Search

Objective: This study investigates the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with A. annua allergens in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis over two pollen seasons. Methods: Seventy patients with moderate-severe seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were divided evenly into the SLIT and control groups. The SLIT last from 3 months before the summer-autumn pollen season in 2021 till the end of the summer-autumn pollen season in 2022. The daily individual symptom score, total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (dTRSS), total medication score (dTMS), combined score of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptom (dCSMRS), visual analog scale (VAS) score, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Results: The average pollen concentration in 2022 was twice that previous two-year during the pollen season. Fifty-six patients completed treatments (SLIT group: 29, control group: 27). Compared with baseline, the individual symptoms, dTRSS, dTMS, dCSMRS, and VAS scores of SLIT group declined in 2021. After 16 months of SLIT, all efficacy indexes in 2022 were still lower than baseline and equivalent to those in 2021. In control group, the efficacy indexes in 2022 were higher than that in 2020 and 2021. The efficacy indexes of SLIT group were lower than those of control group in 2021 and 2022. SLIT is effective for both mono- and poly-sensitized patients. AEs incidence in SLIT group was 82.7% without severe AEs. Conclusions: The A. annua-SLIT can obtain efficacy and safety over two pollen seasons for patients with moderate-severe seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines are intended to facilitate evidence-based clinical decision-making and knowledge translation; however, the quality and rigor of the guidelines are different. This study was conducted to assess the quality of sublingual immunotherapy guidelines for allergic rhinitis, in order to provide a reference for evidence-based clinical treatment and management of sublingual immunotherapy. Methods: Using both Chinese and English search methods, articles were obtained from PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP, and other databases from the construction of the database to September 2020. The AGREE II instrument was used by two researchers to independently evaluate the quality of the extracted articles, and the consistency of the researchers was evaluated using the inter-group correlation coefficient. Results: Ten articles were included in this study, of which two articles ranked A level, six articles ranked B level, and two articles ranked C level. The six sections of AGREE II included scope and aim, clarity, participant, applicability, rigor, and editorial independence, with standardized scores of 78.06%, 45.83%, 42.81%, 77.50%, 50.42%, and 46.25%, respectively. Conclusion: The quality of the current guidelines for sublingual immunotherapy is average. The formulation methodology and reporting standards of these guidelines must be developed. By standardizing the treatment of sublingual immunotherapy properly, it is recommended that guideline makers refer to the AGREE II to formulate high-quality guidelines and promote their wide application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Numerous studies have demonstrated effectiveness for acupuncture in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). However, the underlying mechanism remains still unclear. Methods: 29 SAR patients were recruited from a large randomized, controlled trial investigating the efficacy of acupuncture in SAR. 16 patients were treated by acupuncture plus rescue medication (RM, cetirizine), 6 patients received sham acupuncture plus RM and 8 patients RM alone over 8 weeks. Patients were blinded to the allocation to real or sham acupuncture. At baseline and different time-points during intervention, plasma and nasal concentration of mediators of various biological functions were determined in addition to validated disease-specific questionnaires. Results: The concentration of biomarkers related to the Th1-, Th2-, and Treg-cluster was not changed in patients who received acupuncture, in neither plasma nor nasal fluid. However, with respect to eotaxin and some unspecific pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-1b, IL-8, IP-10, MIP-1b, MCP-1), acupuncture led to a, partially significantly, lower nasal concentration than sham acupuncture or RM. Furthermore, the nasal symptom score was significantly reduced in patients only after real acupuncture. Conclusion: In SAR, acupuncture reduces the intranasal unspecific inflammation, but does not seem to act immunologically on the Th1–Th2-imbalance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Ragweed allergen causes Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and sublingual immunotherapy is one of the treatment modalities to desensitize allergic individuals. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused due to Ragweed. Methods: The databases search was done through December 2020. English-language randomized controlled trials were included if they compared sublingual immunotherapy with placebo, pharmacotherapy, or other sublingual immunotherapy regimens, and reported clinical outcomes. The strength of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was graded based on the risk of bias, consistency, magnitude of effect, and the directness of the evidence. Results: The searches performed according to the protocol identified 134 abstracts of which 67 were duplicates. A total of 37 full papers were therefore reviewed of which 5 were included for the final study. Participants' ages ranged from 4 to 58 years. The risk of bias was low in most studies. The review suggests that sublingual immunotherapy improves rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, with 4 of 4 studies reporting efficacy showed improvement in the symptom score of SLIT groups compared to placebo. Local reactions were frequent, but anaphylaxis was not reported in any of the studies. Serious adverse events were very few in all the studies. Conclusions: The overall evidence showed the effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma, but high-quality studies are still needed to answer questions regarding optimal dosing strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: GSP301 is a fixed-dose combination of olopatadine hydrochloride (antihistamine) and mometasone furoate (corticosteroid). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of GSP301 in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The data were collected from PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Embase databases till June 2021. In patients with AR, short-term (2/6 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) effects of GSP301 were assessed. Average morning and evening 12-h reflective total nasal symptom score (rTNSS), instantaneous total nasal symptom score (iTNSS), reflective total ocular symptom score (rTOSS), instantaneous total ocular symptom score(iTOSS), Physician-assessed nasal symptom score (PNSS), rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), rhinitis control assessment test (RCAT) and adverse events (AEs) were measured. Results: Five randomized controlled trials were included. GSP301 showed greatly improvement in rTNSS (MD = – 0.99; [95% CI – 1.19 to – 0.79]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0), iTNSS (MD = – 1.05; [95% CI – 1.44 to – 0.67]; P < 0.01; I2 > 50%), rTOSS (MD = – 0.50; [95% CI – 0.72 to – 0.29]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0), iTOSS (MD = – 0.64; [95% CI – 1.02 to – 0.26]; P < 0.01; I2 > 50%), PNSS (MD = – 1.01; [95% CI – 1.32 to – 0.69]; P < 0.01; I2 = 22.13%), RQLQ (MD = – 0.43; [95% CI – 0.57 to – 0.30]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%) and RCAT (MD = 1.94; [95% CI 1.43–2.45]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%) in the short term. No statistical difference was observed in the outcome of long-term PNSS, RQLQ and RCAT. Conclusion: GSP301 is a safe and well-tolerated medication. It showed short-term benefits for seasonal and perennial AR, but may not help to improve patients' quality of life and rhinitis control in the long run. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been considered as an effective and safe alternative to the subcutaneous route. However, different modalities and administration methods may lead to significant changes in their adherence and clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the adherence, efficacy, and side effects of SLIT medicines: SLITone®, Lais®, and Staloral®. Subjects and methods: Eighty-two patients suffering from AR symptoms and sensitized only to house dust mite allergens were included. The patients were treated with SLITone®, Lais®, or Staloral®. Treatment outcomes related to efficacy, dropout rate, and adverse events were evaluated. The visual analogue scale (VAS) including sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and itching was scored from 0 (normal) to 10 (severe), before and after SLIT. Dropout rate was defined as the number of patients who discontinue SLIT of oneself compared to the number of patients who receive SLIT. Results: All of the nasal symptoms and total symptom scores were significantly decreased in SLITone®, Lais®, and Staloral®. Furthermore, there were significant difference in the improvement of rhinorrhea and TNSS between SLITone® and Staloral® group (p = 0.011 and p = 0.001, respectively). Four patients out of 26 in SLITone® group, 4 patients out of 30 in Lais® group, and 11 patients out of 26 in Staloral® group have stopped SLIT of themselves. The dropout rate was significantly higher in the Staloral® group than other two groups (p = 0.024). Only one patient complained adverse reaction such as swelling of mouth floor in the Staloral® group. Conclusion: Although all three SLIT medicines are effective in improving AR symptoms, the adherence to SLIT assessed in accordance with dropout rate was the lowest in the Staloral®. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

References 1 Dhulipalla S. Ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nevertheless, in the methods part of Dhulipalla S's manuscript, Dhulipalla S stated that "A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial.gov through March 2021 in the English language". Third, the title of Dhulipalla S's study highlighted that the article was a systematic review and meta-analysis, but Dhulipalla S did not conduct a meta-analysis. [Extracted from the article]

In the present study, we investigated the outcomes of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis (HDM-AR) patients. In this prospective, multicentric study, 186 patients with AR who had positive skin prick test results for HDMs were included. The patients were administered SLIT using Staloral 300 for 1 year. Evaluation of the patients regarding symptom scores, clinical findings and Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores was performed at baseline, and then at 6 and 12 months of therapy. Our results showed that, for all of the evaluated items (symptom scores, clinical findings and RQLQ scores), 12-month values were significantly lower than those at 6 months and baseline. Similarly, 6-month values were significantly lower than those at baseline. There were no complications in any of our patients. SLIT for HDM-AR is a treatment modality that can be used safely. We obtained better results than expected, and the treatment showed a positive psychological effect; the patients believed that SLIT was the final step of treatment and, which made them feel better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]