Comparative effect of pre-coseasonal and continuous grass sublingual immunotherapy in children
ABSTRACT One of the most important aspects of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is the regimen of administration. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and the safety of SLIT given pre-coseasonally (starting before the pollen season and continuing until the end of it) and continuously (all year round, independent of the pollen season) in children allergic to grass pollen.
Sixty children aged 6-18, sensitive only to grass pollen, with rhinitis (20 patients had concomitant asthma) participated in the 2-year prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Both pre-coseasonal and continuous SLIT were associated with a substantial reduction in the combined symptoms/medication score when compared with placebo; there were no significant differences between the regimens (mean difference: 18.1 ± 12.4, P > 0.05). Similar changes were observed in the total symptoms score. Pre-coseasonal therapy, compared with continuous, was more effective in the reduction of nasal symptoms (mean difference: -18.0 ± 2.5, P = 0.006). We did not observe significant differences in medication, ocular, and asthma scores between the regimens. We did not observe changes in morning PEF, FEV1, and PD20 in any of the three groups nor between the groups throughout the study. We showed a significant decrease in FeNO level comparable in both active groups. There were no differences between groups in the induction of CD4CD25Foxp3-positive cells in peripheral blood during the study.
Both protocols were effective compared with placebo and showed similar decreases for combined symptoms/medication score and all secondary endpoints, with the exception of nasal symptoms that were lower in the pre-coseasonal group.
Article: Oral and sublingual immunotherapy.[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Allergic diseases have continued to increase throughout the developed world. Subcutaneous immunotherapy has been a mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma, however, some patients are precluded from treatment. On the other hand, in the case of food allergy, treatments simply do not exist. Oral and sublingual immunotherapy, with its superior safety and ease of administration, offers an alternative for patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma and has also been promising as a potential treatment for food allergy. The review summarizes significant advances from the past year including further data on the effectiveness of existing treatments, preliminary data on novel treatments, and further understanding of the mechanisms of these new therapies.03/2014; 1(1):48-57. DOI:10.1007/s40521-013-0004-7
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sublingual immunotherapy is currently considered a viable alternative to the subcutaneous route. The body of evidence of its efficacy is based on the results of 77 clinical trials and 7 meta-analyses, that have been published so far. Nonetheless, the experimental evidence is partially weak due to the large heterogeneity of studies, namely: doses, regimens, patient selection, duration of treatment, outcomes and reporting. In addition, it is virtually impossible to compare the potency of extracts produced by different manufacturers. Also, there is large variability in reporting and in the classification of adverse events, either systemic or local, so that only a rough estimate can be provided. Considering all these aspects, efforts are needed to harmonize the methodology, outcome measures and reporting of SLIT clinical trials, to achieve the ability of comparing the results of various studies. International societies and the World Allergy Organization have recently provided general recommendations on how to design and conduct trials which can provide more interpretable and homogeneous data.World Allergy Organization Journal 01/2014; 7(1):21. DOI:10.1186/1939-4551-7-21
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have been shown to effectively treat grass pollen allergies, although direct comparisons are sparse. To estimate the relative efficacy of SLIT tablets compared with SCIT and SLIT drops in commercially available products though network meta-analysis. A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library publications. Randomized, double-blind clinical trials of SCIT, SLIT drops, and SLIT tablets for grass pollen were included. Bayesian network meta-analyses estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) across 3 immunotherapy modalities on allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication score data from publications or received from authors. Both fixed and random effects models were investigated. Thirty-seven studies were included in meta-analyses for symptom scores and 31 studies for medication scores. In the random effects model, SCIT and SLIT tablets were significantly different from placebo for symptom scores: SMDs (95% CI) of -0.32 (-0.45 to -0.18) and -0.32 (-0.41 to -0.23), respectively. No significant difference was identified for SLIT drops compared with placebo (SMD, -0.17; -0.37 to 0.04). For medication scores, significant differences compared with placebo were observed for SCIT (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.13), SLIT tablets (SMD, -0.23; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.17), and SLIT drops (SMD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.06). Network meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in SMDs (95% credible interval) for symptom scores (0.0145 [-0.19 to 0.23]) or medication scores (0.133 [-0.31 to 0.57]) between SLIT tablets and SCIT, or for symptom scores (-0.175 [-0.37 to 0.02]) and medication scores (0.188 [-0.18 to 0.56]) between SLIT tablets and SLIT drops. The comparisons for grass pollen immunotherapy products commercialized in at least 1 country indicate comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms and supplemental medication use for SLIT tablets and SCIT in the first pollen season. Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.11/2014; 3(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jaip.2014.09.018