The Relationship Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Immunotherapy.

Immunotherapy is a treatment approach based on the principle of incremental allergen exposure to achieve desensitization. Recently, oral immunotherapy has been introduced as a treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy. Some patients receiving oral immunotherapy for food allergy may develop eosinophilic esophagitis. Here, we summarize the literature examining this association, its treatment, and outcomes and discuss possible explanations for this clinical phenomenon. We further identify potential associations with aeroallergen sensitivity and other forms of immunotherapy including subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. Finally, we discuss management of immunotherapy-induced eosinophilic esophagitis. Epicutaneous immunotherapy is highlighted as an area of therapeutic investigation.

Intervention Efficacy of Slightly Processed Allergen/Meat in Oral Immunotherapy for Seafood Allergy: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis in Mouse Models and Clinical Patients.

Background: Seafood allergy is a significant global health concern that greatly impacts a patient's quality of life. The intervention efficacy of oral immunotherapy (OIT), an emerging intervention strategy, for seafood allergy remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of slightly processed allergen/meat from fish and crustacea in OIT, both in mouse models and clinical patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in four mainstream databases and the EBSCOhost database to identify all relevant case-control and cohort studies. The aim was to elucidate the intervention efficacy, encompassing various processing methods and assessing the efficacy of multiple major allergens in OIT. Results: The meta-analysis included five case-control studies on crustacean allergens in mouse models and 11 cohort studies on meat from fish and crustacea in clinical patients for final quantitative assessments. In mouse models, crustacean allergen substantially decreased the anaphylactic score after OIT treatment (mean difference (MD) = -1.30, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses with low-level heterogeneities provided more reliable results for crab species (MD = -0.63, p < 0.01, I2 = 0), arginine kinase allergen (MD = -0.83, p < 0.01, I2 = 0), and Maillard reaction processing method (MD = -0.65, p < 0.01, I2 = 29%), respectively. In clinical patients, the main meta-analysis showed that the slightly processed meat significantly increased the incidence rate of oral tolerance (OT, incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 2.90, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses for fish meat (IRR = 2.79, p < 0.01) and a simple cooking treatment (IRR = 2.36, p = 0.01) also demonstrated a substantial increase in the incidence rate of OT. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses successfully identified specific studies contributing to heterogeneity in mouse models and clinical patients, although these studies did not impact the overall significant pooled effects. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence for the high intervention efficacy of slightly processed allergen/meat from fish and crustacea in OIT, both in mouse models and clinical patients. The Maillard reaction and cooking processing methods may emerge as potentially effective approaches to treating allergen/meat in OIT for clinical patients, offering a promising and specific treatment strategy for seafood allergy. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further supporting evidence is necessary.

Elevated aluminum excretion in patients by long-term subcutaneous immunotherapy - A cross-sectional case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Aluminum (Al) adjuvants have been used in vaccines and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for decades. Despite indisputable neurotoxic properties of Al, there is no clear evidence of a causal relationship between their use and any neurotoxic side effects. However, recent rat studies have shown an accumulation of Al from adjuvants in tissues, especially in bones. OBJECTIVES: Since the human toxicokinetics of Al-adjuvants are poorly understood, this study aimed to evaluate whether up-dosed or long-term SCIT with Al-coupled extracts leads to increased Al load in humans. METHODS: This observational cross-sectional case-control study explored Al excretion in hymenoptera venom allergy patients recruited in 2020 before initiation (n = 10) and during ongoing (n = 12) SCIT with Al-based preparations. Urine samples were collected before and 24 h after the SCIT injections and analyzed for aluminum content by using atomic absorption spectrometry. The cumulative administered Al dose was extracted from patient records. Patients receiving long-term immunotherapy were treated between 2.8 and 13.6 years (mean 7.1). Other potential sources of Al exposure were surveyed. RESULTS: Patients who had received Al-coupled immunotherapy for several years showed significantly (p < 0.001) higher Al excretion than the controls at initiation of immunotherapy (mean 18.2 µg/gC vs. 7.9 µg/gC) and predominantly (73%) were above the 95th percentile of the general populations' exposure (>15 µg/gC), however, without reaching levels of toxicological concern (>50 µg/gC). Taking both groups together excreted Al levels correlated with the cumulative administered Al dose from SCIT (linear regression: Alurine = 8.258 + 0.133*Alcum; p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: These results suggest a relevant iatrogenic contribution of long-term SCIT to human internal Al burden and potential accumulation. Considering the medical benefits of Al-adjuvants and SCIT a differentiated risk-benefit analysis is needed. For certain scenarios of potential toxicological concern in clinical practice biomonitoring might be advisable.

Transcriptomic changes associated with oral immunotherapy for food allergy.

This review summarizes recent advances in characterizing the transcriptional pathways associated with outcomes following Oral Immunotherapy. Recent technological advances including single-cell sequencing are transforming the ways in which the transcriptional landscape is understood. The application of these technologies is still in its infancy in food allergy but here we summarize current understanding of gene expression changes following oral immunotherapy for food allergy and specific signatures underpinning the different clinical outcomes of desensitization and remission (sustained unresponsiveness). T helper 2A cells have been identified as a cell type which correlates with disease activity and is modified by treatment. Molecular features at study entry may differentiate individuals who achieve more positive outcomes during OIT. Recent findings point to T cell anergy and Type 1 interferon pathways as potential mechanisms supporting redirection of the allergen-specific immune response away from allergy towards remission. Despite these developments in our understanding of immune mechanisms following OIT, there are still significant gaps. Additional studies examining immune signatures associated with long term and well-defined clinical outcomes are required to gain a more complete understanding of the pathways leading to remission of allergy, in order to optimize treatments and gain improved outcomes for patients.

[TWO CASES OF LARYNGEAL EDEMA CAUSED BY SUBLINGUAL ALLERGEN IMMUNOTHERAPY].

Sublingual immunotherapy is a widely used treatment, and serious adverse reactions such as anaphylaxis are rare. We report two cases of laryngeal edema as adverse reactions to sublingual immunotherapy, which could be continued due to a change in the administration method. Case 1 presents a 15-year-old male suspected to have had anaphylaxis due to the dust at the age of 6 years. He started treatment with Miticure® and developed laryngeal edema 30 minutes after taking the 10000JAU dose on the 10th day. laryngeal edema was treated with intravenous infusion. Case 2 presents a 48-year-old woman. She started treatment with Cidacure® and developed respiratory distress and laryngeal edema 1 hour after taking the 5000JAU dose on the 5th day. she had resolved mildly without therapeutic intervention. In both cases, the patients were switched to sublingual spitting, resumed with the initial dose cautiously, and were able to continue. Sublingual immunotherapy is a safe treatment, but sudden adverse reactions may occur. Laryngeal symptoms may be treated by changing to the sublingual spitting method, but laryngeal findings should be examined, and the dosage should be carefully increased.

Low-dose oral immunotherapy in immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergies.

Nowadays, the management of food allergies has increasingly moved from conventional oral immunotherapy (OIT) to low-dose OIT or low-dose OIT utilizing hypoallergenic foods. This shift is largely because the latter appears to induce oral tolerance with fewer adverse effects than the former. However, the mechanisms underpinning such differences remain unclear. To better understand these mechanisms, we conducted a comparative study scrutinizing the mechanisms of OIT, especially those of low-dose desensitization. We also summarized articles on low-dose OIT and low-dose OIT using hypoallergenic foods. We examined the efficacy, safety, and immunological parameters of low-dose OIT and those of low-dose OIT with hypoallergenic foods with the aim of shedding some light on low-dose OIT and its therapeutic application in inducing oral tolerance for individuals with food allergies.

Efficacy of biological agents combined with oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Food allergy affects a large population throughout the world. Recently, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been reported as an effective treatment for severe food allergy. Although OIT was successful in numerous trials in desensitisation, adverse events including anaphylaxis during OIT frequently occur. Additionally, some patients fail to be desensitised after OIT and the response to treatment is often not sustained. As a further adjunctive therapy to facilitate OIT, the role of biological agents has been identified. For example, efficacy and safety of omalizumab as an adjuvant therapy of OIT has become apparent through some RCTs and observational studies. Interest towards this topic is growing worldwide, and ongoing trials will provide additional data on the biologics in food allergy.We aim to systematically analyse the efficacy and safety of OIT combined with biological agents for food allergy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This paper provides a protocol for a systematic review of the relevant published analytical studies using an aggregate approach following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Two authors will perform a comprehensive search for studies on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Subsequently, two independent authors will perform abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol of this systematic review will be provided in a peer-reviewed journal. As the researchers will not identify the individual patients included in the studies, they do not need to acquire ethics approval. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022373015.

Real-Life Adherence to Venom Immunotherapy and Adrenaline Autoinjector.

INTRODUCTION: Venom immunotherapy (VIT) and adrenaline autoinjector (AAI) are important therapies in venom anaphylaxis. Adherence to VIT and AAI in patients with venom allergy has been evaluated in a few studies; however, solid data are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate VIT and AAI retrieval rates in patients with venom allergy with a special focus on adherence to treatment. Adherence was compared to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with inhalant allergens. METHODS: This was a retrospective study among patients registered for allergen immunotherapy at the Allergy Center, Odense University Hospital, Denmark, from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014. Data on purchased immunotherapy and AAI were obtained from the Danish National Health Service Prescription Database. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze if allergen, age, sex, mastocytosis, and treatment site affected adherence. RESULTS: The 3-year adherence to VIT was 92.4% (244/264) compared to 87.4% (215/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens, and the 5-year adherence to VIT was 84.1% (222/264) compared to 74.8% (184/246) in SCIT with inhalant allergens (p = 0.045). Females treated with VIT were more adherent than males (p = 0.45 [3-year], p = 0.008 [5-year]), whereas allergen, age, mastocytosis, or treatment site did not significantly affect adherence. Only 28.6% of patients (12/42) purchased an AAI after premature termination of VIT. CONCLUSION: In this register-based study, we found that the 3- and 5-year adherences to VIT and SCIT with inhalant allergens are at the upper end of the spectrum hitherto reported. Patients' 5-year adherence to VIT was higher than patients' 5-year adherence to SCIT with inhalant allergens. If VIT was prematurely terminated, less than 1/3 would have purchased an AAI.

Safety and immunopharmacology of ASP0892 in adults or adolescents with peanut allergy: two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: New treatment options with improved safety and novel mechanisms of actions are needed for patients with peanut allergy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of ASP0892, a peanut DNA vaccine, after intradermal (id) or intramuscular (im) administration in adult or adolescent patients with peanut allergy in two phase 1 studies. METHODS: ASP0892 or placebo was administered every 2 weeks for a total of 4 doses. The doses were 1 mg or 4 mg id or 4 mg im for adults, and 1 mg or 4 mg id for adolescents. Immunologic parameters were assessed longitudinally. RESULTS: Thirty-one adults (mean age 24.3 years, 17 males) received ASP0892 (9, 8, 8 patients for 1 mg id, 4 mg id or 4 mg im, respectively) or placebo (2 patients/group). Twenty adolescents (mean age 14.2 years, 11 males) received ASP0892 (8 patients/group) or placebo (2 patients/group). In both studies, the most common treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was injection site pruritus. No deaths or treatment withdrawal were related to TEAEs. No serious TEAEs related to treatment were observed in adult or adolescent patients. ASP0892 treatment led to modest increases in allergen-specific IgG and/or IgG4 in adults (1 mg id, 4 mg im) and adolescents (1 mg id, 4 mg id). No improvements in clinical outcomes, including double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge, were found after ASP0892 treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In two phase 1 studies, ASP0892 was well tolerated with modest but not clinically relevant changes in immune responses. GOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT02851277, NCT03755713.

Safety of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy with allergoids in children: a real-life pharmacovigilance study.

Aims: Allergen-specific immunotherapy uses a sublingual (sublingual immunotherapy [SLIT]) or subcutaneous (subcutaneous immunotherapy [SCIT]) route. This pharmacovigilance study aimed to determine the number and type of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for SLIT and SCIT using carbamylated monomeric allergoids (CMAs) in children. Materials & methods: This pharmacovigilance study analyzed real-world post-marketing reports collected from a safety database of Lais sublingual tablets and injective Lais-in, containing CMAs for over 10 years. Results & conclusion: From January 2009 to September 2022, 26,107 doses of Lais-in were administered in children; only two nonserious related ADRs (incidence: 0.000077%) were reported. Regarding SLIT, the results showed only 12 spontaneous nonserious ADR reports (incidence: 0.000004%). These data showed the excellent safety profile of both SLIT and SCIT CMAs.

The cure for allergic people is named allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Recently, AIT uses new substances named allergoids. This study has shown that AIT with allergoids is very safe.

Eosinophilic esophagitis as a side-effect of allergen immunotherapy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Summary: Background. Sensitization to food and airborne allergens is common in the majority of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Although there is not a direct cause-effect relationship of IgE-mediated allergy with the pathogenesis of EoE, there is a growing evidence that oral desensitization to food and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) may induce the development of EoE as an adverse effect. As part of the 'EoE and Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT)' Task Force funded by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), a systematic approach will be followed to review the evidence from the published scientific literature on the development of EoE in children and adults under any type of AIT. Methods. This systematic review will be carried out following the PRISMA statement guidelines. Studies will be assessed for inclusion in the review according to the Population-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) criteria. Results. Expected outcomes will provide evidence on the AIT-EoE development connection. Conclusions. The findings from this review will be used as a reference to provide useful guidelines for physicians treating patients with EoE and/or are practicing AIT.

Desensitization and remission after peanut sublingual immunotherapy in 1- to 4-year-old peanut-allergic children: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have suggested a potential advantage with younger age at treatment initiation. OBJECTIVE: We studied the safety and efficacy of SLIT for peanut allergy in 1- to 4-year-old children. METHODS: Peanut-allergic 1- to 4-year-old children were randomized to receive 4 mg peanut SLIT versus placebo. Desensitization was assessed by double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) after 36 months of treatment. Participants desensitized to at least 443 mg peanut protein discontinued therapy for 3 months and then underwent DBPCFC to assess for remission. Biomarkers were measured at baseline and longitudinally during treatment. RESULTS: Fifty participants (25 peanut SLIT, 25 placebo) with a median age of 2.4 years were enrolled across 2 sites. The primary end point of desensitization was met with actively treated versus placebo participants having a significantly greater median cumulative tolerated dose (4443 mg vs 143 mg), higher likelihood of passing the month 36 DBPCFC (60% vs 0), and higher likelihood of demonstrating remission (48% vs 0). The highest rate of desensitization and remission was seen in 1- to 2-year-olds, followed by 2- to 3-year-olds and 3- to 4-year-olds. Longitudinal changes in peanut skin prick testing, peanut-specific IgG4, and peanut-specific IgG4/IgE ratio were seen in peanut SLIT but not placebo participants. Oropharyngeal itching was more commonly reported by peanut SLIT than placebo participants. Skin, gastrointestinal, upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and multisystem adverse events were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Peanut SLIT safely induces desensitization and remission in 1- to 4-year-old children, with improved outcomes seen with younger age at initiation.

Phase 1 trial supports safety and mechanism of action of peptide immunotherapy for peanut allergy.

BACKGROUND: Food allergy is a leading cause of anaphylaxis worldwide. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only treatment shown to modify the natural history of allergic disease, but application to food allergy has been hindered by risk of severe allergic reactions and short-lived efficacy. Allergen-derived peptides could provide a solution. PVX108 comprises seven short peptides representing immunodominant T-cell epitopes of major peanut allergens for treatment of peanut allergy. METHODS: Pre-clinical safety of PVX108 was assessed using ex vivo basophil activation tests (n = 185). Clinical safety and tolerability of single and repeat PVX108 doses were evaluated in a first-in-human, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in peanut-allergic adults (46 active, 21 placebo). The repeat-dose cohort received six doses over 16 weeks with safety monitored to 21 weeks. Exploratory immunological analyses were performed at pre-dose, Week 21 and Month 18 after treatment. RESULTS: PVX108 induced negligible activation of peanut-sensitised basophils. PVX108 was safe and well tolerated in peanut-allergic adults. There were no treatment-related hypersensitivity events or AEs of clinical concern. The only events occurring more frequently in active than placebo were mild injection site reactions. Exploratory immunological analyses revealed a decrease in the ratio of ST2+ Th2A:CCR6+ Th17-like cells within the peanut-reactive Th pool which strengthened following treatment. CONCLUSION: This study supports the concept that PVX108 could provide a safe alternative to whole peanut immunotherapies and provides evidence of durable peanut-specific T-cell modulation. Translation of these findings to clinical efficacy in ongoing Phase 2 trials would provide important proof-of-concept for using peptides to treat food allergy.

Characteristics of adverse reactions due to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy applied between 2011-2021: Single center experience.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to elucidate the incidence of local, large local and systemic reactions after subcutaneus immunotherapy (SCIT) injections in our clinic and to determine the characteristic features of these adverse reactions. Materials and Methods: A total of 6000 SCIT injections administered to 163 patients between January 2011 and December 2021 were retrospectively evaluated. The study population consisted of patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis who underwent SCIT due to pollen, house dust mite or cat allergy, or patients who underwent SCIT due to venom allergy. Demographic characteristics of the patients, diagnoses, allergen sensitivities, immunotherapy protocol applied, adverse reactions, and the characteristics of these reactions were recorded. Result: Totally, 163 patients with a mean age of 36.8 ± 12.7 years were enrolled in this research. Sex distribution was as follows: 55.2% (n= 90) were females. During the study, 218 allergic reactions were detected in 83 patients. The incidence of adverse reactions per injection was 3.6%. The probability of developing an adverse reaction in a patient during the entire subcutaneous immunotherapy was 53.9%. Of the adverse reactions that developed, 94 (43.1%, n= 47) were observed locally while 56 (25.7%, n= 40) were large local reactions, and 68 (31.2%, n= 30) were systemic. Incidence of adverse reactions per injection were 1.5%, 0.9%, and 1.1% for local reaction, large local reaction, and systemic reaction, respectively. Conclusions: The results of this analysis elaborated that subcutaneous immunotherapy is a safe and tolerable treatment modality. However, before initiating treatment, the benefits and risks should be evaluated. The risk of systemic reactions is quite low, but fatal anaphylaxis can occur, so physicians need to be aware of the potential risks.

Early Peanut Immunotherapy in Children (EPIC) trial: protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of peanut oral immunotherapy in children under 5 years of age.

INTRODUCTION: Food allergy is a major public health challenge in Australia. Despite widespread uptake of infant feeding and allergy prevention guidelines the incidence of peanut allergy in infants has not fallen, and prevalence of peanut allergy in school-aged children continues to rise. Therefore, effective and accessible treatments for peanut allergy are required. There is high-quality evidence for efficacy of oral immunotherapy in children aged 4-17 years old; however, few randomised trials have investigated peanut oral immunotherapy (OIT) in young children. Furthermore, the use of food products for OIT with doses prepared and administered by parents without requiring pharmacy compounding has the potential to reduce costs associated with the OIT product. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Early Peanut Immunotherapy in Children is an open-label randomised controlled trial of peanut OIT compared with standard care (avoidance) to induce desensitisation in children aged 1-4 years old with peanut allergy. n=50 participants will be randomised 1:1 to intervention (daily peanut OIT for 12 months) or control (peanut avoidance). The primary outcome is the proportion of children in each group with a peanut eliciting dose >600 mg peanut protein as assessed by open peanut challenge after 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes include safety as assessed by frequency and severity of treatment-related adverse events, quality of life measured using age-appropriate food allergy-specific questionnaires and immunological changes during OIT. ETHICS: The trial is approved by the Child and Adolescent Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee and prospectively registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. DISSEMINATION: Trial outcomes will be published in a peer-review journal and presented and local and national scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621001001886.

Investigating Forkhead Box O Transcription Factor 1 Gene's Relation to Immunoglobulin E in House Dust Mite-Allergic Asthma Patients.

House dust mite (HDM)-allergic asthma is an abnormal immune response to extrinsic aeroallergens found in human vicinities. Studying the role of the associated immunity biomarkers and their interplay helps in discovering novel therapeutic strategies that can be used in adjunct with effective long-term immunotherapy. This study investigates the total serum IgE, FoxO1, and Sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) gene expressions in HDM-allergic asthma patients. We enrolled 40 patients for each of the following three groups: an HV group of healthy volunteers and HDM/AA and HDM/SCIT groups of HDM-allergic asthma patients who did not and who did receive immunotherapy before recruitment in this study, respectively. The results elucidated that total IgE was strikingly elevated in the HDM/AA group and showed little decline in the HDM/SCIT group. Both FoxO1 and SIRT1 gene expressions showed the highest levels in the HDM/SCIT group. There was a negative correlation between total IgE and both FoxO1 and SIRT1 in the HDM/AA group while there was a positive correlation with SIRT1 in the HDM/SCIT group. In conclusion, the interplay of the three immunity biomarkers related to HDM-allergic asthma after the course of immunotherapy treatment suggests further, broader studies on the feasibility of their role as immunity biomarkers in the control and remission of HDM-allergic asthma.

Eosinophil-Associated Gastrointestinal Manifestations During OIT.

Gastrointestinal adverse events are common during oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergy and range from immediate IgE-mediated reactions to non-anaphylactic clinical presentations. This review aims to summarize recent findings on non-anaphylactic eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal adverse events during OIT. Two clinical presentations of non-anaphylactic eosinophil-associated gastrointestinal adverse events during OIT are identified, each with a different paradigm for treatment, and distinguished by their time of onset. In the first clinical entity, characterized by its onset early in the course of treatment, patients present with abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. The symptoms become evident typically within weeks to months of starting OIT. These symptoms, however, are not temporally related to the time of dose administration, as in the case of immediate IgE-mediated anaphylactic reactions. While esophageal biopsies, when performed, can demonstrate eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), baseline esophageal eosinophilia has also been observed in food allergic patients prior to OIT. A potential non-invasive biomarker, the peripheral absolute eosinophil count (AEC), often rises during these reactions and subsides after dose reduction and subsequent resolution of symptoms. OIT can usually then be resumed, albeit at a slower pace, without a recurrence of symptoms. Risk factors for development of symptoms early during OIT include a high starting dose and a baseline AEC of greater than 600. The second, and much less frequently encountered, non-anaphylactic gastrointestinal adverse event related to OIT, presents months to years after initiating OIT. In this latter group, patients present with the classical clinical symptoms and endoscopic findings of EoE. In contrast to the acute onset group, peripheral eosinophilia is usually not observed in these cases. This OIT-associated EoE has shown good response to standard EoE treatment approaches of proton pump inhibitors or swallowed steroids. Most patients with eosinophil-associated adverse reactions are able to continue OIT and remain desensitized. Treatment approaches depend on the specific subtype of these reactions and relate to the stages of OIT treatment.

Safety of allergen immunotherapy in children.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review discusses allergen immunotherapy (AIT) safety in children. RECENT FINDINGS: AIT is a well tolerated and effective treatment for pediatric allergic conditions. While mostly well tolerated, severe reactions and near fatal reactions may occur with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) once in every 160 000 visits. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is associated more with local side effects, but severe systemic reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been rarely reported. Providing informed consent, recognizing risk factors for severe systemic reactions, such as severe or uncontrolled asthma, and mitigating the risk of severe reactions are important components to improving the safety of AIT. SUMMARY: Overall, AIT is well tolerated in children, and data suggest that the incidence of systemic reactions in children receiving SCIT is no less than mixed populations of adult and pediatric patients. SLIT carries less risk for systemic reactions, and local oral site-application reactions are usually mild and resolve within 15 days of treatment.

A 5-Year Open-Label Follow-up of a Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of Intralymphatic Immunotherapy for Birch and Grass Allergy Reveals Long-term Beneficial Effects.

BACKGROUND: Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is a novel, faster alternative to conventional allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Few previous studies have evaluated its long-term effects. The objective of the present study was to complete a 5-year follow-up of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of ILIT for a combination of birch and grass allergens. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with allergic rhinitis were treated with either placebo or a combination of ALK Alutard Birch and Grass 1000 SQ-U administered in 3 intralymphatic injections at 1-month intervals. A year after the vaccination, the symptoms induced by nasal provocation were significantly reduced. After 5-6 years, 20 out of 26 actively treated patients were followed up with a nasal provocation test (NPT) and seasonal registration of the combined symptom and medications score (CSMS), IgE and IgG4 levels in blood, and immunological markers in blood and lymph nodes and compared with 13 unvaccinated controls. RESULTS: The reduction in the NPT response with ILIT at year 1 could not be convincingly reproduced at year 5. The new CSMS scores were markedly lower among the previously treated patients than among the control group. Furthermore, grass-specific IgG4 was increased, grass-specific IgE decreased, FcεR1 on basophils was reduced, and the fraction of memory T-cells in lymph nodes increased. CONCLUSION: The combination of seasonal clinical data and immunological parameters supports the notion of a long-lasting effect of ILIT. These data support the concept of ILIT as a good alternative to traditional AIT in pollen-induced allergic rhinitis.

Modification of allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy safety precautions and systemic allergic reaction rate reduction.

Background: Despite their life-threatening potential, medical team mistakes during subcutaneous immunotherapy are rarely discussed. Real data are missing, and a survey study estimated that dosing errors are responsible for 25% of systemic reactions during immunotherapy. To minimize errors, we modified our safety precautions and compared the rates of systemic allergic reactions before and after the change. Methods: Our retrospective comparative cohort study compared systemic allergic reaction rates during 2012-2015 and 2016-2019, after a second check of the injected allergen/s by another nurse/physician was added to the treatment protocol. Results: The rate of systemic allergic reaction per injection was reduced from 0.93 to 0.71%; p = 0.023. Conclusion: A second check prior to injection is beneficial and can reduce the allergic reaction rate during immunotherapy.

Many people suffer from allergies to dust or pollen, and they might suffer from a running nose when they come into contact with the allergens. This reaction is called hayfever or allergic rhinitis. Immunotherapy is a treatment which can help to treat patients with allergic rhinitis. During treatment, the patients receive injections of small amounts of dust or pollen, and with time become less allergic. The injections themselves might cause allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling or trouble breathing. Sometimes these allergic reactions are related to mistakes made by the medical team. In our study we changed safety instruction to add a second check of the materials and amounts before the injections were given to the patient. This was checked by two different nurses. We compared the number of allergic reactions to the shots before and after the change. We found that the number of allergic reactions was 9.3 for 1000 injections before and 7.1 for 1000 injections after the change. We think that a second check of the materials and amounts before giving the injections is helpful and can prevent some of the allergic reactions.