Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Injection immunotherapy for de novo sensitization

Injection immunotherapy for de novo sensitization 374 Allergens treated group compared with placebo. However, there was a appears to be more effective in inducing Th1 immune significant increase in IFN-γ mRNA-positive cells in the responses than immunostimulatory sequences (ISS) that mucosa after challenge. The absence of similar change in the were co-administered, but in an unconjugated fashion, preseasonal response to allergen challenge suggests that with Amb a1. additional time or allergen exposure is necessary to achieve The short, 6-week trial of immunotherapy in this popu- benefit from this mode of allergen desensitization. lation showed that there were no significant differences in There was no difference in the mean clinical scores in treated and untreated groups during the first ragweed sea- medication use in the two treatment arms. In the second son, which began a few weeks after the last administration. season, chest symptoms were significantly reduced in the Similarly, there were no significant changes in the response AIC treatment group. The nasal symptoms were somewhat to nasal allergen challenge performed before the beginning lower but did not reach statistical significance. of the season. However, 4 to 5 months after the initial AIC injection, changes in the ragweed Th1 and Th2 responses were Editor’s Comments observed, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Current Allergy and Asthma Reports Springer Journals

Injection immunotherapy for de novo sensitization

Current Allergy and Asthma Reports , Volume 4 (5) – May 30, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/injection-immunotherapy-for-de-novo-sensitization-doK1V9ee9E

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by Current Science Inc.
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Allergology; Pneumology/Respiratory System; Otorhinolaryngology; Infectious Diseases
ISSN
1529-7322
eISSN
1534-6315
DOI
10.1007/s11882-004-0087-0
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

374 Allergens treated group compared with placebo. However, there was a appears to be more effective in inducing Th1 immune significant increase in IFN-γ mRNA-positive cells in the responses than immunostimulatory sequences (ISS) that mucosa after challenge. The absence of similar change in the were co-administered, but in an unconjugated fashion, preseasonal response to allergen challenge suggests that with Amb a1. additional time or allergen exposure is necessary to achieve The short, 6-week trial of immunotherapy in this popu- benefit from this mode of allergen desensitization. lation showed that there were no significant differences in There was no difference in the mean clinical scores in treated and untreated groups during the first ragweed sea- medication use in the two treatment arms. In the second son, which began a few weeks after the last administration. season, chest symptoms were significantly reduced in the Similarly, there were no significant changes in the response AIC treatment group. The nasal symptoms were somewhat to nasal allergen challenge performed before the beginning lower but did not reach statistical significance. of the season. However, 4 to 5 months after the initial AIC injection, changes in the ragweed Th1 and Th2 responses were Editor’s Comments observed,

Journal

Current Allergy and Asthma ReportsSpringer Journals

Published: May 30, 2004

There are no references for this article.