Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary characteristics of the clinical efficacy of SLIT in AD

From: Debates in allergy medicine: specific immunotherapy efficiency in children with atopic dermatitis

Authors

Year of research

Country

Study design

The number of patients (treatment/control)

Category of the patients (Age)

The type of allergen

Route of administration

The total duration of the study (in months)

Clinical efficacy (the opinion of the Clinician -C/patient-P) Treatment/control (in %)

Reference number

Petrova S.I. et al.

2006

Russia

RCT DB PC

99 (28-SLIT/39-placebo/32-BT)

teenagers/adult

HDM

SLIT

NM

C(+)

68

Improvement in the SLIT group

Pajno G.B. et al.

2007

Italy

RCT DB PC

56 (28/28)

children (5–16)

HDM

SLIT

18

C(+)

60

Improvement in mild-moderate forms after 9 months of treatment. SCORAD was significant (P = .025)

Di Rienzo V. et al.

2014

Italy

Multicentric RCT open, parallel-group study

NM

children (5–18)

HDM

SLIT

18

C(+)

36

Effectively in children with AD

Qin Y.E. et al.

2014

Chinese

RCT DB PC

107 (58/49)

NM

HDM

SLIT

12

C(+)

70

77.78/53.85 (P < 0.05)

Cadario G. et al.

2007

Italy

pilot study

86 (53 females and 33 males)

children/adults (3–60)

HDM

SLIT

12

C(+)

16

SCORAD Improvement from score 43,3→23,7 Reduces the SCORAD

  1. Note: SLIT sublingual immunotherapy, AD atopic dermatitis, AR allergic rhinitis, HDM house-dust mite, RCT DB PC randomized controlled trial double-blind placebo-controlled, CT clinical trial, NM not mentioned, SCORAD severity scoring of atopic dermatitis, C (+) presence, by clinician