Long-term benefit after allergen immunotherapy to HDM in elderly patients with allergic rhinitis.

Introduction: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective therapy for allergic rhinitis and may have long-term benefits. However, these benefits have not been strictly defined for older people. Aim: The evaluation of the effectiveness of AIT in patients over 60 with allergic rhinitis and house dust mites (HDM) allergy over a period of 7 years was performed. Material and methods: Patients after three years of HDM-AIT were observed to assess the sustained clinical effect of treatment. The average adjusted symptom score (AAdSS) and sIgG4 were monitored for 7 years after sublingual (SLIT) and injection AIT (SCIT). Results: After 3 years of HDM-AIT, a significant clinical effect was observed in the group after SLIT and SCIT based on AAdSS compared to the baseline and the placebo group (p < 0.05). After 7 years of follow-up, there was a sustained trend of decrease in clinical symptoms in desensitized patients relative to placebo. Serum sIgG4 was constantly present in all desensitized patients. Conclusions: AIT may be beneficial for treating seniors with allergic rhinitis and allergies to house dust mites.

Molecular profiling of allergen-antibody IgE might decide about the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy in a patient with atopic dermatitis and allergy to house dust mites.

Introduction: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has no clear recommendation for atopic dermatitis (AD). Aim: To evaluate the effect of AIT on house dust mites (HDM) in AD patients sensitised to HDM with different baseline molecular profiles of antigens. Material and methods: In this placebo-controlled study, 61 patients with moderate-to-severe AD allergy symptoms and HDM allergy were included. They received a 12 months' AIT with the use of HDM allergen extract or placebo. The authors adopted their AD improvement criterion after 1 year of AIT as a reduction of all examined indicators by at least 50% from the baseline for %BSA, TMS, and EASI scores. Additionally, the influence of individual HDM molecules on the final AIT effect was analysed. Results: Finally, from the 24 desensitised patients, 15 achieved a positive expected effect after 12 months of HDM AIT. None of the patients who received a placebo had an improvement in AD of at least 50% after 1 year of follow-up. Patients with polysensitisation less frequently achieved the expected HDM AIT effect than patients monosensitised to mites (p < 0.05). The presence of sensitisation to rDer p 1 (odds ratio = 4.35, 95% CI: 4.01-4.56) and/or rDer p 2 (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.98-2.33) and/or rDer f 2 (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.55-1.78) molecules significantly increased the efficacy of AIT. HDM AIT could be helpful for patients with moderate-to-severe AD and sensitised to HDM as an add-on therapy. Various HDM molecules may affect the effectiveness of the expected AIT effect. The presence of sensitisation to rDer p 1 (OR = 4.35, 95% CI: 4.01-4.56) and/or rDer p 2 (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.98-2.33) and/or rDer f 2 (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.55-1.78) molecules significantly increased the efficacy of AIT. Conclusions: HDM AIT could be helpful for patients with moderate-to-severe AD and sensitised to HDM as an add-on therapy. Various HDM molecules may affect the effectiveness of the expected AIT.

Adding a biologic to allergen immunotherapy increases treatment efficacy.

Background: The application of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in combination with biological agents has been found to increase both the safety and efficacy of the desensitisation procedure in patients with food and insect venom allergy. The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of AIT in patients with house dust mite (HDM)-driven asthma treated with and without omalizumab. Materials and methods: The study was a placebo-controlled, three-armed, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre trial that included 52 patients with HDM-driven asthma. Only patients with monosensitisation to HDM were included. The study compared three patterns of therapy: omalizumab alone, HDM subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT-HDM)+ omalizumab, and SCIT alone. The main outcomes were evaluate the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score, number of asthma exacerbations and reduction in the daily dose of inhaled steroids during 12 months of observation. Results: All variants of therapy led to significantly improved ACQ scores and reduction of asthma exacerbations in all study groups after 12 months of treatment. A statistically significant reduction in the daily doses of inhaled corticosteroids in the group with omalizumab alone (650±150 µg versus 500±50 µg for p=0.003) or SCIT-HDM+omalizumab (550±250 µg versus 375±75 µg for p=0.001) was observed, favouring the latter group. Conclusion: The efficacy of AIT for HDM-driven asthma is significantly increased by the combination of allergen vaccine with omalizumab.

Monitoring of molecular profiling of allergen-antibody responses in HDM-immunotherapy patients.

Among the potential hazards of HDM immunotherapy (AIT) with HDM allergenic extracts is the possible initiation of de novosensitizations caused by a lack of complementarity between a given HDM vaccine's content and a patient's molecular sensitization profile. To investigate whether immunotherapy with HDM extracts affects changes in the profile of sensitizations to allergens contained in the extract and whether neosensitizations occur. Serum samples from patients with HDM allergies (N=63) who received 1 year of treatment with subcutaneous AIT were tested for allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) reactivity to 7 microarrayed HDM allergen molecules (Der p 1, 2,10,11,23; D far 1 and 2) with ImmunoCAP. The HDM non-AIT patients (N=22) who did not receive immunotherapy constituted the study's control group. The obtained data were analysed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. In the HDM-AIT group, no neosensitizations after 6 and 12 months of immunotherapy were reported. Conversely, in the HDM non-AIT group, only neosensitizations to Der p 10 were observed. In the study group, sIgE levels against the HDM extract of D. pteronyssinus, D. farinae, rDer p 1, rDer p 2 and Der f 2 decreased after 12 months of AIT (p< .05). SIgE levels against Der f 1, Der p 10, 11 and 23 remained unchanged in the course of 12 months of immunotherapy. In patients with allergic rhinitis with or without concomitant HDM-induced asthma treated with HDM AIT for 12 months, no neosensitizations related to the examined HDM molecules were observed.

The Effectiveness of Allergen Immunotherapy in Adult Patients with Atopic Dermatitis Allergic to House Dust Mites.

Background and objectives: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is not a first-line therapy in atopic dermatitis (AD) and its effectiveness has been criticised. Objectives: The efficacy and safety of AIT in adult patients with AD and monosensitisation to house dust mites (HDMs) were investigated. Materials and Methods: A total of 37 patients were included in this double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients were eligible if they were diagnosed with AD; had moderate-to-severe AD according to the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) with at least 7.1 points, the % BSA (body surface area) scale with at least 16 points, and the IsGA (investigator global assessment) scale with 3 points; had positive skin prick tests (SPTs); and were positive for the specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) response to D. pteronyssinus and D. farinae extracts, as well as Der p 1 and Der f1. The patients received Purethal mites (20,000 AUeq/mL, HAL Allergy, Leiden, The Netherlands) with the extract allergens D. pteronyssinus and D. farinae (50/50%) or a placebo for 12 months. The primary outcomes included changes in EASI, % BSA, and IsGA due to SCIT between the start and after 12 months of therapy. Results: In the study group, significant improvement was observed in terms of the EASI score from 43 ± 8.2 to 21 ± 5.9 points, % BSA from 72 ± 18 to 28 ± 11 points, and IsGA from 4.5 ± 0.5 to 1.5 ± 0.5 points in comparison with the placebo after 1 year of AIT. Additionally, the proportion of patients who achieved success in the IsGA (IsGA < 2) was significantly better in comparison to the placebo with 13/20 (65%) vs. 4/14 (29%), respectively (p < 0.05). Conclusions: HDM-AIT effectively improved atopic dermatitis in patients that strictly qualified for desensitisation with a confirmed monovalent mite allergy.