The following errors appeared in the Comparative Effectiveness Review, “Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and/or Asthma: Comparative Effectiveness Review.” These errors did not affect the overall conclusions of the report.

In the Methods section, the definition of single and multiple allergen was missing. It should read:

“In this review, multiple allergen immunotherapy was defined as the use of extracts containing more than one allergen species, including cross-reacting allergens. Single allergen immunotherapy was defined by the use of a single allergen species, and not by a class of allergens.

Allergists may apply different definitions of single and multiple allergen immunotherapies to our findings. Multiple allergen immunotherapies can be defined as the use of extracts containing more than one allergen class, whereas single allergen immunotherapy can refer to the use of closely related allergens within the same class. For example, a study using a grass mix allergen (or tree mix, or 2 dust mite species) could be considered a single allergen study, whereas a multiple allergen study could use different classes of allergens, such as tree and grass.”

Lastly, in Table 27 (Body of evidence for sublingual immunotherapy affecting rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms), the direction of change for Tseng 2008 and deBot 2011 appeared as positive when these two studies, in fact, showed a negative direction of change.

In the Executive Summary, Page ES-11, we said, “The strength of evidence is low that subcutaneous immunotherapy is superior to sublingual immunotherapy for control of allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms.” This is an error since the strength of evidence for this outcome is moderate, as stated in tables in the full report that refer to this outcome.

Again, these errors did not affect the overall conclusions of the report.