Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31209565›Full record

ArticleGraefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie2019

One-year evaluation of clinical and immunological efficacy and safety of sublingual versus subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy in allergic conjunctivitis.

Khulood M Sayed, Ahmed G Kamel, Abdellah H Ali

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Immunology of allergen immunotherapy.Immunotherapy advances · 2022
    Review
  3. Towards definitive management of allergic rhinitis: best use of new and established therapies.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2020
    Review
  4. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Khulood M SayedDepartment of Ophthalmology, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, 82524, Egypt. khulood.mohammed@yahoo.com.
Ahmed G KamelDepartment of Ophthalmology, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, 82524, Egypt.
Abdellah H AliDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Sohag Faculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Sohag University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical and immunological efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in patients with allergic conjunctivitis (AC) and to compare between sublingual and subcutaneous routes of administration.

methodsA prospective comparative case series study was performed on 100 patients with IgE-mediated AC. Patients were referred to allergy clinics for skin prick test (SPT) and AIT. Patients with positive SPT and high-serum IgE level were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups: sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) group (50 patients) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) group (50 patients). Both groups were followed for 1 year. Efficacy was assessed clinically by comparing pre- and post-treatment symptoms and medication scores and assessed immunologically by comparing pre- and post-treatment serum IgE level and wheal diameter of SPT. Safety of the therapy was assessed by the occurrence of adverse reactions and patient tolerability to the therapy.

resultsPatients were either mono- or polysensitized to different allergens. Aeroallergens were significantly more common than food allergens (P = 0.00). The most prevalent aeroallergens were pollens (40%) and house dust (30%). At 12-month follow-up, both routes SLIT and SCIT led to a statistically significant clinical and immunological improvement (P < 0.05). This improvement was evident in all follow-up parameters including total ocular symptom score (TOSS), medication score, total serum IgE level, and wheal diameter of skin prick test (SPT). There was no significant difference between the two routes of administration (SLIT & SCIT) in any of the follow-up parameters (P > 0.05). Patients were able to tolerate the allergen therapy without developing any serious adverse events.

conclusionAeroallergen polysensitization is common among patients with AC. SPT should be included in the diagnostic workup of those patients. AIT is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with AC as it has the potential to achieve significant reduction in symptom and medication scores without ocular or systemic side effects. There is no significant difference between both routes of administration either SLIT or SCIT in achieving clinical and immunologic improvement; so the patient can choose his preferred method for therapy.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAllergensAntibodies, Anti-IdiotypicChildConjunctivitis, AllergicFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImmunoglobulin EInjections, SubcutaneousMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSublingual ImmunotherapyTime FactorsAllergensAntibodies, Anti-IdiotypicImmunoglobulin EAllergic conjunctivitisSkin prick testSubcutaneous immunotherapySublingual immunotherapy

Identifiers

PMID31209565
OpenAlexW2949826198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.