皮下和舌下过敏原免疫疗法治疗儿童哮喘的有效性和安全性:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 ALLERGY
Journal of Asthma Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1080/02770903.2024.2391441
Wenwen Yang, Weijie Wang, Yishu Ji, Huisong Pan
{"title":"皮下和舌下过敏原免疫疗法治疗儿童哮喘的有效性和安全性:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Wenwen Yang, Weijie Wang, Yishu Ji, Huisong Pan","doi":"10.1080/02770903.2024.2391441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Asthma is a common chronic condition in children globally. Allergen-specific immunotherapy, such as subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) therapies, are promising by increasing allergen tolerance. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of SLIT and SCIT in pediatric asthma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled trials and case-control studies comparing SLIT and SCIT in asthmatic children. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models with calculations <i>via</i> R software version 4.3.2 and RevMan version 5.4. Study quality and bias risk were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search yielded a total of 1787 records, with 7 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and assessments. There was no significant difference in the Total Asthma Symptoms Score between SLIT and SCIT (mean difference -0.05 [95% CI: -0.21; 0.10]). However, asthma improvement rates were higher in the SLIT group (risk ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64; 0.93]). FEV1 improvement showed no significant difference (mean difference -1.60 [95% CI: -6.27; 3.08]). Adverse events were similar between the treatments (risk ratio 0.56 [95% CI: 0.11; 2.82]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SLIT and SCIT were generally similarly effective and safe for treating pediatric asthma. SLIT may be preferred due to its noninvasive administration. More research is needed on long-term effects and tailored treatment approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":15076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Asthma","volume":" ","pages":"124-133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Wenwen Yang, Weijie Wang, Yishu Ji, Huisong Pan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02770903.2024.2391441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Asthma is a common chronic condition in children globally. Allergen-specific immunotherapy, such as subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) therapies, are promising by increasing allergen tolerance. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of SLIT and SCIT in pediatric asthma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled trials and case-control studies comparing SLIT and SCIT in asthmatic children. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models with calculations <i>via</i> R software version 4.3.2 and RevMan version 5.4. Study quality and bias risk were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search yielded a total of 1787 records, with 7 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and assessments. There was no significant difference in the Total Asthma Symptoms Score between SLIT and SCIT (mean difference -0.05 [95% CI: -0.21; 0.10]). However, asthma improvement rates were higher in the SLIT group (risk ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64; 0.93]). FEV1 improvement showed no significant difference (mean difference -1.60 [95% CI: -6.27; 3.08]). Adverse events were similar between the treatments (risk ratio 0.56 [95% CI: 0.11; 2.82]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SLIT and SCIT were generally similarly effective and safe for treating pediatric asthma. SLIT may be preferred due to its noninvasive administration. More research is needed on long-term effects and tailored treatment approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Asthma\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"124-133\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Asthma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2024.2391441\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Asthma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2024.2391441","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:哮喘是全球儿童常见的慢性疾病:哮喘是全球儿童常见的慢性疾病。过敏原特异性免疫疗法,如皮下注射疗法(SCIT)和舌下注射疗法(SLIT),可提高过敏原耐受性,因此前景广阔。本荟萃分析比较了SLIT和SCIT对小儿哮喘的疗效和安全性:我们在 PubMed、Cochrane Library 和 Embase 中检索了比较 SLIT 和 SCIT 治疗哮喘儿童的随机对照试验和病例对照研究。元分析采用随机效应模型,并通过 R 软件 4.3.2 版和 RevMan 5.4 版进行计算。研究质量和偏倚风险采用 NOS 和 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具进行评估:文献检索共获得 1787 条记录,经过筛选和评估,有 7 项研究符合纳入标准。SLIT和SCIT的哮喘症状总评分(TASS)无明显差异(平均差异-0.05 [95% CI:-0.21;0.10])。不过,SLIT 组的哮喘改善率更高(风险比为 0.77 [95% CI:0.64; 0.93])。FEV1 改善率无明显差异(平均差异-1.60 [95% CI:-6.27;3.08])。两种疗法的不良反应相似(风险比为 0.56 [95% CI:0.11;2.82]):SLIT和SCIT治疗小儿哮喘的有效性和安全性基本相似。SLIT由于其非侵入性的给药方式可能更受青睐。还需要对长期效果和定制治疗方法进行更多研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Asthma is a common chronic condition in children globally. Allergen-specific immunotherapy, such as subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) therapies, are promising by increasing allergen tolerance. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of SLIT and SCIT in pediatric asthma.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled trials and case-control studies comparing SLIT and SCIT in asthmatic children. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models with calculations via R software version 4.3.2 and RevMan version 5.4. Study quality and bias risk were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Results: The literature search yielded a total of 1787 records, with 7 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and assessments. There was no significant difference in the Total Asthma Symptoms Score between SLIT and SCIT (mean difference -0.05 [95% CI: -0.21; 0.10]). However, asthma improvement rates were higher in the SLIT group (risk ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64; 0.93]). FEV1 improvement showed no significant difference (mean difference -1.60 [95% CI: -6.27; 3.08]). Adverse events were similar between the treatments (risk ratio 0.56 [95% CI: 0.11; 2.82]).

Conclusions: SLIT and SCIT were generally similarly effective and safe for treating pediatric asthma. SLIT may be preferred due to its noninvasive administration. More research is needed on long-term effects and tailored treatment approaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Asthma
Journal of Asthma 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Providing an authoritative open forum on asthma and related conditions, Journal of Asthma publishes clinical research around such topics as asthma management, critical and long-term care, preventative measures, environmental counselling, and patient education.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信