Search

Introduction: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) brings along changes in the immune system, restoring dendritic cell function, reducing T2 inflammation and augmenting the regulatory cell activation. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, interferes with the immune system causing immune suppression during the first phase and over-activation in more advanced disease. We decided to explore the interaction of both in a real-world observational trial. Methods: We registered COVID-19 outcomes in patients with allergic disorders in Latin America, treated with and without AIT. The registry was conducted during the first 1.3 years of the pandemic, with most of the data collected before COVID-19 vaccination was concluded in most countries. Data collection was anonymous via a web-based instrument. Ten countries participated. Results: 630/1095 (57.6%) of the included patients received AIT. Compared to patients without AIT, those treated with AIT had a reduced risk ratio (RR) for COVID-19 lower respiratory symptoms (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.6703–0.9024; p = 0.001662) and need for oxygen therapy (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.4217–0.9992; p = 0.048). In adherent patients on maintenance sublingual immunotherapy/subcutaneous immunotherapy (SLIT/SCIT) the RR reduction was larger [RR = 0.6136 (95% CI 0.4623–0.8143; p

Introduction: In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, during which the world is confronted with a new, highly contagious virus that suppresses innate immunity as one of its initial virulence mechanisms, thus escaping from first-line human defense mechanisms, enhancing innate immunity seems a good preventive strategy. Methods: Without the intention to write an official systematic review, but more to give an overview of possible strategies, in this review article we discuss several interventions that might stimulate innate immunity and thus our defense against (viral) respiratory tract infections. Some of these interventions can also stimulate the adaptive T- and B-cell responses, but our main focus is on the innate part of immunity. We divide the reviewed interventions into: 1) lifestyle related (exercise, >7 h sleep, forest walking, meditation/mindfulness, vitamin supplementation); 2) Non-specific immune stimulants (letting fever advance, bacterial vaccines, probiotics, dialyzable leukocyte extract, pidotimod), and 3) specific vaccines with heterologous effect (BCG vaccine, mumps-measles-rubeola vaccine, etc). Results: For each of these interventions we briefly comment on their definition, possible mechanisms and evidence of clinical efficacy or lack of it, especially focusing on respiratory tract infections, viral infections, and eventually a reduced mortality in severe respiratory infections in the intensive care unit. At the end, a summary table demonstrates the best trials supporting (or not) clinical evidence. Conclusion: Several interventions have some degree of evidence for enhancing the innate immune response and thus conveying possible benefit, but specific trials in COVID-19 should be conducted to support solid recommendations.

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has a longstanding history and still remains the only disease-changing treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Over the years 2 different schools have developed their strategies: the United States (US) and the European. Allergen extracts available in these regions are adapted to local practice. In other parts of the world, extracts from both regions and local ones are commercialized, as in Mexico. Here, local experts developed a national AIT guideline (GUIMIT 2019) searching for compromises between both schools. Methods: Using ADAPTE methodology for transculturizing guidelines and AGREE-II for evaluating guideline quality, GUIMIT selected 3 high-quality Main Reference Guidelines (MRGs): the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (EAACI) guideines, the S2k guideline of various German-speaking medical societies (2014), and the US Practice Parameters on Allergen Immunotherapy 2011. We formulated clinical questions and based responses on the fused evidence available in the MRGs, combined with local possibilities, patient's preference, and costs. We came across several issues on which the MRGs disagreed. These are presented here along with arguments of GUIMIT members to resolve them. GUIMIT (for a complete English version, see Supplementary data) concluded the following: Results: Related to the diagnosis of IgE-mediated respiratory allergy, apart from skin prick testing complementary tests (challenges, in vitro testing and molecular such as species-specific allergens) might be useful in selected cases to inform AIT composition. AIT is indicated in allergic rhinitis and suggested in allergic asthma (once controlled) and IgE-mediated atopic dermatitis. Concerning the correct subcutaneous AIT dose for compounding vials according to the US school: dosing tables and formula are given; up to 4 non-related allergens can be mixed, refraining from mixing high with low protease extracts. When using European extracts: the manufacturer's indications should be followed; in multi-allergic patients 2 simultaneous injections can be given (100% consensus); mixing is discouraged. In Mexico only allergoid tablets are available; based on doses used in all sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) publications referenced in MRGs, GUIMIT suggests a probable effective dose related to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) might be: 50–200% of the monthly SCIT dose given daily, maximum mixing 4 allergens. Also, a table with practical suggestions on non-evidence-existing issues, developed with a simplified Delphi method, is added. Finally, dissemination and implementation of guidelines is briefly discussed, explaining how we used online tools for this in Mexico. Conclusions: Countries where European and American AIT extracts are available should adjust AIT according to which school is followed.

Background: Severe asthma is a serious condition with a significant burden on patients' morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. Some biological therapies targeting the IgE and interleukin-5 (IL5) mediated pathways are now available. Due to the lack of direct comparison studies, the choice of which medication to use varies. We aimed to explore the beliefs and practices in the use of biological therapies in severe asthma, hypothesizing that differences will occur depending on the prescribers’ specialty and experience. Methods: We conducted an online survey composed of 35 questions in English. The survey was circulated via the INterasma Scientific Network (INESNET) platform as well as through social media. Responses from allergists and pulmonologists, both those with experience of prescribing omalizumab with (OMA/IL5) and without (OMA) experience with anti-IL5 drugs, were compared. Results: Two hundred eighty-five (285) valid questionnaires from 37 countries were analyzed. Seventy-on percent (71%) of respondents prescribed biologics instead of oral glucocorticoids and believed that their side effects are inferior to those of Prednisone 5 mg daily. Agreement with ATS/ERS guidelines for identifying severe asthma patients was less than 50%. Specifically, significant differences were found comparing responses between allergists and pulmonologists (Chi-square test, p

Background: Nasal hyperreactivity (NHR) is a common feature of various rhinitis subtypes and represents a novel phenotype of rhinitis. It is being reported in two-thirds of adult rhinitis patients irrespective of the atopic status. Data on the prevalence of NHR in patients with asthma are lacking, as well as the nature of evoking triggers. Methods: Postal questionnaires were distributed to an unselected group of asthmatic patients in Leuven (Belgium, n = 190) and completed by 114 patients. In Mexico City (Mexico) and Brasov (Romania), respectively, 97 out of 110 and 80 out of 100 asthmatic patients attending the outpatient clinic completed the questionnaire. Non-asthmatic volunteers were recruited amongst university and hospital co-workers in Leuven (n = 53). The presence of self-reported NHR, the type of triggers evoking nasal and bronchial symptoms, medication use, self-reported allergy, and environmental factors were evaluated. Results: Overall, 69% of asthma patients reported NHR, with 32% having more than 4 triggers evoking NHR. These triggers included mainly exposure to temperature and humidity changes, cigarette smoke, and strong odours. A higher prevalence of NHR was detected in allergic compared to non-allergic asthma patients (73% vs. 53% p

Abstract Percutaneous skin prick tests (SPT) have been considered the preferred method for confirming IgE-mediated sensitization. This reliable and minimally invasive technique correlates with in vivo challenges, has good reproducibility, is easily quantified, and allows analyzing multiple allergens simultaneously. Potent extracts and a proficient tester improve its accuracy. Molecular-based allergy diagnostics (MA-Dx) quantifies allergenic components obtained either from purification of natural sources or recombinant technology to identify the patient’s reactivity to those specific allergenic protein components. For a correct allergy diagnosis, the patient selection is crucial. MA-Dx has been shown to have a high specificity, however, as MA-Dx testing can be ordered by any physician, the pre-selection of patients might not always be optimal, reducing test specificity. Also, MA-Dx is less sensitive than in vitro testing with the whole allergen or SPT. Secondly, no allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) trial has yet shown efficacy with patients selected on the basis of their MA-Dx results. Thirdly, why would we need molecular diagnosis, as no molecular treatment can yet be offered? Then there are the practical arguments of costs (SPT highly cost-efficient), test availability for MA-Dx still lacking in wide areas of the world and scarce in others. As such, it is hard physicians can build confidence in the test and their interpretation of the MA-Dx results. In conclusion: as of now these techniques should be reserved for situations of complex allergies and polysensitization; in the future MA-Dx might help to reduce the number of allergens for AIT, but trials are needed to prove this concept.

We have prepared this document, “Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2013 Update”, according to the evidence-based criteria, revising and updating chapters of the originally published paper, “Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009”, available at http://www.waojournal.org. Namely, these comprise: “Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy;” “Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy” – reporting all the data of all controlled trials published after 2009; “Safety of sublingual immunotherapy” – with the recently published Grading System for adverse reactions; “Impact of sublingual immunotherapy on the natural history of respiratory allergy” – with the relevant evidences published since 2009; “Efficacy of SLIT in children” – with detailed analysis of all the studies; “Definition of SLIT patient selection” – reporting the criteria for eligibility to sublingual immunotherapy; “The future of immunotherapy in the community care setting”; “Methodology of clinical trials according to the current scientific and regulatory standards”; and “Guideline development: from evidence-based medicine to patients' views” – including the evolution of the methods to make clinical recommendations.Additionally, we have added new chapters to cover a few emerging crucial topics: “Practical aspects of schedules and dosages and counseling for adherence” – which is crucial in clinical practice for all treatments; “Perspectives and new approaches” – including recombinant allergens, adjuvants, modified allergens, and the concept of validity of the single products. Furthermore, “Raising public awareness about sublingual immunotherapy”, as a need for our patients, and strategies to increase awareness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among patients, the medical community, all healthcare stakeholders, and public opinion, are also reported in detail. Keywords: Sublingual immunotherapy, Allergen-specific immunotherapy, Mechanisms of SLIT, Safety of SLIT, Efficacy of SLIT, Clinical trials methodology in SLIT

Background: Insects have become increasingly interesting as alternative nutrient sources for feeding humans and animals, most reasonably in processed form. Initially, some safety aspects — among them allergenicity — need to be addressed. Objective: To reveal the cross-reactivity of shrimp-, mite- and flies-allergic patients to different edible insects, and further to assess the efficacy of food processing in reducing the recognition of insect proteins by patients' IgE and in skin prick testing of shrimp-allergic patients. Methods: IgE from patients allergic to crustaceans, house dust mite or flies was evaluated for cross-recognition of proteins in house cricket Acheta domesticus (AD), desert locust Schistocerca gregaria (SG) and Yellow mealworm Tenebrio molitor (TM). Changes in IgE-binding and SPT-reactivity to processed insect extracts were determined for migratory locust (Locusta migratoria, LM), after different extraction methods, enzymatic hydrolysis, and thermal processing were applied. Results: IgE from patients with crustacean-allergy shows cross-recognition of AD, SG and stable flies; house dust mite allergics' IgE binds to AD and SG; and the flies-allergic patient recognized cricket, desert locust and migratory locust. Cross-reactivity and allergenicity in SPT to LM can be deleted by conventional processing steps, such as hydrolysis with different enzymes or heat treatment, during the preparation of protein concentrates. Conclusion: The results show that crustacean-, HDM- and stable flies-allergic patients cross-recognize desert locust and house cricket proteins, and crustacean-allergic patients also flies proteins. Furthermore, this study shows that appropriate food processing methods can reduce the risk of cross-reactivity and allergenicity of edible insects. Keywords: Allergenicity, Cross-recognition, Edible insects, Enzymatic hydrolysis, Food allergy, Immunoreactivity, Thermal processing

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is widely used in clinical practice for patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis due to inhalant allergens and may be delivered via subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual routes (SLIT). However, the quality of evidence for individual AIT products is very heterogeneous, and extensions of overall conclusions (“class effects”) on the efficacy and disease-modifying effects to all AIT products are unjustified. In contrast, each product needs to be evaluated individually, based on available study results, to justify efficacy and specific claims on sustained and disease modifying effects per allergen and targeted patient group (children vs. adults, allergic rhinitis vs. asthma). WAO intends to support the current development to evidence-based AIT, which ultimately will lead to a more efficacious treatment of allergic patients and the appropriate recognition of AIT.

Background: In April 2017 the Mexican Asthma Guidelines (GUIMA) were published. Before the launch, physicians' knowledge was explored related to key issues of the guideline., Methods: A SurveyMonkey® survey was sent out to board-certified physicians of 5 medical specialties treating asthma. Replies were analyzed per specialty against the GUIMA evidence-based recommendations. We present the treatment part here., Results: A total of 364 allergists (ALLERG), 161 pulmonologists (PULM), 34 ENTs, 239 pediatricians (PED) and 62 general practitioners (GPs) replied to the survey and 247-83-14-135-37 respectively finished it. Spirometry is not routinely indicated when asthma is very probable by ALLERG 54%, PULM 47%, ENT 39%, PED 65%, GP 64%. A fictitious case proposed to the physicians with intermittent asthma was erroneously treated with ICS by ALLERG 9%, PULM 11%, ENT 28%, PED 10%, GP 11%. The mild persistent case received mistakenly ICS-LABA by ALLERG 25%, PULM 26%, ENT 33%, PED 27%, GP 23%. The first-line option for moderate persistent asthma was ICS(median dose) instead of ICS(low)+LABA for ALLERG 29%, PULM 25%, ENT 17%, PED 27%, GP 23% and in severe asthma maintenance treatment PULM20%, ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 22-34% failed to indicate LABA. Concerning the guidelines' recommendation to use one inhaler for maintenance & rescue in moderate-to-severe asthma, PULM45%, ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 56-80% (p < 0.00001), erroneously indicated ICS-salmeterol could be used, instead of ICS-formoterol. Oral β2 or theophylline are no longer recommended, but PULM 37% and ALLERG-ENT-PED-GP 42-62% (p < 0.01) still indicate their use. In severe asthma 61-73% of physicians consider adding LTRA to the treatment; only PULM38%, OTHERS12-25% consider adding tiotropium (p < 0.001) and 3-17% consider adding omalizumab, both guideline recommended add-ons. As for asthma in pregnancy, most surveyed are not aware budesonide is the 1st line option ICS. Finally, 81-97% of the group-members recognized allergen immunotherapy, as a viable add-on, in line with GINA/GEMA/GUIMA recommendations., Conclusions: An online survey could detect knowledge-gaps related to asthma treatment. Interestingly, surveyed physicians tended to over-treat the milder asthma cases, thus clearly leaving room for cost-savings. Caution should be taken in the promotion of the SMART (single-maintenance-and-reliever-treatment) approach, which can only be done with ICS-formoterol. Many physicians opt for other combinations not apt for this approach. Among all surveyed specialties there is ample room for improvement in mild and severe asthma management., Competing Interests: DLL reports personal fees from Amstrong, Astrazeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Grunenthal, GSK, MEDA, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB., grants from Sanofi, Astrazeneca, Novartis, UCB, GSK, TEVA, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi., outside the submitted work; none of the other authors have submitted any conflict of interest., (© 2019 The Authors.)