4.1 Review

Comparability of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy outcomes in allergic rhinitis clinical trials

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACI.0b013e32835358b3

Keywords

allergic rhinitis; outcome parameters; specific allergen immunotherapy; subcutaneous; sublingual

Funding

  1. ALK-Abello, Denmark
  2. Stallergenes, France
  3. Merck, USA
  4. Merck, Canada
  5. Allergopharma, Germany
  6. HAL, The Netherlands
  7. Artu Biologicals, The Netherlands
  8. Allergy-Therapeutics/Bencard, UK
  9. Hartington, Spain
  10. Lofarma, Italy
  11. Novartis/Leti, Germany
  12. Glaxo-Smith-Kline, UK
  13. Essex-Pharma, Germany
  14. Cytos, Switzerland
  15. Curalogic, Denmark
  16. Roxall, Germany
  17. Allergy-Therapeutics/Bencard, Germany
  18. Novartis/Leti, Spain
  19. Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review To conduct a qualitative comparison between the primary and secondary outcomes used in clinical trials of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic rhinitis. Recent findings Studies of SCIT and SLIT for allergic rhinitis published up to January 2012 were included in this systematic review. Different ways of defining primary and secondary outcome parameters in studies investigating specific immunotherapy are described. Whereas older studies often use the total symptom score and the total medication score individually for the primary efficacy analysis, more recent studies follow current international recommendations of applying the total combined score as primary outcome measure. Even wider is the range of secondary outcomes in clinical trials with few being validated or standardized. Summary As already recognized as a major concern in recent literature, standardized and validated primary endpoints are of paramount importance in order to improve the comparability of study results. The lack of consistency in the selection of primary outcome parameters represents a major problem when comparing the same therapeutic intervention. A main point of concern is the absence of validation data for those primary and secondary outcomes selected. In conclusion, the qualitative analysis of well powered studies confirms an urgent call from academics, regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry for validated primary outcome parameters and standardized definitions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available