Skip Navigation
AHRQ--Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Advancing Excellence in Health Care
  • Home
  • Search for Research Summaries, Reviews, and Reports
 
 

Research Review - Final – Mar. 27, 2013 (Update)

Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and/or Asthma: Comparative Effectiveness Review

Formats

Archived: This report is greater than 3 years old. Findings may be used for research purposes, but should not be considered current.

People using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in these files. For assistance, please contact us.

Errata

The following errors appeared in the comparative effectiveness review, “Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and/or Asthma: Comparative Effectiveness Review.” These errors did not affect the overall conclusions of the report.

  1. In the Methods section, the definition of single and multiple allergen was missing. It should read:

    “In this review, multiple allergen immunotherapy was defined as the use of extracts containing more than one allergen species, including cross-reacting allergens. Single allergen immunotherapy was defined by the use of a single allergen species, and not by a class of allergens.

    Allergists may apply different definitions of single and multiple allergen immunotherapies to our findings. Multiple allergen immunotherapies can be defined as the use of extracts containing more than one allergen class, whereas single allergen immunotherapy can refer to the use of closely related allergens within the same class. For example, a study using a grass mix allergen (or tree mix, or 2 dust mite species) could be considered a single allergen study, whereas a multiple allergen study could use different classes of allergens, such as tree and grass.”
     
  2. In Table 27 (Body of evidence for sublingual immunotherapy affecting rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms), the direction of change for Tseng 2008 and deBot 2011 appears as positive when these two studies, in fact, showed a negative direction of change.
  3. In the Results section of the executive summary, in the section regarding subcutaneous versus sublingual immunotherapy, for Key Question 1, the strength of evidence was reported as “low that subcutaneous immunotherapy is superior to sublingual immunotherapy for control of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms.” This was an error since the strength of evidence for this outcome is moderate as stated in the tables referring to this outcome in the full report. The error has been corrected in the report available on this page.

Again, these errors did not affect the overall conclusions of the report.