-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014Asthma is a common condition characterised by airway inflammation and airway narrowing, which can result in intermittent symptoms of wheezing, coughing and chest... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a common condition characterised by airway inflammation and airway narrowing, which can result in intermittent symptoms of wheezing, coughing and chest tightness, possibly limiting activities of daily life. Water-based exercise is believed to offer benefits for people with asthma through pollen-free air, humidity and effects of exercise on physical function.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of water-based exercise for adults with asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), PsycINFO, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) and Google Scholar on 13 May 2014. We handsearched ongoing clinical trial registers and meeting abstracts of the American Thoracic Society (ATS), the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the British Thoracic Society (BTS).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with asthma comparing a water-based exercise group versus one or more of the following groups: usual care, land-based exercise, non-exercise.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (AJG, VS) independently extracted data from the primary studies using a standard form developed for this purpose, which includes methods, participants, interventions and outcomes. We contacted trial authors to request additional data. Data were input by one review author and were double-checked by a second review author.
MAIN RESULTS
In this systematic review, we provide a narrative synthesis of available evidence from three small studies including 136 adult participants. The studies were at high risk of bias. No meta-analysis was possible because of methodological and interventional heterogeneity between included studies. The primary outcomes of quality of life and exacerbations leading to use of steroids were not reported by these studies. For exacerbations leading to health centre/hospital visits, uncertainty was wide because a very small number of events was reported (in a single study). Secondary outcomes symptoms, lung function, changes in medication and adverse effects, where available, described for each included study. The overall quality of the studies was very low, and no clear differences were noted between water-based exercise and comparator treatments. Therefore, we remain very uncertain about the effects of water-based exercise for adults with asthma.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The small number of participants in the three included studies, the clinical and methodological heterogeneity observed and the high risk of bias assessed mean that we are unable to assess the place of water-based exercise in asthma. Randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of water-based exercise for adults with asthma. For future research, we suggest greater methodological rigour (participant selection, blinding of outcome assessors, reporting of all outcomes analysed and registering of the study protocol).
Topics: Adult; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Female; Gymnastics; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resistance Training; Swimming; Water
PubMed: 25032820
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010456.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2015Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. However, it is not clear whether the sublingual delivery route is safe and effective in asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. The search is up to date as of 25 March 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and presented results in the 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 5077 participants to comparisons of interest. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, but studies varied in duration from one day to three years. Most participants had mild or intermittent asthma, often with co-morbid allergic rhinitis. Eighteen studies recruited only adults, 25 recruited only children and several recruited both or did not specify (n = 9).With the exception of adverse events, reporting of outcomes of interest to this review was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence. Allocation procedures generally were not well described, about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of bias for performance or detection bias or both and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies.One short study reported exacerbations requiring a hospital visit and observed no adverse events. Five studies reported quality of life, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. Serious adverse events were infrequent, and analysis using risk differences suggests that no more than 1 in 100 are likely to suffer a serious adverse event as a result of treatment with SLIT (RD 0.0012, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0077 to 0.0102; participants = 2560; studies = 22; moderate-quality evidence).Within secondary outcomes, wide but varied reporting of largely unvalidated asthma symptom and medication scores precluded meaningful meta-analysis; a general trend suggested SLIT benefit over placebo, but variation in scales meant that results were difficult to interpret.Changes in inhaled corticosteroid use in micrograms per day (MD 35.10 mcg/d, 95% CI -50.21 to 120.42; low-quality evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events) and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.69, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence) were not often reported. This led to many imprecise estimates with wide confidence intervals that included the possibility of both benefit and harm from SLIT.More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.38; low-quality evidence; participants = 1755; studies = 19), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild.Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Lack of data for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life and use of different unvalidated symptom and medication scores have limited our ability to draw a clinically useful conclusion. Further research using validated scales and important outcomes for patients and decision makers is needed so that SLIT can be properly assessed as clinical treatment for asthma. Very few serious adverse events have been reported, but most studies have included patients with intermittent or mild asthma, so we cannot comment on the safety of SLIT for those with moderate or severe asthma. SLIT is associated with increased risk of all adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Animals; Asthma; Child; Humans; Pollen; Pyroglyphidae; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 26315994
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011293.pub2 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Jan 2017
Review
Topics: Anemia, Hemolytic; Asymptomatic Diseases; Food; Food Coloring Agents; Glucosephosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency; Humans; Menthol; Naphthalenes; Pollen; Prunus persica; Trigonella; Vicia faba
PubMed: 27650490
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13091 -
Frontiers in Plant Science 2022Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis in soil may be directly or indirectly involved in the reproductive process of sexually reproducing plants (seed plants), and affect...
Arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis in soil may be directly or indirectly involved in the reproductive process of sexually reproducing plants (seed plants), and affect their reproductive fitness. However, it is not clear how underground AM symbiosis affects plant reproductive function. Here, we reviewed the studies on the effects of AM symbiosis on plant reproductive fitness including both male function (pollen) and female function (seed). AM symbiosis regulates the development and function of plant sexual organs by affecting the nutrient using strategy and participating in the formation of hormone networks and secondary compounds in host plants. The nutrient supply (especially phosphorus supply) of AM symbiosis may be the main factor affecting plant's reproductive function. Moreover, the changes in hormone levels and secondary metabolite content induced by AM symbiosis can also affect host plants reproductive fitness. These effects can occur in pollen formation and transport, pollen tube growth and seed production, and seedling performance. Finally, we discuss other possible effects of AM symbiosis on the male and female functional fitness, and suggest several additional factors that may be involved in the influence of AM symbiosis on the reproductive fitness of host plants. We believe that it is necessary to accurately identify and verify the mechanisms driving the changes of reproductive fitness of host plant in symbiotic networks in the future. A more thorough understanding of the mechanism of AM symbiosis on reproductive function will help to improve our understanding of AM fungus ecological roles and may provide references for improving the productivity of natural and agricultural ecosystems.
PubMed: 36072330
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.975488 -
Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex... Jan 2023Desert dust intrusions cause the transport of airborne particulate matter from natural sources, with important consequences for climate regulation, biodiversity,... (Review)
Review
Desert dust intrusions cause the transport of airborne particulate matter from natural sources, with important consequences for climate regulation, biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and dynamics, human health, and socio-economic activities. Some effects of desert intrusions are reinforced or aggravated by the bioaerosol content of the air during these episodes. The influence of desert intrusions on airborne bioaerosol content has been very little studied from a scientific point of view. In this study, a systematic review of scientific literature during 1970-2021 was carried out following the standard protocol Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). After this literature review, only 6% of the articles on airborne transport from desert areas published in the last 50 years are in some way associated with airborne pollen, and of these, only a small proportion focus on the study of pollen-related parameters. The Iberian Peninsula is affected by Saharan intrusions due to its proximity to the African continent and is seeing an increasing trend the number of intrusion events. There is a close relationship among the conditions favouring the occurrence of intrusion episodes, the transport of particulate matter, and the transport of bioaerosols such as pollen grains, spores, or bacteria. The lack of linearity in this relationship and the different seasonal patterns in the occurrence of intrusion events and the pollen season of most plants hinders the study of the correspondence between both phenomena. It is therefore important to analyse the proportion of pollen that comes from regional sources and the proportion that travels over long distances, and the atmospheric conditions that cause greater pollen emission during dust episodes. Current advances in aerobiological techniques make it possible to identify bioaerosols such as pollen and spores that serve as indicators of long-distance transport from remote areas belonging to other bioclimatic and biogeographical units. A greater incidence of desert intrusion episodes may pose a challenge for both traditional systems and for the calibration and correct validation of automatic aerobiological monitoring methods.
Topics: Humans; Dust; Incidence; Ecosystem; Environmental Monitoring; Pollen; Particulate Matter; Seasons; Air Pollutants
PubMed: 36273688
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120464 -
Menopause (New York, N.Y.) Feb 2024Menopause impacts the quality of life for women, with symptoms varying from hot flashes to night disturbances. When menopausal hormonal therapy is contraindicated or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Menopause impacts the quality of life for women, with symptoms varying from hot flashes to night disturbances. When menopausal hormonal therapy is contraindicated or women refuse menopausal hormonal therapy, many consider alternatives such as pollen extract for treating vasomotor symptoms.
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis focuses on the impact of using purified pollen extract as a treatment option to reduce vasomotor symptoms in women, specifically focusing on symptoms such as hot flashes, night disturbances, myalgias, and depression.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the following Boolean search string "women OR females" AND "purified pollen OR pollen extract OR cytoplasmic pollen OR Bonafide OR Femal OR Estroven OR Serelys" AND "menopausal symptoms OR vasomotor symptoms OR hot flashes OR night sweats OR sleep disturbance." Publications in English from 2003 to the present were included. To assess the risk of bias, authors used the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 for a randomized controlled trial and Risk-of-Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for observational studies. Using ReviewManager, a Der Simonian-Laird random-effects model meta-analysis was conducted to determine the standardized mean differences (SMDs) in the outcomes for each study.
FINDINGS
Five articles were retained: one randomized controlled trial and four observational studies ( N = 420). An overall decrease in scores from the baseline of studies compared with a 3-month follow-up after purified cytoplasm of pollen (PCP) treatment was recognized when compiling the data. Overall, there was significant improvement across all outcomes at 3 months: hot flashes demonstrated an overall improvement in SMD of -1.66 ( P < 0.00001), night disturbance scores were improved with an SMD of -1.10 ( P < 0.0001), depression scores were improved with an SMD of -1.31 ( P < 0.0001), and myalgia had an improvement in SMD of -0.40 ( P < 0.00001). When controlled studies were pooled for meta-analysis, outcomes, however, were no longer statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Evaluating the risk-to-benefit ratio of alternative therapies, such as PCP extract, is important to care for women who cannot take traditional vasomotor symptom therapies. Pooled data from controlled studies evaluating PCP extract suggest that vasomotor symptom improvements seen in noncontrolled studies may have been due to the placebo effect; however, its use was not associated with significant adverse effects.
Topics: Female; Humans; Complementary Therapies; Hot Flashes; Menopause; Plant Extracts; Pollen; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38194609
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000002301 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2011Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), nonmalignant enlargement of the prostate, can lead to obstructive and irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), nonmalignant enlargement of the prostate, can lead to obstructive and irritative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The pharmacologic use of plants and herbs (phytotherapy) for the treatment of LUTS associated with BPH has been growing steadily. Cernilton, prepared from the rye-grass pollen Secale cereale, is one of the several phytotherapeutic agents available for the treatment of BPH.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aims to assess the effects of Cernilton on urinary symptoms and flow measures in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
SEARCH STRATEGY
Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Phytodok), by checking bibliographies, and by contacting manufacturers and researchers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were eligible if they were: (1) randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing Cernilton with placebo or other BPH medications in men with BPH; and (2) included clinical outcomes such as urologic symptom scales, symptoms, or urodynamic measurements.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Information on patients, interventions, and outcomes was extracted by at least two independent reviewers using a standard form. Main outcome measure for comparing the effects of Cernilton with placebo and standard BPH medications were the change in urologic symptoms scales. Secondary outcomes included changes in nocturia as well as urodynamic measures (peak and mean urine flow, residual volume, prostate size). Main outcome measure for side effects was the number of men reporting side effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Four hundred forty-four men were enrolled in two placebo-controlled and two comparative trials lasting from 12 to 24 weeks. Three studies used a double-blind method although treatment allocation concealment was unclear in all. Cernilton improved "self rated urinary symptoms" (percent reporting satisfactory or improving symptoms) versus placebo and Tadenan. The weighted risk ratio (RR) for self-rated improvement versus placebo was 2.40 (95% CI = 1.21 to 4.75), and the weighted RR versus Tadenan was 1.42 (95% CI = 1.21 to 4.75). Cernilton reduced nocturia compared with placebo and Paraprost. Versus placebo, the weighted RR was 2.05 (95% CI = 1.41 to 3.00), and versus Paraprost, the WMD was -0.40 times per evening (95% CI = -0.73 to -0.07). Cernilton was not more effective than placebo or the comparative study agents in improving urinary flow rates, residual volume or prostate size. Adverse events were rare and mild. The withdrawal rate for Cernilton was 4.8% compared to 2.7% for placebo and 5.2% for Paraprost.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The Cernilton trials analyzed were limited by short duration, limited number of enrollees, gaps in reported outcomes, and unknown quality of the preparations utilized. The comparative trials lacked a proven active control. The available evidence suggests Cernilton is well tolerated and modestly improves overall urologic symptoms including nocturia. Additional randomized placebo and active-controlled trials are needed to evaluate the long-term clinical effectiveness and safety of Cernilton.
Topics: Humans; Male; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Secale
PubMed: 21563128
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001042.pub2 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2007Seasonal allergic rhinitis is found throughout the world. Epidemiological evidence suggests that there is considerable geographical variation in its prevalence. Symptoms... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Seasonal allergic rhinitis is found throughout the world. Epidemiological evidence suggests that there is considerable geographical variation in its prevalence. Symptoms are caused by an IgE mediated type 1 hypersensitivity reaction to air-borne allergens such as pollen or fungal spores, and may also cause eye, respiratory, and systemic problems.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for seasonal allergic rhinitis in adolescents and adults? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to September 2005 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 165 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: astemizole, intranasal azelastine, intranasal corticosteroids, intranasal ipratropium bromide, intranasal levocabastine, oral antihistamines, oral decongestants, oral leukotriene receptor antagonists, pseudoephedrine, systemic corticosteroids, terfenadine.
Topics: Geography; MEDLINE; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; United States; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 19454070
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.
SEARCH METHODS
The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Animals; Asthma; Child; Disease Progression; Hospitalization; Humans; Placebos; Pollen; Pyroglyphidae; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 32926419
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011293.pub3 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Sep 2010The benefit of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with grass allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis has been extensively studied, but data on efficacy are still equivocal. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The benefit of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with grass allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis has been extensively studied, but data on efficacy are still equivocal.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness of SLIT with grass allergens in the reduction of symptoms and medication in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis to grass pollen.
METHODS
Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE (1995-2010) were supplemented by hand searches of reference lists. Studies were included if they were double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLIT to placebo and if they included patients with history of allergy to grass pollen treated with natural grass pollen extracts. Nineteen RCTs with 2971 patients were analyzed. The outcomes assessed were symptom and medication scores.
RESULTS
Using a random-effects model, SLIT with grass allergens significantly reduces both symptoms (standardized mean difference, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.21) and medication use (standardized mean difference, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.16) compared with placebo. The treatment is more efficacious in adults than in children. Prolonging duration of preseasonal treatment for more than 12 weeks improves the treatment efficacy.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis found that SLIT with grass allergens is effective in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis compared with placebo. The benefit is clinically modest, and criteria are needed to identify patients most likely to benefit from SLIT.
Topics: Administration, Sublingual; Humans; Immunotherapy; MEDLINE; Poaceae; Pollen; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20674964
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.06.013