SLIT: indications, follow-up, and management

Specific sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been proved to be a safe and effective approach in respiratory allergy. However, further research is required on aspects such as patient selection, use of optimal dosing, effects on asthma, long-term effects, and management of adverse reactions. In addition, the widely heterogeneous nature of studies on SLIT performed to date and the application of the criteria for subcutaneous immunotherapy make it difficult for the prescribing clinician to draw accurate and useful conclusions. Therefore, the QUASAR Group (QUality in the Administration of SLIT in Allergic Rhinitis), which comprises allergologists with broad clinical experience in SLIT, investigated the latest research findings and available data on this approach. Working parties were formed in 3 different categories: selection of candidates for SLIT, treatment efficacy, and adverse reactions. We performed a PubMed search for articles that were representative of each category and found 850. From these, we finally selected 266 articles, which were reviewed to retrieve data on SLIT. Evidence for each clinical question was graded according to the Oxford classification. The resulting text was evaluated on 3 occasions by all the members of the group until the final version was agreed upon. In this version, we review available evidence on SLIT, particularly with pollens, which is the subject of most articles. In areas where evidence is insufficient, an alternative agreed upon by the members of the QUASAR group is presented. Finally, we propose algorithms for selecting candidates for SLIT and for management of adverse events.

Prevalence of sensitization to lipid transfer proteins and profilins in a population of 430 patients in the south of Madrid

BACKGROUND

Lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) and profilins are the most important panallergens in the management of patients who are allergic to pollen and plant food in our area. LTPs are highly stable proteins that can induce systemic symptoms after ingestion. Profilins are labile proteins that are present in pollens and vegetables. Considered markers of several types of pollen sensitization, they are responsible for cross-reactivity between pollens and vegetables. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of sensitization to LTP and profilin using skin prick tests (SPTs) in patients referred to our allergy unit for any complaint (not only pollen and plant food allergy).

METHODS

The study sample comprised 430 consecutive patients who were evaluated using their medical history and SPTs with pollen, date palm profilin, and peach extract enriched in Pru p 3 (30 g/mL) as an LTP marker.

RESULTS

We found that 52 (12.1%) patients were sensitized to profilin and 53 (12.3%) to LTP. Pollen allergy was diagnosed in 53% and plant food allergy in 11%. In the LTP-sensitized group and the profilin-sensitized group, 37.7% and 34.6% of the patients had plant food allergy, respectively. Thirty-three patients (62.3%) were sensitized to LTP but had no symptoms after eating vegetables.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the real rate of sensitization to profilin and LTP in a population sensitized to allergens other than pollens and plant foods. Twelve percent of patients were sensitized to both profilin and LTP. A large proportion of LTP-sensitized patients had no symptoms at the time of the study.

In vivo and in vitro immunological changes induced by a short course of grass allergy immunotherapy tablets

BACKGROUND

The fast-dissolving grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (grass AIT), Grazax, has proven effective in grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the immunological and cutaneous changes induced after a short course with grass AIT.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial with 78 patients randomly assigned to receive either grass AIT or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. Treatment lasted at least 8 weeks before the grass pollen season (GPS), and continued until the season finished. Specific immunoglobulin (Ig) G4, IgE, and IgE-blocking factor to Phleum pratense were measured at the beginning of the trial and at different intervals during treatment. Immediate and delayed skin tests with P pratense were also performed. Safety endpoints were defined in terms of adverse events reported.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients completed the trial (50 active and 25 placebo). P pratense IgG4, IgE, and IgE-blocking factor in actively treated patients increased significantly from baseline to the start of the GPS compared to placebo (P > .001, P = .017, and P = .005, respectively). The immediate cutaneous response was reduced during therapy in actively treated subjects, whereas placebo-treated subjects showed a decrease only after the start of the GPS. The delayed response to the intradermal test in grass AIT-treated subjects diminished, although not in a significantly different way from the placebo-treated subjects.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with grass AIT for grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis induces immunological changes after only 1 month of treatment.

Sublingual immunotherapy in peach allergy: monitoring molecular sensitizations and reactivity to apple fruit and Platanus pollen

BACKGROUND

Peach allergy is prevalent, persistent, and potentially severe and as such is a target for immunotherapy. Our aims were to evaluate the profile of sensitization to Rosaceae allergens and the effects of sublingual peach immunotherapy on immunoglobulin (Ig) E levels to these allergens, to monitor for neosensitizations, and to check if this treatment modified other Rosaceae fruit and pollen-related sensitizations.

METHODS

A double-blind placebo-controlled trial was conducted on 56 peach-allergic patients who received, sublingually, a standardized peach extract quantified in mass units of Pru p 3, or placebo for 6 months. IgE to recombinant (r) Mal d 1, rMal d 4, rPru p 3, and natural (n) Art v 3 and skin prick test (SPT) reactivity to Platanus pollen and apple extracts evaluated before treatment (T0), after 1 month (T1) and after and 6 months (T6) were recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 18.5% of patients recognized rMal d 1, 83.3%, rPru p 3, 24.1%, rMal d 4, and 25.9% nArt v 3. IgE to Pru p 3 rose from T0 to T1 in both the active group (P = .003) and the placebo group (P = .022), and remained elevated at T6 in the active group (P = .001). IgE to other purified allergens did not change significantly and no relevant neosensitizations were detected. SPT reactions to peach decreased from T0 to T6 in the active group (P < 0.05). Reactivity to peach (T1 and T6) and apple (T6) was lower in the active group than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The main allergen was Pru p 3. Changes in rPru p 3 IgE levels and in peach and apple extract SPT were induced by sublingual immunotherapy.

Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sublingual immunotherapy with a Pru p 3 quantified peach extract

BACKGROUND

Peach allergy is highly prevalent in the Mediterranean area; it is persistent and potentially severe, and therefore a prime target for immunotherapy. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with a peach extract quantified in mass units for Pru p 3, the peach lipid transfer protein.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) clinical trial. The main efficacy outcome was the change in the response to a DBPC food challenge (DBPCFC) with peach. Secondary efficacy outcomes were the changes in skin prick test (SPT), and in specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgG(4) to Pru p 3. Tolerance was assessed with a careful recording of adverse events.

RESULTS

After 6 months of SLIT, the active group tolerated a significantly higher amount of peach (three- to ninefold), presented a significant decrease (5.3 times) in SPT, and a significant increase in IgE and IgG(4) to Pru p 3. No significant changes were observed within the placebo group. Statistically significant inter-group differences were only observed in the SPT and IgG(4) responses. No serious adverse events were reported. Systemic reactions were mild, and observed with a similar frequency in both groups. Local reactions were significantly more frequent in the active group (three times) and 95% of them restricted to the oral cavity.

CONCLUSION

In this first exploratory clinical trial, SLIT for peach allergy seems to be a promising therapeutic option that could modify the clinical reactivity of the patients to peach intake and the underlying immunological response with a good tolerance.

Sublingual immunotherapy with a standardized cat dander extract: evaluation of efficacy in a double blind placebo controlled study

BACKGROUND

Little information is available on the clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) using extracts derived from mammalian epithelia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess clinical efficacy of cat SLIT based on natural exposure challenge test (NCT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty cat allergic patients with rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma were included in a randomized double blind placebo controlled clinical trial of cat SLIT during 1 year. Twenty-five patients received active treatment and 25 placebo. Sublingual immunotherapy efficacy was assessed by natural exposure challenge to a cat in a cat-room and by skin tests. Airborne Fel d 1 levels, symptom scores and peak expiratory flow (PEF) values were monitored.

RESULTS

Thirty-three (66%) out of 50 patients completed the treatment. Fel d 1 content of the maximum concentration was 0.51 microg per ml. During the build up phase, the accumulated dose was 1.7 mug of Fel d 1 and during the entire length of the study was 17.1. No adverse reports were reported. The active group showed a marked reduction (62%) in symptoms during the NCT (P < 0.001) with no changes in placebo group. Active group also showed a reduced PEF response to cat exposure (P < 0.05), and an improvement in skin test reactivity to a standardized cat extract (P < 0.05), without significant changes in placebo group. Mean Fel d 1 exposure during the NCT was 6.2 +/- 2.21 ng/m(3).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that the cat SLIT used in this study was able to improve cat allergy based on natural exposure challenge.

The effect of thermal processing on the IgE reactivity of the non-specific lipid transfer protein from apple, Mal d 3

BACKGROUND

Non-specific lipid transfer proteins (LTPs) are involved in allergy to fresh and processed fruits. We have investigated the effect of thermal treatment and glycation on the physico-chemical and IgE-binding properties of the LTP from apple (Mal d 3).

METHODS

Mal d 3 was purified from apple peel and the effect of heating in the absence and presence of glucose investigated by CD spectroscopy, electrospray and MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. IgE reactivity was determined by RAST and immunoblot inhibition, SPT and basophil histamine release test.

RESULTS

The identity and IgE reactivity of purified Mal d 3 was confirmed. Mild heat treatment (90 degrees C, 20 min) in the absence or presence of glucose did not alter its IgE reactivity. More severe heat treatment (100 degrees C, 2 h) induced minor changes in protein structure, but a significant decrease in IgE-binding (30-fold) and biological activity (100- to 1000-fold). Addition of glucose resulted in up to four glucose residues attached to Mal d 3 and only a 2- and 10-fold decrease of IgE-binding and biological activity, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Only severe heat treatment caused a significant decrease in the allergenicity of Mal d 3 but glycation had a protective effect. The presence of sugars in fruits may contribute to the thermostability of the allergenic activity of LTP in heat-processed foods.

Peach profilin: cloning, heterologous expression and cross-reactivity with Bet v 2

BACKGROUND

Peach is among the main foods causing allergic reactions in the Mediterranean adult population. Only a single peach allergen, named Pru p 3, has been characterized. However, a potential role of profilin has also been suggested in grass pollen-associated allergy to peach.

METHODS

Complementary DNA clones for two different peach profilin isoforms were obtained by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction using non-degenerated primers. Expression of recombinant peach profilin was performed in Escherichia coli, and confirmed using rabbit polyclonal antibodies to sunflower pollen profilin. Twenty-nine individual sera from patients with peach allergy proved by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges (DBPCFC), either with (n = 15) or without (n = 14) specific IgE to Bet v 2, were used in immunodetection assays to test recombinant peach profilin reactivity.

RESULTS

Each peach profilin cDNA included an open reading frame coding for a 131 amino acid protein. The peach profilin isoforms, designated Pru p 4.01 and Pru p 4.02, showed 80% of amino acid sequence identity, and were very similar (>70% identity) to allergenic profilins from plant foods and pollens. Recombinant Pru p 4.01 was expressed in E. coli as a nonfusion protein, displaying the expected molecular size and reacting with anti-profilin antibodies. rPru p 4.01 was recognized by all sera (15 of 15) with specific IgE to Bet v 2, whereas no sera (zero of 14) without IgE to this birch allergen reacted with rPru p 4.01.

CONCLUSIONS

Peach profilin Pru p 4 is very closed to other allergenic profilins from plant foods and pollens. A complete correlation between reactivity to rPru p 4 and rBet v 2 has been found in sera from peach allergic patients.