Table 2.
Therapy for pollen food syndrome.
| Author/Year of publication | Food | Pollen | Route | Intervention | Age (years) | N | Outcome | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moller C 1989 89 | Apple | Birch | SCIT | SCIT (Birch Pollen) vs OIT (Birch pollen) | 21–47 | 15 | neither intervention improved food sensitivity significantly | |
| Herrmann D et al. 199590 | Apple | Birch | SCIT | Observational study | Adults | 20 | improvement in 56% of patients | not a controlled study |
| Asero et al. 199891 | Apple | Birch | SCIT | SCIT (aluminum hydroxide-adsorbed birch pollen extracts) vs. no treatment | Mean age 34.4 years | SCIT: 49 Controls 22 | treatment group 45% complete resolution, 39% partial reduction, 16% unchanged control group 0% unchanged | No information about food challenge methodology, age or gender of subject allocation |
| Bucher et al 200492 | Apple/Hazelnut | Birch | SCIT | SCIT (birch-hazel-alder± ash pollen extract) vs no treatment | SCIT: 15 Controls: 12 | 87% of the treatment group and 8% of control group improved tolerance after treatment | no sham group; no randomization | |
| Hansen et al. 200493 | Apple | Birch | SCIT & SLIT | Double-blind, double-dummy placebo-controlled Birch pollen SCIT and Birch pollen SLIT | mean 32 | M: 42, F: 32. Actual number of challenge confirmed PFAS subjects SCIT 10, SLIT 4, Placebo 10 | No significant change in number of subjects who passed a food challenge | a small number of subjects for SLIT, Two-step challenge 10g of apple and whole apple not sensitive for detecting changes in tolerated dose. |
| Kinaciyan et al. 200794 | Apple | Birch | SLIT | Birch pollen SLIT | 21–47 mean 33.2 | M: 5 F:15 | No significant change in DBPFC (VAS) score | DBPFC used VAS to fixed dose not threshold dose of reactivity |
| Mauro et al 201195 | Apple | Birch | SCIT & SLIT | Birch pollen SCIT and SLIT | 18–60 mean 37.8 | SLIT (M: 11,F: 9) SCIT (M: 10, F: 10) | 25% of SCIT and 14.2% of SLIT complete tolerance, 37.5% of SCIT and 28.6% of SLIT developed increase in the provocative dose | No Placebo group |
| Kopac et al 201296 | Apple | Birch | OIT | Apple OIT | 18–61 | OIT (M: 9, F:18); Control (M: 3, F: 10) | 17/27 subjects in treatment and 0/13 subjects in control achieved desensitization | Open challenges |
| Kinaciyan et al. 2017 97 | Apple | Birch | SLIT | Bet v1 SLIT, Mal d1 SLIT or Placebo | 18–65 | Bet v1 SLIT: 20, Mal d1 SLIT: 20 and Placebo: 20 | Mal d1 SLIT performed significantly better than Bet v1 SLIT or placebo in Mal d 1 sublingual challenge | No Apple challenge |
SCIT – Subcutaneous Immunotherapy, SLIT – Sublingual Immunotherapy, OIT – Oral Immunotherapy, Bet v1 SLIT – SLIT using the recombinant birch pollen protein Bet v1, Mal d1 SLIT – SLIT using the recombinant apple protein Mal d1