4.4 Article

A 1-day imported fire ant rush immunotherapy schedule with and without premedication

期刊

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
卷 111, 期 6, 页码 562-566

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2013.08.021

关键词

-

资金

  1. US Air Force

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Rush immunotherapy (RIT) schedules can expedite protection in individuals sensitive to imported fire ant (IFA) stings. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1-day RIT with IFA whole body extract (WBE) and determine the benefit of premedication with antihistamines and prednisone. Methods: Patients with systemic reactions to IFAs and evidence of specific IgE by skin test or serologic test started a 1-day RIT protocol without premedication. The 1-day RIT protocol consisted of a total of 10 injections every 30 to 60 minutes to achieve a 0.3-mL 1:100 (wt/vol) dose. A higher systemic reaction rate (SRR) prompted protocol revision to include a 3-day course of oral 20 mg of prednisone twice daily, 150 mg of ranitidine, and 10 mg of loratadine started 2 days before the 1-day RIT. Patients returned on days 8 and 15 to receive a 0.5 mL 1:100 (wt/vol) maintenance injection. The effectiveness of the RIT was evaluated with a sting challenge on approximately day 22. Results: Eighty of the 96 patients enrolled initiated the 1-day RIT. The first nonpremedicated group exhibited a SRR of 24.3% (9 of 37 patients), whereas the revised premedicated group had a SRR of 9.5% (4 of 42 patients; P = .07). The most severe reaction during RIT included dizziness, angioedema, and urticaria. Sting challenges on 53 patients resulted in 1 mild rhinitis reaction (efficacy, 98.1%). Conclusion: One-day RIT with IFA WBE for IFA hypersensitivity is efficacious. Although there was a trend with premedications to reduce SRRs during the RIT, safety data with premedication require confirmation in a larger trial. (C) 2013 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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