Sublingual-swallow immunotherapy with standardized 3-grass pollen extract: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is accepted as a safe and effective route for the treatment of grass pollen allergy, but clarification of its clinical and biological efficacy requires more study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and compliance of SLIT with a standardized 3-grass pollen extract in patients with grass pollen seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without mild asthma. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study included 127 patients (aged 12-41 years; mean age, 24.9 years) with grass pollen seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without mild asthma. They received either SLIT with a high-dose, standardized, 3-grass pollen extract or placebo for 10 months before and during the grass pollen season. The efficacy evaluation compared weekly clinical scores (defined as the sum of the symptom score and rescue medication score) to measure rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma for the first 8 weeks of the pollen season. We also evaluated safety and compliance and measured changes in anti-Dactylis specific IgG4 antibody levels. RESULTS: There was a trend in favor of the study group in the mean adjusted clinical score. The groups were not comparable on inclusion (P = .02): the SLIT group included more subjects with asthma and had a higher mean IgG4 serum level. Additional exploration according to subgroups with and without asthma found that among the patients without asthma, the SLIT group had a significantly better clinical score (P = .045). Anti-Dactylis specific IgG4 levels increased significantly in the SLIT group. CONCLUSION: SLIT with a standardized, high-dose, 3-grass pollen extract is safe and significantly improves the clinical score in patients with hay fever and without asthma during the pollen season.

Skin reactions to intradermal neuromuscular blocking agent injections: a randomized multicenter trial in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Numerous reports confirm the performance of intradermal tests for the diagnosis of anaphylaxis during anesthesia; however, there is controversy over their diagnostic value regarding the newer neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs). METHODS: One hundred eleven healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive intradermal injections of two NMBAs, at five increasing concentrations. A concentration was considered as a reactive concentration when it led to a positive reaction in more than 5% of the subjects. These concentrations were compared with the maximal concentration recommended for the diagnosis of sensitization to NMBAs. RESULTS: The maximal nonreactive concentrations were 10 m for suxamethonium; 10 m for pancuronium, vecuronium, rocuronium, and cisatracurium; and 10 m for atracurium and mivacurium. Except for mivacurium, these nonreactive concentrations were close to the maximal concentrations used for the diagnosis of sensitization against NMBAs. For mivacurium, the nonreactive concentrations were higher than the maximal concentration currently recommended in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The aminosteroidal NMBAs pancuronium, vecuronium, and rocuronium and the benzylisoquinoline cisatracurium have a similar potency to induce a nonspecific skin reactivity. If the criteria for positivity and the maximal concentrations of the commercially available compounds recommended by French practice guidelines are used, the risk of false-positive results is limited, and only minor modifications of these recommendations could be suggested. A slight reduction in the maximal concentration used for rocuronium from 1:100 to 1:200 and an increase from 1:1,000 to 1:200 for mivacurium can be proposed.

Specific immunotherapy with standardized latex extract versus placebo in latex-allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: Allergy to natural rubber latex proteins continues to be an important medical problem among health care professionals, but also in multioperated children. Clinical manifestations range from urticaria to angioedema, rhinoconjunctivitis, bronchial asthma and anaphylactic shock. METHODS: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of a 12-month latex-specific immunotherapy in sensitized patients, most often health care workers. Twenty-three patients with latex rhinoconjunctivitis (20 of whom also had asthma) were included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (11 in the active group, 12 in the placebo group). Treatment efficacy was assessed by means of symptom and medication scores. Conjunctival provocation tests and quantitative skin prick tests were also performed. RESULTS: The clinical index (derived by combining changes from baseline of six efficacy variables during the treatment period) did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Change from baseline of rhinitis, conjunctivitis, skin symptoms, asthma symptoms, medication score and cutaneous reactivity were not significantly different between the two groups. A nonsignificant difference in conjunctival reactivity was observed in favor of the active group (p = 0.09). Systemic reactions were much higher in the specific immunotherapy than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study failed to show a significant improvement of symptoms and medication scores, probably because of the low level of symptoms at baseline and the low maintenance dose of therapy, even if allergen-specific conjunctival reactivity decreased in the active group. Moreover, the incidence of systemic reactions was very high in the active group.

The effect of montelukast on rhinitis symptoms in patients with asthma and seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate montelukast 10 mg daily as treatment for allergic rhinitis in patients with symptomatic allergic rhinitis and active asthma during the allergy season. METHODS: This was a multicenter study of 831 patients (ages 15 years-85 years) with seasonal allergen sensitivity, active symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, and active asthma. Following a single-blind, placebo run-in period of 3 days-5 days, patients were randomized to oral montelukast 10 mg (n = 415) or placebo (n = 416) daily during the 2-week, double-blind, active-treatment period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was Daily Rhinitis Symptoms score, average of Daytime Nasal Symptoms and Nighttime Symptoms, as self-rated by patients on a 0-3 scale on daily diaries. RESULTS: Montelukast reduced the Daily Rhinitis Symptoms score: difference between montelukast and placebo in mean change from baseline was -0.12 [95% CI -0.18, -0.06; p < or = 0.001]. Similar improvements were seen in Daytime Nasal Symptoms (-0.14 [-0.21, -0.07; p < or = 0.001]) and Nighttime Symptoms (-0.10 [-0.16, -0.04; p < or = 0.001]). Improvements (p < 0.05) were seen in Daytime Eye Symptoms and in the secondary endpoints of Global Evaluations of AR by Patient and by Physician, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life. In exploratory analyses, improvement in rhinitis symptoms was numerically (though not statistically) larger in patients with greater levels of asthma at study start. Montelukast provided benefit in the Global Evaluations of Asthma by Patient and by Physician: mean differences were -0.24 [-0.41, -0.06; p = 0.008] and -0.17 [-0.33, -0.01; p = 0.037]. Similarly, as-needed beta-agonist use (puffs/day) was reduced with montelukast (p < or = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Montelukast provides significant relief from symptoms of seasonal allergic rhinitis, while also conferring a benefit for asthma, in patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma.

The en 455-3 modified lowry assay does not yield a reliable estimate of the allergenicity level of latex gloves with low total protein content.

BACKGROUND: Estimation of the allergenicity of latex gloves by measurement of total extractable protein content with the modified Lowry method is not satisfactory. Therefore, complementary methods that are accurate, sensitive, and clinically relevant are needed. The Competitive Immunoassay for Antigenic Latex Proteins (CIALP) method described in a previous study could be a reliable complementary method for estimating the allergenicity of latex gloves. MATERIAL/METHODS: Extracts from 62 powdered or powder-free gloves (16 surgical and 46 examination) were tested by the EN 455-3 modified Lowry assay, IgE-inhibition, and CIALP. The results were compared with those from 36 glove extracts reported in a previous study. RESULTS: Significant correlations were observed between CIALP, IgE-inhibition, and the Lowry assay for the 62 glove extracts (r between 0.79 and 0.87; p<0.001), mostly rich in proteins. After inclusion of results from the previous study, significant correlations between the three methods were again observed (r between 0.76 and 0.90; p<0.001). However, there was no correlation between CIALP or IgE-inhibition and results of the Lowry assay for gloves that had a total protein content <50 micro g/g of glove. Furthermore, 15/16 extracts with undetectable total proteins were positive in both the CIALP and IgE-inhibition methods. CONCLUSIONS: The modified Lowry assay alone is useful for estimating the allergenicity of latex gloves when the total protein content is >/=50 micro g/g of glove. For gloves with a total protein content <50 micro g/g of glove, complementary methods such as CIALP are necessary.

Mizolastine in primary acquired cold urticaria.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of primary acquired cold urticaria (CU) is quite difficult because of variable clinical effectiveness and side effects of classic antihistamines. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of mizolastine, an antihistaminic with antiallergic properties, versus placebo in primary acquired CU. METHODS: This study was a phase II, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled study of mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) versus placebo in 28 patients with primary acquired CU. Efficacy was measured by the cold-stimulation time test, the wheal response, and pruritus intensity after an ice-cube test. RESULTS: Mizolastine delayed the cold-induced wheal reaction, reduced wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and reduced pruritus intensity. Statistically significant differences were observed versus placebo for the cold-stimulation time test, wheal response at 3 and 10 minutes, and pruritus intensity (P =.006,.015,.009, and.005, respectively). No clinically relevant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Mizolastine (10 mg, once daily) was shown to be superior to placebo for both delaying and reducing the cold-induced wheal reaction without significant adverse events. Results suggest that mizolastine may be effective in the treatment of CU.

Mizolastine provides effective symptom relief in patients suffering from perennial allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study versus loratadine.

BACKGROUND: Mizolastine is a nonsedating H1 histamine receptor antagonist with additional antiallergic properties currently marketed in Europe for the treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) and urticaria. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mizolastine in PAR compared with loratadine and placebo. METHODS: After a 1-week placebo run-in period, 428 adult PAR patients received placebo (146 of 428), mizolastine 10 mg (141 of 428), or loratadine 10 mg (141 of 428) once daily for 28 days. Symptoms were evaluated by patients and physicians using a total nasal score, evaluating itching, rhinorrhea, nasal blockade, and sneezing severity. RESULTS: Mizolastine treatment resulted in a significantly greater decrease in patient-rated total nasal score than placebo after 2 weeks (D14; -42%, P < 0.001) and at the end of the treatment period (-46%, P = 0.01), and significantly greater than that observed with loratadine at D14 (P = 0.031). No significant difference in change in total nasal score was observed between loratadine and placebo at 2- and 4-week visits. The global safety was satisfactory and the incidence of adverse events was similar in the three treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mizolastine provides effective symptom relief in PAR together with a satisfactory safety profile. Improvement with mizolastine was significantly greater than placebo throughout the study despite a large placebo effect. Also mizolastine's effects were greater those observed with loratadine after 2 weeks of treatment.

Acetaminophen (paracetamol)-induced anaphylactic shock.

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is a widely prescribed analgesic-antipyretic drug. Adverse allergic reactions to this drug are rare. We report a case of anaphylactic shock due to acetaminophen. Results of skin prick tests and intradermal tests were negative. Oral rechallenge resulted in generalized urticaria associated with an increased plasma level of histamine. Acetaminophen should be added to the list of causes of anaphylaxis.

Emerging principles for the design of promiscuous HLA-DR-restricted peptides: an example from the major bee venom allergen.

Mechanisms underlying successful immunotherapy of allergic patients operate at the level of CD4+ helper T cells. T cell epitopes from allergens may thus constitute interesting molecules for immunotherapy, provided they are efficient for all patients and are not recognized by IgE. In an attempt to define such peptides for allergy to bee venom, we have investigated the capacity of peptides encompassing the sequence of the major bee venom allergen to stimulate PBMC from allergic patients and to react specifically with their IgE. The region 77-110 emerged as the most frequently T cell stimulating. We then analyzed the binding modes of the sequence 81-97 for ten different HLA-DR molecules and introduced punctual mutations to enhance the peptide affinity for these molecules. Six different modes have been identified on the sequence 81-97, one mode being common to eight HLA-DR molecules. Four HLA-DR molecules can bind the P85-97 peptide by two different modes with an equivalent affinity. The peptide N89L has a higher affinity for DRB1*0301 and DRB3*0101 and remains as active as the native peptide towards the other HLA-DR molecules.