Article

Clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy with tree pollen extract in children.

Turku Allergy Centre, Turku, Finland.
Allergy (Impact Factor: 6). 10/2006; 61(10):1177-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01190.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Subcutaneous immunotherapy has been the principal approach of immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic diseases. Several clinical studies with birch, alder or hazel pollen extract conducted as subcutaneous immunotherapy have been published suggesting a well-tolerated and clinically effective treatment. Only a few clinical studies of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with these allergens have been published. This study investigated the clinical efficacy, safety and dose-response relationship of SLIT in children suffering from rhinoconjunctivitis with/without asthma.
Eighty-eight children (5-15 years) with a history of tree pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with/without seasonal asthma for >or=2 years were included. Allergy to tree pollen was confirmed by positive skin-prick test, positive specific IgE and positive conjunctival provocation test. The extract used was a glycerinated mixture of Betula verrucosa, Corylus avellana and Alnus glutinosa 100,000 SQ-U/ml. Children were randomized into three groups receiving SLIT 5 days a week for up to 18 months; dose group 1: accumulated weekly dose of 24,000 SQ-U; dose group 2: accumulated weekly dose of 200,000 SQ-U; and placebo.
In the birch pollen season, dose group 2 showed a significant reduction of symptom (P = 0.01) and medication scores (P = 0.04) compared with placebo. Dose group 1 showed a significant reduction of symptom scores (P = 0.03). There were no statistical differences between dose groups 1 and 2. All children tolerated the treatment well.
SLIT with tree pollen extract provided dose-dependent benefits in tree pollen-allergic children in terms of significantly reduced symptoms and medication use. The treatment was well tolerated.

Full-text

Available from: Lars Jacobsen, Sep 19, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
94 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allergen immunotherapy is the sole treatment for IgE-mediated allergic diseases directed at the underlying mechanism. The two widely accepted administration routes are sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT). We reviewed how patients should best be selected for immunotherapy and how the optimal administration route can be defined. Before deciding SCIT or SLIT, appropriate selection of patients for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is mandatory. To be eligible for AIT, subjects must have a clear medical history of allergic disease, with exacerbation of symptoms on exposure to one or more allergens and a corresponding positive skin or in vitro test. Then the route of administration should be based on: published evidence of clinical and immunologic efficacy (which varies per allergic disease and per allergen); mono- or multi-allergen immunotherapy, for SLIT multi-allergen immunotherapy was not effective; safety: adverse events with SLIT are more frequent, but less severe; and, costs and patient preferences, closely related to adherence issues. All these are discussed in the article.
    Immunotherapy 07/2014; 6(7):871-884. DOI:10.2217/imt.14.55 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Although the effectiveness of allergen monotherapy immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) has been well established by many prior studies, other aspects of immunotherapy are still incompletely documented by high-quality studies. The many published papers describe various results. The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy.MethodsA total of 56 homogeneous studies were included in the analysis. The inclusion criteria used to select articles were as follows: (1) placebo-controlled clinical trials; (2) the use of immunotherapy; (3) participants and/or physicians were or were not blinded to immunotherapy or placebo assignment (single-blinding, double-blinding, or no-blinding studies); and (4) randomization or not of those in the immunotherapy and placebo groups.ResultsBetween 2003 and 2013, 114 placebo-controlled clinical trials were reported in Medline. Studies describing recovery rates in immunotherapy and placebo groups numbered 56. The distribution of such works was homogeneous (heterogeneity chi-square = 16.11; degrees of freedom [df] = 55; p = 1.000). The extent of recovery in immunotherapy groups was 53.671-fold greater than in placebo groups (Mantel-Haenszel [M-H] pooled risk ratio [RR] = 53.671; 95% confidence interval [CI], 36.981 to 77.893; z = 20.96; p < 0.001).Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that immunotherapy is associated with a recovery rate 53.671-fold that of placebo.
    International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology 11/2014; 5(2). DOI:10.1002/alr.21447 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • Source