Letter to the Editor Regarding Eosinophilic Otitis Media.

We commend Varghese et al. for "mandating a different outlook" in their recent article on eosinophilic otitis media (EOM). Their statements are supported by medical literature dating back to 1931, reported by Proetz, Shambaugh, Zhang, Draper, Doyle, Pelikan, Ojala, McMahan, Tomonaga, Nsouli, Lasisi, Nguyen, Tian, Sobol, Smirnova, Shim, Smirnova, Luong, and ourselves. Allergy causes EOM and it responds to immunotherapy.

Increased Sensitization to Mold Allergens Measured by Intradermal Skin Testing following Hurricanes.

Objective. To report on changes in sensitivity to mold allergens determined by changes in intradermal skin testing reactivity, after exposure to two severe hurricanes. Methods. A random, retrospective allergy charts review divided into 2 groups of 100 patients each: Group A, patients tested between 2003 and 2010 prior to hurricanes, and Group B, patients tested in 2014 and 2015 following hurricanes. Reactivity to eighteen molds was determined by intradermal skin testing. Test results, age, and respiratory symptoms were recorded. Chi-square test determined reactivity/sensitivity differences between groups. Results. Posthurricane patients had 34.6 times more positive results (p < 0.0001) at weaker dilutions, all tested molds were found to be more reactive, and 95% had at least one positive test versus only 62% before the hurricanes (p < 0.0001); average mold reactivity was 55% versus 16% while 17% of patients reacted to the entire panel versus none before the hurricanes (p < 0.0001). The posthurricane population was younger (p < 0.001) and included more patients with asthma or lower respiratory symptoms (p < 0.05). Conclusion. Reactivity and sensitization to mold allergens increased compared to patients before the hurricanes. This supports climatologists' hypothesis that environmental changes resulting from hurricanes can be a health risk as reflected in increased allergic sensitivities and symptoms and has significant implications for physicians treating patients from affected areas.

Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Useful Tool for the Allergist in Private Practice.

This is a review of the author's experience with Sublingual Immunotherapy in a private office setting. Sublingual Immunotherapy should be considered by any allergy practitioner as a useful tool. Sublingual Immunotherapy is safe while at the same time it is effective. It enables the practitioner to treat asthmatics and young children without the concerns implicit with allergy injections.

Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy versus subcutaneous injection immunotherapy in allergic patients.

While it is generally accepted that Subcutaneous Injection Immunotherapy (SCIT) and Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) are both efficacious, there is not yet a significant amount of information regarding their comparative efficacy. In this paper, we performed a retrospective chart review and compared treatment results in two groups of patients (both with nasal allergies with or without asthma) that were treated either with SCIT or SLIT. Both treatment modalities were found to be of similar efficacy.

Changes in Peak Flow value during immunotherapy administration.

Nasal allergies are prevalent affecting a large percentage of the population. Not only the upper respiratory tract but the whole body is involved. Allergies produce morbidity (and even occasional mortality) as they can lead to asthma development, and increased number of accidents. Immunotherapy results can be evaluated by following symptom scores, medication use, and objective measurements. Using a Peak Flow Meter (PFM) to evaluate immunotherapy results, it became evident that patients with and without asthma exhibited an improvement in the Peak Flow (PF) value, suggesting that lower airway involvement in allergic patients could be more prevalent than assumed. A consecutive chart review was performed including patients of any age with nasal allergies (with or without asthma) treated with immunotherapy for at least 6 months that had at least 2 complete evaluations. When immunotherapy was successful, most patients exhibited an increase in the PF value regardless of asthma status. A very significant finding was that most allergy sufferers may have lower airway inflammation. The use of the PF value to assess immunotherapy results and the potential failure to diagnose asthma in allergy sufferers are discussed. A better diagnosis of lower airway inflammation could be substantial in the management of these patients.

Sublingual immunotherapy: a novel, albeit not so new, immunotherapy treatment modality.

BACKGROUND: Specific allergy immunotherapy traditionally has been thought of as subcutaneous injection immunotherapy (SCIT). There also are noninjection routes for the administration of immunotherapy. The best-known and studied of these noninjection routes is the sublingual route, usually known as sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). SLIT has been in use for many decades; however, to this date, it is not well known to the majority of allergy practitioners in this country. The purpose of this study is to help change this perception so that SLIT eventually can be considered one more tool in the allergist's armamentarium. METHODS: A literature review was performed. It included articles from the early American clinicians and present publications that are mostly of European origin. RESULTS: It will become clear to the reader that the key features of SLIT are its efficacy, great safety, and simplicity of administration. CONCLUSION: SLIT is a safe treatment modality that should be considered as a useful additional tool in the therapeutic armamentarium.

Efficacy comparison of multiple-antigen subcutaneous injection immunotherapy and multiple-antigen sublingual immunotherapy.

We performed an observational study to determine whether allergen-specific sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as effective as allergen-specific subcutaneous injection immunotherapy (SCIT). Our study population was comprised of 66 patients who had been taking SLIT. Of this group, 36 patients had switched to SLIT after having been treated with SCIT (group I), while the remaining 30 patients had received SLIT only (group II). A questionnaire was used to evaluate the results of treatment. In group I, 33 patients (92%) gave SLIT a favorable rating; 27 of these patients (75%) said it was just as effective as SCIT and 6 (17%) said it was actually superior(the remaining 3 patients [8%] said that SCIT was better). In group II, 27 of 30 patients (90%) said they had attained symptom relief with SLIT; 21 (70%) said that the relief had been very significant. Overall, 60 of the 66 patients (91%) expressed various degrees of satisfaction with SLIT We believe that our SLIT protocol, which is based on established guidelines for SCIT administration, is an effective, safe, well-tolerated, and easy-to-use regimen. Future prospective studies of larger groups are clearly indicated.