Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2020
Sublingual immunotherapy vs placebo in the management of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Boldovjáková Dominika, Cordoni Sara, Fraser Craig John, Love Aimee Beth, Patrick Lorna, Ramsay Gary James, Ferguson Aaron Stephen James, Gomati Anas, Ram Bhaskar
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common inflammatory condition of the nasal mucosa affecting approximately 20% of the population worldwide. Current therapies include intranasal antihistamines, corticosteroids, subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). This review and meta-analysis assess the efficacy of SLIT in the management of grass pollen-induced AR in adults.
METHODS: Ovid EMBASE, Ovid EBM Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MedLine and PubMed were searched using the following terms: 'sublingual immunotherapy', 'SLIT', 'rhinitis', 'allergic rhinitis', 'rhinosinusitis' and 'rhino-conjunctivitis'. All included studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled and randomised trials. Primary outcome was symptom score and secondary outcome included quality of life and safety profile. Meta-analysis of symptom improvement was carried out.
RESULTS: Six studies were identified with 979 subjects randomly allocated to SLIT and 992 to a placebo control. All studies reported an improvement in symptoms with SLIT, with five reaching statistical significance (P < .05). Four studies reported statistically significant improvement in quality of life (P < .05). Oral pruritus was the most common adverse event reported. The overall risk of bias was high in 50% of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual immunotherapy was a safe and effective treatment for grass pollen-induced AR in adults, and therefore, consideration should be given to its use for moderate-to-severe disease in the UK-wide population.
METHODS: Ovid EMBASE, Ovid EBM Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MedLine and PubMed were searched using the following terms: 'sublingual immunotherapy', 'SLIT', 'rhinitis', 'allergic rhinitis', 'rhinosinusitis' and 'rhino-conjunctivitis'. All included studies were double-blind, placebo-controlled and randomised trials. Primary outcome was symptom score and secondary outcome included quality of life and safety profile. Meta-analysis of symptom improvement was carried out.
RESULTS: Six studies were identified with 979 subjects randomly allocated to SLIT and 992 to a placebo control. All studies reported an improvement in symptoms with SLIT, with five reaching statistical significance (P < .05). Four studies reported statistically significant improvement in quality of life (P < .05). Oral pruritus was the most common adverse event reported. The overall risk of bias was high in 50% of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual immunotherapy was a safe and effective treatment for grass pollen-induced AR in adults, and therefore, consideration should be given to its use for moderate-to-severe disease in the UK-wide population.