Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of Alternaria alternata immunotherapy: clinical efficacy and safety

A retrospective analysis of the clinical efficacy in patients treated with Alternaria alternata and Dermatophagoides farinae immunotherapy

Background

The clinical efficacy of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) for Alternaria alternata (A. alt) and Dermatophagoides farinae (Der f) extracts remains largely unknown in China. We sought to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy caused by AIT agents manufactured in China of patients who are sensitized to A. alt and Der f.

Methods

Patients aged 5-27 years with asthma and perennial allergic rhinitis (AR), and AIT with A. alt and Der f were recruited, and then classified into two groups: A. alt-AIT (n = 31) and A. alt + Der f-AIT group (n = 39). All data were gathered retrospectively, including biological parameters, pulmonary function, and symptom and medication scores.

Results

70 patients who underwent A. alt and Der f AIT were enrolled. A significant improvement was observed in the values of FEV1% (P < 0.0001) and MEF 25 (P = 0.023) of lung function. Both the rhinitis symptoms and combined symptoms and medication scores for asthma decreased after AIT (by 45.3% and 80.3%, respectively, P < 0.0001 for each). Nearly 67% improvement rate (P < 0.0001) occurred in rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life, and a great increase existed in Asthma Control Test (ACT) score (P < 0.0001) after at least 1 year AIT, although there were no significant changes between these two groups. Besides, no significance was displayed in specific IgE to different allergens.

Conclusion

AIT with A. alt and Der f extracts had clinical efficacy for many patients in China, with a reduction of symptom and medication scores, and great improvement in spirometry function.

Allergy immunotherapy for allergic fungal respiratory diseases

Background: Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) with fungal extracts is not as straight forward as that with other inhalants. The complexities relate to the number of airborne fungal spores, the limited data on the exposure to the spores of individual species of fungi and their clinical importance, the poor quality of the fungal allergen extracts that are available for the diagnosis and treatment, and the lack of controlled studies establishing dosing and efficacy of AIT with fungal extracts except for Alternaria. Objective: The objective was to review what is known with regard to the role of fungi in causing allergic respiratory diseases as well as the evidence that exists for the role of AIT as a treatment for these conditions. Methods: A search was conducted of PubMed, textbooks, known articles on immunotherapy with fungal extracts, and references derived from these primary sources. Results: Nine immunotherapy studies that used Alternaria or its major allergen Alt a 1 and two studies that used Cladosporium herbarum were identified. When a good quality extract was administered in adequate doses, immunotherapy with Alternaria was as effective as that with other inhalant allergens. There was a suggestion of efficacy with a specially prepared Cladosporium extract, but systemic reactions were common and limited the tolerated dose. The use of immunotherapy as an adjunct treatment for allergic fungal sinusitis is briefly reviewed, but controlled trials are lacking. Conclusion: Fungal immunotherapy should largely be limited to Alternaria alternata and perhaps C. herbarum. Under conditions of demonstrated exposure to a particular species of fungus and with symptoms that correlate with that exposure as well as availability of an apparently potent extract of that fungus to which the patient is sensitive that fungus may be considered for immunotherapy. Fungal (mold) mixes should not be used for diagnosis or therapy.

Alternaria as an Inducer of Allergic Sensitization

Alternaria alternata is a saprophytic mold whose spores are disseminated in warm dry air, the typical weather of the Mediterranean climate region (from 30° to 45°), with a peak during the late summer and early autumn. Alternaria spores are known to be biological contaminants and a potent source of aeroallergens. One consequence of human exposure to Alternaria is an increased risk of developing asthma, with Alt a 1 as its main elicitor and a marker of primary sensitization. Although the action mechanism needs further investigation, a key role of the epithelium in cytokine production, TLR-activated alveolar macrophages and innate lymphoid cells in the adaptive response was demonstrated. Furthermore, sensitization to A. alternata seems to be a trigger for the development of co-sensitization to other allergen sources and may act as an exacerbator of symptoms and an elicitor of food allergies. The prevalence of A. alternata allergy is increasing and has led to expanding research on the role of this fungal species in the induction of IgE-mediated respiratory diseases. Indeed, recent research has allowed new perspectives to be considered in the assessment of exposure and diagnosis of fungi-induced allergies, although more studies are needed for the standardization of immunotherapy formulations.

Comparison of weight per volume and protein nitrogen units in non-standardized allergen extracts: implications for prescribing subcutaneous immunotherapy

Background

Allergen extracts used in subcutaneous immunotherapy can be standardized or non-standardized. Standardized extracts are available in specific biological potencies, presumably making their biological activity more consistent. The majority of allergen extracts are non-standardized and may have less consistent potencies. Non-standardized extracts are labeled as weight per volume or protein nitrogen units (PNUs). Neither method provides direct information regarding the extract’s biologic potency. The purpose of this study was to compare weight per volume versus PNU concentrations for 4 non-standardized allergen extracts prepared by two allergen manufacturers. The potencies were compared to current North American practice recommendations.

Methods

The weight per volume and PNU values were provided for 4 non-standardized extracts—birch, short ragweed, dog hair and Alternaria—from HollisterStier and Stallergenes Greer. Weight per volume and PNU concentrations were compared for each of these extracts from both manufacturers. From the raw data, we calculated the corresponding PNU values for a weight per volume of 1:100 and 1:200 for each extract. Similarly, we calculated the corresponding weight per volume including a range of PNU values, for 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 and 5000 PNU/ml.

Results

Birch extract has low PNU concentration, below 5000, for a weight per volume of 1:200 for both HollisterStier and Stallergenes Greer. In contrast, for both HollisterStier and Stallergenes Greer ragweed extract, a weight per volume of 1:200 corresponds to a PNU concentration greater than 5000. Dog extract for a weight per volume of 1:200, and even for 1:100, corresponds to very low PNUs for both companies. For Alternaria, corresponding PNU concentrations for HollisterStier is low at only 500 while over 5000 for Stallergenes Greer.

Conclusions

Our results show variability when comparing weight per volume and PNU concentrations for both Hollister-Stier and Stallergenes Greer products. We suggest selecting a PNU dose that corresponds to a weight per volume of 1:200 as this may improve patient safety. Our recommendations for starting PNU dose for the four non-standardized extracts are 1500 for birch, 5000 for ragweed, 25 for dog, and 500 for Alternaria when using HollisterStier products; 2300 for birch, 5000 for ragweed, 1200 for dog, and 5000 for Alternaria when using Stallergenes Greer products. If the starting PNU concentration is considerably below 5000 for a weight per volume of 1:200 slow up-titration is advised. Conversely, for PNU concentrations above 5000 for weight per volume of 1:200 we suggest a maintenance dose of 5000 PNU.

Recent Advances in Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy as Treatment for Allergic Asthma: A Practical Overview

The Global Initiative for Asthma Report updated in 2019 stated that potential benefits of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), compared to pharmacological and avoidance options, must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects and the inconvenience and cost of the prolonged course of therapy in asthma. Thus, with the aim of clarifying some aspects with regard to the possible use of AIT in allergic asthma treatment armamentarium, a group of expert allergists from the Spanish Allergy and Clinical Immunology Scientific Society (SEAIC), particularly from the Immunotherapy and Asthma Interest Groups developed a frequently asked questions in clinical practice. This document updates relevant topics on the use of AIT in asthma and could facilitate physician clinical decisions and improve health outcomes for individual 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.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient's profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient's adherence to the treatment. This user's guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.

Preclinical safety and immunological efficacy of Alternaria alternata polymerized extracts

Introduction

Alternaria alternata is a widespread fungi whose allergy is a risk factor for asthma development. The use of a polymerized allergen extract (allergoid) may be safer than native extract based treatments while maintaining efficacy. The objective of this study was to characterize biochemically and immunochemically a new Alternaria alternata allergoid.

Methods

Characterization of native and allergoid extracts was performed by determination of protein content, protein and allergenic profile, biological potency, identification of Alternaria allergens, and Alt a 1 quantification. Safety was evaluated in toxicological assays (Ames test, limit test, and fish embryo acute toxicity test in zebrafish, and maximum tolerated dose and Dose‐range finding study in rats). Efficacy was evaluated as the capacity to induce IgG antibodies that block IgE‐binding to the allergen and cytokine induction (IFN‐γ, IL‐4, IL‐6, IL‐10, and TNF‐α) in PBMC from atopic donors.

Results

Protein and antigenic profiles showed significant modification of the depigmented allergoid with respect to the native extract, inducing a lower IgE binding capacity. Alt a 1, Alt a 3, Alt a 6, and Alt a 8 allergen sequences were identified in the polymer. No toxicological nor genotoxicity effects were observed. The polymer induced IgG antibodies that blocked human IgE binding epitopes, and it induced higher IL‐10 levels and similar levels of the other cytokines than native extract in PBMC.

Conclusions

This new A. alternata allergoid could be an effective immunotherapy treatment leading to cytokine stimulation and inducing synthesis of IgG antibodies able to block IgE binding to the allergen. In addition, no toxicological effect was observed, and it may be safer than native extract due to its lower IgE binding capacity and cytokine induction that suggest tolerance induction via T cell shift to Treg (IL‐10).

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

METHODS

We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.

Immunotherapy of mold allergy: A review

Mold allergies are common, mainly target the respiratory tract and present as allergic rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma. Molds include a large group of different allergens that induce all types of allergic reactions. Allergen specific immunotherapies (AITs) to molds are common; however, at the present time, they are limited to Alternaria. This review presents not only the benefits but also the problems with such types of AIT based on the literature and our experience.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy in pediatric allergic asthma

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only curative way that can change the immunologic response to allergens and thus can modify the natural progression of allergic diseases. There are some important criteria which contributes significantly on efficacy of AIT, such as the allergen extract used for treatment, the dose and protocol, patient selection in addition to the severity and control of asthma. The initiation of AIT in allergic asthma should be considered in intermittent, mild and moderate cases which coexisting with other allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, and in case of unacceptable adverse effects of medications. Two important impact of AIT; steroid sparing effect and preventing from progression to asthma should be taken into account in pediatric asthma when making a decision on starting of AIT. Uncontrolled asthma remains a significant risk factor for adverse events and asthma should be controlled both before and during administration of AIT. The evidence concerning the efficacy of subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for treatment of pediatric asthma suggested that SCIT decreases asthma symptoms and medication scores, whereas SLIT can ameliorate asthma symptoms. Although the effectiveness of SCIT has been shown for both seasonal and perennial allergens, the data for SLIT is less convincing for perennial allergies in pediatric asthma.

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.

Allergen immunotherapy in asthma; what is new?

The use and role of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in asthma is still a matter of debate, and no definite recommendation about this is made in guidelines, both for the subcutaneous and sublingual routes. This is essentially due to the fact that most controlled randomised trials were not specifically designed for asthma, and that objective measures of pulmonary function were only occasionally considered. Nonetheless, in many trials, favourable results in asthma (symptoms, medication usage, bronchial reactivity) were consistently reported. There are also several meta analyses in favour of AIT, although their validity is limited by a relevant methodological heterogeneity. In addition to the crude clinical effect, a disease modifying action of AIT (prevention of asthma onset and long-lasting effects) have been reported. The safety is an important aspect to consider in asthma. Fatalities were rare: in Europe no fatality was reported in the last three decades, as in the United States in the last 4 years. Based on previous surveys, and common sense, uncontrolled asthma is still recognized as the most important risk factor for severe adverse events. On the contrary, there is no evidence that AIT can worsen or induce asthma. According to the available evidence, AIT can be safely used as add-on treatment when asthma is associated with rhinitis (a frequent condition), provided that asthma is adequately controlled by pharmacotherapy. AIT cannot be recommended or suggested as single therapy. When asthma is the unique manifestation of respiratory allergy, its use should be evaluated case by case.

Mold allergens in respiratory allergy: from structure to therapy

Allergic reactions to fungi were described 300 years ago, but the importance of allergy to fungi has been underestimated for a long time. Allergens from fungi mainly cause respiratory and skin symptoms in sensitized patients. In this review, we will focus on fungi and fungal allergens involved in respiratory forms of allergy, such as allergic rhinitis and asthma. Fungi can act as indoor and outdoor respiratory allergen sources, and depending on climate conditions, the rates of sensitization in individuals attending allergy clinics range from 5% to 20%. Due to the poor quality of natural fungal allergen extracts, diagnosis of fungal allergy is hampered, and allergen-specific immunotherapy is rarely given. Several factors are responsible for the poor quality of natural fungal extracts, among which the influence of culture conditions on allergen contents. However, molecular cloning techniques have allowed us to isolate DNAs coding for fungal allergens and to produce a continuously growing panel of recombinant allergens for the diagnosis of fungal allergy. Moreover, technologies are now available for the preparation of recombinant and synthetic fungal allergen derivatives which can be used to develop safe vaccines for the treatment of fungal allergy.

Clinical practice: Allergen-specific immunotherapy in children: facts and FAQs

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) in its various application forms represents the main treatment approach of IgE-mediated allergic diseases in adults and children. Despite this clear recommendation, many particularities of products, patient characteristics, and product availability in different countries hamper the use of allergen-specific immunotherapy in particular in children. The frequently asked questions by parents, patients, and physicians are the backbone of this review. Thus, the potentials and limitations of allergen-specific immunotherapy in children and adolescents will be highlighted. IgE-mediated allergic diseases are affecting about 20% of the population. They manifest commonly early in life, and hence, the use of SIT should be considered also early in the course of the disease.

Effect of allergen-specific immunotherapy with purified Alt a1 on AMP responsiveness, exhaled nitric oxide and exhaled breath condensate pH: a randomized double blind study

Background

Little information is available on the effect of allergen-specific immunotherapy on airway responsiveness and markers in exhaled air. The aims of this study were to assess the safety of immunotherapy with purified natural Alt a1 and its effect on airway responsiveness to direct and indirect bronchoconstrictor agents and markers in exhaled air.

Methods

This was a randomized double-blind trial. Subjects with allergic rhinitis with or without mild/moderate asthma sensitized to A alternata and who also had a positive skin prick test to Alt a1 were randomized to treatment with placebo (n = 18) or purified natural Alt a1 (n = 22) subcutaneously for 12 months. Bronchial responsiveness to adenosine 5'-monophosphate (AMP) and methacholine, exhaled nitric oxide (ENO), exhaled breath condensate (EBC) pH, and serum Alt a1-specific IgG₄ antibodies were measured at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. Local and systemic adverse events were also registered.

Results

The mean (95% CI) allergen-specific IgG₄ value for the active treatment group increased from 0.07 μg/mL (0.03-0.11) at baseline to 1.21 μg/mL (0.69-1.73, P < 0.001) at 6 months and to 1.62 μg/mL (1.02-2.22, P < 0.001) at 12 months of treatment. In the placebo group, IgG₄ value increased nonsignificantly from 0.09 μg/mL (0.06-0.12) at baseline to 0.13 μg/mL (0.07-0.18) at 6 months and to 0.11 μg/mL (0.07-0.15) at 12 months of treatment. Changes in the active treatment group were significantly higher than in the placebo group both at 6 months (P < 0.001) and at 12 months of treatment (P < 0.0001). However, changes in AMP and methacholine responsiveness, ENO and EBC pH levels were not significantly different between treatment groups. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the treatment groups.

Conclusion

Although allergen-specific immunotherapy with purified natural Alt a1 is well tolerated and induces an allergen-specific IgG₄ response, treatment is not associated with changes in AMP or methacholine responsiveness or with significant improvements in markers of inflammation in exhaled air. These findings suggest dissociation between the immunotherapy-induced increase in IgG₄ levels and its effect on airway responsiveness and inflammation.

Prophylactic and Therapeutic Potential of Asp f1 Epitopes in Naïve and Sensitized BALB/c Mice

BACKGROUND

The present study examines a hypothesis that short allergen-derived peptides may shift an Aspergillus fumigatus (Afu-) specific TH2 response towards a protective TH1. Five overlapping peptides (P1-P5) derived from Asp f1, a major allergen/antigen of Afu, were evaluated for prophylactic or therapeutic efficacy in BALB/c mice.

METHODS

To evaluate the prophylactic efficacy, peptides were intranasally administered to naïve mice and challenged with Afu-allergens/antigens. For evaluation of therapeutic efficacy, the mice were sensitized with Afu-allergens/antigens followed by intranasal administration of peptides. The groups were compared for the levels of Afu-specific antibodies in sera and splenic cytokines evaluated by ELISA. Eosinophil peroxidase activity was examined in the lung cell suspensions and lung inflammation was assessed by histopathogy.

RESULTS

Peptides P1-, P2- and P3 decreased Afu-specific IgE (84.5~98.9%) and IgG antibodies (45.7~71.6%) in comparison with Afu-sensitized mice prophylactically. P1- and P2-treated ABPA mice showed decline in Afu-specific IgE (76.4~88%) and IgG antibodies (15~54%). Increased IgG2a/IgG1 and IFN-gamma/IL-4 ratios were observed. P1-P3 prophylactically and P1 therapeutically decreased IL-5 levels and eosinophil peroxidase activity. P1 decreased inflammatory cells' infiltration in lung tissue comparable to non-challenged control.

CONCLUSION

Asp f1-derived peptide P1, prophylactically and therapeutically administered to Balb/c mice, is effective in regulating allergic response to allergens/antigens of Afu, and may be explored for immunotherapy of allergic aspergillosis in humans.