Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2019;180(4):284-290. doi: 10.1159/000503104. Epub 2019 Oct 30.

Comparison of Six Different Allergen Extracts for Subcutaneous Specific Immunotherapy in Children: An Open-Labelled, Prospective, Controlled Observational Trial.

Author information

1
Children's Hospital at the University of Lübeck, Department of Pediatric Allergy and Pulmonology, Lübeck, Germany, matthias.kopp@uksh.de.
2
Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Lübeck, Germany, matthias.kopp@uksh.de.
3
Airway Research Center North (ARCN), Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Lübeck, Germany.
4
Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
5
Kinderarztpraxis Laurensberg, Aachen, Germany.
6
Kinderarztpraxis, Dülken, Germany.
7
Department of Pediatric Pneumology and Immunology, University Medicine, Charité, Berlin, Germany.
8
Kinderallergologiepraxis, Stuttgart, Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Numerous products are available for subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy, but there are no information about the direct comparability regarding efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the different extracts.

AIMS:

The aim of this open-labelled, prospective, controlled observational trial was to test the feasibility of a comparison of different products for SCIT in children.

METHODS:

Pediatrician practices recruited patients with a confirmed diagnosis of a seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) with or without asthma and an allergic sensitization against grass pollen allergen. Every patient was offered SCIT with one out of six allergen extracts: ALK SQ Depot, ALK Avanz, Allergovit, Depigoid, Purethal, Pollinex Quattro. Scores for symptoms and medications were calculated and the difference between treatment years and baseline were recorded.

RESULTS:

In total, 284 were recruited and 255 children (89.8%; mean age 10.4, SD 3.54 years; 65% males) participated in this trial. Overall, 49,649 patient days were recorded in the electronic database (mean 183.2 days/patient). There was no significant difference in the AR and asthma symptom score or the medication score between the six different SCIT preparations. Similarly, no differences were observed in terms of safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSION:

The comparison of different SCIT products using an online tool is feasible. Based on our preliminary data, all extracts indicated efficacy; however, larger groups would be necessary to demonstrate superiority or non-inferiority of one specific SCIT product.

KEYWORDS:

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis; Bronchial asthma; Children; Specific immunotherapy; Subcutaneous immunotherapy; Sublingual immunotherapy

PMID:
31665735
DOI:
10.1159/000503104
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for S. Karger AG, Basel, Switzerland
Loading ...
Support Center