Fluctuation of Disease Severity and Quality of Life Applying Intralymphatic Immunotherapy for Patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated allergic disorders. Intra lymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is an efficacious and time-saving alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). This study aimed to evaluate the effects and safety of ILIT in patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis.  In this clinical trial, patients between 18 and 65 years old with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis were enrolled. They received monthly intra-lymphatic inguinal injections of an active allergen (1000 SQ-U Salsola kali pollen). Their clinical symptoms were assessed before and four weeks after treatments. The clinical signs were also evaluated during two consecutive pollination seasons and the following non-pollination season in April. No moderate or severe reactions were recorded following ILIT treatment. Lymph node enlargement, angioedema/urticaria, and local itching were seen instantly after injection. Patients who received ILIT experienced a significant clinical improvement in self-recorded seasonal allergic symptoms after the treatments, compared to themselves before ILIT. Furthermore, their quality of life significantly improved. This study suggests ILIT with Salsola-pollen extract may decrease symptoms of allergic rhinitis. It was safe and did not cause any crucial complications.

A modified schedule of multiple aeroallergen ultra-rush immunotherapy in perennial allergic rhinitis: safety, efficacy, and T lymphocyte cell population studies.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed whether a modified immunotherapy schedule for allergic rhinitis could be safe and efficient. Ultra-rush immunotherapy (URIT) rapidly desensitizes patients to aeroallergens. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a modified URIT protocol in 3 days to achieve the target dose while observing whether it could improve this situation and decrease the time to achieve the maintenance dose. METHODS: The URIT was exercised in 21 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis. Premeditations were given to the patients 3 days prior to the immunotherapy and during the 3 days injections immunotherapy: pred nisolone, ranitidine, and Airokast/montelukast. Finally, the T cell population frequencies of patients prior to and after immunotherapy, including T helper 1, T helper 2, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and regulatory T cells, were studied using flow cytometry. During the URIT protocol, 21 patients received 291 injections. RESULT: Six patients (28.6%) showed systemic reactions in our study. All systemic reactions occurred on the third day by the 1:1 dilution of the maintenance dose. These systemic reactions occurred in three patients after 13 injections, and the three remaining patients showed systemic reactions following the last injection. No systemic reaction was observed on the first and second day of the therapy, and the risk of systemic reaction with every injection was about 2%. Among the T cell populations, CD3+ and CD8+ cells decreased significantly. CONCLUSION: The findings emphasized that URIT, alongside premedication with a high dose of antihistamine, helped to achieve the maintenance dose and control clinical manifestations.

Tablet allergen immunotherapy: the anaphylaxis issue.

For the first time 15 years ago, tablet allergen immunotherapy (T-AIT) formulations were approved by regulatory agencies for treating allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen in adults and children aged >5 years. Extensive evidences existed about effectiveness and safety of AIT. However, the safety profile is particularly compelling in children. Generally, T-AIT causes local reactions, mostly in the oral cavity, that are usually mild-to-moderate and often self-resolving. However, systemic allergic reactions are also observed with T-AIT, anaphylaxis representing the most fearsome adverse event, considering that it occurs in subjects treated for allergic rhinitis. Therefore, we conducted a literature search of patients reporting anaphylaxis because of T-AIT. Nine cases of anaphylactic reactions were reported in literature. Notably, no death was reported using T-AIT. This outcome was very important as it underscored the substantial safety of T-AIT. However, T-AIT deserves careful attention, mainly in the pediatric population. In this regard, after the first report of anaphylactic reaction at the first administration of T-AIT, manufacturers recommended that the first dose should be administered in a medical facility in the presence of staff with experience in managing anaphylaxis and the patient should be observed for at least 30 min. Interestingly, reported anaphylactic reactions were due to grass pollen extracts, with no report concerning other allergen extracts. However, it is relevant to note that anaphylactic reactions because of T-AIT are not reported in recent years.

Current options in the management of tree nut allergy: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Tree nut allergy is a lifelong and potentially life-threatening condition. The standard of care is strictly avoiding the culprit nut and treating accidental reactions symptomatically. To evaluate potential therapeutic options for desensitizing patients with IgE-mediated tree nut allergy, we systematically searched three bibliographic databases for studies published until January 2024. We looked for active treatments of IgE-mediated allergy to tree nuts (walnut, hazelnut, pistachio, cashew, almond, pecan, macadamia nut, and brazil nut). We focused on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) using oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), epicutaneous (EPIT), or subcutaneous (SCIT) delivery, or other disease-modifying treatments. We found 19 studies that met our criteria: 3 studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, 5 studied oral immunotherapy to a single tree nut, and 6 used multi-food oral immunotherapy with or without omalizumab. The remaining studies investigated the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies or IgE-immunoadsorption in multi-food allergic patients, including patients with tree nut allergy. The heterogeneity of the studies prevented pooling and meta-analysis. Oral immunotherapy, single or multi-nut, with or without omalizumab, was the most studied approach and appears effective in conferring protection from accidental exposures. Omalizumab monotherapy is the only approved alternative management for reducing allergic reactions that may occur with accidental exposure.

[Recent advances in the practical management of allergic rhinitis.] / Recenti progressi nella gestione pratica della rinite allergica.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a widespread disease, and its prevalence is still growing. AR may be associated with other diseases, including conjunctivitis, rhinosinusitis, asthma, food allergy, and atopic dermatitis. Diagnosis is based on history, physical examination, documentation of sensitization, such as the production of allergen-specific IgE, also using molecular diagnostics in selected patients. Treatments is based on education, engagement, allergen avoidance, non-pharmacological and pharmacological remedies, and allergen-specific immunotherapy (Ait). Symptomatic treatments mainly concern intranasal/oral antihistamines and/or nasal corticosteroids. This article also aims to discuss new management strategies for AR patients. The self-management of allergic rhinitis could include new strategies. In this regard, particular interest should be considered to intranasal corticosteroids and antihistamines without medical prescription, probiotics and other natural substances, and new formulations (tablets) of Ait.

Peanut oral immunotherapy using an extensively heated and baked novel composition of peanuts.

BACKGROUND: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an increasingly acceptable therapeutic option for peanut-allergic (PA) children, despite significant side effects. Major peanut allergenic proteins are heat-resistant and are not rendered hypoallergenic after baking or cooking. Lyophilized peanut protein-MH (LPP-MH) is a novel composition from developing peanuts, enabling cooking-induced reduction in allergenicity. We aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of OIT, with extensively heated and baked (EHEB) LPP-MH in PA children. METHODS: In a single-arm, single-center, pilot study, PA children with a single highest tolerated dose of <100 mg peanut protein were placed on a 40-week OIT protocol with 300 mg daily of heat-treated LPP-MH. A repeat open peanut food challenge was performed after 40 weeks of treatment and at a 6-12 months of follow-up visit. RESULTS: Thirty-three children with PA were enrolled, with a mean cumulative tolerated dose (MCTD) of 71.2 mg PP (95% CI 45-100 mg). After 40 weeks, 32/33 patients were able to consume more than 300 mg of natural PP, with MCTD of 1709 mg (CI 365-3675 mg). There were no severe allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, during any of the observed LPP-MH challenges or any treatment related doses at home. After 6-12 months on daily maintenance, the MCTD was 8821 mg (95% CI 1930-13,500 mg). This enabled most children age-appropriate dietary inclusion of peanuts. CONCLUSION: An OIT protocol with heat-treated LPP-MH, a novel composition from developing peanuts, seems a potentially safe and efficacious OIT modality for PA children, enabling the introduction of dietary levels of peanut proteins in highly allergic PA children. Validation in randomized controlled studies is mandated.

Successful rapid liposomal amphotericin B desensitization in pediatric case series.

Background: Liposomal amphotericin B (LAMB) is a crucial agent in the treatment of invasive fungal diseases caused by a wide variety of yeasts and molds. In the presence of an infection caused by a fungal agent resistant to alternative antifungal drugs, desensitization may be the only option to continue treatment. However, there is insufficient information and consensus with regard to amphotericin B desensitization protocols in the pediatric age group. Objective: We present our experience with five cases of patients in whom successful desensitization protocols were applied with LAMB, along with a review of the literature on pediatric cases. We also provide a sample desensitization protocol that we successfully applied. Methods: Pediatric patients who continued their treatment with the successful rapid desensitization protocol conducted at the Paediatric Allergy and Immunology Clinic of the Ministry of Health Ankara City Hospital between September 2019 and September 2023 were examined. Desensitization protocols were applied based on Castells' desensitization protocol. Results: Five patients ages between 5 and 12 years were referred to us due to the development of anaphylaxis during their treatment with LAMB. Anaphylaxis is diagnosed clinically, according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology guidelines: anaphylaxis (2021 update). A 16-step desensitization protocol was prepared by using LAMB solutions at four different dilutions (0.001, 0.01, 0.1, and 1 mg/mL). Each solution consisted of four steps, with a 15-minute infusion for each step. The patients were premedicated with 1 mg/kg/dose methylprednisolone and an antihistamine. Conclusion: The data we present on the successful application of a sample protocol to five cases, particularly in a pediatric setting, are noteworthy valuable contributions to the field, which demonstrates the feasibility and success of rapid desensitization with LAMB in pediatric patients. This can provide important insights and potentially serve as a reference for medical professionals working with similar cases in the future.

Food Allergy.

Food allergy is a growing health problem affecting both pediatric and adult patients. Food allergies are often immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated but other food-induced non-IgE-mediated diseases exist. Diagnosis of food allergy relies on the combination of clinical and reaction history, skin and IgE testing as well as oral food challenges. Although oral immunotherapy has been able to achieve sustained unresponsiveness in some patients, no cure for food allergies has been found to date. Avoidance of the inciting food as well as availability of epinephrine autoinjectors remains the mainstay of treatment.

Venom Hypersensitivity.

Stinging insects are a frequent cause of local and systemic hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. For those with a history of life-threatening anaphylaxis, venom immunotherapy is effective, safe, and can be life-saving. Arachnids are a much less common source of envenomation through bites or stings and are less likely to cause a hypersensitivity reaction. However, recognizing the clinical manifestations when they do present is important for accurate diagnosis and treatment, and, when indicated, consideration of other diagnoses.

Oral Immunotherapy: An Overview.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is an alternative treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy that has been shown to increase tolerance threshold to many of the top food allergens, although this effect may be dependent on age, dose, frequency, and duration. OIT has been shown to be effective and safe in infants, and early initiation can improve rates of desensitization even for those foods whose natural history favors loss of allergy. Studies looking at protocol modification to improve OIT success are ongoing as is the evaluation of clinical tools to help monitor OIT effects.

Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: Safety and efficacy of an accelerated induction regimen with depot aluminum adsorbed extracts.

Introduction: Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only therapy that protects patients with Hymenoptera venom allergy by preventing systemic reactions after a new sting. Various extracts for VIT are available and used. VIT administration consists of an induction phase and a maintenance phase. Depot preparations of Hymenoptera VIT extracts are typically used for cluster and conventional protocols, and the maintenance phase. Many patients with Hymenoptera allergy need to achieve tolerance quickly because of the high risk of re-sting and possible anaphylaxis. Objective: Our study aimed to show the safety and efficacy of an accelerated regimen with depot preparations on aluminum hydroxide by using relatively high starting doses in a heterogeneous group of patients. Methods: The research focused on a group of patients with a history of severe systemic reactions to Hymenoptera stings, with the necessity of swift immunization due to high occupational risks. Aluminum hydroxide depot extracts either of Vepula species or Apis mellifera extracts were used. Results: The induction protocol was started with the highest concentration of depot venom extract of 100,000 standard quality unit and was well tolerated by 19 of 20 patients. Onne patient presented with a mild systemic reaction during the accelerated induction schedule, which was promptly treated with intravenous steroids and intramuscular H1 antihistamine; when switched to a conventional induction protocol, he had a similar reaction but finally reached maintenance with an H1-antagonist premedication. Conclusion: If validated, the accelerated induction protocol by using depot aluminum adsorbed extracts with the highest concentration of venom from the beginning could offer a streamlined and accessible treatment modality for patients diagnosed with anaphylaxis from bee and wasp venoms in need of rapid desensitization.

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.

[Feeling analysis on allergen immunotherapy on Twitter using an unsupervised machine learning model]. / Análisis de sentimientos acerca de la inmunoterapia con alérgenos en Twitter mediante un modelo de aprendizaje automático no supervisado.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze feelings about allergen-specific immunotherapy on Twitter using the VADER model VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary and sEntiment Reasoner) model. METHODS: tweets related to specific allergen immunotherapy were obtained through the Twitter Application Programming Interface (API). The keywords "allergy shot" were used between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022. The data was processed by removing URLs, usernames, hashtags, multiple spaces, and duplicate tweets. Subsequently, a sentiment analysis was performed using the VADER model. RESULTS: A total of 34,711 tweets were retrieved, of which 1928 were eliminated. Of the remaining 32,783 tweets, 32.41% expressed a negative sentiment, 31.11% expressed a neutral sentiment, and 36.47% expressed a positive sentiment, with an average polarity of 0.02751 (neutral) over the 11-year period. CONCLUSIONS: The average polarity of tweets about allergen-specific immunotherapy is neutral over the 11 years analyzed. There was an annual increase in the average polarity over the years, with 2017, 2018, and 2022 having positive polarity averages. Additionally, the number of tweets decreased over time.

OBJETIVO: Analizar los sentimientos acerca de la inmunoterapia alérgeno-específica en Twitter mediante el modelo VADER (Valence Aware Dictionary and sEntiment Reasoner). MÉTODOS: Se utilizaron tweets relacionados con la inmunoterapia alérgeno-específica obtenidos a través del API (Application Programming Interface) de Twitter. Se incorporaron las palabras clave "allergy shot" en el período comprendido entre el 1 de enero de 2012 y el 31 de diciembre de 2022. Los datos obtenidos fueron procesados, eliminando las URL, nombres de usuarios, hashtags, espacios múltiples y tweets duplicados. Posteriormente, se realizó un análisis de sentimientos utilizando el modelo VADER. RESULTADOS: Se recolectaron 34,711 tweets, de los que se eliminaron 1928. De los 32,783 tweets restantes, se encontró que el 32.41% de los usuarios expresó un sentimiento negativo, el 31.11% un sentimiento neutral y el 36.47% un sentimiento positivo, con una media de polaridad de 0.02751 (neutral) a lo largo de los 11 años. CONCLUSIONES: La polaridad media de los tweets acerca de la inmunoterapia alérgeno-específica es neutral a lo largo de los 11 años analizados. Existe un aumento anual en la polaridad media positiva a lo largo de los años, sobre todo entre 2017, 2018 y 2022. La cantidad de tweets disminuyó con el tiempo.

[Frequency of sensitization to shrimp with house dust mite immunotherapy with polymerized extracts]. / Frecuencia de sensibilización a camarón con inmunoterapia a ácaros con extractos polimerizados.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of IgE sensitization and symptoms to shrimp in a population that has received AIT with polymerized mite extract. METHODS: Patients with allergic rhinitis sensitized to dust mites (Dermatophogides spp) with an indication for mite AIT were included. Those patients who had not yet received AIT or had received less than 6 doses were included as controls and those who had received more than 24 doses of AIT were included as cases. Sensitization to shrimp was assessed by skin prick test with complete shrimp extract and/or shrimp-specific IgE. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients were included; 47 cases and 21 controls. When calculating the odds ratio of sensitization according to time with immunotherapy we observed that there were no differences between the group of cases and controls (OR 0.76 95% CI 0.26 to 2.22 p 0.7 by MacNemar technique). Factors such as consumption or not of shrimp and frequency of consumption do not seem to be related to the outcome. CONCLUSION: In contrast to what was reported with aqueous extracts, we observed that AIT with polymerized extracts is not a risk factor for shrimp sensitization. It is necessary to reproduce these results with a larger sample size to explore other factors.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar el riesgo de sensibilización IgE y síntomas a camarón en una población que ha recibido AIT con extracto polimerizado para ácaros. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron pacientes con rinitis alérgica sensibilizados a ácaros del polvo (Dermatophogides spp) con indicación de AIT para ácaros. Aquellos pacientes que no habían aún recibido AIT o llevaban menos de seis dosis, fueron incluidos como controles, y aquellos que llevaban más de 24 dosis de AIT, fueron incluidos como casos. Se evaluó la sensibilización a camarón mediante prueba cutánea con extracto completo de camarón y/o IgE específica a camarón. RESULTADOS: En total, 68 pacientes fueron incluidos; 47 casos y 21 controles. Al calcular el odds ratio de la sensibilización de acuerdo al tiempo con la inmunoterapia, observamos que no había diferencias entre el grupo de casos y controles (OR 0,76 95% IC 0,26 a 2,22 p 0,7 por técnica de MacNemar). Factores como el consumo o no de camarón y la frecuencia de consumo, no parecen estar relacionados con el desenlace. CONCLUSIÓN: A diferencia de lo reportado con extractos acuosos, observamos de AIT con extractos polimerizados para no es un factor de riesgo para la sensibilización a camarón. Es necesario reproducir estos resultados con un mayor tamaño de muestra que permita explorar otros factores.

Aspirin hypersensitivity: a practical guide for cardiologists.

Aspirin has been known for a long time and currently stays as a cornerstone of antithrombotic therapy in cardiovascular disease. In patients with either acute or chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention aspirin is mandatory in a dual antiplatelet therapy regimen for prevention of stent thrombosis and/or new ischaemic events. Aspirin is also currently a first-option antithrombotic therapy after an aortic prosthetic valve replacement and is occasionally required in addition to oral anticoagulants after implantation of a mechanical valve. Presumed or demonstrated aspirin hypersensitivity is a main clinical problem, limiting the use of a life-saving medication. In the general population, aspirin hypersensitivity has a prevalence of 0.6%-2.5% and has a plethora of clinical presentations, ranging from aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease to anaphylaxis. Although infrequent, when encountered in clinical practice aspirin hypersensitivity poses for cardiologists a clinical dilemma, which should never be trivialized, avoiding-as much as possible-omission of the drug. We here review the epidemiology of aspirin hypersensitivity, provide an outline of pathophysiological mechanisms and clinical presentations, and review management options, starting from a characterization of true aspirin allergy-in contrast to intolerance-to suggestion of desensitization protocols.

Evaluation and Modification of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Peanut Allergy Management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Based on shared decision-making (SDM) principles, a decision aid was previously developed to help patients, their caregivers, and physicians decide which peanut allergy management approach best suits them. This study refined the decision aid's content to better reflect patients' and caregivers' lived experience. RECENT FINDINGS: Current standard of care for peanut allergy is avoidance, although peanut oral immunotherapy has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients 4-17 years old. An advisory board of allergy therapy experts (n = 3) and patient advocates (n = 3) informed modifications to the decision aid. The revised tool underwent cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) among adolescents (12-17 years old) with peanut allergy and caregivers of patients 4-17 years old with peanut allergy to evaluate its relevance, understandability, and usefulness. The 20 CDI participants understood the information presented in the SDM tool and reported it was important and relevant. Some revisions were made based on participant feedback. Results support content validity of the Peanut Allergy Treatment SDM Tool.

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.