4.6 Article

Efficacy and safety of SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy-tablet in Japanese children

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 73, 期 12, 页码 2352-2363

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/all.13544

关键词

adolescent; allergy immunotherapy; house dust mite; pediatric; sublingual immunotherapy

资金

  1. Torii, Tokyo, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The SQ house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet (TO-203, Torii, Japan/ALK, Denmark) treatment has been effective against respiratory allergic diseases in patients aged >= 12 years during European, Japanese, and North American trials. This trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of this treatment in Japanese children (5-17 years) with moderate-to-severe HDM allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 458 Japanese children were randomly assigned to a daily SQ HDM SLIT-tablet [10 000 Japanese Allergy Unit (JAU), equivalent to 6 SQ-HDM in Europe and the US] or placebo (1:1) treatment for 1 year. Inclusion required an AR symptom score of >= 7 on at least 7 days during a 14-day run-in period while symptomatic treatment was withdrawn. The primary endpoint was the total combined rhinitis score (TCRS) comprising AR symptom and medication scores during the last 8 weeks of the treatment period. Results The analysis of primary endpoint demonstrated statistically significant absolute reduction in TCRS of 1.22 with a relative difference of 23% (95% confidence interval, 14% to 31%) in the 10 000 JAU compared with placebo. Predefined stratified analyses revealed the same degree of efficacy of 1.11 (P = 0.002), 21% (8% to 32%) and 1.36 (P = 0.001), 26% (11% to 38%), respectively, in pediatric (5-11 years) and adolescent subjects (12-17 years). The treatment was well tolerated by both pediatric and adolescent subjects. Conclusion This trial, for the first time, demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the HDM SLIT-tablet in pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe HDM AR (JapicCTI-152953).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据