The effect of immunotherapy on cross-reactivity between house dust mite and other allergens in house dust mite -sensitized patients with allergic rhinitis

Clinical efficacy of Dermatophagoides farina drops on allergic rhinitis in children sensitized by dust mites combined with different allergens

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) using standardized dermatophagoides farina drops for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) in children sensitized to dust mites combined with different allergens. The findings contribute to establishing a preliminary foundation for future in-depth studies on AR treatment.

METHODS

A total of 152 AR children undergoing SLIT were categorized into two groups based on serological test results: the inhalation group (dust mite combined with inhalation allergy) and the ingestion group (dust mite combined with ingestion allergy). The clinical efficacy and safety were evaluated by assessing the total nasal symptoms score (TNSS), total medication scores (TMS), visual analog scale scores (VAS scores), and the incidence of adverse reactions before treatment and after two years of treatment.

RESULTS

After two years of treatment, TNSS, TMS, and VAS scores significantly improved compared to pre-treatment values in both the inhalation and ingestion groups (p < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences in efficacy between the two groups after two years of treatment (p > 0.05). During the treatment period, only 15 cases (10.9 %, 9 cases in the inhalation group and 6 cases in the ingestion group) experienced mild adverse reactions. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SLIT using standardized dermatophagoides farina drops demonstrates long-term efficacy in children with AR, regardless of whether they belong to the inhalation or ingestion group, without significant differences in treatment outcomes.

Triggered Skin Sensitivity: Understanding Contact Dermatitis

Dermatitis, the incendiary reaction of the skin to various components, can manifest in various types, including atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, nummular eczema, seborrhoea, and stasis dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis is the most common skin disease in children and has a growing prevalence in recent years. It is characterized by extreme tingling, eczemous skin injuries, dryness of the skin, and a family history of atopic illnesses. Contact dermatitis (CD) is a common, irritating skin disorder caused by allergens and aggravating elements in the environment. It is the most common cause of work-related dermatitis and plays a substantial role in hand and face dermatitis. A complete restorative history is essential for establishing CD and identifying the allergies that cause it. Fix testing, skin tests for fast contact reactions, serum allergen-specific IgE testing, subjective and quantitative evaluation of allergens inside probable items patients were exposed to, and challenge testing are among the other diagnostic techniques. To avoid a breakdown and the continuation of the skin illness, early and suitable therapy is critical. Allergic dermatitis to contact (ACD) develops during the normal, delayed incendiary reaction and has a perplexing etiology. Accurate identification of the allergen that is causing the reaction allows for adequate individual avoidance. The major treatment alternatives continue to be corticosteroids. Nickel-contact dermatitis is an allergic reaction that affects both children and adults. Adverse contact dermatitis (ACD) is a frequent skin reaction to a common allergen that can affect both children and adults. Less than 10% of all diagnostic procedures in pediatric patients involve checking for ACD symptoms. To answer the clinical question, a thorough history is gathered based on appearance, age group, and dermatitis type. According to pediatricians in the US, metals, perfumes, topical antimicrobials, excessive chemicals, and fabric softeners are the most typical allergens.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in Monosensitized and Polysensitized Children With Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in monosensitized and polysensitized children with allergic rhinitis (AR).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

METHODS

One hundred thirty children were enrolled and categorized into 2 groups: monosensitized to only dust mites and polysensitized to at least 1 additional allergen beyond dust mites. All patients received SCIT targeting dust mites for 3 years, followed by a 5-year monitoring period. The Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Symptom and Medication Score (SMS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) were assessed before SCIT (T0); at 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) years of SCIT; immediately after SCIT (T3); and 2 years post-SCIT (T5). Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Fifty-one monosensitized and 50 polysensitized children completed the study. At T3, 47 monosensitized and 46 polysensitized children were effectively treated, with no significant between-group difference in efficacy (P > .05). The TNSS, SMS, VAS scores, and RQLQ score were significantly lower at T1, T2, T3, and T5 than at T0 in both groups (P < .05). The differences in the TNSS, SMS, VAS score, and RQLQ score between the 2 groups were nonsignificant at T0, T1, T2, and T3 (P > .05), but significant at T5 (P < .05). No serious AEs were reported.

CONCLUSION

Monosensitized and polysensitized children exhibited similar beneficial efficacy and safety after 3 years of dust mite SCIT. Monosensitized children derived more benefits 2 years after discontinuation.

A Review on Novel Therapeutic Modalities and Evidence-based Drug Treatments against Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated atopic disease that occurs due to inhaled antigens in the immediate phase. Misdiagnosis, insufficient treatment, or no treatment at all are frequent problems associated with the widespread condition known as chronic allergic rhinitis. AR symptoms include runny, itchy, stuffy, and sneezing noses. Asthma and nasal polyps, for example, sometimes occur simultaneously in patients. In order for people living with AR to be as comfortable and productive as possible, treatment should center on reducing their symptoms. The online sources and literature, such as Pubmed, ScienceDirect, and Medline, were reviewed to gather information regarding therapeutic modalities of AR and evidence-based treatments for the disease as the objectives of the present study. An increasing number of people are suffering from AR, resulting in a heavy financial and medical burden on healthcare systems around the world. Undertreating AR frequently results in a decline in quality of life. Treatment compliance is a critical challenge in the administration of AR. Innovative therapies are needed for RA to provide patients with symptom alleviation that is less expensive, more effective, and longer duration of action. Evidence-based guidelines are helpful for managing AR illness. Treating AR according to evidence-based standards can help in disease management. AR treatment includes allergen avoidance, drug therapy, immunotherapy, patient education, and follow-up. However, AR treatment with intranasal corticosteroids is more popular. Hence, in this review article, treatment options for AR are discussed in depth. We also discussed the incidence, causes, and new treatments for this clinical condition.

Clinical efficacy in one-year treatment with Artemisia annua-SLIT drops in monosensitized and polysensitized individuals

PURPOSE

Seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC) caused by Artemisia seriously affects patients' quality of life in northern China. This study aimed to estimate further the efficacy and safety of a one-year course of Artemisia annua-sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) on SARC patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized, controlled, single-centre study involving 150 SARC patients induced by Artemisia, randomized to SLIT group (n = 75, SLIT along with pharmacotherapy) or control group (n = 75, pharmacotherapy only). According to the skin prick test (SPT) results, the SLIT group was divided into monosensitized and polysensitized groups to analyze the influence of sensitization status on the efficacy of Artemisia annua-SLIT. The clinical indicators of this study were total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (TRSS), total medication score (TMS), combined scores of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptom (CSMRS), and score of visual analog scale (VAS). Safety was evaluated by the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Daily administration of the drops was recorded in diaries by the patients.

RESULTS

After nearly one year of treatment and follow-ups, there was a significant decline in TRSS, TMS, CSMRS, and VAS from the baseline scores in the SLIT group (p < 0.001). However, as pollen counts increased in 2022, indicators above in the control group increased significantly during the peak pollen phase (PPP) in 2022 grass pollen season (GPS) compared to the baseline. Meanwhile, we found no significant difference in TRSS, TMS, CSMRS, and VAS between the monosensitized and polysensitized groups (p > 0.05). Moreover, the result indicated that the clinical improvement in TRSS, TMS, CSMRS, and VAS was still observed in polysensitized patients who were allergic to Artemisia pollen and sensitized to house dust mite (HDM) (n = 15) in PPP of 2022, compared to the baseline value (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Artemisia annua-SLIT was proven effective, tolerable and safe in patients with SARC after nearly one year of treatment, whether monosensitization or polysensitization.

Exposure to household dust, allergens, and endotoxin and allergy-related outcomes alternation in the general U.S. population

It has been widely reported that the general population was at an increased risk of allergy diseases, which probably be related with household allergens exposure. However, the difference of local and systemic allergic reactions exposure to allergens has not been reported in the general population previously. The data of 1094 U.S. adults from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2006 data bank were analyzed. Dust, allergens (Bia g 1, Bia g 2, Can f 1, Feld 1, Derp 1, Mus m 1, Rat n 1, Alternaria alternate, and Aspergillus fumigatus), and endotoxin, were measured to estimate sensitizing source exposure. And allergy-related outcomes indicators including hay fever, sneezing, allergic rhinitis (AR), immunoglobulin E (IgE), and allergic sensitization, were evaluzted to estimate local and systemic allergic reactions. Multiple linear regression and logistic regression models were used to examine the associations of sensitizer and allergy-related outcomes. The mean or median concentration of dust and endotoxin were 0.66 g and 12.98 EU/mg dust. The Derp 1, Mus m 1, Rat n 1, Alternaria alternate, and Aspergillus fumigatus were the main allergens in the dust, with the concentrations of 30.66 ng/g dust, 30.73 ng/g dust, 5.94 ng/g dust, 5.20 ng/g dust, and 207.68 μg/g dust, respectively. The prevalence of AR was 34.2% among the general population. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, we found that the allergens, such as Can f 1 and Feld 1, were positively associated with AR. The prevalence of allergic sensitization was about 20%. Dust and endotoxin were found positively associated with allergic sensitization, while Bia g 2, Rat n 1, Alternaria alternate, and Aspergillus fumigatus were inversely associated with that. Dust and endotoxin probably be associated with higher risk of local allergic reactions, while some allergens, such as Bia g 2, Rat n 1, Alternaria alternate, and Aspergillus fumigatus probably be associated with lower risk of systemic allergic reactions.

Monitoring of molecular profiling of allergen-antibody responses in HDM-immunotherapy patients

Among the potential hazards of HDM immunotherapy (AIT) with HDM allergenic extracts is the possible initiation of de novosensitizations caused by a lack of complementarity between a given HDM vaccine's content and a patient's molecular sensitization profile. To investigate whether immunotherapy with HDM extracts affects changes in the profile of sensitizations to allergens contained in the extract and whether neosensitizations occur. Serum samples from patients with HDM allergies (N=63) who received 1 year of treatment with subcutaneous AIT were tested for allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) reactivity to 7 microarrayed HDM allergen molecules (Der p 1, 2,10,11,23; D far 1 and 2) with ImmunoCAP. The HDM non-AIT patients (N=22) who did not receive immunotherapy constituted the study's control group. The obtained data were analysed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. In the HDM-AIT group, no neosensitizations after 6 and 12 months of immunotherapy were reported. Conversely, in the HDM non-AIT group, only neosensitizations to Der p 10 were observed. In the study group, sIgE levels against the HDM extract of D. pteronyssinus, D. farinae, rDer p 1, rDer p 2 and Der f 2 decreased after 12 months of AIT (p< .05). SIgE levels against Der f 1, Der p 10, 11 and 23 remained unchanged in the course of 12 months of immunotherapy. In patients with allergic rhinitis with or without concomitant HDM-induced asthma treated with HDM AIT for 12 months, no neosensitizations related to the examined HDM molecules were observed.

Update on pathomechanisms and treatments in allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem with increasing prevalence and association with an enormous medical and socioeconomic burden. New recognition of immune cells such as type 2 innate lymphocytes (ILC2s), T helper (Th2) 2 cells, follicular helper T cells, follicular regulatory T cells, regulatory T cells, B cells, dendritic cells, and epithelial cells in AR pathogenesis has been updated in this review paper. An in-depth understanding of the mechanisms underlying AR will aid the identification of biomarkers associated with disease and ultimately provide valuable parameters critical to guide personalized targeted therapy. As the only etiological treatment option for AR, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) has attracted increasing attention, with evidence for effectiveness of AIT recently demonstrated in several randomized controlled trials and long-term real-life studies. The exploration of biologics as therapeutic options has only involved anti-IgE and anti-type 2 inflammatory agents; however, the cost-effectiveness of these agents remains to be elucidated precisely. In the midst of the currently on-going COVID-19 pandemic, a global life-threatening disease, although some studies have indicated that AR is not a risk factor for severity and mortality of COVID-19, this needs to be confirmed in multi-centre, real-life studies of AR patients from different parts of the world.