过敏原免疫治疗中的过敏原激发试验:最新进展。

Petra Zieglmayer, René Zieglmayer, Patrick Lemell
{"title":"过敏原免疫治疗中的过敏原激发试验:最新进展。","authors":"Petra Zieglmayer,&nbsp;René Zieglmayer,&nbsp;Patrick Lemell","doi":"10.5414/ALX02322E","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Treatment effects in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) studies are based on symptomatic improvement, and evaluations of naturally exposed patients do often show weak efficacy. Allergen challenge tests, such as conjunctival (CAC), nasal (NAC), or bronchial (BAC) challenge tests, or challenges in allergen exposure chambers (AEC) are accepted by regulators for AIT phase II studies only.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This review aims to describe different allergen challenge test methods, summarizes safety and limitations for each, and discusses their potential for use in AIT trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Organ-specific allergen challenges provide information about individual reactivity, reaction threshold, and organ-specific efficacy of AIT. AECs, targeting all affected organs simultaneously, were developed to investigate disease mechanisms and treatment effects under controlled and reproducible conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A high level of standardization is existing for NAC only; in CAC and BAC, the toolbox is limited to subjective symptom scoring with no validated objective parameters identified yet. AECs are complex and heterogenous; correlation of systems and comparability of study data is claimed. All challenge methods are safe when conducted by experienced staff.</p>","PeriodicalId":7485,"journal":{"name":"Allergologie Select","volume":"7 ","pages":"25-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10012425/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allergen challenge tests in allergen immunotherapy: State of the art.\",\"authors\":\"Petra Zieglmayer,&nbsp;René Zieglmayer,&nbsp;Patrick Lemell\",\"doi\":\"10.5414/ALX02322E\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Treatment effects in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) studies are based on symptomatic improvement, and evaluations of naturally exposed patients do often show weak efficacy. Allergen challenge tests, such as conjunctival (CAC), nasal (NAC), or bronchial (BAC) challenge tests, or challenges in allergen exposure chambers (AEC) are accepted by regulators for AIT phase II studies only.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This review aims to describe different allergen challenge test methods, summarizes safety and limitations for each, and discusses their potential for use in AIT trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Organ-specific allergen challenges provide information about individual reactivity, reaction threshold, and organ-specific efficacy of AIT. AECs, targeting all affected organs simultaneously, were developed to investigate disease mechanisms and treatment effects under controlled and reproducible conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A high level of standardization is existing for NAC only; in CAC and BAC, the toolbox is limited to subjective symptom scoring with no validated objective parameters identified yet. AECs are complex and heterogenous; correlation of systems and comparability of study data is claimed. All challenge methods are safe when conducted by experienced staff.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7485,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergologie Select\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"25-32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10012425/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergologie Select\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5414/ALX02322E\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergologie Select","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5414/ALX02322E","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在过敏原免疫疗法(AIT)的研究中,治疗效果是基于症状改善的,对自然暴露患者的评估往往显示疗效较弱。过敏原激射试验,如结膜(CAC)、鼻腔(NAC)或支气管(BAC)激射试验,或过敏原暴露室(AEC)激射试验,仅被监管机构接受用于AIT II期研究。材料和方法:本综述旨在描述不同的过敏原激发试验方法,总结每种方法的安全性和局限性,并讨论它们在AIT试验中的应用潜力。结果:器官特异性过敏原挑战提供了有关AIT个体反应性、反应阈值和器官特异性疗效的信息。aec可同时靶向所有受累器官,在可控和可重复的条件下研究疾病机制和治疗效果。结论:NAC具有较高的标准化水平;在CAC和BAC中,工具箱仅限于主观症状评分,尚未确定有效的客观参数。aec是复杂和异质的;要求系统的相关性和研究数据的可比性。当有经验的员工操作时,所有挑战方法都是安全的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Allergen challenge tests in allergen immunotherapy: State of the art.

Allergen challenge tests in allergen immunotherapy: State of the art.

Allergen challenge tests in allergen immunotherapy: State of the art.

Introduction: Treatment effects in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) studies are based on symptomatic improvement, and evaluations of naturally exposed patients do often show weak efficacy. Allergen challenge tests, such as conjunctival (CAC), nasal (NAC), or bronchial (BAC) challenge tests, or challenges in allergen exposure chambers (AEC) are accepted by regulators for AIT phase II studies only.

Materials and methods: This review aims to describe different allergen challenge test methods, summarizes safety and limitations for each, and discusses their potential for use in AIT trials.

Results: Organ-specific allergen challenges provide information about individual reactivity, reaction threshold, and organ-specific efficacy of AIT. AECs, targeting all affected organs simultaneously, were developed to investigate disease mechanisms and treatment effects under controlled and reproducible conditions.

Conclusion: A high level of standardization is existing for NAC only; in CAC and BAC, the toolbox is limited to subjective symptom scoring with no validated objective parameters identified yet. AECs are complex and heterogenous; correlation of systems and comparability of study data is claimed. All challenge methods are safe when conducted by experienced staff.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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