Allergy to oak pollen in North America.

Background: Oak pollen is an important allergen in North America. The genus Quercus (oak) belongs to the family Fagaceae under the order Fagales. Objective: The objective of this article was to narratively review the oak pollen season, clinical and epidemiologic aspects of allergy to oak pollen, oak taxonomy, and oak allergen cross-reactivity, with a focus on the North American perspective. Methods: A PubMed literature review (no limits) was conducted. Publications related to oak pollen, oak-related allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, and oak-related allergic asthma were selected for review. Results: Oak species are common throughout the United States and contribute up to 50% to overall atmospheric pollen loads. Mean peak oak pollen counts can reach >2000 grains/m³. The start of the oak pollen season generally corresponds to the seasonal shift from winter to spring based on latitude and elevation, and may begin as early as mid February. The duration of the season can last > 100 days and, in general, is longer at lower latitudes. In the United States, ∼30% of individuals with allergy are sensitized to oak. The oak pollen season correlates with increased allergic rhinitis symptom-relieving medication use and asthma-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Oak falls within the birch homologous group. Extensive immunologic cross-reactivity has been demonstrated between oak pollen and birch pollen allergens, and, more specifically, their major allergens Que a 1 and Bet v 1. The cross-reactivity between oak and birch has implications for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) because guidelines suggest selecting one representative allergen within a homologous group for AIT, a principle that would apply to oak. Conclusion: Allergy to oak pollen is common in North America and has a substantial clinical impact. Oak pollen allergens are cross-reactive with birch pollen allergens, which may have implications for AIT.

Treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with a once-daily SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet.

OBJECTIVES: Specific immunotherapy with the grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) has been developed as an effective, well tolerated, and convenient treatment for grass pollen induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). Six phase II/III randomized, placebo-controlled trials with the duration of a single grass pollen season of treatment using the SQ-standardized grass AIT, Grazax (Phleum pratense, 75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU, ALK, Denmark), have been published previously. This review compares results from these trials. METHODS: As outcome measures and methods of assessing them were similar across the trials, we have summarized the main efficacy findings (Total Combined Score [TCS], average daily rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication scores, percentage of well days, quality of life scores) during a single season of treatment with grass AIT in adults and children with seasonal ARC. RESULTS: The results of the European and North American trials were similar. Compared with the placebo group, who received symptomatic medications only, treatment with grass AIT resulted in fewer rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, a lower intake of symptomatic medication, better patient self-rated quality of life and a greater percentage of well days during the entire grass pollen season. The data indicate that grass AIT treatment is equally effective in adults and children; the measured effect varies with pollen exposure, but is comparable across regions and continents, with a consistent difference compared with placebo in TCS that was above 20% for all trials. Local adverse events were experienced by the majority of patients. These reactions were generally mild to moderate in severity and transient in duration. Systemic adverse events were rare. CONCLUSIONS: This review confirms SQ-standardized grass AIT as a suitable therapeutic option for seasonal use in patients aged 5 years or older with grass pollen induced ARC.

Is there a role for aerosol nasal sprays in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a white paper.

This White Paper presents the Consensus Statements derived from a Special Issues Board (SIB) held in Chicago, IL, in October 2010. The SIB was convened to address the question of whether there is a need for both aerosol and aqueous intranasal steroids (INSs) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The faculty reviewed the published record of efficacy and safety of aerosol and aqueous INSs, as well as patient and physician satisfaction and preferences for currently available INSs, and burden of disease. Agreement on unmet needs also included the practice experience of the faculty and their colleagues. The body of evidence indicates that INSs are equally effective and well tolerated for most patients. However, differences exist among current aqueous formulations as well as between these products and their aerosol antecedents, based on the properties of the nasal spray. Aerosol formulations, although no longer available, may be preferred for some patients with specific pathophysiology and may be preferred by some patients based on sensory perception. There are good reasons to expand the currently available options of INSs by having both aerosol and aqueous formulations.