METHODS: We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.
RESULTS: We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.
CONCLUSIONS: AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.
Methods: Participants (GP-allergic with AR, 330; non-atopic, 29; other allergies, 54) were recruited in subtropical: Queensland, and temperate: New South Wales, Western and South Australia, regions. Clinical history, skin prick test (SPT), total and specific IgE to GP and purified allergens (ImmunoCAP) were evaluated. Cross-inhibition of sIgE with Pas n 1, Cyn d 1 and Lol p 1 by GP extracts was investigated.
Results: Queensland participants showed higher sensitisation to P. notatum and C. dactylon than L. perenne GP. sIgE was higher to Pas n 1 and Cyn d 1, and sIgE to Pas n 1 and Cyn d 1 was inhibited more by Panicoideae and Chloridoideae, respectively, than Pooideae GP. Conversely, participants from temperate regions showed highest sensitisation levels to L. perenne GP and Lol p 1, and sIgE to Lol p 1 was inhibited more by Pooideae than other GP.
Conclusion: Levels and patterns of sensitisation to subtropical and temperate GP in AR patients depended on biogeography. Knowledge of the specificity of sensitisation to local allergens is important for optimal diagnosis and choice of allergen-specific immunotherapy to maximise benefit.
SUMMARY: Cockroach allergy is an important risk factor for allergic rhinitis in the tropics, that disproportionately affects children and young adults and those living in poor socio-economic environments. Immunotherapy would provide long-lasting improvement in quality of life, with reduced medication intake. However, the present treatment regime is long and has a risk of adverse effects. In addition, cockroach does not seem to have an immuno-dominant allergen, that has been traditionally used to treat allergies from other sources. Future trends of cockroach immunotherapy involve precision diagnosis, to correctly identify the offending allergen. Next, precision immunotherapy with standardized allergens, which have been processed in a way that maintains an immunological response without allergic reactions. This approach can be coupled with modern adjuvants and delivery systems that promote a Th1/Treg environment, thereby modulating the immune response away from the allergenic response.