Allergies and COVID-19 vaccines: An ENDA/EAACI Position paper.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis, which is rare, has been reported after COVID-19 vaccination, but its management is not standardized. METHOD: Members of the European Network for Drug Allergy and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology interested in drug allergy participated in an online questionnaire on pre-vaccination screening and management of allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines, and literature was analysed. RESULTS: No death due to anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines has been confirmed in scientific literature. Potential allergens, polyethylene glycol (PEG), polysorbate and tromethamine are excipients. The authors propose allergy evaluation of persons with the following histories: 1-anaphylaxis to injectable drug or vaccine containing PEG or derivatives; 2-anaphylaxis to oral/topical PEG containing products; 3-recurrent anaphylaxis of unknown cause; 4-suspected or confirmed allergy to any mRNA vaccine; and 5-confirmed allergy to PEG or derivatives. We recommend a prick-to-prick skin test with the left-over solution in the suspected vaccine vial to avoid waste. Prick test panel should include PEG 4000 or 3500, PEG 2000 and polysorbate 80. The value of in vitro test is arguable. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations will lead to a better knowledge of the management and mechanisms involved in anaphylaxis to COVID-19 vaccines and enable more people with history of allergy to be vaccinated.

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness Evidence of a Microcrystalline Tyrosine-Associated Mite Allergoid in Children and Adolescents with Allergic Rhinitis

Evidence regarding allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in pediatric population is scarce. We have assessed safety and effectiveness of subcutaneous AIT with a microcrystalline tyrosine (MCT)-associated mite allergoid, Acarovac Plus®, in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis (AR), with and without asthma, in the real-world setting. This was a retrospective, multicenter study including children and adolescents aged 5 years to 17 years with AR, with and without asthma, and sensitized to mites, receiving AIT with Acarovac Plus® during ≥6 months. Primary and secondary objectives were safety and effectiveness, respectively. Effectiveness variables were assessed during 12 months before and after AIT and included unscheduled visits to the healthcare center and emergency room admissions, rhinitis and asthma symptoms according to ARIA and GEMA classifications, respectively, medication use, and patients’ and physicians’ disease perception graded on a visual analog scale (VAS). All 79 patients included had a mean (SD) age of 12.7 (3.3) years. Two patients experienced systemic adverse reactions (none severe). Unscheduled visits to the healthcare center and emergency room admissions decreased (mean (SD) 3.02 [2.48] and 0.63 [1.35] vs. 1.08 [1.38] and 0.09 [0.38], before and after treatment, p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). After AIT, rhinitis and asthma classification changed (p < 0.0001 for all classifications), showing improvements in symptoms and a significant decrease in rhinitis and use of medication for asthma and VAS scores grading patients’ and physicians’ disease perception (p < 0.001). In conclusion, these results show that AIT with an MCT-associated mite allergoid appears safe and effective in children and adolescents with AR treated in the real-world setting (AU)

Safety and effectiveness of a microcrystalline tyrosine-associated mite extract immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis.

Aim: To assess the safety and effectiveness of an allergen immunotherapy (AIT) with a microcrystalline tyrosine-associated mite allergoid in real-world patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). Materials & methods: Retrospective, multicenter study assessing the safety of AIT in patients aged 5 to 65 years with AR, with or without asthma, sensitized to mites. Secondary objective was effectiveness, measured as unscheduled visits to healthcare centers and emergency rooms, rhinitis and asthma evolution, medication use and patients' and physicians' disease perception 12 months before and after treatment. Results: The 306 patients evaluated, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 29.68 (14.66) years, received different treatment compositions and regimens, and 25 (8.2%) experienced nonserious adverse reactions. Unscheduled visits to the specialist and emergency room admissions significantly decreased after immunotherapy (mean [standard deviation] 2.11 [1.95] and 0.3 [0.93] vs 0.66 [1.09] and 0.02 [0.2], before and after treatment, respectively). Rhinitis and asthma classification ('AR and its impact on asthma' and 'Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma', respectively) significantly changed (p < 0.0001 for all classifications), showing symptom reduction after AIT. Median (interquartile range)-combined rhinitis and combined asthma medication scores significantly decreased (4.0 [1.33, 7.0] vs 0.25 [0, 10.0]; p < 0.0001 and 6.94 [1.5, 6.0] vs 0.67 [0, 4.67]; p < 0.0001) within 12 months before and after starting AIT, respectively. Conclusion: AIT with microcrystalline tyrosine-associated mite allergoid appears to be safe and effective in treating rhinitis caused by mites.

Quality of Life in Patients with Allergic Reactions to Medications: Influence of a Drug Allergy Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Suspicion of allergic drug reaction can cause important disturbances in the patient's life. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated in a prospective multicenter study the quality of life of patients who suffered a possible allergic drug reaction, and analyzed the effect of a drug allergy evaluation. METHODS: Patients (>18 years old) answered the specific questionnaire twice: before the drug allergy evaluation, and 1 month after it was completed. Statistics were performed using STATA. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients (240, 66.6% female; mean age, 45.4 years; standard deviation [SD], 15.6 years) completed the first questionnaire. After the evaluation, 150 of 346 patients (43.4%) were diagnosed as allergic to the drug (115 of 150 immediate; 35 of 150 delayed) and 196 of 346 patients (56.6%) as nonallergic. The mean value of the first questionnaire was 32.14 (SD, 11.84); patients with anaphylaxis, nonanaphylactic immediate reaction, with more than 1 drug reaction, or a chronic osteoarticular disease, had a statistically significant higher score in Q0 (worse quality of life). After the allergy study, the mean of the second questionnaire was 27.27 (SD, 9.96), showing a global improvement (P < .001). No statistically significant difference was found between drug allergic and non-drug allergic patients (P = .340); however, being >40 years old (P = .030), having a chronic osteoarticular disease (P = .003) and having more than 1 reaction to drugs (P < .001) were associated with a statistically significant worse quality of life after the evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Having suffered anaphylaxis, more than 1 reported drug allergy or presenting a musculoskeletal disease are factors that worsen the quality of life. Quality of life improved significantly after completing a drug allergy evaluation.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.

The involvement of thaumatin-like proteins in plant food cross-reactivity: a multicenter study using a specific protein microarray.

Cross-reactivity of plant foods is an important phenomenon in allergy, with geographical variations with respect to the number and prevalence of the allergens involved in this process, whose complexity requires detailed studies. We have addressed the role of thaumatin-like proteins (TLPs) in cross-reactivity between fruit and pollen allergies. A representative panel of 16 purified TLPs was printed onto an allergen microarray. The proteins selected belonged to the sources most frequently associated with peach allergy in representative regions of Spain. Sera from two groups of well characterized patients, one with allergy to Rosaceae fruit (FAG) and another against pollens but tolerant to food-plant allergens (PAG), were obtained from seven geographical areas with different environmental pollen profiles. Cross-reactivity between members of this family was demonstrated by inhibition assays. Only 6 out of 16 purified TLPs showed noticeable allergenic activity in the studied populations. Pru p 2.0201, the peach TLP (41%), chestnut TLP (24%) and plane pollen TLP (22%) proved to be allergens of probable relevance to fruit allergy, being mainly associated with pollen sensitization, and strongly linked to specific geographical areas such as Barcelona, Bilbao, the Canary Islands and Madrid. The patients exhibited >50% positive response to Pru p 2.0201 and to chestnut TLP in these specific areas. Therefore, their recognition patterns were associated with the geographical area, suggesting a role for pollen in the sensitization of these allergens. Finally, the co-sensitizations of patients considering pairs of TLP allergens were analyzed by using the co-sensitization graph associated with an allergen microarray immunoassay. Our data indicate that TLPs are significant allergens in plant food allergy and should be considered when diagnosing and treating pollen-food allergy.