<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>Secondhand smoke (SHS) and other air pollutants adversely affect the health of pregnant women and infants. A feasibility study aimed at reducing air pollution in homes of pregnant women or infants living with a smoker was completed.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>In collaboration with the Baltimore City Health Department, women ≥ 18 years of age and either pregnant nonsmokers, or post-partum (any smoking status) with an infant age 0-12 months were recruited. Homes had at least one smoker. Intervention included two air purifiers and secondhand smoke education. Outcomes included feasibility, change in fine particulate matter (PM), air nicotine, and salivary cotinine pre- and post-intervention.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Fifty women were enrolled (mean age 27 years, 92% African American, 71% single, 94% Medicaid eligible, 34% reported smoking) and 86% completed the study. Of the 50 women, 32 had infants and 18 were pregnant at time of enrollment. Post- intervention, 70% of participants reported smokers were less likely to smoke indoors, and 77% had at least one air purifier turned on at the final visit. Participant satisfaction was high (91%) and 98% would recommend air purifiers. Indoor PM was significantly decreased (P &lt; 0.001). Salivary cotinine was significantly decreased for non-smoking women (P &lt; 0.01) but not infants, and no significant change in air nicotine occurred (P = 0.6).</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Air purifiers with SHS education is a feasible intervention in homes of women and infants. These data demonstrate reduction in indoor PM and salivary cotinine in non-smoking adults. Air purifiers are not an alternative for smoking cessation and a home/ car smoking ban. Smoking cessation should be strongly encouraged for all pregnant women, and nonsmoking mothers with infants should be counseled to completely avoid SHS exposure. This study provides support for a future intervention evaluating clinical endpoints.</p>

<p><strong>CONTEXT: </strong>Treatment options for allergic asthma include allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, and allergen immunotherapy.</p>

<p><strong>OBJECTIVES: </strong>Summarize and update current evidence for the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in pediatric allergic asthma.</p>

<p><strong>DATA SOURCES: </strong>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (January 1, 2005, through May 8, 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System. We reevaluated trials from our 2013 systematic review.</p>

<p><strong>STUDY SELECTION: </strong>We included studies with children ≤18 years of age in which researchers reported on prespecified outcomes and had an intervention arm receiving aeroallergen SCIT or SLIT. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included for efficacy. RCTs and non-RCTs were included for safety outcomes.</p>

<p><strong>DATA EXTRACTION: </strong>Two reviewers extracted data. We included 40 studies (17 SCIT trials, 11 SLIT trials, 8 non-RCTs for SCIT safety, and 4 non-RCTs for SLIT safety).</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>We found moderate-strength evidence that SCIT reduces long-term asthma medication use. We found low-strength evidence that SCIT improves asthma-related quality of life and forced expiratory volume in 1 second. There was also low-strength evidence that SLIT improves medication use and forced expiratory volume in 1 second. There was insufficient evidence on asthma symptoms and health care use.</p>

<p><strong>LIMITATIONS: </strong>There were no trials in which researchers evaluated asthma symptoms using a validated tool. Study characteristics and outcomes were reported heterogeneously.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>In children with allergic asthma, SCIT may reduce long-term asthma medication use. Local and systemic allergic reactions are common, but anaphylaxis is reported rarely.</p>