Sublingual Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis: a Systematic Review Using the GRADE System

Gendelman, Samantha R.; Lang, David M.

doi:10.1007/s11882-014-0498-5

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 No serious adverse reactions occurred in our SLIT group or control groups. There were no life-threatening adverse reactions or fatalities over 3 years, similar to the results of other clinical studies, 11,12,14 suggesting that SLIT is safe for the treatment of pediatric AD.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Sublingual immunotherapy with Dermatophagoides farinae drops for pediatric atopic dermatitis

Huang¹,

Tang²

2021

Int J Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We evaluated the clinical effect and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with Dermatophagoides farinae drops for pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD). MethodsWe enrolled children aged 4-13 years with AD and grouped them into the SLIT and control groups using the random number table method. We subdivided each group based on treatment duration (1-, 2-, and 3-year subgroups). The SLIT group received Dermatophagoides farinae drops, and both groups received conventional treatment (topical glucocorticoids, skin moisturizers, oral antihistamines, and allergen avoidance). Effective rate and effect were compared between groups after 1, 2, and 3 years of treatment. ResultsWe assessed 309 SLIT cases (male, 192; age, 4-13 years) and 131 controls (male, 79; age 4-13 years). The effective rate and curative effect after 2 and 3 years of treatment were significantly different between the groups (P < 0.05). The effect and effective rates between corresponding SLIT and control group treatment duration subgroups were significantly different (P < 0.05). SLIT group duration subgroups showed significant differences in the effect and effective rates (P < 0.05). Posttreatment Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) scores in the SLIT group duration subgroups were significantly lower than those of the corresponding control subgroups (P < 0.05). Upon follow-up at 1 year post treatment completion, the SLIT group's SCORAD score was significantly lower than its baseline score and the control group's follow-up score (P < 0.05). Conclusion SLIT withDermatophagoides farinae drops for pediatric AD is safe and effective; effectiveness is maintained after treatment cessation, and prolonged treatment improves efficacy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Sublingual immunotherapy with Dermatophagoides farinae drops for pediatric atopic dermatitis

Huang¹,

Tang²

2021

Int J Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[112][113][114][115] The studies consistently show that a desensitization can be achieved in a proportion of children, but it is not clear if a permanent tolerance can be induced, and the high rate of side effects has also to be considered. Under a more general perspective, favourable reports with epicutaneous immunotherapy in food allergy are now available, but the results are still not conclusive 116 The results are more controversial with SLIT for atopic dermatitis, 117,118 although this field remains an intriguing opportunity. A summary of the possible developments of SLIT and AIT in general, is summarized in Figure 4.…”

Section: Pre S Ent Future and Unme T Needs Of S Litmentioning

confidence: 99%

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

Passalacqua

Bagnasco

Canonica

2019

Allergy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) was introduced in clinical practice on an empirical basis more than 100 years ago. Since the first attempts, AIT was administered subcutaneously. Indeed, other routes of administration were proposed and studied, in particular to improve the safety, but only the sublingual route (SLIT) achieved a credibility based on evidence and was then accepted as a viable “alternative” option to the subcutaneous route. SLIT was largely used in clinical trials and clinical practice in this last 30 years. Thus, a large amount of data is available, coming from either controlled trials and postmarketing surveillance studies. It is clear that SLIT is overall effective, but it is also clear that the efficacy is not “class‐related,” as derived from meta‐analyses, but restricted to each specific product. The 30‐year lasting use of SLIT allowed to clarify many clinical aspects, such as efficacy, safety, use in asthma, regimens of administration, and optimal doses. In parallel, the mechanisms of action of AIT were elucidated, and new indications were proposed (eg food allergy, atopic dermatitis). In addition, the introduction of molecular‐based diagnosis, allowed to better refine the prescription of SLIT, based on specific sensitization profiles. The present article will describe the origin and evolution of SLIT for respiratory allergy, taking into account the clinical context that suggested this form of treatment, the recently developed aspects, the future perspectives and unmet needs, This is not, therefore, a systematic review, rather a narrative historical description of the past history, and a look forward to the future opportunities.

show abstract

“…Those studies involved various antigens, methods of administration, study durations, and outcome measures. Four systematic reviews have evaluated the results of ASIT studies, and those also generated different conclusions 74 75 76 77 . A recent Cochrane review concluded that there is limited evidence to support the view that ASIT benefits patients with AD due to the paucity of trials and participants, wide confidence intervals, extensive loss to follow-up, and lack of blinding in some studies 77 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%