Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36268011›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in immunology2022

A real-world retrospective study of safety, efficacy, compliance and cost of combination treatment with rush immunotherapy plus one dose of pretreatment anti-IgE in Chinese children with respiratory allergies.

Pingping Zhang, Sainan Bian, Xibin Wang, Zhuanggui Chen, Lifen Yang, Feng Xiao, Kai Guan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Allergen immunotherapy in China.Frontiers in allergy · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pingping ZhangDepartment of Pediatrics, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Sainan BianDepartment of Allergy, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Xibin WangDepartment of Pediatrics, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhuanggui ChenDepartment of Pediatrics, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Lifen YangDepartment of Pediatrics, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Feng XiaoDepartment of Stomatology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Kai GuanDepartment of Allergy, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in treating pediatric allergy has been clearly demonstrated, however, many patients hesitate to initiate AIT due to weekly hospital visits during the 3-4 months up-dosing phase. Meanwhile, rush immunotherapy (RIT) shortens the duration of the up-dosing phase to 7 days. However, considering that patients receiving RIT are exposed to the allergens during a much shorter period of time and thus may be at a greater risk of systemic reactions, RIT is currently underused, especially in children. This study investigated the utility of combination treatment with RIT plus 1 dose of pretreatment anti-IgE in children with respiratory allergies. Methods: In this retrospective study, we reviewed records of children with allergic rhinitis (AR) and/or allergic asthma (AA) sensitized to dust mite allergens receiving RIT+1 dose of pretreatment anti-IgE (the RIT group) or conventional immunotherapy (the CIT group) at our hospital from January 2020 to March 2021. Data such as visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, comprehensive symptom and medication score (CSMS), allergy blood test results, adverse reactions, compliance and cost were collected and analyzed. Results: 40 patients in the RIT group and 81 patients in the CIT group were included in this study. Both treatments were well tolerated and patients in the 2 treatment groups had comparable local and systemic reactions. Compared to CIT, RIT + anti-IgE combination led to significantly faster symptomatic improvement as demonstrated by significantly decreased VAS and CSMS starting as early as 1 month after AIT initiation ( Conclusions: RIT + 1 dose of pretreatment anti-IgE combination has practical advantages over CIT, including comparable safety, better compliance, and probably a faster onset of clinical efficacy at no additional cost, so it can be an useful regimen for the treatment of Chinese children with respiratory allergies.

Indexed as

Rhinitis, AllergicAntibodies, Anti-IdiotypicChildChinaDesensitization, ImmunologicHumansImmunologic FactorsRetrospective StudiesAntibodies, Anti-Idiotypicanti-IgE antibodiesImmunologic Factorsanti-IgEchildrenmite allergenrespiratory allergiesrush immunotherapy

Identifiers

PMID36268011
PMCPMC9577550
OpenAlexW4301396266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.