Furin M J, Norman P S, Creticos P S, Proud D, Kagey-Sobotka A, Lichtenstein L M, Naclerio R M
Department of Medicine (Division of Clinical Immunology) Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1991 Jul;88(1):27-32. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(91)90297-2.
We investigated the effect of immunotherapy (IT) on eosinophil (EOS) migration into the nasal cavity after nasal provocation with ragweed antigen and during seasonal exposure. In the first study, three groups of subjects participated: one group with no treatment (N = 19), one group with 10 months of IT, reaching maintenance at 2 micrograms of Amb a I (antigen E) (N = 15), and one group with 22 months of IT, reaching maintenance at 24 micrograms of Amb a I (N = 10). The percent of EOSs in nasal lavages performed during December before and 24 hours after nasal challenge with ragweed extract was determined. No significant difference between groups existed before challenge. The no treatment group demonstrated a significant increase in the percent of EOSs from 26% to 69.5% (p less than 0.008), whereas the treated groups demonstrated no significant change. In the second study, 45 patients were divided into four groups based on maintenance dose in micrograms of Amb a I and duration of treatment: (1) no treatment (N = 15), (2) 1 year at 2 micrograms (N = 13), (3) 2 years at 2 micrograms (N = 11), and (4) 3 years at 24 micrograms (N = 9). Nasal mucosal brushings were done during the ragweed season. A significantly smaller percentage of EOSs in 3-year IT-treated individuals was obtained compared to the control group (18 versus 8.4; p less than 0.04). The smaller dose of IT, regardless of duration, did not reveal a reduction compared to that in the no-treatment group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
我们研究了免疫疗法(IT)对豚草抗原鼻腔激发后以及季节性暴露期间嗜酸性粒细胞(EOS)迁移至鼻腔的影响。在第一项研究中,三组受试者参与:一组未接受治疗(N = 19),一组接受10个月的IT治疗,维持剂量为2微克的Amb a I(抗原E)(N = 15),另一组接受22个月的IT治疗,维持剂量为24微克的Amb a I(N = 10)。测定了12月豚草提取物鼻腔激发前及激发后24小时鼻腔灌洗中EOS的百分比。激发前各组间无显著差异。未治疗组EOS百分比从26%显著增加至69.5%(p < 0.008),而治疗组无显著变化。在第二项研究中,45名患者根据Amb a I的维持剂量(微克)和治疗持续时间分为四组:(1)未治疗(N = 15),(2)2微克治疗1年(N = 13),(3)2微克治疗2年(N = 11),(4)24微克治疗3年(N = 9)。在豚草季节进行鼻黏膜刷检。与对照组相比,接受3年IT治疗的个体中EOS的百分比显著更低(18对8.4;p < 0.04)。无论治疗持续时间如何,较小剂量的IT与未治疗组相比未显示出降低。(摘要截短于250字)