Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medicine and BioMed Central.

Journal App

google play app store
Open Access Highly Accessed Research article

A meta-analysis of sublingual allergen immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Philippe Devillier12*, Jean-François Dreyfus2, Pascal Demoly3 and Moisés A Calderón4

Author Affiliations

1 UPRES EA 220 & Clinical Research Department, Foch Hospital, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin, Suresnes, France

2 Biostatistics Unit, Clinical Research Department, Foch Hospital, Suresnes, France

3 EPAR INSERM U707, Allergy Division, Pulmonology Department, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, University Hospital of Montpellier, Montpellier, France, and Institut Pierre Louis d’Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, Faculté de Médecine, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France

4 Section of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Imperial College London-NHLI, Royal Brompton Hospital, Dovehouse Street, London, UK

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medicine 2014, 12:71  doi:10.1186/1741-7015-12-71

Published: 1 May 2014

Abstract

Background

The capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (scorePlacebo - scoreActive)/scorePlacebo.

Results

Twenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were -29.6% (-23% to -37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets, -19.2% (-6% to -29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets, -23.5% (-7% to -54%) for nasal corticosteroids, -17.1% (-15% to -20%) for MP29-02, -15.0% (-3% to -26%) for H1-antihistamines and -6.5% (-3% to -10%) for montelukast.

Conclusions

In an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Keywords:
Allergen immunotherapy; Rhinoconjunctivitis; Grass; Pollen; Effect size; Pharmacotherapy