3.8 Article

Placebo effect in clinical trials with allergen-specific immunotherapy with inhalant allergens

期刊

HAUTARZT
卷 68, 期 4, 页码 297-306

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00105-017-3937-0

关键词

Allergy; Allergic rhinitis; Placebo; Allergen-specific immunotherapy; Therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Placebo effects play an important role in the treatment of allergic diseases. Therefore, in this study, we analysed the described effects of placebo in all double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials of allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) with inhalant allergens (birch, grass, house dust mites) listed in the tables (updated July 2016) attached to the German S2k guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases. The most common placebo consisted of verum without allergen, but when the subcutaneous route was used, histamine was sometimes added. From the 33 studies analysed no conclusions could be drawn regarding the pure placebo effect. The symptom medication score (SMS) from an adequate baseline period was described in one single study. An untreated population was not included in any study. Indirect evidence points to substantial placebo effects in up to 77% of the subjects with respect to retrospective, subjective parameters. Well-known factors influencing the placebo effect such as age, gender, application route/composition of the placebo, individual and cultural differences, severity of symptoms at the beginning and the probability of receiving verum have not been addressed regarding ASIT and could not be estimated from available data. Taken together regarding ASIT the placebo effect has been investigated inadequately. In spite of significant expenditure of time and costs future ASIT studies should include assessment of the SMS in an adequate baseline period and preferably include an untreated trial arm. A better understanding of placebo effects in ASIT trials will improve the design of clinical trials and the assessment of therapeutic effects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据