Allergen immunotherapy: A practice parameter third update

A novel dose-adjustment protocol for interrupted subcutaneous immunotherapy in children with allergic rhinitis

Aim: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a new protocol for adjusting doses during interrupted subcutaneous immunotherapy maintenance, exceeding an 8-week interval, with mite allergen injections in children with allergic rhinitis. Patients & methods: 194 children with allergic rhinitis who underwent subcutaneous immunotherapy and experienced interruptions lasting more than 8 weeks during maintenance were enrolled. Following the adoption of a novel dose-adjustment protocol, a real-world study was conducted. Results: After 3 years of subcutaneous immunotherapy, the novel group exhibited a significant reduction in allergy symptoms compared with baseline. Systemic reactions related to the novel protocol did not significantly increase. Conclusion: The novel protocol was deemed safe and effective, offering advantages of time savings and reduced burdens.

Imported fire ant immunotherapy

Imported fire ants (IFAs) permeate many areas of the United States. The IFA allergy is a significant health problem for children and adults. Stings from IFAs cause pustules, localized reactions, and anaphylaxis. There have been at least 32 deaths attributed to IFA stings. Because of the difficulty with the extraction of venom from the fire ants, whole body extracts are the only commercially available serum for immunotherapy. Fortunately, whole body extract immunotherapy given conventionally or through the rush method has proven to be efficacious and safe. It is recommended for the treatment of IFA hypersensitivity. Maintenance immunotherapy is typically given at 4-week intervals. However, more recent research has revealed that these intervals can gradually be extended up to 12 weeks similar to flying Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy. Long-term adherence to IFA immunotherapy remains an obstacle for many patients despite its potential as a life-saving treatment.

Evaluation of the correlation of serological and intradermal allergen testing with clinical history in 29 dogs with atopic dermatitis

BACKGROUND

Limited information exists about the correlation between clinical history and positive serum (SAT) and intradermal allergen test (IDAT) results in atopic dogs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the correlation between clinical history and SAT/IDAT results in atopic dogs.

ANIMALS

Twenty-nine client-owned dogs with nonseasonal atopic dermatitis with or without seasonal exacerbation were enrolled.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IDAT, SAT (immunoglobulin (Ig)M antibody capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [MacELISA] with bromelain CCD inhibitor) and clinical information collected in a questionnaire regarding seasonal variations in pruritus affecting the dogs were performed on the same day. Two independent investigators (Inv A and Inv B) recorded IDAT results.

RESULTS

The kappa coefficients agreement for positive IDAT scores between Inv A and B was substantial. The agreement between IDAT and SAT results at different ELISA absorbance units (EAU) cut-offs (>79 and ≥300) was slight and fair for both investigators, respectively. A higher agreement was observed between IDAT and SAT (≥300 EAU) than between IDAT and SAT (>79 EAU) with the exception of mite and flea allergens. There was a statistically significant association between clinical history and positive IDAT results for seasonal allergens (Inv A and Inv B, p = 0.016). There was no significance between positive SAT results and clinical history. Five (IDAT) and 12 of 13 (SAT) atopic dogs without clinical seasonal exacerbation showed positive results for seasonal allergens.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The agreement between IDAT and SAT ≥300 EAU results was fair and the agreement between IDAT and SAT >79 EAU results was slight for all allergens. Only positive IDAT results significantly correlated with clinical history.

[Efficacy and safety of dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy in children with allergic asthma： a prospective randomized controlled study]

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) using dust mites in children with allergic asthma.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized controlled study, 98 children with dust mite-induced allergic asthma were randomly divided into a control group (n=49) and an SCIT group (n=49). The control group received inhaled corticosteroid treatment, while the SCIT group additionally received a standardized three-year SCIT regimen. The two groups were compared based on peripheral blood eosinophil percentage, visual analogue score (VAS), total medication score, Asthma Control Test/Childhood Asthma Control Test scores, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and lung function before treatment, and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after treatment. Adverse reactions were recorded post-injection to evaluate the safety of SCIT.

RESULTS

Compared with pre-treatment levels, the SCIT group showed a significant reduction in the percentage of peripheral blood eosinophils, VAS, total medication score, and FeNO, while lung function significantly improved, and asthma control levels were better 3 years after treatment (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the SCIT group showed more significant improvement in all evaluated indicators 3 years after treatment (P<0.05). A total of 2 744 injections were administered, resulting in 157 cases (5.72%) of local adverse reactions and 4 cases (0.15%) of systemic adverse reactions, with no severe systemic adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

SCIT is an effective and safe treatment for allergic asthma in children.

Safety and efficacy of epicutaneous immunotherapy with DBV712 (peanut patch) in peanut allergy

INTRODUCTION

DBV712 250 µg (also referred to as Viaskin Peanut or peanut patch; Viaskin is a trademark of DBV Technologies) is an innovative approach to epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). The patch-based technology system facilitates peanut protein (allergen) absorption into the intact non-vascularized epidermis to promote desensitization to peanut while limiting systemic allergen exposure.

AREAS COVERED

Efficacy and safety in children have been evaluated in four completed phase 3 studies. Overall, the results from these studies have demonstrated the peanut patch to be superior in desensitization compared with placebo and safe for daily use over multiple years.

EXPERT OPINION

These findings, as well as supportive evidence from phase 2 studies, confirm the potential for an effective treatment of peanut allergy in children. The purpose of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy of the peanut patch in the treatment of peanut allergy.

Leveraging learning systems to improve quality and patient safety in allergen immunotherapy

Adverse events occur in all fields of medicine, including allergy-immunology, in which allergen immunotherapy medical errors can cause significant harm. Although difficult to experience, such errors constitute opportunities for improvement. Identifying system vulnerabilities can allow resolution of latent errors before they become active problems. We review key aspects and frameworks of the medical error response, acknowledging the fundamental responsibility of clinical teams to learn from harm. Adverse event response comprises 4 major phases: (1) event recognition and reporting, (2) investigation (for which root cause analysis can be helpful), (3) improvement (inclusive of the plan-do-study-act cycle), and (4) communication and resolution. Throughout the process, clinician wellness must be maintained. Adverse event prevention should be prioritized, and a human factors engineering approach can be useful. Quality improvement tools and approaches complement one another and together offer a meaningful avenue for error recovery and prevention.

Allergen Immunotherapy: The Evidence Supporting the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy and Sublingual Forms of Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis/Conjunctivitis and Asthma

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a recognized key therapeutic modality for the treatment of allergic respiratory disease. Definitive studies have provided evidence-based data to demonstrate its effectiveness in allergic rhinitis and asthma due to the inhalation of proteinaceous allergic substances from specific seasonal pollens, dust mites, animal allergens, and certain mold spores. Over the ensuing decades, laboratory investigations have provided objective evidence to demonstrate immunologic changes, including production of protective IgG antibody, suppression of IgE antibody, upregulation of regulatory T cells, and induction of a state of immune tolerance to the offending allergen(s). Tangential to this work were carefully designed clinical studies that defined allergen dose and duration of treatment, established the importance of preparing extracts with standardized allergens (or well-defined extracts) based on major protein moieties, and used allergen provocation models to demonstrate efficacy superior to placebo. In the United States, the use of subcutaneous immunotherapy extracts for AIT was grandfathered in by the Food and Drug Administration based on expert literature review. In contrast, sublingual tablet immunotherapy underwent formal clinical development programs (phase I-III clinical trials) that provided the necessary clinical evidence for safety and efficacy that led to regulatory agency approvals for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in properly characterized patients with allergy. The allergy specialist's treatment options currently include traditional subcutaneous AIT and specific sublingual tablets approved for grass, ragweed, house dust mites, trees belonging to the birch-homologous group, and Japanese cedar. Tangential to this are sublingual drops that are increasingly being used off-label (albeit not approved by the Food and Drug Administration) in the United States. This article will review the evidence-based literature supporting the use of these forms of AIT, as well as focus on several current controversies and gaps in our knowledge base that have relevance for the appropriate selection of patients for treatment with specific AIT.

An epicutaneous therapeutic pollen-allergen extract delivery system in an allergic rhinitis mouse model: based on allergen loading on DC-specific aptamers conjugated nanogolds

BACKGROUND

Gold nanoparticles (GNPs) have previously been suggested as appropriate carriers for allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). In this study, we assessed efficacy of GNPs and dendritic cells (DC)-specific aptamer-modified GNPs (Apts-GNP) for epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) in the case of pollen allergen extracts containing a variety of allergenic and non-allergenic components.

METHODS

BALB/c mice were sensitized to the total protein extract of Platanus orientalis pollen and epicutaneously treated in different groups either with free P. orientalis total pollen extract, naked GNPs, total extract loaded GNPs, and total extract loaded Apts-GNPs with and without skin-penetrating peptides (SPPs). Then, the specific IgE level (sIgE), total IgE concentration (tIgE) in the serum sample, IL-4, IL-17a, IFN-γ, and IL-10 cytokine concentrations in re-stimulated splenocytes with the total extract and mixture of recombinant allergens, nasopharyngeal lavage fluid (NALF) analysis, and histopathological analysis of lung tissue were evaluated.

RESULTS

This study indicated the total extract-loaded GNPs, especially Pla. ext (50 μg)-GNPs, significantly decreased sIgE, tIgE, IL-17a, and IL-4 concentrations, immune cells and eosinophils infiltration in NALF, and increased IL-10 and IFN-γ concentrations compared with the PBS-treated group. In addition, the histopathological analysis of lung tissue showed a significant decrease in allergic inflammation and histopathological damage. The DC-targeted group revealed the most significant improvement in allergic-related immune factors with no histopathological damage compared with the same dose without aptamer.

CONCLUSION

Loading total protein extract on the GNPs and the Apt-modified GNPs could be an effective approach to improve EPIT efficacy in a pollen-induced allergic mouse model.

Optimizing Identification of Allergic Sensitization to Seasonal Inhalant Allergens in the USA: Implications for Constructing Optimal Panels to Evaluate Patients with Allergy

INTRODUCTION

While a specific number and type of antigens are recognized to detect perennial inhalant allergies, the optimal number and combination of allergens to reliably identify seasonal allergic sensitization is unclear due to limited national data. This study analyzed aeroallergen testing data from a large US clinical reference laboratory to provide guidance for optimizing seasonal allergen test selection.

METHODS

The 2019 serum IgE tests for seasonal inhalant allergens were identified from the Quest Diagnostics database. Patients with results for at least 1 of 31 seasonal allergens across 4 allergen classes (11 trees, 7 weeds, 5 grasses, and 8 molds) were analyzed. A step-by-step conditional approach was employed to determine the minimum number and species of allergens needed to identify at least 98% of sensitized patients for each class.

RESULTS

Of 88,042 patients tested for ≥1 seasonal allergen, 1.5%, 1.8%, 1.3%, and 1.6% were tested for all trees, weeds, grasses, and molds, respectively. Of those tested for all allergens within a class, 40.4%, 38.6%, 29.5%, and 21.2% were sensitized to at least one tree, weed, grass, or mold allergen, respectively. Identification of ≥98% of sensitized patients within a class required 8 allergens for trees (mountain cedar, maple box elder, walnut, white ash, elm, birch, cottonwood, and hickory/pecan), 5 for weeds (common ragweed short, rough pigweed, English plantain, lamb's quarters/goosefoot, and Russian thistle), 3 for grasses (June/Kentucky blue grass, Johnson grass, and Bermuda grass), and 7 for molds (Alternaria alternata, Aspergillus fumigatus, Mucor racemosus, Epicoccum purpurascens, Penicillium notatum, Helminthosporium halodes, and Fusarium moniliforme).

CONCLUSION

A minimum of 23 antigens is required to optimally detect sensitization to four classes of seasonal allergens (i.e., ≥98% identification). The addition of these allergens to unique perennial allergens (cat, dog, mouse, cockroach, and 2 dust mite species) results in a comprehensive elucidation of inhalant allergen sensitization. This knowledge provides a pivotal guide for clinical laboratories as they construct allergen panels to optimize diagnostic yield.

How to hit the allergy target: A critical appraisal of intralymphatic immunotherapy with practical recommendations on ultrasound-guided injections

BACKGROUND

Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) represents a promising novel approach treating allergic diseases. However, no standardized procedures or recommendations have been established or reported, despite the recognized fact that treatment efficacy relies on the ability to inject the allergen intranodally.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to provide a critical appraisal of ILIT as a method of allergen immunotherapy and to deliver practical recommendations for accurate ILIT.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-three ILIT injections were performed in 28 (47%) women and 32 (53%) men with median age of 29 years (21-59). The injections were ultrasound-guided and recorded for retrospective analysis with respect to injection location, needle visibility, medication release, and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The results show that the correct positioning of the needle within the lymph node (LN) was most critical. If the whole length of the needle bevel was not inserted into the LN, substance backflush into the interstitium was observed. Selecting a more superficial LN and inserting the needle at a smaller angle towards the LN significantly improved needle visibility in the ultrasound. Longitudinal results showed that continuous practice significantly correlated with improved needle visibility and more accurate ILIT injections.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results and practical experience, we propose several recommendations for LN selection and the correct handling of ultrasound probe and needle. We are confident that ILIT standardization and training will be important as to meet the goals of good safety and efficacy of ILIT.

Natural killer T cells in allergic asthma: implications for the development of novel immunotherapeutical strategies

Allergic asthma has emerged as a prevalent allergic disease worldwide, affecting most prominently both young individuals and lower-income populations in developing and developed countries. To devise effective and curative immunotherapy, it is crucial to comprehend the intricate nature of this condition, characterized by an immune response imbalance that favors a proinflammatory profile orchestrated by diverse subsets of immune cells. Although the involvement of Natural Killer T (NKT) cells in asthma pathology is frequently implied, their specific contributions to disease onset and progression remain incompletely understood. Given their remarkable ability to modulate the immune response through the rapid secretion of various cytokines, NKT cells represent a promising target for the development of effective immunotherapy against allergic asthma. This review provides a comprehensive summary of the current understanding of NKT cells in the context of allergic asthma, along with novel therapeutic approaches that leverage the functional response of these cells.

Promising New Diagnostic and Treatment Modalities for Allergic Rhinitis: What's Coming Next?

Novel diagnostic tests may help diagnose patients with local allergic rhinitis (AR) when systemic testing is negative or inconclusive. Surgical approaches including septoplasty, inferior turbinate reduction, nasal swell body reduction, and posterior nasal nerve ablation may improve symptoms in patients whose symptoms are refractory to medical therapy, though high-quality evidence is lacking in the AR population. Intralymphatic and epicutaneous immunotherapy have the potential to improve adherence to allergen immunotherapy, though comparisons with current gold standard treatments are lacking and studies reporting long-term outcomes are needed. Immunomodulatory agents in combination with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) may improve tolerance of SCIT but reports to date do not demonstrate a clear benefit in symptom alleviation. Future work in these areas may support these options as beneficial for testing and treatment of AR.

Differential modulation of allergic rhinitis nasal transcriptome by dupilumab and allergy immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Nasal epithelial cells are important regulators of barrier function and immune signaling; however, in allergic rhinitis (AR) these functions can be disrupted by inflammatory mediators. We aimed to better discern AR disease mechanisms using transcriptome data from nasal brushing samples from individuals with and without AR.

METHODS

Data were drawn from a feasibility study of individuals with and without AR to Timothy grass and from a clinical trial evaluating 16 weeks of treatment with the following: dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds interleukin (IL)-4Rα and inhibits type 2 inflammation by blocking signaling of both IL-4/IL-13; subcutaneous immunotherapy with Timothy grass (SCIT), which inhibits allergic responses through pleiotropic effects; SCIT + dupilumab; or placebo. Using nasal brushing samples from these studies, we defined distinct gene signatures in nasal tissue of AR disease and after nasal allergen challenge (NAC) and assessed how these signatures were modulated by study drug(s).

RESULTS

Treatment with dupilumab (normalized enrichment score [NES] = -1.73, p = .002) or SCIT + dupilumab (NES = -2.55, p < .001), but not SCIT alone (NES = +1.16, p = .107), significantly repressed the AR disease signature. Dupilumab (NES = -2.55, p < .001), SCIT (NES = -2.99, p < .001), and SCIT + dupilumab (NES = -3.15, p < .001) all repressed the NAC gene signature.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate type 2 inflammation is an important contributor to the pathophysiology of AR disease and that inhibition of the type 2 pathway with dupilumab may normalize nasal tissue gene expression.

Investigating the T regulatory cells and Sirtuin-I serum level in immunotherapy treated house dust mite allergic asthma patients

OBJECTIVES

House dust mite aeroallergens are predominant triggers of frequent asthma attacks among adults and children. The intensity of asthma and immune reaction necessitates treatment alternatives based on adjusting chosen immunity biomarkers to control the exacerbation of symptoms and establish long-term immune tolerance. In this study, we selected CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs), FOXP3, and Sirtuin-1 as they are known to have a potential role in the immune reaction in different allergic diseases. We investigated their interplay during HDM allergic asthma and its respective immunotherapy.

METHODS

Eighty-four subjects were divided into 3 groups; healthy controls (CT), HDM asthma patients without immunotherapy (WOIT), and HDM asthma patients treated with subcutaneous immunotherapy for 6 months before recruitment (WIT). They were enrolled according to the pulmonary function, skin prick tests, and HDM-specific IgE. CD4+ CD25+ and CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+hi T cells Cell percentages, FOXP3 gene expression, and Sirtuin-1 (Sirt1) serum level were analyzed.

RESULTS

We found that there is a significant difference between WOIT and WIT groups in the CD4+ CD25+ and CD4+ CD25+ FOXP3+hi T cell percentages. While there is no statistically significant difference between WOIT and WIT groups in FOXP3 level. On the controversy, the SIRT1 level in the CT group (4.53 ± 3.880) significantly decreased in the WOIT and WIT groups.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that both CD4 CD25 and CD4 CD25 high FOXP3 cell percentages increased in the WIT group and declined in the WOIT group. While, FOXP3 gene expression increased in both groups. In addition, the Sirt1 serum level showed some improvement in WIT group after a serious drop in the WOIT group comparing with the CT group. The modulation of these biomarkers for the remission and control of allergic asthma can be a prognostic outcome of immunotherapy which needs to be confirmed by larger scale studies.

Allergic Rhinitis and Its Effect on Sleep

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is associated with increased sleep disturbances in adults and children. Pathogenesis is multifactorial, with nasal obstruction playing a large role. Intranasal corticosteroids, antihistamines, leukotriene inhibitors, and allergen immunotherapy have been demonstrated to relieve self-reported symptoms of sleep impairment. Given the high prevalence of sleep impairment in AR, providers should consider evaluating any patient with AR for sleep disturbances and sleep-disordered breathing.

Is allergen immunotherapy a model of personalized treatment in pediatric respiratory allergy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent evidence on allergen immunotherapy (AIT) as a model of personalized medicine in the treatment of children and adolescents with respiratory allergies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Meta-analysis and systematic review studies continue to point out that AIT is an effective treatment for children with respiratory allergies. Molecular allergy allows the understanding of patient sensitization profiles that frequently change the prescription of AIT. There is still a lack of evidence showing that this personalized prescription of AIT is associated with better clinical outcomes. The nasal allergen challenge has extended the indications of AIT for a new group of subjects with local allergic rhinitis. Patient selection of allergens involved in the increasingly personalized composition of extracts to be used in AIT increasingly characterizes it as personalized medicine.

SUMMARY

Despite the numerous studies carried out to identify the best biomarker to evaluate the response to AIT, there is still much disagreement, and clinical assessment (symptoms, quality of life, among others) continues to be the best way to evaluate the therapeutic success of AIT.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations

BACKGROUND

Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology.

OBJECTIVE

To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts.

CONCLUSION

These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

Plain Language Summary: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

The plain language summary explains allergen immunotherapy to patients, families, and caregivers. The summary is for patients aged 5 years and older who are experiencing symptoms from inhalant allergies and are considering immunotherapy as a treatment option. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for health care providers. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

Hymenoptera Venom Immunotherapy Meets Factitious Disorder

Factitious disorder on self is a psychiatric disorder in which individuals fabricate or induce signs or symptoms of a disease. Factitious anaphylaxis, with symptoms suggestive of a life-threatening allergic reaction, is extremely rare. Several cases of factitious disorder reactions during allergen immunotherapy for airborne allergens have been reported. We report the case of a young female patient who presented factitious anaphylaxis during venom immunotherapy to vespid venom extract. Symptoms of stridor, dyspnea, coughing and loss of consciousness were observed during the built-up phase of venom immunotherapy, mimicking allergic reactions to the venom extracts. Diagnosis of factitious disorder prompted the discontinuation of venom immunotherapy.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Advancements in Allergen Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that affects individuals of all age groups, manifesting as a spectrum of symptoms varying from mild to severe. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) involves the administration of allergen extracts and has emerged as a potential treatment strategy for modifying immune responses. Its pathogenesis involves epidermal barrier dysfunction, microbiome imbalance, immune dysregulation, and environmental factors. Existing treatment strategies encompass topical steroids to systemic agents, while AIT is under investigation as a potential immune-modifying alternative. Several studies have shown reductions in the severity scoring of atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) scores, daily rescue medication use, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores following AIT. Biomarker changes include increased IgG4 levels and decreased eosinophil counts. This review provides valuable insights for future research and clinical practice, exploring AIT as a viable option for the management of AD.

The Art of Dosing for Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in North America

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a long-established treatment option for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Proper dosing of the allergens is critical for the efficacy and safety of SCIT. Of the hundreds of liquid allergen extracts in the United States, effective and well-tolerated SCIT dosing has only been established for a small number. Thus, SCIT dosing remains largely empiric and continues to be, by necessity, an art. To highlight the complexity of SCIT dosing, this review summarizes the historical and current landscape of U.S. allergen extracts, differences among U.S. and European allergen extracts, allergen selection for SCIT, considerations for compounding of allergen extract mixtures, and recommended dosing. As of 2021, 18 standardized allergen extracts are available in the United States; all other extracts remain unstandardized without characterization of allergen content or potency. U.S. allergen extracts differ from European extracts in formulation and potency characterization. There is no standardized methodology for SCIT allergen selection, and interpretation of allergen sensitization is not straightforward. Compounding of SCIT mixtures requires consideration of potential dilution effects, allergen cross-reactivity, proteolytic activity, and additives. Probable effective dose ranges for SCIT are recommended in U.S. allergy immunotherapy practice parameters, although there are few studies using U.S. extracts supporting these doses as therapeutic. In contrast, optimized doses of sublingual immunotherapy tablets have been confirmed in North American phase 3 trials. The SCIT dosing for each patient remains an art that requires clinical experience and consideration of polysensitization, tolerability, compounding of allergen extract mixtures, and the range of recommended doses within the context of extract potency variability.

The KAAACI Guidelines for Sublingual Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy is regarded as the only disease-modifying treatment option for various allergic conditions, including allergic rhinitis and asthma. Among the routes of administration of allergens, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has gained clinical interest recently, and the prescription of SLIT is increasing among patients with allergies. After 30 years of SLIT use, numerous pieces of evidence supporting its efficacy, safety, and mechanism allows SLIT to be considered as an alternative option to subcutaneous immunotherapy. Based on the progressive development of SLIT, the current guideline from the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Clinical Immunology aims to provide an expert opinion by allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology specialists with an extensive literature review. This guideline addresses the use of SLIT, including 1) mechanisms of action, 2) appropriate patient selection for SLIT, 3) the currently available SLIT products in Korea, and 4) updated information on its efficacy and safety. This guideline will facilitate a better understanding of practical considerations for SLIT.

The Saudi initiative for asthma - 2024 update: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma in adults and children

The Saudi Initiative for Asthma 2024 (SINA-2024) is the sixth version of asthma guidelines for the diagnosis and management of asthma for adults and children that was developed by the SINA group, a subsidiary of the Saudi Thoracic Society. The main objective of the SINA is to have guidelines that are up-to-date, simple to understand, and easy to use by healthcare workers dealing with asthma patients. To facilitate achieving the goals of asthma management, the SINA Panel approach is mainly based on the assessment of symptom control and risk for both adults and children. The approach to asthma management is aligned for age groups: adults, adolescents, children aged 5-12 years, and children aged <5 years. SINA guidelines have focused more on personalized approaches reflecting a better understanding of disease heterogeneity with the integration of recommendations related to biologic agents, evidence-based updates on treatment, and the role of immunotherapy in management. The medication appendix has also been updated with the addition of recent evidence, new indications for existing medication, and new medications. The guidelines are constructed based on the available evidence, local literature, and the current situation at national and regional levels. There is also an emphasis on patient-doctor partnership in the management that also includes a self-management plan.

The Art of Immunotherapy

Selection of a patient with rhinitis/conjunctivitis or asthma for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) requires several decisions. First, does the patient's sensitization, pattern of exposure to an allergen, and degree of exposure to that allergen reasonably suggest a causal relationship? Does the level and duration of symptoms warrant the cost and inconvenience of immunotherapy, or is the patient motivated by the disease-modifying potential of AIT? If AIT is selected, is the choice to be greater safety and convenience with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets, but with treatment probably limited to 2 or 3 allergens, or for subcutaneous immunotherapy where multiple allergen therapy is the rule and efficacy may be somewhat greater, at least initially, or does the physician go off-label into the unknowns of liquid SLIT? Are there extracts of sufficient potency to achieve likely effective doses? How does the physician deal with large local or systemic reactions, with gaps in treatment, with pollen seasons, and the use of premedication or cautionary prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors? How can adherence to AIT be improved? These and other questions are addressed in this paper.

Mechanisms and Predictive Biomarkers of Allergen Immunotherapy in the Clinic

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) remains to be the only disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis. It can provide long-term clinical benefits when given for 3 years or longer. Mechanisms of immune tolerance induction by AIT are underscored by the modulation of several compartments within the immune system. These include repair of disruption in epithelial barrier integrity, modulation of the innate immune compartment that includes regulatory dendritic cells and innate lymphoid cells, and adaptive immune compartments such as induction of regulatory T and B cells. Altogether, these are also associated with the dampening of allergen-specific TH2 and T follicular helper cell responses and subsequent generation of blocking antibodies. Although AIT is effective in modifying the immune response, there is a lack of validated and clinically relevant biomarkers that can be used to monitor desensitization, efficacy, and the likelihood of response, all of which can contribute to accelerating personalized medication and increasing patient care. Candidate biomarkers comprise humoral, cellular, metabolic, and in vivo biomarkers; however, these are primarily studied in small trials and require further validation. In this review, we evaluate the current candidates of biomarkers of AIT and how we can implement changes in future studies to help us identify clinically relevant biomarkers of safety, compliance, and efficacy.

Approach to Idiopathic Anaphylaxis in Adolescents

Anaphylaxis is a potentially-life threatening condition. Adolescents are particularly vulnerable due to increased risk-taking behaviors, poor disease management, and minimized perception of risk. Although most anaphylaxis can be attributed to food, drug, or venom allergy via a detailed history and confirmatory studies, in nearly 1 in 5 cases, the cause may not be obvious. Clinical differentials including rare allergens, cofactors, mast-cell disorders, and mimic disorders can increase the likelihood of discovering of the cause of anaphylaxis.

Prevention Is Better than Cure: Impact of Allergen Immunotherapy on the Progression of Airway Disease

Allergen immunotherapy is highly effective for seasonal pollinosis. Three years of treatment results in long-term efficacy. This disease modification is accompanied by downregulation of allergen-specific Th2 responses and the induction of persistent specific IgG- and IgA-associated IgE-blocking activity. In children with seasonal rhinitis, both subcutaneous and sublingual pollen immunotherapy have been shown to reduce the development of asthma symptoms and asthma medication requirements. House dust mite tablet allergen immunotherapy has been shown to be effective for perennial mite-driven rhinitis in adults and children and may suppress asthma exacerbations, whereas its long-term efficacy has yet to be explored. The success of primary prevention of peanut allergy in childhood by introduction of peanut into the diet during infancy provides a strong rationale to explore whether primary prevention of inhalant allergies and asthma may also be possible. House dust mite allergy is a major risk factor for developing asthma. Preliminary data in at-risk children suggest that sublingual house dust mite immunotherapy initiated during infancy could reduce the onset of multiple allergen sensitizations and prevent the development of asthma at age 6 years. This possibility should now be explored in an adequately powered, prospectively randomized controlled trial.

Safety of allergen immunotherapy in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review discusses allergen immunotherapy (AIT) safety in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

AIT is a well tolerated and effective treatment for pediatric allergic conditions. While mostly well tolerated, severe reactions and near fatal reactions may occur with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) once in every 160 000 visits. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is associated more with local side effects, but severe systemic reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been rarely reported. Providing informed consent, recognizing risk factors for severe systemic reactions, such as severe or uncontrolled asthma, and mitigating the risk of severe reactions are important components to improving the safety of AIT.

SUMMARY

Overall, AIT is well tolerated in children, and data suggest that the incidence of systemic reactions in children receiving SCIT is no less than mixed populations of adult and pediatric patients. SLIT carries less risk for systemic reactions, and local oral site-application reactions are usually mild and resolve within 15 days of treatment.

Modification of allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy safety precautions and systemic allergic reaction rate reduction

Background: Despite their life-threatening potential, medical team mistakes during subcutaneous immunotherapy are rarely discussed. Real data are missing, and a survey study estimated that dosing errors are responsible for 25% of systemic reactions during immunotherapy. To minimize errors, we modified our safety precautions and compared the rates of systemic allergic reactions before and after the change. Methods: Our retrospective comparative cohort study compared systemic allergic reaction rates during 2012-2015 and 2016-2019, after a second check of the injected allergen/s by another nurse/physician was added to the treatment protocol. Results: The rate of systemic allergic reaction per injection was reduced from 0.93 to 0.71%; p = 0.023. Conclusion: A second check prior to injection is beneficial and can reduce the allergic reaction rate during immunotherapy.

KAAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment for various allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, and bee venom allergy that induces tolerance to offending allergens. The need for uniform practice guidelines in AIT is continuously growing because of the increasing discovery of potential candidates for AIT and evolving interest in new therapeutic approaches. This guideline is an updated version of the Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommendations for AIT published in 2010. This updated guideline proposes an expert opinion by allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology specialists with an extensive literature review. The guideline deals with basic knowledge and methodological aspects of AIT, including mechanisms, clinical efficacy, patient selection, allergens extract selection, schedule and doses, management of adverse reactions, efficacy measurements, and special consideration in pediatrics. The guidelines for sublingual immunotherapy will be covered in detail in a separate article.

A practical guide to prescribing sublingual immunotherapy tablets in North America for pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an injection-free allergy immunotherapy option

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is a common disease that affects individuals of all ages. Pediatricians may be the first (and only) point of care for children with ARC. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a convenient at-home, injection-free allergy immunotherapy option that can be used for the treatment of ARC. This paper provides a practical guide for pediatricians to aid in prescribing SLIT-tablets to children with ARC in North America. Topics include a summary of the available SLIT-tablets and their efficacy and safety, guidance on when SLIT-tablets are an appropriate option, and how to diagnose ARC and identify culprit allergens. Practical guidance is also provided through a proposed decision tree, a prescribing checklist and prescribing procedures, and suggested follow-up assessments.

A novel dose-adjustment protocol for interrupted subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

Background: This study aimed to develop a novel dose strategy for subcutaneous immunotherapy to reduce medical waste and financial burdens for patients who are required to restart subcutaneous immunotherapy. Patients & methods: A prospective, nonrandomized concurrent controlled trial was performed to assess the safety and advantages of the novel dose-adjustment protocol compared with the conventional one. 76 subjects were grouped to receive novel or conventional dose-adjustment protocols. Results: The injections, visits and time needed to reach the pre-established dose with the novel regimen were decreased. Furthermore, there were no differences in side reactions between the two groups. Conclusion: The novel protocol seemed safe and well tolerated, offering the advantages of time efficiency and reduced healthcare costs.

Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects more than 400 million people worldwide, making it 1 of the most prevalent chronic diseases. Childhood AR is increasing, and almost half of patients with AR develop symptoms before age 6 years. Although a diagnosis of AR is associated with higher socioeconomic status, underserved and urban populations have more indoor aeroallergen sensitizations and are likely underdiagnosed with AR, further exacerbating health-care disparities. AR negatively impacts quality of life, school performance, and overall health outcomes. Untreated AR in children increases the risk for poor asthma control, increased asthma severity, and exacerbations. Many patients believe that they have seasonal allergies only but in reality have both perennial and seasonal AR, which may change the approach to allergen avoidance measures and treatment recommendations. Pharmacotherapy of AR has expanded, with many intranasal corticosteroids, intranasal antihistamines, and second-generation oral antihistamines approved for pediatric use. Allergen immunotherapy, including both subcutaneous and sublingual forms, are approved for children and are disease modifying, potentially reducing further allergen sensitization and progression to asthma. Many of the currently available biological therapies indicated for pediatric asthma and/or atopic diseases reduce AR symptoms as well. Children with moderate to severe or refractory AR or those with comorbidities should be referred to allergists for diagnostic testing and expanded management options, including immunotherapy and potential biological treatment.

Comparison of rush-subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite extract for pediatric allergic rhinitis: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with standardized house dust mite (HDM) extract for allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Participants with allergic rhinitis selected their treatment between HDM SCIT or HDM SLIT, according to their wishes. We prospectively followed symptoms of allergic rhinitis using the allergic rhinitis symptom medication score (ARSMS), along with adverse reactions, during the dose escalation and maintenance phases for two years. We compared the outcomes between propensity score-matched groups to adjust the confounding factors.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 88 patients in the HDM SCIT (n = 44) and HDM SLIT groups (n = 44) remained for analysis. The HDM SCIT group showed significantly earlier effectiveness than the HDM SLIT group (median time to decrease in ARSMS [≥2 points]: 5.5 vs. 18.0 months, p < 0.001). The incidence of systemic reactions was not significantly different between the two groups in the dose escalation phase (68.2% vs. 56.8%, p = 0.379). In the maintenance phase, the incidence of systemic reactions was higher in the HDM SCIT group than in the HDM SLIT group (18.2% vs. 0%, p < 0.006). All 44 patients in the HDM SCIT group completed two years of treatment, while nine patients in the HDM SLIT group discontinued treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The HDM SCIT group showed an earlier onset of therapeutic effect and a lower discontinuation rate than the HDM SLIT group, although more severe systemic reactions were observed during the maintenance phase.

Otolaryngology and the Pregnant Patient

Importance

Pregnancy may result in physiologic and pathologic changes in the head and neck. Otolaryngologists may need to intervene medically or surgically with pregnant patients. Careful consideration of risks to both the gravid patient and the developing fetus is vital.

Observations

Patients may present with otolaryngologic complaints exacerbated by or simply occurring during their pregnancy. Symptoms of hearing loss, vertigo, rhinitis or rhinosinusitis, epistaxis, obstructive sleep apnea, sialorrhea, voice changes, reflux, subglottic stenosis, and benign and malignant tumors of the head and neck may prompt evaluation. While conservative measures are often best, there are medications that are safe for use during pregnancy. When required, surgery for the gravid patient requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Conclusions and Relevance

Otolaryngologic manifestations in pregnant patients may be managed safely with conservative treatment, medication, and surgery when necessary. Treatment should include consideration of both the pregnant patient and the developing fetus.

Immune response evolution in peanut epicutaneous immunotherapy for peanut-allergic children

BACKGROUND

Epicutaneous immunotherapy with investigational Viaskin™ Peanut 250 μg (DBV712) has demonstrated statistically superior desensitization versus placebo in peanut-allergic children in clinical trials. It is unclear whether serologic biomarkers predict response.

METHODS

Serum-specific IgG4 and IgE (whole peanut and components) from subjects enrolled in the phase 3 Efficacy and Safety of Viaskin Peanut in Children With IgE-Mediated Peanut Allergy study were examined by exploratory univariate and multivariate analyses to determine trajectories and predictors of treatment response, based upon peanut protein eliciting dose (ED) at Month (M) 12 double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge.

RESULTS

Among Viaskin Peanut-treated subjects, peanut sIgG4 significantly increased from baseline through M12 and peanut sIgE peaked at M3 and fell below baseline by M12, with sIgG4 and sIgE peanut components mirroring these trajectories. Placebo subjects had no significant changes. By univariate analysis, M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE was higher in treatment responders (p < 0.001) and had highest area under the curve (AUC) for predicting ED ≥300 mg and ≥1000 mg (AUC 69.5% and 69.9%, respectively). M12 peanut sIgG4/sIgE >20.1 predicted M12 ED ≥300 mg (80% positive predictive value). The best performing component was Ara h 1 sIgE <15.7 kUA /L (AUC 66.5%). A multivariate model combining Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had an AUC of 68.2% (ED ≥300 mg) and 67.8% (ED ≥1000 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

Peanut sIgG4 rise most clearly differentiated Viaskin Peanut versus placebo subjects. sIgG4/sIgE ratios >20.1 and the combination of Ara h 1 and peanut sIgG4/sIgE had moderate ability to predict treatment response and could potentially be useful for clinical monitoring. Additional data are needed to confirm these relationships.

Comparison of Standard, Cluster, and Rush Allergy Immunotherapy Buildup Protocols

BACKGROUND

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) involves a dose-escalation phase following 1 of 3 protocols: standard, cluster, or rush. Although the cluster and rush protocols have been shown to decrease the time to reach maintenance dosing, there is a lack of direct comparison between the protocols.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in time to maintenance dosing and occurrence of adverse reactions among the dose-escalation protocols.

METHODS

A retrospective observation study of patients on AIT was conducted. Patients were categorized as participating in the standard, cluster, or rush buildup protocols. Patients on the rush protocol, unlike the standard and cluster protocols, were required to receive prednisone, montelukast, cetirizine, and famotidine on the rush day and first 2 weekly injections thereafter. Variables analyzed include patient demographics, time until maintenance dosing, rate of adverse reactions, treatments required for reactions, and AIT formulation.

RESULTS

Data were reviewed on 237 patients on the standard (n = 41), cluster (n = 122), and rush (n = 74) protocols. The maintenance dose was achieved faster with the rush (16.50 weeks) and cluster (19.33 weeks) buildup protocols than the standard (31.09 weeks) protocol (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference between time to maintenance dosing when comparing the cluster and rush protocols (P = .322). Despite pretreatment with the rush protocol, the rate of systemic reactions was the same for the standard (9.76%), cluster (9.84%), or rush (14.86%) buildup protocols (P = .526).

CONCLUSION

Patients on the cluster buildup protocol for AIT achieved maintenance dosing in a comparable time frame as the rush protocol with a similar rate of systemic reactions and without the need for the pretreatment required with rush immunotherapy.

Updated guidance regarding the risk of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and recommended evaluation and management: A GRADE assessment and international consensus approach

This guidance updates 2021 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) recommendations regarding immediate allergic reactions following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and addresses revaccinating individuals with first-dose allergic reactions and allergy testing to determine revaccination outcomes. Recent meta-analyses assessed the incidence of severe allergic reactions to initial COVID-19 vaccination, risk of mRNA-COVID-19 revaccination after an initial reaction, and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine excipient testing in predicting reactions. GRADE methods informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. A modified Delphi panel consisting of experts in allergy, anaphylaxis, vaccinology, infectious diseases, emergency medicine, and primary care from Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States formed the recommendations. We recommend vaccination for persons without COVID-19 vaccine excipient allergy and revaccination after a prior immediate allergic reaction. We suggest against >15-minute postvaccination observation. We recommend against mRNA vaccine or excipient skin testing to predict outcomes. We suggest revaccination of persons with an immediate allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccine or excipients be performed by a person with vaccine allergy expertise in a properly equipped setting. We suggest against premedication, split-dosing, or special precautions because of a comorbid allergic history.

The early-phase transcriptome and the clinical efficacy analysis in three modes of subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

Background

Allergen immunotherapy is the only etiological treatment for allergic rhinitis.

Objective

To analyze the efficacy, safety, and mechanism of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).

Methods

The efficacy, safety, and serum immunological changes of 3 modes of subcutaneous immunotherapy were compared. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) transcriptome changes were obtained on the Illumina sequencing platforms. We confirmed differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The DEGs were analyzed by gene ontology (GO), Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), and protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. The correlation between the common DEGs and clinical indicators was analyzed by Origin 2022.

Results

The 3 SCITs were all effective after 1 year. The Combined Symptom and Medication Score (CSMS) and Visual Analog Score (VAS) in rush immunotherapy (RIT) are lowest after 24 and 48 weeks of treatment among the 3 groups. After treatment, the levels of sIgE, sIgE/tIgE, Th2 cytokines, Th17 cytokines, and percentage of peripheral eosinophils (EOS%) decreased significantly (P＜0.05), while the levels of Th1 type cytokines did not change significantly. Transcriptome analysis identified 24, 24, and 91 DEGs at W3 and 42, 52, 175 DEGs at W7 in conventional immunotherapy (CIT), cluster immunotherapy (CLIT), and RIT groups, respectively. The pathways and functions involved in SCIT include secretion of Th1/2 cytokines, immune cell differentiation. Unlike CIT and CLIT, DEGs are also involved in T cell tolerance induction, T cell anergy, and lymphocyte anergy in RIT. CXCR1, CXCR2, and IER3 had a specific effect on reflecting the improvement of symptoms in allergic rhinitis patients with SCIT.

Conclusion

The clinical efficacy of RIT appeared earlier than CIT and CLIT. Clinicians can use the highly conserved gene expression profile to evaluate responses to immunotherapy.

Identification of key genes and the pathophysiology associated with allergen-specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment in allergic rhinitis (AR), comprising long-term allergen administration and over three years of treatment. This study is carried out for revealing the mechanisms and key genes of AIT in AR.

METHODS

The present study utilized online Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) microarray expression profiling dataset GSE37157 and GSE29521 to analyze the hub genes changes related to AIT in AR. Based on limma package, differential expression analysis for the two groups (samples of allergic patients prior to AIT and samples of allergic patients undergoing AIT) was performed to obtain differentially expressed genes (DEGs). Gene Ontology (GO) analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis of DEGs were conducted using DAVID database. A Protein-Protein Interaction network (PPI) was built and a significant network module was acquired by using Cytoscape software (Cytoscape, 3.7.2). Utilizing the miRWalk database, we identified potential gene biomarkers, constructed interaction networks of target genes and microRNAs (miRNAs) using Cytoscape software, and explore the cell type-specific expression patterns of these genes in peripheral blood using publicly available single-cell RNA sequencing data (GSE200107). Finally, we are using PCR to detect changes in the hub genes that are screened using the above method in peripheral blood before and after AIT treatment.

RESULTS

GSE37157 and GSE29521 included 28 and 13 samples, respectively. A total of 119 significantly co-upregulated DEGs and 33 co-downregulated DEGs were obtained from two datasets. The GO and KEGG analyses demonstrated that protein transport, positive regulation of apoptotic process, Natural killer cell mediated cytotoxicity, T cell receptor signaling pathway, TNF signaling pathway, B cell receptor signaling pathway and Apoptosis may be potential candidate therapeutic targets for AIT of AR. From the PPI network, 20 hub genes were obtained. Among them, the PPI sub-networks of CASP3, FOXO3, PIK3R1, PIK3R3, ATF4, and POLD3 screened out from our study have been identified as reliable predictors of AIT in AR, especially the PIK3R1.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis has identified novel gene signatures, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying AIT in the treatment of AR.

How can we improve our use of allergen immunotherapy as a treatment option for asthma and severe asthma?

INTRODUCTION

In patients suffering from allergic asthma, especially in the pediatric age-group, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) could be of benefit and has the potential of long-term disease modification.

AREAS COVERED

We reviewed the evidence for a beneficial effect of AIT in allergic asthma. A correct selection of the possible candidates for AIT is crucial. We define the comprehensive allergic asthma diagnosis: confirming asthma, confirming allergic sensitization and having symptoms on exposure to the relevant allergens.We analyze why the first trials on AIT for asthma were contradictory; we consider the results of systematic reviews and discuss the high degree of heterogeneity often found in meta-analysis. We assess recent, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in sublingual AIT that provide robust evidence for a reduction in acute asthma exacerbations and a decrease in the use of inhaled corticosteroids. Further, we demonstrate how real-world trials and large pharmacy data-based analyses confirm these findings for SLIT and SCIT. Finally, we explore the option of AIT in severe asthma patients, once well-controlled on biologic therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Clear indications for AIT in asthma guidelines would benefit allergic asthmatics. AIT is a therapeutic option in appropriately selected asthmatics. Three years treatment has the potential for long-term tolerance, with persisting benefits years after discontinuation.

Adverse events in children and adolescents undergoing allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergies-Report from the Allergen Immunotherapy Adverse Events Registry (ADER), a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology taskforce

BACKGROUND

Although it has been shown that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is well-tolerated in children, systematic and prospective surveillance of AIT safety in real life settings is needed.

METHODS

The multinational Allergen Immunotherapy Adverse Events Registry (ADER) was designed to address AIT safety in real life clinical practice. Data on children ≤18 years old with respiratory allergies undergoing AIT were retrieved. Patient- and AIT-related features were collected and analyzed. The characteristics of adverse events (AE) and risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 851 patients, 11.3 ± 3.4 years old, with rhinitis only (47.6%); asthma and rhinitis (44.5%); asthma (7.9%), receiving 998 AIT courses were analyzed. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) accounted for 51% of the courses. In 84.5% of patients only one AIT treatment was prescribed. Pollen was the most frequent sensitizer (57.1%), followed by mites (53.4%), molds (18.2%) and epithelia (16.7%). Local and systemic AEs were reported in 85 patients (9.9%). Most AEs (83.1%) were mild and occurred in <30 min (87%). Respiratory and cutaneous symptoms were more frequent. Only 4 patients (0.47%) had severe AE (none after 6 weeks of maintenance). The risk of AE was higher in patients undergoing SCIT.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT is safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents with respiratory allergies in real-life clinical practice. Though SCIT is more prone to AE compared to SLIT, overall severe reactions are rare and occur during build-up and early maintenance.

Mechanisms of Allergen Immunotherapy and Potential Biomarkers for Clinical Evaluation

Allergen-immunotherapy (AIT) is an efficacious and disease-modifying treatment option for IgE-mediated diseases. Among these allergic rhinitis, insect venom allergy, food allergy, and allergic asthma are the most common candidates for AIT. AIT gives rise to clinical immunotolerance which may last for years after the treatment cessation. Mechanisms of AIT include suppression of allergic inflammation in target tissues and stimulation of the production of blocking antibodies, especially IgG4 and IgA. These mechanisms are followed by a reduction of underlying allergen-specific Th2 cell-driven responses to the allergens. Tolerance induction takes place through the desensitization of effector cells and stimulation of regulatory T cells that show their effects by mechanisms involving cell-cell cross-talk, but also other mechanisms, e.g., by the production of immunomodulatory cytokines such as, e.g., IL-10 and TGF-beta. From a personalized medical perspective, there is a need for clinical biomarkers of value in selecting responders and optimizing patient care during AIT. Also, a deeper understanding of underlying mechanistic processes will improve AIT's future outcomes. In this paper, the current knowledge of mechanisms in AIT is reviewed with a special focus on biomarkers of this therapy.

Penicillin allergy delabeling: Opportunities for implementation and dissemination

Although existing as a safety measure to prevent iatrogenic harm, unconfirmed penicillin allergy labels have a negative impact on personal and public health. One downstream effect of unconfirmed penicillin allergy is the continued emergence and transmission of resistant bacteria and their associated health care costs. Recognizing the consequences of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels, professional and public health organizations have started promoting the adoption of proactive penicillin allergy evaluations, with the ultimate goal of removing the penicillin allergy label when the allergy is disproved, also known as penicillin allergy "delabeling." A penicillin allergy evaluation includes a comprehensive allergy history often followed by drug challenge, sometimes with preceding skin testing. Currently, penicillin allergy delabeling is largely carried out by allergy specialists in outpatient settings. Penicillin allergy delabeling is performed on inpatients, albeit rarely, often at the time of need, as a point-of-care procedure. Access to penicillin allergy evaluation services is limited. Recent studies demonstrate the feasibility of expanding penicillin allergy evaluations and delabeling to internists, pediatricians, emergency medicine physicians, infectious diseases specialists, and clinical pharmacists. However, reducing the impact of mislabeled penicillin allergy will require comprehensive efforts and new investments. In this review, we summarize the current practices of penicillin allergy delabeling and discuss expansion opportunities for penicillin allergy delabeling as quality improvement.

Comparison of allergen immunotherapy practice patterns in inhalant allergies in the United States of America and Europe: Similarities and differences 2023

IgE-mediated atopic diseases such as allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis are common chronic diseases in the western world. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) plays a fundamental role in the treatment of allergic patients by modulating the underlying immune mechanisms. Though this treatment is integrated in practice-patterns globally, many differences are found in the application of AIT on the national or international level due to heterogeneous methods, and clinical recommendations are given in different parts of the world. This review from authors in Europe and the United States highlights differences and similarities in important aspects of AIT application in the 2 global regions. First, the regulatory situation differs regarding marketing authorization and licensing. Secondly, differences are elaborated in manufacturing practices, marketing distribution and formulations of AIT products. Thirdly, clinical administration patterns in the current guidelines show similarities in indications and contraindications of AIT, but also are divergent in some practical aspects. Informing the readership on similarities, as well as differences of standards in AIT in the United States and Europe, the authors highlight the unmet need of thorough harmonization of standards of AIT, as it is the only disease modifying treatment option available for patients with allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis.