Can I read Network Meta-analysis Shows Commercialized Subcutaneous and Sublingual Grass Products Have Comparable Efficacy on EtoBox?

Network Meta-analysis Shows Commercialized Subcutaneous and Sublingual Grass Products Have Comparable Efficacy by Harold Nelson; Shannon Cartier; Felicia Allen-Ramey; Simon Lawton; Moises A. Calderon is a Medicine article available to read on EtoBox.

What is Network Meta-analysis Shows Commercialized Subcutaneous and Sublingual Grass Products Have Comparable Efficacy about?

## Background: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (scit) and sublingual immunotherapy (slit) have been shown to effectively treat grass pollen allergies, although direct comparisons are sparse. ## Objective: To estimate the relative efficacy of slit tablets compared with scit and slit drops in commercially available products though network meta-analysis. ## Methods: A literature search of medline, embase, and cochrane library publications. randomized, double-blind clinical trials of scit, slit drops, and slit tablets for grass pollen were included. bayesian network meta-analyses estimated the standardized mean difference (smd) across 3 immunotherapy modalities on allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication score data from publications or received from authors. both fixed and random effects models were investigated. ## Results: Thirty-seven studies were included in meta-analyses for symptom scores and 31 studies for medication scores. in the random effects model, scit and slit tablets were significantly different from placebo for symptom scores: smds (95% ci) of -0.32 (-0.45 to -0.18) and -0.32 (-0.41 to -0.23), respectively. no significant difference was identified for slit drops c

Who reads Network Meta-analysis Shows Commercialized Subcutaneous and Sublingual Grass Products Have Comparable Efficacy?

Author

Harold Nelson; Shannon Cartier; Felicia Allen-Ramey; Simon Lawton; Moises A. Calderon

Publisher

Elsevier BV

Published

2015

Language

EN

Field

Medicine (Health Sciences)