ArticleAllergy, asthma & immunology research2015
In vitro evaluation of allergen potencies of commercial house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy reagents.
Article in Allergy, asthma & immunology research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.International forum of allergy & rhinology · 2018Article
- Standardization and Regulation of Allergen Products in the European Union.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe clinical efficacy of allergen-immunotherapy is known to be dose dependent. However, optimal maintenance dosage has not yet been determined for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Furthermore, since companies adopt their own units for expression of allergenicity, the allergen concentrations of individual reagents cannot be compared easily. We sought to measure and compare the allergenicities of 3 commercially available house dust mite (HDM) SLIT regents and a subcutaneous immunotherapy reagent.
methodsWe measured the HDM allergenic potency of the maintenance dosages of three SLIT reagents: Staloral® (300 index of reactivity [IR] /mL, recommended maintenance dosage [MD]: 120 IR), SLITone® (1,000 standard therapeutic unit [STU]/mL, recommended MD: 200 STU), Wolwopharma® (100 µg/mL, recommended MD: 20 µg), and subcutaneous immunotherapy regents of Hollister-Stier (10,000 allergy unit [AU] /mL). The allergenic potency was assessed by measuring the total protein concentrations, mite group 1 and 2 allergens using 2-site ELISA, and an inhibition test against IgE specific to Dermatophagoides farinae and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus.
resultsThe protein content of the Wolwopharma® reagent was 1.5-261.4 times higher than that of the other 2 SLIT reagents. The concentration of group 1 major allergens in Staloral® (132.03 µg/mL) was 33- to 44.5-fold higher than in SLITone® (4.00 µg/mL) and Wolwopharma® (2.97 µg/mL). The concentration of group 2 major allergen was also 8.9- to 10.5-fold higher in Staloral® (15.7 µg/mL) than in SLITone® (1.8 µg/mL) or Wolwopharma® (1.5 µg/mL). An ELISA inhibition study against HDM-specific IgE showed that the allergen potency of Staloral® reagent is 8.5-fold and 21-fold higher than that of SLITone® or Wolwopharma®, respectively. The differences between the maintenance dosages are further exaggerated by the differences in the recommended volumes of SLIT reagents.
conclusionsThe allergen potencies of commercially available HDM SLIT reagents are markedly different. Consensus regarding the optimal allergen concentration for SLIT reagents used to treat HDM respiratory allergies is needed.
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.