Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 57677

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri

"The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) has been in operation since almost a decade. It has contributed a huge number of peer reviewed articles, across a spectrum of medical disciplines, to the medical literature.
Its wide based indexing and open access publications attracts many authors as well as readers
For authors, the manuscripts can be uploaded online through an easily navigable portal, on other hand, reviewers appreciate the systematic handling of all manuscripts. The way JCDR has emerged as an effective medium for publishing wide array of observations in Indian context, I wish the editorial team success in their endeavour"



Dr Bhanu K Bhakhri
Faculty, Pediatric Medicine
Super Speciality Paediatric Hospital and Post Graduate Teaching Institute, Noida
On Sep 2018




Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dematolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : April | Volume : 6 | Issue : 2 | Page : 246 - 251

A Prospective Quasi-Experimental Study on the Effect of Sub-Lingual Immunotherapy with Multiple Allergens in Allergic Bronchial Asthma

Animesh Deb, Shuvankar Mukherjee, Jyotirmay Pal, Anup Bhattacharya, Agnihotri Bhattacharyya, Nilima Deb

1. Assistant Professor, Dept of Medicine, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College and L.S.K Hospital, Kishanganj, Bihar, India and Consultant, Lifestyle Clinic: allergy, asthma and COPD care unit, Kolkata, West Bengal, India 2. Assistant Professor, Dept of Community Medicine, Calcutta National Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India 3. Associate Professor, Dept of Medicine, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, West Bengal, India 4. Professor, Dept of Neurology, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College and L.S.K Hospital, Kishanganj, Bihar, India 5. Assistant Professor, Dept of Community Medicine, Calcutta National Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India 6. Consultant, Lifestyle Clinic: allergy, asthma and COPD care unit, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Animesh Deb
Lifestyle clinic, Room no: 12, 155, A.J.C. Bose Road
West Bengal, India - Pin- 700 014
Phone: 91-9331038286
E-mail: animesh8910@gmail.com

Abstract

Background:
Sub-lingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been introduced as a disease modifying agent for allergic bronchial asthma in many countries and currently practicing in India.
Aims:
To assess the outcome of adding multiple-allergen sublingual immunotherapy with rescue medicines in patients having allergic bronchial asthma and to document adverse events, if any.
Settings and Design:
This was a clinic-based prospective quasiexperimental study.
Methods and Material:
Patients giving consent to receive multiple-allergen SLIT and rescue medicines formed the experimental group (Group A) while patients who did not give consent to SLIT but wished to have only rescue medicines formed the comparison group (Group B). Follow-up was done up to three years. Initially 703 patients were in Group A and 313 in Group B. However, around 647 patients in Group A and 282 in Group B completed the study for three years.
Statistical Analysis:
Unpaired t- test was used to compare the difference between the mean symptom and medication scores in Group A and Group B, before intervention and at the end of the study. Paired t- test was applied to compare the mean scores before and after intervention for each group separately.
Results:
Mean symptom scores of the two groups did not vary significantly before intervention but found to be significant at the end third year [8.60 (SD 3.92) v 14.73 (SD 4.42), P=0.000). In both groups mean symptom scores decreased from the baseline but it differed significantly in Group A only [15.46 (SD 4.88) v 8.60 (SD 3.92), P=0.000]. The mean medication scores between the two groups also differed significantly at the end of the third year [1.60 (SD 0.31) v 2.98 (SD 0.44), P=0.000)]. The scores also decreased in both the groups from the baseline, but significantly only in Group A [3.10 (SD 0.50) v 1.60 (SD 0.31), P=0.000]. Around 6.4% (45/703) patients receiving SLIT complained of mouth and throat irritation and about 3.7% (26/703) complained of mild vomiting. It can be concluded that long term sub-lingual immunotherapy in addition to rescue medicines significantly improves both symptom and medication scores with a high degree of safety.

Keywords

Allergic asthma, sub-lingual immunotherapy (SLIT), quasi-experimental study

Introduction
Bronchial Asthma is a serious public health problem throughout the world, which are affecting people of all age groups. Uncontrolled asthma affects normal daily activities severely and fatality is often reported (1). It is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways which become hyper-responsive. On exposure to various risk factors, they get obstructed by narrowing, increased inflammation and accumulation of mucus plugs (2). Among the common risk factors, exposure to allergens like house dust mites, fur of animals, pollen and others play a major role in the development bronchial hypersensitivity (2). As inflammation, involving various cells, cytokines and mediators like leukotrienes, plays the central role in the pathogenesis of asthma, inhaled corticosteroids are the mainstay of asthma treatment (1), (3). However, specific immunotherapy is the only treatment capable of modifying the response to allergens at the very early stages of immune response, and thereby restoring the imbalance between type 1 helper (TH1) and type 2 helper (TH2) lymphocyte subsets (4). In recent years, the sub-lingual administration of immunotherapy (SLIT) has gained increasing credibility, and is now included in guidelines (5). SLIT, like any other specific immunotherapy, has Original Article been found to cause down regulation of the inflammatory process in the target organs during exposure to allergens (6),(7),(8) and also reduce bronchial hyper-responsiveness to a great extent (9),(10),(11). The main advantages of SLIT are self-administration at home and the favorable safety profile in children as well as in adults (12), (13). SLIT is now used in many European countries (3) and USA (14) and currently is in practice in India. But literature is scarce regarding the efficacy of multiple-allergen SLIT in bronchial asthma in Indian subcontinent. Hence the aim of the present study was to assess the outcome of adding multiple-allergen sub-lingual immunotherapy with rescue medicines in patients having allergic bronchial asthma and to document adverse events, if any.

Material and Methods

Selection of Study Participants
All patients aged between five to thirty five years, who were reported with the symptoms of asthma at the Allergy, Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases (COPD) unit at Lifestyle Clinic in Kolkata, West Bengal, India, were subjected to thorough physical check up (after taking proper clinical history, family history and environmental history), pulmonary function test (PFT), sputum smear microscopy for acid fast bacillus (AFB) and chest x-ray. Patients found to be suffering from bronchial asthma (based on pre- and post-dilatation PFT results), were further subjected to modified skin prick test (taking proper precautions), enzyme- linked immuno-absorbent assay (ELISA) for specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and total IgE and bronchial provocation test with histamine. Patients with cardiovascular and other serious co-morbidities and those who were pregnant were excluded from the study. In this way a total of 1016 patients were found to be suffering from allergic bronchial asthma. All of them were informed regarding possible benefits and uncertainties of SLIT and the nature of the study and provided with option of undergoing SLIT in addition to rescue medicines with inhalational bronchodilators and corticosteroids as per individual patient’s need. Altogether 703 consent from Pateints for SLIT and were included in the study group (Group A). The remaining 313 who did not give consent for SLIT but wished to receive rescue medicines were included in the comparison group (Group B). However, a total of 647 patients in Group A and 282 in Group B completed the study for three years and were included in the final analysis.
Study Design
This was a prospective quasi-experimental study with a threeyear follow-up (from October 2008 to September 2011). Patients receiving SLIT and rescue medicines formed the experimental group (Group A) while patients receiving only rescue medicines formed the comparison group (Group B). Harris D et al (2006), in a systematic review, discussed at length about the advantages and disadvantages of quasi-experimental studies and concluded that if performed meticulously such type of study could make significant contribution (15). Quasi-experimental (sometimes called pre-post intervention) studies encompass a broad range of nonrandomized intervention studies. Evidences from these kinds of studies are of course inferior to those obtained from double blinded, placebo controlled, randomized trials, but these designs are frequently used when it is not logistically feasible or ethical to conduct a randomized controlled trial. The increasing capacity of health care institutions to collect routine clinical data has led to the growing use of quasi-experimental study designs in the field of medical informatics as well as in other medical disciplines.15 The present researchers, instead of using a more conventional study design like randomized controlled trial (RCT), chose to conduct a quasi-experimental design because SLIT was already in practice in India and conducting a RCT raised certain ethical issues regarding randomization, availability of a suitable placebo, and patients’ benefits and possible risks. Under these circumstances the present study design was selected being fully aware of the limitations like non-randomization, selection and subjective bias, and weakness in proving causality through statistical associations.
Ethical Consideration Ethical clearance and approval to conduct the study was obtained from the ethical committees of Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College and L.S.K. Hospital, Kishanganj, Bihar, India and Lifestyle Clinic, Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.
Symptom and Medication Scores
The symptoms like breathlessness (confirmed by PFT), persistent cough (night cough), wheezing, nasal blockage (or running nose), repeated sneezing were scored from zero (absent) to three (severe). Other allergic manifestations like urticaria and conjunctivitis were also scored similarly. Total symptom score thus ranged from zero to twenty one.
Medication score was calculated in the following way:
• No medication required currently = zero
• Daily dose of inhalational formoterol and budesonide = one, with
• S.O.S dose of Inhalational levo-salbutamol, occasionally = two, or
• S.O.S dose of Inhalational levo-salbutamol, daily for less than
a week = three, or
• S.O.S dose of Inhalational levo-salbutamol, daily for more
than a week = four
• Total medication score ranged from zero to four.
Baseline data were collected before intervention from both the groups and symptom and medication scores were calculated at the beginning of the study and during each follow-up for both the groups.
Treatment Protocol
The materials for SLIT were procured from Creative Diagnostic Medicare Private Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai, India (www.creative drugindia.com). Allergens with positive reaction equivalent to histamine (positive control) and glycerinated normal saline (negative control) were taken. Glycerinated aqueous allergenic extract for specific immunotherapy consist of major allergens as determined by the sensitivity (modified skin test). Composition of allergens was determined by patient’s individual sensitivity spectrum. Then each treatment was individually formulated. The extract suspended in extracting fluid (Coca’s solution), containing 50% glycerin I.P. was standardized to weight by volume (w/v) ratio of native materials to the extracting fluid. Each course was provided in multi-dose vial of allergens with colour coded in graded strength given below:
Treatment set: Vial 1 (black)-0.01% w/v
Vial 2 (green)-0.1% w/v
Vial 3 (blue)-1% w/v
Maintenance set – 1% w/v
Maintenance dose was continued for three years. Dosage patterns where advised according to patient’s sensitivity & tolerance.
Composition of SLIT:
Glycerin aqueous extract consists of concentration 100 times of the dose administered in sub-cutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Doses were prescribed in the form of drops. Drops were advised to be taken daily at same time in empty stomach. No food was allowed after at least for half an hour after taking SLIT. Drops were kept for five minutes sublingually then swallowed with half a cup of cool water. Dosages were scheduled in the following way:(Table/Fig 6)
Maintenance dose was the Top Tolerable Dose of the third vial up to three years as per schedule. When there was interruption of more than four weeks the therapy was resumed from the initial dose. In case interruption for two to less than four weeks therapy was re-instituted with half of the dose last given, considering safety of the patients.Both the groups were prescribed as a combination of inhalational long acting bronchodilator (formoterol) and inhalational corticosteroid (budesonide), and inhalational short acting bronchodilator (levo-salbutamol) as rescue medicine as per individual patient requirement, anytime during the entire study period. All patients in both the groups received influenza vaccine (Influvac) each year as per guidelines (1). All were advised to fill up the symptom and treatment diaries provided to them during the entire study period. Patients were informed regarding the importance of adherence to therapy and regular follow-up. They were also advised to contact with the principal investigator in case of emergency.
Follow-Up
Follow-up for review of treatment outcomes in both the groups were carried out at the pre-scheduled intervals. Symptoms and treatment diaries were checked and any incidence of adverse reaction was noted. Follow-up investigations included thorough physical examination, PFT and modified skin prick test.
statistical Analysis SPSS 10 was used for statistical analysis. Unpaired t-test was done to compare the difference between the mean symptom and medication scores in Group A and Group B, before intervention and at the end of the study at 36th month. Paired t-test was applied to compare the mean scores before and after intervention for each group separately.

Results

About 51.5% (478/929) of the study subjects belonged to 15 to 24 years age group, 38.2% (355/929) were in 25 to 34 years and 10.3% 96/929) in 5 to 14 years of age group. There was no significant difference between the mean age of Group A and Group B [23.80 (SD 10.80) v 22.60 (SD 13.50), t (927) = 1.44, P = 0.150]. Around 54.0% (502/929) were males and 46.0% (427/929) were females. About 62.1% (577/929) were from urban areas and 37.9% (352/929) came from rural areas. Around 36.5% (339/929) and 24.3% (226/929) had exposure to dust and dampness respectively at home and 28.1% (261/929) were exposed to both. It was also observed that about 80% (742/929) of the study subjects had a family history of allergic disorder among first degree relatives. Breathlessness (89.4%), nasal blockage (70.5%) and repeated sneezing (70.5%) were the most common symptoms among the study subjects (Table/Fig 1). Polyvalent house dust (95.1%) was found to be the commonest type of allergen. Other common allergens which was found were pollen (74.8%), food (62.3%), mites (33.3%) and fungi (23.6%) (Table/Fig 2). Commonest pollens were Cynodon Dactylon, Cocos Nucifera, Peltophorum Pterocarpum, and Azadirachta Indica (not shown in table).There was no significant difference between the mean symptom scores of the two groups before intervention [15.46 (SD 4.88) v 14.90 (SD 5.19), P = 0.09] (Table/Fig 3). However mean symptom score dropped sharply at the end of the study period in Group A in comparison to Group B (Table/Fig 4). Statistically significant difference was observed between the mean symptom scores of the two groups at the end of the study period [8.60 (SD 3.92) v 14.73 (SD 4.42), P = 0.000) (Table/Fig 3). In both groups the mean symptom score decreased at the end of three-year course from the baseline (before intervention) but it differed significantly in Group A only [15.46 (SD 4.88) v 8.60 (SD 3.92), P = 0.000] (Table/Fig 3). The mean medication scores between the two groups also differed significantly at the end of the third year [1.60 (SD 0.31) v 2.98 (SD 0.44), P = 0.000)]. The scores also decreased in both the groups from the baseline, but the difference was significant only in Group A [3.10 (SD 0.50) v 1.60 (SD 0.31), P = 0.000] (Table/Fig 5).Around 8.0% (56/703) and 9.9% (31/313) of the study subjects were lost to follow-up from Group A and Group B respectively, but the difference was not found to be statistically significant (z = 0.82 P = 0.410). No serious adverse events occurred in those who received SLIT (Group A). Around 6.4% (45/703) patients in this group complained of mouth and throat irritation and about 3.7% (26/703) complained of mild vomiting during the induction phase.

Discussion

In order to improve the strength of evidence, the present study was carried out following a pre-post intervention design and keeping a comparison group at the same time. Tripathi DM et al (2008) conducted a study on efficacy of SLIT with multiple allergens following a quasi-experimental design where symptoms before and after the therapy, peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), side effects and medications were studied. However no comparison group was kept in this study (16). In the present study in order to assess the full effect of SLIT, the final evaluation was done by comparing the results obtained at the end of three years with that found before intervention at the beginning of the study both within and between the two groups. It was seen in the present study that the common allergens were house dust, pollen, food, mites and fungi. Commonest pollens were Cynodon Dactylon, Cocos Nucifera, Peltophorum Pterocarpum, and Azadirachta Indica. Tripathi DM et al (2008) in their study in Mumbai, India, on efficacy of SLIT with multiple allergens found that the most common allergens responsible for allergic asthma were house dust, house dust mites, pollen and fungi (16). Commonest pollens were Amaranthus spinosus, Cocos nucifera, Peltophorum pterocarpum, Prosopis juliflora and Ricinus communis (16). In the present study, the mean symptom score did not vary significantly in the two groups before intervention but the score was found to be significantly lower in Group A than in Group B at the end of the three-year course. It was also observed that the score decreased significantly from the baseline mean score in Group A only at the completion of the study. Similarly, the baseline mean medication score did not differ significantly from each other in the two groups. But it was significantly much lower in Group A than in Group B at the end of three years. Although the mean medication scores decreased in both the groups from the baseline, but that difference was significant only in Group A. Results obtained from the study by Tripathi DM et al showed that there was significant reduction in symptom and medication scores at the end of three years in patients receiving SLIT with multiple allergens (16). Marogna et al (2009) in an open randomized controlled trial (RCT) found that in patients with birch pollen–induced moderate asthma and rhinitis, the addition of SLIT provides a greater clinical benefit than that of Montelukast (3). The upper and lower airway scores improved significantly in the SLIT group at years three and five compared to baseline (3). Bronchial hyper-responsiveness and bronchodilator use decreased significantly in both groups at five years, but only in the SLIT group at three years (3). Almost the same results were seen with a similar study on efficacy of SLIT in asthma due to grass pollen (17). Another open RCT by D’Ambrosio et al (1996) in Parietaria allergic patients (aged 18 to 56 years) showed significant reduction in symptom score (P = 0.032) and drug plus symptom score (P = 0.037) as early as six months after starting sublingual immunotherapy (18). In a meta-analysis on the efficacy of SLIT in asthma including 25 studies with an overall number of 1706 patients it was found that calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD), the reduction of asthmatic symptoms did not reach the statistical significance, but using the intention-to-treat method for outcome measures, significant decreases of asthma symptoms and drug consumption and significant improvements of lung function and bronchial hyperreactivity were detected (19). A further meta-analysis examining nine studies dealing with miteinduced asthma found a reduction of symptoms (SMD = 0.95, P = 0.02) in 243 patients (adults and children) receiving SLIT compared to 209 receiving placebo. A reduction in rescue medication use was also found (SMD = 1.48, P = 0.02) (20). In the present study, there was no report of serious adverse events in those who received SLIT (Group A). Around 6.4% patients in this group complained of mouth and throat irritation and about 3.7% complained of mild vomiting during the induction phase. Bosquet et al (2009) reported that oro-pharyngeal reactions were the most common adverse events but other reactions, such as asthma, urticaria and abdominal pain had been reported with SLIT (21). Lombardi in a study with mono-allergen (cat epithelia) in perennial allergic rhinitis and or bronchial asthma observed adverse effects in 7.5% with ultra rush sublingual swallow therapy. There were seven episodes of rhinitis, three of oral itching and one of abdominal pain (22). There was no significant difference in adverse events in a study of 159 adult patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma (aged 16 to 59 years), who were treated with either a single allergen or multiple allergens (23).
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
The strength of this quasi-experimental study lies in having a comparison group and pre-test values for both the groups which helped in better evaluation of the efficacy of SLIT. The patients who received SLIT for three years are currently being followed up to assess the preventive efficacy. However, the major limitation of the study was non-randomization that might have lead to selection bias. There was no scope of blinding which might have brought forth some kind of subjective bias while reporting symptoms. Lost to follow-up could not be avoided although it was not significantly different in the two groups.
Implications for Future Research, Policy and Practice
The present study was to some extent demonstrated the efficacy and safety of SLIT with multiple allergens and is one of the few reports in this regard from the Indian subcontinent. The results from this study calls for conduction of randomized double blinded placebo controlled trials in this part of the world, considering the variety of allergens and the huge problem of environmental pollution. With further evidences, SLIT can play a major role in optimal management of asthma, particularly at primary care level.

Conclusion

It can be concluded from the present study that long term sublingual immunotherapy with multiple-allergens, in addition to rescue medicines significantly improves both symptom and medication scores with minimal side effects in allergic bronchial asthma. Unlike the conventional approach for management of bronchial asthma that aims at alleviation of symptoms, the main target of SLIT is focused on the aetiology and immunomodulation. In the present study, the significant reduction in medication scores at the end of three years has implication towards possible cost-effectiveness of this approach by reducing the cost of using rescue medicines. However future studies are required to assess the long-term efficacy (preventive aspect) of SLIT. The subjects in the present study who received SLIT are currently being followed up for studying the disease free period. The sub-lingual route is supposed to hold a better prospect with regard to patient adherence to therapy than the sub-cutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) which usually generates apprehension due to pain associated with injections. In general, SLIT appears to be associated with fewer and less severe adverse events than SCIT (21). Considering the safety, ease of administration, convenience and clinical as well as cost effectiveness of this form of immunotherapy, operational researches are needed to be conducted to assess the feasibility of training and involving primary care physicians in SLIT for bronchial asthma.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Prof. P.K. Mukherjee, Academic Director, Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College and L.S.K. Hospital, Kishanganj, Bihar, India, for his valuable advice on pharmacotherapy in bronchial asthma.

References

1.
Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). Global strategy for asthma management and prevention, updated 2010. Available at URL: http:// www.ginasthma.org (accessed 20th October 2011)
2.
Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA). Pocket guide for asthma management and prevention (for adults and children older than 5 years), updated 2010. Available at URL: http://www.ginasthma.org (accessed 20th October 2011)
3.
Marogna M, Colombo F, Spadolini I, et al. Randomized Open Comparison of Montelukast and Sublingual Immunotherapy as Addon Treatment in Moderate Persistent Asthma Due to Birch Pollen. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2010; 20 (2): 146-52.
4.
James LK, Durham SR. Update on mechanisms of allergen injection immunotherapy. Clin Exp Allergy. 2008 Jul; 38(7):1074-88.
5.
Bousquet J, Van Cauwenberge P, Khaltaev N. Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma. ARIA. WHO Initiative. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108: S147-S334.
6.
Durham SR, Walker SM, Varga EM, et al. Long-term clinical efficacy of grass-pollen immunotherapy. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 468-75.
7.
Ippoliti F, De Santis W, Volterrani A, et al. Immunomodulation during sublingual therapy in allergic children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2003; 14: 216-21.
8.
Ciprandi G, Fenoglio D, Cirillo I, et al. Induction of interleukin 10 by sublingual immunotherapy for house dust mites: a preliminary report. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2005; 95: 38-44.
9.
Grembiale RD, Camporota R, Djukanovic R, Marsico S. Effects of specific immunotherapy in allergic rhinitic individuals with bronchial hyperresponsiveness. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162: 2048-52.
10.
Pajno GB, Passalacqua G, Vita D, Caminiti L, Parmiani S, Barberio G. Sub-lingual immunotherapy abrogates seasonal bronchial hyperresponsiveness in children with Parietaria-induced respiratory allergy: a randomized controlled trial. Allergy. 2004; 59: 883-87.
11.
Lombardi C, Gargioni S, Venturi S, Zoccali P, Canonica GW, Passalacqua G. Controlled study of preseasonal immunotherapy with grass pollen extract in tablets: effect on bronchial hyperreactivity. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2001; 11: 41-45.
12.
Seidenberg J, Pajno G, Bauer CP, La Grutta S, Sieber J. Safety and Tolerability of Seasonal Ultra-rush, High-dose Sublingual-Swallow Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis to Grass and Tree Pollens: An Observational Study in 193 Children and Adolescents. J Invest Allergol Clin Immunol 2009; 19: 125-31.
13.
Di Rienzo V, Minelli M, Musarra A, et al. Post-marketing survey on the safety of sublingual immunotherapy in children below the age of 5 years. Clin Exp Allergy. 2005; 35: 560-4.
14.
Esch RE. Specific immunotherapy in the U.S.A.: general concept and recent initiatives. Arb Paul Ehrlich Inst Bundesamt Sera Impfstoffe Frankf A M 2003; 94:17-22.
15.
Harris AD, McGregor JC, Perencevich EN, JON P. Furono JP, Zhu J, Peterson DE, Finkelstein J. The Use and Interpretation of quasiexperimental studies in medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006; 13: 16–23.
16.
Tripathi DM, Joshi SV, Dhar HL. Efficacy of sub-lingual immunotherapy with multiple allergens in bronchial asthma. Bombay Hospital Journal 2008; 50 (2): 227-31. Available at URL: http://www.bhj.org/ journal/2008_5002_april/download/page-227-231.pdf (accessed 22nd September 2011)
17.
Marogna M, Spadolini I, Massolo A, et al. Long-term comparison of sub-lingual immunotherapy vs inhaled budesonide in patients with mild persistent asthma due to grass pollen. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009; 102: 69–75.
18.
D’Ambrosio FP, Ricciardi L, Isola S, et al. Rush sub-lingual immunotherapy in Parietaria allergic patients. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr). 1996; 24:146 –51.
19.
Calamita Z, Saconato H, Pelα AB, Atallah AN. Efficacy of sub-lingual immunotherapy in asthma: systematic review of randomized-clinical trials using the Cochrane Collaboration method. Allergy 2006; 61:1162-72.
20.
Compalati E, Passalacqua G, Bonini M, Canonica GW. The efficacy of sub-lingual immunotherapy for house dust mites respiratory allergy: results of a GA2LEN meta-analysis. Allergy 2009; 64:1570-79.
21.
Bousquet PJ, Cox LS, Durham SR et al. Sub-lingual immunotherapy. World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009. WAO Journal, 2009: 233-81
22.
Lombardi C, Gargioni S, Melchiorre A, Tiri A, Falagiani P. Safety of sublingual immunotherapy with monomeric allergoid in adults: multicenter post-marketing surveillance study. Allergy 2001; 56 (10): 989-92.
23.
Agostinis F, Foglia C, Landi M, et al. The safety of sub-lingual immunotherapy with one or multiple pollen allergens in children. Allergy. 2008; 63:1637–39.

DOI and Others

DOI: JCDR/2012/3892:1980

Financial OR OTHER COMPETING INTERESTS:
None.


Date Of Submission: Dec 30, 2011
Date Of Peer Review: Feb 07, 2012
Date Of Acceptance: Feb 21, 2012
Date Of Publishing: Apr 15, 2012

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com