ReviewThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2024
The evidence for commercial house dust mite immunotherapy products: A pragmatic systematic review with narrative synthesis.
Review in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimization of Basophil Activation Test in the Diagnosis and Qualification for Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Children with Respiratory Allergy to the House Dust MiteInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
House dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has an established role in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) triggered by HDM sensitization. We aimed to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AR and AA in humans and to summarize the evidence for AIT products that are currently manufactured and available for clinical use. A total of 56 eligible double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AA and/or AR in humans fit the inclusion criteria and investigated a total of 14 commercial AIT products; together, the 56 studies enrolled a total of 14,619 patients. Of the 56 studies, 39 studies investigated the current manufacturer-recommended maintenance dose (MRMD) of the product, and 17 investigated other doses. We identified 39 studies (12,539 patients randomized) for 8 sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) products and 17 studies (2,080 patients randomized) for subcutaneous immunotherapy products. For AR, 3 products, the ALK 12 standardized-quality (SQ-HDM) SLIT tablet, the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, and the SG 300 index of reactivity SLIT tablet, had both dose-finding studies (DFSs) and phase III definitive studies (DSs) to demonstrate efficacy of the MRMD of the product. For AA, 2 products, the ALK 12 SQ-HDM SLIT tablet and the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, had both DFSs and DSs for the MRMD. No subcutaneous immunotherapy product had a paired DFS and DS supporting the MRMD. A total of 30 studies of products no longer commercially manufactured were excluded. This study will help to inform clinical care and product selection for the treatment of HDM-induced AR and AA.
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.