Preventive allergen immunotherapy with inhalant allergens in children.

The efficacy and safety of preventive allergen immunotherapy (pAIT) in children are currently under investigation. Here, we provide an overview of pAIT with respiratory allergens concerning the prevention of new sensitizations, allergic disease onset and progression as well as further immunomodulatory effects. Three databases were searched for clinical pAIT studies in children. Selected publications were reviewed for preventive outcomes according to prevention level (primary, secondary, and tertiary), allergen type, administration route, dose, and treatment duration. The primary prevention approach appears safe but showed no allergen-specific effect on new sensitizations. Secondary prevention seems feasible and may induce regulatory T cell-mediated immunotolerance. The number of studies at these prevention levels is limited. Tertiary prevention with grass and/or tree pollen-based pAIT has shown efficacy in preventing disease progression from allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis to asthma. Data on tertiary pAIT with house dust mites and other allergen types are inconclusive. Subcutaneous and sublingual routes appear similarly effective, but head-to-head comparative paediatric studies are scarce. Additionally, there are fewer placebo-controlled studies. Nevertheless, immunomodulatory outcomes of pAIT are encouraging. Currently, limited but favourably suggestive evidence is available for preventing respiratory allergic diseases in children by pAIT. Primary and secondary prevention have potential and warrant further investigation through well-designed studies.

Respiratory allergic diseases and allergen immunotherapy: A French patient survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented global disruption to both healthcare providers and patients with respiratory allergies. There are limited real-life data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the risk perception of patients with allergy treated with allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Objective: To understand the risk perception of allergic patients treated with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) before and during the pandemic, and their attitudes towards COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Methods: This was a non-interventional, cross-sectional survey conducted from October to November 2021 in France. Adult patients, who had been prescribed and had received a Stallergenes SLIT (liquid or liquid and tablets) before the pandemic (from August 1, 2018 to March 10, 2020) and during the pandemic (from March 11, 2020 to August 31, 2021), were identified from the Stallergenes named-patient products (NPP) database. Patients completed an online questionnaire. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 5258 patients from all over France completed the questionnaire. Mean (±SD) age of the respondents was 39.3 (±13.0) years and 66.9% were female. Some of them (11.8%) were obese (BMI >30 kg/m2). Main allergic diseases were rhinitis (80.0% of patients) with or without conjunctivitis, and asthma (39.0%). More than half of the patients experienced moderate to severe (58.0%) and persistent allergic rhinitis profile (70.4%). Most patients were poly-allergic (72.7%), mostly to house dust mites (61.9%), grass pollens (61.5%), tree pollens (57.8%), and cat dander (37.2%). Only 14.1% of patients experienced an aggravation of their allergy symptoms during lockdown and 14.8% were infected with COVID-19, with hospitalization required for 1.8%. Only 3.1% of patients reported their SLIT initiation as being postponed due to the pandemic. SLIT was changed, temporarily interrupted or permanently discontinued during the pandemic in 21.9% of patients. Changes mainly concerned the maintenance dose for SLIT-liquid (63.2%). SLIT modification was due to COVID-19 infection in only 4.2%. Most patients did not feel vulnerable (53.1%), anxious (55.2%), at risk to present severe symptoms of COVID-19 (77.1%), or at risk to transmit coronavirus (80.4%). However, greater anxiety was reported in patients with allergic asthma (33.6%) or other respiratory disorders (50.4%). Patients who felt vulnerable partly assigned their vulnerability to their allergic disease (59.3%). Suffering from an allergic disease did not make patients feel more vulnerable to side effects of COVID-19 vaccine for 79.6% of them. Conclusion: Overall, most patients with allergy and under SLIT were not strongly concerned by the COVID-19 infection. SLIT did not have a negative impact on the COVID-19 symptoms.

Current state and advances in desensitization for peanut allergy in pediatric age.

Peanut allergy affects about 1%-3% of the pediatric population in the world, with an important increase in the last decades. Nowadays, international guidelines recommend the early introduction of peanuts in the infant diet, with poor information about the quantity and the frequency of the intake. Allergen immunotherapy may represent the only therapeutic strategy able to modify the natural history of peanut allergy. In particular, oral immunotherapy showed the most promising results in terms of efficacy, but with significant rates of adverse reactions, mostly gastrointestinal. In 2020, the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency approved Palforzia®, an oral drug for patients aged 4-17 years. Several studies are ongoing to improve the tolerability of oral immunotherapy and standardize the desensitization protocols. Sublingual immunotherapy permits to offer much lower doses than oral immunotherapy, but fewer adverse events are shown. Subcutaneous immunotherapy is associated with the greatest systemic adverse effects. Epicutaneous immunotherapy, for which Viaskin® patch was approved, has the highest safety profile. Innovative studies are evaluating the use of biological drugs, such as omalizumab or dupilumab, and probiotics, such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus, in monotherapy or associated with oral immunotherapy. Therapy for peanut allergy is constantly evolving, and new perspectives are ongoing to develop.

Effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy with house dust mite extract for pediatric bronchial asthma.

Aim: We compared the effectiveness of rush subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) using standardized house dust mite (HDM) extract for pediatric bronchial asthma (BA). Methods: We followed the pediatric BA treatment score during 3 years of treatment. We assessed the median time to no longer requiring long-term control pharmacotherapy (LTCP) for BA (LTCP-free). We compared the outcomes after adjustment for confounding factors and propensity score matching. Results: Patients in the HDM SCIT group achieved the LTCP-free status significantly earlier than those in the HDM SLIT group after adjustment for confounding factors and propensity score matching. Conclusion: Patients treated for pediatric BA with rush HDM SCIT had earlier onset of therapeutic effects than those with HDM SLIT.

House dust mite SCIT reduces asthma risk and significantly improves long-term rhinitis and asthma control-A RWE study.

BACKGROUND: The German Therapy Allergen Ordinance (TAO) triggered an ongoing upheaval in the market for house dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products. Three HDM subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) products hold approval in Germany and therefore will be available after the scheduled completion of the TAO procedure in 2026. In general, data from clinical trials on the long-term effectiveness of HDM AIT are rare. We evaluated real-world data (RWD) in a retrospective, observational cohort study based on a longitudinal claims database including 60% of all German statutory healthcare prescriptions to show the long-term effectiveness of one of these products in daily life. Aim of this analysis was to provide a per product analysis on effectiveness of mite AIT as it is demanded by international guidelines on AIT. METHODS: Subjects between 5 and 70 years receiving their first (index) prescription of SCIT with a native HDM product (SCIT group) between 2009 and 2013 were included. The exactly 3:1 matched control group received prescriptions for only symptomatic AR medication (non-AIT group); the evaluation period for up to 6 years of follow-up ended in February 2017. Study endpoints were the progression of allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma, asthma occurrence and time to the onset of asthma after at least 2 treatment years. RESULTS: In total, 892 subjects (608 adults and 284 children/adolescents) were included in the SCIT group and 2676 subjects (1824 adults and 852 children/adolescents) in the non-AIT group. During the follow-up period after at least 2 years of SCIT, the number of prescriptions in the SCIT group was reduced by 62.8% (p < .0001) for AR medication and by 42.4% for asthma medication (p = .0003). New-onset asthma risk was significantly reduced in the SCIT vs non-AIT group by 27.0% (p = .0212). The asthma-preventive effect of SCIT occurred 15 months after start of the treatment. In the SCIT group, the time to onset of asthma was prolonged compared to the non-AIT group (p = .0010). CONCLUSION: In this first product based RWD analysis on SCIT with a native HDM product, patients aged 5 to 70 years benefited from AIT in the long term in terms of reduced progression of AR and asthma after at least 2 years of treatment. The effects seemed to last for up to 6 years after treatment termination. A significantly reduced risk of asthma onset was observed, starting after 15 months of treatment.

[Research progress of immune cell markers in allergic rhinitis for the evaluation of allergen immunotherapy].

Allergic rhinitis（AR） is a chronic inflammation of nasal mucosa mediated by IgE, which prevalence is increasing year by year. Allergen immunotherapy（AIT） has been proved to be effective in the treatment of AR. Patients can usually achieve satisfactory clinical remission after the standard course of treatment. At present, sIgE/tIgE is mainly used to evaluate the severity of allergy in patients with AR before immunotherapy, but there is no recognized biomarker for evaluating the efficacy of AIT. Based on the mechanism that immune cells participate in the formation of immune tolerance during AIT, this paper reviews the latest progress of immune cell markers in allergic rhinitis for the evaluation of the efficacy of AIT in recent years, in order to provide a more comprehensive evaluation basis for AR patients during immunotherapy.

Biomarkers in allergen immunotherapy: Focus on eosinophilic inflammation.

Asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) are 2 of the most common chronic inflammatory disorders and they appear to be on the rise. Current pharmacotherapy effectively controls symptoms but does not alter the underlying pathophysiology. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an evidence-based therapy for asthma and AR and has been recognized as the only therapeutic method that actually modifies the allergic disease process. There is a lack of objective markers that accurately and reliably reflect the therapeutic benefits of AIT. A biomarker indicating patients that would benefit most from AIT would be invaluable. Eosinophilic inflammation is a cardinal feature of many allergic diseases. Biomarkers that accurately reflect this inflammation are needed to better diagnose, treat, and monitor patients with allergic disorders. This review examines the current literature regarding AIT's effects on eosinophilic inflammation and biomarkers that may be used to determine the extent of these effects.

Comparison of Allergen Immunotherapy Alone and in Conjunction With Turbinate Surgery for Nasal Obstruction in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Nasal obstruction, triggered by allergic rhinitis, often does not resolve with allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) alone, thus inferior turbinate reduction surgery (ITR) may be required. This study aims to investigate the impact of combined treatment on nasal obstruction, as evidence is currently limited. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL: A retrospective cohort study of perennial allergic rhinitis patients experiencing nasal obstruction and undergoing ≥12 months AIT was conducted. Two groups were derived, those undergoing AIT-with or without an ITR. Patient reported nasal obstruction (evaluated with questionnaires) and nasal airway function (Nasal Peak Inspiratory Flow [NPIF] and Nasal Airflow Resistance [NAR]) were monitored. The change from baseline to 12 months post-treatment in each group were compared. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients (33.71 ± 14.43 years, 41.5% female) were recruited, 72% had AIT and 28% AIT&ITR. At baseline, the AIT&ITR group had a higher level of nasal obstruction (>moderate%; 63.6% vs 52.9%, P = .048). Post treatment, AIT&ITR group reported greater reduction in nasal obstruction (>1 category change: 75.8% vs 48.2%, P = .002). Similarly, the AIT&ITR group had greater improvement in nasal function by NPIF (-13.9 ± 110.3 L/minute vs -3.4 ± 78.1 L/minute, P = .049) and NAR (-0.120 ± 0.342 Pa/cm³/second vs -0.093 ± 0.224 Pa/cm³/second, P = .050). CONCLUSIONS: Allergic rhinitis patients, with moderate to severe nasal obstruction, who undergo combined AIT&ITR have greater relief of nasal obstruction and improved airflow analysis compared to AIT alone.

Immune signatures predict response to house dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Identifying predictive biomarkers for allergen immunotherapy response is crucial for enhancing clinical efficacy. This study aims to identify such biomarkers in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) undergoing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for house dust mite allergy. METHODS: The Tongji (discovery) cohort comprised 72 AR patients who completed 1-year SCIT follow-up. Circulating T and B cell subsets were characterized using multiplexed flow cytometry before SCIT. Serum immunoglobulin levels and combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) were assessed before and after 12-month SCIT. Responders, exhibiting ≥30% CSMS improvement, were identified. The random forest algorithm and logistic regression analysis were used to select biomarkers and establish predictive models for SCIT efficacy in the Tongji cohort, which was validated in another Wisco cohort with 43 AR patients. RESULTS: Positive SCIT response correlated with higher baseline CSMS, allergen-specific IgE (sIgE)/total IgE (tIgE) ratio, and frequencies of Type 2 helper T cells, Type 2 follicular helper T (TFH 2) cells, and CD23+ nonswitched memory B (BNSM ) and switched memory B (BSM ) cells, as well as lower follicular regulatory T (TFR ) cell frequency and TFR /TFH 2 cell ratio. The random forest algorithm identified sIgE/tIgE ratio, TFR /TFH 2 cell ratio, and BNSM frequency as the key biomarkers discriminating responders from nonresponders in the Tongji cohort. Logistic regression analysis confirmed the predictive value of a combination model, including sIgE/tIgE ratio, TFR /TFH 2 cell ratio, and CD23+ BSM frequency (AUC = 0.899 in Tongji; validated AUC = 0.893 in Wisco). CONCLUSIONS: A T- and B-cell signature combination efficiently identified SCIT responders before treatment, enabling personalized approaches for AR patients.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Plain Language Summary: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

The plain language summary explains allergen immunotherapy to patients, families, and caregivers. The summary is for patients aged 5 years and older who are experiencing symptoms from inhalant allergies and are considering immunotherapy as a treatment option. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for health care providers. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Updated grading system for systemic allergic reactions: Joint Statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee and Allergen Immunotherapy Committee.

There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice.

[Precision medicine in the diagnosis and treatment of asthma]. / Präzisionsmedizin in der Diagnostik und Therapie von Asthma.

Due to the availability of disease-modifying anti-asthmatic drugs (DMAADs), especially inhaled steroids (alone or in combination with long-acting bronchodilators), biologics and modern allergen immunotherapy, the treatment of asthma has fundamentally changed. The aims of modern asthma precision medicine are prevention of symptoms and the induction and maintenance of asthma remission (long-term asthma control, freedom from exacerbations and stable lung function without the use of systemic steroids). A treat to target approach is used as for other chronic inflammatory diseases in internal medicine: the aim is to achieve remission by an individually tailored treatment with DMAADs; however, the prerequisite for modern asthma precision medicine is asthma phenotyping, including a detailed medical history, lung function testing, allergological diagnostics and measurement of type 2 markers (blood eosinophils and, if available, exhaled nitric oxide, FeNO).

rBet v 1a-BanLecwt induce upregulation of IL-10 and IFN-γ gene expression in Caco-2/THP-1 co-culture and secretion of IL-10 and IFN-γ/IL-4 levels in PBMCs of birch pollen allergic donors.

Novel allergen immunotherapy (AIT) approaches necessitate the use of more effective and safe therapeutics, which can be accomplished by employing novel adjuvants for improved innate immune cell activation, as well as hypoallergenic allergen forms. In this study, we investigate the immunomodulatory effects of a chimera rBet v 1a-BanLecwt (rBv1a-BLwt; Cwt) composed of the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1a and banana lectin (BanLecwt; BLwt) and two novel chimeras, rBv1l-BLH84T (rBet v 1l-BanLecH84T; C1) and rBLH84T-Bv1l (rBanLecH84T-Bet v 1l; C2), both composed of BLH84T and hypoallergenic birch pollen allergen Bv1l in the co-culture model Caco-2/THP-1, and PBMCs from donors with birch pollen allergy. The chimeric molecules rBv1l-BLH84T (C1) and rBLH84T-Bv1l (C2) were created in silico and then produced in E. coli using recombinant DNA technology. Real-time PCR analysis of gene expression following compound treatment in the co-culture model revealed that all three chimeras have the potential to induce the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10 gene expression in Caco-2 cells and IFN-γ gene expression in THP-1 cells. Sandwich ELISA revealed that Cwt increased IL-10 secretion and IFN-/IL-4 levels in PBMCs from birch pollen allergic donors, whereas C1 and C2 were less effective. The findings suggest that Cwt should be analyzed further due to its potential benefit in AIT.

Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the landscape of biomarker in allergic rhinitis patient undergoing intracervical lymphatic immunotherapy and related pan-cancer analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the leading allergic diseases worldwide. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) induces persistent specific allergen tolerance to achieve remission of the symptoms in AR patients. We creatively conducted the intra-cervical lymphatic immunotherapy (ICLIT) for AR patients. However, the underlying molecular mechanism of immune cell response of AIT in AR remains elusive. METHOD: To investigate the transcriptome profile in AR patients who underwent ICLIT, we comprehensively investigated the transcriptional changes in B cells from peripheral blood mononuclear cells of AR patient by single-cell RNA sequencing. Immunoglobulins and relative key gene, which influences the B cell differentiation, was demonstrated. The biomarkers' association with different types of tumors was investigated. RESULTS: Naive B cells, germinal center B cells, activated memory B cells, and memory B cells constituted the B cells subsets. The expression of IGHE, IGHGs, IGHA, IGHD, and IGHM from memory B cells was validated. Pseudotime analysis further indicated the dynamic change from the expression of the immunoglobulins in the memory B cells, suggesting that ITGB1 may contribute to the differentiation procedure of memory B cells. The cell-cell communication among these immune cells demonstrated the significantly enhanced CD23, BTLA signaling after ICLIT in AR patient. ITGB1 was upregulated in 13 tumors and downregulated in six others. High ITGB1 expression was linked to poor prognosis in eight types of tumors. ITGB1 expression showed correlations with tumor mutation burden, tissue purity, and microsatellite instability in different types of tumors. DISCUSSION: ITGB1 was demonstrated as a potential biomarker for AR patients after ICLIT and is significant in identifying immune infiltration in tumor tissue and predicting tumor prognosis.

Easy assessment of the avidity of polyclonal allergen-specific serum antibodies.

INTRODUCTION: Allergen-specific IgE-blocking IgG antibodies contribute to successful allergen immunotherapy (AIT), however, not much is known about their affinity. Since affinity measurements of polyclonal antibodies in serum are technically challenging we evaluated the applicability of acidic disruption of antibody-allergen complexes by a modified ELISA protocol with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) specific for the relevant major allergens Betv1 and Mald1. Then, AIT-induced blocking and non-blocking Mald1-specific antibodies in sera from individuals with or without reduced apple allergy were compared. METHODS: After testing their pH stability coated recombinant allergens were incubated with (i) mAbs diluted in PBS or human serum and (ii) sera from individuals after sublingual administration of Mald1 or Betv1 for 16 weeks. Immune complexes were exposed to buffers in the pH range of 6.4-3.4 and residual antibodies were measured. Avidity indexes (AI), defined as the pH removing 50% of antibodies, were compared to the dissociation constants (KD) of mAbs determined by surface plasmon resonance. RESULTS: The selected pH range was applicable to disrupt allergen complexes with highly affine mAbs without compromising allergen integrity. AIs of mAbs accorded with KD values and were unaffected by epitope specificity or the presence of serum proteins. The inter-assay variability was <4% CV. Protective Mald1-specific IgG antibodies from individuals with reduced apple allergy showed a higher collective binding strength than that of the non-protective antibodies of individuals without reduced apple allergy. CONCLUSION: Acidic disruption of allergen-antibody complexes may be used to estimate the net-binding force of polyclonal serum antibodies and eases the investigation of affinity-related research questions in AIT.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma.

Remission is the goal of modern asthma treatment. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an essential component in the armamentarium of personalized asthma therapy. Subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) or sublingual AIT (SLIT) offer the possibility to prevent asthma in patients with allergic rhinitis (reduction of the risk of developing asthma) and the possibility to achieve remission in patients with allergic asthma. Accordingly, AIT should always be considered in patients with asthma and a documented, clinically relevant allergy. However, precise phenotyping of the patient is an essential prerequisite for a success of AIT in asthma.