RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Not available.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
No abstract available.
RESUMO
BACKROUND: Visual analogue scales (VAS) are psychometric measuring instruments designed to document the characteristics of disease-related symptom severity in individual patients and use this to achieve a rapid (statistically measurable and reproducible) classification of symptom severity and disease control. VAS can also be used in routine patient history taking and to monitor the course of a chronic disease such as allergic rhinitis (AR). More specifically, the VAS has been used to assess effectiveness of AR therapy in real life, both in intermittent and persistent disease. METHODS: This position paper takes a detailed look at the historical development of VAS and its method-specific principles. Particular focus is put on aspects of practical application in daily routine and on a critical discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the individual methods. RESULTS: VAS are well validated for the measurement of AR symptoms and correlate well with the ARIA (allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma) severity classification and also correlated well with rTNSS and RQLQ. Moreover, several treatment studies on AR have used VAS as an evaluation parameter. Thanks to the use of new (real-life and real-time) communication technologies, such as smartphone apps, Discussion: VAS can be used relatively simply and highly effectively to assess disease control. The VAS lends itself very well to digitization and has now been incorporated into a smartphone app (called Allergy Diary) to assess AR control and direct treatment decisions as part of an AR clinical decision support system (CDSS). MASK Rhinitis has developed this app, which is currently available in 15 different languages.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Blue light was shown to reduce the activation of T cells and modulate cytokine release in vitro. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of blue light in the treatment of eczema. METHODS: A sample of 21 patients with mild to moderate eczema were locally treated with blue LED light (light-emitting diode, emission maximum: 453 nm). They received light treatment 3 times per week for 4 weeks. A contralateral control lesion remained untreated. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients completed the trial with a compliance rate of 100%. The blue light treatment was safe with no adverse events and no side effects. The primary end point change from baseline in the mean sum score of the local Eczema Severity Index (local ESI) was more pronounced for the treated area than for the control area (-1.9 ± 2.02 vs. -1.3 ± 2.24). The treatment difference was statistically significant (p = 0.0152, paired t test, two-sided). CONCLUSION: In this study UV-free blue light was safe and effective in the reduction of eczema lesions.
Assuntos
Eczema/terapia , Luz , Cooperação do Paciente , Fototerapia/métodos , Adulto , Eczema/diagnóstico , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Global climate changes may influence the geographical spread of allergenic plants thus causing new allergen challenges. OBJECTIVE: Allergy patients from two German federal states were compared for their status quo sensitization to ragweed, an establishing allergen, olive, a non-established allergen, and the native allergens birch, mugwort, and ash. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, 476 adult allergy patients per region were recruited. Patients completed a questionnaire, participated in a medical interview, and underwent skin prick testing and blood withdrawal for analysis of specific IgE to allergen components (ISAC technology). Data on regional pollen load from 2006 to 2011 were acquired from the German Pollen Information Service Foundation. RESULTS: Prick test reactivity to ragweed and ash, respectively, was lower in Bavaria than in NRW (ragweed: p=0.001, aOR=0.54; ash: p=0.001, aOR=0.59), whereas prick test reactivity to olive was higher (p=0.000, aOR=3.09). Prick test reactivity to birch and mugwort, respectively, did not significantly differ. 1% (1/127) of patients with prick test reactivity to ragweed showed sIgE to Amb a 1, and 65% (86/132) of olive-but-not-ash reactive patients showed sIgE to Ole e 1 (NRW: 67%, Bavaria: 65%; p=0.823, OR=0.91). Regional differences in sensitization pattern were neither explainable by cross-reactivity to pollen pan-allergens nor non-exposure variables nor by reported plant population or pollen data. CONCLUSIONS: Spread of ragweed and particularly olive may result in prompt occurrence of allergic symptoms. Early identification of invasive allergens due to climate change does need time and spatial close meshed measurement of respective indicator allergens and sensitization pattern.
Assuntos
Alérgenos/imunologia , Ambrosia/imunologia , Mudança Climática , Hipersensibilidade/epidemiologia , Olea/imunologia , Pólen/imunologia , Adulto , Idoso , Artemisia/imunologia , Betula/imunologia , Feminino , Fraxinus/imunologia , Alemanha/epidemiologia , Humanos , Hipersensibilidade/sangue , Hipersensibilidade/diagnóstico , Hipersensibilidade/imunologia , Imunoglobulina E/sangue , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Razão de Chances , Risco , Testes Cutâneos , Adulto JovemRESUMO
Drug hypersensitivity reactions are unpredictable adverse drug reactions. They manifest either within 1-6 h following drug intake (immediate reactions) with mild to life-threatening symptoms of anaphylaxis, or several hours to days later (delayed reactions), primarily as exanthematous eruptions. It is not always possible to detect involvement of the immune system (allergy). Waiving diagnostic tests can result in severe reactions on renewed exposure on the one hand, and to unjustified treatment restrictions on the other. With this guideline, experts from various specialist societies and institutions have formulated recommendations and an algorithm for the diagnosis of allergies. The key principles of diagnosing allergic/hypersensitivity drug reactions are presented. Where possible, the objective is to perform allergy diagnostics within 4 weeks-6 months following the reaction. A clinical classification of symptoms based on the morphology and time course of the reaction is required in order to plan a diagnostic work-up. In the case of typical symptoms of a drug hypersensitivity reaction and unequivocal findings from validated skin and/or laboratory tests, a reaction can be attributed to a trigger with sufficient confidence. However, skin and laboratory tests are often negative or insufficiently reliable. In such cases, controlled provocation testing is required to clarify drug reactions. This method is reliable and safe when attention is paid to indications and contraindications and performed under appropriate medical supervision. The results of the overall assessment are discussed with the patient and documented in an "allergy passport" in order to ensure targeted avoidance in the future and allow the use of alternative drugs where possible.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Blue light irradiation reduces the proliferation of keratinocytes and modulates T-cell immune response in vitro and has been shown to reduce the severity of psoriasis vulgaris (Pv) in two clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of safety and efficacy of long-term UV-free blue light treatment at home for mild Pv. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with mild Pv were randomized for receiving high-intensity blue light treatment (HI: 453 nm LED, 200 mW/cm(2), n = 24) and low-intensity treatment (LI: 453 nm LED, 100 mW/cm(2), n = 23) of one Pv plaque for 12 weeks. A contralateral control plaque remained untreated. RESULTS: Patient compliance and satisfaction were high. The primary endpoint, change from baseline (CfB) of the Local Psoriasis Severity Index, revealed a significant improvement of the target compared to the control plaques (ΔCfB for the HI group: -0.92 ± 1.10, p = 0.0005; for the LI group: -0.74 ± 1.18, p = 0.0064). CONCLUSION: UV-free blue light home treatment is safe and improves Pv plaques.
Assuntos
Cromoterapia/métodos , Psoríase/terapia , Adulto , Idoso , Cromoterapia/efeitos adversos , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Hiperpigmentação/etiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cooperação do Paciente , Satisfação do Paciente , Estudos Prospectivos , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Fatores de Tempo , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIM: Vitamin A (all- trans -retinol, ATRol) serves as a precursor for all- trans -retinoic acid (ATRA), a ligand for the retinoic acid receptor (RAR), representing a potent regulator for many physiological processes. While murine melanoma cells are highly sensitive to retinoid treatment, human melanoma cells have developed still unidentified mechanisms that mediate cellular retinoid resistance. One of the key retinoid metabolizing enzymes is lecithin retinol acyltransferase (LRAT), which catalyzes the transformation of ATRol into inactive retinyl esters. LRAT is highly expressed in human melanoma cells. The aim of this study was to identify the mechanisms in retinol metabolism that are responsible for cellular retinoid sensitivity in the murine melanoma cell line B16F10. METHODS: mRNA expression analysis, cell viability assessment and determination of intracellular retinoid levels using HPLC analysis of a generated LRAT-overexpressing B16F10 cell line compared to the control B16F10 cell line. RESULTS: We found that the murine retinoid-sensitive B16F10 cell line does not express the enzyme LRAT. LRAT overexpression decreased the antiproliferative effects of retinoid treatment in these melanoma cells. The RAR-regulated enzyme Cyp26a1 showed a significantly lower expression in LRAT-overexpressing B16F10 cells. Cyp26a1 expression was restored after ATRA incubation. HPLC analysis revealed that the level of inactive retinyl ester increased after ATRol treatment, and levels of the substrate ATRol and biologically active ATRA significantly decreased in LRAT-overexpressing murine melanoma. Consistently with this, levels of 4-oxoretinoic acid, an ATRA metabolite and Cyp26a1 product, were also decreased in LRAT-overexpressing cells. CONCLUSION: Our results revealed a direct link between LRAT expression and regulation of ATRA levels indicating that the absence of LRAT-catalyzed retinol esterification is important for mediating retinoid sensitivity in murine melanoma cells. Thus, our data suggest that LRAT overexpression represents a novel mechanism by which tumor cells can escape high supplementary ATRA levels that mediate tumor-suppressive RAR signaling.
Assuntos
Aciltransferases/metabolismo , Melanoma Experimental/metabolismo , Retinaldeído/farmacologia , Tretinoína/farmacologia , Vitamina A/farmacologia , Aciltransferases/genética , Animais , Linhagem Celular Tumoral , Sistema Enzimático do Citocromo P-450/genética , Camundongos , Retinaldeído/análogos & derivados , Ácido Retinoico 4 HidroxilaseRESUMO
The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already beinginvestigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The usual build-up phase of days or weeks in allergen-specific immunotherapy entails inconveniences for individuals with symptoms only during the pollen season. Additionally, affected individuals often appear for treatment shortly before the expected start of the season without enough time for titration. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the safety of ultra-rush grass pollen immunotherapy with sublingual drops (Staloral)® in co-seasonal treatment over three consecutive seasons. METHODS: 209 patients with grass pollen allergic rhinitis received ultra-rush titration (30, 90, 150 and 300 index of reactivity (IR)) of a five grass pollen mixture or placebo every 20 min at the start of the season, followed by 300 IR daily or placebo until the end of the respective season for three consecutive years. Adverse events were documented. RESULTS: Mean treatment duration varied between seasons (81.8 - 92.7 days). No systemic or anaphylactic reactions were reported and no unexpected adverse events were observed. Adverse events included application site irritation, oedema, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Fourteen patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events (placebo: four (6%) patients, verum: ten (7%) patients). Adverse events decreased in frequency over each consecutive year of treatment. CONCLUSION: Seasonal sublingual immunotherapy with ultra-rush titration is well tolerated even when administered as co-seasonal treatment. It may be a valuable option for patients who present late.
Assuntos
Imunoterapia/métodos , Poaceae/imunologia , Pólen/imunologia , Rinite Alérgica Sazonal/terapia , Administração Sublingual , Adolescente , Adulto , Criança , Método Duplo-Cego , Seguimentos , Humanos , Imunoterapia/efeitos adversos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Rinite Alérgica Sazonal/imunologia , Estações do Ano , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Stings by insects can precipitate many signs and symptoms of dermatological and ocular diseases. Of particular importance is the anaphylaxis after Hymenoptera stings. Selection of the appropriate venom for immunotherapy requires a precise diagnosis, which is frequently difficult to confirm since the history presented by the patient is many times not conclusive and diagnostic tests are often positive for bee venom (BV) and vespula venom (VV). This double positivity is either caused by true double sensitization or by antibodies cross-reactive to homologous peptide sequences or to cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs). In this study, we analyzed in 39 patients, tested positive for specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) against BV and VV and CCDs whether the routine detection of sIgE against the recombinant species-specific major allergens (SSMAs) rApi m1 and rVes v5 enables the discrimination between genuine double sensitization and cross reactivity and therefore may be superior to other in vitro assays such as IgE-inhibition test or the basophil activation test. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients each with allergic reactions to vespula and/or honey bee stings and tested positive for sIgE antibodies against CCDs were analyzed for sIgE against BV, VV, CCDs (MUFX3) and SSMAs by UNICAP (CAP) and to BV, VV, bromelain, horseradish peroxidase and ascorbat oxidase by Immulite 2000 (IMMU). In 12 cases results from a basophil activation test, in nine cases results from IgE-inhibition assays and in 10 cases an unambiguous history of the patient were taken into consideration. RESULTS: A definite diagnosis could be assigned to each patient: sensitization to BV n = 7, sensitization to VV n = 29 and true double sensitization to both venoms n = 3. Detection of sIgE against BV and VV by CAP leads in three cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in 35 cases to the diagnosis double sensitization and in one case to the diagnosis VV allergy. Detection of sIgE against BV and VV by IMMU leads in five cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in 27 cases to the diagnosis double sensitization and in seven cases to the diagnosis VV allergy. Detection of sIgE against rApi m1 and rVes v5 by CAP leads in six cases to the diagnosis BV allergy, in eight cases to the diagnosis double sensitization, in 21 cases to the diagnosis VV allergy and in four cases to a false double-nagative result implicating no allergy. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Detection of sIgE to rApi m 1 and rVes v 5 by CAP is the most reliable diagnostic procedure to discriminate between true double sensitization and cross reactivity in patients with double-positive IgE results to venom extracts in the presence of sIgE against CCDs. In this study, however, we demonstrate that in nine of 39 patients tested positive for sIgE against CCDs, even the allergen component based diagnostic produces false double-positive and also false double-negative test results. Thus, we conclude that especially in hard to diagnose CCD positive patients beside the detection of sIgE, in vitro assays such as the IgE-inhibition test or the basophil activation test are still of importance. Detection of sIgE against only two SSMAs is not sufficient for a precise diagnosis. We propose inclusion of further SSMAs in diagnostic procedures.
Assuntos
Venenos de Abelha/imunologia , Hipersensibilidade/diagnóstico , Imunoglobulina E/imunologia , Mordeduras e Picadas de Insetos/imunologia , Venenos de Vespas/imunologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Alérgenos/imunologia , Animais , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Himenópteros/imunologia , Hipersensibilidade/imunologia , Imunoglobulina E/sangue , Mordeduras e Picadas de Insetos/sangue , Proteínas de Insetos/imunologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Fosfolipases A/imunologia , Proteínas Recombinantes/imunologia , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Blue light has no known toxic effects on human skin, but reduces the proliferative capacity of keratinocytes in vitro. We therefore investigated the efficacy of blue light in the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris (PV). METHODS: Forty patients with mild to moderate PV and bilateral plaques were assigned to two groups. Group 1 (n = 20) received irradiation at home with blue light (light-emitting diode, LED, emission maximum: 420 nm) once daily for 4 weeks. In parallel, group 2 (n = 20) performed irradiations with another blue light device (LED emission maximum: 453 nm). The contralateral control plaques remained untreated in both groups. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients completed the trial. The main study parameter, the difference of Local Psoriasis Severity Index (LPSI) scores of the irradiated plaques compared to the control plaques, showed statistically significant improvement after 4 weeks of treatment in both groups [group 1 (420 nm): n = 17, p = 0.04; group 2 (453 nm): n = 20, p = 0.04]. Accordingly, plaque status as assessed by both the physicians and the patients improved continuously during the 4 weeks of treatment and steadily declined thereafter. CONCLUSION: Blue light appears to be a promising treatment modality in PV that warrants further evaluation in larger studies.
Assuntos
Fototerapia , Psoríase/terapia , Adulto , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto JovemRESUMO
Orally active kinase inhibitors such as Sorafenib are known to elicit cutaneous side effects in the majority of adult patients, whereas specific cutaneous complications of this agent have not been described in children so far. We here present the first pediatric case of Sorafenib-induced hand-foot-skin reaction and its successful topical therapy facilitating continuation of kinase inhibitor treatment.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Benzenossulfonatos/efeitos adversos , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/tratamento farmacológico , Dermatoses do Pé/induzido quimicamente , Dermatoses da Mão/induzido quimicamente , Neoplasias Hepáticas/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Proteínas Quinases/efeitos adversos , Piridinas/efeitos adversos , Adolescente , Dermatoses do Pé/tratamento farmacológico , Dermatoses da Mão/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Masculino , Niacinamida/análogos & derivados , Compostos de Fenilureia , SorafenibeRESUMO
In a series of 50 consecutive cases in the outpatients' unit of Environmental Medicine (UEM) at the University Hospital of Aachen, Germany, five patients with the diagnosis of schizophrenia presented delusions of being poisoned by environmental factors. This case report illustrates the clinical features of the paranoid type of schizophrenic psychoses. Schizophrenia represents an important differential diagnosis in the interdisciplinary diagnosis and management of health problems attributed to environmental factors.
Assuntos
Delusões/etiologia , Doença Ambiental/psicologia , Intoxicação/psicologia , Esquizofrenia/fisiopatologia , Psicologia do Esquizofrênico , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is the rate-limiting enzyme in 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) catabolism. Thymidylate synthase (TS) is inhibited to form an inactive ternary complex by 5-fluoro-dUMP and is considered to be a target enzyme of 5-FU treatment. Two enzymes, DPD and TS, have been reported to be major determinants of individual sensitivity to 5-FU, and it has been reported that TS mRNA levels are modified by 5-FU treatment. We investigated their impact on treatment efficacy in colorectal cancer patients. TS and DPD mRNA levels, which correlated to the corresponding enzyme activities, were quantified in tumor tissues before and after treatment in 40 advanced colorectal cancer patients who had been treated with Doxifluridine (5'-DFUR) for 14 days before surgery. Furthermore inter-individual variations of TS mRNA levels after 5-FU treatment were found, and the individual TS induction varied between patients (0.2-2.4). Increased TS mRNA levels were found in 19 out of 40 cases. The samples were divided into two groups according to their TS mRNA induction (< or >1; TS/beta-actin ratio after treatment divided by values prior treatment) and compared with tumor reduction and survival. TS and DPD mRNA levels in tumor biopsies before treatment were not related to 5-FU responses by histological evaluations in this study. However the efficacy of 5-FU treatment was enhanced in patients with no or low TS mRNA induction (odds ratio: 6.2, p<0.05). Furthermore, longer periods of survival were observed in the group without increased TS mRNA levels. These findings suggest that TS mRNA was induced by 5-FU treatment, and the overall induction level varied between individuals. Therefore, the estimation of TS mRNA induction may be useful to predict the efficacy of 5-FU treatment.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Colorretais/mortalidade , Fluoruracila/uso terapêutico , Timidilato Sintase/biossíntese , Idoso , Antimetabólitos Antineoplásicos/farmacologia , DNA Complementar/metabolismo , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase , RNA Mensageiro/metabolismo , Reação em Cadeia da Polimerase Via Transcriptase Reversa , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
The effects of two topical cream formulations containing clotrimazole 1% and ketoconazole 2%, respectively, were clinically compared in a double-blind, randomized manner for a 28-day therapy of interdigital tinea pedis in 106 treated patients. Ketoconazole was to be used twice daily whereas clotrimazole was administered only once daily. The primary response criterion defined as the number of patients with cure or improvement after 28 treatment days was comparable with 62.0% vs. 64.0% (clotrimazole vs. ketoconazole) for the full analysis set of 100 (50 vs. 50) patients. The mycological response revealed a negative culture and microscopy in 53.1% vs. 52.1% of the patients after 14, in 76.0% vs. 79.2% after 28, and in 83.7% vs. 76.9% after 56 days of observation, indicating a possibly better long-term efficacy of clotrimazole. The development of the overall score of tinea-related signs and symptoms did not show relevant differences between the two drugs and continuously decreased from 11+/-5 in both groups at baseline to 2+/-2 vs. 2+/-1 at day 56. As to the remission and improvement rates of single symptoms, better results were obtained under clotrimazole than under ketoconazole particularly for pruritus (97.8 vs. 89.6%) and burning/stinging (97.5 vs. 89.4%) which both are perceived as most bothersome by the patients. Furthermore, both substances appeared as comparably safe and well tolerable (8 vs. 7 adverse events with only 1 vs. 3 drug related). In conclusion, a successful therapy of tinea pedis can be achieved with both clotrimazole and ketoconazole within 28 days of treatment and once-daily clotrimazole is equally effective as twice-daily ketoconazole with favourable influences on the most irritating symptoms of the disease. Mycological and reliable clinical cure cannot be observed during two weeks after start of treatment.