Arerugi = [Allergy] · 2017
[CLINICAL EFFICACY OF SUBLINGUAL IMMUNOTHERAPY IN THE THIRD TREATED YEAR WITH JAPANESE CEDAR POLLINOSIS IN 2017].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yuta Atsushi, Ogawa Yukiko, Suzuki Yusuke, Ogihara Hitomi, Ohta Nobuo, Kozaki Hideaki, Shimizu Takeshi
Аннотация
UNLABELLED: It past 3 years in 2017 after the first purchase of the drug for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for Japanese Cedar pollinosis (JCP). We reported the clinical efficacy of SLIT in the first and the second treated year.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to clear the clinical efficacy of SLIT in the third treated year by comparing with other therapies, such as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), or other pharmacotherapy.
METHODS: We compared the clinical efficacy in 2017, of 112 SLIT in the third treated year with 38 SCIT, 364 primary pharmacotherapy that started therapies before pollen dispersal, 254 pharmacotherapy that started therapies after pollen disposal, or 333 non-treatment. The clinical efficacy was evaluated with symptom scores, total nasal symptom scores and combined total nasal symptom-medication scores (TNSMS), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life (QOL) scores by Japanese rhino-conjunctivitis QOL questionnaire (JRQLQ No1).
RESULTS: Both SCIT and SLIT showed good clinical efficacy without significant difference in every assessment. Both SCIT and SLIT were significantly better than other pharmacotherapy in most assessment. Patients, whose symptom scores of nose and eye were 0 and 1 point without any rescue drugs, accounted for 9 and 24% of total SLIT, respectively.
CONCLUSION: SLIT in the third treated year showed good clinical efficacy in reducing symptoms and TNSMS of JCP, and in improving QOL. SLIT was significantly effective compared with other pharmacotherapies.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to clear the clinical efficacy of SLIT in the third treated year by comparing with other therapies, such as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), or other pharmacotherapy.
METHODS: We compared the clinical efficacy in 2017, of 112 SLIT in the third treated year with 38 SCIT, 364 primary pharmacotherapy that started therapies before pollen dispersal, 254 pharmacotherapy that started therapies after pollen disposal, or 333 non-treatment. The clinical efficacy was evaluated with symptom scores, total nasal symptom scores and combined total nasal symptom-medication scores (TNSMS), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life (QOL) scores by Japanese rhino-conjunctivitis QOL questionnaire (JRQLQ No1).
RESULTS: Both SCIT and SLIT showed good clinical efficacy without significant difference in every assessment. Both SCIT and SLIT were significantly better than other pharmacotherapy in most assessment. Patients, whose symptom scores of nose and eye were 0 and 1 point without any rescue drugs, accounted for 9 and 24% of total SLIT, respectively.
CONCLUSION: SLIT in the third treated year showed good clinical efficacy in reducing symptoms and TNSMS of JCP, and in improving QOL. SLIT was significantly effective compared with other pharmacotherapies.