Immunotherapy with mosquito (Culex quinquefasciatus) extract: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

A review on aero-allergen induced allergy in India

Allergic diseases such as bronchial asthma, rhinitis and eczema are an important public health issue globally in 21st century. Their prevalence and impact in India is high, in terms of total numbers of people affected. Due to diverse climate and lifestyle, the Indian population is exposed to a rich and varied range of aerobiological particles. In the last two decades in India, 83 pollens, 34 fungi, six dust mite and 19 insect species were reported as allergenic, often contributing to heavy allergenic exposure in indoor and outdoor environments. There are currently few practitioners who offer allergy diagnosis and treatment in India, but there is active basic and molecular research aiming to improve the health of allergic patients. This review explores the field of aero-allergy in India during the last two decades, with special emphasis on prevalence across various centres and relevant scientific advances such as genetic associations and new therapeutics. This review will be helpful for clinicians to select aero-allergens for sensitisation testing in patients suffering from symptoms in different regions of India, and to support patients undertaking prophylaxis of allergic symptoms in India according to local environmental conditions. This study also helps to define patient selection for allergy testing and the role of test results in guiding allergic disease management in the Indian context. Finally, we summarize genetic findings relevant to aero-allergy in India and discuss the development of novel therapeutics for investigation and management of aero-allergy in India.

Update on mosquito bite reaction: Itch and hypersensitivity, pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment

Mosquito bites are endured by most populations worldwide. Reactions to mosquito bites range from localized wheals and papules with associated pruritus to rare systemic reactions and anaphylaxis in certain populations. The mechanism of itch is due to introduction of mosquito saliva components into the cutaneous tissue, although the exact pathophysiology is unclear. Histamine is thought to be a key player through mosquito saliva itself or through activation of mast cells by IgE or through an IgE-independent pathway. However, other salivary proteins such as tryptase and leukotrienes may induce non-histaminergic itch. Some individuals have a genetic predisposition for mosquito bites, and people with hematologic cancers, HIV, and other conditions are susceptible to robust reactions. Prevention of mosquito bites is key with physical barriers or chemical repellents. Treatment consists of second-generation antihistamines and topical corticosteroids. Further research on topical treatments that target neural-mediated itch is needed.

Omalizumab for prevention of anaphylactic episodes in a patient with severe mosquito allergy

Anaphylaxis after mosquito bite is rare, but life threatening. No approved preventive therapy is available to date, but omalizumab could be a promising therapeutic option for reducing risk and improving quality of life in these patients.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

Spectrum of Allergens and Allergen Biology in India

The growing prevalence of allergy and asthma in India has become a major health concern with symptoms ranging from mild rhinitis to severe asthma and even life-threatening anaphylaxis. The "allergen repertoire" of this subcontinent is highly diverse due to the varied climate, flora, and food habits. The proper identification, purification, and molecular characterization of allergy-eliciting molecules are essential in order to facilitate an accurate diagnosis and to design immunotherapeutic vaccines. Although several reports on prevalent allergens are available, most of these studies were based on preliminary detection and identification of the allergens. Only a few of these allergen molecules have been characterized by recombinant technology and structural biology. The present review first describes the composition, distribution pattern, and natural sources of the predominant allergens in India along with the prevalence of sensitization to these allergens across the country. We go on to present a comprehensive report on the biochemical, immunological, and molecular information on the allergens reported so far from India. The review also covers the studies on allergy- related biosafety assessment of transgenic plants. Finally, we discuss the allergen-specific immunotherapy trials performed in India.

Mosquito salivary allergen Aed a 3: cloning, comprehensive molecular analysis, and clinical evaluation

BACKGROUND

Allergic reactions to mosquito bites are an increasing clinical concern. Due to the lack of availability of mosquito salivary allergens, they are underdiagnosed. Here, we reported a newly cloned mosquito Aedes (Ae.) aegypti salivary allergen.

METHODS

A cDNA encoding a 30-kDa Ae. aegypti salivary protein, designated Aed a 3, was isolated from an expression library. The full-length cDNA was cloned into a baculovirus expression vector, and recombinant Aed a 3 (rAed a 3) was expressed, purified, and characterized. Skin prick tests with purified rAed a 3 and Ae. aegypti bite tests were performed in 43 volunteers. Serum rAed a 3-specific IgE levels were measured in 28 volunteers.

RESULTS

The primary nucleotide sequence, deduced amino acid sequence, and IgE-binding sites of Aed a 3 were identified. rAed a 3-selected antibodies recognized a 30-kDa Ae. aegypti saliva protein. rAed a 3 bound IgE in mosquito-allergic volunteers and the binding could be inhibited by the addition of natural mosquito extract dose dependently. Immediate skin test reactions to rAed a 3 correlated significantly with mosquito bite-induced reactions. Of the bite test-positive volunteers, 32% had a positive rAed a 3 skin test and 46% had specific IgE. No bite test-negative volunteers reacted to rAed a 3 in either the skin tests or the IgE assays, confirming the specificity of the assay.

CONCLUSIONS

Aed a 3 that corresponds to the Aegyptin protein is a major mosquito salivary allergen. Its recombinant form has biological activity and is suitable for use in skin tests and specific IgE assays in mosquito-allergic individuals.

For t 2 DNA vaccine prevents Forcipomyia taiwana (biting midge) allergy in a mouse model

BACKGROUND

Forcipomyia taiwana (biting midge) is the most prevalent allergenic biting insect in Taiwan, and 60% of the exposed subjects develop allergic reactions. Subjects with insect allergy frequently limit their outdoor activities to avoid the annoyingly intense itchy allergic reactions, leading to significant worsening of their quality of life. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only known therapy that provides long-term host immune tolerance to the allergen, but is time-consuming and cumbersome. This study tested whether the For t 2 DNA vaccine can prevent allergic symptoms in For t 2-sensitized mice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two consecutive shots of For t 2 DNA vaccine were given to mice with a 7-day interval before sensitization with recombinant For t 2 proteins, using the two-step sensitization protocol reported previously.

RESULTS

The For t 2 DNA vaccine at 50 μg prevented the production of For t 2-specific IgE (P < 0.05), as well as midge allergen-challenge-induced scratch bouts, midge allergen-induced IL-13 and IL-4 production from splenocytes, and inflammatory cell infiltrations in the lesions 48 h after intradermal challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to demonstrate that DNA vaccine encoding midge allergen is effective in preventing allergic skin inflammation induced by biting midge. Immunotherapy using For t 2 DNA vaccine can protect mice from being sensitized by midge allergen and may be a promising treatment for biting midge allergy in the future.

Orphan immunotherapies for allergic diseases

OBJECTIVE

As confirmed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, allergen immunotherapy is clinically effective in the treatment of allergic diseases. In particular, subcutaneous immunotherapy is a pivotal treatment in patients with severe reactions to Hymenoptera venom, whereas subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy are indicated in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma by inhalant allergens. Other allergies related to animal dander (other than cat, which is the most studied), such as dog, molds, occupational allergens, and insects, have also been recognized. For these allergens, immunotherapy is poorly studied and often unavailable. Thus, use of the term orphan immunotherapies is appropriate.

DATA SOURCES

We used MEDLINE to search the medical literature for English-language articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled, masked studies for orphan immunotherapies were selected. In the remaining cases, the available reports were described.

RESULTS

The literature on food desensitization is abundant, but for other orphan allergens, such as mosquito, Argas reflexus, dog, or occupational allergens, there are only a few studies, and most are small studies or case reports.

CONCLUSION

Orphan immunotherapy is associated with insufficient evidence of efficacy from controlled trials, an erroneous belief of the limited importance of some allergen sources, and the unlikelihood for producers to have a profit in making commercially available extracts (with an expensive process for registration) to be used in few patients. It should be taken into consideration that adequate preparations should be available also for orphan allergens.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. However, it is not clear whether the sublingual delivery route is safe and effective in asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. The search is up to date as of 25 March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and presented results in the 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 5077 participants to comparisons of interest. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, but studies varied in duration from one day to three years. Most participants had mild or intermittent asthma, often with co-morbid allergic rhinitis. Eighteen studies recruited only adults, 25 recruited only children and several recruited both or did not specify (n = 9).With the exception of adverse events, reporting of outcomes of interest to this review was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence. Allocation procedures generally were not well described, about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of bias for performance or detection bias or both and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies.One short study reported exacerbations requiring a hospital visit and observed no adverse events. Five studies reported quality of life, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. Serious adverse events were infrequent, and analysis using risk differences suggests that no more than 1 in 100 are likely to suffer a serious adverse event as a result of treatment with SLIT (RD 0.0012, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0077 to 0.0102; participants = 2560; studies = 22; moderate-quality evidence).Within secondary outcomes, wide but varied reporting of largely unvalidated asthma symptom and medication scores precluded meaningful meta-analysis; a general trend suggested SLIT benefit over placebo, but variation in scales meant that results were difficult to interpret.Changes in inhaled corticosteroid use in micrograms per day (MD 35.10 mcg/d, 95% CI -50.21 to 120.42; low-quality evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events) and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.69, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence) were not often reported. This led to many imprecise estimates with wide confidence intervals that included the possibility of both benefit and harm from SLIT.More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.38; low-quality evidence; participants = 1755; studies = 19), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild.Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lack of data for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life and use of different unvalidated symptom and medication scores have limited our ability to draw a clinically useful conclusion. Further research using validated scales and important outcomes for patients and decision makers is needed so that SLIT can be properly assessed as clinical treatment for asthma. Very few serious adverse events have been reported, but most studies have included patients with intermittent or mild asthma, so we cannot comment on the safety of SLIT for those with moderate or severe asthma. SLIT is associated with increased risk of all adverse events.

Immunological aspects of the immune response induced by mosquito allergens

Allergies caused by mosquito bites may produce local or systemic reactions. The inhalation of mosquito allergens may also cause asthma and/or allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in sensitized individuals. The mechanisms implicated in the development of these immune responses involve IgE antibodies, different subtypes of IgG and proinflammatory cytokines as well as basophils, eosinophils and mast cells. Several allergenic components have been identified in the saliva and bodies of mosquitoes and some of these are present in different mosquito species. The most common species implicated in allergic reactions belong to the genera Aedes, Culex and Anopheles. Several Aedes aegypti allergens have been cloned and sequenced. The recombinant molecules show IgE reactivity similar to that of the native allergens, making them good candidates for the diagnosis of mosquito allergies. Allergen-specific immunotherapy with mosquito extracts induces a protective response characterized by a decreased production of IgE antibodies, increased IgG levels, a reduction in the severity of cutaneous and respiratory symptoms and the need for medication. The aims of this review are to summarize the progress made in the characterization of mosquito allergens and discuss the types of immune responses induced by mosquito bites and the inhalation of mosquito allergens in atopic individuals.

Clinico-immunological changes post-immunotherapy with Periplaneta americana

BACKGROUND

Cockroach proteins induce allergies including asthma in predisposed individuals. Well-designed controlled studies are required to show the effect of cockroach immunotherapy (IT). This study is aimed to assess changes in clinical and immunological parameters post-IT with Periplaneta americana extract.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cockroach IT was performed for 1year in 50 patients of asthma, rhinitis or both. The efficacy of IT was assessed by change in skin reactivity and clinical parameters such as symptom/drug score, airway reactivity and immunological parameters namely IgE, IgG1 and IgG4, IL-4 and IFN-γ by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and western blotting using patients' sera at baseline and after 1year of treatment.

RESULTS

Immunotherapy with cockroach extract demonstrated significant improvement in clinical parameters of active group patients compared with baseline values and placebo group. Specific IgE levels showed a modest reduction, while IgG4 levels increased significantly in active IT group after 1year. IgE immunoblotting demonstrated reduction in intensity and number of specific bands, whereas IgG4 binding showed more number and distinct bands following IT. Active group patients showed correlation between increase in IgG4/IgG1 ratio and reduction in symptom score post-IT.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunotherapy with cockroach extract improved clinical and immunological status of asthma and rhinitis patients. Clinical improvement in patients after IT is associated with immunological changes.

Choline attenuates immune inflammation and suppresses oxidative stress in patients with asthma

Asthma is a chronic immune inflammatory disease characterized by variable airflow obstruction and increased bronchial hyperreactivity (BHR). Therapeutic interventions reduce airway inflammation and relieve symptoms but associated with potential side effects that limit their usefulness. The present study was undertaken to assess the effect of choline on immune inflammation and BHR in asthma subjects. The patients of asthma (n=76) were recruited and treated with choline supplement (1500 mg twice) or standard pharmacotherapy for 6 months in two groups. The patients were evaluated by clinical, immunologic and biochemical parameters. The treatment with choline showed significant reduction in symptom/drug score and improvement in PC(20) FEV1 compared to baseline or standard pharmacotherapy (p<0.01). Choline therapy significantly reduced IL-4, IL-5 and TNF-alpha level as compared to baseline or standard pharmacotherapy after 6 months (p<0.01). Blood eosinophil count and total IgE levels were reduced in both the treatment groups. Cysteinyl leukotriene and leukotriene B4 were suppressed significantly by choline treatment (p<0.01). This was accompanied by decreased 8-isoprostanes, a biomarker for oxidative stress after choline treatment (p<0.01). Choline therapy modulates immune inflammation and suppresses oxidative stress in asthma patients. It can be used as an adjunct therapy for asthma patients.

Clinico-immunologic study on immunotherapy with mixed and single insect allergens

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy (IT) is practiced mainly with mixed and single allergen vaccines. But studies are rare with mixed allergen preparations.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to study mix and single insect allergen IT in patients of allergic rhinitis and asthma.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of mix and single allergen IT for 1 year in 99 patients of asthma or rhinitis or both. There were two groups, (1) active allergen IT (n = 61) with three subgroups single insect extract (cockroach, housefly, or mosquito) and mix allergen IT (two or three insect extracts) and (2) placebo (n = 38). Clinical (skin reactivity, airway reactivity, and symptom score) and immunological (IgE/IgG4 and IgG1/IgG4 ratio) parameters were assessed at baseline and after 1 year of IT.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients completed 1 year of IT. The active allergen IT group patients showed a significant improvement compared to baseline values (p < 0.05) and placebo group patients (p < 0.05) with regard to symptom scores, FEV1 values, and immunological parameters (IgG4). No significant difference was found between mixed and single IT group patients for changes in clinical and immunological parameters. Positive correlation was observed between increase in IgG4 and clinical improvement. The changes in above parameters in placebo group were nonsignificant after 1 year of treatment.

CONCLUSION

IT with two to three mix extract from the same allergen group is effective for insect hypersensitivity.

Current immunological approaches for management of allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma

A large population world over is affected with allergic diseases and asthma. Pharmacotherapy for allergic diseases and asthma is effective in controlling symptoms but on discontinuation of medication, symptoms reoccur. In contrast, immunotherapy modifies and corrects the underlying pathological immune responses in an antigen-specific manner. Immunotherapy shows an increase in IgG (blocking antibody) that competes with IgE for allergen, inhibiting the release of inflammatory mediators. Recent studies suggest that immunotherapy acts by modifying CD4+ T-cell responses either by immune deviation, T-cell anergy and/or both. Current immunological approaches for management of allergies and asthma involve immunization with native allergen, modified allergen, peptides/cDNA of allergen, anti-IgE, adjuvants coupled allergen, including immunostimulatory DNA sequences, cytokines, and bacterial products. These approaches modulate the immune response and are intended to give long-term benefit.