Safety of rush allergen-specific immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis patients.
- Author:
Qianhui QIU
;
Chuan LUC
;
Jianjun CHEN
;
Hong HAN
;
Weijia KONG
;
Shaohua CHEN
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Immunotherapy;
methods;
Linear Models;
Prospective Studies;
Rhinitis, Allergic;
therapy
- From:
Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery
2014;28(11):776-784
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:The safety of rush immunotherapy (RIT) in Chinese allergic rhinitis (AR)patients is unknown. The purpose of this prospective was to assess the safety differences between RIT and conventional immunotherapy in Chinese AR patients, and then discuss the clinical application feasibility of RIT.
METHOD:A one-year study period was set for this study. The enrolled patients were divided into 2 groups according to their preference of therapy: RIT or conventional immunotherapy using standardized house dust mite allergen vaccine. For safety evaluation, the local and systemic adverse reactions were recorded throughout the both groups initial phase. Week 0 (W0), Week 2 (W2), Week 5 (W5), Week 17 (W17) were set as observation time points for leukotriene (LT-B4) and so on. The Generalized Mixed Linear Model with SPSS13. O and the chi-square test with SAS 9. 1.3 were used for Statistics.
RESULT:Fifty-two cases were enrolled into the RIT group, of which 49 patients have completed the established treatment study, and 3 cases were lost to follow-up. In the conventional immunotherapy group, 35 cases were enrolled, of which 32 have completed established treatment study, and 3 cases were lost to follow-up. The local and systemic adverse events of AR RIT appeared to be similar to those of conventional therapy and LT-B4 was descended steadily in the two groups.
CONCLUSION:Processed in advance Chinesear with drugs, RIT is similar to the safety of conventional immunotherapy.
