The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 128, Issue 4 , Pages 791-799.e6, October 2011

Subcutaneous immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A comparison based on meta-analyses

  • Paolo Maria Matricardi, MD

      Affiliations

    • Pediatric Pneumology and Immunology Department, Charité Medical University, Berlin, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Paolo Maria Matricardi, MD, Department of Pediatric Pneumology and Immunology, Charité Medical University, Augustenburger Platz, 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
  • ,
  • Piotr Kuna, MD

      Affiliations

    • Division of Internal Medicine, Asthma and Allergy, Barlicki University Hospital, Lodz, Poland
  • ,
  • Valentina Panetta, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Pediatric Pneumology and Immunology Department, Charité Medical University, Berlin, Germany
  • ,
  • Ulrich Wahn, MD

      Affiliations

    • Pediatric Pneumology and Immunology Department, Charité Medical University, Berlin, Germany
  • ,
  • Annemie Narkus, MD

      Affiliations

    • Allergopharma Joachim Ganzer KG, Reinbek, Germany

Received 26 June 2010; received in revised form 22 March 2011; accepted 31 March 2011. published online 27 May 2011.

Background

Allergen-specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is usually considered a “second-line,” slow-acting, disease-modifying treatment.

Objective

We sought to test whether SCIT is as effective as antisymptomatic treatment in the control of symptoms in patients with SAR in the first year of treatment.

Methods

We reviewed meta-analyses with 5 or more randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of SCIT or antisymptomatic treatment in patients with SAR. We then selected trials measuring the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), the total symptom score (TSS), or both during the first pollen season after treatment initiation. Efficacy was determined as the percentage reduction in TSSs and TNSSs obtained with active treatment compared with placebo (relative clinical impact [RCI]) and the standardized mean difference (SMD) of treatment verses placebo (effect size [ES]).

Results

The weighted mean RCI of SCIT on TNSSs (−34.7% ± 6.8%) was higher than those of mometasone (−31.7% ± 16.7%, P < .00001) and montelukast (−6.3% ± 3.0%, P < .00001). The weighted mean RCI of SCIT on TSSs (−32.9% ± 12.7%) was higher than that of desloratadine (−12.0% ± 5.1%, P < .00001). The overall ES of SCIT in terms of TNSSs (SMD, −0.94; 95% CI, −1.45 to −0.43) was similar to that of mometasone (SMD, −0.47; 95% CI, −0.63 to −0.32; P > .05) and higher than that of montelukast (SMD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.33 to −0.16; P < .05). The overall ES of SCIT in terms of TSSs (SMD, −0.86; 95% CI, −1.17 to −0.55) was comparable with that of desloratadine (SMD, −1.00; 95% CI, −1.68 to −0.32; P > .05).

Conclusions

Our data provide indirect but consistent evidence that SCIT is at least as potent as pharmacotherapy in controlling the symptoms of SAR as early as the first season of treatment.

Key words: Seasonal allergic rhinitis, allergen-specific immunotherapy, allergen-specific subcutaneous immunotherapy, nasal corticosteroids, antihistamines, leukotriene antagonists

Abbreviations used: ES, Effect size, LA, Leukotriene antagonist, MoE, Magnitude of efficacy, RCI, Relative clinical impact, SAR, Seasonal allergic rhinitis, SCIT, Allergen-specific subcutaneous immunotherapy, SIT, Allergen-specific immunotherapy, SMD, Standardized mean difference, TNSS, Total nasal symptom score, TSS, Total symptom score, WAO, World Allergy Organization

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: P. M. Matricardi receives honoraria from Allergopharma and Meda Pharma and receives research support from Allergopharma and the German Research Foundation. P. Kuna has consultant arrangements with ALK-Abelló and receives lecture fees from Allergopharma-Nexter. The rest of the authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.

PII: S0091-6749(11)00662-2

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2011.03.049

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 128, Issue 4 , Pages 791-799.e6, October 2011