A modified schedule of multiple aeroallergen ultra-rush immunotherapy in perennial allergic rhinitis: safety, efficacy, and T lymphocyte cell population studies.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed whether a modified immunotherapy schedule for allergic rhinitis could be safe and efficient. Ultra-rush immunotherapy (URIT) rapidly desensitizes patients to aeroallergens. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a modified URIT protocol in 3 days to achieve the target dose while observing whether it could improve this situation and decrease the time to achieve the maintenance dose. METHODS: The URIT was exercised in 21 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Premeditations were given to the patients 3 days prior to the immunotherapy and during the 3 days injections immunotherapy: pred nisolone, ranitidine, and Airokast/montelukast. Finally, the T cell population frequencies of patients prior to and after immunotherapy, including T helper 1, T helper 2, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and regulatory T cells, were studied using flow cytometry. During the URIT protocol, 21 patients received 291 injections. RESULT: Six patients (28.6%) showed systemic reactions in our study. All systemic reactions occurred on the third day by the 1:1 dilution of the maintenance dose. These systemic reactions occurred in three patients after 13 injections, and the three remaining patients showed systemic reactions following the last injection. No systemic reaction was observed on the first and second day of the therapy, and the risk of systemic reaction with every injection was about 2%. Among the T cell populations, CD3+ and CD8+ cells decreased significantly. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasized that URIT, alongside premedication with a high dose of antihistamine, helped to achieve the maintenance dose and control clinical manifestations.

Tablet allergen immunotherapy: the anaphylaxis issue.

For the first time 15 years ago, tablet allergen immunotherapy (T-AIT) formulations were approved by regulatory agencies for treating allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen in adults and children aged >5 years. Extensive evidences existed about effectiveness and safety of AIT. However, the safety profile is particularly compelling in children. Generally, T-AIT causes local reactions, mostly in the oral cavity, that are usually mild-to-moderate and often self-resolving. However, systemic allergic reactions are also observed with T-AIT, anaphylaxis representing the most fearsome adverse event, considering that it occurs in subjects treated for allergic rhinitis. Therefore, we conducted a literature search of patients reporting anaphylaxis because of T-AIT. Nine cases of anaphylactic reactions were reported in literature. Notably, no death was reported using T-AIT. This outcome was very important as it underscored the substantial safety of T-AIT. However, T-AIT deserves careful attention, mainly in the pediatric population. In this regard, after the first report of anaphylactic reaction at the first administration of T-AIT, manufacturers recommended that the first dose should be administered in a medical facility in the presence of staff with experience in managing anaphylaxis and the patient should be observed for at least 30 min. Interestingly, reported anaphylactic reactions were due to grass pollen extracts, with no report concerning other allergen extracts. However, it is relevant to note that anaphylactic reactions because of T-AIT are not reported in recent years.

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: Safety and efficacy of an accelerated induction regimen with depot aluminum adsorbed extracts.

Introduction: Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only therapy that protects patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy by preventing systemic reactions after a new sting. Various extracts for VIT are available and used. VIT administration consists of an induction phase and a maintenance phase. Depot preparations of Hymenoptera VIT extracts are typically used for cluster and conventional protocols, and the maintenance phase. Many patients with Hymenoptera allergy need to achieve tolerance quickly because of the high risk of re-sting and possible anaphylaxis. Objective: Our study aimed to show the safety and efficacy of an accelerated regimen with depot preparations on aluminum hydroxide by using relatively high starting doses in a heterogeneous group of patients. Methods: The research focused on a group of patients with a history of severe systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings, with the necessity of swift immunization due to high occupational risks. Aluminum hydroxide depot extracts either of Vepula species or Apis mellifera extracts were used. Results: The induction protocol was started with the highest concentration of depot venom extract of 100,000 standard quality unit and was well tolerated by 19 of 20 patients. Onne patient presented with a mild systemic reaction during the accelerated induction schedule, which was promptly treated with intravenous steroids and intramuscular H1 antihistamine; when switched to a conventional induction protocol, he had a similar reaction but finally reached maintenance with an H1-antagonist premedication. Conclusion: If validated, the accelerated induction protocol by using depot aluminum adsorbed extracts with the highest concentration of venom from the beginning could offer a streamlined and accessible treatment modality for patients diagnosed with anaphylaxis from bee and wasp venoms in need of rapid desensitization.

The Relationship Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Immunotherapy.

Immunotherapy is a treatment approach based on the principle of incremental allergen exposure to achieve desensitization. Recently, oral immunotherapy has been introduced as a treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy. Some patients receiving oral immunotherapy for food allergy may develop eosinophilic esophagitis. Here, we summarize the literature examining this association, its treatment, and outcomes and discuss possible explanations for this clinical phenomenon. We further identify potential associations with aeroallergen sensitivity and other forms of immunotherapy including subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. Finally, we discuss management of immunotherapy-induced eosinophilic esophagitis. Epicutaneous immunotherapy is highlighted as an area of therapeutic investigation.

High Degree of Desensitization After 1 Year of Early-Life Peanut Oral Immunotherapy: Small Children Oral Immunotherapy (SmaChO) Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of peanut allergy is about 2% and mostly lifelong. Studies of oral immunotherapy (OIT) with peanut (the daily oral intake of an initially low and then increasing dose of peanut) often show problematic side effects, but there are indications of better safety and effect in younger children compared with older children and adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of peanut OIT with a slow up-dosing strategy and low maintenance dose in children aged 1 to 3 years who were allergic to peanut, through a 1-year interim analysis. METHOD: In a randomized controlled trial (2:1 ratio), 75 children, median age 31 months (interquartile range [IQR], 23-40 months) were assigned to receive peanut OIT (n = 50) or peanut avoidance (n = 25). RESULTS: In the OIT and avoidance groups, 43 of 50 and 20 of 25 children, respectively, performed the 1-year open oral peanut challenge. A cumulative dose of 750 mg peanut protein after 1 year was tolerated by 72% (36 of 50 children) in the OIT group compared with 4% (1 of 25) in the avoidance group (P < .001). Median tolerated cumulative dose was 2,750 mg (IQR, 275-5,000 mg) peanut protein in the OIT group compared with 2.8 mg (IQR, 0.3-27.8 mg) in the avoidance group (P < .001). Of the doses administered at home during the first year of OIT, 1.4% resulted in adverse events and 79% were mild, and three doses of epinephrine were given at home to two individuals. CONCLUSION: In children aged 1 to 3 years, peanut OIT with the combination of slow up-dosing and low maintenance dose seems safe and effective after 1 year.

[TWO CASES OF LARYNGEAL EDEMA CAUSED BY SUBLINGUAL ALLERGEN IMMUNOTHERAPY].

Sublingual immunotherapy is a widely used treatment, and serious adverse reactions such as anaphylaxis are rare. We report two cases of laryngeal edema as adverse reactions to sublingual immunotherapy, which could be continued due to a change in the administration method. Case 1 presents a 15-year-old male suspected to have had anaphylaxis due to the dust at the age of 6 years. He started treatment with Miticure® and developed laryngeal edema 30 minutes after taking the 10000JAU dose on the 10th day. laryngeal edema was treated with intravenous infusion. Case 2 presents a 48-year-old woman. She started treatment with Cidacure® and developed respiratory distress and laryngeal edema 1 hour after taking the 5000JAU dose on the 5th day. she had resolved mildly without therapeutic intervention. In both cases, the patients were switched to sublingual spitting, resumed with the initial dose cautiously, and were able to continue. Sublingual immunotherapy is a safe treatment, but sudden adverse reactions may occur. Laryngeal symptoms may be treated by changing to the sublingual spitting method, but laryngeal findings should be examined, and the dosage should be carefully increased.

Elevated aluminum excretion in patients by long-term subcutaneous immunotherapy - A cross-sectional case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Aluminum (Al) adjuvants have been used in vaccines and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for decades. Despite indisputable neurotoxic properties of Al, there is no clear evidence of a causal relationship between their use and any neurotoxic side effects. However, recent rat studies have shown an accumulation of Al from adjuvants in tissues, especially in bones. OBJECTIVES: Since the human toxicokinetics of Al-adjuvants are poorly understood, this study aimed to evaluate whether up-dosed or long-term SCIT with Al-coupled extracts leads to increased Al load in humans. METHODS: This observational cross-sectional case-control study explored Al excretion in hymenoptera venom allergy patients recruited in 2020 before initiation (n = 10) and during ongoing (n = 12) SCIT with Al-based preparations. Urine samples were collected before and 24 h after the SCIT injections and analyzed for aluminum content by using atomic absorption spectrometry. The cumulative administered Al dose was extracted from patient records. Patients receiving long-term immunotherapy were treated between 2.8 and 13.6 years (mean 7.1). Other potential sources of Al exposure were surveyed. RESULTS: Patients who had received Al-coupled immunotherapy for several years showed significantly (p < 0.001) higher Al excretion than the controls at initiation of immunotherapy (mean 18.2 µg/gC vs. 7.9 µg/gC) and predominantly (73%) were above the 95th percentile of the general populations' exposure (>15 µg/gC), however, without reaching levels of toxicological concern (>50 µg/gC). Taking both groups together excreted Al levels correlated with the cumulative administered Al dose from SCIT (linear regression: Alurine = 8.258 + 0.133*Alcum; p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: These results suggest a relevant iatrogenic contribution of long-term SCIT to human internal Al burden and potential accumulation. Considering the medical benefits of Al-adjuvants and SCIT a differentiated risk-benefit analysis is needed. For certain scenarios of potential toxicological concern in clinical practice biomonitoring might be advisable.

Intervention Efficacy of Slightly Processed Allergen/Meat in Oral Immunotherapy for Seafood Allergy: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis in Mouse Models and Clinical Patients.

Background: Seafood allergy is a significant global health concern that greatly impacts a patient's quality of life. The intervention efficacy of oral immunotherapy (OIT), an emerging intervention strategy, for seafood allergy remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of slightly processed allergen/meat from fish and crustacea in OIT, both in mouse models and clinical patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in four mainstream databases and the EBSCOhost database to identify all relevant case-control and cohort studies. The aim was to elucidate the intervention efficacy, encompassing various processing methods and assessing the efficacy of multiple major allergens in OIT. Results: The meta-analysis included five case-control studies on crustacean allergens in mouse models and 11 cohort studies on meat from fish and crustacea in clinical patients for final quantitative assessments. In mouse models, crustacean allergen substantially decreased the anaphylactic score after OIT treatment (mean difference (MD) = -1.30, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses with low-level heterogeneities provided more reliable results for crab species (MD = -0.63, p < 0.01, I2 = 0), arginine kinase allergen (MD = -0.83, p < 0.01, I2 = 0), and Maillard reaction processing method (MD = -0.65, p < 0.01, I2 = 29%), respectively. In clinical patients, the main meta-analysis showed that the slightly processed meat significantly increased the incidence rate of oral tolerance (OT, incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 2.90, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses for fish meat (IRR = 2.79, p < 0.01) and a simple cooking treatment (IRR = 2.36, p = 0.01) also demonstrated a substantial increase in the incidence rate of OT. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses successfully identified specific studies contributing to heterogeneity in mouse models and clinical patients, although these studies did not impact the overall significant pooled effects. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence for the high intervention efficacy of slightly processed allergen/meat from fish and crustacea in OIT, both in mouse models and clinical patients. The Maillard reaction and cooking processing methods may emerge as potentially effective approaches to treating allergen/meat in OIT for clinical patients, offering a promising and specific treatment strategy for seafood allergy. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further supporting evidence is necessary.

Transcriptomic changes associated with oral immunotherapy for food allergy.

This review summarizes recent advances in characterizing the transcriptional pathways associated with outcomes following Oral Immunotherapy. Recent technological advances including single-cell sequencing are transforming the ways in which the transcriptional landscape is understood. The application of these technologies is still in its infancy in food allergy but here we summarize current understanding of gene expression changes following oral immunotherapy for food allergy and specific signatures underpinning the different clinical outcomes of desensitization and remission (sustained unresponsiveness). T helper 2A cells have been identified as a cell type which correlates with disease activity and is modified by treatment. Molecular features at study entry may differentiate individuals who achieve more positive outcomes during OIT. Recent findings point to T cell anergy and Type 1 interferon pathways as potential mechanisms supporting redirection of the allergen-specific immune response away from allergy towards remission. Despite these developments in our understanding of immune mechanisms following OIT, there are still significant gaps. Additional studies examining immune signatures associated with long term and well-defined clinical outcomes are required to gain a more complete understanding of the pathways leading to remission of allergy, in order to optimize treatments and gain improved outcomes for patients.

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

INTRODUCTION: DBV712 250 µg (also referred to as Viaskin Peanut or peanut patch; Viaskin is a trademark of DBV Technologies) is an innovative approach to epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). The patch-based technology system facilitates peanut protein (allergen) absorption into the intact non-vascularized epidermis to promote desensitization to peanut while limiting systemic allergen exposure. AREAS COVERED: Efficacy and safety in children have been evaluated in four completed phase 3 studies. Overall, the results from these studies have demonstrated the peanut patch to be superior in desensitization compared with placebo and safe for daily use over multiple years. EXPERT OPINION: These findings, as well as supportive evidence from phase 2 studies, confirm the potential for an effective treatment of peanut allergy in children. The purpose of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy of the peanut patch in the treatment of peanut allergy.

Low-dose oral immunotherapy in immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergies.

Nowadays, the management of food allergies has increasingly moved from conventional oral immunotherapy (OIT) to low-dose OIT or low-dose OIT utilizing hypoallergenic foods. This shift is largely because the latter appears to induce oral tolerance with fewer adverse effects than the former. However, the mechanisms underpinning such differences remain unclear. To better understand these mechanisms, we conducted a comparative study scrutinizing the mechanisms of OIT, especially those of low-dose desensitization. We also summarized articles on low-dose OIT and low-dose OIT using hypoallergenic foods. We examined the efficacy, safety, and immunological parameters of low-dose OIT and those of low-dose OIT with hypoallergenic foods with the aim of shedding some light on low-dose OIT and its therapeutic application in inducing oral tolerance for individuals with food allergies.

Efficacy of biological agents combined with oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Food allergy affects a large population throughout the world. Recently, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been reported as an effective treatment for severe food allergy. Although OIT was successful in numerous trials in desensitisation, adverse events including anaphylaxis during OIT frequently occur. Additionally, some patients fail to be desensitised after OIT and the response to treatment is often not sustained. As a further adjunctive therapy to facilitate OIT, the role of biological agents has been identified. For example, efficacy and safety of omalizumab as an adjuvant therapy of OIT has become apparent through some RCTs and observational studies. Interest towards this topic is growing worldwide, and ongoing trials will provide additional data on the biologics in food allergy.We aim to systematically analyse the efficacy and safety of OIT combined with biological agents for food allergy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This paper provides a protocol for a systematic review of the relevant published analytical studies using an aggregate approach following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Two authors will perform a comprehensive search for studies on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Subsequently, two independent authors will perform abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of this systematic review will be provided in a peer-reviewed journal. As the researchers will not identify the individual patients included in the studies, they do not need to acquire ethics approval. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022373015.

One-Bag 8-Step Ferric Carboxymaltose Desensitization Protocol for Patients with a History of Hypersensitivity Reactions to Iron Preparations.

INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia in both sexes, although it is more common in women. Intravenous (IV) iron replacement is preferred in patients who cannot tolerate oral treatment or when iron stores need to be replenished rapidly. In this study, we wanted to share the ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) desensitization protocol that we self-created and successfully applied. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included patients with a history of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) to IV or oral iron replacement and patients who were planned to receive IV iron replacement but were referred to the allergy clinic because of have risk factors (atopic diseases, history of HSR to other drugs, high serum tryptase levels, etc.) for HSRs. Before desensitization, some of the patients underwent skin tests (skin prick test and intradermal test) with FCM, and the results were recorded. Skin tests were not performed in patients with a history of drug use (antihistamine, systemic steroid, omalizumab, etc.) that affected the results of skin tests. All patients underwent a one-bag 8-step desensitization protocol with 500 mg FCM and were observed for 2 h after desensitization. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients (14 females and 1 male) with a mean age of 41.13 ± 11.18 years were included in the study. When the patients were evaluated in terms of the risk of allergic reactions according to their clinical history, 8 patients had a history of anaphylaxis with iron preparations (FCM, n = 4; ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 2; iron [II] glycine sulfate, n = 1; and iron [III] hydroxide polymaltose, n = 1), and 7 patients had a history of HSR other than anaphylaxis with iron preparations (urticaria, n = 6 [FCM, n = 2; iron (II) glycine sulfate, n = 2; and iron (III) hydroxide polymaltose, n = 2] and urticaria + angioedema [ferric hydroxide sucrose, n = 1]). Desensitization was successfully completed in all patients. No HSR was observed during or after the procedure in any of the patients. CONCLUSION: IV iron replacement is a very effective method, especially in cases where iron stores need to be replenished more rapidly. In patients with a history of iron HSR or at risk of developing HSR, replacement can be safely performed without an allergic reaction with successful desensitization protocols.

Desensitization and remission after peanut sublingual immunotherapy in 1- to 4-year-old peanut-allergic children: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have suggested a potential advantage with younger age at treatment initiation. OBJECTIVE: We studied the safety and efficacy of SLIT for peanut allergy in 1- to 4-year-old children. METHODS: Peanut-allergic 1- to 4-year-old children were randomized to receive 4 mg peanut SLIT versus placebo. Desensitization was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 36 months of treatment. Participants desensitized to at least 443 mg peanut protein discontinued therapy for 3 months and then underwent DBPCFC to assess for remission. Biomarkers were measured at baseline and longitudinally during treatment. RESULTS: Fifty participants (25 peanut SLIT, 25 placebo) with a median age of 2.4 years were enrolled across 2 sites. The primary end point of desensitization was met with actively treated versus placebo participants having a significantly greater median cumulative tolerated dose (4443 mg vs 143 mg), higher likelihood of passing the month 36 DBPCFC (60% vs 0), and higher likelihood of demonstrating remission (48% vs 0). The highest rate of desensitization and remission was seen in 1- to 2-year-olds, followed by 2- to 3-year-olds and 3- to 4-year-olds. Longitudinal changes in peanut skin prick testing, peanut-specific IgG4, and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio were seen in peanut SLIT but not placebo participants. Oropharyngeal itching was more commonly reported by peanut SLIT than placebo participants. Skin, gastrointestinal, upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and multisystem adverse events were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Peanut SLIT safely induces desensitization and remission in 1- to 4-year-old children, with improved outcomes seen with younger age at initiation.

Combination of omalizumab with allergen immunotherapy versus immunotherapy alone for allergic diseases: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT)-associated adverse events (AEs) limit its usage in the management of allergic diseases. The monoclonal anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab) and AIT have complementary actions. However, no consensus has been reached on whether their combination could exert superior efficacy and safety. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the combination of AIT with omalizumab is superior to AIT alone in treating allergic diseases. METHODS: The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of omalizumab combined with AIT (omalizumab + AIT) versus AIT alone. A random-effect model was established to estimate outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: A total of 11 eligible RCTs (involving 901 patients) were screened out for the meta-analysis. According to a pooled analysis, omalizumab + AIT significantly increased the number of patients achieving the target maintenance dose (TMD) and sustained unresponsiveness (SU) to allergens (odds ratio [OR] = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.33-4.44; p = 0.004; I2 = 35%, and OR = 6.77; 95% CI: 2.10-21.80; p = 0.001; I2 = 36%, respectively). Similarly, individuals receiving the combination therapy reported significantly fewer episodes of severe systemic AEs than AIT alone (OR = 0.32; 95% CI: 0.18-0.59; p = 0.0003; I2 = 0%). Meanwhile, the improvements in symptom severity score (mean difference [MD] = -0.26), rescue medication daily means score (MD = -0.14), and number of patients consuming epinephrine in AIT (OR = 0.20) were all more evident than those in AIT alone. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab + AIT can significantly enhance the efficacy and safety of AIT by increasing TMD and SU to allergens, while decreasing severe systemic AEs.

Eosinophilic esophagitis as a side-effect of allergen immunotherapy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Summary: Background. Sensitization to food and airborne allergens is common in the majority of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Although there is not a direct cause-effect relationship of IgE-mediated allergy with the pathogenesis of EoE, there is a growing evidence that oral desensitization to food and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) may induce the development of EoE as an adverse effect. As part of the 'EoE and Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT)' Task Force funded by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), a systematic approach will be followed to review the evidence from the published scientific literature on the development of EoE in children and adults under any type of AIT. Methods. This systematic review will be carried out following the PRISMA statement guidelines. Studies will be assessed for inclusion in the review according to the Population-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) criteria. Results. Expected outcomes will provide evidence on the AIT-EoE development connection. Conclusions. The findings from this review will be used as a reference to provide useful guidelines for physicians treating patients with EoE and/or are practicing AIT.

New Approaches to Food Allergy Immunotherapy.

Food allergy is an increasing public health problem in children and adults. In addition to the risk of potentially severe reactions, food allergy can have a significant burden on quality of life, nutrition, cost of living, and social activities. Traditionally, treatment has primarily included strict food allergen avoidance and use of emergency medications to treat an allergic reaction. However, in recent years, there have been significant strides in the advancement of food allergy treatment, including the approval of the first and only approved therapy (peanut oral immunotherapy) for food allergy in 2020. Clinical trials have primarily focused on food allergen immunotherapy (oral, epicutaneous, sublingual). Building off of a foundation of promising data supporting the efficacy of food oral immunotherapy and our greater understanding of the underlying mechanism of immunotherapy, newer approaches, including alternative routes of delivery, adjuncts to therapy, modified allergens, and utilization in younger patients, aim to provide safer and more effective treatment approaches to the millions of patients burdened by food allergy.

Real-Life Adherence to Venom Immunotherapy and Adrenaline Autoinjector.

INTRODUCTION: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) and adrenaline autoinjector (AAI) are important therapies in venom anaphylaxis. Adherence to VIT and AAI in patients with venom allergy has been evaluated in a few studies; however, solid data are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate VIT and AAI retrieval rates in patients with venom allergy with a special focus on adherence to treatment. Adherence was compared to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with inhalant allergens. METHODS: This was a retrospective study among patients registered for allergen immunotherapy at the Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. Data on purchased immunotherapy and AAI were obtained from the Danish National Health Service Prescription Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze if allergen, age, sex, mastocytosis, and treatment site affected adherence. RESULTS: The 3-year adherence to VIT was 92.4% (244/264) compared to 87.4% (215/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens, and the 5-year adherence to VIT was 84.1% (222/264) compared to 74.8% (184/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens (p = 0.045). Females treated with VIT were more adherent than males (p = 0.45 [3-year], p = 0.008 [5-year]), whereas allergen, age, mastocytosis, or treatment site did not significantly affect adherence. Only 28.6% of patients (12/42) purchased an AAI after premature termination of VIT. CONCLUSION: In this register-based study, we found that the 3- and 5-year adherences to VIT and SCIT with inhalant allergens are at the upper end of the spectrum hitherto reported. Patients' 5-year adherence to VIT was higher than patients' 5-year adherence to SCIT with inhalant allergens. If VIT was prematurely terminated, less than 1/3 would have purchased an AAI.

Safety of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy with allergoids in children: a real-life pharmacovigilance study.

Aims: Allergen-specific immunotherapy uses a sublingual (sublingual immunotherapy [SLIT]) or subcutaneous (subcutaneous immunotherapy [SCIT]) route. This pharmacovigilance study aimed to determine the number and type of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for SLIT and SCIT using carbamylated monomeric allergoids (CMAs) in children. Materials & methods: This pharmacovigilance study analyzed real-world post-marketing reports collected from a safety database of Lais sublingual tablets and injective Lais-in, containing CMAs for over 10 years. Results & conclusion: From January 2009 to September 2022, 26,107 doses of Lais-in were administered in children; only two nonserious related ADRs (incidence: 0.000077%) were reported. Regarding SLIT, the results showed only 12 spontaneous nonserious ADR reports (incidence: 0.000004%). These data showed the excellent safety profile of both SLIT and SCIT CMAs.

The cure for allergic people is named allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Recently, AIT uses new substances named allergoids. This study has shown that AIT with allergoids is very safe.