Trial reportImmunity, inflammation and disease2017
House dust mite-specific immunotherapy with two licensed vaccines: Outcome under clinical routine conditions.
Trial report in Immunity, inflammation and disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modified Allergens for Immunotherapy.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2018Review
- Immunotherapy of house dust mite allergy.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHouse dust mite (HDM) allergens are major causes for the development of allergic diseases. A disease modifying effect and clinical benefit of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been demonstrated in a number of clinical trials. Clinical trials, however, are carried out in selected populations under specific conditions based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and may not represent the entire patient population from medical practice. Objective of this study conducted in patients with HDM allergy was to systematically collect information about the benefit of AIT under clinical routine conditions.
methodsIn this prospective, multi-center non-interventional study, 220 patients (117 adults, 103 children) with HDM allergy receiving subcutaneous AIT with Depigoid
resultsTwo hundred and nineteen patients (116 adults, 103 children) were evaluated. A major improvement of the total symptom-score was observed after 24 (12) months in 76% (72%) and 80% (79%) of adults and children, respectively, accompanied by a reduction in concomitant anti-allergic medication and a pronounced improvement in QoL. The effectiveness and tolerability of the AIT was estimated as very good/good by 80-90% of physicians and patients. AEs were observed in 4/117 adults (3.4%) and in 7/103 children (6.8%). Serious AEs were reported in three adults and one child: A grade-II anaphylactic reaction (one adult) controlled by oral antihistamines (no hospitalization) classified as "definitely," three others as not (2) or possibly (1) drug-related.
conclusionsThe data collected from 220 patients confirm the efficacy, tolerability/safety, and acceptance of AIT with Depigoid
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.