4.5 Review

Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and Asthma: A Systematic Review

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 124, 期 3, 页码 616-627

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.24295

关键词

Allergy; rhinology

资金

  1. AHRQ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma, using formulations currently approved in the United States. Study DesignWe searched the following databases up to May 21, 2012: MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials published in English comparing SCIT to placebo, pharmacotherapy, or other SCIT regimens that reported clinical outcomes of interest. Studies of adults or mixed age populations were included. Studies were excluded if the diagnosis of allergy and/or asthma was not confirmed with objective testing. Paired reviewers selected articles for inclusion and extracted data. We assessed the risk of bias for each study and graded the strength of evidence for each outcome as high, moderate, or low. ResultsSixty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. Majority of the studies (66%) evaluated single-allergen immunotherapy regimens. The literature provides high-grade evidence that SCIT reduces asthma symptoms, asthma medication usage, rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, conjunctivitis symptoms, and rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis disease-specific quality of life in comparison to placebo or usual care. There is moderate evidence that SCIT decreases rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis medication usage. Respiratory reactions were the most common systemic reaction. There were few reports of anaphylaxis; no deaths were reported. ConclusionsGenerally moderate to strong evidence supports the effectiveness of SCIT for treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma, particularly with single-allergen immunotherapy regimens. Adverse reactions to SCIT are common, but no deaths were reported in the included studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据