Trial reportFrontiers in immunology2026
A multicenter randomized study: safety of an optimized accelerated house dust mite immunotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis in China (PERFECT study).
Trial report in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The one-strength injection regimen has increasingly become the mainstream paradigm for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). This study aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of an optimal accelerated scheme for SCIT using a house dust mite (HDM) product in adolescents and adults with allergic rhinitis (AR) or rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC), with or without asthma in China. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label trial, patients were randomized to either One-strength or Standard group. The One-strength scheme included 6 injections with one-strength (5,000 TU/mL) followed by 4 injections at the maximum tolerated dose, administered without dose reduction when initiating a new vial. In contrast, the Standard regimen involved 14 injections across three strengths (50, 500 and 5,000 TU/mL), followed by 4 maintenance injections administered according to the medication instruction. Safety outcomes were determined by assessing Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs), while tolerability was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Overall, 211 patients were randomized, with 108 assigned to the One-strength group, and 103 to the Standard group. Among all participants, 57.3% reported ADRs, of which 95.3% were local reactions. Systemic ADRs were observed in 7.4% of patients in the One-strength group and 8.7% in the Standard group, with no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.7233). All ADRs were classified as WAO grade 1 or 2, with no grade ≥3. In both adolescent and adult subgroups, the incidence of systemic ADRs remained comparable between the two arms (p > 0.05). However, in adults, only the incidence of local ADRs in the One-strength group was significantly higher than that in the Standard group (p=0.0004). Tolerability was rated as "good" or "very good" by approximately 84% of patients and investigators in the One-strength group and 70% of the Standard group (p=0.0131 for patient rating; p=0.0142 for investigator rating). Conclusions: The One-strength scheme, consisting of 6 injections and no dose reduction when starting a new pack during the maintenance phase, is as safe and tolerable as standard SCIT regimen in adolescents and adults in China. Clinical Trial Registration: www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR2200060194.
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.