Epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Author(s)
Csonka, Péter
Lee, Bohee
Kuitunen, Ilari
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background
Food allergies pose a global healthcare challenge, underscoring the need for effective interventions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergen desensitisation.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials by searching Ovid EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus in April 2024. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the clinical effectiveness and harms of EPIT, reporting results as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results
After screening 460 abstracts and 35 full reports, 11 were included: nine on peanuts and two on cow's milk (CM). Peanut EPIT had a 51.2% treatment response versus 22.4% for placebo (RR 2.16, CI 1.49–3.12; four studies; moderate certainty). The RR for milk EPIT response rate was 1.78 (CI 1.06–3.00; one study). Five peanut studies (1396 patients) reported EPIT-related adverse events (RR 1.39, CI 0.94–2.05; low certainty).
Conclusions
EPIT offers a moderate treatment response with a favourable safety profile and significant improvements in quality of life. Current knowledge of EPIT remains limited, with evidence confined to peanut and CM allergies. There is a lack of research on sustained unresponsiveness achieved through food EPIT.
Food allergies pose a global healthcare challenge, underscoring the need for effective interventions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for food allergen desensitisation.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials by searching Ovid EMBASE, PubMed and Scopus in April 2024. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the clinical effectiveness and harms of EPIT, reporting results as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results
After screening 460 abstracts and 35 full reports, 11 were included: nine on peanuts and two on cow's milk (CM). Peanut EPIT had a 51.2% treatment response versus 22.4% for placebo (RR 2.16, CI 1.49–3.12; four studies; moderate certainty). The RR for milk EPIT response rate was 1.78 (CI 1.06–3.00; one study). Five peanut studies (1396 patients) reported EPIT-related adverse events (RR 1.39, CI 0.94–2.05; low certainty).
Conclusions
EPIT offers a moderate treatment response with a favourable safety profile and significant improvements in quality of life. Current knowledge of EPIT remains limited, with evidence confined to peanut and CM allergies. There is a lack of research on sustained unresponsiveness achieved through food EPIT.
Date Issued
2025-03-01
Date Acceptance
2025-02-17
Citation
Clinical and Translational Allergy, 2025, 15 (3)
ISSN
2045-7022
Publisher
Wiley
Start Page
e70045
Journal / Book Title
Clinical and Translational Allergy
Volume
15
Issue
3
Copyright Statement
© 2025 The Author(s). Clinical and Translational Allergy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
License URL
Identifier
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40024882
Subjects
EPIT
allergen immunotherapy
cow's milk
epicutaneous immunotherapy
peanuts
Publication Status
Published
Coverage Spatial
England
Article Number
e70045
Date Publish Online
2025-03-02