Fire ant Immunotherapy with inteRvals Extended to 12 weekS: The FIRES study.

BACKGROUND: There are no studies describing 12-week extended maintenance interval (EMI) immunotherapy (IT) efficacy in preventing anaphylaxis to imported fire ant (IFA) stings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of 12-week maintenance intervals in patients treated with IFA IT. METHODS: After a minimum of 3 months of conventional maintenance interval IT and verification of baseline efficacy, adults with IFA hypersensitivity were prospectively enrolled and extended their maintenance doses to 6-, 8-, and 12-week intervals. Efficacy was confirmed by means of an annual IFA sting challenge. RESULTS: A total of 25 patients initiated EMI. The severity of their initial systemic reactions was mild in 8 patients (32%), moderate in 10 patients (40%), and severe in 7 patients (28%). Maintenance IT duration at trial entry was less than 3 years in 18 patients (mean 11 months; range 3-28 months), 3 to 5 years in 4 patients (mean 46 months; range 36-57 months), and greater than 5 years in 5 patients (mean 111 months; range 67-197 months). The treatment cohort did not experience systemic reactions to extended interval injections, cluster refill injections, field stings, or sting challenges. CONCLUSION: This prospective longitudinal cohort study revealed that in adults 18 years old or older who have received at least 3 months of maintenance dose IFA-whole body extract IT with proven efficacy, extension to a 12-week EMI is a safe effective treatment option. The benefits of EMI include a reduced number of injections, clinic visits, and lapses in maintenance IT.

Stinging insect allergy: state of the art 2015.

Stinging insect allergy is responsible for more than 10% of all cases of anaphylaxis. The potential culprit insects are diverse and vary with geography. The incidence of insect allergy is declining in some areas and increasing in others, possibly due to effects of climate change, introduction of species into new areas, outdoor recreational activities, and movement of human populations that brings insects into contact with a greater number of people. Flying Hymenoptera and imported fire ant stings are responsible for the majority of patients evaluated for insect anaphylaxis. The most efficient means of identifying allergy to insects is skin testing although falsely positive and negative results occur. The limitations of testing coupled with the natural temporal variability of allergic sensitivity complicate the interpretation of test results. The clinical history is of paramount importance to be certain that the test results are relevant; therefore, screening or testing before a history of a sting reaction is not advisable. Mast cell disorders are associated with severe anaphylaxis from insect stings and should be considered in affected subjects. Insect immunotherapy, using venoms for most insects and whole-body extracts for imported fire ants, is proven effective in reducing the likelihood of anaphylaxis due to subsequent stings from 40%-60% to less than 5%. Future clinical application of component testing or in vitro cellular tests, such as the basophil activation test, may improve optimal choices for immunotherapy.

Fatal Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis from Exposure to Fusarium vasinfectum in a Home Environment: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is a rare, non-IgE-mediated inflammatory lung disease caused by inhalational exposure to various antigens found in occupational, avocational and home environments. The prognosis is favorable with early detection and prompt removal of the causative agent, and fatalities are unusual. We present a fatal case of HP caused by chronic exposure to Fusarium vasinfectum mold in the home. CASE REPORT: A 37-year-old white male presented with a 6-month history of progressively worsening dyspnea, cough, weight loss and fatigue associated with the self-renovation of his water-damaged, mold-infested mobile home. Evaluation included a physical examination (hypoxia, inspiratory crackles and expiratory rhonchi), baseline pulmonary function testing (mixed obstructive/restrictive pattern), chest computed tomography (bronchiectasis, fibrosis and diffuse interstitial involvement), bronchoalveolar lavage (macrophages 20%, lymphocytes 28% and neutrophils 52%) and transbronchial biopsy (interstitial fibrosis and chronic inflammatory infiltrate). Mold culture from the home grew out F. vasinfectum. An Ouchterlony double diffusion technique documented high antibody titer to F. vasinfectum. Despite aggressive intravenous corticosteroid treatment, the patient's lung function declined to the extent that he could not be removed from ventilator support following an open lung biopsy, eventually resulting in death. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported case of fatal HP related to an acute exacerbation of a chronic form of HP following continuous and intense exposure to F. vasinfectum. Although uncommon, a high index of suspicion for HP is necessary in patients with progressive respiratory symptoms and known environmental antigen exposure. With early detection and prompt removal of the causative antigen, HP prognosis is generally favorable, but can progress to fatal disease with continued exposure.

A 1-day imported fire ant rush immunotherapy schedule with and without premedication.

BACKGROUND: Rush immunotherapy (RIT) schedules can expedite protection in individuals sensitive to imported fire ant (IFA) stings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1-day RIT with IFA whole body extract (WBE) and determine the benefit of premedication with antihistamines and prednisone. METHODS: Patients with systemic reactions to IFAs and evidence of specific IgE by skin test or serologic test started a 1-day RIT protocol without premedication. The 1-day RIT protocol consisted of a total of 10 injections every 30 to 60 minutes to achieve a 0.3-mL 1:100 (wt/vol) dose. A higher systemic reaction rate (SRR) prompted protocol revision to include a 3-day course of oral 20 mg of prednisone twice daily, 150 mg of ranitidine, and 10 mg of loratadine started 2 days before the 1-day RIT. Patients returned on days 8 and 15 to receive a 0.5 mL 1:100 (wt/vol) maintenance injection. The effectiveness of the RIT was evaluated with a sting challenge on approximately day 22. RESULTS: Eighty of the 96 patients enrolled initiated the 1-day RIT. The first nonpremedicated group exhibited a SRR of 24.3% (9 of 37 patients), whereas the revised premedicated group had a SRR of 9.5% (4 of 42 patients; P = .07). The most severe reaction during RIT included dizziness, angioedema, and urticaria. Sting challenges on 53 patients resulted in 1 mild rhinitis reaction (efficacy, 98.1%). CONCLUSION: One-day RIT with IFA WBE for IFA hypersensitivity is efficacious. Although there was a trend with premedications to reduce SRRs during the RIT, safety data with premedication require confirmation in a larger trial.

Perception and practice of sublingual immunotherapy among practicing allergists in the United States: a follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited information regarding current trends of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) use, perception, and prescribing patterns among allergists in the United States is available. OBJECTIVE: To obtain information about current allergist perception and practice of SLIT compared with 2007. METHODS: On behalf of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) Immunotherapy and Diagnostics Committee, an electronic survey was sent to all practicing allergists of the ACAAI in August 2011. RESULTS: Fifty-nine of 519 US respondents (11.4%) reported experience using SLIT compared with 45 of 766 (5.9%) in 2007 (P < .001). Lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval was the primary barrier in using SLIT in the United States among 469 of 520 respondents (90.2%), which was increased from 471 of 763 (61.7%) in 2007 (P < .001). Among US respondents, 344 of 516 (66.7%) believed that SLIT was safer than subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) compared with 554 of 755 (73.4%) in 2007 (P < .01). In total, 22 of 51 SLIT users (43.1%) reported SLIT efficacy equal to or even greater than SCIT, which was similar to 21 of 38 (55.3%) reported in 2007 (P < .36). CONCLUSION: Rates of SLIT use reported by US respondents have nearly doubled in the last 4 years, with 11.4% of US respondents reporting SLIT use. Because the greatest barrier to SLIT use in the United States is the lack of FDA approval, it is anticipated that once an FDA-approved product is available, there will be widespread use of SLIT in the United States. Practice guidelines, which include effective dosages and schedules, will be critical to the broad implementation of SLIT in the United States.

The sting of the honeybee: an allergic perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a focused understanding of the uniqueness and special considerations of honeybee allergy. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search using the keywords honeybee, allergy, and hypersensitivity yielded the initial relevant articles. Additional significant sources cited in the reference lists of the initial articles were also used. STUDY SELECTION: More than 130 articles were reviewed, and the most relevant references were selected for inclusion in this article. RESULTS: The honeybee differs from other flying Hymenoptera from both an entomologic and allergic standpoint. The entomology literature is not often consulted by the allergist when addressing avoidance of honeybees. Beekeepers are a particular population at risk for honeybee exposure and allergy. Venom composition, sting mechanism, diagnostic evaluation, and immunotherapy efficacy and safety all have unique considerations specific to the honeybee. CONCLUSIONS: Honeybee is a significant cause of venom hypersensitivity. By understanding unique behaviors of honeybees, proper avoidance measures may be addressed with patients. Honeybee venom is complex, and the delivery mechanism provides for a large but often variable amount of injected venom. Diagnosis of honeybee allergy by imperfect skin and serologic testing further complicated by cross-reactivity is often difficult. Generally, honeybee immunotherapy is less safe and less effective than for other flying Hymenoptera. Efforts to improve testing and immunotherapy are under way.

Sentinel case of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus causing constrictive pericarditis presenting as hypogammaglobulinemia.

This is a unique case of a previously healthy 7-year-old boy, which highlights the importance of considering immunodeficiency when a rare infection occurs. In the following case report, the patient develops constrictive pericarditis secondary to group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection. As a result of this infection, we speculate that he develops hypogammaglobulinemia secondary to the documented association between constrictive pericarditis and intestinal lymphangiectasia because an extensive work-up for a primary immunodeficiency was negative. This is the first case ever to present constrictive pericarditis because of group A beta-hemolytic streptococcal infection.

HIV: practical implications for the practicing allergist-immunologist.

OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) on allergic diseases and discuss the clinical, pathophysiologic, diagnostic, and therapeutic challenges unique to HIV-infected patients receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). DATA SOURCES: The MEDLINE and OVID databases were searched to identify pertinent articles using the following keywords: HIV, AIDS, IgE, allergic rhinitis, adverse drug reaction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, food allergy, and immunization. References from the chosen articles were also examined. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were selected based on their relevance to the subject matter and currency. RESULTS: Human immunodeficiency virus infection causes immunologic alterations that ultimately lead to cell-mediated immune deficiency. In addition, the immune dysfunction caused by HIV also increases the likelihood of developing allergic and other immune-mediated diseases in many patients. HAART is associated with reconstitution of immune system function. While offering protection against infection, immune reconstitution also can provoke immunopathologic conditions. Patients infected with HIV show an increased prevalence of allergic rhinitis, adverse drug reactions, and noninfectious pulmonary complications. The pathophysiology of HIV infection is associated with unique clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic considerations when treating allergic diseases in HIV-infected patients. CONCLUSIONS: With the use of HAART and the subsequent decrease in infectious complications, HIV-infected patients now live longer and experience common chronic diseases. Evaluation of HIV-infected patients with rhinitis, asthma, and adverse drug reactions may become more frequent as HAART continues to extend the life expectancy of patients living with HIV. Understanding the interactions between HIV and these conditions can facilitate a knowledgeable approach to treating an HIV-infected patient.

The REPEAT study: recognizing and evaluating periodic local reactions in allergen immunotherapy and associated systemic reactions.

BACKGROUND: prior studies have demonstrated that large local reactions (LLRs) to subcutaneous immunotherapy do not predict systemic reactions (SRs). However, a recent study demonstrated an increase in LLRs among systemic reactors in practices using routine local reaction dose adjustments. OBJECTIVE: to investigate the association between LLRs and SRs within a practice that does not dose adjust for LLRs. METHODS: we performed a retrospective analysis of an electronic immunotherapy database during a 12-month period at a single site that does not dose adjust for LLRs. An LLR was defined as larger than the size of the patient's palm measured at 30 minutes. Logistic regression was performed to investigate the association between SRs and LLRs after controlling for variable numbers of injections and visits among patients. RESULTS: three hundred sixty patients received a total of 9,679 injections (6,609 visits). Twenty-four patients (6.7% of patients) experienced 38 LLRs (0.4% of injections, 0.6% of visits), whereas 46 patients (12.7% of patients) experienced 51 SRs (0.5% of injections, 0.77% of visits). Only 10 patients (2.8%) experienced both LLRs and SRs, and 36 of 46 SR patients (78.3%) never had an LLR. Among the 24 LLR patients, the SR rate was 1.3% (12/932) of injections and 2.0% (12/611) of visits compared with the 336 non-LLR patients for whom the SR rate was 0.4% (39/8,747) of injections and 0.7% (39/5998) of visits. Of these 24 LLR patients, 10 (41.7%) experienced at least 1 SR vs 36 of 336 non-LLR patients (10.7%). After controlling for number of injections and 1 vs 2 injections per visit, a subgroup of LLR patients were more likely to have an SR during their subcutaneous immunotherapy course (odds ratio, 4.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-11.7). Recurrent LLR patients (n = 10) were not more likely to experience an SR (0.4% per injection). CONCLUSIONS: although LLRs do not predict SRs, a subgroup (41.7%) of LLR patients experience a higher frequency of SRs during their immunotherapy course. In light of a similar previous study, this association occurs irrespective of whether a dose adjustment protocol is used for LLRs.

How should allergists deal with local reactions to allergen immunotherapy?

Despite the well-known benefits of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), adverse reactions include both local reactions (LRs) and systemic reactions. An LR is a well-known adverse event associated with SCIT injections and is defined as any swelling located at or near the injection site following allergen injection. Concerns that LRs might predict systemic reactions have historically motivated allergists to dose adjust for LRs. More recent data have dispelled this notion, although many allergists continue to dose adjust for other reasons. This article discusses the historical response to LRs and dose adjustments and reviews the most recent literature addressing LRs to SCIT. Treatment options, although they are either unproven or not studied, are offered as an alternative to routine dose adjustments for LRs. Education remains the foundation of physician-patient communication concerning LRs.