Severe repeated anaphylactic reactions to sublingual immunotherapy

Vovolis, V.; Kalogiros, Lampros A.; Mitsias, Dimitris I.; E, Sifnaios

doi:10.1016/j.aller.2012.05.012

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is common knowledge that SLIT is safer than SCIT, with no fatal events reported for SLIT at this time and severe systemic adverse events are extremely rare [78]. As SLIT has been administered to young children, more safety data exist on SLIT in the under-five age group [79][80][81].…”

Section: Safety: Adverse Events and Contra-indicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of Patients for Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy

Larenas‐Linnemann

Blaiss

2014

Immunotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allergen immunotherapy is the sole treatment for IgE-mediated allergic diseases directed at the underlying mechanism. The two widely accepted administration routes are sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT). We reviewed how patients should best be selected for immunotherapy and how the optimal administration route can be defined. Before deciding SCIT or SLIT, appropriate selection of patients for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is mandatory. To be eligible for AIT, subjects must have a clear medical history of allergic disease, with exacerbation of symptoms on exposure to one or more allergens and a corresponding positive skin or in vitro test. Then the route of administration should be based on: published evidence of clinical and immunologic efficacy (which varies per allergic disease and per allergen); mono-or multi-allergen immunotherapy, for SLIT multi-allergen immunotherapy was not effective; safety: adverse events with SLIT are more frequent, but less severe; and, costs and patient preferences, closely related to adherence issues. All these are discussed in the article.

show abstract

Section: Safety: Adverse Events and Contra-indicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of Patients for Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy

Larenas‐Linnemann

Blaiss

2014

Immunotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our search identified a total of 33 articles on 30 unique studies/populations reporting safety data, encompassing a total of 3621 patients. Of the included studies, 20 were RCTs, whereas 10 were either cohort, case‐control, or case reports . Details regarding these studies are presented in Appendix Table S2 online.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma: An updated systematic review

Lin

Azar

Suarez‐Cuervo

et al. 2018

Int Forum Allergy Rhinol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pharmacological mechanism of antihistamine activity involves competitive binding to H 1 receptors and blocking of the biological effects of histamine. This blockade can eliminate many symptoms caused by mast cell granules, and this is one of the reasons why H 1 -antihistamines have been used as the firstline drug for the treatment of AR (Vovolis et al, 2013). The biggest drawbacks of antihistamines are their central sedation and anti-cholinergic effects, which have partly limited its wide application in clinical practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy under nasal endoscopy guidance versus first-line drug treatment in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis

Feng¹,

Han²,

Wang³

et al. 2015

Genet. Mol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The aim of this study was to determine whether highintensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy under nasal endoscopy guidance could provide better efficacy and safety in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis (PAR) than the first-line drugs recommended by the World Health Organization. A total of 120 adult patients with PAR were randomly divided into 2 groups (N = 60 each). One group underwent HIFU therapy under nasal endoscopy guidance using an ultrasound rhinitis therapeutic machine. The other group served as the control group and was treated with corticosteroid nasal spray and oral cetirizine hydrochloride. All patients underwent follow-up treatment for 1 year, after which the efficacy and safety were evaluated. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05) in the total effective rate. Moreover, no complications such as nasal adhesion, septal perforation, mucosal atrophy, and hyposmia were observed, indicating that HIFU was as effective as the first-line drug treatments G.F. Feng et al. 9866©FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br Genetics and Molecular Research 14 (3): 9865-9871 (2015) recommended by the World Health Organization for symptom relief in PAR patients. The treatment efficacy, repeatability, safety, economical aspects, ease of performance, and few complications of HIFU therapy strongly suggest that HIFU should be routinely incorporated into clinical practice.

show abstract

Severe repeated anaphylactic reactions to sublingual immunotherapy

Cited by 13 publications

References 7 publications

Selection of Patients for Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy

Selection of Patients for Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy

Role of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma: An updated systematic review

Comparison of high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy under nasal endoscopy guidance versus first-line drug treatment in patients with persistent allergic rhinitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About