4.5 Article

The effect of oral steroids with and without vitamin D3 on early efficacy of immunotherapy in asthmatic children

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL ALLERGY
卷 39, 期 12, 页码 1830-1841

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2009.03357.x

关键词

immunotherapy; steroids; vitamin D3

资金

  1. Medical University of Lodz, Poland [502-12-760, 503-2056-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background The possibility of additional strategies to enhance the effectiveness of specific immunotherapy (SIT) is highly attractive. Aim The aim of our study was to assess the influence of oral corticosteroids and oral corticosteroids combined with vitamin D-3 on the early clinical and immunological effects of SIT. Methods It was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 54 asthmatic children allergic to house dust mites. Intervention was based on receiving a single dose of oral steroid, with or without vitamin D-3, or placebo only on the day of the build-up phase of SIT. Results After 12 months of SIT, the median daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose, which controls the symptoms of asthma, was reduced by 25% in the steroid group. However, a 50% reduction of the median daily ICS dose was observed in the control group. The clinical effects of SIT were not affected in the steroid+D-3 group. Concomitantly, we found that intervention with prednisone significantly impaired the induction of T regulatory lymphocytes. Importantly, the clinical and immunological effects of SIT were not affected by intervention with steroids administered with vitamin D-3. Conclusions Our study failed to show a beneficial effect of oral corticosteroids on allergen-specific immunotherapy. We observed that the combined administration of a corticosteroid drug and allergen extract suppressed the early clinical and immunological effects of SIT and that vitamin D-3 prevented this 'adverse' influence of steroids. Cite this as: P. Majak, B. Rychlik and I. Stelmach, Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2009 (39) 1830-1841.

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