The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety
Abstract
BACKGROUND Oral immunotherapy is an emerging experimental treatment for peanut allergy, but its benefits and harms are unclear. We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of oral immunotherapy versus allergen avoidance or placebo (no oral immunotherapy) for peanut allergy. METHODS In the Peanut Allergen immunotherapy, Clarifying the Evidence (PACE) systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WHO's Clinical Trials Registry Platform, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to Dec 6, 2018, for randomised controlled trials comparing oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy, without language restrictions. We screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias independently in duplicate. Main outcomes included anaphylaxis, allergic or adverse reactions, epinephrine use, and quality of life, meta-analysed by random effects. We assessed certainty (quality) of evidence by the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42019117930. RESULTS 12 trials (n=1041; median age across trials 8·7 years [IQR 5·9-11·2]) showed that oral immunotherapy versus no oral immunotherapy increased anaphylaxis risk (risk ratio [RR] 3·12 [95% CI 1·76-5·55], I2=0%, risk difference [RD] 15·1%, high-certainty), anaphylaxis frequency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2·72 [1·57-4·72], I2=0%, RD 12·2%, high-certainty), and epinephrine use (RR 2·21 [1·27-3·83], I2=0%, RD 4·5%, high-certainty) similarly during build-up and maintenance (pinteraction=0·92). Oral immunotherapy increased serious adverse events (RR 1·92 [1·00-3·66], I2=0%, RD 5·7%, moderate-certainty), and non-anaphylactic reactions (vomiting: RR 1·79 [95%CI 1·35-2·38], I2=0%, high-certainty; angioedema: 2·25 [1·13-4·47], I2=0%, high-certainty; upper tract respiratory reactions: 1·36 [1·02-1·81], I2=0%, moderate-certainty; lower tract respiratory reactions: 1·55 [0·96-2·50], I2=28%, moderate-certainty). Passing a supervised challenge, a surrogate for preventing out-of-clinic reactions, was more likely with oral immunotherapy (RR 12·42 [95% CI 6·82-22·61], I2=0%, RD 36·5%, high-certainty). Quality of life was not different between groups (combined parents and self report RR 1·21 [0·87-1·69], I2=0%, RD 0·03%, low-certainty). Findings were robust to IRR, trial sequential, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION In patients with peanut allergy, high-certainty evidence shows that available peanut oral immunotherapy regimens considerably increase allergic and anaphylactic reactions over avoidance or placebo, despite effectively inducing desensitisation. Safer peanut allergy treatment approaches and rigorous randomised controlled trials that evaluate patient-important outcomes are needed. FUNDING None.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Self-citationGRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Schünemann, H. J., Tugwell, P., & Knottnerus, A. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011 · Cited by 3,094
Self-citationIntHout, J., Ioannidis, J. P., & Borm, G. F. (2014) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-25 · Cited by 2,419
GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Woodcock, J., Brozek, J., Helfand, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Glasziou, P., Jaeschke, R., Akl, E. A., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.017 · Cited by 2,320
Self-citationSampson, H. A., Muñoz-Furlong, A., Campbell, R. L., Adkinson, N. F., Bock, S. A., Branum, A., Brown, S. G. A., Camargo, C. A., Cydulka, R., Galli, S. J., et al. (2006) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2005.12.1303 · Cited by 2,313
A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints
Harbord, R. M., Egger, M., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2006) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2380 · Cited by 2,267
Cited by
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
Mechanisms of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy and Allergen Tolerance
Kucuksezer, U. C., Ozdemir, C., Cevhertas, L., Ogulur, I., Akdis, M., & Akdis, C. A. (2020) · Allergology International · doi:10.1016/j.alit.2020.08.002 · Cited by 173
Pollen-Food Allergy Syndrome: A not so Rare Disease in Childhood
Mastrorilli, C., Cardinale, F., Giannetti, A., & Caffarelli, C. (2019) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina55100641 · Cited by 78
Reaction Phenotypes in IgE-Mediated Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis
Chong, K. W., Ruiz-Garcia, M., Patel, N., Boyle, R. J., & Turner, P. J. (2020) · Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.anai.2019.12.023 · Cited by 44
Management of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy in the 21st Century
Cafarotti, A., Giovannini, M., Begìn, P., Brough, H. A., & Arasi, S. (2023) · Clinical & Experimental Allergy · doi:10.1111/cea.14241 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- Chu, D. K., Wood, R. A., French, S., Fiocchi, A., Jordana, M., Waserman, S., Brożek, J. L., & Schünemann, H. J.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-06
- Volume
- 393
- Issue
- 10187
- Pages
- 2222-2232
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2942283768
- Cited by
- 448
- References
- 59
- FWCI
- 8.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30420-9
- The paper
- Chu, D. K., Wood, R. A., French, S., Fiocchi, A., Jordana, M., Waserman, S., Brożek, J. L., & Schünemann, H. J. (2019). Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy (PACE): a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(19)30420-9
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.