Major Allergen Content in Allergen Immunotherapy Products: The Limited Value of Numbers.

The prevalence of allergic disorders has increased drastically over the last 50 years to the extent that they can be considered epidemic. At present, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only therapy that targets the underlying cause of allergic disorders, and evidence of its superiority is based on data accumulated from clinical trials and observational studies demonstrating efficacy and safety. However, several aspects remain unresolved, such as harmonization and standardization of manufacturing and quantification procedures across manufacturers, homogeneous reporting of strength, and the establishment of international reference standards for many allergens. This article discusses issues related to the measurement of major allergen content in AIT extracts, raising the question of whether comparison of products from different manufacturers is an appropriate basis for selecting a specific AIT product. Allergen standardization in immunotherapy products is critical for ensuring quality and, thereby, safety and efficacy. However, lack of harmonization in manufacturing processes, allergen quantification (methodologies and references), national regulatory differences, clinical practice, and labeling shows that the comparison of AIT products based solely on major allergen amounts is not rational and, in fact, impossible. Moreover, when rating the information given for a specific product, it is necessary to take into account further inherent characteristics of products and their application in clinical practice, such as the state of extract modification, addition of adjuvant or adjuvant system, route of administration (sublingual/ subcutaneous), and cumulative dose as per posology (including the volume per administration). Finally, only convincing clinical data can serve as the basis for product-specific evaluation and cross-product comparability of individual products.

[Peritoneal equilibrium test using icodextrin and glucose at different concentrations]. / Test de equilibrio peritoneal con icodextrina y glucosa a distintas concentraciones.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to compare, under standard conditions (Peritoneal Equilibrium Test, "PET"), the peritoneal permeability to water and several solutes using icodextrin and glucose (3.86% and 1.36%) dialysates. The study includes 14 patients (3 women and 11 men), mean age 64 +/- 13 years, average time on peritoneal dialysis 23.5 +/- 17 months. PETs with icodextrin were performed in all of them (n = 14); PETs with 3.86% glucose were carried out in 7, and PETs with all the three solutions were performed in 5 patients. Samples were taken at 0, 30, 60, 120, 240 minutes, and after the rinsing procedure using 1.36% glucose in order to calculate the residual volume. RESULTS: Sodium concentration in the effluent and D/P sodium did not change significantly from minute 0 to 240 with icodextrin and 1.36% glucose; but with 3.86% glucose both sodium and D/P sodium decreased at thirty minutes, remained at the same levels till the 120 minutes and then had a tendency to increase. Glucose concentration and osmolarity in the effluent did not vary throughout the time with icodextrin, but progressively decreased during the 4-hour period with 3.86% and 1.36% glucose solutions. The drainage after the 4-hour period was higher for the 3.86% glucose (2,608 +/- 388 ml, p = 0.03) than for the 1.36% glucose (2,070 +/- 120 ml) or the icodextrin (2,212 +/- 213 ml). Low molecular weight permeability: D/P creatinine after the 4-hour dwell was significantly lower for the icodextrin (0.66 +/- 0.1, p = 0.05) than for the 3.86% glucose (0.71 +/- 0.1) or the 1.36% glucose (0.72 +/- 0.1). The creatinine clearance for 3.86% glucose (7.4 +/- 0.4 ml/min p = 0.007) was higher than for icodextrin (5.6 +/- 0.5 ml/min) or for 1.36% glucose (5.8 +/- 0.6 ml/min). The clearances for total protein, albumin and beta 2-microglobulin did not show significant differences between the solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that the icodextrin solution remains iso-osmolar with plasma during the 4-hour dwell. The sodium profile suggests that the ultrafiltration induced by icodextrin and 1.36% glucose depends on small pore-mediated sodium and water transport; on the other hand, 3.86% glucose also induces transport of water without solutes throughout the ultra-small aquaporin-mediated, pores, producing sodium dilution in the effluent. Ultrafiltration and solute clearances for icodextrin are lower than for 3.86 glucose during a 4-hour dwell.