Safety and efficacy of rush allergen-specific immunotherapy in Chinese allergic rhinitis patients.

Abstract

The purpose of this prospective, open-IV clinical trial was to assess the safety and efficacy differences between Rush immunotherapy (RIT) and conventional immunotherapy in Chinese allergic rhinitis (AR) patients. The trial involved 174 patients with AR. They were divided into two groups according to their preference of therapy: RIT or conventional immunotherapy. A total of 162 patients completed a 1-year treatment course. For safety and effectiveness evaluation, the local and systemic adverse reactions were recorded throughout the initial phase of both groups. Weeks 0, 2, 5, and 17 were set as observation time points for immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgG4. Besides that, another observation time point (Week 11) was added in for a visual analog scale (VAS) and a weekly drug dosage scale. In the RIT group, systemic adverse events of AR were similar to those of the conventional therapy group. LTB4 was descended. The VAS of the RIT group did not show a downward trend clearly, instead Week 5 was higher compared with Week 0. The weekly drug dosage scale did not indicate a significant decline, but there was a clear rise in IgG4 in the RIT group. The safety and efficacy of RIT for AR is positive, but further study is needed for improvement.