ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2006
Mite immunotherapy.
Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of allergen immunotherapy in children in Latin America: Treatment with polymerized allergen extracts ofThe World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy with a mixture of glutaraldehyde-modified extracts ofThe World Allergy Organization journal · 2022Article
- A combined transcriptome and proteome analysis extends the allergome of house dust mite Dermatophagoides species.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
- Open-label parallel dose tolerability study of three subcutaneous immunotherapy regimens in house dust mite allergic patients.Clinical and translational allergy · 2013Article
- Molecular cloning, expression, sequence analyses of dust mite allergen Der f 6 and its IgE-binding reactivity with mite allergic asthma patients in southeast China.Molecular biology reports · 2012Article
- Domestic mite-induced allergy: Causes, diagnosis, and future prospects.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and D. farinae are the most common house dust mites and are among the most common sources of indoor allergens worldwide. These species are very common in humid regions, where most allergic individuals are sensitized to house dust mites. Specific immunotherapy with mite extracts has demonstrated clinical benefits in several double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that are included in recent reviews of subcutaneous immunotherapy, including pediatric and adult patients with rhinoconjunctivitis and or asthma. Most successful studies of mite immunotherapy have used native allergen extracts adsorbed onto aluminum hydroxide, or chemically modified mite-allergen extracts. Several studies have also shown efficacy using sublingual immunotherapy in pediatric and adult patients with asthma and/or rhinitis. Additionally, the efficacy of subcutaneous immunotherapy has been demonstrated in patients with atopic dermatitis, although more double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are needed. Based on several studies, it cannot be concluded that mite immunotherapy is more dangerous or safer than immunotherapy with grasses, epithelia, or animal epithelia. Because the delivery of high doses of allergen carries with it the risk for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated events, several methods have been developed to reduce specific IgE binding to mite-allergen extracts. An important challenge for future mite immunotherapy modalities is the delivery of relatively high doses without a significant risk for severe reactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.