4.4 Article

Clinical efficacy and safety of cervical intralymphatic immunotherapy for house dust mite allergic rhinitis: A pilot study

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OTOLARYNGOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2019.102280

Keywords

Cervical; Intralymphatic immunotherapy; House dust mite; Allergic rhinitis

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China [2015A030313771]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2019M653207]
  3. Guangdong Province Medical Research Foundation, China [A2019037]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT), a less time-consuming alternative to conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), is safe and effective. However, because of the private location of inguinal lymph nodes, inguinal ILIT is relatively inconvenient. We proposed a novel form of ILIT that involves 3 injections of allergen into cervical lymph nodes. The aim of this study is to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of cervical ILIT on house dust mite induced allergic rhinitis (AR) in adults. Methods: In this study, we performed a prospective cohort study to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of cervical ILIT on house dust mite induced AR in adults, by comparing the symptom scores, quality-of-life scores (QOLS) and drug scores (use of rescue medication) before and after treatment. Meanwhile, side events were also recorded. Results: Cervical ILIT elicited no moderate-severe adverse events. Patients receiving cervical WIT experienced a significant improvement in nasal symptoms, eye symptoms and quality of life, as compared to baseline (P all < 0.001). A reduction in the use of rescue medication was also demonstrated (P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this first-in-human clinical study, cervical ILIT was demonstrated safe and induced allergen tolerance after 3 injections.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available