Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Low-dose intradermal immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis had no clinical effect even though it suppressed skin late responses to allergen.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Anna Slovick, Abdel Douiri, Rachel Muir, Andrea Guerra, Konstantinos Tsioulos, Evie Haye, Emily PS Lam, Joanna Kelly, Janet L Peacock, Sun Ying, Mohamed H Shamji, David J Cousins, Stephen R Durham & Stephen J Till.

Anna Slovick 1,2, Abdel Douiri 3, Rachel Muir 4, Andrea Guerra 1, Konstantinos Tsioulos 1, Evie Haye 1, Emily PS Lam 1, Joanna Kelly 5, Janet L Peacock 3, Sun Ying 1, Mohamed H Shamji 6, David J Cousins 1,2,7, Stephen R Durham 6, Stephen J Till 1,2,*

1 Division of Asthma, Allergy and Lung Biology, King’s College London, School of Medicine, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK
2 Medical Research Council (MRC)–Asthma UK, Centre for Allergic Mechanisms of Asthma, London, UK
3 Division of Health and Social Care Research, King’s College London, London, UK
4 Clinical Research Facility, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK
5 King’s Clinical Trials Unit, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
6 Allergy and Clinical Immunology, National Heart and Lung Institute, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK
7 Department of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leicester Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit, Leicester Institute for Lung Health, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
* Corresponding author Email: stephen.till@kcl.ac.uk

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

 

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions