge (equivalent to roughly ten peanuts) and 91% (79-98) tolerated daily ingestion of 800 mg protein. Quality-of-life scores improved (decreased) after OIT (median change -1·61; p<0·001). Side-effects were mild in most participants. Gastrointestinal symptoms were, collectively, most common (31 participants with nausea, 31 with vomiting, and one with diarrhoea), then oral pruritus after 6·3% of doses (76 participants) and wheeze after 0·41% of doses (21 participants). Intramuscular adrenaline was used after 0·01% of doses (one participant). INTERPRETATION: OIT successfully induced desensitisation in most children within the study population with peanut allergy of any severity, with a clinically meaningful increase in peanut threshold. Quality of life improved after intervention and there was a good safety profile. Immunological changes corresponded with clinical desensitisation. Further studies in wider populations are recommended; peanut OIT should not be done in non-specialist settings, but it is effective and well tolerated in the studied age group. FUNDING: MRC-NIHR partnership.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Estimation of Relationships for Limited Dependent Variables
Tobin, J. (1958) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1907382 · Cited by 6,996
Long-Term Clinical Efficacy of Grass-Pollen Immunotherapy
Durham, S. R., Walker, S. M., Varga, E.-M., Jacobson, M. R., O'Brien, F., Noble, W., Till, S. J., Hamid, Q. A., & Nouri-Aria, K. T. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199908123410702 · Cited by 1,373
Sicherer, S. H., Muñoz-Furlong, A., & Sampson, H. A. (2003) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/s0091-6749(03)02026-8 · Cited by 743
Clinical efficacy and immune regulation with peanut oral immunotherapy
Jones, S. M., Pons, L., Roberts, J. L., Scurlock, A. M., Perry, T. T., Kulis, M., Shreffler, W. G., Steele, P., Henry, K. A., Adair, M., et al. (2009) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2009.05.022 · Cited by 715
Allergen injection immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis
Calderon, M. A., Alves, B., Jacobson, M., Hurwitz, B., Sheikh, A., & Durham, S. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001936.pub2 · Cited by 678
Nelson, H. S., Lahr, J., Rule, R., Bock, A., & Leung, D. (1997) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/s0091-6749(97)80006-1 · Cited by 567
Further fatal allergic reactions to food in the United Kingdom, 1999-2006
Pumphrey, R. S. H., & Gowland, M. H. (2007) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.01.021 · Cited by 530
Specific oral tolerance induction in children with very severe cow's milk–induced reactions
Longo, G., Barbi, E., Berti, I., Meneghetti, R., Pittalis, A., Ronfani, L., & Ventura, A. (2008) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.10.029 · Cited by 488
Assessment of quality of life in children with peanut allergy
Avery, N. J., King, R. M., Knight, S., & Hourihane, J. O. (2003) · Pediatric Allergy and Immunology · doi:10.1034/j.1399-3038.2003.00072.x · Cited by 485
Staden, U., Rolinck‐Werninghaus, C., Brewe, F., Wahn, U., Niggemann, B., & Beyer, K. (2007) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2007.01501.x · Cited by 466
Cited by
Sicherer, S. H., & Sampson, H. A. (2018) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2017.11.003 · Cited by 1,628
Chu, D. K., Wood, R. A., French, S., Fiocchi, A., Jordana, M., Waserman, S., Brożek, J. L., & Schünemann, H. J. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30420-9 · Cited by 448
Chinthrajah, R. S., Purington, N., Andorf, S., Long, A., O'Laughlin, K. L., Lyu, S. C., Manohar, M., Boyd, S. D., Tibshirani, R., Maecker, H., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31793-3 · Cited by 331
Review article: the diagnosis and management of food allergy and food intolerances
Turnbull, J. L., Adams, H. N., & Gorard, D. A. (2015) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/apt.12984 · Cited by 306
Santos, A. F., James, L. K., Bahnson, H. T., Shamji, M. H., Couto-Francisco, N. C., Islam, S., Houghton, S., Clark, A. T., Stephens, A., Turcanu, V., et al. (2015) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2015.01.012 · Cited by 274
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Anagnostou, K., Islam, S., King, Y., Foley, L., Pasea, L., Bond, S., Palmer, C., Deighton, J., Ewan, P., & Clark, A.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 383
- Issue
- 9925
- Pages
- 1297-1304
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W1991498260
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 35.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the efficacy of oral immunotherapy for the desensitisation of peanut allergy in children (STOP II): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62301-6
- The paper
- Anagnostou, K., Islam, S., King, Y., Foley, L., Pasea, L., Bond, S., Palmer, C., Deighton, J., Ewan, P., & Clark, A. (2014). Assessing the efficacy of oral immunotherapy for the desensitisation of peanut allergy in children (STOP II): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62301-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.