Epicutaneous Immunotherapy Compared with Sublingual Immunotherapy in Mice Sensitized to Pollen (Phleum pratense)

Table 1

Quantification of specific IgE (ng/mL), IgG1, and IgG2a (μg/mL) for EPIT, SLIT, sham, and Control (C) groups.

Pollen-specific antibodies		EPIT	SLIT	Sham	C
IgE	D0	57 (±9.8)	48 (±1.7)	84 (±10.5)	Und
	D21	86 (±8.7)	88 (±10.4)	79 (±7.1)	Und
	D38	55 (±1.7)	138 (±43.4)	88 (±12.4)	Und
	D63	71 (±9.0)***	58 (±4.5)***	137 (±11.9)	Und
IgG1	D0	1.1 (±0.15)	1.1 (±0.1)	1.3 (±0.2)	Und
	D21	18.2 (±1.36)	10.6 (±0.8)	7.7 (±1.3)	Und
	D38	57.1 (±3.6)	37.5 (±4.9)	10.3 (±2.1)	Und
	D63	113.6 (±13.2)***	75.8 (±20.2)***	18.0 (±3.6)	Und
IgG2a	D0	0.06 (±0.001)	0.01 (±0.002)	0.02 (±0.002)	Und
	D21	0.03 (± 0.006)	0.05 (± 0.011)	0.05 (± 0.032)	Und
	D38	0.03 (± 0.012)	0.08 (± 0.042)	0.03 (± 0.011)	Und
	D63	0.14 (± 0.008)^†,***	0.09 (± 0.031)*	0.001 (± 0.001)	Und

Statistical comparison, EPIT versus SLIT: ^†𝑃<0.05.
Statistical comparison, EPIT, or SLIT versus Sham: *𝑃<0.05, **𝑃<0.01, ***𝑃<0.001.
C, control; EPIT: epicutaneous immunotherapy; IgE: immunoglobulin E; IgG1: immunoglobulin G1; IgG2a: immunoglobulin G2a; SLIT: sublingual immunotherapy; Und: undetectable.