Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jun 10.
Published in final edited form as: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018 Feb;8(2):108–352. doi: 10.1002/alr.22073

TABLE IX.D.5.

Evidence for the use of transcutaneous/epicutaneous immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Study Year LOE Study
design		 Study groups Clinical endpoint Conclusion
Senti et al.1715 2015 1b RDBPCT Adults:

  1. Grass patches (n = 48);

  2. Placebo patches (n = 50)

 Subjective symptoms, conjunctival provocation test Symptom score improved in the treatment arm in year 1, but was not significantly different from control in year 2. Conjunctival provocation improved in the treatment group. Systemic reactions occurred in 7 treatment (14.6%) and 1 control patients.
Senti et al.1714 2012 1b RDBPCT Adults:
  • 1.

    Placebo patches (n = 33);

  • 2.

    Low-dose grass patches (n = 33);

  • 3.

    Medium-dose grass patches (n = 33);

  • 2.

    High-dose grass patches (n = 33)

 Subjective symptoms, medication use, SPT, conjunctival provocation test Symptoms improved only in the highest dose group. There was no difference in medication use, SPT, or conjunctival provocation test. Local reactions were common. Systemic reactions occurred in 8.3% of patients.
Agostinis et al.1713 2009 1b RDBPCT Children:

  1. Grass patches (n = 15);

  2. Placebo patches (n = 15)

 SPT endpoint, subjective symptoms, antihistamine use No difference in SPT endpoint. Treatment group had less rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms and antihistamine use.
Senti et al.1712 2009 1b RDBPCT Adults:

  1. Grass patches (n = 21);

  2. Placebo patches (n = 17)

 Nasal provocation test, subjective symptom score No significant difference in nasal provocation test. Subjective symptoms score improved. More local reactions (eczema) in treatment group.

LOE = level of evidence; RDBPCT = randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial; SPT = skin-prick test.