ライフサイエンスコーパス: sublingual

1 ed parotid (47%), unstimulated submandibular/sublingual (23%), and stimulated submandibular/sublingua

2 blingual (23%), and stimulated submandibular/sublingual (39%) saliva.

3 ility decreased by 65% in parotid and 77% in sublingual acinar cells from Aqp5(-)/- mice in response

4 trast, the water permeability in parotid and sublingual acinar cells isolated from Aqp5(-)/- mice is

5 r nature of the Na+-H+ exchange mechanism in sublingual acinar cells, pH regulation was investigated

6 H units min-1) to the initial resting pHi in sublingual acinar cells.

7 Sublingual administration of 50 mug of rMal d 1 induced

8 We found that sublingual administration of Ag/CTB conjugate or intraga

9 ently practiced, IT involves subcutaneous or sublingual administration of allergens, both methods of

10 In mice, intravenous or sublingual administration of ICM led to a reduction in r

11 Sublingual administration of immunotherapy has shown som

12 endothelium-dependent dilatation), and after sublingual administration of nitroglycerin (an endotheli

13 Sublingual administration of Phleum pratense allergen im

14 Sublingual administration of rBet v 1 tablets is safe an

15 Sublingual administration of the NO donor glyceryl trini

16 nety-three percent of patients preferred the sublingual administration.

17 o advantages in shelf life and potential for sublingual administration.

18 Two sublingual administrations of 50 mug of Mal d 1 were wel

19 (RIPK4), were downregulated after a 4-month sublingual AIT course concomitantly with an upregulation

20 A 5-month sublingual AIT had a limited impact on oral immune cells

21 en allergy before and after 2 or 4 months of sublingual AIT in parallel with rhinoconjunctivitis symp

22 omized clinical trial, house dust mite (HDM) sublingual AIT was found to be efficacious in moderate,

23 HDM sublingual AIT was safe and well tolerated in adult pati

24 apture via IgE-facilitated mechanisms during sublingual AIT.

25 ome (OAS), at baseline and after 5 months of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (AIT).

26 bcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) are beneficial

27 bcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) are safe and ef

28 Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been approv

29 Five sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) products were o

30 The house dust mite (HDM) sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet is a pot

31 sing the efficacy of subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT).

32 Sublingual allergen immunotherapy provides a new option

33 re than 2 allergen extracts (particularly in sublingual allergen immunotherapy).

34 Sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy is a viable a

35 e for the use in oral mucosa, especially for sublingual and buccal tissues.

36 ions the following responses were monitored: sublingual and mean skin temperatures, heart rate, beat-

37 the effectiveness, safety, and mechanisms of sublingual and oral immunotherapy are reviewed.

38 omising observations include the efficacy of sublingual and oral immunotherapy, a Chinese herbal reme

39 Changes in sublingual and peripheral tissue perfusion parameters we

40 ions, and to update recommendations for both sublingual and subcutaneous AIT for respiratory and veno

41 The Gauging Response in Allergic Rhinitis to Sublingual and Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (GRASS) trial

42 rse of immunologic changes during 2 years of sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy and for 1 year

43 Sublingual and subcutaneous multiallergen immunotherapy

44 urrently in clinical trials, including oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, immunotherap

45 compassing 3 major forms of treatment: oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy.

46 male rabbit harderian, lacrimal, mandibular, sublingual, and parotid glands and from liver, kidney, p

47 ted from harderian, lacrimal, submandibular, sublingual, and parotid glands and the liver.

48 lated apple allergy were randomized to daily sublingual application of placebo (n = 20) or 25 mug of

49 s combined with different modes of delivery (sublingual, buccal, or oral) could be used to achieve bo

50 e efficacy and safety of very low dosages of sublingual buprenorphine as a time-limited treatment for

51 d placebo-controlled trial of ultra-low-dose sublingual buprenorphine as an adjunctive treatment.

52 prenorphine implants compared with continued sublingual buprenorphine did not result in an inferior l

53 Outpatients were prescribed daily sublingual buprenorphine for 6 months or more, were abst

54 ere abstinent while taking 8 mg/d or less of sublingual buprenorphine for 90 days or longer, and were

55 nd in 52.8% and 13.5% of participants in the sublingual buprenorphine group, respectively.

56 hine implants and 64 of 89 (71.9%) receiving sublingual buprenorphine maintained opioid abstinence (h

57 onatal abstinence syndrome to receive either sublingual buprenorphine or oral morphine.

58 Participants were randomized to receive sublingual buprenorphine plus 4 placebo implants or subl

59 neonatal abstinence syndrome, treatment with sublingual buprenorphine resulted in a shorter duration

60 mited, short-term use of very low dosages of sublingual buprenorphine was associated with decreased s

61 hine implants and 78 of 89 (87.6%) receiving sublingual buprenorphine were responders, an 8.8% differ

62 years; 40.9% female), 90 were randomized to sublingual buprenorphine with placebo implants and 87 to

63 maintaining abstinence with a stable dose of sublingual buprenorphine, the use of buprenorphine impla

64 ltrexone (XR-NTX), an opioid antagonist, and sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone (BUP-NX), a partial op

65 After induction with sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone tablets, patients rece

66 s available if a threshold for rescue use of sublingual buprenorphine-naloxone treatment was exceeded

67 nza challenge model we found that a nasal or sublingual, but not vaginal, DNA prime/protein boost reg

68 Sublingual CAR was also effective in selectively enhanci

69 centrations ([Mg(2+)](i)) were assessed from sublingual cells through x-ray dispersion (EXA) (normal

70 proach allows straight forward, dose-defined sublingual challenge tests in a high number of birch pol

71 Sublingual challenges with standardized doses of rMal d

72 icacy of AIT vaccines using subcutaneous and sublingual delivery pathways in large patient cohorts, e

73 icians use aqueous allergens, off-label, for sublingual desensitization.

74 oped for food allergies; these involve oral, sublingual, epicutaneous, or subcutaneous administration

75 eceiving intravenous conjugated estrogens or sublingual estradiol.

76 nt role in regulating fluid secretion in the sublingual exocrine gland.

77 ily self-administered buprenorphine-naloxone sublingual film (Suboxone; Indivior).

78 ventions included subcutaneous (six trials), sublingual (four trials), oral or intradermal SIT in chi

79 was expressed in a restricted manner in the sublingual gland region of the tongue and the submucosal

80 ndibular glands and are also products of the sublingual gland serous demilunes.

81 (18)F-PSMA-1007 in muscle, submandibular and sublingual gland, spleen, pancreas, liver, and gallbladd

82 d 4.2-kilobase transcripts were found in rat sublingual gland, testis, small intestine, colon, and ov

83 FDG accumulation was variable in the sublingual glands (PRP, 72%; mean SUV, 2.93), spinal cor

84 the palatine tonsils (r=-0.51, P <.001) and sublingual glands (r=-0.70, P <.001).

85 rotid (PG), the submandibular (SMG), and the sublingual glands (SLG).

86 Removal of the submandibular/sublingual glands and changes in diet consistency did no

87 attenuates mucous cell expression in murine sublingual glands with corresponding effects on mucin 19

88 removal of the parotid or the submandibular/sublingual glands, and diets in powder or pellet form.

89 otein secretion in parotid and submandibular/sublingual glands, and that the secretion patterns of MG

90 cous acinar cells in human submandibular and sublingual glands.

91 ted mucous acinar cells in submandibular and sublingual glands.

92 eactivity (both flow-mediated dilatation and sublingual glycerol trinitrate, markers of endothelial d

93 lium dependent) and response to 50 microg of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (GTN, endothelium indepen

94 Responses to sublingual glyceryl trinitrate were unchanged.

95 evere seasonal allergic rhinitis, 2 years of sublingual grass pollen immunotherapy was not significan

96 the second study, 15 male patients received sublingual GTN (500 microg) 1 h after sildenafil or plac

97 A dose-dependent effect of sublingual HDM immunotherapy was demonstrated in this en

98 This system can mainly be used for sublingual immunization and the development of "printed

99 When RD-Ad and SC-Ad were tested by single sublingual immunization in rhesus macaques, SC-Ad genera

100 However, novel sublingual immunomodulatory treatment options may potent

101 Thirty-six participants received 2 years of sublingual immunotherapy (daily tablets containing 15 mi

102 al studies on AIT, for both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy (SCIT and SLIT).

103 This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunot

104 f timothy grass (TG) and dust mite (DM) dual sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and to begin to investig

105 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) applied to type I respir

106 Oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are potential therapies

107 actors of poor adherence to and dropout from sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) by verifying patient bac

108 es suggest that oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy hold pr

109 The first drug of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for Japanese Cedar polli

110 017 after the first purchase of the drug for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for Japanese Cedar polli

111 016 after the first purchase of the drug for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for Japanese Cedar polli

112 erged regarding oral immunotherapy (OIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of pea

113 y (SCIT) has been the gold standard, whereas sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as an effect

114 Both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have demonstrated effect

115 cacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) to sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in a model of mice sensi

116 abel study to assess the safety of cockroach sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in adults and children;

117 nvestigated efficacy and safety of high-dose sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children allergic to

118 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a potential efficacio

119 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly used wor

120 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is often discontinued, a

121 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is recommended in South

122 One of the most important aspects of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is the regimen of admini

123 The house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet (MK-8237; Merck &

124 Thirteen patients received sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet (Oralair, Staller

125 al-world, long-term efficacy of grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets in AR and their

126 Large sample sizes are needed for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) trials because of inhere

127 sought to compare the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with 2 formulations cont

128 Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with peanut changes clin

129 placebo-controlled clinical trial of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), observing a favorable s

130 This review focuses on sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), toll-like receptor-9 (T

131 act on measured treatment effect after grass sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet treatment.

132 o indirectly compare the treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets with pharmacothe

133 unotherapy (SCIT)-treated patients (n = 14), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-treated patients (n = 12

134 efficacy, and immunologic effects of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

135 leted 3 years of treatment with grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy (the SLIT-TOL group; n = 6), pa

136 Sublingual immunotherapy also desensitizes allergic pati

137 Sublingual immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy

138 Both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy appear to have a duration of ef

139 urrent clinical approaches using peanut oral/sublingual immunotherapy are promising, but concerns abo

140 ve treatment for AR, with several indicating sublingual immunotherapy as an option.

141 Dropout rates in sublingual immunotherapy controlled studies do not appea

142 Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis has been

143 The magnitude of effect of sublingual immunotherapy for house dust mite (HDM)-induc

144 ebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergic diseas

145 Twenty-four patients received sublingual immunotherapy for the first time during pregn

146 of evidence to support the effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic r

147 Six-year follow-up data for the sublingual immunotherapy group revealed an incidence of

148 to-treat population, mean TNSS score for the sublingual immunotherapy group was 6.36 (95% CI, 5.76 to

149 reatment with subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy has been shown to improve sympt

150 Strong evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy improves asthma symptoms, with

151 Moderate evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy improves conjunctivitis symptom

152 ted the safety and clinical effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy in a group of grass pollen-alle

153 evidence base for the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy in patients with HDM-induced AA

154 of this study was to determine the safety of sublingual immunotherapy in pregnancy, which has not yet

155 upport the effectiveness of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in rhinitis.

156 2 major studies have examined the effects of sublingual immunotherapy in subjects with peanut allergi

157 In the United States, sublingual immunotherapy is not approved by the Food and

158 This study concludes that sublingual immunotherapy is safe during pregnancy and is

159 als, subcutaneous injection immunotherapy or sublingual immunotherapy may be administered.

160 In addition, the clinical benefits of sublingual immunotherapy might persist after treatment i

161 patients with grass pollen allergy receiving sublingual immunotherapy or placebo.

162 rapy with placebo, pharmacotherapy, or other sublingual immunotherapy regimens and reported clinical

163 edictable through early testing, (6) oral or sublingual immunotherapy show promise but also have cave

164 ore susceptible to adverse events (AEs) with sublingual immunotherapy tablet (SLIT-tablet) treatment,

165 as to investigate the effect of the SQ grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet compared with placebo on

166 ated efficacy and onset of action of the HDM sublingual immunotherapy tablet MK-8237 (Merck/ALK-Abell

167 Treatment with the SQ grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet reduced the risk of expe

168 Treatment with the SQ grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet significantly reduced th

169 diagnose, the efficacy of SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets has been demonstrated i

170 The efficacy of these sublingual immunotherapy tablets in the treatment of all

171 Studies of sublingual immunotherapy that are unavailable in the Uni

172 Moderate evidence supports that sublingual immunotherapy use decreases rhinitis or rhino

173 The primary outcome was TNSS comparing sublingual immunotherapy vs placebo at year 3.

174 One hundred and fifty-five patients received sublingual immunotherapy with either house dust mite (D.

175 Sublingual immunotherapy with liquid extracts provides a

176 ased by more than 40% in 16 of 41 studies of sublingual immunotherapy with moderate grade evidence.

177 rolled trials were included if they compared sublingual immunotherapy with placebo, pharmacotherapy,

178 The study was not powered to compare sublingual immunotherapy with subcutaneous immunotherapy

179 immunotherapy, including oral immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy, and, more recently, epicutaneo

180 ether 2 years of treatment with grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy, compared with placebo, provide

181 different administration techniques, such as sublingual immunotherapy, is common in Europe and is on

182 In sublingual immunotherapy, optimal doses are a key factor

183 biological activity of clinically effective Sublingual immunotherapy, we used this method to determi

184 tch may be an alternative to subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy.

185 crease in rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms after sublingual immunotherapy.

186 omparably with conventional subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy.

187 Regional perfusion was assessed in the sublingual, intestinal, and muscle vascular beds at the

188 Sublingual ISDN improves coronary MR imaging SNR.

189 ined tolerability, dose-finding study with a sublingual liquid birch pollen preparation (SB) was cond

190 ere non-dysphagic, or intravenous labetalol, sublingual lisinopril, or placebo if they had dysphagia,

191 n phase is characterized by abnormalities in sublingual microcirculation and peripheral tissue perfus

192 Our goal was to characterize the sublingual microcirculation in healthy volunteers and pa

193 nvestigated the effect of RBC transfusion on sublingual microcirculation in hemorrhagic shock patient

194 The main characteristics of sublingual microcirculation in patients with septic shoc

195 this study was to assess the time course of sublingual microcirculation in traumatic hemorrhagic sho

196 RBC transfusion improves sublingual microcirculation independently of macrocircul

197 sidestream dark-field videomicroscopy of the sublingual microcirculation prior to and 2 hours after s

198 spective observational study to evaluate the sublingual microcirculation using side-stream dark-field

199 The sublingual microcirculation was assessed with a Sidestre

200 The sublingual microcirculation was estimated at the study i

201 The sublingual microcirculation was evaluated by means of si

202 tion to standard hemodynamic assessment, the sublingual microcirculation was evaluated using sidestre

203 Sublingual microcirculation was impaired for 72 hours de

204 ite restoration of the macrocirculation, the sublingual microcirculation was impaired for at least 72

205 In addition, the sublingual microcirculation was observed using sidestrea

206 252 patients with severe sepsis in whom the sublingual microcirculation was visualized using orthogo

207 genation and side-stream dark-field-assessed sublingual microcirculation were unchanged by stopping a

208 nation and side-stream dark-field imaging of sublingual microcirculation.

209 lthy controls from in vivo recordings of the sublingual microcirculation.

210 Sublingual microcirculatory blood flow was assessed by s

211 During hypothermia, all sublingual microcirculatory parameters decreased signifi

212 supplementation attenuated the impairment in sublingual microvascular perfusion and permeability, whi

213 This trial established whether sublingual misoprostol is non-inferior to intravenous ox

214 This trial established whether sublingual misoprostol was similarly efficacious to intr

215 out the comparative efficacy of oxytocin and sublingual misoprostol, particularly at the recommended

216 ions use of oxytocin would be preferred over sublingual misoprostol.

217 sity ratios of oxy- vs. deoxyhemoglobin from sublingual mucosa correlated with co-oximetry values of

218 The delivery of vaccines to the sublingual mucosa is an attractive prospect due to the e

219 g pHi during muscarinic stimulation in mouse sublingual mucous acinar cells.

220 tate ranged from a high of 95% (avoidance of sublingual nifedipine for patients with acute stroke) to

221 Sublingual nitrate use was prohibited for > or =24 h pre

222 .03 after reactive hyperemia; P = 0.05 after sublingual nitrate).

223 beyond, subjects received repeated doses of sublingual nitroglycerin (0.4 mg) after the last dose of

224 (endothelium-dependent vasodilation) and to sublingual nitroglycerin (endothelium-independent vasodi

225 tation of the brachial artery to flow and to sublingual nitroglycerin (NTG) was recorded (conduit ves

226 2 to 0.75 mm) was performed before and after sublingual nitroglycerin (NTG).

227 ed dilatation (FMD) and the dilatation after sublingual nitroglycerin (NTG, 25 microgram) were measur

228 gainst daily records of angina frequency and sublingual nitroglycerin (SL NTG) use.

229 emodynamic interaction between tadalafil and sublingual nitroglycerin lasted 24 h, but was not seen a

230 4.5] episodes, p = 0.008), as was the weekly sublingual nitroglycerin use (1.7 [95% CI: 1.6 to 1.9] d

231 p to 2 agents, ranolazine reduced angina and sublingual nitroglycerin use and was well tolerated.

232 ersus placebo on weekly angina frequency and sublingual nitroglycerin use in subjects with type 2 dia

233 As they developed limiting angina, sublingual nitroglycerin was administered to half the pa

234 l artery endothelium-independent dilatation (sublingual nitroglycerin) did not differ among the group

235 eas endothelium-independent dilatation (EID; sublingual nitroglycerin) did not differ between groups.

236 Sublingual nitroglycerin, given to five subjects with an

237 pain within 5 minutes of the initial dose of sublingual or spray nitroglycerin.

238 Three years of treatment with either sublingual or subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy has be

239 herefore investigated the capacity of nasal, sublingual or vaginal delivery of DNA-PEI polyplexes to

240 udy was to determine the prognostic value of sublingual PCO2 (P(SL)CO2), lactate concentration, and m

241 ual buprenorphine plus 4 placebo implants or sublingual placebo plus four 80-mg buprenorphine hydroch

242 plants and 87 to buprenorphine implants with sublingual placebo; 165 of 177 (93.2%) completed the tri

243 nal mucosal administration routes, including sublingual, rectal, and vaginal routes.

244 Epinephrine delivered via a sublingual route has been successful in animal studies.

245 Subcutaneous injections and the sublingual route have been used as the primary mode of p

246 The sublingual route is hard to use since infants can't be t

247 tments were safe, and patients preferred the sublingual route of administration.

248 A digested submandibular/sublingual saliva sample was used for the analysis.

249 Parotid and submandibular/sublingual saliva samples and xerostomia questionnaire r

250 eins in stimulated parotid and submandibular/sublingual saliva were determined.

251 as present in whole saliva and submandibular-sublingual saliva, but it was essentially absent from pa

252 amples from parotid secretion, submandibular/sublingual secretion, whole saliva, and pellicle were su

253 th the proteomes of parotid or submandibular/sublingual secretions.

254 results were obtained with submandibular and sublingual secretions.

255 Sublingual Sidestream Dark Field imaging was performed t

256 Microvascular imaging using sublingual sidestream darkfield imaging (SDF) and endoth

257 While the sublingual (SL) mucosa presents several barriers to vacc

258 bility of insulin following intranasal (IN), sublingual (SL), intravaginal (I.Vag) and intrarectal (I

259 Cs of human major SGs, namely parotid (PAG), sublingual (SLG) and submandibular (SMG) glands.

260 Subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy are the 2 most prescribe

261 SDS-PAGE-separated parotid and submandibular-sublingual (SM-SL) saliva.

262 mulated whole and unstimulated submandibular/sublingual (SMSL) saliva as well as citrate-stimulated p

263 1 to twelve months of daily treatment with a sublingual solution of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus an

264 tablets, sublingual tablets, buccal tablets, sublingual spray, transdermal ointment, and transdermal

265 to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a sublingual standardized ragweed allergen immunotherapy l

266 The progressively expanding lingual, sublingual, submandibular, and submental hematomas have

267 ociated allergic rhinitis were given a daily sublingual tablet containing placebo or STG320 at a dose

268 seasonal treatment with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet demonstrated clinically meaningful eff

269 th SQ (standardised quality) house dust mite sublingual tablet for 1 year resulted in a decreased pro

270 ty, and optimal dosage of the 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet for adults and children with grass pol

271 300 index of reactivity (IR) 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in US adults.

272 Herein, we developed a sublingual tablet made of pharmaceutical-grade recombina

273 In human subjects receiving a sublingual tablet of 8 mg buprenorphine and 2 mg naloxon

274 rolled study to receive 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet or placebo starting 4 months before an

275 Use of 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet was safe and well tolerated.

276 ety and efficacy of rBet v 1 formulated as a sublingual tablet were assessed in a multicentre, double

277 from 11% [placebo] to 5% [SQ house dust mite sublingual tablet]) and an increased probability of havi

278 rom 16% [placebo] to 34% [SQ house dust mite sublingual tablet]).

279 e-based treatment of opiate addiction with a sublingual-tablet formulation of buprenorphine and nalox

280 Purpose Fentanyl sublingual tablets (FST) are a potentially useful altern

281 were assigned to office-based treatment with sublingual tablets consisting of buprenorphine (16 mg) i

282 ed clinical study evaluating the efficacy of sublingual tablets in an allergen exposure chamber over

283 atment using 2000 UA/day monomeric allergoid sublingual tablets is well tolerated and reduces the CPT

284 lve months of treatment with 500IR and 300IR sublingual tablets of HDM allergen extracts was efficaci

285 In a natural field study, sublingual tablets of house dust mite (HDM) allergen ext

286 inary studies have suggested the efficacy of sublingual tablets of house dust mite (HDM) extracts in

287 ss the efficacy and safety of 2 doses of HDM sublingual tablets over 1 treatment year and the subsequ

288 Both the 500IR and 300IR HDM sublingual tablets significantly reduced mean Average Ad

289 r delivery via several routes: oral tablets, sublingual tablets, buccal tablets, sublingual spray, tr

290 large-scale clinical trials of grass pollen sublingual tablets, polysensitized patients benefited at

291 During whole body heating, subjects' sublingual temperature increased a minimum of 0.8 degree

292 Whole-body heating increased skin and sublingual temperatures, heart rate, cutaneous blood flo

293 adigm in the treatment of PAH, using an i.v./sublingual tissue-penetrating homing peptide to selectiv

294 A 1-mm2 region of the sublingual tongue surface was chosen for investigation.

295 t Mal d 1 might be suitable and relevant for sublingual treatment of birch pollen-related apple aller

296 Sublingual treatment with a recombinant food allergen wa

297 content of different house dust mites (HDM)' sublingual treatments and to review the evidence on thei

298 at muscarinic-induced mucin secretion by rat sublingual tubulo-acini was dependent upon PLC activatio

299 The questions of the cost-effectiveness of sublingual vs subcutaneous immunotherapy and of the cost

300 otherapy in real-life practice and comparing sublingual with subcutaneous immunotherapy.