ArticleThe journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global2025
Real-world efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy with Japanese cedar pollen for cypress pollinosis.
Article in The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It remains unclear whether allergen immunotherapy with Japanese cedar pollen extract is effective for Japanese cypress pollinosis in real-world settings. Objective: We sought to investigate the Japan-wide prevalence of cypress pollinosis, the efficacy of cedar sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) on cypress pollinosis, the role of serum-specific IgE levels in pollinosis, and patients' interest in the development of cypress SLIT. Methods: A cross-sectional, multicenter study using self-administered questionnaires was conducted in regions of Japan where cedar and cypress pollen dispersals are prevalent. This study included patients aged 5 to 69 years who received cedar SLIT in 2023. Results: Of 2597 participants analyzed, 84.5% experienced pollinosis symptoms during the cypress season before receiving cedar SLIT. Among these patients, 40.2% felt that cedar SLIT was less effective during the cypress season than during the cedar season. The longer the patients received cedar SLIT, the greater the inefficacy perceived during the cypress versus the cedar season. In the symptomatic patients, serum IgE levels were significantly higher for cedar and cypress as compared with those observed in subjects without symptoms during the cypress season. No significant differences were reported in IgE levels for cedar and cypress between patients reporting either high or lower efficacy for the cedar SLIT during cypress season. Interest in cypress SLIT was seen in 78.4% of these patients. Conclusions: Although there is a bias based on regional distribution, cedar SLIT has induced a limited efficacy on cypress pollinosis in real-world settings, suggesting a need for the development of cypress SLIT.
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.