ライフサイエンスコーパス: SLIT

1 SLIT dose-finding studies for other pollens might start

2 SLIT in the second treated year showed good clinical eff

3 SLIT in the third treated year showed good clinical effi

4 SLIT provides a novel oral route of administering an all

5 SLIT treatment also induced a gradual release of endopla

6 SLIT treatment was also associated with rapid actin remo

7 SLIT was significantly effective compaired with other ph

8 SLIT was significantly effective compared with other pha

9 SLIT was significantly effective than other pharmacother

10 SLIT with rBet v 1 neither improved the clinical reactiv

11 SLIT-2 is considered as a candidate tumor suppressor gen

12 SLIT-associated immune responses include the induction o

13 SLIT-tablet trials allowed rescue medication use, wherea

14 SLIT-tablets offer the additional benefit of long-term e

15 T drops: SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.74 to -0.00. SLIT tablets SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.16).

16 TA group passed the 8-g challenge (P = .002, SLIT vs OIT).

17 mpared the clinical efficacy in 2017, of 112 SLIT in the third treated year with 38 SCIT, 364 primary

18 mpared the clinical efficacy in 2016, of 133 SLIT with 46 SCIT, 351 primary pharmacotherapy that star

19 We compared the clinical efficacy of 191 SLIT with 48 SCIT, 191 primary pharmacotherapy that star

20 duration of treatment of 3 years (SCIT, 23%; SLIT, 7%).

21 After applying all selection criteria, 2851 SLIT and 71 275 control patients were selected for the s

22 e (SCIT: SMD, -0.58; 95% CI, -0.86 to -0.30. SLIT drops: SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.74 to -0.00. SLIT tab

23 By study's end, 4 (10.8%) of 37 SLIT-treated participants were fully desensitized to 10

24 n the first North American trial of use of a SLIT-tablet for HDM allergy, 12 SQ-HDM was well tolerate

25 minant-negative ROBO2 proteins that abrogate SLIT-ROBO signaling in vitro.

26 en with PA were randomized to receive active SLIT/placebo OIT or active OIT/placebo SLIT.

27 The adult SLIT trial (n = 54; age, 18-54 years) found a significan

28 After SLIT cessation, asthma medication use fell by an additio

29 quent and exclusive mutations in Ephrins and SLIT/ROBO signalling pathway genes.

30 001), whereas sIgG2a increased with EPIT and SLIT (P < 0.001 and P < 0.005 versus sham).

31 enh values were higher in sham than EPIT and SLIT.

32 Members of the LGI and SLIT family of genes have been implicated in specific ca

33 The LGI and SLIT genes have a distinctive leucine-rich repeat motif

34 CNS midline expression of both NETRIN and SLIT directs the glands to move unswervingly parallel to

35 of these axon guidance molecules, NETRIN and SLIT, act through their canonical receptors, to guide Dr

36 OIT and SLIT for peanut allergy induce rapid suppression of baso

37 o explore the safety and efficacy of OIT and SLIT for the treatment of cow's milk (CM) allergy.

38 a placebo-controlled trial of peanut OIT and SLIT.

39 and mechanistic correlates of peanut OIT and SLIT.

40 tistically significant benefits for SCIT and SLIT compared with placebo in adults and, to a lesser ex

41 ssessment of commercially available SCIT and SLIT formulations in patients with HDM-induced AA and HD

42 mpare the relative effectiveness of SCIT and SLIT in an adjusted indirect comparison.

43 argely by the local availability of SCIT and SLIT products of proved value and personal (patient) pre

44 Both SCIT and SLIT showed good clinical efficacy without significant d

45 Both SCIT and SLIT showed good clinical efficacy without significant d

46 Median durations for SCIT and SLIT users were 1.7 and 0.6 years, respectively (P < .00

47 ws on the clinical effectiveness of SCIT and SLIT versus placebo, to undertake a systematic review of

48 a-analysis-based comparison between SCIT and SLIT was performed.

49 Both SCIT and SLIT were significantly better than other pharmacotherap

50 Both SCIT and SLIT were significantly better than other pharmacotherap

51 Both SCIT and SLIT were significantly better than other pharmacotherap

52 neous and sublingual immunotherapy (SCIT and SLIT).

53 r evidence of effectiveness of both SCIT and SLIT, superiority of one mode of administration over the

54 ters (eg, dose and duration) in HDM SCIT and SLIT.

55 igher in participants in the SCIT, SLIT, and SLIT-TOL groups (all P < .0001) compared with those in p

56 s symptoms were lower in the SCIT, SLIT, and SLIT-TOL groups (P < .001) compared with those in the SA

57 to pollen, EPIT was at least as efficient as SLIT.

58 e SLIT plays a role in tumor suppression, as SLIT-encoding genes are inactivated in several types of

59 We recruited 38 patients who began SLIT between November 2014 and September 2015.

60 e this figure to the approximately 1 billion SLIT doses administered worldwide since 2000.

61 Some studies tested both SLIT and SCIT or scored both AA and AR outcomes; therefo

62 s and meta-analyses have confirmed that both SLIT and SCIT are effective in patients with seasonal AR

63 ading of the severity of local AEs caused by SLIT.

64 roliferation of basal cells is controlled by SLIT/ROBO1 signaling and that production of these cells

65 We examine candidate SLIT receptors, Robo1 and Robo4, and find that increased

66 el, compared with control lung cancer cells, SLIT-expressing cells had a decreased capacity for tumor

67 d, double-blind biomarker study of cockroach SLIT versus placebo in adults; (3) a randomized, double-

68 lind biomarker study of 2 doses of cockroach SLIT versus placebo in children; and (4) an open-label s

69 l SLIT escalation, subjects either continued SLIT escalation to 7 mg daily or began OIT to either 100

70 Both pre-coseasonal and continuous SLIT were associated with a substantial reduction in the

71 Doses were escalated to 3.7 mg/d (SLIT) or 2000 mg/d (OIT), and subjects were rechallenged

72 o the best of our knowledge, a newly defined SLIT/ROBO/Myo9b/RhoA signaling pathway that restricts lu

73 Dual SLIT promoted allergen-specific suppressive CD4(+)CD25(h

74 irty subjects received either TG and DM dual SLIT (n= 20) or placebo (n = 10).

75 The safety and efficacy of dual SLIT with TG and DM in children and adults with demonstr

76 esults of this pilot study suggest that dual SLIT could be an effective means to treat subjects with

77 Subjects treated with dual SLIT had decreased rhinoconjunctivitis scores (P < .001)

78 ions were more common during OIT than during SLIT.

79 eneity in clinical responses to the European SLIT vaccines used in the region.

80 allergen content were found among these five SLIT-HDM products.

81 For SLIT, the doses of Der p 1 (when reported) were 0.8 to 7

82 in patients with AA (20 for SCIT and 15 for SLIT) and 23 treatment arms in patients with AR (7 for S

83 s in patients with AR (7 for SCIT and 16 for SLIT).

84 , which encodes a transmembrane receptor for SLIT ligand, and produces dominant-negative ROBO2 protei

85 The proposed grading system for SLIT-induced local reactions is expected to improve and

86 s observed more frequently for SCIT than for SLIT.

87 cts could be a factor affecting dropout from SLIT.

88 d, and the relative difference between grass SLIT-tablet and placebo as a function of average grass p

89 Using data from eight trials of grass SLIT-tablet in subjects with allergic rhinitis with/with

90 mild asthma included in these studies, grass SLIT-tablet did not increase TEAE frequency, severe loca

91 , placebo-controlled trials of Timothy grass SLIT-tablet MK-7243 (2800 BAU/75 000 SQ-T, Merck/ALK-Abe

92 ing entire pollen seasons in 6 timothy grass SLIT-tablet trials (n = 3094) and 2 ragweed SLIT-tablet

93 The treatment effect of timothy grass SLIT-tablets was considered similar between pediatric (n

94 ildren and adults treated with timothy grass SLIT-tablets.

95 ng the clinical development of timothy grass SLIT-tablets.

96 -related TRAEs assessed as severe with grass SLIT-tablet and 2/60 with placebo, without a consistent

97 , including 2363 subjects treated with grass SLIT-tablet or placebo.

98 s or children with asthma treated with grass SLIT-tablet versus subjects without asthma in or outside

99 In seasonal allergy trials with grass SLIT-tablet, the observed treatment effect is highly dep

100 ith the placebo and rBet v 1-treated groups, SLIT with rMal d 1 reduced rMal d 1-induced oral symptom

101 HDM SLIT-tablet effects were numerically greater than all ph

102 In HDM SLIT-tablet trials, TNSS overall improvement relative to

103 well controlled by ICS, the addition of HDM SLIT to maintenance medications improved time to first m

104 t trial to assess the efficacy/safety of HDM SLIT-tablets in North American subjects with HDM-induced

105 aily treatment with placebo (n = 277) or HDM SLIT tablet (dosage groups: 6 SQ-HDM [n = 275] or 12 SQ-

106 method proprietary to the trial sponsor) HDM SLIT-tablet (ALK, Horsholm, Denmark) in adults and adole

107 out asthma were randomized to a daily SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (12 SQ-HDM dose) or placebo for up to approx

108 The SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (ALK) has been developed for treatment of ho

109 igated the efficacy and safety of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet in adults with moderate-to-severe HDM-induce

110 eeks of treatment in 2 house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet trials (n = 1768).

111 ng lung cancer; however, it is not clear how SLIT functions in lung cancer.

112 ownregulation and reduction of the immediate SLIT-induced IgE response were associated with increased

113 SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) are beneficial in patients with allergic rhinitis

114 SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) are safe and effective treatments of allergic rhin

115 Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been approved, notably in the European Union,

116 Five sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) products were ordered and purchased at an ordinary

117 ite (HDM) sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet is a potential novel treatment option for H

118 n of Phleum pratense allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets is a clinically efficient treatment for gr

119 SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT).

120 nce suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be con

121 ust mite (DM) dual sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and to begin to investigate the immune mechanisms

122 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) applied to type I respiratory allergies is commonl

123 otherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are potential therapies for food allergy, but the

124 o and dropout from sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) by verifying patient backgrounds 1 year after star

125 otherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy hold promise; however, the immuno

126 The first drug of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for Japanese Cedar pollinosis (JCP) was purchased

127 se of the drug for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for Japanese Cedar pollinosis (JCP).

128 se of the drug for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for Japanese Cedar pollinosis (JCP).

129 otherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of peanut allergy (PA), direct c

130 standard, whereas sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as an effective and safe alternative.

131 therapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have demonstrated effectiveness in this patient gr

132 otherapy (EPIT) to sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in a model of mice sensitized to Phleum pratense p

133 afety of cockroach sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in adults and children; (2) a randomized, double-b

134 afety of high-dose sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children allergic to grass pollen in a randomiz

135 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a potential efficacious and safe treatment opti

136 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly used worldwide.

137 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is often discontinued, and many patients do not re

138 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is recommended in South Africa for the treatment o

139 portant aspects of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is the regimen of administration.

140 se dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet (MK-8237; Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ/ALK-Ab

141 patients received sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet (Oralair, Stallergenes(c)) and symptomatic

142 cy of grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets in AR and their impact on asthma onset and

143 zes are needed for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) trials because of inherent data variability second

144 ty and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with 2 formulations containing either rMal d 1 or

145 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with peanut changes clinical and immune responses

146 al trial of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), observing a favorable safety profile associated w

147 review focuses on sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), toll-like receptor-9 (TLR-9) vaccines using cytos

148 effect after grass sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet treatment.

149 reatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets with pharmacotherapy for seasonal allergic

150 patients (n = 14), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-treated patients (n = 12), participants who comple

151 effects of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

152 s, but no patient was discontinued by AEs in SLIT patients.

153 Asthma onset was less frequent in SLIT tablet group than in non-AIT group (odds ratio: 0.6

154 acy data showed a significant improvement in SLIT-treated patients compared to controls (TCS: P = 0.0

155 terogeneity and use of rescue medications in SLIT-tablet trials, effects on nasal symptoms with timot

156 and relative to the pretreatment period) in SLIT tablet group than in the non-AIT group (P<.001).

157 mutations (p.R181X, p.S297X, and p.Q414X) in SLIT and NTRK-like family, member 6 (SLITRK6), a leucine

158 persistence is better in SCIT users than in SLIT users, although it is low overall.

159 nalyses and systematic reviews that included SLIT-HDM products was performed.

160 ed epitopes, KS bound 40 proteins, including SLIT, 2 ROBOs, 9 EPHs, 8 Ephrins (EFNs), 8 semaphorins (

161 acebo-controlled food challenges and initial SLIT escalation, subjects either continued SLIT escalati

162 ndicates that the neuronal guidance molecule SLIT plays a role in tumor suppression, as SLIT-encoding

163 Adherence of SLIT was 89+/-12%.

164 our studies present a genetic dissection of SLIT/ROBO signaling during organ development.

165 We evaluated the systemic effects of SLIT in a longitudinal analysis of humoral and cellular

166 s study is to clear the clinical efficacy of SLIT by comparing with other therapies, such as subcutan

167 linical trials investigating the efficacy of SLIT for seasonal allergic rhinitis (2009-2013) were sel

168 We reported the clinical efficacy of SLIT in the first and the second treated year.

169 s study is to clear the clinical efficacy of SLIT in the second treated year by comparing with other

170 s study is to clear the clinical efficacy of SLIT in the third treated year by comparing with other t

171 Loss of SLIT/ROBO1 signaling in this layer alone results in prec

172 Following 12 months of SLIT, 10 subjects (30%) passed the DBPCFC without sympto

173 consistent with the known safety profile of SLIT.

174 Continuous rate of SLIT achieved about 90%, suggesting relatively high leve

175 as to compare the efficacy and the safety of SLIT given pre-coseasonally (starting before the pollen

176 surveillance and reporting of the safety of SLIT.

177 Instead, we identify a stromal source of SLIT, mural cells encircling blood vessels, and show tha

178 Studies of SLIT in allergic rhinitis demonstrate that it reduces sy

179 coring mechanisms used in clinical trials of SLIT for seasonal allergens and characterize the impact

180 After 44 weeks of SLIT, 14 (70%) of 20 subjects receiving peanut SLIT were

181 After 68 weeks of SLIT, median SCD significantly increased to 996 mg (comp

182 ed children with CM allergy to SLIT alone or SLIT followed by OIT.

183 xis risk factors associated with SCIT and/or SLIT should be characterized further.

184 ed treated for 8 weeks, using sham, EPIT, or SLIT.

185 o groups receiving either SCIT injections or SLIT tablets or neither.

186 onclusive results in favor of either SCIT or SLIT based on symptom-medication or quality-of-life scor

187 omized, placebo-controlled trials of SCIT or SLIT or trials of SCIT versus SLIT were included.

188 ndomized controlled trials comparing SCIT or SLIT with placebo.

189 ores obtained with active treatment, SCIT or SLIT, compared with placebo.

190 Peanut SLIT induced a modest level of desensitization, decrease

191 Peanut SLIT safely induced a modest level of desensitization in

192 hallenge after 2 and 3 years of daily peanut SLIT therapy.

193 ects then crossed over to higher dose peanut SLIT, followed by a subsequent crossover Week 44 5-g OFC

194 In peanut SLIT responders, median SCD increased from 3.5 to 496 mg

195 ine the component-specific effects of peanut SLIT and determine whether peanut component testing coul

196 from baseline and after 12 months of peanut SLIT were assayed using ImmunoCAP for IgE and IgG4 again

197 challenge (DBPCFC) after 12 months of peanut SLIT.

198 ical and immunologic outcomes for our peanut SLIT trial.

199 IT, 14 (70%) of 20 subjects receiving peanut SLIT were responders compared with 3 (15%) of 20 subject

200 We included 33 subjects who underwent peanut SLIT with a DBPCFC of 2500 mg of peanut protein performe

201 Obtaining large sample sizes for pediatric SLIT trials is challenging, but a Bayesian approach usin

202 dult trials can be used to improve pediatric SLIT clinical development.

203 The pediatric SLIT trial (n = 99; age, 5-17 years) found significant d

204 ctive SLIT/placebo OIT or active OIT/placebo SLIT.

205 :1 across 5 sites to daily peanut or placebo SLIT.

206 I/II) received either high-dose grass pollen SLIT or placebo daily for 1 pre-/co-seasonal period.

207 d treatment of AR patients with grass pollen SLIT tablets was associated with slower AR progression,

208 abase, AR patients treated with grass pollen SLIT tablets were compared with a control group not havi

209 of a neuron-specific transmembrane protein, SLIT and NTRK-like protein-5 (Slitrk5), leads to OCD-lik

210 SLIT-tablet trials (n = 3094) and 2 ragweed SLIT-tablet trials (n = 658) and during the last 8 weeks

211 In grass and ragweed SLIT-tablet trials, overall improvement in TNSSs relativ

212 asal symptoms with timothy grass and ragweed SLIT-tablets were nearly as great as with MFNS and numer

213 ix patients received SCIT, and 3690 received SLIT.

214 Although 40-75% of patients receiving SLIT experience mild, transient local reactions in the o

215 a strict follow-up can significantly reduce SLIT's discontinuations.

216 0 pathways: KRAS, TGF-beta, WNT, NOTCH, ROBO/SLIT signalling, G1/S transition, SWI-SNF, chromatin mod

217 ils were higher in participants in the SCIT, SLIT, and SLIT-TOL groups (all P < .0001) compared with

218 Rhinitis symptoms were lower in the SCIT, SLIT, and SLIT-TOL groups (P < .001) compared with those

219 Compared with SCIT, SLIT has a better safety profile.

220 ell division control protein 42) and Srgap2 (SLIT-ROBO Rho GTPase-activating protein 2).

221 We started SLIT at our clinic in October-December, 2014.

222 We started SLIT at our clinic in October-December, 2014.

223 Subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy are the 2 most prescribed routes for

224 tered subcutaneously (SCIT) or sublingually (SLIT).

225 Grass tablet SLIT administration induced a 2-phase systemic humoral a

226 in the immunologic response to grass tablet SLIT.

227 (AEs) with sublingual immunotherapy tablet (SLIT-tablet) treatment, such as severe systemic reaction

228 of SCIT is immunologically more active than SLIT, especially with regard to IgG4 levels and blocking

229 SCIT was better than SLIT in most assessments, but not significant.

230 SCIT was slightly better than SLIT in reducing symptoms and SMS of JCP, and in improvi

231 e efficacious for desensitization to CM than SLIT alone but was accompanied by more systemic side eff

232 OIT appeared far more effective than SLIT for the treatment of PA but was also associated wit

233 id evidence that SCIT is more effective than SLIT in controlling symptoms and in reducing the use of

234 1.26 to -0.58) was significantly higher than SLIT, both administered via drops (SMD, -0.25; 95% CI, -

235 Here, our data show that SLIT inhibits cancer cell migration by activating RhoA a

236 Our preliminary data showed that SLIT therapy in viro-immunological controlled HAART trea

237 odological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergi

238 The SLIT family of genes consists of large extracellular mat

239 h grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy (the SLIT-TOL group; n = 6), patients with untreated seasonal

240 Collectively, these results implicate the SLIT-ROBO signaling pathway in the pathogenesis of a sub

241 After therapy, 1 of 10 subjects in the SLIT group, 6 of 10 subjects in the SLIT/OITB group, and

242 ficant reduction of IL-5 was observed in the SLIT or untreated group.

243 (relative to the pretreatment period) in the SLIT tablet group vs the non-AIT group (P=.004).

244 s in the SLIT group, 6 of 10 subjects in the SLIT/OITB group, and 8 of 10 subjects in the OITA group

245 Unit to identify immunologic markers of the SLIT responder phenotype.

246 be necessary to guarantee the quality of the SLIT-HDM products and to demonstrate their effectiveness

247 onally, our work suggests that targeting the SLIT/ROBO/Myo9b/RhoA pathway has potential as a diagnost

248 mbrane protein, displays similarities to the SLIT family of secreted ligands, which have roles in axo

249 domain and inhibits its activity; therefore, SLIT-dependent activation of RhoA is mediated by ROBO in

250 This study confirmed that this SLIT preparation significantly reduced symptoms and medi

251 We randomized children with CM allergy to SLIT alone or SLIT followed by OIT.

252 y rescue drugs, accounted for 16.8% of total SLIT in the first follow-up year.

253 scue drugs, accounted for 9 and 24% of total SLIT, respectively.

254 y rescue drugs, accounted for 26.3% of total SLIT.

255 In this cohort of subjects undergoing SLIT for peanut allergy, lower baseline levels of IgE ag

256 Here we appraise evidence for SCIT versus SLIT based on indirect evidence from Cochrane reviews an

257 als of SCIT or SLIT or trials of SCIT versus SLIT were included.

258 the comparative effectiveness of SCIT versus SLIT.

259 NETRIN serves as a chemo-attractant while SLIT functions antagonistically to NETRIN as a chemo-rep

260 ocal side effects are the most frequent with SLIT, sometimes leading to its discontinuation.

261 t WNT5 functions in a reciprocal manner with SLIT to pattern the planarian mediolateral axis, while W

262 ges between children and adults treated with SLIT for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

263 ccurred in subjects with asthma treated with SLIT-tablet.

264 courages the patients to complete the 3-year SLIT course.

265 At 3 years, SLIT was discontinued for 8 weeks, followed by another 1

266 In recent years, SLIT has been increasingly prescribed, instead of SCIT,