用于皮下免疫疗法的屋尘螨去势产品的单剂量升级是安全和可耐受的。

IF 12.6 1区 医学 Q1 ALLERGY
Allergy Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1111/all.16370
M Jutel, C Vogelberg, K Duwensee, D Troyke, L Klimek
{"title":"用于皮下免疫疗法的屋尘螨去势产品的单剂量升级是安全和可耐受的。","authors":"M Jutel, C Vogelberg, K Duwensee, D Troyke, L Klimek","doi":"10.1111/all.16370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) aims at modulating the immune response by administration of allergen preparations at regular intervals over several years (1). For subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), the treatment is initiated with a dose escalation phase followed by a maintenance dose administration. Over the last decade, there has been a trend towards shortening dose escalation regimens to increase patient adherence. This open-label, phase II trial aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability of a house dust mites (HDMs) SCIT product when used in a newly designed one-strength dose escalation scheme.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patients, aged 12-65, suffering from HDM-allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis ± asthma were included. Patients were randomized to the one-strength (6 injections from the highest strength 3) or the Standard dose escalation regimen (14 injections from strengths 1 to 3) using the HDMs-SCIT product. All adverse events were reported. Tolerability was assessed on the Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and forty-three patients were randomized, 79 adults and 64 adolescents. In total, the one-strength regimen caused more adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than the Standard regimen (p = .0457). With both regimens most ADRs were local reactions which occurred more often in the one-strength group (p = .0393). But there was no significant difference in the number of patients affected by systemic or serious ADRs between both regimens. No relevant differences occurred between the two age groups and no other risks were observed for adolescents compared to adults.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The safety and tolerability of both regimens can be considered comparable, as most ADRs were local reactions, primarily rated as mild in intensity. Nevertheless, the one-strength regimen caused more ADRs. Reducing the number of injections from 14 to 6 while using only one strength offers the potential to improve patient adherence which further might increase clinical efficacy. Future trials could confirm this hypothesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":122,"journal":{"name":"Allergy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":12.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One-strength dose escalation of house dust mite depot product for subcutaneous immunotherapy is safe and tolerable.\",\"authors\":\"M Jutel, C Vogelberg, K Duwensee, D Troyke, L Klimek\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/all.16370\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) aims at modulating the immune response by administration of allergen preparations at regular intervals over several years (1). For subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), the treatment is initiated with a dose escalation phase followed by a maintenance dose administration. Over the last decade, there has been a trend towards shortening dose escalation regimens to increase patient adherence. This open-label, phase II trial aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability of a house dust mites (HDMs) SCIT product when used in a newly designed one-strength dose escalation scheme.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Patients, aged 12-65, suffering from HDM-allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis ± asthma were included. Patients were randomized to the one-strength (6 injections from the highest strength 3) or the Standard dose escalation regimen (14 injections from strengths 1 to 3) using the HDMs-SCIT product. All adverse events were reported. Tolerability was assessed on the Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and forty-three patients were randomized, 79 adults and 64 adolescents. In total, the one-strength regimen caused more adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than the Standard regimen (p = .0457). With both regimens most ADRs were local reactions which occurred more often in the one-strength group (p = .0393). But there was no significant difference in the number of patients affected by systemic or serious ADRs between both regimens. No relevant differences occurred between the two age groups and no other risks were observed for adolescents compared to adults.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The safety and tolerability of both regimens can be considered comparable, as most ADRs were local reactions, primarily rated as mild in intensity. Nevertheless, the one-strength regimen caused more ADRs. Reducing the number of injections from 14 to 6 while using only one strength offers the potential to improve patient adherence which further might increase clinical efficacy. Future trials could confirm this hypothesis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/all.16370\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/all.16370","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:过敏原免疫疗法(AIT)旨在通过在数年内定期给药过敏原制剂来调节免疫反应(1)。在皮下注射过敏原免疫疗法(SCIT)中,治疗开始于剂量递增阶段,然后是维持剂量给药。在过去十年中,为了提高患者的依从性,缩短剂量递增疗程已成为一种趋势。这项开放标签的II期试验旨在研究屋尘螨(HDMs)SCIT产品在新设计的单剂量升级方案中使用的安全性和耐受性:方法:纳入12-65岁的HDM过敏性鼻炎/鼻结膜炎和哮喘患者。患者被随机分配到使用HDMs-SCIT产品的单剂量方案(从最高剂量3开始注射6次)或标准剂量递增方案(从剂量1到3注射14次)。报告了所有不良事件。用李克特量表评估耐受性:143名患者接受了随机治疗,其中包括79名成人和64名青少年。总的来说,单剂量疗法比标准疗法引起的药物不良反应(ADR)更多(p = 0.0457)。两种方案中,大多数药物不良反应都是局部反应,而单剂组的发生率更高(p = .0393)。但两种疗法中发生全身或严重不良反应的患者人数没有明显差异。两个年龄组之间没有相关差异,与成人相比,青少年没有观察到其他风险:结论:两种治疗方案的安全性和耐受性相当,因为大多数 ADR 都是局部反应,主要是轻度反应。尽管如此,单一强度疗法引起的不良反应更多。将注射次数从 14 次减少到 6 次,同时只使用一种强度,有可能提高患者的依从性,从而进一步提高临床疗效。未来的试验可以证实这一假设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
One-strength dose escalation of house dust mite depot product for subcutaneous immunotherapy is safe and tolerable.

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) aims at modulating the immune response by administration of allergen preparations at regular intervals over several years (1). For subcutaneous AIT (SCIT), the treatment is initiated with a dose escalation phase followed by a maintenance dose administration. Over the last decade, there has been a trend towards shortening dose escalation regimens to increase patient adherence. This open-label, phase II trial aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability of a house dust mites (HDMs) SCIT product when used in a newly designed one-strength dose escalation scheme.

Method: Patients, aged 12-65, suffering from HDM-allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis ± asthma were included. Patients were randomized to the one-strength (6 injections from the highest strength 3) or the Standard dose escalation regimen (14 injections from strengths 1 to 3) using the HDMs-SCIT product. All adverse events were reported. Tolerability was assessed on the Likert scale.

Results: One hundred and forty-three patients were randomized, 79 adults and 64 adolescents. In total, the one-strength regimen caused more adverse drug reactions (ADRs) than the Standard regimen (p = .0457). With both regimens most ADRs were local reactions which occurred more often in the one-strength group (p = .0393). But there was no significant difference in the number of patients affected by systemic or serious ADRs between both regimens. No relevant differences occurred between the two age groups and no other risks were observed for adolescents compared to adults.

Conclusion: The safety and tolerability of both regimens can be considered comparable, as most ADRs were local reactions, primarily rated as mild in intensity. Nevertheless, the one-strength regimen caused more ADRs. Reducing the number of injections from 14 to 6 while using only one strength offers the potential to improve patient adherence which further might increase clinical efficacy. Future trials could confirm this hypothesis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Allergy
Allergy 医学-过敏
CiteScore
26.10
自引率
9.70%
发文量
393
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Allergy is an international and multidisciplinary journal that aims to advance, impact, and communicate all aspects of the discipline of Allergy/Immunology. It publishes original articles, reviews, position papers, guidelines, editorials, news and commentaries, letters to the editors, and correspondences. The journal accepts articles based on their scientific merit and quality. Allergy seeks to maintain contact between basic and clinical Allergy/Immunology and encourages contributions from contributors and readers from all countries. In addition to its publication, Allergy also provides abstracting and indexing information. Some of the databases that include Allergy abstracts are Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Disease, Academic Search Alumni Edition, AgBiotech News & Information, AGRICOLA Database, Biological Abstracts, PubMed Dietary Supplement Subset, and Global Health, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信