Abstract:Background Food allergy is an abnormal immunological response following exposure (usually ingestion) to a food. Elimination of the allergen is the principle treatment for food allergy, including allergy to fruit. Accidental ingestion of allergenic foods can result in severe anaphylactic reactions. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is a specific treatment, when the avoidance of allergenic foods is problematic. Recently, studies have been conducted on different types of immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergy, including oral (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Objectives To determine the efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual immunotherapy in children and adults with food allergy to fruits, when compared with placebo or an elimination strategy. Search methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and AMED were searched for published results along with trial registries and the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine for grey literature. The date of the most recent search was July 2015. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OIT or SLIT with placebo or an elimination diet were included. Participants were children or adults diagnosed with food allergy who presented immediate fruit reactions. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We assessed treatment effect through risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. Main results We identified two RCTs (N= 89) eligible for inclusion. These RCTs addressed oral or sublingual immunotherapy, both in adults, with an allergy to apple or peach respectively. Both studies enrolled a small number of participants and used different methods to provide these differing types of immunotherapy. Both studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, the quality of evidence was judged to be very low due to the small number of studies and participants and possible bias. The studies were clinically heterogeneous and hence we did not pool the results. A study comparing SLIT with placebo for allergy to peach did not detect a significant difference between the number of patients desensitised at six months following a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (RR 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.74). The second study, comparing OIT versus no treatment for apple allergy, found an effect on desensitisation in favour of the intervention using an oral provocation test at eight months, but results were imprecise (RR 17.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 270.19). Neither study reported data on evidence of immunologic tolerance. In both studies, the incidence of mild and moderate adverse events was higher in the intervention groups than in the controls. In the study comparing SLIT with placebo, patients in the intervention group experienced significantly more local adverse reactions than participants in the control group (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.51 to 6.82), though there was not a significant difference in the number of participants experiencing systemic adverse reactions (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.02). In the study of OIT, two of the 25 participants in the intervention group reported relevant side effects, whereas no participants in the control group reported relevant side effects. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence for using OIT or SLIT to treat allergy to fruit, specifically related to peach and apple. Mild or moderate adverse reactions were reported more frequently in people receiving OIT or SLIT. However, these reactions could be treated successfully with medications.

Food aversion and anxiety represent primary patient barriers to food oral immunotherapy

Addressing common questions on food oral immunotherapy: a practical guide for paediatricians

Oral immunotherapy for food allergy in children: is it worth it?

Safety and feasibility of peanut, tree nut, and sesame oral immunotherapy in infants and toddlers in a real-world setting

Development and acceptability of a decision-aid for food allergy Oral immunotherapy in children

Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT): International Delphi consensus for procedural preparation and consent

Metabolomics of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy and Oral Immunotherapy Outcomes based on Metabolomic Profiling

CSACI guidelines for the ethical, evidence-based and patient-oriented clinical practice of oral immunotherapy in IgE-mediated food allergy

Peanut allergy: risk factors, immune mechanisms, and best practices for oral immunotherapy success

Weighing the benefits and risks of oral immunotherapy in clinical practice

Real-world experience: a retrospective pediatric chart review to determine why patients and caregivers discontinue oral immunotherapy

Differences in Familiarity with Oral Immunotherapy Among Caregivers of White and Black Food-Allergic Children

Safety and adherence of early oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy in a primary care setting: a retrospective cross-sectional study

Immunotherapy (oral and sublingual) for food allergy to fruits.

Transcriptomic changes associated with oral immunotherapy for food allergy

Implementing Food Oral Immunotherapy Into Clinical Practice: Quality and Safety Perspectives From a US Academic Center

Oral food challenges in children with a diagnosis of food allergy

Efficacy of biological agents combined with oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: a Current Perspective

Biomarkers in oral immunotherapy

Oral immunotherapy improves the quality of life of adults with food allergy