RESUMEN
During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, novel and traditional vaccine strategies have been deployed globally. We investigated whether antibodies stimulated by mRNA vaccination (BNT162b2), including third-dose boosting, differ from those generated by infection or adenoviral (ChAdOx1-S and Gam-COVID-Vac) or inactivated viral (BBIBP-CorV) vaccines. We analyzed human lymph nodes after infection or mRNA vaccination for correlates of serological differences. Antibody breadth against viral variants is lower after infection compared with all vaccines evaluated but improves over several months. Viral variant infection elicits variant-specific antibodies, but prior mRNA vaccination imprints serological responses toward Wuhan-Hu-1 rather than variant antigens. In contrast to disrupted germinal centers (GCs) in lymph nodes during infection, mRNA vaccination stimulates robust GCs containing vaccine mRNA and spike antigen up to 8 weeks postvaccination in some cases. SARS-CoV-2 antibody specificity, breadth, and maturation are affected by imprinting from exposure history and distinct histological and antigenic contexts in infection compared with vaccination.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antivirales , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19 , Centro Germinal , Antígenos Virales , COVID-19/prevención & control , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus , VacunaciónRESUMEN
T cells are a critical component of the response to SARS-CoV-2, but their kinetics after infection and vaccination are insufficiently understood. Using "spheromer" peptide-MHC multimer reagents, we analyzed healthy subjects receiving two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine. Vaccination resulted in robust spike-specific T cell responses for the dominant CD4+ (HLA-DRB1∗15:01/S191) and CD8+ (HLA-A∗02/S691) T cell epitopes. Antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses were asynchronous, with the peak CD4+ T cell responses occurring 1 week post the second vaccination (boost), whereas CD8+ T cells peaked 2 weeks later. These peripheral T cell responses were elevated compared with COVID-19 patients. We also found that previous SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in decreased CD8+ T cell activation and expansion, suggesting that previous infection can influence the T cell response to vaccination.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas , Humanos , Linfocitos T CD8-positivos , Vacuna BNT162 , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacunación , Anticuerpos AntiviralesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Food allergies are common and are associated with substantial morbidity; the only approved treatment is oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy. METHODS: In this trial, we assessed whether omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, would be effective and safe as monotherapy in patients with multiple food allergies. Persons 1 to 55 years of age who were allergic to peanuts and at least two other trial-specified foods (cashew, milk, egg, walnut, wheat, and hazelnut) were screened. Inclusion required a reaction to a food challenge of 100 mg or less of peanut protein and 300 mg or less of the two other foods. Participants were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive omalizumab or placebo administered subcutaneously (with the dose based on weight and IgE levels) every 2 to 4 weeks for 16 to 20 weeks, after which the challenges were repeated. The primary end point was ingestion of peanut protein in a single dose of 600 mg or more without dose-limiting symptoms. The three key secondary end points were the consumption of cashew, of milk, and of egg in single doses of at least 1000 mg each without dose-limiting symptoms. The first 60 participants (59 of whom were children or adolescents) who completed this first stage were enrolled in a 24-week open-label extension. RESULTS: Of the 462 persons who were screened, 180 underwent randomization. The analysis population consisted of the 177 children and adolescents (1 to 17 years of age). A total of 79 of the 118 participants (67%) receiving omalizumab met the primary end-point criteria, as compared with 4 of the 59 participants (7%) receiving placebo (P<0.001). Results for the key secondary end points were consistent with those of the primary end point (cashew, 41% vs. 3%; milk, 66% vs. 10%; egg, 67% vs. 0%; P<0.001 for all comparisons). Safety end points did not differ between the groups, aside from more injection-site reactions in the omalizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In persons as young as 1 year of age with multiple food allergies, omalizumab treatment for 16 weeks was superior to placebo in increasing the reaction threshold for peanut and other common food allergens. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03881696.).
Asunto(s)
Antialérgicos , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Omalizumab , Adolescente , Niño , Humanos , Lactante , Alérgenos/efectos adversos , Arachis/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Omalizumab/efectos adversos , Omalizumab/uso terapéutico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Antialérgicos/administración & dosificación , Antialérgicos/uso terapéutico , Preescolar , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
The emergency use authorization of two mRNA vaccines in less than a year from the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 represents a landmark in vaccinology1,2. Yet, how mRNA vaccines stimulate the immune system to elicit protective immune responses is unknown. Here we used a systems vaccinology approach to comprehensively profile the innate and adaptive immune responses of 56 healthy volunteers who were vaccinated with the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2). Vaccination resulted in the robust production of neutralizing antibodies against the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 (derived from 2019-nCOV/USA_WA1/2020) and, to a lesser extent, the B.1.351 strain, as well as significant increases in antigen-specific polyfunctional CD4 and CD8 T cells after the second dose. Booster vaccination stimulated a notably enhanced innate immune response as compared to primary vaccination, evidenced by (1) a greater frequency of CD14+CD16+ inflammatory monocytes; (2) a higher concentration of plasma IFNγ; and (3) a transcriptional signature of innate antiviral immunity. Consistent with these observations, our single-cell transcriptomics analysis demonstrated an approximately 100-fold increase in the frequency of a myeloid cell cluster enriched in interferon-response transcription factors and reduced in AP-1 transcription factors, after secondary immunization. Finally, we identified distinct innate pathways associated with CD8 T cell and neutralizing antibody responses, and show that a monocyte-related signature correlates with the neutralizing antibody response against the B.1.351 variant. Collectively, these data provide insights into the immune responses induced by mRNA vaccination and demonstrate its capacity to prime the innate immune system to mount a more potent response after booster immunization.
Asunto(s)
Inmunidad Adaptativa , Anticuerpos Antivirales/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/inmunología , Inmunidad Innata , Linfocitos T/inmunología , Vacunología , Adulto , Anciano , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/inmunología , Autoanticuerpos/inmunología , Vacuna BNT162 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunización Secundaria , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis de la Célula Individual , Glicoproteína de la Espiga del Coronavirus/inmunología , Transcripción Genética , Transcriptoma/genética , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo. RESULTS: Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms. (Funded by DBV Technologies; EPITOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03211247.).
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Preescolar , Humanos , Lactante , Alérgenos/efectos adversos , Anafilaxia/etiología , Arachis/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/complicaciones , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Administración CutáneaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of oral immunotherapy (OIT) to treat food allergies, this procedure is associated with potential risk. There is no current agreement about what elements should be included in the preparatory or consent process. OBJECTIVE: We developed consensus recommendations about the OIT process considerations and patient-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and developed a consensus OIT consent process and information form. METHODS: We convened a 36-member Preparing Patients for Oral Immunotherapy (PPOINT) panel of allergy experts to develop a consensus OIT patient preparation, informed consent process, and framework form. Consensus for themes and statements was reached using Delphi methodology, and the consent information form was developed. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 4 themes and 103 statements specific to OIT preparatory procedures, of which 76 statements reached consensus for inclusion specific to the following themes: general considerations for counseling patients about OIT; patient- and family-specific factors that should be addressed before initiating OIT and during OIT; indications for initiating OIT; and potential contraindications and precautions for OIT. The panel reached consensus on 9 OIT consent form themes: benefits, risks, outcomes, alternatives, risk mitigation, difficulties/challenges, discontinuation, office policies, and long-term management. From these themes, 219 statements were proposed, of which 189 reached consensus, and 71 were included on the consent information form. CONCLUSION: We developed consensus recommendations to prepare and counsel patients for safe and effective OIT in clinical practice with evidence-based risk mitigation. Adoption of these recommendations may help standardize clinical care and improve patient outcomes and quality of life.
Asunto(s)
Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Consentimiento Informado , Humanos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Administración Oral , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/inmunologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Conventional basophil activation tests (BATs) measure basophil activation by the increased expression of CD63. Previously, fluorophore-labeled avidin, a positively-charged molecule, was found to bind to activated basophils, which tend to expose negatively charged granule constituents during degranulation. This study further compares avidin versus CD63 as basophil activation biomarkers in classifying peanut allergy. METHODS: Seventy subjects with either a peanut allergy (N = 47), a food allergy other than peanut (N = 6), or no food allergy (N = 17) were evaluated. We conducted BATs in response to seven peanut extract (PE) concentrations (0.01-10,000 ng/mL) and four control conditions (no stimulant, anti-IgE, fMLP (N-formylmethionine-leucyl-phenylalanine), and anti-FcεRI). We measured avidin binding and CD63 expression on basophils with flow cytometry. We evaluated logistic regression and XGBoost models for peanut allergy classification and feature identification. RESULTS: Avidin binding was correlated with CD63 expression. Both markers discriminated between subjects with and without a peanut allergy. Although small by percentage, an avidin+ /CD63- cell subset was found in all allergic subjects tested, indicating that the combination of avidin and CD63 could allow a more comprehensive identification of activated basophils. Indeed, we obtained the best classification accuracy (97.8% sensitivity, 96.7% specificity) by combining avidin and CD63 across seven PE doses. Similar accuracy was obtained by combining PE dose of 10,000 ng/mL for avidin and PE doses of 10 and 100 ng/mL for CD63. CONCLUSIONS: Avidin and CD63 are reliable BAT activation markers associated with degranulation. Their combination enhances the identification of activated basophils and improves the classification accuracy of peanut allergy.
Asunto(s)
Prueba de Desgranulación de los Basófilos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/metabolismo , Avidina/metabolismo , Inmunoglobulina E/metabolismo , Basófilos/metabolismo , Citometría de Flujo , Arachis , Tetraspanina 30/metabolismoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, novel nanoparticle-based mRNA vaccines were developed. A small number of individuals developed allergic reactions to these vaccines although the mechanisms remain undefined. METHODS: To understand COVID-19 vaccine-mediated allergic reactions, we enrolled 19 participants who developed allergic events within 2 h of vaccination and 13 controls, nonreactors. Using standard hemolysis assays, we demonstrated that sera from allergic participants induced stronger complement activation compared to nonallergic subjects following ex vivo vaccine exposure. RESULTS: Vaccine-mediated complement activation correlated with anti-polyethelyne glycol (PEG) IgG (but not IgM) levels while anti-PEG IgE was undetectable in all subjects. Depletion of total IgG suppressed complement activation in select individuals. To investigate the effects of vaccine excipients on basophil function, we employed a validated indirect basophil activation test that stratified the allergic populations into high and low responders. Complement C3a and C5a receptor blockade in this system suppressed basophil response, providing strong evidence for complement involvement in vaccine-mediated basophil activation. Single-cell multiome analysis revealed differential expression of genes encoding the cytokine response and Toll-like receptor (TLR) pathways within the monocyte compartment. Differential chromatin accessibility for IL-13 and IL-1B genes was found in allergic and nonallergic participants, suggesting that in vivo, epigenetic modulation of mononuclear phagocyte immunophenotypes determines their subsequent functional responsiveness, contributing to the overall physiologic manifestation of vaccine reactions. CONCLUSION: These findings provide insights into the mechanisms underlying allergic reactions to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which may be used for future vaccine strategies in individuals with prior history of allergies or reactions and reduce vaccine hesitancy.
RESUMEN
Continuing insight into the molecular mechanisms of atopic disorders has enabled the development of biologics to precisely target these diseases. Food allergy (FA) and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are driven by similar inflammatory molecular mechanisms and exist along the same atopic disease spectrum. Therefore, many of the same biologics are being investigated to target key drivers of mechanisms shared across the disease states. The enormous potential of biologics for the treatment of FA and EGIDs is highlighted by the significant increases in the number of ongoing clinical trials (more than 30) evaluating their use in these disease states, as well as by the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of dupilumab for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis. Here we discuss past and current research into the use of biologics in FA and EGIDs and their potential role in improving treatment options in the future, with the need to have biologics widely clinically available.
Asunto(s)
Productos Biológicos , Enteritis , Esofagitis Eosinofílica , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Estados Unidos , Humanos , NiñoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: For young children with peanut allergy, dietary avoidance is the current standard of care. We aimed to assess whether peanut oral immunotherapy can induce desensitisation (an increased allergic reaction threshold while on therapy) or remission (a state of non-responsiveness after discontinuation of immunotherapy) in this population. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in five US academic medical centres. Eligible participants were children aged 12 to younger than 48 months who were reactive to 500 mg or less of peanut protein during a double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). Participants were randomly assigned by use of a computer, in a 2:1 allocation ratio, to receive peanut oral immunotherapy or placebo for 134 weeks (2000 mg peanut protein per day) followed by 26 weeks of avoidance, with participants and study staff and investigators masked to group treatment assignment. The primary outcome was desensitisation at the end of treatment (week 134), and remission after avoidance (week 160), as the key secondary outcome, were assessed by DBPCFC to 5000 mg in the intention-to-treat population. Safety and immunological parameters were assessed in the same population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03345160. FINDINGS: Between Aug 13, 2013, and Oct 1, 2015, 146 children, with a median age of 39·3 months (IQR 30·8-44·7), were randomly assigned to receive peanut oral immunotherapy (96 participants) or placebo (50 participants). At week 134, 68 (71%, 95% CI 61-80) of 96 participants who received peanut oral immunotherapy compared with one (2%, 0·05-11) of 50 who received placebo met the primary outcome of desensitisation (risk difference [RD] 69%, 95% CI 59-79; p<0·0001). The median cumulative tolerated dose during the week 134 DBPCFC was 5005 mg (IQR 3755-5005) for peanut oral immunotherapy versus 5 mg (0-105) for placebo (p<0·0001). After avoidance, 20 (21%, 95% CI 13-30) of 96 participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy compared with one (2%, 0·05-11) of 50 receiving placebo met remission criteria (RD 19%, 95% CI 10-28; p=0·0021). The median cumulative tolerated dose during the week 160 DBPCFC was 755 mg (IQR 0-2755) for peanut oral immunotherapy and 0 mg (0-55) for placebo (p<0·0001). A significant proportion of participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy who passed the 5000 mg DBPCFC at week 134 could no longer tolerate 5000 mg at week 160 (p<0·001). The participant receiving placebo who was desensitised at week 134 also achieved remission at week 160. Compared with placebo, peanut oral immunotherapy decreased peanut-specific and Ara h2-specific IgE, skin prick test, and basophil activation, and increased peanut-specific and Ara h2-specific IgG4 at weeks 134 and 160. By use of multivariable regression analysis of participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy, younger age and lower baseline peanut-specific IgE was predictive of remission. Most participants (98% with peanut oral immunotherapy vs 80% with placebo) had at least one oral immunotherapy dosing reaction, predominantly mild to moderate and occurring more frequently in participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy. 35 oral immunotherapy dosing events with moderate symptoms were treated with epinephrine in 21 participants receiving peanut oral immunotherapy. INTERPRETATION: In children with a peanut allergy, initiation of peanut oral immunotherapy before age 4 years was associated with an increase in both desensitisation and remission. Development of remission correlated with immunological biomarkers. The outcomes suggest a window of opportunity at a young age for intervention to induce remission of peanut allergy. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, Immune Tolerance Network.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/administración & dosificación , Arachis/inmunología , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/prevención & control , Administración Oral , Alérgenos/inmunología , Niño , Preescolar , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Tolerancia Inmunológica , Masculino , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/inmunología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
The prevalence of food allergy (FA) has been increasing globally and comes with a heavy burden not just economically, but also on quality of life. Although oral immunotherapy (OIT) is effective at inducing desensitization to food allergens, it has several limitations that weaken its success. Limitations include a long duration of build-up, especially when used for multiple allergens, and a high rate of reported adverse events. Furthermore, OIT may not be effective in all patients. Efforts are underway to identify additional treatment options, either as monotherapy or in combination, to treat FA or enhance the safety and efficacy of OIT. Biologics such as omalizumab and dupilumab, which already have US Food and Drug Administration approval for other atopic conditions have been the most studied, but additional biologics and novel strategies are emerging. In this review, we discuss therapeutic strategies including immunoglobulin E inhibitors, immunoglobulin E disruptors, interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 inhibitors, antialarmins, JAK1 and BTK inhibitors, and nanoparticles, and the data surrounding their application in FA and highlighting their potential.
Asunto(s)
Productos Biológicos , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Humanos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Productos Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Calidad de Vida , Administración Oral , Inmunoterapia , Alérgenos , Inmunoglobulina ERESUMEN
Allergic diseases, such as food allergies, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, continue to present a significant challenge for a broad cross-section of the population, despite recent advancements in their treatment and prevention [...].
Asunto(s)
Asma , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Rinitis Alérgica , Humanos , Prevalencia , Rinitis Alérgica/terapia , Asma/terapia , Asma/epidemiología , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/terapia , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
The incidence of food allergy (FA) has continued to rise over the last several decades, posing significant burdens on health and quality of life. Significant strides into the advancement of FA diagnosis, prevention, and treatment have been made in recent years. In an effort to lower reliance on resource-intensive food challenges, the field has continued work toward the development of highly sensitive and specific assays capable of high-throughput analysis to assist in the diagnosis FA. In looking toward early infancy as a critical period in the development of allergy or acquisition of tolerance, evidence has increasingly suggested that early intervention via the early introduction of food allergens and maintenance of skin barrier function may decrease the risk of FA. As such, large-scale investigations are underway evaluating infant feeding and the impact of emollient and steroid use in infants with dry skin for the prevention of allergy. On the other end of the spectrum, the past few years have been witness to an explosive increase in clinical trials of novel and innovative therapeutic strategies aimed at the treatment of FA in those whom the disease has already manifested. A milestone in the field, 2020 marked the approval of the first drug, oral peanut allergen, for the indication of peanut allergy. With a foundation of promising data supporting the safety and efficacy of single- and multi-allergen oral immunotherapy, current efforts have turned toward the use of probiotics, biologic agents, and modified allergens to optimize and improve upon existing paradigms. Through these advancements, the field hopes to gain footing in the ongoing battle against FA.
Asunto(s)
Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Probióticos , Alérgenos , Arachis , Emolientes , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos/prevención & control , Humanos , Lactante , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/prevención & control , Calidad de Vida , EsteroidesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is frequently discontinued due to adverse events (AEs) and current data suggests that lowering OIT doses can minimize severity and frequency of AEs. However, the minimum daily dose that can enable desensitization and induce immune responses in multi-food OIT (mOIT) is unknown. METHODS: Participants aged 2-25 years with multi-food allergies were pretreated with fixed-dose omalizumab (150 mg, 3 doses, every 4 weeks), and randomized 1:1 to receive mOIT to a total maintenance dose of either 300 or 1200 mg total protein, (total dose includes at least two and up to a max of five allergens) and then transitioned to real-food protein equivalents after 18 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with increases in IgG4/IgE ratio of at least 2 allergens by ≥25% from baseline after 18 weeks of therapy. The primary efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Sixty participants were enrolled across two sites. Seventy percent of participants in both arms showed changes in sIgG4/sIgE ratio in at least 2 allergens with no difference between the treatment groups (OR [95% CI] = 1.00 [0.29, 3.49]). Overall, there were no differences in AEs between the 300 and 1200 mg groups (19% vs. 17%, p = .69), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that plasma marker changes are induced early, even at a total protein dose of 300 mg inclusive of multiple allergens when mOIT is combined with fixed-dose omalizumab. Identification of optimal mOIT dosing with adjunct omalizumab is needed for the long-term success of OIT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03181009).
Asunto(s)
Desensibilización Inmunológica , Omalizumab , Administración Oral , Alérgenos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina E , Factores Inmunológicos , Omalizumab/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Food allergy (FA) is now one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood often lasting throughout life and leading to significant worldwide healthcare burden. The precise mechanisms responsible for the development of this inflammatory condition are largely unknown; however, a multifactorial aetiology involving both environmental and genetic contributions is well accepted. A precise understanding of the pathogenesis of FA is an essential first step to developing comprehensive prevention strategies that could mitigate this epidemic. As it is frequently preceded by atopic dermatitis and can be prevented by early antigen introduction, the development of FA is likely facilitated by the improper initial presentation of antigen to the developing immune system. Primary oral exposure of antigens allowing for presentation via a well-developed mucosal immune system, rather than through a disrupted skin epidermal barrier, is essential to prevent FA. In this review, we present the data supporting the necessity of (1) an intact epidermal barrier to prevent epicutaneous antigen presentation, (2) the presence of specific commensal bacteria to maintain an intact mucosal immune system and (3) maternal/infant diet diversity, including vitamins and minerals, and appropriately timed allergenic food introduction to prevent FA.
Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Atópica , Hipersensibilidad a los Alimentos , Dermatitis Atópica/etiología , Dermatitis Atópica/prevención & control , Humanos , Lactante , Membrana MucosaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether asthma and its allergic phenotype are risk factors for hospitalization or severe disease from SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: All patients over 28 days old testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March 1 and September 30, 2020, were retrospectively identified and characterized through electronic analysis at Stanford. A sub-cohort was followed prospectively to evaluate long-term COVID-19 symptoms. RESULTS: 168,190 patients underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing, and 6,976 (4.15%) tested positive. In a multivariate analysis, asthma was not an independent risk factor for hospitalization (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.86, 1.45], p = .40). Among SARS-CoV-2-positive asthmatics, allergic asthma lowered the risk of hospitalization and had a protective effect compared with non-allergic asthma (OR 0.52 [0.28, 0.91], p = .026); there was no association between baseline medication use as characterized by GINA and hospitalization risk. Patients with severe COVID-19 disease had lower eosinophil levels during hospitalization compared with patients with mild or asymptomatic disease, independent of asthma status (p = .0014). In a patient sub-cohort followed longitudinally, asthmatics and non-asthmatics had similar time to resolution of COVID-19 symptoms, particularly lower respiratory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19 disease. Allergic asthmatics were half as likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with non-allergic asthmatics. Lower levels of eosinophil counts (allergic biomarkers) were associated with a more severe COVID-19 disease trajectory. Recovery was similar among asthmatics and non-asthmatics with over 50% of patients reporting ongoing lower respiratory symptoms 3 months post-infection.
Asunto(s)
Asma , COVID-19 , Asma/diagnóstico , Asma/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , Humanos , Fenotipo , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
There is increasing understanding, globally, that climate change and increased pollution will have a profound and mostly harmful effect on human health. This review brings together international experts to describe both the direct (such as heat waves) and indirect (such as vector-borne disease incidence) health impacts of climate change. These impacts vary depending on vulnerability (i.e., existing diseases) and the international, economic, political, and environmental context. This unique review also expands on these issues to address a third category of potential longer-term impacts on global health: famine, population dislocation, and environmental justice and education. This scholarly resource explores these issues fully, linking them to global health in urban and rural settings in developed and developing countries. The review finishes with a practical discussion of action that health professionals around the world in our field can yet take.
Asunto(s)
Cambio Climático , Salud Global , Contaminación Ambiental , HumanosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Gastrointestinal side effects are common during oral immunotherapy (OIT) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a potential complication. We aimed to characterize eosinophilic gastrointestinal responses to peanut OIT, in which peanut protein is given orally, with incremental increases in dose over time. METHODS: Twenty adults with IgE-mediated peanut allergy were randomly assigned to groups given peanut OIT (n = 15) or placebo (n = 5); 1 additional subject withdrew before randomization. Serial gastrointestinal biopsies were collected at baseline (n = 21, 0 weeks), following dose escalation (n = 10, 52 weeks), and during the maintenance phase (n = 11, 104 weeks). Endoscopic findings were characterized using the EoE endoscopic reference score. Biopsies were assessed for eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) and other pathology features using EoE histologic scoring system scores. We performed immunohistochemical analyses of eosinophil peroxidase deposition, quantified using automated image analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, no subjects reported current gastrointestinal symptoms. However, 3 of the 21 subjects (14%) had esophageal peak eosinophil counts ≥15 eos/hpf and all subjects had dilated intercellular spaces (DIS). OIT induced or exacerbated esophageal eosinophilia (EE) at 52 weeks in most subjects (peak eosinophil counts >5 eos/hpf in 6 of 7 patients [86%]; peak eosinophil counts ≥15 eos/hpf in 4 of 7 patients [57%]). One subject met clinicopathologic criteria for EoE and withdrew; no significant changes in esophageal peak eosinophil counts were observed in the placebo group. EE in the OIT group corresponded with significant increases in EoE histologic scoring system scores and deposition of eosinophil peroxidase. In 4 of 6 participants (67%), OIT-induced EE and gastrointestinal eosinophilia resolved by the end of the maintenance phase. Gastrointestinal symptoms were not clearly associated with EE or gastrointestinal eosinophilia. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, we found that peanut OIT-induced EE and gastrointestinal eosinophilia are usually transient and are not always associated with gastrointestinal symptoms. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02103270.
Asunto(s)
Esofagitis Eosinofílica , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete , Adulto , Arachis , Eosinófilos , Humanos , Inmunoterapia/efectos adversos , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/terapia , Proyectos PilotoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Oral food challenges have demonstrated that diagnosis of almond allergy based on extract-sIgE tests displays low specificity. Molecular allergy diagnosis is expected to improve accuracy, but its value in diagnosing almond allergy remains unknown. The aim of this study was to identify relevant almond allergens and examine their ability to improve almond allergy diagnosis. METHODS: IgE-reactive proteins were purified from almond kernels. IgE binding to almond extract and the allergens was analyzed by quantitative ELISA using sera from 18 subjects with a proven almond allergy. The control group consisted of sera from 18 subjects allergic to peanut and/or tree nuts but tolerant to almond. RESULTS: Three IgE-binding proteins were identified: legumin (Pru du 6), alpha-hairpinin (Pru du 8), and mandelonitrile lyase (Pru du 10). Positive IgE (≥0.35 kU/L) to almond extract showed 94% sensitivity but only 33% specificity. IgE to Pru du 6 maintained high sensitivity (83%) and provided superior specificity (78%). Sera from almond-allergic subjects had significantly higher IgE levels to almond extract (P < .0001) and Pru du 6 (P < .0001) than sera from tolerant donors. Sensitization to Pru du 6 was highly specific for almond allergy, while frequencies of sensitization to legumins from peanut, walnut, hazelnut, and cashew were similar in both groups. IgE to Pru du 8 and Pru du 10 was less sensitive (41% and 67%), but showed specificities of 100% and 61%. CONCLUSION: The use of almond allergens markedly increases the diagnostic specificity compared to the extract. Pru du 6 is a potential new molecular marker for almond allergy.