Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 ALLERGY Journal of Asthma Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1080/02770903.2024.2391441
Wenwen Yang, Weijie Wang, Yishu Ji, Huisong Pan
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Wenwen Yang, Weijie Wang, Yishu Ji, Huisong Pan","doi":"10.1080/02770903.2024.2391441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Asthma is a common chronic condition in children globally. Allergen-specific immunotherapy, such as subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) therapies, are promising by increasing allergen tolerance. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of SLIT and SCIT in pediatric asthma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled trials and case-control studies comparing SLIT and SCIT in asthmatic children. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models with calculations <i>via</i> R software version 4.3.2 and RevMan version 5.4. Study quality and bias risk were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search yielded a total of 1787 records, with 7 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and assessments. There was no significant difference in the Total Asthma Symptoms Score between SLIT and SCIT (mean difference -0.05 [95% CI: -0.21; 0.10]). However, asthma improvement rates were higher in the SLIT group (risk ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64; 0.93]). FEV1 improvement showed no significant difference (mean difference -1.60 [95% CI: -6.27; 3.08]). Adverse events were similar between the treatments (risk ratio 0.56 [95% CI: 0.11; 2.82]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SLIT and SCIT were generally similarly effective and safe for treating pediatric asthma. SLIT may be preferred due to its noninvasive administration. More research is needed on long-term effects and tailored treatment approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":15076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Asthma","volume":" ","pages":"124-133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Asthma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2024.2391441","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Asthma is a common chronic condition in children globally. Allergen-specific immunotherapy, such as subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) therapies, are promising by increasing allergen tolerance. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of SLIT and SCIT in pediatric asthma.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled trials and case-control studies comparing SLIT and SCIT in asthmatic children. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models with calculations via R software version 4.3.2 and RevMan version 5.4. Study quality and bias risk were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Results: The literature search yielded a total of 1787 records, with 7 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and assessments. There was no significant difference in the Total Asthma Symptoms Score between SLIT and SCIT (mean difference -0.05 [95% CI: -0.21; 0.10]). However, asthma improvement rates were higher in the SLIT group (risk ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64; 0.93]). FEV1 improvement showed no significant difference (mean difference -1.60 [95% CI: -6.27; 3.08]). Adverse events were similar between the treatments (risk ratio 0.56 [95% CI: 0.11; 2.82]).

Conclusions: SLIT and SCIT were generally similarly effective and safe for treating pediatric asthma. SLIT may be preferred due to its noninvasive administration. More research is needed on long-term effects and tailored treatment approaches.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
皮下和舌下过敏原免疫疗法治疗儿童哮喘的有效性和安全性:系统回顾与元分析》。
目的:哮喘是全球儿童常见的慢性疾病:哮喘是全球儿童常见的慢性疾病。过敏原特异性免疫疗法,如皮下注射疗法(SCIT)和舌下注射疗法(SLIT),可提高过敏原耐受性,因此前景广阔。本荟萃分析比较了SLIT和SCIT对小儿哮喘的疗效和安全性:我们在 PubMed、Cochrane Library 和 Embase 中检索了比较 SLIT 和 SCIT 治疗哮喘儿童的随机对照试验和病例对照研究。元分析采用随机效应模型,并通过 R 软件 4.3.2 版和 RevMan 5.4 版进行计算。研究质量和偏倚风险采用 NOS 和 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具进行评估:文献检索共获得 1787 条记录,经过筛选和评估,有 7 项研究符合纳入标准。SLIT和SCIT的哮喘症状总评分(TASS)无明显差异(平均差异-0.05 [95% CI:-0.21;0.10])。不过,SLIT 组的哮喘改善率更高(风险比为 0.77 [95% CI:0.64; 0.93])。FEV1 改善率无明显差异(平均差异-1.60 [95% CI:-6.27;3.08])。两种疗法的不良反应相似(风险比为 0.56 [95% CI:0.11;2.82]):SLIT和SCIT治疗小儿哮喘的有效性和安全性基本相似。SLIT由于其非侵入性的给药方式可能更受青睐。还需要对长期效果和定制治疗方法进行更多研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Asthma
Journal of Asthma 医学-过敏
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
158
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Providing an authoritative open forum on asthma and related conditions, Journal of Asthma publishes clinical research around such topics as asthma management, critical and long-term care, preventative measures, environmental counselling, and patient education.
期刊最新文献
Dried fruit, acetate, and asthma: a mediation Mendelian randomization analysis. Causal effects of pediatric asthma on psychiatric disorders: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. Construction of indicators for evaluating the quality of extended care for children with asthma. Efficacy of medical education combined with extended care on adherence to inhaled glucocorticoids and clinical effects in patients with bronchial asthma. Emotion regulation among adults with asthma: Links with short-acting inhaler medication overuse and utilization of acute medical care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1