Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28115832›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2017

Sublingual versus subcutaneous immunotherapy: patient adherence at a large German allergy center.

Marie-Luise Lemberg, Till Berk, Kija Shah-Hosseini, Elena-Manja Kasche, Ralph Mösges

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. An Overview of Adherence-What It Is and Why It Is Important.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2024
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. [Analysis of adherence and determinants of sublingual immunotherapy in patients with Artemisia pollen-induced allergic rhinitis].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. ITULAZAXClinical and translational allergy · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marie-Luise LembergFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Till BerkDepartment of Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kija Shah-HosseiniFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Elena-Manja KascheFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Center for Dermatology, Specific Allergology and Environmental Medicine, Hamburg, Germany.
Ralph MösgesFaculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective therapy for treating allergies. Both commonly used routes, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), require high patient adherence to be successful. In the literature, numbers describing adherence vary widely; this investigation compares these two routes of therapy directly.

methodsAll data were retrieved from the patient data management system of a center for dermatology, specific allergology, and environmental medicine in Germany. All 330 patients (aged 13-89 years) included in this study had commenced AIT between 2003 and 2011, thus allowing a full 3-year AIT cycle to be considered for each investigated patient.

resultsIn this specific center, SCIT was prescribed to 62.7% and SLIT to 37.3% of all included patients. The total dropout rate of the whole patient cohort was 34.8%. Overall, SLIT patients showed a higher dropout rate (39.0%) than did SCIT patients (32.4%); however, the difference between these groups was not significant. Also, no significant difference between the overall dropout rates for men and for women was observed. A Kaplan-Meier curve of the patient collective showed a remarkably high dropout rate for the first year of therapy.

conclusionThe analysis presented in this single-center study shows that most patients who discontinue AIT do so during the first year of therapy. Patients seem likely to finish the 3-year therapy cycle if they manage to adhere to treatment throughout the first year. Strategies for preventing nonadherence in AIT, therefore, need to be developed and standardized in future investigations.

Indexed as

adherenceallergen immunotherapyallergic rhinitisallergydropoutnonadherenceSCITSLIT

Identifiers

PMID28115832
PMCPMC5221545

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.