logo
Can Parent-Administered Low-Dose Peanut OIT Treat Allergy?

Can Parent-Administered Low-Dose Peanut OIT Treat Allergy?

Medscapea day ago
TOPLINE:
A low-dose peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocol using parent-measured dosing can desensitize children aged 1-4 years with peanut allergy. The approach appears to be acceptably safe and may yield greater improvements in quality of life than peanut avoidance, researchers reported.
METHODOLOGY:
Investigators conducted a randomized trial that included 54 children with confirmed or highly probable peanut allergy at a tertiary pediatric hospital in Western Australia to compare peanut OIT with peanut avoidance.
Participants in the peanut OIT group received 1-360 mg of peanut protein in the form of defatted peanut flour sold as powdered peanut butter.
At 12 months, researchers assessed how many participants in the OIT and avoidance groups could tolerate > 600 mg peanut protein during an oral food challenge, the study's primary outcome.
Children's quality of life and parental burden were also assessed using questionnaires at weeks 12 and 24 and at the end of the study.
TAKEAWAY:
Overall, 74% of participants in the peanut OIT group vs 11% in the avoidance group achieved the primary outcome (odds ratio, 22.9; P < .001).
On the quality-of-life questionnaires, the peanut OIT group had significantly lower scores (indicating better quality of life) across domains like emotional impact, food-related anxiety, and social and dietary limitations.
A total of 79 treatment-related adverse events were reported for 21 participants in the peanut OIT group, with a median of two events per participant.
Three of the adverse events that occurred at home were treated with adrenaline.
Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, 11% were grade 3, and one was grade 4.
IN PRACTICE:
'A pragmatic protocol for pOIT [peanut OIT] relying on parent-measured doses of a commercially available food product is feasible, acceptable to parents, and results in similarly low rates of adverse events as other reported trials of pOIT in this age group,' the authors of the study wrote.
SOURCE:
Michael O'Sullivan, MBBS, with the University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on August 4 in Clinical & Experimental Allergy.
LIMITATIONS:
This study had an open-label design and no placebo control. In other contexts, families may be less willing or able to adhere to an OIT regimen, the researchers noted.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the Department of Health, Government of Western Australia. O'Sullivan is a board director and the current president of the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Raynaud Phenomenon Tied to Elevated Cardiovascular Risk
Raynaud Phenomenon Tied to Elevated Cardiovascular Risk

Medscape

time15 minutes ago

  • Medscape

Raynaud Phenomenon Tied to Elevated Cardiovascular Risk

TOPLINE: Individuals with Raynaud phenomenon without underlying systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had higher risks for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolism than did a comparator group with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), regardless of age. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine whether individuals with Raynaud phenomenon experienced cardiovascular outcomes more frequently than those without the condition. They included 30,088 individuals younger than 45 years and 60,145 aged 45 years or older with Raynaud phenomenon without systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases , identified from electronic health records of centers in North America between March 2005 and March 2025. An equal number of propensity score-matched individuals with IBS were assigned as comparators to both age categories. The researchers chose IBS as a comparator group because, like Reynaud phenomenon, it is common in younger and female individuals. In addition, it is not known to be associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Co-primary outcomes were MACE and venous thromboembolism, evaluated over mean follow-up durations of 4.4-4.9 years across groups. TAKEAWAY: Among individuals younger than 45 years, those with Raynaud phenomenon had higher risks for MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42) and venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.20-1.46) than did those with IBS. Similar results were observed among individuals aged 45 years or older, where those with Raynaud phenomenon had higher risks for MACE (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) and venous thromboembolism (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.14-1.26) than those with IBS. Individuals with Raynaud phenomenon had higher risks for secondary outcomes such as stroke, any cardiovascular disease, and pulmonary embolism noted in both age categories. IN PRACTICE: '[This] data substantiates several previous reports of an increased risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease] in individuals with RP [Raynaud phenomenon], and provides further supporting evidence of a similar risk of VTE [venous thromboembolism],' the authors of the study wrote. 'Taken together our findings lend further support to suggest that RP (in the absence of any secondary SARD [systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease]) could be a manifestation of subclinical CVD. Of course, this requires further confirmation including prospective studies,' they added. SOURCE: This study was led by Michael Hughes, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom. It was published online on August 5, 2025, in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism. LIMITATIONS: Diagnostic codes were used for identifying the conditions; however, misclassification bias may be possible. Details such as digital ischemic episodes were not available for individuals with Raynaud phenomenon and age of onset and family history were not assessed. Many oral drug treatments for Raynaud phenomenon are vasodilators also used for systemic hypertension; hence, the primary indication was unclear. DISCLOSURES: One author reported receiving support from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Another author reported receiving support from NIHR Clinical Lectureship, and working at centers supported by Versus Arthritis and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. Two authors reported receiving research funding, speaker fees, honoraria, and consultancy fees and having other financial ties with multiple companies including Janssen, Sanofi, and Novartis. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Higher Cervical Cancer Deaths Seen Where Screening Is Low
Higher Cervical Cancer Deaths Seen Where Screening Is Low

Medscape

timean hour ago

  • Medscape

Higher Cervical Cancer Deaths Seen Where Screening Is Low

TOPLINE: A new study found that US counties with consistently low coverage for cervical cancer screening had substantially higher rates of overall incidence, mortality, and late-stage diagnoses of the cancer than did counties with consistently high coverage. Most of the counties with consistently low coverage were in Texas, Idaho, and New Mexico. METHODOLOGY: Cervical cancer incidence and mortality are disproportionately higher in low-resourced US counties, yet the role of long-term county-level screening disparities has not been well characterized. Identifying counties with persistently low coverage may help target screening programs to reduce these disparities. Researchers analyzed women with cervical cancer aged 20 years or older using SEER-22 data from 1086 counties and mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Counties were classified as repeat low coverage (< 70% screening) or repeat high coverage (≥ 80% screening) based on 2011-2016 and earlier periods. Researchers estimated age-adjusted 5-year incidence and mortality rates from 2016 to 2021 (excluding 2020 due to potential reporting biases because of COVID). Overall, 70 counties had repeatedly low screening coverage, 141 had repeatedly high coverage, and 875 were classified as other. TAKEAWAY: Cervical cancer incidence was 83% higher in repeatedly low-coverage counties (rate ratio [RR], 1.83) and 28% higher in other counties (RR, 1.28) compared with repeatedly high-coverage counties. Incidence was consistently elevated across localized (RR, 1.75), regional (RR, 1.87), and distant (RR, 1.84) stages in the low-coverage counties. The outcomes were similar for other counties, with RRs of 1.22 for localized, 1.33 for regional, and 1.35 for distant stages. Compared with high-coverage counties, mortality rates were 96% higher in the low-coverage counties (RR, 1.96) and 42% higher in other counties (RR, 1.42). Most low-coverage counties were rural (87.1%) and lower income (< $75,000), with clusters in Texas (47.1%), Idaho (17.1%), and New Mexico (17.1%). IN PRACTICE: 'Our study findings underscore the urgent need to improve cervical cancer screening in rural and lower-income counties,' the authors wrote, emphasizing that 'counties where screening coverage is repeatedly low should be targeted.' SOURCE: The study, led by Trisha L. Amboree, PhD, MPH, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, was published online in JAMA Network Open. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional design of the study precluded causal inference between screening rates and cancer outcomes. The analysis did not adjust for county-level sociodemographic factors, which may influence both screening rates and cervical cancer outcomes. Additionally, self-reported screening measures were subject to bias. DISCLOSURES: The research was supported through grants from the Hollings Cancer Center Scholars in Health Impact & Access Award, the National Cancer Institute through the Hollings Cancer Center Support Grant, and the MD Anderson Cancer Center Support Grant. One author reported receiving personal fees from Value Analytics Lab Consultation, outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

Apples or Bananas? Dietitians Reveal Which Fruit Is the Smarter Grab-and-Go Choice for Lasting Energy
Apples or Bananas? Dietitians Reveal Which Fruit Is the Smarter Grab-and-Go Choice for Lasting Energy

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Apples or Bananas? Dietitians Reveal Which Fruit Is the Smarter Grab-and-Go Choice for Lasting Energy

Key Takeaways Bananas provide quick, easily digestible energy and are packed with potassium, making them ideal before or after workouts or when you need an energy boost. Apples offer more fiber and fewer natural sugars, which can help with longer-lasting satiety and better blood sugar regulation throughout the day. Both fruits are nutritious choices, and pairing them—or enjoying either with protein-rich foods like nuts or yogurt—can balance quick energy with sustained fullness. Apples and bananas are two of the most popular fruits in the United States—so much so that there are children's songs dedicated to them. Neatly packaged in its very own peel, bananas are convenient and portable. But you can just as easily toss an apple in your lunch bag or box. Though both are healthy fruits, which is better for you? We asked a registered dietitian to weigh in. Are Bananas Healthy? Rich with nutrients, bananas are indeed a healthy snack. 'Bananas are known for being high in potassium, an essential mineral that helps regulate blood pressure, nerve function, and muscle contractions,' says Brannon Blount, RD, a registered dietitian in Danville, Virginia. 'They also provide vitamin B6, vitamin C, and fiber.' Meet Our Expert Brannon Blount, RD, a registered dietitian in Danville, Virginia Here's a closer look at some of the key nutrients found in one medium banana, per USDA data: Calories: 105Carbohydrates: 26.9 grams (g)Fiber: 3.07 gProtein: 1.29 gFat: 0.39 gPotassium: 422 milligrams (mg)Vitamin B6: 0.43 mgVitamin C: 10.3 mg There's even research on the benefits of bananas. High in antioxidants, bananas may offer cardiovascular benefits, such as warding off atherosclerosis, one review found. Other research demonstrates potential anti-cancer properties of bananas, particularly in relation to pancreatic and breast cancer. So, when should you reach for a banana? 'Bananas are a great choice when you need quick, easily digestible energy, such as before or after exercise,' Blount says. 'They also tend to be easier on sensitive stomachs and offer more potassium, which can help replenish electrolytes lost through sweat.' Ultimately, a banana is pretty much always a healthy choice, particularly when you need to replenish your energy. This fruit is rich in nutrients like fiber, potassium, and antioxidants, helping to support overall health and potentially reducing the risk of certain diseases. Are Apples Healthy? It's no secret that apples are nutritious as well. The famous proverb 'an apple a day keeps the doctor away' could explain why apples are the #1 fruit consumed in the United States. But why are they so good for you? 'Apples are high in antioxidants, vitamin C, and fiber,' Blount explains. 'Antioxidants can have anti-inflammatory and immune-supporting benefits, while fiber, particularly a soluble fiber called pectin, can help lower cholesterol and support gut health.' Here's an overview of the key nutrients found in one medium apple, per USDA data: Calories: 122Carbohydrates: 29.6 gFiber: 4.2 gProtein: 0.34 gFat: 0.3 gPotassium: 208 mgVitamin C: 9.2 mg There's research on this too. Rich in phytochemicals, apple consumption can improve your health, research suggests. Apples may offer protection from cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and more. Additional research has found that apples may prevent or mitigate other chronic diseases, including diabetes and obesity. When should you grab an apple? 'Apples are great for mid-afternoon snacking when you need something filling that won't spike your energy too quickly,' Blount explains. 'They're also lower in natural sugars and on the glycemic index, which means they may help regulate blood sugar levels more effectively for some people.'Overall, you can't go wrong with opting to snack on an apple. They provide an array of nutrients and antioxidants, which may help stave off certain diseases. Which Fruit Is Healthier? Bananas and apples are both popular and nutritious fruits. Either one can help tide you over between meals, and they both provide serious nutritional benefits. But which is best? 'It really depends on the person and the situation,' Blount says. There are some cases where one may be superior to the other. 'Bananas offer quick energy and more potassium, making them ideal for active lifestyles,' Blount explains. 'Apples provide more fiber, and may support longer-lasting fullness and better blood sugar control.' Blount's expert advice? Choose whichever fruit you like best, or, better yet, pair the two together. 'Combine bananas and apples with a handful of nuts or yogurt for a satisfying, nutrient-dense snack that combines quick energy with long-lasting fullness!' Read the original article on Real Simple

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store