4.5 Review

Sublingual Immunotherapy for Japanese Cedar Pollinosis: Current Clinical and Research Status

期刊

PATHOGENS
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11111313

关键词

allergic rhinitis; allergen immunotherapy; Japanese cedar pollen; pollinosis; sublingual immunotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The incidence of Japanese cedar pollinosis is increasing significantly in Japan. Allergen immunotherapy is the only fundamental treatment that modifies the natural course of allergic rhinitis and provides long-term remission. Sublingual immunotherapy has been developed and proven to have long-term efficacy and safety.
The incidence of Japanese cedar pollinosis is increasing significantly in Japan, and a recent survey suggested that about 40% of the population will develop this disease. However, spontaneous remission is rare. The increased incident rate of Japanese cedar pollinosis is a huge issue in Japan. Allergen immunotherapy is the only fundamental treatment that modifies the natural course of allergic rhinitis and provides long-term remission that cannot be induced by general drug therapy. Sublingual immunotherapy for Japanese cedar pollinosis has been developed and has been covered by health insurance since 2014 in Japan. The indication for children was expanded in 2018. Clinical trials of sublingual immunotherapy for Japanese cedar pollinosis have demonstrated its long-term efficacy and safety. It is recommended for patients who wish to undergo fundamental treatment regardless of the severity of the practical guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis in Japan. For sublingual immunotherapy, a long-term treatment period of 3 years or longer is recommended to obtain stable therapeutic effects. In recent years, evidence based on basic research and clinical trials has demonstrated sublingual immunotherapy-induced immunological changes and efficacy in patients; however, biomarkers that objectively predict and judge these therapeutic effects need to be established.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据