A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for cedar pollinosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Background: The efficacy of immunotherapy for cedar pollinosis using a single cedar antigen extract via the sublingual route is uncertain.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for patients with cedar pollinosis by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared SLIT with a placebo for patients with cedar pollinosis were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The primary outcome was the symptom medication score, and secondary outcomes were adverse events, quality of life, and serum IgE and IgG4 levels.

Results: We analyzed 4 RCTs with a total of 762 patients. Meta-analysis revealed that SLIT significantly decreased symptom medication scores compared with placebo groups (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.75 to -0.14; P = .02; I = 93%), and subgroup analysis revealed that SLIT had a significant positive effect on cedar pollinosis when pollen concentration was less (SMD, -2.29; 95% CI, -3.64 to -2.16; P < .001) or more (SMD, -0.36; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.21; P < .001; I = 0%) than 1,200/cm, and treatment duration was longer than 1 year (SMD, -0.43; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.26; P < .001; I = 0%). Adverse events were reported in 237 of 405 patients (58.5%) receiving SLIT vs 192 of 357 patients (53.8%) receiving the placebo.

Conclusion: This study revealed a statistically significant benefit of SLIT in patients with cedar pollinosis. However, these findings were based on analysis of a small number of RCTs. Additional large-sample and high-quality RCTs are necessary for further study.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2016.07.024DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cedar pollinosis
24
patients cedar
12
efficacy sublingual
8
sublingual immunotherapy
8
immunotherapy cedar
8
systematic review
8
slit patients
8
symptom medication
8
adverse events
8
revealed slit
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!