Rush Oral Immunotherapy Does Not Reduce XXXX in @entity19 with Mild Allergy to Egg White Ovomucoid.

@entity59 @entity1697 @entity5419 @entity19 @entity566 @entity641 @entity1618 @entity6527 @entity56 @entity58 @entity9749
@entity1697 ( @entity1697 ) is a promising therapeutic approach for treating @entity5419 . Past studies have shown that @entity1697 reduces @entity56 response only in severe @entity566 model @entity19 . We worked to establish mild @entity566 model @entity19 , and investigated whether 'rush' @entity1697 for 10 d improved the @entity56 response and biomarkers in these @entity19 . Balb/c @entity19 were sensitized to ovomucoid (OM) in alum. The rush @entity1697 was done for 10 d. Oral OM challenge was used to determine the impact of @entity1697 on the @entity56 response. We measured @entity56 biomarkers, such as vascular permeability in the skin, plasma levels of total IgE, OM-specific IgE, @entity6527 and @entity9749 and cytokines in splenocyte culture supernatant. @entity1697 for 10 d did not improve @entity566 symptoms and increased vascular permeability. Total IgE in the plasma of @entity1697 -treated @entity19 was significantly higher than in that of non-treated @entity19 . OM-specific @entity6527 and @entity9749 plasma levels were not significantly different between @entity1697 -treated and non-treated @entity19 . Among the cytokine secretion of splenocyte from @entity1697 -treated @entity19 , IFN-y and @entity1618 were significantly lower than in non-treated @entity19 , and @entity58 and @entity59 were significantly higher. Total @entity641 in the @entity1697 -treated group was not detected. The IFN-y/ @entity58 ratio of the @entity1697 -treated group was about 1/8 that of the non-treated group. @entity1697 for 10 d was not effective and some biomarkers showed negative responses in the mild @entity566 model @entity19 . We suggest @entity1697 should be used very carefully as this treatment carries a risk of @entity566 for @entity19 with mild @entity566 .
