ArticleInternational forum of allergy & rhinology2016
The efficacy assessment of a self-administered immunotherapy protocol.
Article in International forum of allergy & rhinology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2018Article
- The efficacy assessment of a self-administered immunotherapy protocol.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe previously reported the safety of a self-administered subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) protocol. Here we report the results of the retrospective efficacy trial of the United Allergy Service (UAS) self-administered SCIT protocol. We hypothesized that by utilizing a slow SCIT buildup phase, designed to attain recommended allergen concentrations on a cumulative basis, efficacious outcomes and clinical relevance would be achieved.
methodsWe enrolled 60 SCIT patients and 56 control patients. The study contrasted baseline and treatment period combined symptom plus medication scores (CSMS) as the primary outcome measure and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) scores as the secondary study outcome measure. Changes in pollen counts were also examined with regard to effects on these efficacy parameters.
resultsThe treatment group showed significantly improved CSMS (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.97 to -1.18; p < 0.001) and RQLQ (SMD: -0.91; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.59; p < 0.001). These treatment group outcome measures were respectively improved by 33% and 29% compared to baseline and greater than 40% in comparison to the control group (p < 0.0001). Significant results were also shown when examining these outcome measures with regards to either monotherapy or poly-allergen SCIT. Furthermore, a comparison to recent meta-analyses of SCIT studies showed equivalent efficacy and clinical relevance. Assessment of pollen counts during the baseline and treatment periods further corroborated the efficacy of the UAS SCIT protocol.
conclusionThese efficacy results, and our previous safety results, show that a carefully designed and implemented self-administered SCIT protocol is efficacious and safe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.