Read Original Story

Training children’s bodies to overcome food allergies? Study says it’s possible


4 Star

Training children’s bodies to overcome food allergies? Study says it’s possible

Our Review Summary

Allergies to common food stuffs, that elicit severe reaction can be life threatening and are a serious problem.  This story presented some very preliminary results that suggest a means of making these situations more manageable for the affected individual.

The story, while generally fairly complete in its description of the research, was a bit imbalanced in its assessment of the effectiveness and applicability of the treatment described.  Letting the lead researcher get away with saying that there would be a treatment for kids with food allergy in 5 years is complete conjecture and may offer false hope for a timetable.  From the results available at this time, it is not clear whether this treatment will be beneficial to individuals older than pre-school, whether its effectiveness might diminish over time or whether there are some undesireable side effects that might accompany this treatment. 

The story did provide ample caveats about the small, pilot nature of the studies and the fact that larger, randomized studies were needed to improve the evidence.  But including the prediction from the lead researcher and the quote from the parent of a child in the study –  "Our whole worry level is really gone." – introduces an imbalance that is not backed up by evidence at this time.  This is very preliminary research, done in small numbers of children.  That should be an important take-home message for consumers.  


Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

There was no estimate for the costs of such treatment.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


The benefits of the treatment were defined as increasing the number of peanuts, for example, that a treated individual might be able to consume without difficulty.   The more difficult to quantify benefit of enabling a child, allergic to common foods, to withstand exposure to those problematic foods without need of epinephrine treatment was also presented.

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The story did include a quote from an expert at the National Institutes of Health who commented that "you don't go into this kind of a study lightly" because of the risks; however the nature of the risks was not defined.

The story mentioned that it was not clear how long lasting the induced tolerance might be if the children were to stop receiving their small exposure.  Actually, even if they continue to receive the regular exposure, there is no data to inform us on whether the tolerance will last. 

There was no discussion of whether there were any specific harms observed with the treatment.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?


The story discussed results from two small pilot studies – one published, one unpublished.  It included an important caveat about the unpublished study.  It emphasized that the next step would be a randomized study, "seeking better evidence for the treatment." Perhaps there could have been stronger caveats about intepreting results from the second study pilot study because the work has not yet been peer reviewed or published.  But we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?


This story did not engage in overt disease mongering.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?


The story included comments from a scientist at the National Institutes of Health who is tracking the studies discussed.  It also included quotes from a parent of an allergic child and one scientist involved in the research.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?


The story mentioned the use of an epi-pen in passing as well as establishing "peanut free zones."

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?


Readers are cautioned not to try this treatment on their own and explains that the children in the study are closely monitored.  The story also explained that results come from two pilot studies on very small numbers of children.   It did let the lead researcher get away with predicting a treatment within five years.  But we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this criterion. 

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?


The story described a type of treatment that has been used with other allergens previously but not with allergies resulting in anaphylaxis and so is a novel approach to the management of such allergies.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?


Does not appear to rely on a press release.

Total Score: 8 of 10 Satisfactory


Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.