变应性鼻炎冲击免疫治疗的安全性研究

发布时间：2018-03-10 12:38

本文选题：鼻炎　切入点：变应性　出处：《临床耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志》2014年11期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：目的:探讨变应性鼻炎(AR)冲击免疫治疗和常规免疫治疗的安全性差异及AR冲击免疫治疗的可行性。方法:将病例募集时间定为1年,根据个体本身意愿将87例AR患者分为冲击组(52例)和常规组(35例)分别进行标准化屋尘螨变应原疫苗免疫治疗。除观察治疗期间局部和全身不良反应外,还观察治疗前(W0)、治疗第2周(W2)、第5周(W5)、第17周(W17)的外周血如白三烯(LT-B4)等指标,并采用Mann-Whitney u秩和检验、Kruskal-Wallis检验和χ2检验进行统计学分析。结果:冲击组52例中49例完成了既定的治疗研究,余3例脱落;常规组35例中32例完成了既定的治疗研究,余3例脱落。2组患者局部和全身不良反应相似。2组外周血LT-B4均平稳下降。结论:通过药物预先处理后的国人AR,冲击免疫治疗与常规免疫治疗的安全性相似。
[Abstract]:Objective: to explore the safety difference between the shock immunotherapy and the routine immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and the feasibility of AR impulse immunotherapy. 87 patients with AR were divided into shock group (n = 52) and routine group (n = 35). The indexes of peripheral blood such as leukotriene LT-B4 were observed before treatment, before treatment, at week 2, week 5, week 5 and week 17, respectively. Mann-Whitney 's rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis test and 蠂 2 test were used for statistical analysis. Results: 49 out of 52 cases in shock group completed the established treatment study, the remaining 3 cases dropped off, and 32 cases in the routine group completed the established treatment study. The local and systemic adverse reactions of the remaining 3 patients were similar to those of the whole body. Conclusion: the safety of shock immunotherapy is similar to that of routine immunotherapy.
【作者单位】：广东省人民医院(广东省医学科学院)耳鼻咽喉科;华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院耳鼻咽喉科;
【分类号】：R765.21

【参考文献】