Loading…
IR (index of reactivity)-house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy liquid formulation for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies
Although randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the reference standard of evidence in allergen immunotherapy (AIT), nonrandomized studies (NRS) are needed to confirm their results in more representative populations, particularly for treatment duration and persistence. However, when discrepancies are...
Saved in:
Published in: | The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global 2024-05, Vol.3 (2), p.100208-100208, Article 100208 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3918-3060231f9feb12faa37f731d9fff311533d38ff2c41553fc6bcd283d4e758e133 |
container_end_page | 100208 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 100208 |
container_title | The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global |
container_volume | 3 |
creator | Di Bona, Danilo Carlucci, Palma Spataro, Federico Paoletti, Giovanni Cognet-Sicé, Josiane Scurati, Silvia Canonica, Giorgio Walter |
description | Although randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the reference standard of evidence in allergen immunotherapy (AIT), nonrandomized studies (NRS) are needed to confirm their results in more representative populations, particularly for treatment duration and persistence. However, when discrepancies are observed between RCT and NRS, NRS reliability decreases because these discrepant results are generally attributed to the methodologic flaws of NRS.
We compared the benefit of sublingual AIT (SLIT) for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in NRS versus RCT focusing on a single product/allergen to reduce heterogeneity.
For meta-analysis, house dust mite (HDM) SLIT liquid formulation studies were sourced from computerized (Medline, Web of Science, and LILACS databases, to January 2023) and manual literature searches. Populations, treatments, and outcome data were combined (DerSimonian-Laird method). Noncomparative NRS were compared to RCT’ SLIT arm before and after treatment. Efficacy was determined as the standardized mean difference (SMD) in symptom score (SS) and medication score (MS).
Data from 12 NRS (682 patients) and 8 RCT (176 patients) were analyzed. The benefit with index of reactivity (IR)-HDM SLIT liquid formulation was found significant for, first, SS in both NRS (SMD = −1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.64, −0.90) and RCT (SMD = −0.56; 95% CI, −0.90, −0.21), and second, MS with SMD equal to −1.35 (95% CI, −1.77, −0.93) and −0.46 (95% CI, −0.67, −0.25), respectively. Metaregression showed that symptom improvement was correlated with treatment duration with consistent results in NRS and RCT with 12-month SS data: −0.87 (interquartile range, −1.02, −0.77) and −0.75 (interquartile range, −0.93, −0.41), respectively.
This meta-analysis showed comparable clinical benefit of IR-HDM SLIT liquid formulation increasing over time in both NRS and RCT, suggesting that NRS may reliably integrate RCT results and be considered for guidelines. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100208 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_447faf4391964462af367b3399f1af86</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S2772829324000043</els_id><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_447faf4391964462af367b3399f1af86</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2923912988</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3918-3060231f9feb12faa37f731d9fff311533d38ff2c41553fc6bcd283d4e758e133</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UttqGzEQXUpLE9J8QaHoMX2wq8t6V1soJYReDIFCL89Clka2Fq3kSFq37uf1yyp70-C89EnDzJlzRjOnql4SPCeYNG_6eS-VXc8ppnXJYIr5k-qcti2dcdqxpyfxWXWZUo8Lhre0w_R5dcY4o5zj-rz6s_yKrqzX8AsFgyJIle3O5v3r2SaMCZAeU0aDzYDSuHLWr0fpkB2G0Ye8gSi3e-Ts3Wg1MiEOo5PZBn-IkXQO4toqFDfWBxV8P_qJ3Ka36Ns-ZRgKutRhZ-Enkl6jAbKcSS_dPtl0HKhkw2B_gz7WffAnmZRHbSG9qJ4Z6RJc3r8X1Y-PH77ffJ7dfvm0vLm-nSnWET5juMGUEdMZWBFqpGStaRnRnTGGEbJgTDNuDFU1WSyYUc1KacqZrqFdcCCMXVTLiVcH2YtttIOMexGkFcdEiGshY_mQA1HXrZGmLrpdU9cNlYY17YqxrjNEGt4UrvcT13ZcDaAV-Byle0T6uOLtRqzDThDM67ajdWG4umeI4W6ElMVgkwLnpIdyOUE7WuRpx3mBsgmqYkgpgnnQIVgc3CR6cXSTOLhJTG4qXa9OR3zo-eedAng3AaAsvZwwiqQseAXaRlC5bMX-V-AvZhPiPw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2923912988</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>IR (index of reactivity)-house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy liquid formulation for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies</title><source>PubMed Central(OpenAccess)</source><source>ScienceDirect (Online service)</source><creator>Di Bona, Danilo ; Carlucci, Palma ; Spataro, Federico ; Paoletti, Giovanni ; Cognet-Sicé, Josiane ; Scurati, Silvia ; Canonica, Giorgio Walter</creator><creatorcontrib>Di Bona, Danilo ; Carlucci, Palma ; Spataro, Federico ; Paoletti, Giovanni ; Cognet-Sicé, Josiane ; Scurati, Silvia ; Canonica, Giorgio Walter</creatorcontrib><description>Although randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the reference standard of evidence in allergen immunotherapy (AIT), nonrandomized studies (NRS) are needed to confirm their results in more representative populations, particularly for treatment duration and persistence. However, when discrepancies are observed between RCT and NRS, NRS reliability decreases because these discrepant results are generally attributed to the methodologic flaws of NRS.
We compared the benefit of sublingual AIT (SLIT) for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in NRS versus RCT focusing on a single product/allergen to reduce heterogeneity.
For meta-analysis, house dust mite (HDM) SLIT liquid formulation studies were sourced from computerized (Medline, Web of Science, and LILACS databases, to January 2023) and manual literature searches. Populations, treatments, and outcome data were combined (DerSimonian-Laird method). Noncomparative NRS were compared to RCT’ SLIT arm before and after treatment. Efficacy was determined as the standardized mean difference (SMD) in symptom score (SS) and medication score (MS).
Data from 12 NRS (682 patients) and 8 RCT (176 patients) were analyzed. The benefit with index of reactivity (IR)-HDM SLIT liquid formulation was found significant for, first, SS in both NRS (SMD = −1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.64, −0.90) and RCT (SMD = −0.56; 95% CI, −0.90, −0.21), and second, MS with SMD equal to −1.35 (95% CI, −1.77, −0.93) and −0.46 (95% CI, −0.67, −0.25), respectively. Metaregression showed that symptom improvement was correlated with treatment duration with consistent results in NRS and RCT with 12-month SS data: −0.87 (interquartile range, −1.02, −0.77) and −0.75 (interquartile range, −0.93, −0.41), respectively.
This meta-analysis showed comparable clinical benefit of IR-HDM SLIT liquid formulation increasing over time in both NRS and RCT, suggesting that NRS may reliably integrate RCT results and be considered for guidelines.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2772-8293</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2772-8293</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100208</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38328804</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Guidelines ; nonrandomized studies ; Original article ; randomized controlled trials ; real-life ; rhinoconjunctivitis ; study quality ; sublingual immunotherapy</subject><ispartof>The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2024-05, Vol.3 (2), p.100208-100208, Article 100208</ispartof><rights>2024 The Authors</rights><rights>2024 The Authors.</rights><rights>2024 The Authors 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3918-3060231f9feb12faa37f731d9fff311533d38ff2c41553fc6bcd283d4e758e133</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9728-3806</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10847924/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772829324000043$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,3535,27903,27904,45759,53770,53772</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38328804$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Di Bona, Danilo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlucci, Palma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spataro, Federico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paoletti, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cognet-Sicé, Josiane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scurati, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canonica, Giorgio Walter</creatorcontrib><title>IR (index of reactivity)-house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy liquid formulation for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies</title><title>The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global</title><addtitle>J Allergy Clin Immunol Glob</addtitle><description>Although randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the reference standard of evidence in allergen immunotherapy (AIT), nonrandomized studies (NRS) are needed to confirm their results in more representative populations, particularly for treatment duration and persistence. However, when discrepancies are observed between RCT and NRS, NRS reliability decreases because these discrepant results are generally attributed to the methodologic flaws of NRS.
We compared the benefit of sublingual AIT (SLIT) for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in NRS versus RCT focusing on a single product/allergen to reduce heterogeneity.
For meta-analysis, house dust mite (HDM) SLIT liquid formulation studies were sourced from computerized (Medline, Web of Science, and LILACS databases, to January 2023) and manual literature searches. Populations, treatments, and outcome data were combined (DerSimonian-Laird method). Noncomparative NRS were compared to RCT’ SLIT arm before and after treatment. Efficacy was determined as the standardized mean difference (SMD) in symptom score (SS) and medication score (MS).
Data from 12 NRS (682 patients) and 8 RCT (176 patients) were analyzed. The benefit with index of reactivity (IR)-HDM SLIT liquid formulation was found significant for, first, SS in both NRS (SMD = −1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.64, −0.90) and RCT (SMD = −0.56; 95% CI, −0.90, −0.21), and second, MS with SMD equal to −1.35 (95% CI, −1.77, −0.93) and −0.46 (95% CI, −0.67, −0.25), respectively. Metaregression showed that symptom improvement was correlated with treatment duration with consistent results in NRS and RCT with 12-month SS data: −0.87 (interquartile range, −1.02, −0.77) and −0.75 (interquartile range, −0.93, −0.41), respectively.
This meta-analysis showed comparable clinical benefit of IR-HDM SLIT liquid formulation increasing over time in both NRS and RCT, suggesting that NRS may reliably integrate RCT results and be considered for guidelines.</description><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>nonrandomized studies</subject><subject>Original article</subject><subject>randomized controlled trials</subject><subject>real-life</subject><subject>rhinoconjunctivitis</subject><subject>study quality</subject><subject>sublingual immunotherapy</subject><issn>2772-8293</issn><issn>2772-8293</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UttqGzEQXUpLE9J8QaHoMX2wq8t6V1soJYReDIFCL89Clka2Fq3kSFq37uf1yyp70-C89EnDzJlzRjOnql4SPCeYNG_6eS-VXc8ppnXJYIr5k-qcti2dcdqxpyfxWXWZUo8Lhre0w_R5dcY4o5zj-rz6s_yKrqzX8AsFgyJIle3O5v3r2SaMCZAeU0aDzYDSuHLWr0fpkB2G0Ye8gSi3e-Ts3Wg1MiEOo5PZBn-IkXQO4toqFDfWBxV8P_qJ3Ka36Ns-ZRgKutRhZ-Enkl6jAbKcSS_dPtl0HKhkw2B_gz7WffAnmZRHbSG9qJ4Z6RJc3r8X1Y-PH77ffJ7dfvm0vLm-nSnWET5juMGUEdMZWBFqpGStaRnRnTGGEbJgTDNuDFU1WSyYUc1KacqZrqFdcCCMXVTLiVcH2YtttIOMexGkFcdEiGshY_mQA1HXrZGmLrpdU9cNlYY17YqxrjNEGt4UrvcT13ZcDaAV-Byle0T6uOLtRqzDThDM67ajdWG4umeI4W6ElMVgkwLnpIdyOUE7WuRpx3mBsgmqYkgpgnnQIVgc3CR6cXSTOLhJTG4qXa9OR3zo-eedAng3AaAsvZwwiqQseAXaRlC5bMX-V-AvZhPiPw</recordid><startdate>20240501</startdate><enddate>20240501</enddate><creator>Di Bona, Danilo</creator><creator>Carlucci, Palma</creator><creator>Spataro, Federico</creator><creator>Paoletti, Giovanni</creator><creator>Cognet-Sicé, Josiane</creator><creator>Scurati, Silvia</creator><creator>Canonica, Giorgio Walter</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9728-3806</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240501</creationdate><title>IR (index of reactivity)-house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy liquid formulation for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies</title><author>Di Bona, Danilo ; Carlucci, Palma ; Spataro, Federico ; Paoletti, Giovanni ; Cognet-Sicé, Josiane ; Scurati, Silvia ; Canonica, Giorgio Walter</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3918-3060231f9feb12faa37f731d9fff311533d38ff2c41553fc6bcd283d4e758e133</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>nonrandomized studies</topic><topic>Original article</topic><topic>randomized controlled trials</topic><topic>real-life</topic><topic>rhinoconjunctivitis</topic><topic>study quality</topic><topic>sublingual immunotherapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Di Bona, Danilo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carlucci, Palma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spataro, Federico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Paoletti, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cognet-Sicé, Josiane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scurati, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Canonica, Giorgio Walter</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Di Bona, Danilo</au><au>Carlucci, Palma</au><au>Spataro, Federico</au><au>Paoletti, Giovanni</au><au>Cognet-Sicé, Josiane</au><au>Scurati, Silvia</au><au>Canonica, Giorgio Walter</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>IR (index of reactivity)-house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy liquid formulation for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies</atitle><jtitle>The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global</jtitle><addtitle>J Allergy Clin Immunol Glob</addtitle><date>2024-05-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>100208</spage><epage>100208</epage><pages>100208-100208</pages><artnum>100208</artnum><issn>2772-8293</issn><eissn>2772-8293</eissn><abstract>Although randomized controlled trials (RCT) are the reference standard of evidence in allergen immunotherapy (AIT), nonrandomized studies (NRS) are needed to confirm their results in more representative populations, particularly for treatment duration and persistence. However, when discrepancies are observed between RCT and NRS, NRS reliability decreases because these discrepant results are generally attributed to the methodologic flaws of NRS.
We compared the benefit of sublingual AIT (SLIT) for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in NRS versus RCT focusing on a single product/allergen to reduce heterogeneity.
For meta-analysis, house dust mite (HDM) SLIT liquid formulation studies were sourced from computerized (Medline, Web of Science, and LILACS databases, to January 2023) and manual literature searches. Populations, treatments, and outcome data were combined (DerSimonian-Laird method). Noncomparative NRS were compared to RCT’ SLIT arm before and after treatment. Efficacy was determined as the standardized mean difference (SMD) in symptom score (SS) and medication score (MS).
Data from 12 NRS (682 patients) and 8 RCT (176 patients) were analyzed. The benefit with index of reactivity (IR)-HDM SLIT liquid formulation was found significant for, first, SS in both NRS (SMD = −1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.64, −0.90) and RCT (SMD = −0.56; 95% CI, −0.90, −0.21), and second, MS with SMD equal to −1.35 (95% CI, −1.77, −0.93) and −0.46 (95% CI, −0.67, −0.25), respectively. Metaregression showed that symptom improvement was correlated with treatment duration with consistent results in NRS and RCT with 12-month SS data: −0.87 (interquartile range, −1.02, −0.77) and −0.75 (interquartile range, −0.93, −0.41), respectively.
This meta-analysis showed comparable clinical benefit of IR-HDM SLIT liquid formulation increasing over time in both NRS and RCT, suggesting that NRS may reliably integrate RCT results and be considered for guidelines.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>38328804</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100208</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9728-3806</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2772-8293 |
ispartof | The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2024-05, Vol.3 (2), p.100208-100208, Article 100208 |
issn | 2772-8293 2772-8293 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_447faf4391964462af367b3399f1af86 |
source | PubMed Central(OpenAccess); ScienceDirect (Online service) |
subjects | Guidelines nonrandomized studies Original article randomized controlled trials real-life rhinoconjunctivitis study quality sublingual immunotherapy |
title | IR (index of reactivity)-house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy liquid formulation for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized studies |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T13%3A09%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=IR%20(index%20of%20reactivity)-house%20dust%20mite%20sublingual%20immunotherapy%20liquid%20formulation%20for%20allergic%20rhinoconjunctivitis:%20Systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis%20of%20randomized%20and%20nonrandomized%20studies&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20allergy%20and%20clinical%20immunology.%20Global&rft.au=Di%20Bona,%20Danilo&rft.date=2024-05-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=100208&rft.epage=100208&rft.pages=100208-100208&rft.artnum=100208&rft.issn=2772-8293&rft.eissn=2772-8293&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100208&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2923912988%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3918-3060231f9feb12faa37f731d9fff311533d38ff2c41553fc6bcd283d4e758e133%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2923912988&rft_id=info:pmid/38328804&rfr_iscdi=true |