Efficacy of 5-Grass Pollen Liquid Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy for Seasonal Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 4.8 3区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
D Di Bona, G Paoletti, J Cognet-Sicé, S Scurati, G Serviddio, G W Canonica
{"title":"Efficacy of 5-Grass Pollen Liquid Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy for Seasonal Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"D Di Bona, G Paoletti, J Cognet-Sicé, S Scurati, G Serviddio, G W Canonica","doi":"10.18176/jiaci.1076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) have been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, differences in study protocols, populations, and AIT products lead to variability in outcomes. The World Allergy Organization and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology advise assessing individual AIT products rather than assuming a universal class effect. We conducted a meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of 5-grass pollen liquid sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) (5-grass SLIT-liquid) in patients affected by allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with and without asthma. We searched computerized databases (MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrial.gov) up to June 2023, supplemented our approach with manual literature searches, and included RCTs comparing 5-grass SLIT-liquid to placebo, irrespective of primary endpoints or treatment duration. Efficacy was assessed based on standardized mean differences (SMDs) in symptom score (SS) and medication score (MS). Subgroup analyses included age and sensitization status, while meta-regression was applied to evaluate asthma comorbidity, dose, and treatment duration. Bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data from 8 RCTs for SS (621 patients) and 6 RCTs for MS (507 patients) showed a significant benefit for SLIT over placebo in SS (SMD, -0.34; 95%CI, -0.62 to -0.06; P<.05) and MS (SMD, -0.54; 95%CI, -0.97 to -0.10; P<.05). Subgroup analyses showed no differences based on age or sensitization status. Meta-regression revealed no significant impact of cumulative dose, treatment duration, or asthma on efficacy. No safety issues were observed. This meta-analysis confirms that 5-grass SLIT-liquid offers significant clinical benefits and is safe, providing an effective option for treating the cause of ARC in patients with and without asthma.</p>","PeriodicalId":50173,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology","volume":" ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18176/jiaci.1076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) have been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, differences in study protocols, populations, and AIT products lead to variability in outcomes. The World Allergy Organization and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology advise assessing individual AIT products rather than assuming a universal class effect. We conducted a meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of 5-grass pollen liquid sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) (5-grass SLIT-liquid) in patients affected by allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with and without asthma. We searched computerized databases (MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrial.gov) up to June 2023, supplemented our approach with manual literature searches, and included RCTs comparing 5-grass SLIT-liquid to placebo, irrespective of primary endpoints or treatment duration. Efficacy was assessed based on standardized mean differences (SMDs) in symptom score (SS) and medication score (MS). Subgroup analyses included age and sensitization status, while meta-regression was applied to evaluate asthma comorbidity, dose, and treatment duration. Bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data from 8 RCTs for SS (621 patients) and 6 RCTs for MS (507 patients) showed a significant benefit for SLIT over placebo in SS (SMD, -0.34; 95%CI, -0.62 to -0.06; P<.05) and MS (SMD, -0.54; 95%CI, -0.97 to -0.10; P<.05). Subgroup analyses showed no differences based on age or sensitization status. Meta-regression revealed no significant impact of cumulative dose, treatment duration, or asthma on efficacy. No safety issues were observed. This meta-analysis confirms that 5-grass SLIT-liquid offers significant clinical benefits and is safe, providing an effective option for treating the cause of ARC in patients with and without asthma.

5-草花粉液舌下过敏原免疫治疗季节性变应性鼻结膜炎的疗效:系统评价和meta分析。
随机对照试验(RCTs)证实了过敏原免疫疗法(AIT)的有效性和安全性。然而,研究方案、人群和AIT产品的差异导致了结果的差异。世界过敏组织和欧洲过敏和临床免疫学学会建议评估个别AIT产品,而不是假设普遍的类效应。我们对5-草花粉液舌下免疫疗法(SLIT)(5-草花粉液)在伴有和不伴有哮喘的变应性鼻结膜炎(ARC)患者中的疗效和安全性进行了荟萃分析。我们检索了截至2023年6月的计算机数据库(MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrial.gov),通过手工文献检索补充了我们的方法,并纳入了比较5-grass SLIT-liquid和安慰剂的随机对照试验,不考虑主要终点或治疗持续时间。根据症状评分(SS)和用药评分(MS)的标准化平均差异(SMDs)评估疗效。亚组分析包括年龄和致敏状态,而meta回归用于评估哮喘合并症、剂量和治疗持续时间。使用Cochrane Risk of Bias 2工具和分级推荐评估、发展和评价方法评估证据的偏倚和确定性。8项SS随机对照试验(621例)和6项MS随机对照试验(507例)的数据显示,在SS患者中,SLIT优于安慰剂(SMD, -0.34;95%CI, -0.62 ~ -0.06;P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
9.70%
发文量
135
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology (J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol) provides an attractive and very active forum for basic and clinical research in allergology and clinical immunology.Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology publishes original works, reviews, short communications and opinions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信