Sensitization to Gibberellin-Regulated Protein (Peamaclein) Among Italian Cypress Pollen-Sensitized Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Peach gibberellin-regulated protein (peamaclein) has recently emerged as a relevant food allergen in cypress pollen-hypersensitive patients. Objective: We investigated monosensitization to peamaclein among Italian cypress pollen-allergic patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 835 cypress pollen-hypersensitive patients from 28 Italian allergy centers underwent a thorough work-up to determine food-allergic reactions and performed skin prick testing with a commercial peach extract containing peamaclein. IgE to rPru p 3 was measured in peach reactors, and those with negative results were enrolled as potentially monosensitized to peamaclein. IgE reactivity to rPru p 7 was evaluated using immunoblot and an experimental ImmunoCAP with rPru p 7. RESULTS: Skin prick tests were positive to peach in 163 patients (19.5%); however, 127 (77.9%) were excluded because they reacted to Pru p 3. Twenty-four patients (14.7%) corresponding to 2.8% of the entire study population) were considered potentially monosensitized to peamaclein. No geographic preference was observed. Seventeen of the 24 patients (70.8%) had a history of food allergy, mainly to peach (n=15). Additional offending foods included other Rosaceae, citrus fruits, fig, melon, tree nuts, and kiwi. On peach immunoblot, only 3 of 18 putative peamaclein-allergic patients reacted to a band at about 7 kDa; an additional 4 patients reacted at about 50-60 kDa. Ten of 18 patients (56%) had a positive result for Pru p 7 on ImmunoCAP. CONCLUSION: Allergy and sensitization to peamaclein seem rare in Italy. Most patients react to peach, although other Rosaceae fruits and several citrus fruits may also be offending foods. Peach and cypress pollen probably also share cross-reacting allergens other than peamaclein.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy with grass monomeric allergoid: comparison between two different treatment regimens.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with monomeric carbamylated allergoid proved to be well tolerated, safe and effective in patients with respiratory allergy. Standard administration regimens are expected to require a long time before clinical benefit can be appreciated. We investigated whether pre-seasonal and perennial regimens differently affect the clinical efficacy of grass pollen SLIT. METHODS: Adult patients with allergic rhino-conjunctivitis with/without mild intermittent asthma due to grass pollen were included into this open prospective study and randomised to receive SLIT with a continuous regimen (Group 1: 1,000 AU/week for the entire study period) or a pre-seasonal regimen (Group 2: 5,000 AU/week for 10 weeks/year for 2 years), or on demand drug therapy alone (Group 3) for two years. At entry (November 2005), at the end of the first and second pollen season, a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess patients' well-being. Symptom score and drug consumption were evaluated during the seasons. Methacholine challenge was performed at study entry and conclusion. Adverse events were recorded along the whole study duration. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were divided into Group 1 (n = 10), Group 2 (n = 11) and Group 3 (n = 11). A significant VAS improvement was observed in both SLIT groups, after the first and second pollen season, compared to baseline and to Group 3 (p < 0.05). Less symptoms and need for medications resulted during the second season (p < 0.05). No relevant variations in bronchial hyper-reactivity have been observed between the three groups. Only 2 patients experienced local or mild reactions in SLIT groups. CONCLUSION: Both pre-seasonal and continuous regimen of SLIT with monomeric allergoid turned out effective and safe, suggesting that a pre-seasonal course with 5,000 AU/week for 10 weeks may represent a convenient option in patients with grass pollen allergic rhinitis with/without mild intermittent asthma. Further research is urgently needed to consolidate these preliminary evidences.

The safety of cluster immunotherapy with aluminium hydroxide-adsorbed honey bee venom extract.

Venom immunotherapy (VIT) with aqueous extracts is considered a life-saving treatment in insect allergy, but systemic side effects are quite common, especially in patients sensitized to Apis mellifera venom. Only a few studies are available regarding depot VIT administered according to the standard weekly schedule, while no data are available for cluster VIT with depot preparations. This study was designed to compare the tolerance of aqueous cluster or rush VIT versus cluster depot VIT in patients sensitized to Apis mellifera. Fifty-five patients with a history of systemic reaction (grade II to IV according to Müller) after an Apis mellifera sting were divided at random into 3 groups. Forty patients were treated with aqueous VIT (20 according to a cluster schedule and 20 according to a rush schedule) and 15 with Depot VIT according to a cluster schedule. All local and systemic side effects were recorded. Four patients belonging to the aqueous-cluster, 4 belonging to the aqueous-rush, and 1 belonging to the depot-cluster schedule had large local reactions after VIT (p < 0.009). Systemic side effects were recorded in 1, 7 and 0 patients (p < 0.003) respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the two cluster regimens in the frequency of side effects. Depot VIT administered according to a cluster schedule was well tolerated, and its tolerance is better than aqueous-rush VIT for Apis mellifera.