IgG antibodies in food allergy influence allergen-antibody complex formation and binding to B cells: a role for complement receptors.

Allergen-IgE complexes are more efficiently internalized and presented by B cells than allergens alone. It has been suggested that IgG Abs induced by immunotherapy inhibit these processes. Food-allergic patients have high allergen-specific IgG levels. However, the role of these Abs in complex formation and binding to B cells is unknown. To investigate this, we incubated sera of peanut- or cow's milk-allergic patients with their major allergens to form complexes and added them to EBV-transformed or peripheral blood B cells (PBBCs). Samples of birch pollen-allergic patients were used as control. Complex binding to B cells in presence or absence of blocking Abs to CD23, CD32, complement receptor 1 (CR1, CD35), and/or CR2 (CD21) was determined by flow cytometry. Furthermore, intact and IgG-depleted sera were compared. These experiments showed that allergen-Ab complexes formed in birch pollen, as well as food allergy, contained IgE, IgG1, and IgG4 Abs and bound to B cells. Binding of these complexes to EBV-transformed B cells was completely mediated by CD23, whereas binding to PBBCs was dependent on both CD23 and CR2. This reflected differential receptor expression. Upon IgG depletion, allergen-Ab complexes bound to PBBCs exclusively via CD23. These data indicated that IgG Abs are involved in complex formation. The presence of IgG in allergen-IgE complexes results in binding to B cells via CR2 in addition to CD23. The binding to both CR2 and CD23 may affect Ag processing and presentation, and (may) thereby influence the allergic response.

Cost effectiveness of home ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (PLUTO study).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs and cost effectiveness of phototherapy with ultraviolet B light provided at home compared with outpatient ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis. DESIGN: Cost utility, cost effectiveness, and cost minimisation analyses performed alongside a pragmatic randomised clinical trial (the PLUTO study) at the end of phototherapy (mean 17.6 weeks) and at one year after the end of phototherapy (mean 68.4 weeks). SETTING: Secondary care, provided by a dermatologist in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 196 adults with psoriasis who were clinically eligible for narrowband (TL-01) ultraviolet B phototherapy were recruited from the dermatology departments of 14 hospitals and were followed until the end of phototherapy. From the end of phototherapy onwards, follow-up was continued for an unselected, consecutive group of 105 patients for one year after end of phototherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Ultraviolet B phototherapy provided at home (intervention) and conventional outpatient ultraviolet B phototherapy (control) in a setting reflecting routine practice in the Netherlands. Both treatments used narrowband ultraviolet B lamps (TL-01). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total costs to society, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as calculated using utilities measured by the EQ-5D questionnaire, and the number of days with a relevant treatment effect (>/=50% improvement of the baseline self administered psoriasis area and severity index (SAPASI)). RESULTS: Home phototherapy is at least as effective and safe as outpatient phototherapy, therefore allowing cost minimisation analyses (simply comparing costs). The average total costs by the end of phototherapy were euro800 for home treatment and euro752 for outpatient treatment, showing an incremental cost per patient of euro48 (95% CI euro-77 to euro174). The average total costs by one year after the end of phototherapy were euro1272 and euro1148 respectively (difference euro124, 95% CI euro-155 to euro403). Cost utility analyses revealed that patients experienced equal health benefits-that is, a gain of 0.296 versus 0.291 QALY (home v outpatient) by the end of phototherapy (difference 0.0052, -0.0244 to 0.0348) and 1.153 versus 1.126 QALY by one year after the end of phototherapy (difference 0.0267, -0.024 to 0.078). Incremental costs per QALY gained were euro9276 and euro4646 respectively, both amounts well below the normally accepted standard of euro20 000 per QALY. Cost effectiveness analyses indicated that the mean number of days with a relevant treatment effect was 42.4 versus 55.3 by the end of phototherapy (difference -12.9, -23.4 to -2.4). By one year after the end of phototherapy the number of days with a relevant treatment effect were 216.5 and 210.4 respectively (6.1, -41.1 to 53.2), yielding an incremental cost of euro20 per additional day with a relevant treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Home ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis is not more expensive than phototherapy in an outpatient setting and proved to be cost effective. As both treatments are at least equally effective and patients express a preference for home treatment, the authors conclude that home phototherapy should be the primary treatment option for patients who are eligible for phototherapy with ultraviolet B light. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83025173 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00150930.

Home versus outpatient ultraviolet B phototherapy for mild to severe psoriasis: pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (PLUTO study).

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ultraviolet B phototherapy at home is equally safe and equally effective as ultraviolet B phototherapy in an outpatient setting for patients with psoriasis. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentre single blind randomised clinical trial (PLUTO study). SETTING: Dermatology departments of 14 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 196 patients with psoriasis who were clinically eligible for narrowband (TL-01) ultraviolet B phototherapy. The first 105 consecutive patients were also followed for one year after therapy. INTERVENTION: Ultraviolet B phototherapy at home using a TL-01 home phototherapy unit compared with standard narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy in an outpatient setting. Both therapies were done in a setting reflecting routine daily practice in the Netherlands. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was effectiveness as measured by the proportion of patients with a 50% or more reduction of the baseline psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) or self administered psoriasis area and severity index (SAPASI), called the PASI 50 and SAPASI 50 (relevant treatment effect). Another outcome of effectiveness was the percentage reduction in median scores on the PASI as well as SAPASI. Also the proportions of patients reaching the PASI 75 and SAPASI 75 (successful treatment effect), and the PASI 90 and SAPASI 90 (almost complete clearance) were calculated. Other secondary outcomes were quality of life (SF-36, psoriasis disability index), burden of treatment (questionnaire), patients' preferences and satisfaction (questionnaire), and dosimetry and short term side effects (diary). RESULTS: 82% of the patients treated at home compared with 79% of the patients treated in an outpatient setting reached the SAPASI 50 (difference 2.8%, 95% confidence interval -8.6% to 14.2%), and 70% compared with 73% reached the PASI 50 (-2.3%, -15.7% to 11.1%). For patients treated at home the median SAPASI score decreased 82% (from 6.7 to 1.2) and the median PASI score decreased 74% (from 8.4 to 2.2), compared with 79% (from 7.0 to 1.4) and 70% (from 7.0 to 2.1) for patients treated in an outpatient setting. Treatment effect as defined by the mean decline in PASI and SAPASI scores was significant (P<0.001) and similar across groups (P>0.3). Total cumulative doses of ultraviolet B light were similar (51.5 v 46.1 J/cm(2), difference 5.4, 95% confidence interval -5.2 to 16.0), and the occurrence of short term side effects did not differ. The burden of undergoing ultraviolet B phototherapy was significantly lower for patients treated at home (differences 1.23 to 3.01, all P

Lupine allergy: not simply cross-reactivity with peanut or soy.

BACKGROUND: Reports of lupine allergy are increasing as its use in food products increases. Lupine allergy might be the consequence of cross-reactivity after sensitization to peanut or other legumes or de novo sensitization. Lupine allergens have not been completely characterized. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify allergens associated with lupine allergy, evaluate potential cross-reactivity with peanut, and determine eliciting doses (EDs) for lupine allergy by using double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. METHODS: Six patients with a history of allergic reactions to lupine flour were evaluated by using skin prick tests, CAP tests, and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenges. Three of these patients were also allergic to peanut. Lupine allergens were characterized by means of IgE immunoblotting and peptide sequencing. RESULTS: In all 6 patients the ED for lupine flour was 3 mg or less for subjective symptoms and 300 mg or more for objective symptoms. The low ED and moderate-to-severe historical symptoms indicate significant allergenicity of lupine flour. Two patients allergic to lupine but not to peanut displayed IgE binding predominantly to approximately 66-kd proteins and weak binding to 14- and 24-kd proteins, whereas patients with peanut allergy and lupine allergy showed weak binding to lupine proteins of about 14 to 21 or 66 kd. Inhibition of binding was primarily species specific. CONCLUSION: Lupine allergy can occur either separately or together with peanut allergy, as demonstrated by 3 patients who are cosensitized to peanut and lupine. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Lupine flour is allergenic and potentially cross-reactive with peanut allergen, thus posing some risk if used as a replacement for soy flour.

The nursing programme 'Coping with itch': a promising intervention for patients with chronic pruritic skin diseases.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility of the nursing programme 'Coping with Itch' and the effect of the programme on the frequency and intensity of itching and scratching, itch-related coping, skin-related psychosocial morbidity and quality of life. BACKGROUND: Itch is a major symptom of many chronic skin diseases and has a considerable impact on the quality of life. Therefore, the nursing programme 'Coping with Itch' has been developed and implemented at the outpatient departments of dermatology of one university and one general hospital in the Netherlands. The programme is intended to reduce itch and to help the patient cope with his or her itch. DESIGN AND METHODS: The feasibility of the programme has been determined by interviewing the nurses who carried out the programme, dermatologists and one medical social worker and by counting the number of visits and specific interventions. The effect of the nursing care programme 'Coping with Itch' was evaluated in 32 patients with pruritic skin diseases. Paired t-tests were used to determine its effect after three and nine months. RESULTS: The nursing programme 'Coping with Itch' proved to be practically feasible. It leads to a significant reduction of the frequency and intensity of itching and scratching, to a significant reduction of catastrophizing and helpless coping and to a significant reduction of skin-related psychosocial morbidity in the short term. These results stabilized at nine months. No changes were found in the quality of life. CONCLUSION: The nursing programme 'Coping with Itch' is a promising intervention for patients with chronic pruritic skin diseases.

UVB phototherapy in an outpatient setting or at home: a pragmatic randomised single-blind trial designed to settle the discussion. The PLUTO study.

BACKGROUND: Home ultraviolet B (UVB) treatment is a much-debated treatment, especially with regard to effectiveness, safety and side effects. However, it is increasingly being prescribed, especially in the Netherlands. Despite ongoing discussions, no randomised research has been performed, and only two studies actually compare two groups of patients. Thus, firm evidence to support or discourage the use of home UVB phototherapy has not yet been obtained. This is the goal of the present study, the PLUTO study (Dutch acronym for "national trial on home UVB phototherapy for psoriasis"). METHODS: We designed a pragmatic randomised single-blind multi-centre trial. This trial is designed to evaluate the impact of home UVB treatment versus UVB phototherapy in a hospital outpatient clinic as to effectiveness, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. In total 196 patients with psoriasis who were clinically eligible for UVB phototherapy were included. Normally 85% of the patients treated with UVB show a relevant clinical response. With a power of 80% and a 0.05 significance level it will be possible to detect a reduction in effectiveness of 15%. Effectiveness will be determined by calculating differences in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and the Self Administered PASI (SAPASI) scores. Quality of life is measured using several validated generic questionnaires and a disease-specific questionnaire. Other outcome measures include costs, side effects, dosimetry, concomitant use of medication and patient satisfaction. Patients are followed throughout the therapy and for 12 months thereafter. The study is no longer recruiting patients, and is expected to report in 2006. DISCUSSION: In the field of home UVB phototherapy this trial is the first randomised parallel group study. As such, this trial addresses the weaknesses encountered in previous studies. The pragmatic design ensures that the results can be well generalised to the target population. Because, in addition to effectiveness, aspects such as quality of life and cost-effectiveness are also taken into consideration, this study will produce valuable evidence to either support or discourage prescription of home UVB phototherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials/Nederlands Trial register: ISRCTN83025173. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00150930.