High-dose sublingual immunotherapy in children at 8-year follow-up
Available from: Claude Ponvert
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: As during previous years, numerous studies have been published aiming to increase knowledge of pathophysiology, epidemiology, (early) diagnosis, prevention and treatment of respiratory allergy and asthma in children. Most important findings concern the role of new viruses (typeC rhinoviruses especially) as a cause of infant bronchiolitis, and the long-lasting bronchial inflammation induced by respiratory virus infections, which may promote subsequent asthma development. Interactions between genetic and environmental (allergenic and non allergenic) factors are highlighted in several important studies, as well as statistically significant relationships between asthma and overweight/obesity. Inhaled corticosteroids associated with long-acting bronchodilators are more efficient than inhaled corticosteroids alone. Finally, several studies including numerous children show that sublingual immunotherapy is efficient in pollen and/or mite-allergic rhinitis and/or asthma in children. However, the length of efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy may be shorter than reported for subcutaneous immunotherapy.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Allergic rhinitis affects up to 40% of the US population. To desensitize allergic individuals, subcutaneous injection immunotherapy or sublingual immunotherapy may be administered. In the United States, sublingual immunotherapy is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. However, some US physicians use aqueous allergens, off-label, for sublingual desensitization.
To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of aqueous sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma.
The databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through December 22, 2012. English-language randomized controlled trials were included if they compared sublingual immunotherapy with placebo, pharmacotherapy, or other sublingual immunotherapy regimens and reported clinical outcomes. Studies of sublingual immunotherapy that are unavailable in the United States and for which a related immunotherapy is unavailable in the United States were excluded. Paired reviewers selected articles and extracted the data. The strength of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was graded based on the risk of bias (scored on allocation, concealment of intervention, incomplete data, sponsor company involvement, and other bias), consistency, magnitude of effect, and the directness of the evidence.
Sixty-three studies with 5131 participants met the inclusion criteria. Participants' ages ranged from 4 to 74 years. Twenty studies (n = 1814 patients) enrolled only children. The risk of bias was medium in 43 studies (68%). Strong evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy improves asthma symptoms, with 8 of 13 studies reporting greater than 40% improvement vs the comparator. Moderate evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy use decreases rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, with 9 of 36 studies demonstrating greater than 40% improvement vs the comparator. Medication use for asthma and allergies decreased by more than 40% in 16 of 41 studies of sublingual immunotherapy with moderate grade evidence. Moderate evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy improves conjunctivitis symptoms (13 studies), combined symptom and medication scores (20 studies), and disease-specific quality of life (8 studies). Local reactions were frequent, but anaphylaxis was not reported.
The overall evidence provides a moderate grade level of evidence to support the effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, but high-quality studies are still needed to answer questions regarding optimal dosing strategies. There were limitations in the standardization of adverse events reporting, but no life-threatening adverse events were noted in this review.
Available from: Desiree Larenas
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To perform a structured analysis of the latest scientific evidence obtained for the clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, reference lists from reviews, and personal databases were reviewed for original articles on clinical trials with SLIT in patients younger than 18 years published from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2012, using broad search and medical subject heading terms. STUDY SELECTIONS: Clinical trials, irrespective of their design, of SLIT in the treatment of respiratory and food allergy in patients 18 years or younger were selected. Clinical outcomes (symptom scores, medication use, provocation tests, pulmonary function tests, skin prick tests, and adverse events) and immunologic changes were tabulated. Quality of each trial and total quality of compounded evidence was analyzed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Of 56 articles, 29 met the inclusion criteria. New evidence is robust for the precoseasonal tablet and drop grass pollen SLIT efficacy in allergic rhinitis and scarce for seasonal asthma. Some evidence for Alternaria SLIT efficacy is appearing. For house dust mite (HDM) SLIT in asthma, there is high-quality evidence for medication reduction while maintaining symptom control; evidence for HDM SLIT efficacy in allergic rhinitis is of moderate-low quality. There is moderate evidence for efficacy of dual grass pollen-HDM SLIT after 12 months of treatment and 1 year after discontinuation. Specific provocation test results (nasal, skin) improve with grass pollen and HDM SLIT but nonspecific bronchial provocation testing does not. Food oral immunotherapy is more promising than food SLIT. Possible new surrogate markers have been reported. No anaphylaxis was found among 2469 treated children. CONCLUSION: Evidence for efficacy of SLIT in children with respiratory or food allergy is growing.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.