Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America

K. Lam, J. M. Pinto, S.E. Lee, K. Rance, H. Nolte
{"title":"Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America","authors":"K. Lam, J. M. Pinto, S.E. Lee, K. Rance, H. Nolte","doi":"10.4193/rhinol/22.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.","PeriodicalId":74737,"journal":{"name":"Rhinology online","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhinology online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4193/rhinol/22.002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.
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
舌下免疫疗法治疗过敏性鼻结膜炎的给药选择:北美的临床考虑
背景:舌下免疫治疗(SLIT)可以通过片剂(SLIT- t)或滴液(SLIT- d)给药。使用北美提取物的SLIT-D剂量建议于2015年发表。我们在最近的研究背景下回顾了2015年的建议,并比较和对比了北美地区用于治疗变应性鼻结膜炎(ARC)的SLIT-T和SLIT-D的剂量、疗效、安全性、依从性和成本。方法:通过系统的PubMed检索到2022年3月1日,确定了SLIT-D和SLIT-T试验的随机对照试验(RCT)。结果:已对所有批准的SLIT-T进行了剂量研究;在11项随机对照试验中证实了其在北美人群中的有效性。认可的裂口- t是国际统一的。很少有使用北美提取物进行的SLIT-D剂量研究;在2个随机对照试验中证实了疗效。用其他地理区域的提取物进行的SLIT-D研究的剂量外推是不可靠的。自2015年SLIT-D剂量推荐以来,没有新的SLIT-D随机对照试验在北美进行,而自那以后在北美进行了6项SLIT-T随机对照试验。局部过敏反应是SLIT-T和SLIT-D最常见的不良反应,但两者都可诱发全身过敏反应。遵守SLIT-D和SLIT-T仍然是一个挑战。患者必须直接支付SLIT-D费用,而SLIT-T通常由保险公司支付。结论:作为共同决策的一部分,应告知患者支持在ARC中使用SLIT-T和SLIT-D的科学证据。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 control protocol for rhinologic surgery Trends in dupilumab persistence among patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps Dupilumab as an emerging treatment for refractory allergic fungal rhinosinusitis: a case series and literature review Capturing qualitative olfactory dysfunction with PARPHAIT: the parosmia, phantosmia, and anosmia test Prevalence of smell and taste dysfunction in different clinical severity groups of COVID-19 patients
×
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