Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy, and Compliance of Intralymphatic Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is an emerging type of allergen immunotherapy with fewer injections and shorter course for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). The efficacy and safety have not been confirmed by informative and powerful evidence yet. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted through electronic searching with PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The safety (incidence of adverse events [AEs]), compliance (percent of patients completing treatment), and clinical efficacy of ILIT were evaluated. Clinical efficacy could be assessed by improvement of subjective symptom and rescue medication use or the nasal tolerance to specific allergen. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022353562). Results: 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ILIT with placebo and 3 trials (2 RCTs and one case-control study) comparing ILIT and SCIT were included in this review. Totally, 582 patients diagnosed as AR or ARC were enrolled. Almost all the AEs were mild-to-moderate reactions except 2 patients developed anaphylactic reactions at the intralymphatic injection dose 5,000 SQ-U in one study. ILIT got higher incidence of local AEs than placebo, but their incidence of systemic AEs was similar. ILIT was safer than SCIT (p < 0.05). Almost all the patients could complete ILIT treatment, and the most common reason for discontinuation of ILIT was AEs. The compliance of patients receiving ILIT seemed higher than patients receiving SCIT. ILIT could significantly ameliorate subjective allergic symptoms, especially for seasonal ARC, and increase nasal tolerance, similar to SCIT. Conclusion: ILIT was a safe and effective treatment for ARC and could achieve comparable clinical improvement with SCIT with shorter duration and higher compliance. Moreover, ILIT was safer than SCIT.