5-Grass SLIT Shows Benefit in Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis
Five-grass-pollen liquid sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduced symptoms and the need for medications to treat symptoms in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with or without asthma — while maintaining a favorable safety profile and providing consistent benefits across ages, comorbidities, and treatment durations.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of five-grass-pollen liquid SLIT in patients with ARC with or without asthma.
Nine studies comparing the efficacy of interventional immunotherapy with that of placebo in this population were included.
The key outcomes comprised symptom severity, assessed as the symptom score; a reduction in medication use, assessed as the medication score; and the incidence of adverse events (AEs).
TAKEAWAY:
A pooled analysis of eight studies showed a significant reduction in symptom score in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.34; 95% CI, -0.62 to -0.06; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 19 months.
Analysis of data pooled from six studies showed a significant reduction in use of drugs for symptoms in the interventional immunotherapy group vs the placebo group (SMD, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10; P < .05) over a mean follow-up of 20 months.
AEs occurred in 20.6% of participants in the interventional immunotherapy group vs 17.5% in the placebo group (P = .46), with treatment discontinuation rates due to AEs of 3.0% and 1.8%, respectively (P = .41).
Treatment efficacy remained consistent regardless of cumulative dose, treatment duration, or asthma status.
IN PRACTICE:
'[The findings] suggest that the dose of five-grass SLIT-liquid can be safely adjusted for better adverse event management without compromising treatment outcomes,' the authors of the study wrote. 'This flexibility makes it possible to tailor treatment according to the patient's condition while addressing their needs and expectations,' they added.
SOURCE:
Danilo Di Bona, with the University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on July 17 in the Journal of Investigational Allergology and Clinical Immunology.
LIMITATIONS:
The analysis had a relatively small sample size, variation in dosages and treatment durations across studies, and incomplete reporting of AEs in some studies.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Stallergenes Greer, a pharmaceutical company. One author declared receiving fees from this company. Some authors reported receiving consulting fees; payments or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events; or support for attending meetings or travel and serving on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for various pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNET
12 hours ago
- CNET
What Is Superintelligence? Everything You Need to Know About AI's Endgame
You've probably chatted with ChatGPT, experimented with Gemini, Claude or Perplexity, or even asked Grok to verify a post on X. These tools are impressive, but they're just the tip of the artificial intelligence iceberg. Lurking beneath is something far bigger that has been all the talk in recent weeks: artificial superintelligence. Some people use the term "superintelligence" interchangeably with artificial general intelligence or sci-fi-level sentience. Others, like Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, use it to signal their next big moonshot. ASI has a more specific meaning in AI circles. It refers to an intelligence that doesn't just answer questions but could outthink humans in every field: medicine, physics, strategy, creativity, reasoning, emotional intelligence and more. We're not there yet, but the race has already started. In July, Zuckerberg said during an interview with The Information that his company is chasing "personal superintelligence" to "put the power of AI directly into individuals' hands." Or, in Meta's case, probably in everyone's smart glasses. Scott Stein/CNET That desire kicked off a recruiting spree for top researchers in Silicon Valley and a reshuffling inside Meta's FAIR team (now Meta AI) to push Meta closer to AGI and eventually ASI. So, what exactly is superintelligence, how close are we to it, and should we be excited or terrified? Let's break it down. What is superintelligence? Superintelligence doesn't have a formal definition, but it's generally described as a hypothetical AI system that would outperform humans at every cognitive task. It could process vast amounts of data instantly, reason across domains, learn from mistakes, self-improve, develop new scientific theories, write flawless code, and maybe even make emotional or ethical judgments. The idea became popularized through philosopher Nick Bostrom's 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies , which warned of a scenario where an AI bot becomes smarter than humans, self-improves rapidly and then escapes our control. That vision sparked both excitement and fear among tech experts. Speaking to CNET, Bostrom says many of his 2014 warnings "have proven quite prescient." What has surprised him, he says, is "how anthropomorphic current AI systems are," with large language models behaving in surprisingly humanlike ways. Bostrom says he's now shifting his attention toward deeper issues, including "the moral status of digital minds and the relationship between the superintelligence we build with other superintelligences," which he refers to as "the cosmic host." For some, ASI represents the pinnacle of progress, a tool to cure disease, reverse climate change and crack the secrets of the universe. For others, it's a ticking time bomb -- one wrong move and we're outmatched by a machine we can't control. It's sometimes called the last human invention, not because it's final, but because ASI could invent everything else we need. British mathematician Irving John Good described it as an "intelligence explosion." Superintelligence doesn't exist yet. We're still in the early stages of what's called artificial narrow intelligence. It's an AI system that is great at specific tasks like translation, summarization and image generation, but not capable of broader reasoning. Tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude and Grok fall into this category. They're good at some tasks, but still flawed, prone to hallucinations and incapable of true reasoning or understanding. To reach ASI, AI needs to first pass through another stage: artificial general intelligence. What is AGI? AGI, or artificial general intelligence, refers to a system that can learn and reason across a wide range of tasks, not just one domain. It could match human-level versatility, such as learning new skills, adapting to unfamiliar problems and transferring knowledge across fields. Unlike current chatbots, which rely heavily on training data and struggle outside of predefined rules, AGI would handle complex problems flexibly. It wouldn't just answer questions about math and history; it could invent new solutions, explain them and apply them elsewhere. Current models hint at AGI traits, like multimodal systems that handle text, images and video. But true AGI requires breakthroughs in continual learning (updating knowledge without forgetting old stuff) and real-world grounding (understanding context beyond data). And none of the major models today qualify as true AGI, though many AI labs, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Meta, list it as their long-term target. Once AGI arrives and self-improves, ASI could follow quickly as a system smarter than any human in every area. How close are we to superintelligence? A superintelligent future concept I generated using Grok AI. Grok / Screenshot by CNET That depends on who you ask. A 2024 survey of 2,778 AI researchers paints a sobering picture. The aggregate forecasts give a 50% chance of machines outperforming humans in every possible task by 2047. That's 13 years sooner than a 2022 poll predicted. There's a 10% chance this could happen as early as 2027, according to the survey. For job automation specifically, researchers estimate a 10% chance that all human occupations become fully automatable by 2037, reaching 50% probability by 2116. Most concerning, 38% to 51% of experts assign at least a 10% risk of advanced AI causing human extinction. Geoffrey Hinton, often called the Godfather of AI, warned in a recent YouTube podcast that if superintelligent AI ever turned against us, it might unleash a biological threat like a custom virus -- super contagious, deadly and slow to show symptoms -- without risking itself. Resistance would be pointless, he said, because "there's no way we're going to prevent it from getting rid of us if it wants to." Instead, he argued that the focus should be on building safeguards early. "What you have to do is prevent it ever wanting to," he said in the podcast. He said this could be done by pouring resources into AI that stays friendly. Still, Hinton confessed he's struggling with the implications: "I haven't come to terms with what the development of superintelligence could do to my children's future. I just don't like to think about what could happen." Factors like faster computing, quantum AI and self-improving models could accelerate things. Hinton expects superintelligence in 10 to 20 years. Zuckerberg said during that podcast that he believes ASI could arrive within the next two to three years, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman estimates it'll be somewhere in between those time frames. Most researchers agree we're still missing key ingredients, like more advanced learning algorithms, better hardware and the ability to generalize knowledge like a human brain. IBM points to areas like neuromorphic computing (hardware inspired by human neurons), evolutionary algorithms and multisensory AI as building blocks that might get us there. Meta's quest for 'personal superintelligence' Meta launched its Superintelligence Labs in June, led by Alexandr Wang (ex-Scale AI CEO) and Nat Friedman (ex-GitHub CEO), with $14.3 billion invested in Scale AI and $64 billion to $72 billion for data centers and AI infrastructure. Zuckerberg doesn't shy away from Greek mythology, with names like Prometheus and Hyperion for his two AI data superclusters (massive computing centers). He also doesn't talk about artificial superintelligence in abstract terms. Instead, he claims that Meta's specific focus is on delivering "personal super intelligence to everyone in the world." This vision, according to Zuckerberg, sets Meta apart from other research labs that he says primarily concentrate on "automating economically productive work." Bostrom thinks this isn't mere hype. "It's possible we're only a small number of years away from this," he said of Meta's plans, noting that today's frontier labs "are quite serious about aiming for superintelligence, so it is not just marketing moves." Though still in its early stages, Meta is actively recruiting top talent from companies like OpenAI and Google. Zuckerberg explained in his interview with The Information that the market is extremely competitive because so few people possess the requisite high level of skills. Facebook and Zuckerberg didn't respond to requests for comment. Should humans subscribe to the idea of superintelligent AI? There are two camps in the AI world: those who are overly enthusiastic, inflating its benefits and seemingly ignoring its downsides; and the doomers who believe AI will inevitably take over and end humanity. The truth probably lands somewhere in the middle. Widespread public fear and resistance, fueled by dystopian sci-fi and very real concerns over job loss and massive economic disruption, could slow progress toward superintelligence. One of the biggest problems is that we don't really know what even AGI looks like in machines, much less ASI. Is it the ability to reason across domains? Hold long conversations? Form intentions? Build theories? None of the current models, including Meta's Llama 4 and Grok 4, can reliably do any of this. There's also no agreement on what counts as "smarter than humans." Does it mean acing every test, inventing new math and physics theorems or solving climate change? And even if we get there -- should we? Building systems vastly more intelligent than us could pose serious risks, especially if they act unpredictably or pursue goals misaligned with ours. Without strict control, it could manipulate systems or even act autonomously in ways we don't fully understand. Brendan Englot, director of the Stevens Institute for Artificial Intelligence, shared with CNET that he believes "an important first step is to approach cyber-physical security similarly to how we would prepare for malicious human-engineered threats, except with the expectation that they can be generated and launched with much greater ease and frequency than ever before." That said, Englot isn't convinced that current AI can truly outpace human understanding. "AI is limited to acting within the boundaries of our existing knowledge base," Englot tells CNET. "It is unclear when and how that will change." Regulations like the EU AI Act aim to help, but global alignment is tricky. For example, China's approach differs wildly from the West's. Trust is one of the biggest open questions. A superintelligent system might be incredibly useful, but also nearly impossible to audit or constrain. And when AI systems draw from biased or chaotic data like real-time social media, those problems compound. Some researchers believe that given enough data, computing power and clever model design, we'll eventually reach AGI and ASI. Others argue that current AI approaches (especially LLMs) are fundamentally limited and won't scale to true general or superhuman intelligence because the human brain has 100 trillion connections. That's not even accounting for our capability of emotional experience and depth, arguably humanity's strongest and most distinctive attribute. But progress moves fast, and it would be naive to dismiss ASI as impossible. If it does arrive, it could reshape science, economics and politics -- or threaten them all. Until then, general intelligence remains the milestone to watch. If and when superintelligence does become a reality, it could profoundly redefine human life itself. According to Bostrom, we'd enter what he calls a "post-instrumental condition," fundamentally rethinking what it means to be human. Still, he's ultimately optimistic about what lies on the other side, exploring these ideas further in his most recent book, Deep Utopia. "It will be a profound transformation," Bostrom tells CNET.
Medscape
12 hours ago
- Medscape
Alcohol and Pancreatic Cancer: New Evidence About Risk
Does drinking alcohol increase the risk for pancreatic cancer? Researchers have long suspected it does, but the evidence has remained inconsistent. Now, a global study of more than two million people is firming up the case that a link exists. The study, which pooled data from 30 prospective cohorts, found that daily alcohol intake was associated with a 'modest' increased risk for pancreatic cancer in both women and men, regardless of smoking status. However, the extent of the risk depended somewhat on how the researchers modeled alcohol intake. One model, which mapped continuous increases in alcohol consumption, suggested there is no safe dose of alcohol — any amount can increase the risk for pancreatic cancer, though only by 3% for every additional 10 g of alcohol per day or about two thirds of a standard drink. The other model, which compared risk by alcohol volume categories, found that the risk does not become significant until a certain alcohol threshold — about two to three drinks per day for men and one to two for women. Still, overall, 'our findings provide new evidence that pancreatic cancer may be another cancer type associated with alcohol consumption, a connection that has been underestimated until now,' the study's senior author Pietro Ferrari, PhD, head of the Nutrition and Metabolism Branch at International Agency for Research on Cancer, said in a statement. The co-author Jeanine Genkinger, PhD, MHS, had a stronger take on the findings. 'I think this shows that alcohol use is a robust risk factor for pancreatic cancer,' said Genkinger, associate professor, epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City, noting that even more moderate drinking levels— no more than one drink for women and two for men — might be enough to boost pancreatic cancer risk. How Much of a Risk? The latest data, published in PLoS Medicine, come at a time of increased attention to the alcohol-cancer link. Earlier this year, then-US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, issued an advisory calling for cancer warnings to be added to alcohol labels. Major cancer organizations have determined alcohol to be an established risk factor for seven cancer types : those of the oral cavity, larynx, pharynx, esophagus, liver, breast, and colon/rectum. Despite the strong suspicion that drinking alcohol also contributes to pancreatic cancer risk, this aggressive cancer has not yet made the official list. The major reason is that the evidence surrounding an alcohol-pancreatic cancer link has been deemed 'inconsistent,' 'suggestive,' and 'inconclusive' by expert panels. Studies have been hampered by difficulties separating alcohol use from smoking — a known risk factor for pancreatic cancer — as well as varying findings by alcohol type and geographic location. In addition, certain studies highlighting a link have indicated that any association between alcohol and pancreatic cancer is driven only by more extreme drinking habits — more than four drinks a day, and sometimes as high as nine drinks. The latest analysis, Genkinger said, helps clarify uncertainty surrounding the alcohol-pancreatic cancer link, which is especially important for 'a disease where we don't have that many modifiable risk factors.' The findings are based on cohorts spanning four continents, all part of the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. Just under 2.5 million cancer-free participants were recruited between 1980 and 2013 (median age, 57 years), of whom 70% were alcohol drinkers, 47% were never-smokers, and 64% were alcohol drinkers and never smokers. Most study participants were from North America (60%), followed by Europe or Australia (32%) and Asia (8%). Alcohol intake was modeled in two ways: continuously for every 10 g/d increase and by volume threshold, using 0.1 to < 5 g/d as the reference for nondrinkers. For context, in the US, the amount of alcohol in a standard drink is defined as 14 g of pure alcohol — equivalent to a 12-ounce can of regular beer, a 5-ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5-ounce shot glass of distilled spirits. Over a median of 16 years, the researchers observed 10,067 incidents of pancreatic cancers. In the continuous model, the risk for pancreatic cancer rose by 3% for every additional 10 g of alcohol consumed per day (hazard ratio [HR],1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04). This association remained consistent and significant among women and men (HR, 1.03 for both), current smokers (HR, 1.03), former smokers (HR, 1.02), and never-smokers (HR, 1.03), and across cohorts from Australia, Europe, and North America (HR, 1.03 for all), though not Asia (HR, 1.00). The research team also found evidence that the type of alcohol mattered: Alcohol from beer and liquor/spirits was associated with a significantly increased risk for pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.02 and 1.04, respectively) but alcohol from wine was not (HR, 1.00). This finding is in line with some previous studies suggesting that wine may have a different relationship with cancer risk compared with other alcoholic beverages. But Genkinger pointed out, this finding could 'reflect the ways in which people tend to drink different types of alcohol.' Wine, she noted, is often part of a meal, and people who favor wine may be less likely to binge drink than those who typically choose other types of alcohol. This study, however, did not survey participants about specific drinking patterns, including binge-drinking. In the threshold model, however, the increased risk only became significant once alcohol intake reached a certain level. For women, drinking one to two standard drinks per day raised their risk for pancreatic cancer by 12% compared with little to no drinking. For men, the threshold was a little higher: Consuming two to four drinks a day was associated with a 15% increase in risk, whereas drinking more than that was tied to a 36% greater risk. Overall, this research contributes to the growing body of evidence that pancreatic cancer should be added to the official alcohol-cancer risk list, according to Alison Klein, PhD, MHS, professor of oncology, pathology, and epidemiology, at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, who was not involved in the research. Having the Conversation The recent Surgeon General's advisory encouraged clinicians to inform their patients that drinking is a cancer risk factor — something unknown to most Americans, according to recent survey findings. 'I think this study is a good reminder to all of us to talk to our patients about their alcohol use,' said Edward Thomas Lewis III, MD, an addiction psychiatrist and clinical assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Providers can take opportunities for those discussions during routine care, such as when prescribing a medication that can interact with alcohol or when a patient's health condition, such as high blood pressure or heart disease, can be exacerbated by drinking. 'I think these are opportunities to really remind people about moderation,' Lewis said, 'and to talk about some of the individual risk factors that may cause someone to make changes related to their drinking.' It's also possible that drinking might interact with certain genetic variants to modify pancreatic cancer risk — an avenue Klein and colleagues are exploring. What's challenging, Lewis said, is advising patients on what level of drinking is 'Okay,' given that even lower levels of alcohol consumption — around one to two drinks per day — may carry some risk. 'There is no zero-risk alcohol use,' Lewis said. But, he added, people do not necessarily have to abstain to see benefits, either. 'So it may be that a patient, at the end of the day, is able to reduce their alcohol consumption by two or three standard drinks over a given week. That still has a positive net effect,' he said. Another challenge is patients often don't know what a 'standard drink' looks like and can underestimate how much they drink. Showing patients visual examples — such as these— can be an eye-opener, Lewis said. Given the associations between drinking alcohol and many health outcomes, Genkinger said, it's important for clinicians to discuss alcohol use, just as they would discuss physical activity and healthy body weight. 'These are all lifestyle factors that have an impact on numerous disease outcomes, not only pancreatic cancer,' she said.
Medscape
13 hours ago
- Medscape
More Sit-to-Stand Transitions Benefit Postmenopausal Women
TOPLINE: Reducing sedentary behavior with interventions such as increasing daily sit-to-stand transitions might help lower blood pressure in postmenopausal women with overweight or obesity. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess how different strategies to reduce time spent sitting affected the physiologic responses of postmenopausal women who led sedentary lives. The researchers included 407 women in the postmenopausal phase (mean age, 68 years; 92% White) who had overweight or obesity (average BMI, 32), had a sitting time of at least 7 hours a day, and performed no more than 70 sit-to-stand transitions daily. The women were randomly assigned to one of three study arms: healthy living (n = 135), sit less (n = 136), and increased sit-to-stand transitions (n = 136). All arms received seven sessions of individual health coaching over 12 weeks. Researchers assessed blood pressure and markers of glucose regulation using fasting blood samples. Readings from thigh- and hip-worn accelerometers for 7 days were used to evaluate posture, sedentary behavior, and physical activity. Primary outcomes were measurements of glucose regulation and resting blood pressure at baseline and 3 months. TAKEAWAY: A total of 388 women completed the trial, with no serious adverse events related to the study. Participants in the sit-less arm had a daily sitting time of approximately 58 minutes less than those in the healthy-living arm (P < .001), whereas those in the sit-to-stand arm had 26 more sit-to-stand transitions daily (P < .001). Diastolic blood pressure fell by 2.24 mm Hg in the sit-to-stand arm compared with the healthy living arm (P = .02); the decrease in systolic blood pressure did not reach a predefined significance level. Compared with the healthy-living arm, neither intervention produced significant changes in markers of glucose regulation. IN PRACTICE: 'Postmenopausal women are at high risk of engaging in large amounts of sitting time and cardiovascular diseases. The present randomized controlled trial adds to existing evidence by demonstrating that within just 3 months, increasing' sit-to-stand transitions can lower diastolic blood pressure, the researchers wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Sheri J. Hartman, PhD, University of California, San Diego. It was published online on July 25, 2025, in Circulation. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of findings was limited by the lack of ethnic and racial diversity. The 3-month intervention period may have been too brief to observe sizeable physiologic changes. Measurement of only fasting glucose parameters could not capture changes after meals. DISCLOSURES: This study received support from the National Institute of Aging. Additional support was provided by the Altman Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego, funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
