Effects of a low-molecular-weight CCR-3 antagonist on chronic experimental asthma.

Eosinophils represent one of the main effector cell populations of allergic airway inflammation and allergic bronchial asthma. Their infiltration correlates with many characteristics of the disease, including airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and increased mucus production. CCR-3 is the principle chemokine receptor involved in eosinophil attraction into inflamed tissue. Therefore, antagonizing CCR-3 could be a novel promising approach toward asthma therapy. We investigated the effect of a low-molecular-weight CCR-3 antagonist on established airway inflammation in a chronic model of experimental bronchial asthma. For this purpose, BALB/c mice intraperitoneally sensitized with ovalbumin (OVA) were chronically challenged with OVA aerosol to induce chronic airway inflammation and airway remodeling. The effect of antagonizing CCR-3 on asthma pathology was examined in BAL and lung histology. Airway reactivity was assessed by head-out body plethysmography. Treatment with the CCR-3 antagonist resulted in a marked reduction of eosinophils in the bronchoalveolar lumen and in airway wall tissue, whereas infiltration of lymphocytes or macrophages remained unchanged. The reduction in eosinophil infiltration was accompanied by normalization of AHR and prevention of goblet cell hyperplasia, indicating reduced mucus production. Furthermore, antagonizing CCR-3 prevented airway remodeling as defined by subepithelial fibrosis and increased accumulation of myofibrocytes in the airway wall of chronically challenged mice. These data demonstrate that antagonism of CCR3 reduces eosinophil numbers, which is accompanied by diminution of asthma pathology in a mouse model of established chronic experimental asthma. Therefore, antagonizing CCR-3 represents a new approach toward a promising asthma therapy.

Sublingual immunotherapy of allergic diseases.

The only disease-modifying treatment that is available for allergic patients is allergen-specific immunotherapy. Two competing application forms are used: subcutaneous immunotherapy, which has been used for > 90 years, and a relatively new immunotherapy where the allergen is applied sublingually. Numerous studies have shown efficacy for subcutaneous immunotherapy and have identified possible mechanisms that are responsible for the observed reduction in allergic responses. In contrast, the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy has not been documented to the same degree and the responsible immunological mechanisms have not yet been clearly defined. This review focuses on the published clinical and experimental data on sublingual immunotherapy and points at possible mechanisms of how sublingual immunotherapy may differ from subcutaneous immunotherapy in its mode of action, and also discusses the potential advantages and pit falls of both therapies.