PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R D'Anneo

Publications and source records attributed to R D'Anneo.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Practice parameters for sublingual immunotherapy.

The efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are currently supported by clinical trials, meta-analysis and post-marketing surveys. Practice parameters for clinical use of SLIT are proposed here by a panel of Italian specialists, with reference to evidence based criteria. Indications to SLIT include allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, and isolated conjunctivitis (strength of recommendation: grade A). As to severity of the disease, SLIT is indicated in moderate/severe intermittent rhinitis, persistent rhinitis and mild to moderate asthma (grade D). SLIT may be safely prescribed also in children aged three to five years (grade B), and its use in subjects aged more than 60 years is not prevented when the indications and contraindication are ascertained (grade D). The choice of the allergen to be employed for SLIT should be made in accordance with the combination of clinical history and results of skin prick tests (grade D). Polysensitisation, i.e. the occurrence of multiple positive response does not exclude SLIT, which may be done with the clinically most important allergens (grade D). As to practical administration, co-seasonal, pre co-seasonal, and continuous schedules are available, being the latter recommended for perennial allergens or for pollens with particularly prolonged pollination, such as Parietaria (grade D). For pollens with relatively short pollination, such as grasses and trees (cypress, birch, alder, hazelnut, olive) the pre co-seasonal and perennial schedules are preferred (grade C). The build-up phases suggested by manufacturers can be safely used (grade A), but they can be modified according to the patient's tolerance (grade C). A duration of SLIT of 3-5 years is recommended to ensure a long-lasting clinical effect after the treatment has been terminated (grade C).

Administration, Sublingual↗

Safety and tolerability of ultra-Rush (20 minutes) sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma.

BACKGROUND: The safety and good tolerability of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has already been proved in allergic patients, but only one study has investigated the occurrence of immediate adverse reactions in allergic patients after a 2-hour ultra-rush regimen of SLIT performed with a chemically modified extract (sublingual monomeric allergoid, Lais, Lofarma S.p.A., Milan). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the occurrence of immediate adverse reactions in allergic patients after a very fast (20 minutes) ultra-rush regimen of sublingual allergoid SLIT. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 105 patients: 28 children (20 male, mean age 13.3 +/- 2.1 yr) and 77 adults (29 male, mean age 34.7 +/- 9.9 years) with a history of intermittent/persistent rhinitis or intermittent/mild persistent asthma due to House Dust Mite (n = 56), Parietaria (n = 34) and Timothy-grass (n = 15) The build-up ultra-rush phase involved the administration, every five minutes, of increasing doses of the sublingual allergoid SLIT. All patients tolerated the treatment very well. Only one patient out of 105 (0.9%) had a mild local symptom (gastric pirosis) that occurred 30 minutes after the last initial dose and spontaneously disappeared as the treatment was continued. CONCLUSIONS: These data show the excellent safety and tolerability profile of an ultra-rush SLIT regimen performed with a chemically modified extract, even when high doses were administered through an extremely short induction phase (20 minutes), thus confirming the previously reported results.

Administration, Sublingual↗

Safety and tolerability of ultra-rush (20 minutes) sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma.

BACKGROUND: The safety and good tolerability of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has already been proved in allergic patients, but only one study has investigated the occurrence of immediate adverse reactions in allergic patients after a 2-hour ultra-rush regimen of SLIT performed with a chemically modified extract (sublingual monomeric allergoid, Lais, Lofarma S.p.A., Milan). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the occurrence of immediate adverse reactions in allergic patients after a very fast (20 minutes) ultra-rush regimen of sublingual allergoid SLIT. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 105 patients: 28 children (20 male, mean age 13.3 +/- 2.1 yr) and 77 adults (29 male, mean age 34.7 +/- 9.9 years) with a history of intermittent/persistent rhinitis or intermittent/mild persistent asthma due to House Dust Mite (n = 56), Parietaria (n = 34) and Timothy-grass (n = 15) The build-up ultra-rush phase involved the administration, every five minutes, of increasing doses of the sublingual allergoid SLIT. All patients tolerated the treatment very well. Only one patient out of 105 (0.9%) had a mild local symptoms (gastric pirosis) that occurred 30 minutes after the last initial dose and spontaneously disappeared as the treatment was continued. CONCLUSIONS: These data show the excellent safety and tolerability profile of an ultra-rush SLIT regimen performed with a chemically modified extract, even when high doses were administered through an extremely short induction phase (20 minutes), thus confirming the previously reported results.

Administration, Sublingual↗

Clinical experience with two twice daily slow release theophylline preparations. Relation between serum theophylline concentrations, effectiveness, tolerability and compliance in elderly patients.

The relation between serum theophylline concentrations, effectiveness, tolerability and compliance were evaluated in 14 hospitalized elderly patients with broncho-obstructive pathology, using a new twice daily sustained release theophylline suspension compared to standard twice daily slow release tablets. The results showed that the mean theophylline serum concentration remains within the therapeutic range with both preparations. No significant difference exists between the two treatments with regard to effectiveness. Tolerability and compliance of the theophylline suspension, however, were higher.

Aged↗