Efficacy of Sublingual Immunotherapy for House Dust Mite-Induced Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
10.4168/aair.2017.9.3.220
- Author:
Bohai FENG
1
;
Haijie XIANG
;
Haiyong JIN
;
Jinjian GAO
;
Saiyu HUANG
;
Yunbin SHI
;
Ruru CHEN
;
Bobei CHEN
Author Information
1. Department of Otolaryngology, the Second Affiliated Hospital & Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. wzbobei@hotmail.com
- Publication Type:Meta-Analysis ; Randomized Controlled Trial ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Allergic rhinitis;
immunotherapy;
sublingual;
house dust mite;
meta-analysis
- MeSH:
Consensus;
Dust*;
Humans;
Immunotherapy;
Mites;
Population Characteristics;
Pyroglyphidae;
Rhinitis, Allergic*;
Sublingual Immunotherapy*
- From:Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Research
2017;9(3):220-228
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) has become a global issue for a large part of the general population. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used extensively to treat persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR). Although systematic reviews have confirmed the effectiveness of SLIT for the treatment of AR, a considerable number of studies using extracts of house dust mites (HDMs) for immunotherapy found no consensus on basic treatment parameters and questioned the efficacy of SLIT. METHODS: In this study, we evaluated SLIT for PAR by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library database searches were performed for RCTs on the treatment of PAR by SLIT that assessed clinical outcomes related to efficacy through May 2016. Descriptive and quantitative information was abstracted. An analysis was performed with standardized mean differences (SMDs) under a fixed or random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 metric. RESULTS: In total, 25 studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis for symptom scores and 15 studies for medication scores. SLIT was significantly different from the controls for symptom scores (SMD=1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.74 to 0.73; P<0.001). For medication scores, significant differences for SLIT were also observed versus the controls (SMD=-1.39; 95% CI=-1.90 to -0.88; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicates that SLIT provided significant symptom relief and reduced the need for medications in PAR. In this study, significant evidence was obtained despite heterogeneity with regard to the use of mite extract. Specifically, the mite extract used was provided by the patients with PAR. Furthermore, to confirm both the objective outcomes and the effective doses of HDM allergen extracts, experimental data should be obtained from large high-quality population-based studies.
