Comparing Subcutaneous, Sublingual, and Oral Immunotherapy for Allergy Treatment

A recent study comparing the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous, sublingual, and oral immunotherapy for various allergens has highlighted that each method offers distinct advantages depending on the type of allergy, with specific routes proving more effective for certain allergens.

The study reviewed multiple literature sources for allergens such as tree, grass, and weed pollen, house dust mites, and Alternaria alternata spores.

The findings confirmed that all three immunotherapy routes, subcutaneous, sublingual, and oral, were effective, but some treatments were more suitable for specific allergens.

Key findings include:

• Subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy were both effective for aeroallergens like pollen from trees, grasses, weeds, and house dust mites, with subcutaneous treatment showing superior efficacy for house dust mite allergies. However, subcutaneous therapy had a longer treatment duration and a higher incidence of side effects.
• Sublingual therapy was found to be safe for all allergens studied, though it required higher doses or longer treatment durations to match the efficacy of subcutaneous therapy.
• Oral immunotherapy proved most effective for food allergies with gastrointestinal symptoms and is the only approved treatment for allergies in elderly patients due to its low side effect risk.
• Time-accelerated and dosage-enhanced immunotherapy approaches were also found to be both effective and safe.

The study concludes that the choice of immunotherapy route should be tailored to the type of allergy, with each method offering specific benefits for conditions like allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma, and atopic dermatitis.