Search

Unfortunately this article [1] was published with an error in the Funding section. The BM4SIT project is not acknowledged. This section should be corrected to the below: Funding EAACI and the BM4SIT project (Grant Number 601763) in the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme FP7.

Unfortunately this article [1] was published with an error in the Funding section. The BM4SIT project is not acknowledged. This section should be corrected to the below: Funding EAACI and the BM4SIT project (Grant Number 601763) in the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme FP7.

BackgroundThe European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). To inform the development of recommendations, we sought to critically assess the systematic review evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for ARC.MethodsWe undertook a systematic overview, which involved searching nine international biomedical databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively synthesized.ResultsOur searches yielded a total of 5932 potentially eligible studies, from which 17 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Eight of these were judged to be of high, five moderate and three low quality. These reviews suggested that, in carefully selected patients, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy resulted in significant reductions in symptom scores and medication requirements. Serious adverse outcomes were rare for both SCIT and SLIT. Two systematic reviews reported some evidence of potential cost savings associated with use of SCIT and SLIT.ConclusionsWe found moderate-to-strong evidence that SCIT and SLIT can, in appropriately selected patients, reduce symptoms and medication requirements in patients with ARC with reassuring safety data. This evidence does however need to be interpreted with caution, particularly given the heterogeneity in the populations, allergens and protocols studied. There is a lack of data on the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. We are now systematically reviewing all the primary studies, including recent evidence that has not been incorporated into the published systematic reviews.

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the Management of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Methods: We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre- defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised. Conclusion: The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI's Guidelines on AIT.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13601-016-0099-6.].