RESUMEN
This S3 guideline was created based on the European S3 guideline, with special consideration of the medical conditions in the German-speaking region and incorporating additions from the previous German-language version. The interdisciplinary guideline commission consisted of representatives from the German Dermatological Society, the Professional Association of German Dermatologists, the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the Swiss Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology, the German Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, the Professional Association of Pediatricians and Adolescent Medicine, the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine, the German Society for Pediatric Rehabilitation and Prevention, the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy, the German Network for Health Services Research, the German Eczema Association and the German Allergy and Asthma Association. This first part of the guideline focuses on the definition and diagnostic aspects of atopic dermatitis (AD), addressing topical therapy as well as non-pharmacological treatment approaches such as UV therapy, psychoeducational therapy, dietary interventions for AD, allergen immunotherapy for AD, and complementary medicine. This part of the guideline also covers specific aspects of AD in children and adolescents, during pregnancy and lactation, and in the context of family planning. Additionally, it addresses occupational aspects of AD and highlights the perspective of the patients. The second part of the guideline, published separately, addresses the systemic therapy of AD.
Asunto(s)
Asma , Dermatitis Atópica , Adolescente , Femenino , Embarazo , Humanos , Niño , Dermatitis Atópica/terapia , Dermatitis Atópica/tratamiento farmacológicoRESUMEN
Hymenoptera venom (HV) is injected into the skin during a sting by Hymenoptera such as bees or wasps. Some components of HV are potential allergens and can cause large local and/or systemic allergic reactions (SAR) in sensitized individuals. During their lifetime, ~ 3% of the general population will develop SAR following a Hymenoptera sting. This guideline presents the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to SAR following Hymenoptera stings. Symptomatic therapy is usually required after a severe local reaction, but specific diagnosis or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) with HV (VIT) is not necessary. When taking a patient's medical history after SAR, clinicians should discuss possible risk factors for more frequent stings and more severe anaphylactic reactions. The most important risk factors for more severe SAR are mast cell disease and, especially in children, uncontrolled asthma. Therefore, if the SAR extends beyond the skin (according to the Ring and Messmer classification: grade > I), the baseline serum tryptase concentration shall be measured and the skin shall be examined for possible mastocytosis. The medical history should also include questions specific to asthma symptoms. To demonstrate sensitization to HV, allergists shall determine concentrations of specific IgE antibodies (sIgE) to bee and/or vespid venoms, their constituents and other venoms as appropriate. If the results are negative less than 2 weeks after the sting, the tests shall be repeated (at least 4 - 6 weeks after the sting). If only sIgE to the total venom extracts have been determined, if there is double sensitization, or if the results are implausible, allergists shall determine sIgE to the different venom components. Skin testing may be omitted if in-vitro methods have provided a definitive diagnosis. If neither laboratory diagnosis nor skin testing has led to conclusive results, additional cellular testing can be performed. Therapy for HV allergy includes prophylaxis of reexposure, patient self treatment measures (including use of rescue medication) in the event of re-stings, and VIT. Following a grade I SAR and in the absence of other risk factors for repeated sting exposure or more severe anaphylaxis, it is not necessary to prescribe an adrenaline auto-injector (AAI) or to administer VIT. Under certain conditions, VIT can be administered even in the presence of previous grade I anaphylaxis, e.g., if there are additional risk factors or if quality of life would be reduced without VIT. Physicians should be aware of the contraindications to VIT, although they can be overridden in justified individual cases after weighing benefits and risks. The use of ß-blockers and ACE inhibitors is not a contraindication to VIT. Patients should be informed about possible interactions. For VIT, the venom extract shall be used that, according to the patient's history and the results of the allergy diagnostics, was the trigger of the disease. If, in the case of double sensitization and an unclear history regarding the trigger, it is not possible to determine the culprit venom even with additional diagnostic procedures, VIT shall be performed with both venom extracts. The standard maintenance dose of VIT is 100 µg HV. In adult patients with bee venom allergy and an increased risk of sting exposure or particularly severe anaphylaxis, a maintenance dose of 200 µg can be considered from the start of VIT. Administration of a non-sedating H1-blocking antihistamine can be considered to reduce side effects. The maintenance dose should be given at 4-weekly intervals during the first year and, following the manufacturer's instructions, every 5 - 6 weeks from the second year, depending on the preparation used; if a depot preparation is used, the interval can be extended to 8 weeks from the third year onwards. If significant recurrent systemic reactions occur during VIT, clinicians shall identify and as possible eliminate co-factors that promote these reactions. If this is not possible or if there are no such co-factors, if prophylactic administration of an H1-blocking antihistamine is not effective, and if a higher dose of VIT has not led to tolerability of VIT, physicians should should consider additional treatment with an anti IgE antibody such as omalizumab as off lable use. For practical reasons, only a small number of patients are able to undergo sting challenge tests to check the success of the therapy, which requires in-hospital monitoring and emergency standby. To perform such a provocation test, patients must have tolerated VIT at the planned maintenance dose. In the event of treatment failure while on treatment with an ACE inhibitor, physicians should consider discontinuing the ACE inhibitor. In the absence of tolerance induction, physicians shall increase the maintenance dose (200 µg to a maximum of 400 µg in adults, maximum of 200 µg HV in children). If increasing the maintenance dose does not provide adequate protection and there are risk factors for a severe anaphylactic reaction, physicians should consider a co-medication based on an anti-IgE antibody (omalizumab; off-label use) during the insect flight season. In patients without specific risk factors, VIT can be discontinued after 3 - 5 years if maintenance therapy has been tolerated without recurrent anaphylactic events. Prolonged or permanent VIT can be considered in patients with mastocytosis, a history of cardiovascular or respiratory arrest due to Hymenoptera sting (severity grade IV), or other specific constellations associated with an increased individual risk of recurrent and/or severe SAR (e.g., hereditary α-tryptasemia). In cases of strongly increased, unavoidable insect exposure, adults may receive VIT until the end of intense contact. The prescription of an AAI can be omitted in patients with a history of SAR grade I and II when the maintenance dose of VIT has been reached and tolerated, provided that there are no additional risk factors. The same holds true once the VIT has been terminated after the regular treatment period. Patients with a history of SAR grade ≥ III reaction, or grade II reaction combined with additional factors that increase the risk of non response or repeated severe sting reactions, should carry an emergency kit, including an AAI, during VIT and after regular termination of the VIT.
RESUMEN
Not available.
RESUMEN
Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) involves the application of increasing doses of allergen extract (as oral, sublingual, or subcutaneous immunotherapy) until immunologic tolerance is reached. Successful AIT relies on the consistent administration of allergen extract; therefore, adherence to these treatments is vital for compelling long-term results. Our review discusses the current terminology from adherence research in general, summarizes 25 current studies on adherence research in AIT in a scoping literature review, and delineates recommendations for tools and parameters for adherence research, aiming to improve outcomes in AIT. Almost every adherence study in AIT published to date used different tools, parameters, and data sources for measuring adherence and persistence rates. Unfortunately, an easily accessible, objective parameter or biomarker for monitoring treatment adherence and success has not yet been established for AIT. This situation calls for the development of an international core outcomes set for AIT that defines what is exactly meant by AIT adherence and how AIT adherence should be consistently measured. Therefore, we exemplarily present results and conclusions from adherence research in chronic diseases other than allergology. We aim to facilitate the development of advanced methods, considering the challenging disease specificities of these parameters in a routine care setting of AIT.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Humanos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Administración Sublingual , Tolerancia Inmunológica , Extractos VegetalesRESUMEN
Not available.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The persistently high prevalence of allergic diseases in Western industrial nations and the limited possibilities of causal therapy make evidence-based recommendations for primary prevention necessary. METHODS: The recommendations of the S3 guideline Allergy Prevention, published in its last version in 2014, were revised and consulted on the basis of a current systematic literature search. The evidence search was conducted for the period 06/2013 - 11/2020 in the electronic databases Cochrane and MEDLINE, as well as in the reference lists of current reviews and through references from experts. The literature found was screened in two filtering processes, first by title and abstract, and the remaining papers were screened in the full text for relevance. The studies included after this were sorted by level of evidence, and the study quality was indicated in terms of potential bias (low/high). The revised recommendations were formally agreed and consented upon with the participation of representatives of the relevant professional societies and (self-help) organizations (nominal group process). Of 5,681 hits, 286 studies were included and assessed. RESULTS: Recommendations on maternal nutrition during pregnancy and breastfeeding as well as on infant nutrition in the first months of life again play an important role in the updated guideline: Many of the previous recommendations were confirmed by the current data. It was specified that breastfeeding should be exclusive for the first 4 - 6 months after birth, if possible, and that breastfeeding should continue with the introduction of complementary foods. A new recommendation is that supplementary feeding of cow's milk-based formula should be avoided in the first days of life if the mother wishes to breastfeed. Furthermore, it was determined that the evidence for a clear recommendation for hydrolyzed infant formula in non-breastfed infants at risk is currently no longer sufficient. It is therefore currently recommended to check whether an infant formula with proven efficacy in allergy prevention studies is available until the introduction of complementary feeding. Finally, based on the EAACI guideline, recommendations were made for the prevention of chicken egg allergy by introducing and regularly giving thoroughly heated (e.g., baked or hard-boiled) but not "raw" chicken egg (also no scrambled egg) with the complementary food. The recommendation to introduce peanut in complementary feeding was formulated cautiously for the German-speaking countries: In families who usually consume peanut, the regular administration of peanut-containing foods in age-appropriate form (e.g., peanut butter) with the complementary diet can be considered for the primary prevention of peanut allergy in infants with atopic dermatitis (AD). Before introduction, a clinically relevant peanut allergy must be ruled out, especially in infants with moderate to severe AD. There is still insufficient evidence for an allergy-preventive efficacy of prebiotics or probiotics, vitamin D, or other vitamins in the form of supplements so that recommendations against their supplementation were adopted for the first time in the current guideline. Biodiversity plays an important role in the development of immunological tolerance to environmental and food allergens: there is clear evidence that growing up on a farm is associated with a lower risk of developing asthma and allergic diseases. This is associated with early non-specific immune stimulation due to, among other things, the greater microbial biodiversity of house dust in this habitat. This aspect is also reflected in the recommendations on animal husbandry, on which a differentiated statement was made: In families without a recognizable increased allergy risk, pet keeping with cats or dogs should not generally be restricted. Families with an increased allergy risk or with children with already existing AD should not acquire a new cat - in contrast, however, dog ownership should not be discouraged. Interventions to reduce exposure to dust mite allergens in the home, such as the use of mite allergen-proof mattress covers ("encasings"), should be restricted to patients with already proven specific sensitization against house dust mite allergen. Children born by caesarean section have a slightly increased risk of asthma - this should be taken into account when advising on mode of delivery outside of emergency situations. Recent work also supports the recommendations on air pollutants: Active and passive exposure to tobacco smoke increase the risk of allergies, especially asthma, and should therefore be avoided. Exposure to nitrogen oxides, ozone, and small particles (PM 2.5) is associated with an increased risk, especially for asthma. Therefore, exposure to emissions of nitrogen oxides, ozone, and small particles (PM 2.5) should be kept low. The authors of this guideline are unanimously in favor of enacting appropriate regulations to minimize these air pollutants. There is no evidence that vaccinations increase the risk of allergies, but conversely there is evidence that vaccinations can reduce the risk of allergies. All children, including children at risk, should be vaccinated according to the current recommendations of the national public health institutes, also for reasons of allergy prevention. CONCLUSION: The consensus of recommendations in this guideline is based on an extensive evidence base. The update of the guideline enables evidence-based and up-to-date recommendations for the prevention of allergic diseases including asthma and atopic dermatitis.
RESUMEN
Adverse reactions to food or food ingredients are more often perceived than objectively verifiable. However, reliable laboratory tests are often lacking. As a result, people with perceived adverse reactions to food often follow extensive elimination diets for years and unnecessarily restrict their diet, as in the case of the frequently suspected histamine intolerance. In this condition, laboratory parameters such as the determination of diamine oxidase in serum have been shown to be inconclusive. The lack of symptom reproducibility calls into question the clinical picture of adverse reactions to ingested histamine. In order to approach persons with perceived histamine intolerance and to support them in moving from blanket restrictions, which are often unnecessarily strict, to effective personalized therapeutic strategies, the present guideline of the Working Group on Food Allergy of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in cooperation with the Medical Association of German Allergists (AeDA), the Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA) as well as the Swiss Society of Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) and the Austrian Society of Allergology and Immunology (ÖGAI) recommends a practicable diagnostic and therapeutic approach.
RESUMEN
Two employees of the National Health Service (NHS) in England developed severe allergic reactions following administration of BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019). The British SmPC for the BNT162b2 vaccine already includes reference to a contraindication for use in individuals who have had an allergic reaction to the vaccine or any of its components. As a precautionary measure, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has issued interim guidance to the NHS not to vaccinate in principle in "patients with severe allergies". Allergic reactions to vaccines are very rare, but vaccine components are known to cause allergic reactions. BNT162b2 is a vaccine based on an mRNA embedded in lipid nanoparticles and blended with other substances to enable its transport into the cells. In the pivotal phase III clinical trial, the BNT162b2 vaccine was generally well tolerated, but this large clinical trial, used to support vaccine approval by the MHRA and US Food and Drug Administration, excluded individuals with a "history of a severe adverse reaction related to the vaccine and/or a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to a component of the study medication". Vaccines are recognized as one of the most effective public health interventions. This repeated administration of a foreign protein (antigen) necessitates a careful allergological history before each application and diagnostic clarification and a risk-benefit assessment before each injection. Severe allergic reactions to vaccines are rare but can be life-threatening, and it is prudent to raise awareness of this hazard among vaccination teams and to take adequate precautions while more experience is gained with this new vaccine.
RESUMEN
Lupine flour is a valuable food due to its favorable nutritional properties. In spite of its allergenic potential, its use is increasing. Three lupine species, Lupinus angustifolius, L. luteus, and L. albus are relevant for human nutrition. The aim of this study is to clarify whether the species differ with regard to their allergen composition and whether anaphylaxis marker allergens could be identified in lupine. Patients with the following characteristics were included: lupine allergy, suspected lupine allergy, lupine sensitization only, and peanut allergy. Lupine sensitization was detected via CAP-FEIA (ImmunoCAP) and skin prick test. Protein, DNA and expressed sequence tag (EST) databases were queried for lupine proteins homologous to already known legume allergens. Different extraction methods applied on seeds from all species were examined by SDS-PAGE and screened by immunoblotting for IgE-binding proteins. The extracts underwent different and successive chromatography methods. Low-molecular-weight components were purified and investigated for IgE-reactivity. Proteomics revealed a molecular diversity of the three species, which was confirmed when investigated for IgE-reactivity. Three new allergens, L. albus profilin, L. angustifolius and L. luteus lipid transfer protein (LTP), were identified. LTP as a potential marker allergen for severity is a valuable additional candidate for molecular allergy diagnostic tests.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/aislamiento & purificación , Lupinus/química , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Alérgenos/química , Alérgenos/inmunología , Secuencia de Aminoácidos , Niño , Femenino , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad/inmunología , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Peso Molecular , Hipersensibilidad al Cacahuete/inmunología , Extractos Vegetales/aislamiento & purificación , Proteínas de Plantas/aislamiento & purificación , Medicina de Precisión , Semillas/metabolismo , Adulto JovenAsunto(s)
Desensibilización Inmunológica , Vitamina D , Alérgenos , Suplementos Dietéticos , Humanos , Inmunomodulación , InmunoterapiaRESUMEN
This guideline on diagnostic procedures for suspected beta-lactam antibiotic (BLA) hypersensitivity was written by the German and Austrian professional associations for allergology, and the Paul-Ehrlich Society for Chemotherapy in a consensus procedure according to the criteria of the German Association of Scientific Medical Societies. BLA such as penicillins and cephalosporins represent the drug group that most frequently triggers drug allergies. However, the frequency of reports of suspected allergy in patient histories clearly exceeds the number of confirmed cases. The large number of suspected BLA allergies has a significant impact on, e.g., the quality of treatment received by the individual patient and the costs to society as a whole. Allergies to BLA are based on different immunological mechanisms and often manifest as maculopapular exanthema, as well as anaphylaxis; and there are also a number of less frequent special clinical manifestations of drug allergic reactions. All BLA have a beta-lactam ring. BLA are categorized into different classes: penicillins, cephalosporins, carbapenems, monobactams, and beta-lactamase inhibitors with different chemical structures. Knowledge of possible cross-reactivity is of considerable clinical significance. Whereas allergy to the common beta-lactam ring occurs in only a small percentage of all BLA allergic patients, cross-reactivity due to side chain similarities, such as aminopenicillins and aminocephalosporins, and even methoxyimino cephalosporins, are more common. However, the overall picture is complex and its elucidation may require further research. Diagnostic procedures used in BLA allergy are usually made up of four components: patient history, laboratory diagnostics, skin testing (which is particularly important), and drug provocation testing. The diagnostic approach - even in cases where the need to administer a BLA is acute - is guided by patient history and risk - benefit ratio in the individual case. Here again, further studies are required to extend the present state of knowledge. Performing allergy testing for suspected BLA hypersensitivity is urgently recommended not only in the interests of providing the patient with good medical care, but also due to the immense impact of putative BLA allergies on society as a whole.
RESUMEN
No abstract available.
RESUMEN
Lipoxygenases (LOX) and cyclooxygenase (COX) are the main enzymes for PUFA metabolism to highly bio-active prostaglandins, leukotrienes, thromboxanes, lipoxins, resolvins and protectins. LOX and COX pathways are important for the regulation of pro-inflammatory or pro-resolving metabolite synthesis and metabolism for various inflammatory diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD). In this study, we determined PUFAs and PUFA metabolites in serum as well as affected and non-affected skin samples from AD patients and the dermal expression of various enzymes, binding proteins and receptors involved in these LOX and COX pathways. Decreased EPA and DHA levels in serum and reduced EPA level in affected and non-affected skin were found; in addition, n3/n6-PUFA ratios were lower in affected and non-affected skin and serum. Mono-hydroxylated PUFA metabolites of AA, EPA, DHA and the sum of AA, EPA and DHA metabolites were increased in affected and non-affected skin. COX1 and ALOX12B expression, COX and 12/15-LOX metabolites as well as various lipids, which are known to induce itch (12-HETE, LTB4, TXB2, PGE2 and PGF2) and the ratio of pro-inflammatory vs pro-resolving lipid mediators in non-affected and affected skin as well as in the serum of AD patients were increased, while n3/n6-PUFAs and metabolite ratios were lower in non-affected and affected AD skin. Expression of COX1 and COX-metabolites was even higher in non-affected AD skin. To conclude, 12/15-LOX and COX pathways were mainly upregulated, while n3/n6-PUFA and metabolite ratios were lower in AD patients skin. All these parameters are a hallmark of a pro-inflammatory and non-resolving environment in affected and partly in non-affected skin of AD patients.
Asunto(s)
Dermatitis Atópica/metabolismo , Eicosanoides/metabolismo , Piel/metabolismo , Piel/patología , Adulto , Araquidonato 12-Lipooxigenasa/metabolismo , Araquidonato 15-Lipooxigenasa/metabolismo , Biopsia , Ácidos Grasos Omega-3/metabolismo , Femenino , Humanos , Inflamación , Lipidómica , Masculino , Prostaglandina-Endoperóxido Sintasas/metabolismo , Prurito , Transducción de Señal , Transcriptoma , Regulación hacia ArribaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous clinical trials with birch pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy have been conducted over a 1- to 2-year treatment period and involved mostly a single geographic location. OBJECTIVE: This study (EudraCT-Number: 2005-000025-35) intended to evaluate the effect of subcutaneous immunotherapy with high-dose hypoallergenic birch pollen allergoid in patients with confirmed moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis over a 3-year course in 19 European centres. METHODS: Adults with confirmed birch pollen allergy (n = 253) were randomized to preseasonal placebo (n = 129) or active treatment (n = 124). Primary endpoint was change in Symptom Medication Score after 2 years treatment (2007). RESULTS: The change in Symptom Medication Score of active- vs placebo-treated patients for the Full Analysis Set (n = 227, 15.2% reduction, P = 0.0710) and Per-Protocol Set (n = 216, 16.7% reduction, P = 0.0523) showed a positive trend, although significance was not achieved. The primary endpoint, assessed in 2007, coincided with the lowest pollination during the study period. In a subgroup analysis of patients in the north-eastern region (n = 102), where birch is the major tree and consequently patients' exposure is higher, changes in Symptom Medication Score (32.7% reduction, P = 0.0034) and median number of well days (P = 0.0232) were highly significant in favour of the active group. During the open-label third year of treatment, the mean Symptom Medication Score of active-treated patients was further reduced despite an increased pollen count. Subcutaneous immunotherapy was well tolerated and consistent with the known safety profile. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the primary endpoint was not reached for the Full Analysis Set, a significant and clinically relevant effect on Symptom Medication Score was clearly demonstrated for the subgroup of patients in the north-eastern region of Europe, where birch is the predominant tree species. Proving efficacy of birch allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy is challenging due to the numerous factors influencing birch pollen allergen exposure in field studies.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Betula/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Polen/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/terapia , Adolescente , Adulto , Área Bajo la Curva , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunoglobulina E/inmunología , Inyecciones Subcutáneas , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenAsunto(s)
Antígenos de Plantas/uso terapéutico , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Hipersensibilidad/terapia , Péptidos/uso terapéutico , Polen/inmunología , Administración Sublingual , Adulto , Antígenos de Plantas/inmunología , Betula/inmunología , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad/inmunología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Péptidos/inmunología , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: BM32 is a grass pollen allergy vaccine based on recombinant fusion proteins consisting of nonallergenic peptides from the IgE-binding sites of the 4 major grass pollen allergens and the hepatitis B preS protein. OBJECTIVE: We sought to study the safety and clinical efficacy of immunotherapy (allergen immunotherapy) with BM32 in patients with grass pollen-induced rhinitis and controlled asthma. METHODS: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter allergen immunotherapy field study was conducted for 2 grass pollen seasons. After a baseline season, subjects (n = 181) were randomized and received 3 preseasonal injections of either placebo (n = 58) or a low dose (80 µg, n = 60) or high dose (160 µg, n = 63) of BM32 in year 1, respectively, followed by a booster injection in autumn. In the second year, all actively treated subjects received 3 preseasonal injections of the BM32 low dose, and placebo-treated subjects continued with placebo. Clinical efficacy was assessed by using combined symptom medication scores, visual analog scales, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaires, and asthma symptom scores. Adverse events were graded according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Allergen-specific antibodies were determined by using ELISA, ImmunoCAP, and ImmunoCAP ISAC. RESULTS: Although statistical significance regarding the primary end point was not reached, BM32-treated subjects, when compared with placebo-treated subjects, showed an improvement regarding symptom medication, visual analog scale, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, and asthma symptom scores in both treatment years. This was accompanied by an induction of allergen-specific IgG without induction of allergen-specific IgE and a reduction in the seasonally induced increase in allergen-specific IgE levels in year 2. In the first year, more grade 2 reactions were observed in the active (n = 6) versus placebo (n = 1) groups, whereas there was almost no difference in the second year. CONCLUSIONS: Injections of BM32 induced allergen-specific IgG, improved clinical symptoms of seasonal grass pollen allergy, and were well tolerated.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Epítopos de Linfocito B/inmunología , Antígenos de Superficie de la Hepatitis B/inmunología , Polen/inmunología , Precursores de Proteínas/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/inmunología , Vacunas/inmunología , Adolescente , Adulto , Alérgenos/genética , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Método Doble Ciego , Epítopos de Linfocito B/genética , Femenino , Antígenos de Superficie de la Hepatitis B/genética , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Efecto Placebo , Poaceae/inmunología , Polen/genética , Precursores de Proteínas/genética , Resultado del Tratamiento , Vacunación , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Adverse food reactions are far more often perceived than objectively verified. In our scientific knowledge on non-allergic adverse reactions including the so called histamine intolerance, there are large deficits. Due to the fact that this disorder is increasingly discussed in the media and the internet, more and more people suspect it to be the trigger of their symptoms. The scientific evidence to support the postulated link between ingestion of histamine and adverse reactions is limited, and a reliable laboratory test for objective diagnosis is lacking. This position paper by the "Food Allergy" Working Group of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI) in collaboration with the German Association of Allergologists (AeDA), the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), and the Swiss Society for Allergology and Immunology (SGAI) reviews the data on the clinical picture of adverse reactions to ingested histamine, summarizes important aspects and their consequences, and proposes a practical diagnostic and therapeutic approach.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy and safety of allergoid immunotherapy have been demonstrated in clinical trials. However, simultaneous monitoring of the immunological changes by allergoids versus allergens in the cells of the same individual has not been extensively performed, and the impact of concurrent Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) ligation has not been specified. METHODS: Three types of birch allergen were utilized: glutaraldehyde-treated allergoid (extract A), the same allergoid plus monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL), i.e., TLR4 ligand (extract A*), and native allergen (extract B). Antigen-specific responses after the in vitro stimulation of blood cells with the extracts were assessed by studying costimulatory receptors on the B cell surface by flow cytometry, cytokine responses by ELISA, and CD63 and CD203c upregulation (basophil activation test) in allergic versus nonallergic subjects. RESULTS: HLA-DR selectively increased upon allergen or allergoid treatment in the allergic group only. The extract types elicited similar cytokine responses, with IL-6 and IL-10 production detected only in certain atopic subjects. The allergoids revealed a strong reduction (100- to <10,000-fold) in basophil activation versus native allergen. Reactivity was undetectable in the basophils from nonallergic subjects. CONCLUSION: The allergenicity of the allergoid employed was sharply reduced when compared to the native allergen, while its immunogenicity was largely retained, especially in the presence of MPL. We also provide further evidence that allergic and nonallergic individuals show preexisting differences in their immune repertoires.
Asunto(s)
Adyuvantes Inmunológicos/uso terapéutico , Alérgenos/inmunología , Betula/inmunología , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Lípido A/análogos & derivados , Extractos Vegetales/inmunología , Polen/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/inmunología , Alergoides , Basófilos/inmunología , Células Cultivadas , Ensayo de Inmunoadsorción Enzimática , Antígenos HLA-DR/inmunología , Humanos , Inmunoterapia/métodos , Interleucina-10/metabolismo , Interleucina-6/metabolismo , Lípido A/inmunología , Lípido A/uso terapéutico , Hidrolasas Diéster Fosfóricas/biosíntesis , Pirofosfatasas/biosíntesis , Tetraspanina 30/biosíntesis , Receptor Toll-Like 4/inmunologíaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis is a common inflammatory skin disease with an increasing prevalence. Treatment of patients suffering from mild or moderate disease includes the use of emollients and topical glucocorticoids or topical calcineurin inhibitors. Patients with chronic and severe atopic dermatitis where topical therapy is usually insufficient require the use of systemic immunosuppressive drugs, which is often limited due to toxicity and severe adverse effects. Areas covered: This review summarizes the literature on the mechanism of action, clinical efficacy and safety of dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the α-subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor (IL-4Rα) leading to the inhibition of both the IL-4 and IL-13 pathways. A literature search was performed on Pubmed and ClinicalTrials.gov using key words 'dupilumab', 'REGN668', 'IL-4'/'IL-13' and 'atopic dermatitis'. Expert commentary: Dupilumab offers an innovative therapeutic approach for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. It is not approved for clinical use in any country yet; however, due to its excellent clinical efficacy and a favorable safety profile, dupilumab may revolutionize the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in the next upcoming years.