-
Allergy Sep 2016Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective allergy treatment, but it is unclear whether SIT is effective for atopic eczema (AE). We undertook a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective allergy treatment, but it is unclear whether SIT is effective for atopic eczema (AE). We undertook a systematic review to assess SIT efficacy and safety for treating AE.
METHODS
We searched databases, ongoing clinical trials registers, and conference proceedings up to July 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SIT using standardized allergen extracts, compared with placebo/control, for treating AE in patients with allergic sensitization were eligible.
RESULTS
We identified 12 eligible trials with 733 participants. Interventions included subcutaneous (six trials), sublingual (four trials), oral or intradermal SIT in children/adults allergic to house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen or other inhalants. Risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow-up and nonblinding as the main concerns. For our primary outcomes, three studies (208 participants) reported no significant difference - patient-reported global disease severity improvement RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.45, 1.26); and eczema symptoms mean difference -0.74 on a 20-point scale (95% CI -1.98, 0.50). Two studies (85 participants) reported a significant difference - SIT improved global disease severity RR 2.85 (95% CI 1.02, 7.96); and itch mean difference -4.20 on a 10-point scale (95% CI -3.69, -4.71). Meta-analysis was limited due to extreme statistical heterogeneity. For some secondary outcomes, meta-analyses showed benefits for SIT, for example investigator-rated improvement in eczema severity RR 1.48 (95% CI 1.16, 1.88; six trials, 262 participants). We found no evidence of adverse effects. The overall quality of evidence was low.
CONCLUSION
We found no consistent evidence that SIT is effective for treating AE, but due to the low quality of evidence further research is needed to establish whether SIT has a role in AE treatment.
Topics: Allergens; Combined Modality Therapy; Dermatitis, Atopic; Desensitization, Immunologic; Eczema; Humans; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27184158
DOI: 10.1111/all.12932 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.
Topics: Adult; Allergens; Animals; Child; Dermatitis, Atopic; Dermatophagoides farinae; Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus; Desensitization, Immunologic; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26871981
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008774.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Food allergy is an abnormal immunological response following exposure (usually ingestion) to a food. Elimination of the allergen is the principle treatment for food... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Food allergy is an abnormal immunological response following exposure (usually ingestion) to a food. Elimination of the allergen is the principle treatment for food allergy, including allergy to fruit. Accidental ingestion of allergenic foods can result in severe anaphylactic reactions. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is a specific treatment, when the avoidance of allergenic foods is problematic. Recently, studies have been conducted on different types of immunotherapy for the treatment of food allergy, including oral (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual immunotherapy in children and adults with food allergy to fruits, when compared with placebo or an elimination strategy.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and AMED were searched for published results along with trial registries and the Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine for grey literature. The date of the most recent search was July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OIT or SLIT with placebo or an elimination diet were included. Participants were children or adults diagnosed with food allergy who presented immediate fruit reactions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We assessed treatment effect through risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified two RCTs (N=89) eligible for inclusion. These RCTs addressed oral or sublingual immunotherapy, both in adults, with an allergy to apple or peach respectively. Both studies enrolled a small number of participants and used different methods to provide these differing types of immunotherapy. Both studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, the quality of evidence was judged to be very low due to the small number of studies and participants and possible bias. The studies were clinically heterogeneous and hence we did not pool the results. A study comparing SLIT with placebo for allergy to peach did not detect a significant difference between the number of patients desensitised at six months following a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (RR 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.74). The second study, comparing OIT versus no treatment for apple allergy, found an effect on desensitisation in favour of the intervention using an oral provocation test at eight months, but results were imprecise (RR 17.50, 95% CI 1.13 to 270.19). Neither study reported data on evidence of immunologic tolerance. In both studies, the incidence of mild and moderate adverse events was higher in the intervention groups than in the controls. In the study comparing SLIT with placebo, patients in the intervention group experienced significantly more local adverse reactions than participants in the control group (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.51 to 6.82), though there was not a significant difference in the number of participants experiencing systemic adverse reactions (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.02). In the study of OIT, two of the 25 participants in the intervention group reported relevant side effects, whereas no participants in the control group reported relevant side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence for using OIT or SLIT to treat allergy to fruit, specifically related to peach and apple. Mild or moderate adverse reactions were reported more frequently in people receiving OIT or SLIT. However, these reactions could be treated successfully with medications.
Topics: Adult; Desensitization, Immunologic; Food Hypersensitivity; Fruit; Humans; Malus; Pyrus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sublingual Immunotherapy
PubMed: 26558953
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010522.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 -
Pediatric Allergy and Immunology :... Nov 2015Dust mite sensitization plays a controversial role in the development of atopic dermatitis. Despite a lack of evidence for its efficacy, dust mite avoidance is commonly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dust mite sensitization plays a controversial role in the development of atopic dermatitis. Despite a lack of evidence for its efficacy, dust mite avoidance is commonly recommended for the prevention and treatment of atopic dermatitis. We aimed to evaluate whether dust mite avoidance strategies reduce the risk of developing atopic dermatitis in high-risk infants compared to randomized controls.
METHODS
Studies were obtained by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and The Global Resource of Eczema Trials databases. We included randomized, controlled trials of high-risk infants treated with a dust mite avoidance intervention and assessed for atopic dermatitis. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using predefined criteria.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria (total n = 3040). Studies were largely unblinded but otherwise of reasonable quality. Three trials utilizing a dust mite avoidance approach but not additional interventions were combined in a meta-analysis. Dust mite avoidance provided no benefit in the prevention of atopic dermatitis (relative risk (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.78-1.49, I(2) = 73%).
CONCLUSIONS
Dust mite avoidance strategies alone or in combination with additional allergen avoidance modalities do not decrease the risk of developing atopic dermatitis and, given the current state of the evidence, should not be recommended for this purpose. The utility of dust mite avoidance for the treatment of atopic dermatitis or for the prevention and treatment of asthma or seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis are outside the scope of this review.
Topics: Allergens; Animals; Antigens, Dermatophagoides; Dermatitis, Atopic; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Models, Statistical; Primary Prevention; Pyroglyphidae; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26235650
DOI: 10.1111/pai.12452 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2015Eczema is an inflammatory skin disease that tends to involve skin creases, such as the folds of the elbows or knees; it is an intensely itchy skin condition, which can... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Eczema is an inflammatory skin disease that tends to involve skin creases, such as the folds of the elbows or knees; it is an intensely itchy skin condition, which can relapse and remit over time. As many as a third of people with eczema who have a positive test for allergy to house dust mite have reported worsening of eczema or respiratory symptoms when exposed to dust.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of all house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 14 August 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the GREAT database. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant studies. We handsearched abstracts from international eczema and allergy meetings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any of the house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema, which included participants of any age diagnosed by a clinician with eczema as defined by the World Allergy Organization. We included all non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that sought to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite and their allergenic faeces. The comparators were any active treatment, no treatment, placebo, or standard care only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently checked the titles and abstracts identified, and there were no disagreements. We contacted authors of included studies for additional information. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies of 324 adults and children with eczema. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of bias. Four of the seven trials tested interventions with multiple components, and three tested a single intervention. Two of the seven trials included only children, four included children and adults, and one included only adults. Interventions to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite included covers for mattresses and bedding, increased or high-quality vacuuming of carpets and mattresses, and sprays that kill house dust mites.Four studies assessed our first primary outcome of 'Clinician-assessed eczema severity using a named scale'. Of these, one study (n = 20) did not show any significant short-term benefit from allergen impermeable polyurethane mattress encasings and acaricide spray versus allergen permeable cotton mattress encasings and placebo acaricide spray. One study (n = 60) found a modest statistically significant benefit in the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) scale over six months (mean difference of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.7), P = 0.008) in favour of a mite impermeable bedding system combined with benzyltannate spray and high-filtration vacuuming versus mite permeable cotton encasings, water with a trace of alcohol spray, and a low-filtration vacuum cleaner. The third study (n = 41) did not compare the change in severity of eczema between the two treatment groups. The fourth study (n = 86) reported no evidence of a difference between the treatment groups.With regard to the secondary outcomes 'Participant- or caregiver-assessed global eczema severity score' and the 'Amount and frequency of topical treatment required', one study (n = 20) assessed these outcomes with similar results being reported for these outcomes in both groups. Four studies (n = 159) assessed 'Sensitivity to house dust mite allergen using a marker'; there was no clear evidence of a difference in sensitivity levels reported between treatments in any of the four trials.None of the seven included studies assessed our second primary outcome 'Participant- or caregiver-assessed eczema-related quality of life using a named instrument' or the secondary outcome of 'Adverse effects'.We were unable to combine any of our results because of variability in the interventions and paucity of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We were unable to determine clear implications to inform clinical practice from the very low-quality evidence currently available. The modest treatment responses reported were in people with atopic eczema, specifically with sensitivity to one or more aeroallergens. Thus, their use in the eczema population as a whole is unknown. High-quality long-term trials of single, easy-to-administer house dust mite reduction or avoidance measures are worth pursuing.
Topics: Acaricides; Adolescent; Adult; Animals; Bedding and Linens; Child; Child, Preschool; Dust; Eczema; Elbow; Environmental Exposure; Household Work; Humans; Knee; Middle Aged; Pyroglyphidae; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Hypersensitivity; Young Adult
PubMed: 25598014
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008426.pub2 -
BMJ Open Nov 2014Childhood asthma is a complex condition where many environmental factors are implicated in causation. The aim of this study was to complete a systematic review of the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Childhood asthma is a complex condition where many environmental factors are implicated in causation. The aim of this study was to complete a systematic review of the literature describing associations between environmental exposures and the development of asthma in young children.
SETTING
A systematic review of the literature up to November 2013 was conducted using key words agreed by the research team. Abstracts were screened and potentially eligible papers reviewed. Papers describing associations between exposures and exacerbation of pre-existing asthma were not included. Papers were placed into the following predefined categories: secondhand smoke (SHS), inhaled chemicals, damp housing/mould, inhaled allergens, air pollution, domestic combustion, dietary exposures, respiratory virus infection and medications.
PARTICIPANTS
Children aged up to 9 years.
PRIMARY OUTCOMES
Diagnosed asthma and wheeze.
RESULTS
14,691 abstracts were identified, 207 papers reviewed and 135 included in the present review of which 15 were systematic reviews, 6 were meta-analyses and 14 were intervention studies. There was consistent evidence linking exposures to SHS, inhaled chemicals, mould, ambient air pollutants, some deficiencies in maternal diet and respiratory viruses to an increased risk for asthma (OR typically increased by 1.5-2.0). There was less consistent evidence linking exposures to pets, breast feeding and infant dietary exposures to asthma risk, and although there were consistent associations between exposures to antibiotics and paracetamol in early life, these associations might reflect reverse causation. There was good evidence that exposures to house dust mites (in isolation) was not associated with asthma risk. Evidence from observational and intervention studies suggest that interactions between exposures were important to asthma causation, where the effect size was typically 1.5-3.0.
CONCLUSIONS
There are many publications reporting associations between environmental exposures and modest changes in risk for asthma in young children, and this review highlights the complex interactions between exposures that further increase risk.
Topics: Allergens; Asthma; Child; Child, Preschool; Diet; Environmental Exposure; Humans; Infant; Tobacco Smoke Pollution
PubMed: 25421340
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006554 -
Respiratory Care Feb 2015Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is widely used in the management of allergic diseases such as allergic asthma. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is widely used in the management of allergic diseases such as allergic asthma. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCIT in mite-sensitized subjects with asthma.
METHODS
Literature from January 1990 to February 2013 on the efficacy and safety of SCIT for mite-sensitized asthma patients was searched in electronic databases, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database, Wanfang, and Vendor Information Pages. Data were extracted from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to the selection criteria by 2 investigators independently. The quality of included trials was evaluated according to the Jadad scale standard.
RESULTS
A total of 796 subjects from 19 different RCTs were included in this analysis. SCIT significantly reduced the asthma symptom scores (standardized mean difference of -0.94, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.29, P=.004) and the asthma medication scores (standardized mean difference of -1.06, 95% CI -1.70 to -0.42, P=.001) compared with the control group. However, there were no significant differences between subjects receiving SCIT and the control group in lung function (peak expiratory flow, percent-of-predicted FEV1, percent-of-predicted FVC) and specific antibody (allergen-specific immunoglobulin E) levels of blood serum (P>.05). In the studies containing data on safety, the incidences of systemic and local adverse reactions were 9.1% (8/88) and 17.2% (23/134), respectively, in subjects treated with SCIT, and no severe adverse events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that SCIT is helpful in alleviating symptoms and reducing medication used in mite-sensitive asthma subjects, but with no improvement in lung function. The safety of SCIT is acceptable.
Topics: Allergens; Animals; Asthma; Desensitization, Immunologic; Humans; Hypodermoclysis; Immunoglobulin E; Mites; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25389355
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.03399 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Scabies, caused by Sarcoptes scabiei variety hominis or the human itch mite, is a common parasitic infection. While anyone can become infected, it causes significant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Scabies, caused by Sarcoptes scabiei variety hominis or the human itch mite, is a common parasitic infection. While anyone can become infected, it causes significant morbidity in immunocompromised hosts and it spreads easily between human hosts where there is overcrowding or poor sanitation. The most common symptom reported is itch which is worse at night. As the symptoms are attributed to an allergic reaction to the mite, symptoms usually develop between four to six weeks after primary infection. Therefore, people may be infected for some time prior to developing symptoms. During this time, while asymptomatic, they may spread infection to others they are in close contact with. Consequently, it is usually recommended that when an index case is being treated, others who have been in close contact with the index case should also be provided with treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for contacts of people with scabies to prevent infestation in the contacts.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched electronic databases (Cochrane Occupational Safety and Health Review Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (Ovid), Pubmed, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, OpenGrey and WHO ICTRP) up to November 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs which compared prophylactic interventions which were given to contacts of index cases with scabies infestation. Interventions could be compared to each other, or to placebo or to no treatment. Both drug treatments and non-drug treatments were acceptable.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors intended to extract dichotomous data (developed infection or did not develop infection) for the effects of interventions and report this as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. We intended to report any adverse outcomes similarly.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not include any trials in this review. Out of 29 potentially-relevant studies, we excluded 16 RCTs as the data for the contacts were either not reported or were reported only in combination with the outcomes for the index cases. We excluded a further 11 studies as they were not RCTs. We also excluded one study as not all subjects were examined at baseline and follow-up, and another as it was a case study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effects of providing prophylactic treatments for contacts of people with scabies to prevent infestation are unknown. We need well-designed RCTs of the use of prophylactic measures to prevent the transmission of scabies conducted with people who had the opportunity for prolonged skin contact with an index case, such as family members, healthcare workers or residential care personnel, within the previous six weeks.
Topics: Humans; Scabies
PubMed: 24566946
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009943.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2013Humidity control measures in the home environment of patients with asthma have been recommended, since a warm humid environment favours the growth of house dust mites.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Humidity control measures in the home environment of patients with asthma have been recommended, since a warm humid environment favours the growth of house dust mites. However, there is no consensus about the usefulness of these measures.
OBJECTIVES
To study the effect of dehumidification of the home environment on asthma control.
SEARCH METHODS
The clinical trials registers of the Cochrane Collaboration and Cochrane Airways Group were searched. Searches were current as of March 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials on the use of humidity control measures in the home environment of patients with asthma were evaluated for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted independently using a pre-designed data extraction form by two review authors.
MAIN RESULTS
A second trial has been added for the 2013 update of this review. The original open-label trial compared an intervention consisting of mechanical ventilation heat recovery system with or without high efficiency vacuum cleaner fitted in 40 homes of patients with asthma who had positive tests for sensitivity to house dust mite. The new double-blind trial also compared a mechanical ventilation heat recovery system with a placebo machine in the homes of 120 adults with allergy to house dust mite. The new trial, which was at low risk of bias, showed no significant difference in morning peak flow (mean difference (MD) 13.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.66 to 29.84), which was the primary outcome of the trial. However, there was a statistically significant improvement in evening peak flow only (MD 24.56; 95% CI 8.97 to 40.15). There was no significant difference in quality of life, rescue medication, requirement for oral corticosteroids, visits to the GP, emergency department (ED) or hospitalisations for asthma. There was no significant difference in the house dust mite count and the antigen levels in the new trial, in contrast to the previous trial.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on clinical benefits of dehumidification using mechanical ventilation with dehumidifiers remains scanty, and the addition of a new double blind trial to this review does not indicate significant benefit in most measure of control of asthma from such environmental interventions.
Topics: Animals; Asthma; Chronic Disease; Environment, Controlled; Humans; Humidity; Pyroglyphidae; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ventilation
PubMed: 23760885
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003563.pub2