Nurmatov Ulugbek, Venderbosch Iris, Devereux Graham, Simons F Estelle R, Sheikh Aziz
Allergy & Respiratory Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;2012(9):CD009014. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009014.pub2.
Peanut allergy is one of the most common forms of food allergy encountered in clinical practice. In most cases, it does not spontaneously resolve; furthermore, it is frequently implicated in acute life-threatening reactions. The current management of peanut allergy centres on meticulous avoidance of peanuts and peanut-containing foods. Allergen-specific oral immunotherapy (OIT) for peanut allergy aims to induce desensitisation and then tolerance to peanut, and has the potential to revolutionise the management of peanut allergy. However, at present there is still considerable uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of this approach.
To establish the effectiveness and safety of OIT in people with IgE-mediated peanut allergy who develop symptoms after peanut ingestion.
We searched in the following databases: AMED, BIOSIS, CAB, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Global Health, Google Scholar, IndMed, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, MEDLINE, PakMediNet and TRIP. We also searched registers of on-going and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was January 2012.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs or controlled clinical trials involving children or adults with clinical features indicative of IgE-mediated peanut allergy treated with allergen-specific OIT, compared with control group receiving either placebo or no treatment, were eligible for inclusion.
Two review authors independently checked and reviewed titles and abstracts of identified studies and assessed risk of bias. The full text of potentially relevant trials was assessed. Data extraction was independently performed by two reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion.
We found one small RCT, judged to be at low risk of bias, that enrolled 28 children aged 1 to 16 years with evidence of sensitisation to peanut and a clinical history of reaction to peanut within 60 minutes of exposure. The study did not include children who had moderate to severe asthma or who had a history of severe peanut anaphylaxis. Randomisation was in a 2:1 ratio resulting in 19 children being randomised to the intervention arm and nine to the placebo arm. Intervention arm children received OIT with peanut flour and control arm participants received placebo comprising of oat flour. The primary outcome was assessed using a double-blind, placebo controlled oral food challenge (OFC) at approximately one year. No data were available on longer term outcomes beyond the OFC conducted at the end of the study.Because of adverse events, three patients withdrew from the intervention arm before the completion of the study. Therefore, only 16 participants received the full course of peanut OIT, whereas all nine patients receiving placebo completed the trial. The per-protocol analysis found a significant increase in the threshold dose of peanut allergen required to trigger a reaction in those in the intervention arm with all 16 participants able to ingest the maximum cumulative dose of 5000 mg of peanut protein (which the authors equate as being equivalent to approximately 20 peanuts) without developing symptoms, whereas in the placebo group they were able to ingest a median cumulative dose of 280 mg (range: 0 to 1900 mg, P < 0.001) before experiencing symptoms. Per-protocol analyses also demonstrated that peanut OIT resulted in reductions in skin prick test size (P < 0.001), interleukin-5 (P = 0.01), interleukin-13 (P = 0.02) and an increase in peanut-specific immunoglobulin G(4) (IgG(4)) (P < 0.01).Children in the intervention arm experienced more adverse events during treatment than those in the placebo arm. In the initial day escalation phase, nine (47%) of the 19 participants initially enrolled in the OIT arm experienced clinically-relevant adverse events which required treatment with H(1)-antihistamines, two of which required additional treatment with epinephrine (adrenaline).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The one small RCT we found showed that allergen-specific peanut OIT can result in desensitisation in children, and that this is associated with evidence of underlying immune-modulation. However, this treatment approach was associated with a substantial risk of adverse events, although the majority of these were mild. In view of the risk of adverse events and the lack of evidence of long-term benefits, allergen-specific peanut OIT cannot currently be recommended as a treatment for the management of patients with IgE-mediated peanut allergy. Larger RCTs are needed to investigate the acceptability, long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of safer treatment regimens, particularly in relation to the induction of clinical and immunological tolerance.
花生过敏是临床实践中最常见的食物过敏形式之一。在大多数情况下,它不会自发缓解;此外,它还经常引发危及生命的急性反应。目前花生过敏的管理主要集中在严格避免食用花生及含花生的食物。针对花生过敏的变应原特异性口服免疫疗法(OIT)旨在诱导对花生的脱敏,进而产生耐受性,并且有可能彻底改变花生过敏的管理方式。然而,目前这种方法的有效性和安全性仍存在相当大的不确定性。
确定OIT对摄入花生后出现症状的IgE介导的花生过敏患者的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了以下数据库:医学文摘数据库(AMED)、生物学文摘数据库(BIOSIS)、国际农业与生物科学中心数据库(CAB)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)、考克兰图书馆、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、全球健康数据库、谷歌学术、印度医学数据库(IndMed)、科学引文索引数据库(ISI Web of Science)、拉丁美洲及加勒比地区卫生科学数据库(LILACS)、医学索引数据库(MEDLINE)、巴基斯坦医学网和循证医学数据库(TRIP)。我们还检索了正在进行和未发表试验的注册库。最近一次检索日期为2012年1月。
随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验或对照临床试验,涉及有IgE介导的花生过敏临床特征的儿童或成人,采用变应原特异性OIT治疗,并与接受安慰剂或未治疗的对照组进行比较,符合纳入标准。
两位综述作者独立检查和评审已识别研究的标题和摘要,并评估偏倚风险。对潜在相关试验的全文进行评估。数据提取由两位评审员独立进行,分歧通过讨论解决。
我们发现一项小型RCT,判定其偏倚风险较低,该研究纳入了28名1至16岁的儿童,这些儿童有花生致敏证据且在接触花生后60分钟内有花生过敏反应的临床病史。该研究未纳入患有中度至重度哮喘或有严重花生过敏反应病史的儿童。随机分组比例为2:1,结果19名儿童被随机分配到干预组,9名儿童被分配到安慰剂组。干预组儿童接受花生粉OIT,对照组参与者接受由燕麦粉组成的安慰剂。主要结局在大约一年时通过双盲、安慰剂对照口服食物激发试验(OFC)进行评估。除了研究结束时进行的OFC外,没有关于长期结局的数据。由于不良事件,3名患者在研究完成前退出了干预组。因此,只有16名参与者接受了完整疗程的花生OIT,而所有9名接受安慰剂的患者完成了试验。符合方案分析发现,干预组引发反应所需的花生变应原阈值剂量显著增加,所有16名参与者能够摄入5000毫克花生蛋白的最大累积剂量(作者认为这相当于大约20颗花生)而不出现症状,而在安慰剂组中,他们在出现症状前能够摄入的累积剂量中位数为280毫克(范围:0至1900毫克,P<0.001)。符合方案分析还表明,花生OIT导致皮肤点刺试验大小减小(P<0.001)、白细胞介素-5(P=0.01)、白细胞介素-13(P=0.02)降低,以及花生特异性免疫球蛋白G4(IgG4)增加(P<0.01)。干预组儿童在治疗期间比安慰剂组儿童经历了更多不良事件。在初始日剂量递增阶段,最初纳入OIT组的19名参与者中有9名(47%)经历了需要用H1抗组胺药治疗的临床相关不良事件,其中2名需要额外用肾上腺素治疗。
我们发现的一项小型RCT表明,变应原特异性花生OIT可使儿童脱敏,并且这与潜在免疫调节的证据相关。然而,这种治疗方法与相当大的不良事件风险相关,尽管大多数不良事件为轻度。鉴于不良事件风险以及缺乏长期益处的证据,目前不能推荐变应原特异性花生OIT作为治疗IgE介导的花生过敏患者的方法。需要更大规模的RCT来研究更安全治疗方案的可接受性、长期有效性和成本效益,特别是关于诱导临床和免疫耐受性方面。