Cypress Pollinosis: from Tree to Clinic.

Cypress (Cupressus sp.pl) is a genus within the Cupressaceae family. This family covers all of the Earth's continents except for Antarctica, and it includes about 160 species. The most important taxa for allergic diseases belong to five different genera: Cupressus, Hesperocyparis, Juniperus, Cryptomeria, and Chamaecyparis. Cupressaceae species share a common pollen type that can even include the genus Taxus (Taxaceae) when this plant is also present. As Juniperus oxycedrus pollinates in October, Cupressus sempervirens in January and February, Hesperocyparis arizonica (prev. Cupressus arizonica) in February and March, and Juniperus communis in April, the symptomatic period is long-lasting. Due to global warming, the pollination period tends to last longer, and there is a trend for Cupressaceae bioclimate niches to migrate north. In Mediterranean areas, C. sempervirens (Italian cypress or Mediterranean cypress) is by far the most common pollinating species. It accounts for half of the total pollination level. The group 1 major allergens belong to the pectate-lyase family, and members share 70 to 97% sequence homology within the different Cupressaceae. Group 2 allergens correspond to the polygalacturonase protein family, while group 3, a minor allergen, belongs to the family of "thaumatin-like proteins," a pathogenesis-related protein 5. Group 4 allergens are Ca++-binding protein (4 EF-hands). Aside from these four groups, about 15 other allergens have been reported. Prominent among these is a basic low-molecular mass cross-reactive allergen that was identified recently, and which is suspected to be involved in pollen food syndromes which are common with peach and citrus. The prevalence of cypress allergy in the general population ranges from 0.6 to 3%, depending on the degree of exposure to the pollen. Depending on the geographic area and the studied population, 9 to 65% of outpatients consulting an allergist may have sensitization to cypress pollen. Repeated cross-sectional studies performed at different time intervals have demonstrated a threefold increase in the percentage of cypress allergy around the Mediterranean area. Risk factors include a genetic predisposition and/or a strong exposure to pollen, and the natural history of cypress allergy allows identification of a subgroup of patients as allergic rather than atopic. Concerning the clinical expression, rhinitis is the most prevalent symptom, while conjunctivitis is the most disabling. Pharmacological treatment of cypress allergies is not different from that of other seasonal allergies. Immunotherapy has been used, initially by subcutaneous injections, but currently mostly through the sublingual route. Although clinical trials have included only a limited number of patients, it has proven effective and safe. Avoidance can be implemented at the individual level, as well as at the community level, through the use of alternative plants, low-pollinating cypresses, or by trimming hedges before pollination.

Determining minimal clinically important differences in Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis patients.

BACKGROUND: Statistically significant results of medical intervention trials are not always clinically meaningful. We sought to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (the smallest change in a given endpoint that is meaningful to a patient) during seasonal alteration of Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis (JCCP). METHODS: Results of a double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of JCCP patients conducted between 2008 and 2010 were analyzed using an anchor-based method in which a face scale for Japanese rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life questionnaire (JRQLQ) was set as an anchor. MICDs were calculated as changes of average scores, including those for naso-ocular symptoms with 5 items in diary cards (T5SS), naso-ocular symptoms with 6 items (T6SS) and QOL with 17 items on the JRQLQ when face scale scores either improved or deteriorated by one point. RESULTS: In 2009 and 2010, 3,698 and 374, respectively, grains/cm(2) of pollens were dispersed. The MCIDs for T5SS in 2009 and 2010 were 1.426 (0.285 per item) and 1.441 (0.288), respectively. The MCIDs for T6SS were 4.115 (0.686) and 3.183 (0.531) in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The MCIDs for QOL were 10.469 (0.616) and 6.026 (0.354) in 2009 and 2010, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For T5SS in the diary, T6SS and QOL in JRQLQ, unit differences of 1.5 (0.3 per item), 3.6 (0.6) and 8.2 (0.5), respectively, were considered clinically meaningful by JCCP patients. The MCID for symptoms recorded in the diary was stable irrespective of the dispersed pollen level.

Cypress-Sensitized Asymptomatic Patients During the Pollen Season: Sensitization or Simply Cross-reactivity?

No disponible

Early interventional treatment with intranasal corticosteroids compared with postonset treatment in pollinosis.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of early interventional treatment (EIT) with intranasal corticosteroids (INSs) compared with postonset treatment (POT) has not been clarified. OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy and safety of EIT with INSs compared with POT and placebo in Japanese cedar/cypress pollinosis. METHODS: We designed a 3-armed, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients received mometasone furoate nasal spray (EIT group: n = 25), placebo (n = 25), or 4 weeks of placebo followed by 8 weeks of mometasone (POT group: n = 25) for a 12-week period starting on February 1, 2011. The primary end point was the comparison of the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) among the 3 groups. Total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total naso-ocular symptom score (TSS), Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact (ARIA) on Asthma classification, and safety were the main secondary end points. RESULTS: The placebo and POT groups, but not the EIT group, had a significant exacerbation of TNSS and TOSS soon after the start of pollen counts being high on consecutive days. The 12-week mean TSS in the EIT group (score, 2.3) was significantly lower than in the placebo (5.0; P < .01) and POT (3.9; P = .03) groups. All patients in the placebo and POT groups were classified as having persistent rhinitis, whereas 80% of the EIT group met the ARIA classification criteria (P = .03). The quality-of-life score and nasal eosinophil cationic protein levels were lower in the EIT and POT groups compared with the placebo group. Daytime sleepiness, smell disturbance, and the mean dose of loratadine taken as the rescue medication were similar. Treatment with mometasone was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: EIT with INSs is superior to POT in controlling pollinosis.

Epidemiology of cypress pollen allergy in Montpellier.

BACKGROUND: Cupressaceae pollen allergy is a worldwide winter pollinosis. Exposure to cypress pollen has increased enormously during recent decades, and cypress pollen allergy has become a major health problem, especially in Mediterranean countries. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of cypress pollen sensitization and allergy in the Montpellier area and the symptoms presented by sensitized patients. METHODS: We included all 6185 consecutive patients who were referred to our center for any allergic disorder during a 36-month period. For each patient, we evaluated skin prick test results, allergy symptoms, pulmonary function test results, and the need for allergen immunotherapy. RESULTS: We found that 20.7% of patients were sensitized to cypress pollen and 46.4% presented symptoms during the pollen season. The main symptoms were rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. Oral allergy syndrome to peach was detected in 4% of sensitized and symptomatic patients. Allergen immunotherapy was necessary to control symptoms in 57.9% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Cypress pollen allergy is one of the leading causes of respiratory allergy in the Montpellier area. Symptoms are often severe and include pollen-induced asthma. Moreover,many patients need allergen immunotherapy in order to achieve better control of their symptoms.

Desloratadine for the treatment of cypress pollen-induced allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have been conducted to assess treatment options for patients with sensitivities to cypress pollens, important triggers of allergic rhinitis (AR) in the Mediterranean region. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of desloratadine, a second-generation antihistamine, on AR symptoms caused by cypress pollens native to France. METHODS: Adults (N=233) with symptomatic cypress pollen allergies were randomized to receive desloratadine, 5 mg, or placebo daily for 15 days during 2 consecutive cypress pollen seasons. The primary end point was the percentage change from baseline in morning total nasal symptom scores on day 14; secondary assessments included total symptom score, peak nasal inspiratory flow, the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, and global response to therapy. RESULTS: On day 14, the desloratadine group had a significantly greater percentage decrease in total nasal symptom score vs the placebo group (-40% vs. -30%; P < .04). Similarly, on day 14, there was a 47% and 37% respective decrease in total symptom score (P = .01). Mean peak nasal inspiratory flow scores showed numeric, albeit not statistically significant, improvements from baseline through day 14 with desloratadine. A significantly greater improvement in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores occurred with desloratadine vs placebo on day 14 (-1.4 vs. -0.9; P = .004). The mean global response to therapy was better with desloratadine vs placebo (3.4 vs. 3.9; P = .004). The adverse event rate was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Desloratadine is efficacious and safe for the treatment of AR induced by cypress pollens; it also improved disease-related quality of life.

[Lowered effectiveness of immunotherapy for cypress pollinosis by using Japanese cedar pollen extract].

BACKGROUND: Japanese cedar and cypress pollen share a common antigen. The cedar pollen season is followed by the cypress pollen season. However, both the clinical significance and involvement of cypress pollinosis in the treatment of the cedar pollinosis have not yet been clarified. METHODS: The clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy with cedar pollen extract for cedar pollinosis was evaluated during the cypress pollen dispersal season in Japan. In addition, the change in cypress pollen specific IgE antibodies of the patients with cedar pollinosis was examined before and after the pollen season. RESULTS: Sublingual immunotherapy with cedar pollen extract did not improve the clinical symptoms of the cedar pollinosis patients combined with cypress pollinosis in the cypress pollen season. The cypress pollen specific IgE antibodies were found to demonstrate significant seasonal changes. CONCLUSION: The presence of cypress pollinosis should therefore be taken into consideration when planning the optimal treatment for cedar pollinosis. Sublingual immunotherapy with cedar pollen extract may not be effective for cypress pollinosis.

Safety and efficacy of Juniperus ashei sublingual-swallow ultra-rush pollen immunotherapy in cypress rhinoconjunctivitis. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of high-dose sublingual-swallow immunotherapy (SLIT) has been established in pollen rhinoconjunctivitis. This treatment has now been evaluated using an ultra-rush incremental dose regimen with a Juniperus ashei allergen extract in patients allergic to Cupressus sempervirens and Cupressus arizonica. METHODS: Patients received either placebo or SLIT. Evaluation of safety was based on the frequency of adverse events during the incremental dose period (half a day) and during maintenance therapy (4 months). Evaluation of efficacy was based on symptom and medication scores at the pollen peak. RESULTS: Seventy of the 76 patients included completed the study. There were no drop-outs during the rush procedure. One patient in the active group dropped out during the maintenance therapy due to adverse events: gastric pain and vomiting. There was also 1 drop-out in the placebo group due to pregnancy. Adverse events were infrequent, local and mild. Symptom scores for rhinitis and conjunctivitis were not statistically different between groups, but there was a marked and significant (p < 0.03) decrease of the medication score (about 50%) and nasal steroid consumption (about 75%) in the active treatment group. An increase from baseline of serum IgE and IgG4 J. ashei-specific antibodies was only observed in actively treated patients (p < 0.04 and p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The tolerability and safety of high-dose ultra-rush SLIT were comparable to those reported in previous SLIT studies. SLIT with J. ashei extract, due to its high Jun a 1 content, significantly reduced nasal steroid consumption in patients allergic to European cypress.

Vasculitis during immunotherapy treatment in a patient with allergy to Cupressus arizonica.

UNLABELLED: Allergen immunotherapy dates back to 1911 and has been used successfully to treat large numbers of patients throughout the last century. CASE REPORT: a 66-year-old woman presented with symptoms of allergic rhinitis and asthma due to sensitization to Cupressus arizonica. Specific immunotherapy was prescribed as a continuous 2-year treatment with a depot preparation of standarized and characterized allergen extracts of Cupressus arizonica pollen. Forty-eight hours after one maintenance dose of 0.8 cc, the patient presented palpable violaceous purpuric lesions and pruritus on both legs. We performed skin prick and intradermal tests with Cupressus arizonica. Twenty-four hours later, the 1/1 dilution intradermal skin test was positive. Biopsy showed leukocytoclastic vasculitis. CONCLUSIONS: A middle-aged woman experienced cutaneous non-necrotizing vasculitis after 2 years of maintenance immunotherapy. The interval between injections and the first appearance of cutaneous lesions suggests a type III hypersensitivity immune reaction. Skin biopsy of the positive intradermal test also supports this hypothesis.

Vasculitis during immunotherapy treatment in a patient with allergy to Cupressus arizonica

Allergen immunotherapy dates back to 1911 and has been used successfully to treat large numbers of patients throughout the last century. Case report: a 66-year-old woman presented with symptoms of allergic rhinitis and asthma due to sensitization to Cupressus arizonica. Specific immunotherapy was prescribed as a continuous 2-year treatment with a depot preparation of standarized and characterized allergen extracts of Cupressus arizonica pollen. Forty-eight hours after one maintenance dose of 0.8 cc, the patient presented palpable violaceous purpuric lesions and pruritus on both legs. We performed skin prick and intradermal tests with Cupressus arizonica. Twenty-four hours later, the 1/1 dilution intradermal skin test was positive. Biopsy showed leukocytoclastic vasculitis. Conclusions: A middle-aged woman experienced cutaneous non-necrotizing vasculitis after 2 years of maintenance immunotherapy. The interval between injections and the first appearance of cutaneous lesions suggests a type III hypersensitivity immune reaction. Skin biopsy of the positive intradermal test also supports this hypothesis

No disponible