Authorised allergen products for intracutaneous testing may no longer be available in Germany: Allergy textbooks have to be re-written

EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0

Since the discovery of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a mediator of allergic diseases in 1967, our knowledge about the immunological mechanisms of IgE-mediated allergies has remarkably increased. In addition to understanding the immune response and clinical symptoms, allergy diagnosis and management depend strongly on the precise identification of the elicitors of the IgE-mediated allergic reaction. In the past four decades, innovations in bioscience and technology have facilitated the identification and production of well-defined, highly pure molecules for component-resolved diagnosis (CRD), allowing a personalized diagnosis and management of the allergic disease for individual patients. The first edition of the "EAACI Molecular Allergology User's Guide" (MAUG) in 2016 rapidly became a key reference for clinicians, scientists, and interested readers with a background in allergology, immunology, biology, and medicine. Nevertheless, the field of molecular allergology is moving fast, and after 6 years, a new EAACI Taskforce was established to provide an updated document. The Molecular Allergology User's Guide 2.0 summarizes state-of-the-art information on allergen molecules, their clinical relevance, and their application in diagnostic algorithms for clinical practice. It is designed for both, clinicians and scientists, guiding health care professionals through the overwhelming list of different allergen molecules available for testing. Further, it provides diagnostic algorithms on the clinical relevance of allergenic molecules and gives an overview of their biology, the basic mechanisms of test formats, and the application of tests to measure allergen exposure.

What should be tested in patients with suspected mold exposure? Usefulness of serological markers for the diagnosis

The associations of mold exposure, IgE-mediated sensitization, inflammatory markers, and respiratory symptoms were analyzed in 46 exposed and 23 non-exposed individuals. Both exposure and clinical symptoms were assessed by questionnaire. Specific (s)IgE to mold mixture (mx1) was significantly higher and found more frequently in exposed (41%) than non-exposed individuals (17%), which was not observed for sIgG to mold mix (Gmx6). Notably, exposed asthmatics were more frequently sensitized to molds (55%) compared to exposed non-asthmatics (18%). In addition, the serum concentrations of club cell protein (CC16) were significantly lower in exposed subjects, especially in asthmatics. Positive associations were observed among mold sensitization, asthma, and mold exposure, but not in subjects with predominantly environmental sensitizations without mold sensitization. Thus, sIgE to mx1 but not sIgG to Gmx6 is a useful diagnostic marker to verify mold-associated respiratory symptoms.

In-vivo diagnostic test allergens in Europe: A call to action and proposal for recovery plan-An EAACI position paper

Diagnostic allergens are defined as medicinal products in the EU. Marketing authorization by national authorities is necessary; however, diagnostic allergens are not homogeneously regulated in different EU member states. Allergen manufacturers argue with increasing costs forcing them to continuously reduce the diagnostic allergen portfolios offered to allergists. In contrast, EAACI and national European Allergy Societies see the need for the availability of a wide range of high-quality diagnostic allergens for in vivo diagnosis of IgE-mediated allergies not only covering predominant but also less frequent allergen sources. In a recent EAACI task force survey, the current practice of allergy diagnosis was shown to rely on skin tests as first option in almost 2/3 of all types of allergic diseases and in 90% regarding respiratory allergies. With the need to ensure the availability of high-quality diagnostic allergens in the EU, an action plan has been set up by EAACI to analyse the current regulatory demands in EU member states and to define possible solutions stated in this document: (a) simplification of authorization for diagnostic allergens; (b) specific regulation of special types of diagnostic allergens; (c) new models beyond the current model of homologous groups; (d) simplification of pharmacovigilance reporting; (e) reduction of regulation fees for diagnostic allergens; (f) reimbursement for diagnostic allergens. Joining forces of allergists, manufacturers and authorities are of high importance to ensure remaining relevant allergens in the EU markets to facilitate a sustainable and comprehensive service for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases.

Mold Sensitization in Asthmatic and Non-asthmatic Subjects Diagnosed with Extract-Based Versus Component-Based Allergens

Asthmatic patients are suspected of having a higher risk of mold sensitization. Thus, precise diagnosis of fungal sensitization is important. Mold allergen extracts are difficult to standardize, but component-resolved allergy diagnosis may be an alternative to replace extract-based tests. In this research, asthmatic and non-asthmatic subjects were studied for their sensitization to Aspergillus fumigatus (Asp f), Cladosporium herbarum (Cla h), Penicillium chrysogenum (Pen ch), Alternaria alternata (Alt a), and Aspergillus versicolor (Asp v). Extract-based tests were applied using the skin prick test (SPT) and allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE). Subjects with extract-based sensitization to Asp f or Alt a were further investigated for sIgE response to recombinant (r) single mold allergens. At least one mold sensitization was found in about 50% of asthmatic and non-asthmatics with the most frequent sensitization to Alt a, followed by Pen ch, Asp f, Cla h, and Asp v. Interestingly, sensitization rate to individual mold species was always higher in asthmatics and was only significant for Pen ch. The component-resolved diagnosis with the sum of rAsp f 1 - rAsp f 4 plus rAsp f 6 matched the extract-based results (SPT and/or sIgE) in 50% of asthmatics and 46% of non-asthmatics, whereas, rAlt a 1 covered 59% of asthmatics and 50% non-asthmatics of extract-based Alt a sensitization. In conclusion, individual fungal sensitization rate was higher in asthmatics compared to non-asthmatics. Extract-based tests, especially SPTs, were most sensitive, but component-based tests covered 80% of extract-based serological sensitization to Alternaria and Aspergillus.

[Costs of allergic diseases and saving potential by allergen-specific immunotherapy : A personal assessment]

BACKGROUND

The burden of allergic diseases is of particular relevance for the economy and the social welfare and health insurance framework. Allergic rhinitis (AR) has a life-time prevalence of approximately 30% and is one of the most common chronic diseases with considerable socioeconomic impact thus leading to substantial direct, indirect and intangible costs. This article explores the common hypothesis that allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) saves national economic expenses in the long term in comparison to other standard symptomatic treatment or no therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a selective search and analysis of the literature in PubMed and Medline including otherwise listed publications in German. Using a predefined model and data extrapolation over 9 years for data from different sources and short-term clinical studies we further discuss the problems and difficulties in analyzing heterogeneous datasets.

RESULTS

Using a health-economic model with currently available and accepted variables ASIT proves to be cost-effective in comparison to symptomatic treatment in allergic rhinitis; however, numerous parameters from other models have to be controlled, such as adherence to therapy and therapy discontinuation, heterogeneous costs for different treatment modalities, effect sizes with respect to symptoms including cross-influences with symptomatic rescue medication, duration of efficacy after treatment discontinuation and asthma protection.

DISCUSSION

The personal appraisal of the authors demonstrates not only the current knowledge but also the problems in health economical evaluation of ASIT in allergic diseases.

Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of allergen-specific immunotherapy with the major allergen Alt a 1

BACKGROUND

There have been few studies conducted on the efficacy and safety of specific immunotherapy with allergen extracts of fungi compared with other allergen extracts, and there are no data on the major allergen Alt a 1 of the fungus Alternaria alternata.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy with 2 different doses of Alt a 1 in patients with rhinoconjunctivitis caused by sensitization to A alternata.

METHOD

We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with Alt a 1 administered subcutaneously in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without controlled asthma aged 12 to 65 years. Three groups were included: the placebo group and active groups receiving 0.2 or 0.37 μg of Alt a 1 per dose. The main end point was the combined symptom and medication score. Secondary end points were cutaneous reactivity and serum IgE and IgG₄ levels to Alt a 1. Recorded adverse reactions were graded according to World Allergy Organization criteria.

RESULTS

There were significant reductions in the combined symptom and medication score for the 0.37-μg dose of Alt a 1 compared with placebo at 12 months of treatment. Reduced cutaneous reactivity and IgE levels, together with increased IgG₄ levels, were demonstrated for the 2 active groups versus the placebo group. A similar safety profile was found for both active groups compared with the placebo group. No serious adverse drug reactions were reported.

CONCLUSION

Immunotherapy with Alt a 1 was efficacious and safe, reducing the symptoms and medication consumption associated with rhinoconjunctivitis after only 1 year of treatment. The clinical benefits were associated with reduced skin reactivity and specific IgE levels and increased IgG₄ levels.

Perspectives in allergen immunotherapy: 2017 and beyond

The Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT) workshop provides a regular platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The most recent meeting, held in February 2017, had two main themes: advances in AIT and hot topics in AIT from the regulatory point of view. The first theme covered opportunities for personalized AIT, advances in adjuvants and delivery systems, and the development of new molecules and future vaccines for AIT. Key topics in the second part of the meeting were the effects of the enactment of European Directive 2001/83 on the availability of allergens for therapy and diagnosis across the EU, the challenges of conducting Phase 3 studies in the field, the future role of allergen exposure chambers in AIT studies and specific considerations in performing AIT studies in the paediatric population. Finally, the group highlighted the forthcoming EAACI guidelines and their particular importance for the standardization of practice in the treatment of allergies. This review presents a comprehensive insight into those panel discussions and highlights unmet needs and also possible solutions to them for the future.

Debates in allergy medicine: Molecular allergy diagnosis with ISAC will replace screenings by skin prick test in the future

In today's clinical practice patients' skin is used as screening organ for diagnosing type 1 allergy. According to European guidelines skin prick testing with a panel of 18 allergen extracts is recommended, in the US between 10 to 50 allergens are used. The specificity and sensitivity of skin testing is individually highly variable depending on age, body mass, and skin barrier status. In atopic inflammation skin testing gives more false positive results. Smaller skin area and strain limits prick testing in small children. Although the risk for systemic reactions in skin prick testing is very small, emergency medications must be available. Considering the fact that IgE is the only reliable biomarker for type I allergy, upfront IgE screening with ISAC, followed by fewer skin tests to approve positive sensitizations, is proposed. It is time to arrive in the age of molecular allergy diagnosis in daily patient care.