摘要
目的比较集群免疫方案和常规免疫方案用于标准化尘螨变应原治疗持续性过敏性鼻炎的疗效和安全性。方法60例中重度持续性螨过敏变应性鼻炎患者,以安脱达屋尘螨疫苗行特异性免疫治疗,其中28例患者接受集群免疫治疗,32例患者接受常规免疫治疗,通过两组鼻结膜症状与体征总评分评价临床疗效,同时观察局部不良反应和全身不良反应发生率以评价治疗的安全性。结果集群免疫治疗在6周左右达到维持剂量,剂量累加阶段疗程较常规治疗组缩短60%以上,在观察6周后,临床疗效较常规治疗组明显改善(P<0.05),局部和全身不良反应发生率在剂量累加阶段和剂量维持阶段与常规免疫治疗相比均无显著差异(P>0.05)。结论对中重度持续性螨过敏变应性鼻炎而言,集群免疫治疗是一种快速、有效、安全的治疗方法。
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy with dermatophagoides pteronyssinus standardized extract given in conventional and cluster immunotherapy schedules for persistent allergic rhinitis. Methods Sixty patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis caused by dust mites, in accordance with the immunotherapy inclusion criteria,were allocated to receive conventional immunotherapy schedule （ n = 32） or cluster immunotherapy schedule （ n = 28 ） , and both groups continued treatment for 1 year. Total scores of nasal eonjunetival symptoms and signs were assessed to evaluate the elinieal efficacy, and also the incidence of local and systemic adverse reactions were registered to evaluate the safety. Results The cluster schedule reduced the time to maintenance dose by more than 60% ,and resulted in a more significant improvement than conventional schedule after 6 weeks of observation （P 〈 0.05） ,but the incidence of local and systemic adverse reactions during the incremental - dose phase and maintenance - dose phase com- pared with conventional immunotherapy were not significantly different （P 〉 0.05）. Conclusion The cluster immunotherapy is effeetivc and safe to treat patients clinically sensitive to dust mites.
出处
《医学研究杂志》
2013年第3期123-127,共5页
Journal of Medical Research
关键词
变应性鼻炎
集群免疫治疗
常规免疫治疗
临床疗效
安全性
Allergic rhinitis
Cluster immunotherapy
Conventional immunotherapy
Clinical efficacy
Safety
