-
The World Allergy Organization Journal Sep 2022House dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets have been approved for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the meta-analysis on...
BACKGROUND
House dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets have been approved for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the meta-analysis on the efficacy of HDM-SLIT tablets for HDM-induced AR patients remained limited.
METHODS
Five databases were searched including: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that addressed the efficacy and safetyof HDM-SLIT tablets compared with placebo until January 2022. The primary outcome was a combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) after treatment.
RESULTS
Eight eligible RCTs were identified with a total of 3601 patients treated with HDM-SLIT tablets and 2783 patients who received a placebo. The CSMS was significantly lower in the HDM-SLIT tablet group compared with the placebo (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.28 [95% CI: -0.32 to -0.23]). There was a significant reduction in rhinitis symptom scores, rhinitis medication scores, total combined conjunctivitis scores, and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores. The consistent efficacy compared to the placebo has been exhibited over the different kinds and doses of HDM tablets (6 SQ, 12 SQ, 300 IR, and 500 IR) and age groups (>5 years old, adolescents and adults) with low degrees of variability across the studies. There was no significant difference in proportions of participants who were injected with epinephrine between the treatment- and placebo groups.
CONCLUSIONS
HDM-SLIT tablet is an effective treatment in reducing rhinitis symptoms and medication use in AR patients with favorable safety. They also improve quality of life and conjunctivitis symptoms.
PubMed: 36119654
DOI: 10.1016/j.waojou.2022.100691 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2012Childhood asthma is the most common chronic paediatric illness. There is no cure for asthma but good treatment to palliate symptoms is available. Asthma is more common... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Childhood asthma is the most common chronic paediatric illness. There is no cure for asthma but good treatment to palliate symptoms is available. Asthma is more common in children with a personal or family history of atopy, increased severity and frequency of wheezing episodes, and presence of variable airway obstruction or bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Precipitating factors for symptoms and acute episodes include infection, house dust mites, allergens from pet animals, exposure to tobacco smoke, and exercise.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of single-agent prophylaxis in children taking as-needed inhaled beta(2) agonists for asthma? What are the effects of additional prophylactic treatments in childhood asthma inadequately controlled by standard-dose inhaled corticosteroids? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (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 48 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: beta(2) agonists (long-acting), corticosteroids (inhaled standard or higher doses), leukotriene receptor antagonists (oral), omalizumab, and theophylline (oral).
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Child; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists; Respiratory Sounds; Theophylline
PubMed: 22305975
DOI: No ID Found -
Parasites & Vectors Jan 2023The availability of molecular techniques has significantly increased our understanding of bacteria of the order Rickettsiales, allowing the identification of distinct... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The availability of molecular techniques has significantly increased our understanding of bacteria of the order Rickettsiales, allowing the identification of distinct species in both vector and host arthropods. However, the literature lacks studies that comprehensively summarize the vast amount of knowledge generated on this topic in recent years. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the distribution of Rickettsiales in arthropod vectors, animals and humans in the WHO European Region in order to provide useful information to predict the emergence of certain diseases in specific geographical areas and to formulate hypotheses regarding the possible pathogenetic role of some rickettsial species in the etiology of human pathological conditions.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature in the PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted following the PRISMA methodology using the search terms "Spotted fever" OR "rickettsiosis" OR "ricketts*" AND all the countries of the WHO European Region, from 1 January 2013 to 12 February 2022. Only studies that identified rickettsiae in human, animal or arthropod samples using molecular techniques were included in the review.
RESULTS
A total of 467 articles considering 61 different species of Rickettsiales with confirmed or suspected human pathogenicity were analyzed in the review. More than 566 identifications of Rickettsiales DNA in human samples were described, of which 89 cases were assessed as importation cases. A total of 55 species of ticks, 17 species of fleas, 10 species of mite and four species of lice were found infected. Twenty-three species of Rickettsiales were detected in wild and domestic animal samples.
CONCLUSION
The routine use of molecular methods to search for Rickettsiales DNA in questing ticks and other blood-sucking arthropods that commonly bite humans should be encouraged. Molecular methods specific for Rickettsiales should be used routinely in the diagnostics of fever of unknown origin and in all cases of human diseases secondary to an arthropod bite or animal contact.
Topics: Animals; Humans; One Health; Rickettsia; Rickettsia Infections; Rickettsiales; Ticks; World Health Organization
PubMed: 36717936
DOI: 10.1186/s13071-022-05646-4 -
Canadian Journal of Public Health =... 2011We calculated the population attributable fraction (PAF) of Canadian childhood asthma due to modifiable environmental exposures, in order to estimate their relative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We calculated the population attributable fraction (PAF) of Canadian childhood asthma due to modifiable environmental exposures, in order to estimate their relative contributions to asthma development based on the current literature.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to determine Canadian childhood asthma incidence, Canadian prevalence of exposure to airborne pollutants and indoor allergens, and international estimates of the risk of developing physician-diagnosed asthma (PDA) associated with each exposure. Combining risk estimates by meta-analysis where possible, PAF was calculated by the formula: PAF = Attributable risk *Exposure prevalence* 100%/Asthma incidence.
SYNTHESIS
Age-specific Canadian childhood asthma incidence ranged from 2.8%-6.9%. Canadian exposure prevalences were: PM10 16%, PM2.5 7.1%, NO2 25%, environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) 9.0%, cat 22%, dog 12%, mouse 17%, cockroach 9.8%, dust mite 30%, moisture 14% and mould 33%. Relative risk estimates of PDA were: PM10 1.64, PM2.5 1.44, NO2 1.29, ETS 1.40, mouse 1.23, cockroach 1.96, and spanned 1.00 for cat, dog, dust mites, moisture and mould. PAF estimates for incident asthma among preschool children were: PM10 11%, PM2.5 1.6%, NO2 4.0%, ETS 2.9%, mouse 6.5% and cockroach 13%.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review suggests contributions to childhood asthma development from exposure to particulates, NO2, ETS, mouse and cockroach. The associations appeared to be more complex for cat, dog and dust mite allergens and more variable for mould and moisture. Additional prospective, population-based studies of childhood asthma development with objectively-measured exposures are needed to further quantify these associations.
Topics: Adolescent; Air Pollutants; Allergens; Asthma; Canada; Child; Child, Preschool; Environmental Exposure; Female; Humans; Incidence; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Prevalence; Risk; Young Adult
PubMed: 21485964
DOI: 10.1007/BF03404874 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2008This 2011 review predates current reporting standards and methodological expectations for Cochrane Reviews. It should not be used for clinical decision‐making. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
EDITORIAL NOTE
This 2011 review predates current reporting standards and methodological expectations for Cochrane Reviews. It should not be used for clinical decision‐making.
BACKGROUND
The major allergen in house dust comes from mites. Chemical, physical and combined methods of reducing mite allergen levels are intended to reduce asthma symptoms in people who are sensitive to house dust mites.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of reducing exposure to house dust mite antigens in the homes of people with mite-sensitive asthma.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed and The Cochrane Library (last searches Nov 2007), reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials of mite control measures vs placebo or no treatment in people with asthma known to be sensitive to house dust mites.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors applied the trial inclusion criteria and evaluated the data. Trial authors were contacted to clarify information.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-four trials (3002 patients) were included. Thirty-six trials assessed physical methods (26 mattress encasings), 10 chemical methods, and 8 a combination of chemical and physical methods. Despite the fact that many trials were of poor quality and would be expected to exaggerate the reported effect, we did not find an effect of the interventions. For the most frequently reported outcome, peak flow in the morning (1565 patients), the standardised mean difference was 0.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10). There were no statistically significant differences either in number of patients improved (relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.27), asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.07), or in medication usage (standardised mean difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.07).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Chemical and physical methods aimed at reducing exposure to house dust mite allergens cannot be recommended. It is doubtful whether further studies, similar to the ones in our review, are worthwhile. If other types of studies are considered, they should be methodologically rigorous and use other methods than those used so far, with careful monitoring of mite exposure and relevant clinical outcomes.
Topics: Allergens; Animals; Asthma; Dust; Environment, Controlled; Humans; Insecticides; Mites; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 18425868
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001187.pub3 -
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 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Dry eye-related ocular surface examination is very important in the diagnosis and treatment of dry eye disease. With the recent advances in science and technology, dry...
Dry eye-related ocular surface examination is very important in the diagnosis and treatment of dry eye disease. With the recent advances in science and technology, dry eye examination techniques have progressed rapidly, which has greatly improved dry eye diagnoses and treatment. However, clinically, confusion remains about which examination to choose, how to ensure the repeatability of the examination, and how to accurately interpret the examination results. In this review, we systematically evaluate previous examinations of dry eye, analyze the latest views and research hotspots, and provide a reference for the diagnosis and management of dry eye.
PubMed: 35145982
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.826530 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Allergy and... Dec 2022Most patients with allergic rhinitis are polysensitized. The efficacy of house dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) compared between monosensitized and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Most patients with allergic rhinitis are polysensitized. The efficacy of house dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) compared between monosensitized and polysensitized patients remains limited.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the efficacy and safety of HDM AIT compared between monosensitized and polysensitized patients with allergic rhinitis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until June 2022. The primary outcome was the changes from baseline in total nasal symptom score (TNSS). Secondary outcomes were changes from baseline in total medication score (TMS), combined symptom medication score (CSMS), visual analog scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) score, immunological parameters, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS
Of 13 eligible studies, 10 prospective cohorts, 2 retrospective cohorts, and 1 matched cohort, we identified 10 studies for quantitative synthesis. There were 1,113 patients with allergic rhinitis, 566 with HDM monosensitization and 547 with polysensitization to HDM and other allergens. There was no significant difference in the pooled mean changes of the 2 groups in TNSS (SMD -0.05, 95%CI: -0.22 to 0.11, p = 0.532) and VAS (SMD -0.20, 95%CI: -0.42 to 0.01, p = 0.060) with moderate certainty of evidence. The changes in TMS, CSMS, and RQLQ were similar between the 2 groups with very low certainty of evidence. The AEs were mild and comparable between the 2 groups. The immunological indices remained inconsistent and were not predictive of clinical responses.
CONCLUSIONS
A single HDM AIT similarly improved clinical outcomes in monosensitized and polysensitized patients with allergic rhinitis.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Sublingual Immunotherapy; Treatment Outcome; Rhinitis, Allergic; Allergens; Antigens, Dermatophagoides; Conjunctivitis; Pyroglyphidae
PubMed: 36278778
DOI: 10.12932/AP-190822-1440 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2007Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei mite. It is a common public health problem with an estimated global... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin caused by the Sarcoptes scabiei mite. It is a common public health problem with an estimated global prevalence of 300 million cases. Serious adverse effects have been reported for some drugs used to treat scabies.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate topical and systemic drugs for treating scabies.
SEARCH STRATEGY
In February 2007, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and INDMED. In March 2007, we also searched the grey literature and sources for registered trials. We also checked the reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials of drug treatments for scabies.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Results were presented as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals and data combined where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty small trials involving 2392 people were included. One trial was placebo controlled, 16 compared two or more drug treatments, two compared treatment regimens, and one compared different drug vehicles.Fewer treatment failures occurred by day seven with oral ivermectin in one small trial (55 participants). Topical permethrin appeared more effective than oral ivermectin (85 participants, 1 trial), topical crotamiton (194 participants, 2 trials), and topical lindane (753 participants, 5 trials). Permethrin also appeared more effective in reducing itch persistence than either crotamiton (94 participants, 1 trial) or lindane (490 participants, 2 trials). One small trial did not detect a difference between permethrin (a synthetic pyrethroid) and a natural pyrethrin-based topical treatment (40 participants). No significant difference was detected in the number of treatment failures between crotamiton and lindane (100 participants, 1 trial), lindane and sulfur (68 participants, 1 trial), benzyl benzoate and sulfur (158 participants, 1 trial), and benzyl benzoate and natural synergized pyrethrins (240 participants, 1 trial); all were topical treatments. No trials of malathion were identified. No serious adverse events were reported. A number of trials reported skin reactions in participants randomized to topical treatments. There were occasional reports of headache, abdominal pain, diarrhoea, vomiting, and hypotension.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Topical permethrin appears to be the most effective treatment for scabies. Ivermectin appears to be an effective oral treatment. More research is needed on the effectiveness of malathion, particularly when compared to permethrin, and on the management of scabies in an institutional setting and at a community level.
Topics: Adult; Benzoates; Child; Hexachlorocyclohexane; Humans; Insecticides; Ivermectin; Pyrethrins; Scabies; Sulfur; Toluidines
PubMed: 17636630
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000320.pub2 -
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