Search

Drug hypersensitivity reactions ( DHRs) are a matter of great concern, both for outpatient and in hospital care. The evaluation of these patients is complex, because in vivo tests have a suboptimal sensitivity and can be time-consuming, expensive and potentially risky, especially drug provocation tests. There are several currently available in vitro methods that can be classified into two main groups: those that help to characterize the active phase of the reaction and those that help to identify the culprit drug. The utility of these in vitro methods depends on the mechanisms involved, meaning that they cannot be used for the evaluation of all types of DHRs. Moreover, their effectiveness has not been defined by a consensus agreement between experts in the field. Thus, the European Network on Drug Allergy and Drug Allergy Interest Group of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has organized a task force to provide data and recommendations regarding the available in vitro methods for DHR diagnosis. We have found that although there are many in vitro tests, few of them can be given a recommendation of grade B or above mainly because there is a lack of well-controlled studies, most information comes from small studies with few subjects and results are not always confirmed in later studies. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the currently available in vitro tests in a large series of well-characterized patients with DHR and to develop new tests for diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Oral immunotherapy to peanut is effective in desensitizing patients but has significant side effects including anaphylaxis and gastrointestinal symptoms. In most protocols, peanut is administered in a vehicle food. Objective: In an exclusively adolescent population, we tested a new approach using sealed capsules of peanut (gastrointestinal delivery oral immunotherapy or GIDOIT) to bypass the upper gastrointestinal tract. The primary aim was to assess the efficacy of the oral build‐up phase of GIDOIT and the secondary aim to analyse its safety. Methods: Adolescents with a history of a clinical allergic reaction after peanut ingestion were included in a 2‐armed, parallel‐design, individually randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multicentre trial after a positive double‐blind placebo‐controlled oral food challenge (DBPCFC1). A central randomization centre used computer‐generated tables to allocate treatments. Peanut (or placebo) capsules were ingested daily over a period of 24 weeks with increments every 2 weeks from 2 to 400 mg of peanut protein (pp). Primary outcome was tolerance of 400 mg of pp at DBPCFC2. Results: Thirty patients were included between September 2013 and May 2014. At DBPCFC2, unresponsiveness to 400 mg of pp was achieved in 17/21 peanut group patients (2 withdrawn patients) and 1/9 in the placebo group (Intention‐to‐treat analysis, P < .001, absolute difference = 0.7, 95%IC 0.43 0.96). Oropharyngeal symptoms were equally frequent in both groups. No dysphagia or other signs of eosinophilic oesophagitis occurred. Digestive adverse events (AE) were more frequent in the treated group (P = .02), but mild and without compliance issues. Only one severe advent event led to withdrawal in a patient who ingested twice the investigated treatment. Peanut‐specific humoral immune responses were modulated. Conclusion: The GIDOIT protocol demonstrated clinical and immunological efficacy and had an acceptable level of safety with weak oropharyngeal symptoms, no dysphagia, mild digestive events and few severe systemic AE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The basophil activation test ( BAT) has become a pervasive test for allergic response through the development of flow cytometry, discovery of activation markers such as CD63 and unique markers identifying basophil granulocytes. Basophil activation test measures basophil response to allergen cross-linking IgE on between 150 and 2000 basophil granulocytes in <0.1 ml fresh blood. Dichotomous activation is assessed as the fraction of reacting basophils. In addition to clinical history, skin prick test, and specific IgE determination, BAT can be a part of the diagnostic evaluation of patients with food-, insect venom-, and drug allergy and chronic urticaria. It may be helpful in determining the clinically relevant allergen. Basophil sensitivity may be used to monitor patients on allergen immunotherapy, anti-IgE treatment or in the natural resolution of allergy. Basophil activation test may use fewer resources and be more reproducible than challenge testing. As it is less stressful for the patient and avoids severe allergic reactions, BAT ought to precede challenge testing. An important next step is to standardize BAT and make it available in diagnostic laboratories. The nature of basophil activation as an ex vivo challenge makes it a multifaceted and promising tool for the allergist. In this EAACI task force position paper, we provide an overview of the practical and technical details as well as the clinical utility of BAT in diagnosis and management of allergic diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few time-series studies, and none lasting longer than 4 years, have investigated the etiology of treated seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis ( SAR) on the basis of anti-allergic medication prescriptions. The aim of this article was to study the short-term relationship between pollen exposure and drug-treated SAR over 10 years in an urban area in central France. Methods A SAR case was defined as the association between an oral antihistamine and a local anti-allergic drug on the same prescription. The relationship between daily changes in pollen concentrations and daily changes in the number of treated SAR cases was analysed using generalized additive models, taking into account confounding factors such as air pollution, weather and days of the week. Results Between 2003 and 2012, the total yearly number of treated SAR cases rose from 7265 to 11 315. The relative risk of treated SAR associated with an interquartile increase in pollen concentration increased significantly for Fraxinus, Betula, Carpinus, Platanus, Poaceae and Urticaceae for the whole pollen season, and for Urticaceae in the first semester. Conclusions The prevalence of treated SAR cases rose by about 55% in 10 years. The study not only confirmed the highly allergenic role of Fraxinus, Betula and Poaceae pollens but also showed a relatively unknown association between treated SAR and Carpinus and Platanus pollens, despite their pollen counts being <1% of overall pollen concentration. It also showed robust correlations with Urticaceae pollens, especially during the first semester, suggesting a potential allergenic role of Parietaria pollination in this non-Mediterranean area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]