Question 1
The article is a literature review that focuses on examining current literature regarding the manner in which food immunotherapy can assist in managing food-allergic children. The reason for considering the article as a literature review emanates from the provision that it is an evaluative report that looks into different studies related to the topic under study. the article describes, summarizes, clarifies, and evaluates the literature. In this regard, it provides a theoretical base for the study that assists the authors to determine the nature of the study, which is an indication that works that do not relate to the theoretical base are discarded.
Question 2
The purpose for this research is twofold. Firstly, as the author indicates, the fundamental purpose of this article is to examine current literature and illuminate the role of food immunotherapy in managing food allergies among children. In this regard, the author focuses on the different traits, the benefits, and the risks attached to the provision of food immunotherapy. On the other hand, the researcher focuses on the different areas that could be considered for further research in the topic. The need for further research is a derivative of the implementation of suitable interventions that could assist the affected children.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Question 3
The main points considered by the author are inclusive of the importance of food immunotherapy in the context of modifying potential diseases. The author also determines the efficacy of the administration of food immunotherapy, consequently assessing the effectiveness of the EPIT, SLIT, and the oral routes of administration. After assessing the effectiveness of the different routes, the author indicates that oral immunotherapy (OIT) is much better than the other routes. The reason for considering this route is a derivative of the provision that a considerable number of children treated using this method can achieve desensitization. The other main point is that the use of modulators together with food increases the efficacy of the treatment, consequently reducing the risk of adverse reactions.
Question 4
| Routes of immunotherapy | Pros | Cons |
| OIT |
Has an acceptable safety profile since most participants experience reduced reactions during treatment The frequency as well as the number of reactions reduce during the maintenance phase |
Participants with egg allergies experience adverse effects |
| SLIT |
The starting as well as maintenance dosage is low Few side effects Symptoms are localized in one region and are low |
It is not as effective as OIT |
| EPIT |
The dosage is fixed The safety profile is favorable EPIT does not vascularize the epidermis No systemic reactions |
Reactions can occur at the patch site, even though they might be mild |
Question 5
The use of immune modulators, particularly when combined with food immunotherapy focuses on facilitating the process of improving the safety profile of a particular intervention. An example of the modulators that can do this is anti-IgE. The author refers to a study based on peanut OIT for children, which reveals that omalizumab was effective in the facilitation of rapid oral desensitization. However, the children experienced an allergic reaction after the discontinuation of the immunotherapy process. In spite of the reactions of different children, the modulators primarily serve the purpose of decreasing the risk of adverse reactions.
Question 6
The administration routes include oral immunotherapy (OIT), epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Food immunotherapy focuses on the downregulation of the allergen-specific T helper cell (Th2) response, the augmentation of Th1 response, as well as the induction of the regulatory T cells. The success of food immunotherapy is associated with the decrease of allergen-specific IgG, the increase of IgG4, including the rediction in IL-4, IL-5, as well as IL-13. Successful desensitization is also associated with the increase in IL-10 as well as TGF-β cytokine production.
Question 7
I think the author’s primary conclusion relates to the idea that food immunotherapy has the potential of modifying the treatment approaches for food allergies. The treatment can be considered as a disease-modifying approach that can assist in the optimization of treatment options. However, the author takes note of the idea that food immunotherapy still faces several challenges. For this reason, the author recommends that further research should be conducted to augment its potential and to optimize interventions for treatment. In the conclusion, the researcher takes note of the provision that the long-term effects, dosage, and the duration it would take for complete cure is still unknown, which means that further investigations should be conducted to acquire substantive information for suitable treatment.
Question 8
The conclusion made by the author makes sense. In this regard, the author provides a comprehensive conclusion that covers the primary points discussed in the article. The conclusion is broad for it touches on the importance of food immunotherapy and highlights the challenges discussed in the body of the article, consequently providing recommendations for further research. I believe the article review has highlighted some of the fundamental points that should be considered in the implementation of food immunotherapy. The challenges presented also warrants the need to consider finding effective solutions that can improve the outcomes of children with food allergies.
