BACKGROUND: Both SCIT (subcutaneous immunotherapy) and SLIT (sublingual immunotherapy) have clinical and immunologic efficacy in children with rhinitis and asthma but comparative studies are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical and immunological efficacy of mite-specific SLIT and SCIT in children with rhinitis and asthma. METHOD:Thirty children monosensitized to house dust mite were randomized to receive either active SCIT or SLIT or placebo for 1 yr in a double-blind double-dummy placebo controlled design (Yukselen A et al., Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012; 157:288-298). Thereafter, the placebo group was randomized to receive SCIT or SLIT, and for 1 yr all patients received active treatment with SCIT or SLIT. Symptom scores, drug usage, titrated skin prick tests, nasal and bronchial allergen provocation doses, serum house dust mite-specific immunglobulin E, sIgG4, IL-10 and IFN- g levels were evaluated. RESULTS: The reduction of clinical scores with SLIT was more evident after 2 years of treatment in comparison to both the baseline and DBPC phase of the study. The change in titrated skin prick tests and nasal provocative doses was more prominent with both SCIT and SLIT at the end of the open phase. Although the increase inbronchial provocative doses was not significant at the end of the first year of treatment with SLIT, it reached a statistically significant difference after two years of treatment. CONCLUSION: The clinical efficacy of SLIT is more prominent at the end of the second year, although this improvement is observed from the first year of treatment with SCIT in mite-sensitive children.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Both SCIT (subcutaneous immunotherapy) and SLIT (sublingual immunotherapy) have clinical and immunologic efficacy in children with rhinitis and asthma but comparative studies are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical and immunological efficacy of mite-specific SLIT and SCIT in children with rhinitis and asthma. METHOD: Thirty children monosensitized to house dust mite were randomized to receive either active SCIT or SLIT or placebo for 1 yr in a double-blind double-dummy placebo controlled design (Yukselen A et al., Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012; 157:288-298). Thereafter, the placebo group was randomized to receive SCIT or SLIT, and for 1 yr all patients received active treatment with SCIT or SLIT. Symptom scores, drug usage, titrated skin prick tests, nasal and bronchial allergen provocation doses, serum house dust mite-specific immunglobulin E, sIgG4, IL-10 and IFN- g levels were evaluated. RESULTS: The reduction of clinical scores with SLIT was more evident after 2 years of treatment in comparison to both the baseline and DBPC phase of the study. The change in titrated skin prick tests and nasal provocative doses was more prominent with both SCIT and SLIT at the end of the open phase. Although the increase inbronchial provocative doses was not significant at the end of the first year of treatment with SLIT, it reached a statistically significant difference after two years of treatment. CONCLUSION: The clinical efficacy of SLIT is more prominent at the end of the second year, although this improvement is observed from the first year of treatment with SCIT in mite-sensitive children.
Authors: Oliver Pfaar; Tobias Ankermann; Matthias Augustin; Petra Bubel; Sebastian Böing; Randolf Brehler; Peter A Eng; Peter J Fischer; Michael Gerstlauer; Eckard Hamelmann; Thilo Jakob; Jörg Kleine-Tebbe; Matthias Volkmar Kopp; Susanne Lau; Norbert Mülleneisen; Christoph Müller; Katja Nemat; Wolfgang Pfützner; Joachim Saloga; Klaus Strömer; Peter Schmid-Grendelmeier; Antje Schuster; Gunter Johannes Sturm; Christian Taube; Zsolt Szépfalusi; Christian Vogelberg; Martin Wagenmann; Wolfgang Wehrmann; Thomas Werfel; Stefan Wöhrl; Margitta Worm; Bettina Wedi; Susanne Kaul; Vera Mahler; Anja Schwalfenberg Journal: Allergol Select Date: 2022-09-06