Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 1995
Hyposensitization in nickel allergic contact dermatitis: clinical and immunologic monitoring.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Troost R J, Kozel M M, van Helden-Meeuwsen C G, van Joost T, Mulder P G, Benner R, Prens E P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) previously sensitized T cells cause skin damage. If an ubiquitous allergen such as nickel is involved, no effective treatment is available. Down-regulation of this allergic response has been described after antigen presentation in the absence of adequate costimulatory signals. UV exposure can enhance such hyposensitization.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish the capability of a hyposensitization procedure to induce antigen-specific tolerance.
METHODS: Twenty-one patients with nickel ACD were randomly assigned to either a hyposensitized or control group. A schedule consisting of UVB treatment and subcutaneous nickel sulfate administration (hyposensitization) or UVB only (control) was applied. During the ensuing 2 years, several clinical and immunologic features were monitored.
RESULTS: During UVB treatment we observed a significant clinical improvement in both groups that persisted in the hyposensitized group. Except for increased slope variances of specific lymphocyte proliferation in time, no clear changes were seen in the immunologic findings.
CONCLUSION: Despite significant clinical improvement induced by UVB, hyposensitization did not induce significant changes in the immunologic findings in patients with nickel ACD.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to establish the capability of a hyposensitization procedure to induce antigen-specific tolerance.
METHODS: Twenty-one patients with nickel ACD were randomly assigned to either a hyposensitized or control group. A schedule consisting of UVB treatment and subcutaneous nickel sulfate administration (hyposensitization) or UVB only (control) was applied. During the ensuing 2 years, several clinical and immunologic features were monitored.
RESULTS: During UVB treatment we observed a significant clinical improvement in both groups that persisted in the hyposensitized group. Except for increased slope variances of specific lymphocyte proliferation in time, no clear changes were seen in the immunologic findings.
CONCLUSION: Despite significant clinical improvement induced by UVB, hyposensitization did not induce significant changes in the immunologic findings in patients with nickel ACD.