Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Med.

Sec. Pulmonary Medicine

Efficacy and Safety of Intralymphatic Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses

Provisionally accepted
Zhuang  WangZhuang Wang1Xiaofei  XieXiaofei Xie1,2Zhikai  QiuZhikai Qiu1Dongze  LiDongze Li1yongfu  Songyongfu Song2Na  WangNa Wang1Bing  TianBing Tian1Yongji  WangYongji Wang1,2*
  • 1Changchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun, China
  • 2Affiliated Hospital to Changchun University of Chinese Medicine, Changchun, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Objective: Conduct an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on intralymphatic immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis, providing systematic evidence to optimize clinical practice and evidence-based decision-making. Methods: A computer-based retrieval system was used to comprehensively search databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, WANFANG, and CBM. The retrieval time limit was set from the inception date of each database to August 14, 2025, aiming to obtain systematic review/Meta-analysis literatures on lymph node intralymphatic immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Use evaluation tools such as ROBIS, AMSTAR-2, PRISMA 2020, and GRADE to perform quality re-evaluations on the systematic reviews/Meta-analyses of included studies from the aspects of bias risk, methodology, reporting, and evidence level, and conduct comprehensive re-evaluations on the outcome indicators of the included studies. Results: A total of 7 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included. Risk of bias assessment indicated all studies had low risk. Methodological quality evaluation revealed 6 studies were of low quality and 1 was of very low quality. In terms of reporting quality, all included studies demonstrated high quality, with PRISMA scores ranging from 33 to 40. For outcome measures, evidence quality assessment identified 6 high-quality, 13 moderate-quality, 18 low-quality, and 27 very low-quality results. Quantitative analysis showed that intralymphatic immunotherapy not only improved subjective symptom scores in allergic rhinitis patients but also effectively induced immune tolerance. Qualitative analysis further confirmed that this targeted approach significantly enhanced allergen tolerance and reduced nasal symptom severity. The therapy demonstrated a favorable safety profile, primarily characterized by mild local adverse events, with substantially fewer systemic reactions compared to conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy. Conclusions: Intralymphatic immunotherapy demonstrates efficacy in improving symptoms and objective indicators of allergic rhinitis, particularly for grass pollen and mixed allergens, with acceptable short-to-medium term outcomes despite limited long-term effectiveness. The treatment exhibits a favorable safety profile dominated by mild local reactions. However, these findings are constrained by low evidence quality. Future studies should adhere to established guidelines to produce higher-quality evidence through systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Keywords: allergic rhinitis, efficacy, Intralymphatic immunotherapy, Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta analyses, Safety

Received: 20 Sep 2025; Accepted: 26 Nov 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Wang, Xie, Qiu, Li, Song, Wang, Tian and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Yongji Wang

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.