Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29997888›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational allergy2018

Early nonreactivity in the conjunctival provocation test predicts beneficial outcome of sublingual immunotherapy.

Janina Köther, Alicia Mandl, Silke Allekotte, Anatoli Astvatsatourov, Janin Chwieralski, Jan-Patrick Liedtke, Ursula Pieper-Fürst, Esther Raskopf, Kija Shah-Hosseini, Ralph Mösges

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 33% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Janina Köther1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Alicia Mandl1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Silke Allekotte1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Anatoli Astvatsatourov1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Janin Chwieralski1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan-Patrick Liedtke1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ursula Pieper-Fürst1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Esther Raskopf1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Kija Shah-Hosseini1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Ralph Mösges1Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University of Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice needs a common parameter that can provide an early, reliable estimation of the outcome of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in an upcoming pollen season. We investigated whether the conjunctival provocation test (CPT) can predict the beneficial outcome of SLIT in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis after 4 weeks of treatment.

methodsWe conducted two separate prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials. Adults 18-75 years of age received placebo or SLIT tablets containing tree or grass pollen allergoids and underwent CPTs. Participants receiving SLIT were divided into two groups (reactive, nonreactive) according to their CPT reactions after 4 weeks of treatment. These two groups were compared with regard to clinical outcome parameters (total combined score, rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score, total rescue medication score, well days) assessed during the pollen season for the 14-day (tree) or 30-day (tree/grass) peaks and for the entire 60-day seasons. Participants' global evaluations of therapy after completing treatment were also compared.

resultsThe tree pollen trial randomized 188 participants; 182 participants were evaluable, 76 of whom received SLIT and were suitable for this post hoc analysis. The grass pollen trial included 90 participants; 82 participants were evaluable, 44 of whom underwent SLIT. Comparing SLIT participants who reacted to the CPT after 4 weeks (tree: 77.6%; grass: 79.5%) with those who ceased to show a reaction (tree: 22.4%; grass: 20.5%) (tree:

conclusionsUsing clinically meaningful outcome parameters during the pollen season, both trials independently led to similar results when comparing participants' reactions to the CPT 4 weeks after beginning SLIT. These results suggest that CPT allows an early estimation of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms before an upcoming season. Thus, the CPT can be used as a valuable parameter to predict the beneficial outcome of ongoing SLIT.

trial registrationBoth trials registered with the Medical Ethics Committee of the North Rhine Medical Council (EudraCT numbers 2012-004916-79 (grass pollen trial) and 2013-002129-43 (tree pollen trial)) and the German Federal Ministry of Health (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut).

Indexed as

Conjunctival allergen challengeConjunctival provocation testEarly responderSublingual immunotherapy

Identifiers

PMID29997888
PMCPMC6031191
OpenAlexW2810905037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.