Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi
Büyük Kütüphane
Adres
Yakın Doğu Bulvarı, Lefkoşa, KKTC
İletişim
[email protected] · +90 (392) 223 64 64
Google Jackets'tan alınan resim
OpenLibrary'den resim

Comparing subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy: what do we know? Nerin Nadir Bahceciler, Nilufer Galip.

Yazar: Materyal türü: MakaleMakaleDil: İngilizce Yayın ayrıntıları:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2012.ISSN:
  • 1528-4050
Konu(lar): LOC sınıflandırması:
  • WD300
Çevrimiçi kaynaklar: İçindekiler: Current Opinion In Allergy And Clinical Immunology DEC 2012,Vol 12, Issue 6, p640-647 Özet: Purpose of review Although allergen-specific sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) have been demonstrated to be clinically effective with similar immunological responses, head-to-head studies comparing those two modes of allergen administration in terms of onset of clinical improvement along with simultaneous immunological responses and underlying mechanisms of preventive effect are scarce. The present review will update current data on this issue. Recent findings Compared with SLIT, SCIT provides a rapid onset of clinical improvement by eliciting a simultaneous surge in production of T helper 1 (Th1) and T regulatory cell (Treg) cytokines and blocking antibodies. Similar immunological and clinical responses are evoked quite later, with no effect on Immunoglobulin G (IgG)4 levels during SLIT. Increases in TGF beta secretion due to nonrelevant allergens during SLIT may explain the preventive effect on new sensitizations. Summary SLIT and SCIT are both clinically effective in the treatment of respiratory allergic diseases with slight differences in the early phase in terms of onset of clinical efficacy and simultaneous immunological responses. Both SLIT and SCIT induce similar T-cell responses in time, but specific IgG4-blocking antibody responses are more prevalent following SCIT. Further head-to-head studies addressing the preventive effect of monotherapy and the efficacy and immunological responses of nonrelated multiallergen immunotherapy in polysensitized patients are warranted.
Bu kütüphanenin etiketleri: Kütüphanedeki eser adı için etiket yok. Etiket eklemek için oturumu açın.
Yıldız derecelendirmeleri
    Ortalama puan: 0.0 (0 oy)
Mevcut
Materyal türü Geçerli Kütüphane Yer numarası Durum Barkod
Online Electronic Document NEU Grand Library Online electronic WD300 .C66 2012 (Rafa gözat(Aşağıda açılır)) Ödünç verilmez EOL-1368

Purpose of review

Although allergen-specific sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) have been demonstrated to be clinically effective with similar immunological responses, head-to-head studies comparing those two modes of allergen administration in terms of onset of clinical improvement along with simultaneous immunological responses and underlying mechanisms of preventive effect are scarce. The present review will update current data on this issue.

Recent findings

Compared with SLIT, SCIT provides a rapid onset of clinical improvement by eliciting a simultaneous surge in production of T helper 1 (Th1) and T regulatory cell (Treg) cytokines and blocking antibodies. Similar immunological and clinical responses are evoked quite later, with no effect on Immunoglobulin G (IgG)4 levels during SLIT. Increases in TGF beta secretion due to nonrelevant allergens during SLIT may explain the preventive effect on new sensitizations.

Summary

SLIT and SCIT are both clinically effective in the treatment of respiratory allergic diseases with slight differences in the early phase in terms of onset of clinical efficacy and simultaneous immunological responses. Both SLIT and SCIT induce similar T-cell responses in time, but specific IgG4-blocking antibody responses are more prevalent following SCIT. Further head-to-head studies addressing the preventive effect of monotherapy and the efficacy and immunological responses of nonrelated multiallergen immunotherapy in polysensitized patients are warranted.

Bu materyal hakkında henüz bir yorum yapılmamış.

bir yorum göndermek için.