Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 4.162
Filter
1.
Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol ; 23(2): 149-157, 2024 Apr 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38822510

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Desensitization, Immunologic , Quality of Life , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal , Humans , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/therapy , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/immunology , Adult , Male , Female , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Middle Aged , Injections, Intralymphatic , Young Adult , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Severity of Illness Index , Adolescent , Treatment Outcome , Aged , Pollen/immunology
4.
Allergy Asthma Proc ; 45(3): 195-200, 2024 May 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38755779

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Desensitization, Immunologic , Hymenoptera , Humans , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Desensitization, Immunologic/adverse effects , Animals , Adult , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Hymenoptera/immunology , Aluminum Hydroxide , Insect Bites and Stings/immunology , Insect Bites and Stings/therapy , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Hypersensitivity/therapy , Hypersensitivity/immunology , Arthropod Venoms/immunology , Aged , Bee Venoms/immunology , Bee Venoms/administration & dosage , Bee Venoms/adverse effects
5.
Pediatr Allergy Immunol ; 35(5): e14146, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38783409

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Arachis , Cooking , Desensitization, Immunologic , Peanut Hypersensitivity , Humans , Peanut Hypersensitivity/therapy , Peanut Hypersensitivity/immunology , Arachis/immunology , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Male , Child , Female , Administration, Oral , Pilot Projects , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Child, Preschool , Hot Temperature , Treatment Outcome , Adolescent , Plant Proteins/immunology , Plant Proteins/administration & dosage
6.
Med Clin North Am ; 108(4): 719-731, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38816113

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Desensitization, Immunologic , Food Hypersensitivity , Humans , Food Hypersensitivity/therapy , Food Hypersensitivity/immunology , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Administration, Oral , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Immunoglobulin E/immunology
7.
Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) ; 52(3): 65-72, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38721957

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Desensitization, Immunologic , Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial , Humans , Male , Female , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Desensitization, Immunologic/adverse effects , Adult , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Young Adult , Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial/therapy , Rhinitis, Allergic, Perennial/immunology , Adolescent , Treatment Outcome , Middle Aged , T-Lymphocyte Subsets/immunology
8.
Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) ; 52(3): 73-77, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38721958

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Anaphylaxis , Desensitization, Immunologic , Tablets , Humans , Anaphylaxis/therapy , Anaphylaxis/etiology , Anaphylaxis/immunology , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Desensitization, Immunologic/adverse effects , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Allergens/adverse effects , Child , Pollen/immunology , Pollen/adverse effects , Poaceae/immunology , Poaceae/adverse effects , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/therapy , Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal/immunology , Adult , Rhinitis, Allergic/therapy , Rhinitis, Allergic/immunology , Child, Preschool
9.
Pediatr Allergy Immunol ; 35(5): e14130, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38693814

ABSTRACT

While the early introduction of food allergens in the infant diet has been shown to be effective at preventing the development of food allergy (FA), its implementation in real life has been associated with various challenges. Interventions aimed at correcting skin barrier dysfunction have been explored in recent decades as a distinct or complementary mean to prevent allergic sensitization through the skin and subsequent development of FA. Studies assessing the application of emollient from birth have yielded conflicting results, and meta-analyses have demonstrated either no effect or only a slight positive effect on FA prevention. However, a careful review of the clinical trials reveals that different emollients were used, which may have explained some of the discrepancies between study results. Emollient application protocols also varied widely between studies. While firm conclusions cannot be drawn with regard to their overall efficacy at preventing FA, the available data provide valuable insight into the characteristics that could be associated with a more effective intervention. Namely, successful trials tended to use emollients with an acidic pH of 5.5, applied over the entire body, and combined with topical corticosteroids in affected areas. Consensus on the optimal strategy to restore skin barrier function could help improve the homogeneity and clinical relevance of future trials on this topic. In the meantime, clinicians should avoid products associated with worse outcomes.


Subject(s)
Emollients , Food Hypersensitivity , Skin , Humans , Food Hypersensitivity/prevention & control , Emollients/administration & dosage , Skin/drug effects , Skin/immunology , Infant , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Clinical Trials as Topic , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/administration & dosage , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Infant, Newborn
10.
Pediatr Allergy Immunol ; 35(4): e14127, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38646959

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Desensitization, Immunologic , Peanut Hypersensitivity , Humans , Peanut Hypersensitivity/therapy , Peanut Hypersensitivity/immunology , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Child , Child, Preschool , Adolescent , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Administration, Oral , Arachis/immunology , Probiotics/therapeutic use , Probiotics/administration & dosage
11.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract ; 12(5): 1297-1305, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38428524

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of peanut allergy is about 2% and mostly lifelong. Studies of oral immunotherapy (OIT) with peanut (the daily oral intake of an initially low and then increasing dose of peanut) often show problematic side effects, but there are indications of better safety and effect in younger children compared with older children and adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and effectiveness of peanut OIT with a slow up-dosing strategy and low maintenance dose in children aged 1 to 3 years who were allergic to peanut, through a 1-year interim analysis. METHOD: In a randomized controlled trial (2:1 ratio), 75 children, median age 31 months (interquartile range [IQR], 23-40 months) were assigned to receive peanut OIT (n = 50) or peanut avoidance (n = 25). RESULTS: In the OIT and avoidance groups, 43 of 50 and 20 of 25 children, respectively, performed the 1-year open oral peanut challenge. A cumulative dose of 750 mg peanut protein after 1 year was tolerated by 72% (36 of 50 children) in the OIT group compared with 4% (1 of 25) in the avoidance group (P < .001). Median tolerated cumulative dose was 2,750 mg (IQR, 275-5,000 mg) peanut protein in the OIT group compared with 2.8 mg (IQR, 0.3-27.8 mg) in the avoidance group (P < .001). Of the doses administered at home during the first year of OIT, 1.4% resulted in adverse events and 79% were mild, and three doses of epinephrine were given at home to two individuals. CONCLUSION: In children aged 1 to 3 years, peanut OIT with the combination of slow up-dosing and low maintenance dose seems safe and effective after 1 year.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Arachis , Desensitization, Immunologic , Peanut Hypersensitivity , Humans , Peanut Hypersensitivity/therapy , Peanut Hypersensitivity/immunology , Child, Preschool , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Desensitization, Immunologic/adverse effects , Male , Female , Administration, Oral , Infant , Arachis/immunology , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Treatment Outcome
13.
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol ; 24(3): 153-159, 2024 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38538146

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Food allergy is a growing health problem that affects both patients and society in multiple ways. Despite the emergence of novel diagnostic tools, such as component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) and basophil activation tests (BAT), oral food challenge (OFC) still plays an indispensable role in the management of food allergies. This review aimed to highlight the indications and safety concerns of conducting an OFC and to provide insights into post-OFC management based on recent findings. RECENT FINDINGS: Standardized OFC protocols have regional diversification, especially in Japan and Western countries. Recent studies suggested that the interval between doses should be at least more than an hour. Furthermore, applying a stepwise method tailored to the patient's specific immunoglobulin E level and history of anaphylaxis seems to mitigate these risks. Recent surveys have shown that, following a positive OFC, options other than strict avoidance are also selected. SUMMARY: OFC serves diverse purposes, yet the risks it carries warrant caution. The stepwise protocol appears promising for its safety. Subthreshold consumption following OFC shows potential; however, further research on its efficacy and safety is required. Management following OFC should be tailored and well discussed between clinicians and patients.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Food Hypersensitivity , Humans , Food Hypersensitivity/immunology , Food Hypersensitivity/therapy , Food Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Administration, Oral , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Anaphylaxis/immunology , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/prevention & control , Anaphylaxis/therapy , Immunoglobulin E/immunology , Immunoglobulin E/blood , Food/adverse effects
14.
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol ; 24(3): 160-165, 2024 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38538069

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past two decades, food allergy prevention strategies have shifted from 'delayed introduction' to 'no delayed introduction' to 'early introduction' of allergenic foods. This article reviews important research in this field published in the early 2020s to support future strategies for food allergy prevention. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and real-world studies have reported that early allergenic food introduction, especially peanut and egg, are effective for preventing food allergies. However, there are also reports that food-induced anaphylaxis admission rates in infants are increasing. SUMMARY: Early allergenic food introduction by itself is not sufficient to prevent the development of food allergies. Recent RCTs (SPADE study and COMEET study) have demonstrated that continued regular cow's milk consumption after early introduction is important for preventing the onset of cow's milk allergy. Furthermore, an RCT (PACI study) reported that early and aggressive anti-inflammatory topical therapy for eczema can contribute to the prevention of egg allergy by suppressing percutaneous sensitization. Food allergies may be prevented through a combination of early food introduction, regular consumption, and active eczema treatment. Further research is needed to develop well tolerated, effective, and practical strategies to prevent food allergies.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Eczema , Food Hypersensitivity , Humans , Food Hypersensitivity/prevention & control , Food Hypersensitivity/immunology , Food Hypersensitivity/therapy , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Eczema/prevention & control , Eczema/immunology , Eczema/epidemiology , Child , Animals , Infant , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Egg Hypersensitivity/immunology , Egg Hypersensitivity/therapy , Child, Preschool
15.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract ; 12(5): 1283-1296.e2, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38423293

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Because of its favorable safety, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for food allergy has been proposed as an alternative treatment for those in whom oral immunotherapy (OIT) is of higher risk-older children, adolescents, adults, and those with a history of severe reactions. Although safe, SLIT has been shown to be less effective than OIT. OBJECTIVE: To describe the safety of multifood SLIT in pediatric patients aged 4 to 18 years and the effectiveness of bypassing OIT buildup with an initial phase of SLIT. METHODS: Patients aged 4 to 18 years were offered (multi)food SLIT. Patients built up to 2 mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of 3 to 5 visits under nurse supervision. After 1 to 2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC) (cumulative dose, 300 mg protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup. RESULTS: Between summer 2020 and winter 2023, 188 patients were enrolled in SLIT (median age, 11 years). Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department, but none experienced grade 4 (severe) reaction. A subset of 20 patients had 50 low-dose OFCs to 300 mg protein and 35 (70%) OFCs were successful, thereby bypassing OIT buildup. CONCLUSIONS: In combination with very favorable safety of SLIT, with no life-threatening reactions and few reactions requiring epinephrine, we propose that an initial phase of SLIT to bypass supervised OIT buildup be considered for children in whom OIT is considered to be of higher risk.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Food Hypersensitivity , Sublingual Immunotherapy , Humans , Child , Food Hypersensitivity/therapy , Child, Preschool , Adolescent , Sublingual Immunotherapy/methods , Female , Male , Administration, Oral , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Allergens/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Administration, Sublingual , Epinephrine/therapeutic use , Epinephrine/administration & dosage
17.
Contact Dermatitis ; 90(6): 566-573, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38387040

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) for skin sensitization is used to derive safe use levels of sensitising fragrance ingredients in products. Post-marketing surveillance of the prevalence of contact allergy to these ingredients provides relevant data to help evaluate the performance of these measures. OBJECTIVES: To determine a suitable patch test concentration for five fragrance materials that had hitherto not been tested on a regular basis. These concentrations are then to be used in a surveillance study with patch testing consecutive patients over an extended monitoring period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Furaneol, CAS.3658-77-3; trans-2-hexenal, CAS.6728-26-3; 4,8-dimethyl-4,9-decadienal, CAS.71077-31-1; longifolene, CAS.475-20-7; benzaldehyde, CAS.10052-7, were patch tested with other fragrance allergens in four clinics. Patch testing was conducted in three rounds, starting with the lowest concentrations of the five ingredients. The doses were increased in the subsequent rounds if no late-appearing positive reactions and virtually no irritant reactions were reported. RESULTS: Overall, 373 patients were tested. No positive allergic reaction was reported to the five ingredients. Patch test results of other fragrance allergens are reported. CONCLUSIONS: The highest test concentrations are each considered safe for patch testing consecutive patients. Further surveillance based on these preparations will evaluate the hypothesis that QRA-driven consumer product levels of these fragrances can prevent sensitization.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Patch Tests , Perfume , Humans , Patch Tests/methods , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Perfume/adverse effects , Female , Male , Adult , Middle Aged , Allergens/adverse effects , Allergens/administration & dosage , Aged , Risk Assessment , Young Adult , Adolescent , Product Surveillance, Postmarketing
19.
Allergy ; 79(5): 1230-1241, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38403941

ABSTRACT

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 (TFH2) 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/TFH2 cell ratio. The random forest algorithm identified sIgE/tIgE ratio, TFR/TFH2 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/TFH2 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.


Subject(s)
Biomarkers , Desensitization, Immunologic , Pyroglyphidae , Rhinitis, Allergic , Humans , Rhinitis, Allergic/therapy , Rhinitis, Allergic/immunology , Male , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Animals , Female , Adult , Pyroglyphidae/immunology , Treatment Outcome , Immunoglobulin E/blood , Immunoglobulin E/immunology , Middle Aged , Young Adult , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Antigens, Dermatophagoides/immunology , Injections, Subcutaneous , Adolescent , Prognosis
20.
Expert Rev Clin Immunol ; 20(6): 623-633, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38323337

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: DBV712 250 µg (also referred to as Viaskin Peanut or peanut patch; Viaskin is a trademark of DBV Technologies) is an innovative approach to epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT). The patch-based technology system facilitates peanut protein (allergen) absorption into the intact non-vascularized epidermis to promote desensitization to peanut while limiting systemic allergen exposure. AREAS COVERED: Efficacy and safety in children have been evaluated in four completed phase 3 studies. Overall, the results from these studies have demonstrated the peanut patch to be superior in desensitization compared with placebo and safe for daily use over multiple years. EXPERT OPINION: These findings, as well as supportive evidence from phase 2 studies, confirm the potential for an effective treatment of peanut allergy in children. The purpose of this review is to summarize the safety and efficacy of the peanut patch in the treatment of peanut allergy.


Subject(s)
Allergens , Arachis , Desensitization, Immunologic , Peanut Hypersensitivity , Peanut Hypersensitivity/therapy , Peanut Hypersensitivity/immunology , Humans , Desensitization, Immunologic/methods , Desensitization, Immunologic/adverse effects , Arachis/immunology , Allergens/immunology , Allergens/administration & dosage , Child , Administration, Cutaneous , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...