Evaluation of Intralymphatic Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Jiang, Sijie; Xie, Shaobing; Tang, Qingping; Zhang, Hua; Xie, Zhihai; Zhang, Junyi; Jiang, Weihong

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9377518

Mediators of Inflammation

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

The Role of Inflammatory Mediators in Nasal and Sinonasal Diseases

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 9377518 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9377518

Evaluation of Intralymphatic Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Sijie Jiang,^1,2,3Shaobing Xie,^1,2,3Qingping Tang,⁴Hua Zhang,^1,2,3Zhihai Xie,^1,2,3Junyi Zhang ,^1,2,3and Weihong Jiang^1,2,3

Academic Editor: Tomasz Brzozowski

Received22 Sept 2022

Revised22 Nov 2022

Accepted18 Mar 2023

Published08 May 2023

Abstract

Background. Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is short-course administration of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). This study is aimed at assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of ILIT in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods. MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane Library were used to conduct electronic searches for clinical trials comparing ILIT and placebo in patients with AR. The final search took place on August 24, 2022. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The outcomes included combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS), visual analog scale (VAS), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), Skin-prick test (SPT), and adverse events (AEs). Data were synthesized as mean difference (MD)/standard mean difference (SMD) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results. Thirteen studies (454 participants) were included in this study. The ILIT group had better clinical improvement on the CSMS (random effects model, SMD-0.85, 95% CI [-1.58, -0.11], ) and RQLQ (fixed-effects model, MD-0.42, 95% CI [0.69, 0.15], ) than the placebo group. The booster injection was beneficial for CSMS (), and the 4-week injection interval was superior to the 2-week injection period for improving VAS (). Local swelling or erythema was the main AE following injection (random effects model, RD 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], ). Discussion. For individuals with AR, ILIT is safe and effective. ILIT alleviates clinical symptoms and reduces pharmaceutical consumption without causing severe AEs. However, the validity of this study is compromised by the substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias in the included researches. RegistrationCRD42022355329.

1. Introduction

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only therapy currently available for changing the ordinary course of IgE-mediated allergic diseases [1, 2]. AIT offers the prospect of reducing allergic symptoms and improving quality of life by administering allergens to individuals who do not respond well to pharmaceutical treatments [3]. Traditionally, allergens were delivered subcutaneously (subcutaneous immunotherapy [SCIT]) or sublingually (sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)) for at least three years to induce immunological tolerance and confer therapeutic advantages [3–5]. However, the lengthy treatment duration suggested increased expense and noncompliance with therapy [6, 7]. It is known that only secondary lymphatic organs, such as lymph nodes, can initiate immunological responses [8, 9]. Consequently, intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) administers allergen extract directly to lymph nodes to induce rapid and effective immunological tolerance. Three injections are provided at 12-week intervals, resulting in fewer injections and a shorter treatment duration [10]. Therefore, ILIT is an alternate strategy to AIT that improves safety and efficacy for individuals with poor AIT adherence.

Previous clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of ILIT in treating perennial and seasonal allergen-related disorders [11, 12]. It has been suggested that applying ILIT benefited patients with asthma [13], atopic dermatitis [14], and allergic rhinitis (AR) [2]. However, the conclusions of the current AR study were inconclusive. Contrary to the findings of other investigations, Park et al. concluded that ILIT displayed indistinct therapeutic effects and moderate-to-severe systemic responses in AR [15]. Hitherto, prior meta-analysis proceeded with limited studies and participants, resulting in contradictory findings and relatively insufficient investigation of the safety and efficacy of ILIT with varying allergen dosages and follow-up periods [16, 17]. In light of this, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ILIT in patients with AR and the dose-time effect of ILIT based on current research.

2. Materials and Methods

This protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis was submitted to PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022355329). This research followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [18].

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The clinical trials which conducted the comparison between ILIT and control groups were included. The inclusion criteria were as follows. (1) The diagnosis of AR was guided by the ARIA recommendations [3]. (2) ILIT with any allergen, dosage, preparation solution, treatment duration, and follow-up period were accepted. (3) The control group was administered the equivalent ILIT solvent. (4) Studies should report at least one of the following primary outcomes: combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS), visual analog scale (VAS), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), skin prick test (SPT), and adverse events (AEs). Conference abstracts, secondary research projects, and animal experiments were excluded.

2.2. Search Strategy

Electronic searches were performed with MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane library. The search terms were “rhinitis, allergic,” “allergic rhinitis,” “hay fever,” “rhinoconjunctivitis,” “nasal allergy,” “lymph nodes,” “lymph,” “intralymph,” “intralymphatic immunotherapy,” and “injection, intralymphatic”. The last search was performed on August 24, 2022.

2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Duplicate records were removed. Two reviewers (SJ and SX) independently screened the titles and the abstracts. The full-text versions of relevant studies were subsequently screened based on predetermined eligibility criteria for the final decision. Data extraction and collection were performed by two reviewers (QT and HZ) independently. All disagreements over the selection and extraction processes were resolved by thorough group discussion (ZX and HZ). The following data were extracted: first author name, year and country of publication, the number of participants, age, gender, allergen, dosage, treatment interval, booster dose, follow-up period, and outcome measurements. The corresponding author of the study with incomplete or ambiguous information was contacted for more data.

2.4. Data Items

Primary outcomes included CSMS, VAS, RQLQ, SPT, and AEs. The efficacy outcomes of seasonal allergic AR were evaluated in the pollen-peak season. AEs were recorded as total events number and injection number, categorized as local urticarial reaction, local swelling or erythema, abdominal pain or nausea, fatigue, eye or nasal symptoms, pulmonary symptoms, and headache.

2.5. Risk of Bias Assessment

The risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Six items were considered, including random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and selective reporting (reporting bias).

2.6. Synthesis Methods and Meta-analysis

The effect size of continuous data was presented as mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Dichotomous data were synthesized as risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. If data were supplied as median, range, 95% CI, and standard error, mean and standard deviation would be estimated with available information [19, 20]. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager, version 5.4 [21]. The statistic was used to determine the heterogeneity of the analysis. When was <40%, the heterogeneity was deemed “low”; and 40%-60% of and >60% if were deemed “moderate” and “substantial,” respectively [22]. When heterogeneity was low, a fixed-effects model was applied; otherwise, a random-effects model was employed, and subgroup analyses would be used to investigate the heterogeneity and enhance the robustness of the study.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

A flowchart of the study selection process is profiled in Figure 1. Through database filtering and manual search, 5310 studies were obtained in total. After removing duplicates, 3298 records remained. Full texts of the 21 studies were retrieved and assessed, and eight were removed. In this section, eight studies were removed for the following reasons. Overlapping subjects were obtained in one study [23]. Five studies did not establish a control group [11, 12, 24–26]. Two studies compared ILIT with conventional AIT [27, 28]. Thirteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. There was another overlapping population in two studies that reported different outcomes [29, 30]. We incorporated and evaluated them into the final evaluation with respective clinical outcomes. Eleven studies [13, 15, 29–37] were included in the efficacy analysis, and ten [15, 29, 31, 32, 34–39] were included in the safety analysis.

3.2. Study Characteristics and Participants

Characteristics of the included studies are illustrated in Table 1. A total of 454 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The participants were allergic to seasonal (11 trials) and perennial allergens (2 trials). The intervention to seasonal AR was carried out before the onset of the pollen season. Figure 2 depicts the estimations of the risk of bias in the included studies. There were unclear risks of bias in random sequence generation (23%), allocation concealment (23%), blinding of outcome assessment (8%), and selective reporting (62%). There were high risks of bias in the blinding of outcome assessment (8%) and incomplete outcome data (8%).

(a)

(b)

3.3. Outcomes

3.3.1. Combined Symptom and Medication Scores (CSMS)

Eight RCTs evaluated CSMS in AR patients between ILIT and placebo. The total number of patients for this outcome was 245. The effect size of the meta-analysis on the CMSM favored ILIT (random effects model, SMD -0.85, 95% CI [-1.58, -0.11], ). The heterogeneity of this model was substantial () (Figure 3(a)). The forest plot of subgroup analysis by booster injection indicated the booster injection subgroup (random effects model, SMD -4.81, 95% CI [-6.54, -3.08], ) possessing significant improvement () in comparison to the conventional treatment group (random effects model, SMD -0.76, 95% CI [-1.43, -0.10], ) (Figure 3(b)). Subgroup analysis by injection interval favored the 4-week interval group (random effects model, SMD -1.00, 95% CI [-1.86, -0.13], ) rather than the 2-week interval group (random effects model, SMD -0.01, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.66], ) (Figure 3(c)). Subgroup analysis by different dosages revealed no difference between the 3000 SQU group and the larger dosage group () (Figure S1). To reduce heterogeneity, we excluded studies one by one and found that the heterogeneity was primarily from Skaarup et al. When we excluded this study, the was reduced from 81% to 8% in the conventional treatment subgroup and 87% to 12% in the 4-week interval group (Figure S2-S3). The heterogeneity may be due to using different assessment methodologies before and after 2016 in Skaarup et al. The funnel plot is illustrated in Figure S4.

(a)

(b)

(c)

3.3.2. Visual Analog Scale (VAS)

Seven RCTs assessed the improvement of VAS of nasal symptoms, and 224 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The improvement of VAS between ILIT and placebo was insignificant (random effects model, MD 0.60, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.36], ). The heterogeneity of this model was substantial () (Figure 4(a)). By a step-by-step exclusion procedure, we determined that the heterogeneity mainly originated from one study with a 2-week injection interval. Therefore, a subgroup analysis was undertaken by injection interval. Results showed that the improvement of VAS in the 4-week injection interval group (Random effects model, MD 1.25, 95% CI [0.08, 2.42], ) was better () than the 2-week injection group (Random effects model, MD -1.71, 95% CI [-2.10, -1.32], ) (Figure 4(b)). Subgroup analysis by different dosages () (Figure S5) and booster injection () (Figure S6) showed no difference. The funnel plot is illustrated in Figure S7.

(a)

(b)

3.3.3. Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life (RQLQ)

Three RCTs assessed the RQLQ as outcomes. A total of 121 subjects were investigated. The meta-analysis supported that the RQLQ improvement in the ILIT group was superior to the placebo group (fixed-effects model, MD -0.42, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.15], ). The heterogeneity of this model was low () (Figure 5). The funnel plot is demonstrated in Figure S8.

3.3.4. Skin-Prick Test (SPT)

Two RCTs with 99 participants assessed the SPT as an outcome. The effect size of SPT between ILIT and placebo groups exhibited no statistical significance (random effects model, MD -0.51, 95% CI [-1.06, 0.04], ). The heterogeneity of this model was low (%) (Figure 6(a)). The funnel plot is demonstrated in Figure S9.

3.3.5. Adverse Events (AE)

Ten trials with 1123 injection records reporting adverse events were included in the evaluation of the safety of ILIT. The meta-analysis favored ILIT in local swelling or erythema after injection (Random effects model, RD 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], ) with substantial heterogeneity (). In addition, there were no significant differences between ILIT and placebo for local urticarial reaction, abdominal pain or nausea, fatigue, eye or nasal symptoms, headache, and pulmonary symptoms () (Figures 7(a)–7(g)).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

4. Discussion

This systematic review and meta-analysis included 13 trials with 454 participants and revealed that ILIT had positive impacts on CSMS and RQLQ improvements in AR patients. The subgroup analysis showed that the booster injection contributed to the enhancement of VAS. In terms of CSMS and VAS improvement, the 4-week injection period was superior to the 2-week injection interval.

Current guidelines recommend AIT as a curative treatment for allergic diseases, particularly for patients with a poor response to pharmacotherapies [40]. However, conventional AIT involves multifarious allergen administration protocols and requires good patient compliance. It came up with ILIT as an alternative option with more efficient schemes with limited evidence. Currently, available researches on the comparison between the conventional AIT and ILIT were insufficient to conduct a meta-analysis yet. However, current clinical trials have demonstrated that SLIT provides equivalent or superior therapeutic benefits to SCIT [28, 41]. Previous meta-analyses [42–44] have shown that relative to the placebo, the symptom score, and medication score both benefitted more from SCIT and SLIT. Meanwhile, this meta-analysis of ILIT strengthened the positive effects on the clinical outcomes, such as CSMS and RQLQ, by incorporating more high-quality RCTs compared with existing meta-analysis [16, 17].

The treatment period of ILIT treatment protocol is relatively short, and discussion has arisen about the potential effects of an extra preseasonal booster injection in the next year. Several trials showed that a preseasonal booster injection significantly alleviated symptoms of pollen-induced AR compared with both placebo and 3-injection ILIT [13, 39]. Consistent with prior researches, our subgroup analysis of CSMS and VAS by booster dosage revealed a significant advantage for the booster dosage group [9, 45]. These results suggested that a booster dose of ILIT could ameliorate the symptoms of seasonal AR and reduce medication consumption by boosting allergen affinity and developing immunological tolerance. Besides, one trial with a 2-week injection interval exhibited heterogeneity independent from other studies. The investigation of the immune response and immunological tolerance formation period has attracted considerable interest. In our subgroup analysis, the 4-week injection interval groups showed substantial improvements in CSMS and VAS compared to the 2-week injection interval groups. It was tempting to believe that a 4-week injection interval would be more suitable for producing suppressive immune cells and developing immunological tolerance. Based on these findings and previously published studies, a 4-week injection interval was recommended, and a pre-seasonal booster injection might contribute to increasing the effectiveness of ILIT.

According to prior research, the efficacy of AIT presented a dose response, while ILIT had an advantage in reducing the dosage of allergen extract [46, 47]. Concomitantly, the injection dosage may impact the therapeutic effectiveness of ILIT. Curiously, our subgroup analysis of CSMS and VAS by injection dosage revealed no significant difference across dosage-specific groups. However, considering the substantial heterogeneity in subgroup analysis, the results might not be clinically significant. We considered that in addition to the total dose, the injection interval and the single injection dose were crucial elements influencing the pharmaceutical efficacy. Conducting the injection at a 2-week interval was insufficient to induce immune tolerance, even with a larger total dosage, as described in the previous subgroup analysis. On the other side, there was considerable diversity in the administration protocols of the larger dosage group, which comprised various single dosages. All these factors might influence the effectiveness of ILIT. Hitherto, the research evaluating the dose-time effect of ILIT is still insufficient and encouraged.

AE was one of the most crucial factors affecting patient compliance, treatment period, and efficacy. A total of ten studies reported the AEs in the present meta-analysis. The previous meta-analysis reported that local reactions resulted more from the drug solution, while non-standardized allergen extract caused systematic reactions [16]. In this study, we analyzed every injection reaction, and the results revealed that local swelling or erythema was more likely to occur in the ILIT group. Nevertheless, all these local events could be alleviated with or without medication. No statistical difference was observed in the rate of other AEs between the ILIT and placebo groups. These findings suggested that the intralymphatic delivery of allergen extract was safe and feasible.

The limitation of this systematic review and meta-analysis is the substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias in included studies. The data in included studies are too limited to perform a comprehensive subgroup analysis. More trials with long-term follow-up and large sample sizes are still in demand.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that ILIT might be an alternative immunotherapy strategy for AR patients. Evidence from the current researches validated the safety and effectiveness of ILIT. ILIT was advantageous in improving the clinical symptoms of AR and reducing the need for medications. Moreover, the preseasonal booster injection had a positive impact on CSMS improvement. Future clinical trials involving perennial AR and trials with long-term follow-up and large sample sizes were recommended.

Data Availability

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. No more additional data is available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Authors’ Contributions

Sijie Jiang, Shaobing Xie, Junyi Zhang, and Weihong Jiang contributed equally to this study.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82171118) and the Provincial Natural Science Foundation of Hunan (2022JJ30327).

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Figure S1: subgroup analysis of CSMS by different dosages. Figure S2: subgroup analysis of CSMS by booster injection excluded Skaarup, S. H. 2021. Figure S3: subgroup analysis of CSMS by injection interval excluded Skaarup, S. H. 2021. Figure S4: the funnel plot of studies included in the meta-analysis of CSMS. Figure S5: subgroup analysis of VAS by different dosages. Figure S6: subgroup analysis of VAS by booster injection. Figure S7: the funnel plot of studies included in the meta- analysis of VAS. Figure S8: the funnel plot of studies included in the meta- analysis of RQLQ. Figure S9: the funnel plot of studies included in the meta- analysis of SPT. (Supplementary Materials)

References

J. Bousquet, P. Demoly, and F. B. Michel, “Specific immunotherapy in rhinitis and asthma,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 38–42, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. H. Shamji, H. Sharif, J. A. Layhadi, R. Zhu, U. Kishore, and H. Renz, “Diverse immune mechanisms of allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis with and without asthma,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 791–801, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bousquet, H. J. Schünemann, A. Togias et al., “Next-generation Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines for allergic rhinitis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and real-world evidence,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 70–80.e3, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Matsuoka, M. H. Shamji, and S. R. Durham, “Allergen immunotherapy and tolerance,” Allergology International, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 403–413, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. W. Scadding, M. A. Calderon, M. H. Shamji et al., “Effect of 2 years of treatment with sublingual grass pollen immunotherapy on nasal response to allergen challenge at 3 years among patients with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis: the GRASS Randomized Clinical Trial,” Jama, vol. 317, no. 6, pp. 615–625, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. K. Wise, S. Y. Lin, E. Toskala et al., “International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: allergic rhinitis,” International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 108–352, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. S. Avdeeva, S. Reitsma, and W. J. Fokkens, “Direct and indirect costs of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis in the Netherlands,” Allergy, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 2993–2996, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. M. Zinkernagel, S. Ehl, P. Aichele, S. Oehen, T. Kündig, and H. Hengartner, “Antigen localisation regulates immune responses in a dose- and time-dependent fashion: a geographical view of immune reactivity,” Immunological Reviews, vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 199–209, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
U. C. Kucuksezer, C. Ozdemir, L. Cevhertas, I. Ogulur, M. Akdis, and C. A. Akdis, “Mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotherapy and allergen tolerance,” Allergology International, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 549–560, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. Larsson, L. Hellkvist, U. Peterson-Westin, and L. O. Cardell, “Novel strategies for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis,” Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1143–1150, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Ahlbeck, E. Ahlberg, J. Björkander et al., “Intralymphatic immunotherapy with one or two allergens renders similar clinical response in patients with allergic rhinitis due to birch and grass pollen,” Clinical and Experimental Allergy, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 747–759, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Wang, R. Zheng, Y. Chen et al., “Clinical efficacy and safety of cervical intralymphatic immunotherapy for house dust mite allergic rhinitis: a pilot study,” American Journal of Otolaryngology, vol. 40, no. 6, article 102280, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. R. Konradsen, J. Grundström, L. Hellkvist et al., “Intralymphatic immunotherapy in pollen-allergic young adults with rhinoconjunctivitis and mild asthma: a randomized trial,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 145, no. 3, pp. 1005–1007.e7, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. M. Fischer, A. Rostaher, and C. Favrot, “A comparative study of subcutaneous, intralymphatic and sublingual immunotherapy for the long-term control of dogs with nonseasonal atopic dermatitis,” Veterinary Dermatology, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 365–396, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Park, S. H. Kim, Y. S. Shin et al., “Intralymphatic immunotherapy with tyrosine-adsorbed allergens: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” Respiratory Research, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 170, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. P. Hoang, K. Seresirikachorn, W. Chitsuthipakorn, and K. Snidvongs, “Intralymphatic immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Rhinology, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 236–244, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. R. Aini, N. Mohd Noor, M. K. Md Daud, S. K. Wise, and B. Abdullah, “Efficacy and safety of intralymphatic immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Clinical and Translational Allergy, vol. 11, no. 6, article e12055, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt et al., “The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,” BMJ, vol. 372, p. n71, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. McGrath, X. Zhao, R. Steele et al., “Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 2520–2537, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cai, J. Zhou, and J. Pan, “Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from order statistics and sample size in meta-analysis,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 2701–2719, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Review Manager (Rev Man) [Computer program], Version 5.4. The Cochrane Collaboration, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, 2020.
M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page et al., “Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions,” The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, vol. 10, article Ed000142, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Hylander, L. Latif, U. Petersson-Westin, and L. O. Cardell, “Intralymphatic allergen-specific immunotherapy: an effective and safe alternative treatment route for pollen-induced allergic rhinitis,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 412–420, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Ahlbeck, E. Ahlberg, U. Nyström, J. Björkander, and M. C. Jenmalm, “Intralymphatic allergen immunotherapy against pollen allergy: a 3-year open follow-up study of 10 patients,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, vol. 121, no. 5, pp. 626-627, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. P. Lee, S. J. Choi, E. Joe et al., “A pilot study of intralymphatic immunotherapy for house dust mite, cat, and dog allergies,” Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Research, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 272–277, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. H. Skaarup, O. Graumann, J. Schmid, A. S. Bjerrum, T. Skjold, and H. J. Hoffmann, “The number of successful injections associates with improved clinical effect in intralymphatic immunotherapy,” Allergy, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 1859–1861, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Schmid, H. Nezam, H. H. Madsen, A. Schmitz, and H. J. Hoffmann, “Intralymphatic immunotherapy induces allergen specific plasmablasts and increases tolerance to skin prick testing in a pilot study,” Clinical and Translational Allergy, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 19, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Senti, B. M. Prinz Vavricka, I. Erdmann et al., “Intralymphatic allergen administration renders specific immunotherapy faster and safer: a randomized controlled trial,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 46, pp. 17908–17912, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Hellkvist, E. Hjalmarsson, S. Kumlien Georén et al., “Intralymphatic immunotherapy with 2 concomitant allergens, birch and grass: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 142, no. 4, pp. 1338–1341.e9, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Hjalmarsson, L. Hellkvist, A. Karlsson et al., “A five-year open follow up of a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intralymphatic immunotherapy for birch and grass reveals remaining beneficial effects,” Journal of Investigational Allergology & Clinical Immunology, vol. 33, no. 5, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Hellkvist, E. Hjalmarsson, D. Weinfeld et al., “High-dose pollen intralymphatic immunotherapy: two RDBPC trials question the benefit of dose increase,” Allergy, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 883–896, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Hylander, O. Larsson, U. Petersson-Westin et al., “Intralymphatic immunotherapy of pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial,” Respiratory Research, vol. 17, no. 1, p. 10, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Patterson, A. E. Bonny, W. E. Shiels 2nd, and E. A. Erwin, “Three-injection intralymphatic immunotherapy in adolescents and young adults with grass pollen rhinoconjunctivitis,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 168–170, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. H. Skaarup, J. M. Schmid, T. Skjold, O. Graumann, and H. J. Hoffmann, “Intralymphatic immunotherapy improves grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a 3-year randomized placebo-controlled trial,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 147, no. 3, pp. 1011–1019, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Terada, S. Omura, Y. Kikuoka et al., “Sustained effects of intralymphatic pollen-specific immunotherapy on Japanese cedar pollinosis,” Rhinology, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 241–247, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. P. Thompson, S. Silvers, and M. A. Shapiro, “Intralymphatic immunotherapy for mountain cedar pollinosis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 311–318.e2, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Witten, H. J. Malling, L. Blom, B. C. Poulsen, and L. K. Poulsen, “Is intralymphatic immunotherapy ready for clinical use in patients with grass pollen allergy?” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 132, no. 5, pp. 1248–1252.e5, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Senti, R. Crameri, D. Kuster et al., “Intralymphatic immunotherapy for cat allergy induces tolerance after only 3 injections,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 1290–1296, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Weinfeld, U. Westin, L. Hellkvist, U. H. Mellqvist, I. Jacobsson, and L. O. Cardell, “A preseason booster prolongs the increase of allergen specific IgG4 levels, after basic allergen intralymphatic immunotherapy, against grass pollen seasonal allergy,” Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 31, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. D. Seidman, R. K. Gurgel, S. Y. Lin et al., “Clinical practice guideline,” Otolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, vol. 152, no. 2, pp. 197–206, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Graf, B. Dinkel, H. Rose et al., “A critical appraisal of analyzing nasal provocation test results in allergen immunotherapy trials,” Rhinology, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 137–141, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Durham and M. Penagos, “Sublingual or subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis?” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 137, no. 2, pp. 339–349.e10, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Y. Kim, M. J. Jang, D. Y. Kim, S. W. Park, and D. H. Han, “Efficacy of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy for house dust mite allergy: a network meta-analysis-based comparison,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In Practice, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 4450–4458.e6, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Nelson, S. Cartier, F. Allen-Ramey, S. Lawton, and M. A. Calderon, “Network meta-analysis shows commercialized subcutaneous and sublingual grass products have comparable efficacy,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 256–266.e3, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. K. James, H. Bowen, R. A. Calvert et al., “Allergen specificity of IgG₄-expressing B cells in patients with grass pollen allergy undergoing immunotherapy,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, vol. 130, no. 3, pp. 663–670.e3, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Zielen, P. Kuna, W. Aberer et al., “Strong dose response after immunotherapy with PQ grass using conjunctival provocation testing,” World Allergy Organization Journal, vol. 12, no. 11, article 100075, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Worm, T. Higenbottam, O. Pfaar et al., “Randomized controlled trials define shape of dose response for Pollinex Quattro Birch allergoid immunotherapy,” Allergy, vol. 73, no. 9, pp. 1812–1822, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Sijie Jiang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

462

Downloads

459

Citations