ArticleHeliyon2024
The safety and tolerability of a one strength dose-escalation scheme for subcutaneous immunotherapy with a native house dust mite extract in Chinese children: A multicenter, randomized, open label clinical trial.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multicenter randomized study: safety of an optimized accelerated house dust mite immunotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis in China (PERFECT study).Frontiers in immunology · 2026Trial
- One-strength dose escalation of house dust mite depot product for subcutaneous immunotherapy is safe and tolerable.Allergy · 2025Trial
- Safety and Tolerability of Accelerated Venom Immunotherapy with Depot Extracts in Insect-Venom-Allergic Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Precision Prediction of Pediatric Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Outcomes Using a Clinical Nomogram for House Dust Mite Allergy.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is still the only treatment that may affect the natural cause of allergic disease. This study is to investigate whether an accelerated up-dosing scheme for subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) using a native house dust mite (HDM) allergen extract is as safe as the standard 3-strengths dose-escalation scheme in children with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma in China. Methods: In this multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial, the children aged 5-14 years were randomized 1:1 either to One Strength group or the Standard group. The dose escalation scheme for patients in the One Strength group included 6 injections of strength 3, whereas the Standard group comprised 14 injections using strength 1, 2, and 3. All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded and analyzed. The 5-point Likert scale was used to assess tolerability (ChiCTR2100050311). Results: Overall, 101 children were included in the Safety Set (One Strength group: 50 vs. Standard group: 51). A total of 26 TEAEs were reported for 15 children. TEAEs related to AIT occurred in 10 % of the children in the One Strength group and 11.8 % of the Standard group. The number of systemic adverse reactions was comparable in both groups (One Strength: 5 vs. Standard: 4). No serious TEAEs was recorded for either group. 90.0 % of patients in the One Strength group reached the maintenance dose without an interventional dose adjustment due to adverse events, compared to 78.4 % in the Standard group. All patients who completed the dose-escalation phase reached the recommended maintenance dose of 1.0 ml of strength 3.Investigators and patients rated the tolerability of the One Strength regimen slightly better than the Standard scheme. Conclusions: This exploratory study suggests that the accelerated One Strength dose-escalation scheme is comparable in safety and tolerability to the Standard regimen. However, due to the preliminary nature and small sample size, further research with larger sample sizes and robust study designs is necessary for confirmation.
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.