House dust mite sublingual allergen immunotherapy tablet is safe and well-tolerated in Dutch clinical practice.

Background: Half (49%) of clinically diagnosed allergic rhinitis (AR) patients are sensitized to house dust mite (HDM). If allergen avoidance and symptomatic medication fail, allergen immunotherapy may be indicated. Objective: We investigated safety and tolerability of HDM-sublingual immunotherapy by HDM-SLIT tablets in Dutch daily clinical practice. Methods: Daily intake of 12 SQ-HDM SLIT-tablet was investigated in a prospective, multicenter, observational study (EUPAS43753). It comprised 4 consultations in 1 year. Data on safety, tolerability, treatment satisfaction, symptomatic medication, compliance, and clinical effectiveness (Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test; CARAT) were collected. Descriptive and longitudinal regression data analysis were performed. Results: Adult patients (n = 415), mean (SD) age 36.6 (12.2) years, 61.4% female and 36% asthmatic were included. The preponderance (65.1%) experienced adverse events (AEs). These, mostly mild (67%), AEs comprised: oral allergic reactions (58.6%), respiratory (12.4%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (9.4%). Sixty (14.5%) patients stopped due to AEs and 76 (18.3%) for non-AE reasons. CARAT scores improved clinically significant by 6 points and symptomatic medication use decreased from 96.1% to 77.4%. Most patients (74.5%) tolerated the treatment and were compliant (>86.5%). The majority of patients (62.4%) and investigators (69.4%) were satisfied with treatment. Conclusions: HDM SLIT-tablet is a safe and well-tolerated AR treatment. AEs occur often but are mostly mild and decreasing during the first year. CARAT scores improved and symptomatic medication use decreased suggesting better control of AR with treatment. Compliance, tolerability, and treatment satisfaction are good. However, patient follow-up and compliance remain important points of attention when initiating treatment.

[Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines]. / Overgevoeligheidsreacties op covid-19-vaccins.

In 2021 many people in the Netherlands will be vaccinated against COVID-19. The mass vaccination and the new types of vaccines trigger questions about the safety of these vaccines. In this paper we discuss: (1) what reactions are expected from COVID-19 vaccines, (2) what precautions are needed when vaccinating people, and (3) how to act when allergic reactions occur. The COVID-19 vaccines include the first vaccines produced with the mRNA platform. The most frequent adverse reactions are comparable with other vaccines. Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare but can occur. These reactions may be related to excipients in the vaccines, like polyethylene glycol. In case of a possible allergic reaction, a doctor, in consultation with an allergist, can investigate whether vaccination is safe in the future and whether precautions are necessary. Allergic reactions to vaccine components must be recorded completely and unambiguously in the patient file.

Evaluation of impermeable covers for bedding in patients with allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Encasing bedding in impermeable covers reduces exposure to house-dust mites, but the clinical benefit of this intervention as part of mite-avoidance measures for patients with allergic rhinitis is not known. We performed a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of one year of use of impermeable bedding covers in the bedrooms of patients with rhinitis who were sensitized to house-dust mites to determine the effects on the signs and symptoms of disease. METHODS: Three participating university medical centers enrolled 279 patients with allergic rhinitis who were randomly assigned to receive impermeable or non-impermeable (control) covers for their mattress, pillow, and duvet or blanket. At the start of the study, all participants received information on general allergen-avoidance measures. The severity of rhinitis was measured on a rhinitis-specific visual-analogue scale and by means of a daily symptom score and nasal allergen provocation testing. We also measured the concentrations of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Der p1) and D. farinae (Der f1) in dust from patients' mattresses, bedroom floors, and living-room floors at base line and after 12 months as a measure of the efficacy of the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 232 patients completed the study. There was a significant reduction in Der p1 and Der f1 concentrations in the mattresses of the impermeable-cover group, whereas there was no significant reduction in the control group. However, there was no significant effect on the clinical outcome measures. Analyses of subgroups defined according to age, level of exposure, type and severity of sensitization, or characteristics of the patient's home had similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Mite-proof bedding covers, as part of a structured allergy-control program, reduced the level of exposure to mite allergens. Despite the success of the intervention, this single avoidance measure did not lead to a significant improvement of clinical symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis.

Effect of mattress encasings on atopic dermatitis outcome measures in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study: the Dutch mite avoidance study.

BACKGROUND: House dust mite (HDM) allergen might induce and maintain atopic dermatitis (AD). Reduction of allergen load by applying encasings might improve the clinical symptoms of AD. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, whether reducing HDM allergen levels by using mattress, duvet, and pillow encasings for 12 months will result in improvement in AD symptoms. METHODS: Patients with AD (8-50 years old and allergic to HDM), having a Leicester sign score (a dermatitis score) of at least 1% extent and a severity score of 6 points or greater, were randomly allocated to an active (n = 45) or a placebo allergen-avoidance group (n = 41). Avoidance measures consisted of applying HDM-impermeable encasings for mattresses, pillows, and duvets for the active treatment group and cotton encasings for the placebo group. Effect on allergen concentrations (Der p 1 and Der p 1 plus Der f 1), Leicester sign score extent and severity, visual analogue scale scores for itching and sleeplessness, intradermal test results, atopy patch test results, total serum IgE levels, anti-Der p 1-specific IgE levels, and total blood eosinophil counts were studied. RESULTS: The active encasings reduced the Der p 1 allergen concentration in the mattress after 12 months with a factor 2.1 (P =.007) and the Der p 1 plus Der f 1 allergen concentration with a factor of 2.5 (P =.005); no significant change in allergen concentrations in mattresses was seen in the placebo group. Although the decrease in allergen load was significant, no differences in treatment-induced changes were seen between the placebo and active groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of HDM-impermeable encasings resulted in a significant decrease in Der p 1 and Der p 1 plus Der f 1 allergen concentrations. However, this reduction in allergen load did not result in significant changes in clinical parameters between the groups. Reduction of allergens in other environments (work, school, and outdoors) might be equally important in improving symptoms of AD.