Intralymphatic immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Allergy, 2017
Background The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. In order to inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis Methods We searched 15 international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included costeffectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. Results We identified 5932 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD-0.53, 95%CI-0.63,-0.42), medication (SMD-0.37, 95%CI-0.49,-0.26) and combined symptom and medication (SMD-0.49, 95%CI-0.69,-0.30) scores whilst on treatment that were robust to pre-specified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, this suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores. Conclusions AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis whilst on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.
Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: protocol for a systematic review
Clinical and Translational Allergy, 2016
Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). To inform the development of recommendations, we sought to critically assess the systematic review evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for ARC. Methods: We undertook a systematic overview, which involved searching nine international biomedical databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively synthesized. Results: Our searches yielded a total of 5932 potentially eligible studies, from which 17 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Eight of these were judged to be of high, five moderate and three low quality. These reviews suggested that, in carefully selected patients, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy resulted in significant reductions in symptom scores and medication requirements. Serious adverse outcomes were rare for both SCIT and SLIT. Two systematic reviews reported some evidence of potential cost savings associated with use of SCIT and SLIT. Conclusions: We found moderate-to-strong evidence that SCIT and SLIT can, in appropriately selected patients, reduce symptoms and medication requirements in patients with ARC with reassuring safety data. This evidence does however need to be interpreted with caution, particularly given the heterogeneity in the populations, allergens and protocols studied. There is a lack of data on the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. We are now systematically reviewing all the primary studies, including recent evidence that has not been incorporated into the published systematic reviews.
EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis
Allergy
Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some sideeffects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology and it may have a disease modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergy Immunotherapy". It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass-tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008
The only causative treatment for IgE-mediated allergies is allergen-specific immunotherapy. However, fewer than 5% of allergy patients receive immunotherapy because of its long duration and risk of allergic side effects. We aimed at enhancing s.c. immunotherapy by direct administration of allergen into s.c. lymph nodes. The objective was to evaluate safety and efficacy compared with conventional s.c. immunotherapy. In a monocentric open-label trial, 165 patients with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis were randomized to receive either 54 s.c. injections with pollen extract over 3 years [cumulative allergen dose 4,031,540 standardized quality units (SQ-U)] or 3 intralymphatic injections over 2 months (cumulative allergen dose 3,000 SQ-U). Patients were evaluated after 4 months, 1 year, and 3 years by nasal provocation, skin prick testing, IgE measurements, and symptom scores. Three low-dose intralymphatic allergen administrations increased tolerance to nasal provocation with pollen already within 4 months (P < 0.001). Tolerance was long lasting and equivalent to that achievable after standard s.c. immunotherapy (P = 0.291 after 3 years). Intralymphatic immunotherapy ameliorated hay fever symptoms (P < 0.001), reduced skin prick test reactivity (P < 0.001), decreased specific serum IgE (P < 0.001), caused fewer adverse events than s.c. immunotherapy (P = 0.001), enhanced compliance (P < 0.001), and was less painful than venous puncture (P = 0.018). In conclusion, intralymphatic allergen administration enhanced safety and efficacy of immunotherapy and reduced treatment time from 3 years to 8 weeks. ↵* Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00470457). Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
World Allergy Organization Journal, 2013
Background: One fourth of the adult population in Europe suffer from respiratory allergy. Subcutaneous-allergenspecific-immunotherapy (SCIT) has long-term disease modifying effect on disease specific Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of SCIT on alternative disease outcomes in patients with grass-pollen and/or house dust mite induced allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and/or an asthma diagnosis. Focus was on expressing outcomes in terms of generic quality of life (Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALY)) and reductions in sick days. Methods: The study was a multi-centre study with prospective follow-up. 248 patients were initiated on SCIT. The disease specific Rhino-conjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and two generic (HRQoL) instruments 15D and EQ-5D were used at baseline and at follow-up. The outcome measures included change in; disease severity, RQLQ-scores, number of days with symptoms-and number of sick days per year and finally changes in generic HRQoL and thus, QALY. Disease severity was assessed by specialist doctors; severity of rhino-conjunctivitis was classified according to the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) and asthma severity according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA guideline). The remaining outcome measures were assessed by the patients in questionnaires at baseline and at follow-up. An intension to treat approach was applied. For missing items imputation of sample mean base-line values or follow-up values were used after specified criteria. The effect of SCIT on rhino-conjunctivitis and/or asthma diagnoses was analysed at follow-up using three logistic regression models. Results: The disease severity showed significantly improved disease control. Mean RQLQ-score was reduced from 3.02 at baseline to 2.00 at follow-up. Average annual days with symptoms were reduced from 189 to 145 days whilst annual sick days were reduced from 3.7 to 1.2 days. The 15D-score increased from 0.83 to 0.86 and the EQ-5D-score from 0.70 to 0.77, which indicated an annual gain per patient of 0.03-0.06 QALY. Conclusions: Allergic patients suffering from rhino-conjunctivitis alone or rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma experience significantly increased HRQoL and they gain 0.03-0.06 QALY, when treated with SCIT for one year. Trial registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier: NCT01486498.
BMC Medicine, 2014
Background: The capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (score Placebo-score Active)/score Placebo. Results: Twenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were-29.6% (-23% to-37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets,-19.2% (-6% to-29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets,-23.5% (-7% to-54%) for nasal corticosteroids,-17.1% (-15% to-20%) for MP29-02,-15.0% (-3% to-26%) for H1-antihistamines and-6.5% (-3% to-10%) for montelukast. Conclusions: In an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
American Journal of Rhinology and Allergy, 2013
Background: Two different regimens of subcutaneous immunotherapy (IT), perennial or preseasonal, may be used in the treatment of seasonal allergy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of perennial IT (PIT) and preseasonal IT (PSIT) in patients suffering from seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis. Methods: The study was planned as a randomized, double-blind, comparative study on the efficacy and safety of PIT and PSIT. The study group comprised 120 patients allergic to grass and rye pollen. After the observational season they were randomized to receive PIT or PSIT for 3 years. The effect of IT was assessed based on symptom severity and medication use recorded in diaries. Results: Ninety-nine patients completed the study. No difference was seen between the groups regarding combined symptom medication score (SMS) in the first season of IT. During the second season, the difference between PIT and PSIT regarding combined SMS was 27.9% (p ϭ 0.063) and reached 42.7% (p ϭ 0.012) in favor of PIT in the third season. Both treatments had a similar safety profile. Conclusion: PIT was more effective than PSIT in the treatment of rhinoconjunctivitis in patients allergic to grass and rye pollens. Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT01555736.
Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation
BackgroundWe previously reported that repeated low-dose grass pollen intradermal allergen injection suppresses allergen-induced cutaneous late-phase responses, comparable with conventional high-dose subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and mechanism of grass pollen intradermal immunotherapy for treatment of allergic rhinitis.DesignA Phase II, double-blind, randomised controlled parallel-group trial.SettingSingle-centre UK study.ParticipantsAdults aged 18–65 years, with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.InterventionsSeven 2-weekly intradermal injections were given into the forearm, containing eitherPhleum pratensesoluble grass pollen extract (7 ng of the major allergen Phl p 5) or histamine control.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) during the 2013 grass pollen season. Secondary clinical outcomes were overall symptom scores; individual symptoms scores for nose, mouth, eyes ...