PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14752336

Is sublingual immunotherapy clinically effective?

Hans-Jørgen Malling
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Sublingual immunotherapy has become increasingly popular and in some countries more allergic patients are treated by the sublingual route than the subcutaneous route. Evaluation of the scientific documentation for clinical efficacy is important before a treatment is used without restriction. This review critically analyses every placebo-controlled, double-blind study providing symptom/medication scores for the primary outcome; that is, a significant and clinically relevant reduction in disease severity of actively treated patients. RECENT FINDINGS: In total 23 papers fulfill the evaluation criteria; 26% are categorized as unequivocally effective, 35% are possibly effective (significant improvement in either symptom or medication scores), and 39% have no statistically documented efficacy. SUMMARY: The majority of papers have used an inadequate study design that may be responsible for the large number of inconclusive and negative studies. Before sublingual immunotherapy can be recommended as a routine treatment, more documentation for beneficial efficacy is needed.

Explore related subjects

Administration, SublingualAdolescentAdultAgedAllergensChildChild, PreschoolDesensitization, ImmunologicFemaleHumansHypersensitivityImmunotherapyMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk AssessmentSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeComparative StudyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hans-Jørgen Malling. 2002. Is sublingual immunotherapy clinically effective?. https://doi.org/10.1097/00130832-200212000-00008

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Provocation of neurocardiogenic syncope during head-up tilt testing in children: comparison between isoproterenol and nitroglycerin.

OBJECTIVE: Although nitroglycerin- and isoproterenol-augmented tilt tests are of equal value in the diagnosis of neurocardiogenic syncope in adults, no data exist in children. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of the 2 tests in a pediatric population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 85 patients (33 boys; mean age: 11.6 +/- 2.9 years). Of them, 56 had a diagnostic history of neurocardiogenic syncope, whereas 29 served as controls. After a negative passive phase, they were randomly assigned to either intravenous isoproterenol or sublingual nitroglycerin, and tilt was continued for 20 minutes. RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.78 for the isoproterenol test and 0.79 for the nitroglycerin test, but specificity was significantly higher for isoproterenol test compared with nitroglycerin test. In patients with a positive test, the duration of the recovery period was significantly longer after nitroglycerin (8.4 +/- 2.7 minutes) than after isoproterenol (5.1 +/- 1.6 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Nitroglycerin- and isoproterenol-augmented tilt tests are associated with equal sensitivity in the diagnosis of neurocardiogenic syncope in children and adolescents. However, nitroglycerin results in more false-positive tests and produces more prolonged vasovagal symptoms. Our data do not support the routine use of nitroglycerin in the evaluation of syncope in this age group.

Administration, Sublingual↗
PubMed2007

Successful sublingual immunotherapy with birch pollen has limited effects on concomitant food allergy to apple and the immune response to the Bet v 1 homolog Mal d 1.

BACKGROUND: Cross-reactivity between the major birch pollen allergen, Bet v 1, and the apple protein, Mal d 1, frequently causes food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of successful sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with birch pollen extract on apple allergy and the immune response to Bet v 1 and Mal d 1. METHODS: Before and after 1 year of SLIT, Bet v 1-sensitized patients with oral allergy syndrome to apple underwent nasal challenges with birch pollen and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges with apple. Bet v 1-specific and Mal d 1-specific serum antibody levels and proliferation in PBMCs and allergen-specific T-cell lines (TCLs) were determined. Bet v 1-specific TCLs were mapped for T-cell epitopes. RESULTS: In 9 patients with improved nasal provocation scores to birch pollen, apple-induced oral allergy syndrome was not significantly reduced. Bet v 1-specific IgE and IgG(4) levels significantly increased. Bet v 1-specific T-cell responses to all epitopes and those cross-reactive with Mal d 1 significantly decreased. However, neither Mal d 1-specific IgE and IgG(4) levels nor Mal d 1-induced T-cell proliferation changed significantly. In contrast, Mal d 1-specific TCLs showed increased responses to Mal d 1 after 1 year of SLIT. CONCLUSION: This longitudinal study indicates that pollen SLIT does not efficiently alter the immune response to pollen-related food allergens, which may explain why pollen-associated food allergy is frequently not ameliorated by pollen immunotherapy even if respiratory symptoms significantly improve. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: SLIT with birch pollen may have no clinical effect on associated apple allergy.

Administration, Sublingual↗
PubMed2007

Update on epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Epinephrine is the treatment of choice for anaphylaxis--a life-threatening and potentially fatal event. The purpose of this review is to highlight recent publications relevant to the management of anaphylaxis and identify potential barriers which prevent or delay appropriate administration of epinephrine. RECENT FINDINGS: Experts have moved towards a consensus on how to define anaphylaxis, which has a variable clinical presentation. A clear definition, across specialties, is necessary for more accurate determinations of prevalence, diagnosis and management. Epinephrine injected intramuscularly is the treatment of choice, but there remain gaps in physician knowledge despite increases in hospitalization rates for anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is also underused by parents, day-care centers and schools. Barriers to access for treatment exist in lower socioeconomic groups. Women appear to be at risk for suboptimal treatment when autoinjectors are used. Given these issues, other routes of administration of epinephrine have been explored. Epinephrine delivered via a sublingual route has been successful in animal studies. SUMMARY: Epinephrine is the primary therapy for anaphylaxis, yet studies show that it is underutilized. By addressing the contributory factors that have been identified, acute and long-term care of individuals with this potentially life-threatening disorder can be optimized.

Administration, Sublingual↗