The number

How to read a 99% success rate

Not just Food Allergy Institute’s — anyone’s. Three questions price every outcome claim in this market, and we apply them to our own numbers on this page too.

Short answer

The figure is real in the sense that Food Allergy Institute publishes it: “99% success rate after completing TIP,” alongside a sub-1% reaction rate, 56,000+ food challenges and introductions annually, and 130+ allergens assessed. Three things determine how much weight it carries. The denominator: completers of a 2.5-to-4-year program, not starters — and completion rates are unpublished. The verification: self-reported, with the main supporting study a 51-patient retrospective without a control group, reportedly declined by more than six larger journals before publication. And the definition: “success” is the clinic’s own endpoint, “food freedom,” which no other program measures the same way. A 2021 Undark investigation quoted academic allergists who found the figure implausible; thousands of families report real graduations. Both facts stand. Curex’s answer to the same three questions is on this page: the treatment it prescribes has NIH-funded, peer-reviewed trials behind it, and its program-level figures are internal. Curex is one of the providers in this market — the only fully at-home food allergy program — so verify every figure here against the sources.

Medically reviewed by Dr. Chet Tharpe, M.D. · Last reviewed September 2026

The claims

What the clinic publishes

Food Allergy Institute’s Tolerance Induction Program (TIP) is one of the two leading in-person food allergy programs in the country. These are the figures on its own website, checked September 2026.

“success rate after completing TIP” — their wording: 99%“success rate after completing TIP” — their wording
reported reaction rate for the duration of TIP: <1%reported reaction rate for the duration of TIP
food challenges and introductions reported annually: 56,000+food challenges and introductions reported annually
allergens assessed under the protocol: 130+allergens assessed under the protocol
typical program length; complex cases run longer: 2.5–4 yrstypical program length; complex cases run longer
patients in the main supporting publication: 51patients in the main supporting publication

Competitor figures are what each provider published on its own site or what patients reported publicly, dated where checked. Prices and policies change — confirm current figures with each provider, including us, before enrolling.

The fine print

What “after completing TIP” measures

Every word in the claim matters, but two matter most: “after completing.” TIP typically runs 2.5 to 4 years, and one parent reported being told a complex case could take 6 to 8. The program asks for 4 to 6 in-person visits per year in Long Beach, California (a New Jersey clinic opens September 15, 2026), and more than half of patients travel from outside the state — families describe flying in from Florida, Texas, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, and overseas every 8 to 12 weeks. A success rate conditioned on finishing that course tells you how completers fare. It cannot tell you what share of starters become completers.

That share is the unpublished number. Long-time observers in patient communities say many families drop out and that attrition data is not released. The publicly documented dropout causes are the ordinary ones for any multi-year commitment — cost, distance, life — plus one clinical case worth knowing: a family whose child developed eosinophilic esophagitis during dairy treatment, a recognized risk of oral immunotherapy in general, not something unique to TIP. Some families also report restarting portions of treatment, such as redoing peanut and almond in order to treat cashew and pistachio.

None of this is an accusation. It is arithmetic. In any program where completion takes years and five figures, “99% of completers” and “a far smaller share of starters” can both be true at once. The only way to know is a published starters-to-completers ratio, and there isn’t one.

The method

Three questions that price any success rate

These work on FAI’s 99%, Latitude’s 94–98%, and anything Curex tells you. Ask all three of every provider.

Who is in the denominator? “After completing” excludes everyone who stopped. Ask what share of starters finish the program. A precise answer is informative; no answer is also an answer.
Who verified it? Self-reported internal data and peer-reviewed independent data are different species. FAI’s headline figures are the former: the main supporting study covered 51 patients, retrospectively, with no control group. A 2021 patient petition with 312 signatures asked the clinic to publish its safety and outcome data — the request is still the right one.
What counts as success? Clinic-defined endpoints are meaningful but not standardized. FAI’s “food freedom” means unrestricted eating with lifelong maintenance quotas — patients describe 20 peanuts a day or three large nut servings a week. Latitude’s figure measures desensitization at OIT maintenance, reached in about 8.4 months on average. Two programs’ “success” can measure entirely different things over entirely different timeframes.

The independent record

What journalists, experts, and reviewers found

The most substantive outside scrutiny is a 2021 investigation by Undark, a nonprofit science magazine. It quoted several academic allergists reacting to the 99% figure with open disbelief — Hugh Windom (“Come on, there’s no way”), Philippe Bégin (“just ridiculous”), plus Edwin Kim, Brian Schroer, and Matt Bell — and reported that the clinic’s main supporting study, the 51-patient retrospective, had been declined by more than six larger journals before appearing in an open-access one. That reporting is five years old. The fair follow-up is to ask FAI what has been peer-reviewed and published since.

The same year, a Change.org petition from within the patient community gathered 312 signatures asking the clinic to publish safety and outcome data, disclose IRB oversight, and disclose conflicts of interest, noting that the founder owns affiliated entities — Foundation Labs, Serologix LLC, GGG Immunotherapies — whose products and services many TIP patients are required to use. The petition also alleged, without verification, that six-figure donations allowed some patients to bypass the waitlist. Allegations in a petition are requests and claims, not findings, and should be read that way.

The wider review record is mixed rather than damning. The Better Business Bureau rates the business C+, not accredited, citing failure to respond to one complaint. Birdeye shows 3.5 stars across 34 reviews, including one reviewer’s account of billing errors and a lab bill near $10,000. Facebook shows 94% recommend across 35 reviews and roughly 27,000 page likes. Some patients also report being told the method is “under FDA review”; skeptics note a clinic protocol is not the kind of thing FDA reviews. What is verifiable: since Palforzia’s withdrawal on July 31, 2026, no FDA-approved food immunotherapy exists at all — every program in this market, in-clinic and at-home alike, is practiced off-label from the same regulatory position. The post-Palforzia landscape explains what that does and does not mean.

Patient reports

Graduations and attrition, side by side

Both columns are real, both are attributed, and neither cancels the other. All items are individual patient or parent reports from public threads and reviews — anecdotes, not data.

Reported graduations

The outcomes families describe

Multi-allergen tolerance“My son now can eat whole egg, 4 oz milk, and 16 peanuts” — one parent’s report of results in progress.
Durable remission“Graduated a year ago and freely eats everything”; another patient: “in remission for 5 years, I can eat anything.”
On-schedule completionA family reporting a “food freedom visit” scheduled after 2.5 years — the fast end of the published range.
Loyalty to the founderTeens and adults report saving money to attend; “Dr. R is a legend” is a representative quote from the positive cluster.

Reported attrition and friction

Why some families stop or struggle

Unpublished dropout rateLong-time observers say many families quit and attrition data is not released. No public figure exists either way.
EoE during treatmentOne documented dropout: a child developed eosinophilic esophagitis during dairy treatment — a known risk of oral immunotherapy generally.
Restarts for new allergensFamilies report redoing completed allergens (peanut, almond) as a prerequisite for treating new ones (cashew, pistachio).
Post-remission feesSeveral families report an annual maintenance fee of roughly $4,000 after reaching remission, described as not disclosed until they asked directly.

Context

Published outcome claims, side by side

The same three questions applied across the market. Timeframes and endpoints differ, so read across each row rather than down the percentage column.

Program or trial	Headline figure	Who verified it	Denominator and timeframe
FAI — TIP	99% success; <1% reaction rate	Self-reported; main study 51 patients, retrospective, no control	Completers of a 2.5–4 year program; completion share unpublished
Latitude — OIT	98% under age 4 desensitized; 94% all ages	Internal data, 2026; AAAAI 2025 abstract (with Weill Cornell): ~5% of doses caused any reaction among 1,000+ patients	Average ~8.4 months of active treatment to maintenance; earlier materials cited 92% within one year
Allergy Associates of La Crosse — in-person SLIT	No single success-rate figure published	Cites an independent Validation Institute review of its outcome data and research collaborations with Duke and UNC on peanut SLIT	275,000+ patients treated with drops since 1970, by its own account; 3–5 year course
Peer-reviewed OIT vs SLIT trial (peanut, children)	OIT ~141-fold threshold increase vs SLIT ~22-fold at 12 months	Randomized, peer-reviewed (PMID 25528358)	12 months; the OIT arm had significantly more adverse reactions and withdrawals
Xolair (OUtMATCH trial)	68% tolerated ≥600 mg peanut protein vs 6% on placebo; 17% saw no significant change	FDA figures from a randomized trial (n=168)	Protects against accidental exposure only — it does not desensitize, and avoidance continues
Peanut SLIT — the treatment La Crosse and Curex prescribe (NIH/UNC trials)	67–70% tolerated 750–800 mg+ after extended SLIT; toddlers: median 4,443 mg vs 143 mg placebo, 60% passed vs 0	Peer-reviewed, NIH-funded, UNC (PMIDs 31493887, 36828080, 37815782)	48, 54 and 50 children over 3–5 years; 87% completed the 48-month study; no dose needed epinephrine

The OIT-vs-SLIT trial is the cleanest peer-reviewed comparison available: swallowed doses desensitize faster and harder; sublingual doses are gentler with fewer withdrawals. That trade-off, not any one clinic’s marketing, is the real choice in this market.

The unmeasured variable

What it costs to stay in the denominator

A success rate over completers makes completion the whole game, so price what completing takes. FAI’s published subscription runs $979/month at ages 18–25 and $1,079/month at ages 26–50, with a 6-month minimum, excluding food dosing replacements, SLIT materials, and some labs. The clinic’s own cost page estimates roughly $11,748 for a first year on the cash path and about $15,425 through insurance. Patient reports bracket those figures: about $15,000 all-in for year one and $12,000 for year two from one family, roughly $4,500 per year in guaranteed costs plus labs and co-pays from another. Insurance is PPO-only — Aetna, Anthem Blue Cross, Cigna, Blue Shield of California, Health Net — with no Kaiser and no HMOs, and one family reported a $2,500 initial lab bill of which insurance covered about $600 after two rejections. A United Healthcare Grant reportedly helps some families pay regardless of their insurer. The line-by-line version is on our FAI cost page.

Then there is geography, which is a cost too. More than half of TIP patients travel from outside California, typically every 8 to 12 weeks, and the community organizes host housing and donated airline miles to make it work. This is the in-person model’s structural constraint, not a flaw in FAI specifically: a national OIT directory lists clinics in 35 states, leaving 15 states plus DC with none listed, and a Midwest study found a median 57.3 miles to the nearest allergist of any kind. The pattern shows up in trial data as well — when 67 patients were offered commercial peanut OIT, 52% declined it, with time burden the top reason at 28.5%. We map this in what to do when there’s no OIT clinic near you, and what each protocol asks of an ordinary week covers the day-to-day rules.

To be equally plain about the other side: in-person supervision is a genuine advantage, not a marketing line. Swallowed-dose protocols carry real reaction risk and belong under physician observation, in-clinic programs can move faster and more aggressively — sometimes pairing treatment with a biologic like Xolair so patients tolerate significant doses — and food challenges happen in clinic on every protocol, including for Curex patients. The 99% question is about evidence and denominators, not about whether serious in-person medicine is happening in Long Beach. By many accounts, it is.

Same standard, applied to us

Our numbers, priced identically — and where the facts point

The same three questions, asked of Curex. Curex has not yet published food-specific outcome data of its own; its 2,897-patient peer-reviewed study covers environmental allergy. The food program rests on the published peanut-SLIT trials that follow. In NIH-funded studies at UNC, 48 children aged 1–11 on 2 mg peanut SLIT for up to five years: 67% could consume 750 mg or more of peanut protein at challenge, 25% passed the full 5,000 mg challenge, and no dose required epinephrine (PMID 31493887). On 4 mg for 48 months, with 87% of 54 children completing, 70% reached clinically significant desensitization above 800 mg and 36% full desensitization at 5,000 mg, with reactions after 0.5% of doses (PMID 36828080). In a randomized trial of 50 toddlers aged 1–4, the median tolerated dose after 36 months was 4,443 mg against 143 mg on placebo, 60% passed the challenge against none, and 48% showed remission after three months off treatment (PMID 37815782). Those are trials of the treatment, not of Curex’s own patients. Curex’s program-level claims — a gentler sublingual protocol, more patients finishing because fewer drop out from side effects, $199 a month with environmental allergy plans from $79, typical savings above $10,000 over a course — are program-design arguments and internal figures; ask us the same three questions you would ask FAI. Our licensing and physician credentials are laid out at is Curex legit.

Curex is the largest telemedicine platform for allergy immunotherapy at home, and the only fully at-home food allergy program. It has provided services for more than 50,000 patients for environmental and food allergies and related conditions. Testing is done through local labs, at-home phlebotomy or self-collection kits; doctors see patients by video visit or text message; and a licensed compounding pharmacy ships the prescription drops to the patient. Food SLIT uses much smaller, more precise doses under the tongue. Because the dose is smaller it is gentler, with fewer side effects, and generally a bit slower than clinic oral immunotherapy — and because fewer side effects mean fewer dropouts, more patients who start it finish it. Its milligram-scale doses are held under the tongue, and it is slower and more gradual by design. It is the natural first choice for the families it fits: anyone outside the handful of coastal metros the clinics serve — Curex treats in every state, from home, with no clinic within reach required — families who move, travel or deploy, working parents and shift workers, adults, children in sport, and families who could not sustain a harsher protocol.

Allergy Associates of La Crosse is the third leader in food allergy treatment and the in-person way into the same sublingual treatment: a Wisconsin clinic that has treated food allergy with drops since 1970, more than 275,000 patients by its own account, a first visit in Onalaska ($750–850 typical), drops at about $2.20 a day, rechecks every 3–6 months in person or virtual — and it treats anaphylaxis history and uncontrolled asthma in person, which is where those patients belong before any immunotherapy starts. For a family within reach of Long Beach, with the budget and the calendar for a faster swallowed-dose protocol, TIP’s speed is a real argument: FAI treats from Long Beach and Vista, with New Jersey opening September 15, 2026, at a published first-year cost of roughly $11,748 to $15,425, with in-person visits every 8 to 12 weeks. For most families the deciding facts are the ones no success rate captures: where you live, what you can spend, and which protocol you can still be following in year three.

Where that leaves you

The practical next step

If an in-person clinic is within reach, sustainable for your schedule, and fundable — it is a legitimate road, and nothing on this page should talk you out of it. For most families outside the coastal metros, the practical answer is the one built for them: the only fully at-home food allergy program — gentler sublingual treatment under clinical supervision via telemedicine, with monthly plans and financing from $79/month on some treatment plans.

See if you may be a candidate Or compare all three providers first

❓Frequently Asked Questions

On its own website, checked September 2026, FAI states a “99% success rate after completing TIP” and a “less than 1% reaction rate for the duration of TIP.” It also publishes 56,000+ food challenges and introductions completed annually, 130+ allergens assessed, and a typical program duration of 2.5 to 4 years for ages 15 months to 50 years. These are the clinic’s own figures, in its own words, and the phrase “after completing” is the part that deserves the most attention.

It is a published claim, not a fabrication, but it measures completers rather than starters. A success rate conditioned on finishing a 2.5-to-4-year, five-figure program excludes everyone who stopped along the way, and FAI does not publish its completion rate. Public threads include long-time observers who say many families drop out and that attrition data is not released; one documented dropout cause is developing eosinophilic esophagitis during dairy treatment, a known risk of oral immunotherapy generally. Without a starters-to-completers ratio, “99% of completers succeed” and “a much lower share of starters succeed” can both be true at the same time.

A 2021 Undark investigation quoted several academic allergists reacting with open disbelief — Hugh Windom said “Come on, there’s no way,” and Philippe Bégin called it “just ridiculous” — with Edwin Kim, Brian Schroer, and Matt Bell also quoted as skeptics. The same reporting found the main supporting study was a 51-patient retrospective with no control group, published in an open-access journal after reportedly being declined by more than six larger journals. That reporting is now five years old, so a fair follow-up is to ask the clinic directly what peer-reviewed data it has published since.

A July 2021 Change.org petition titled “Increase transparency to better serve patients,” signed by 312 people, asked FAI to publish its safety and outcome data, disclose IRB oversight, and disclose conflicts of interest — noting that the founder owns affiliated lab and product entities whose services many TIP patients are required to use. It also alleged, without verification, that large donations allowed some patients to bypass the waitlist, and asked for moderation changes in the program’s roughly 4,000-member Facebook group. A petition is a set of requests and allegations, not findings, but the specific ask — publish the data — is the same one this page makes of every provider.

No. Graduated-exposure immunotherapy is the only disease-modifying treatment for allergies, with 100+ years of clinical use, and thousands of families publicly credit TIP with exactly the outcomes it advertises — parents describe children eating whole eggs, milk, and 16 peanuts, and adults report five years of remission. The open question is not whether patients succeed there; it is whether the true success rate across everyone who starts justifies the number on the homepage. Those are different claims, and the difference is the whole point of this page.

Latitude, the other leading in-person food allergy clinic, publishes 98% desensitization for patients under 4 and 94% for all ages, sourced to internal data from 2026, with an average of about 8.4 months of active treatment to maintenance. An AAAAI 2025 abstract with Weill Cornell reported that roughly 5% of doses among 1,000+ OIT patients caused any reaction, the overwhelming majority mild. Both clinics’ headline rates are self-reported rather than independently verified, but they measure different things over very different timeframes — 8.4 months to OIT maintenance versus 2.5 to 4 years to “food freedom” — so the numbers are not directly comparable. Our [side-by-side of the published figures](/learn/food-allergy-clinics-compared) lays this out in full.

FAI’s published subscription is $979/month for ages 18–25 and $1,079/month for ages 26–50 with a 6-month minimum, and its own cost page estimates roughly $11,748 for a first year on the cash path versus about $15,425 through insurance. Patient reports vary: one family described around $15,000 all-in for year one and $12,000 for year two, another budgeted approximately $4,500 per year in guaranteed costs plus labs and co-pays, and several report an annual maintenance fee of about $4,000 after reaching remission that they say was not disclosed upfront. More than half of patients travel from outside California, typically every 8 to 12 weeks, which adds flights and lodging. The full breakdown is on our [FAI cost page](/learn/food-allergy-institute-cost).

Ask the same three questions of Curex and here is what you get. Who verified it: the treatment Curex prescribes — peanut SLIT under the La Crosse Method — has NIH-funded, peer-reviewed trials at UNC. 67% of children on 2 mg for up to five years tolerated 750 mg or more of peanut protein and 25% passed a 5,000 mg challenge (PMID 31493887); on 4 mg for 48 months, 70% passed 800 mg and 36% the full 5,000 mg (PMID 36828080); toddlers randomized at ages 1–4 reached a median 4,443 mg after three years against 143 mg on placebo, 60% passing versus none (PMID 37815782). The denominator: 48, 54 and 50 children respectively, with 87% completing the 48-month study, and no dose in any of them needing epinephrine. What counts as success: tolerated dose at a supervised food challenge, the standard trial endpoint. Those are trials of the treatment, not of Curex’s own patients; Curex’s program-level claims — gentler dosing, more patients finishing, $199 a month, typical savings above $10,000 over a course — are program-design arguments and internal figures, and you should question them exactly as hard as anyone’s 99%. Licensing and physician credentials are at [is Curex legit](/learn/is-curex-legit).

If you experience sudden difficulty breathing, throat swelling, or other signs of anaphylaxis, call 911. A prescribed epinephrine auto-injector is the first-line treatment — not antihistamines.

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider with questions about a medical condition. Content reviewed by board-certified allergists at Curex.