Search

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for IgE-mediated Food Allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we sought to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT in the management of food allergy., Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis that involved searching nine international electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Eligible studies were independently assessed by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the Cochrane ACROBAT-NRS tool for quasi-RCTs. Random-effects meta-analyses were undertaken, with planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses., Results: We identified 1814 potentially relevant papers from which we selected 31 eligible studies, comprising of 25 RCTs and six NRS, studying a total of 1259 patients. Twenty-five trials evaluated oral immunotherapy (OIT), five studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, and one study evaluated epicutaneous immunotherapy. The majority of these studies were in children. Twenty-seven studies assessed desensitization, and eight studies investigated sustained unresponsiveness postdiscontinuation of AIT. Meta-analyses demonstrated a substantial benefit in terms of desensitization (risk ratio (RR) = 0.16, 95% CI 0.10, 0.26) and suggested, but did not confirm sustained unresponsiveness (RR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.08, 1.13). Only one study reported on disease-specific quality of life (QoL), which reported no comparative results between OIT and control group. Meta-analyses revealed that the risk of experiencing a systemic adverse reaction was higher in those receiving AIT, with a more marked increase in the risk of local adverse reactions. Sensitivity analysis excluding those studies judged to be at high risk of bias demonstrated the robustness of summary estimates of effectiveness and safety of AIT for food allergy. None of the studies reported data on health economic analyses., Conclusions: AIT may be effective in raising the threshold of reactivity to a range of foods in children with IgE-mediated food allergy whilst receiving (i.e. desensitization) and post-discontinuation of AIT. It is, however, associated with a modest increased risk in serious systemic adverse reactions and a substantial increase in minor local adverse reactions. More data are needed in relation to adults, long term effects, the impact on QoL and the cost-effectiveness of AIT., (© 2017 The Authors. Allergy Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Attempts aimed at inducing food tolerance through oral food desensitization (OFD) for the treatment of IgE-mediated food allergies are increasing. In Italy, a number of allergy centres offer this procedure., Objective: To collect information on how these centres are organized, how patients are selected, the methods used to administer OFD and how adverse reactions are managed., Methods: A questionnaire was e-mailed to all the Italian allergy centres offering OFD., Results: The survey shows a high degree of variability between centres. A correct diagnosis of food allergy is crucial for selecting patients for OFD. In the Italian allergy centres, oral food challenges are mostly open label (84%), but in 16% of cases they are single-blind (8%) or double-blind (8%). A high proportion of allergy centres (83%) offer OFD to children presenting forms of anaphylaxis triggered by traces--or very low doses--of food allergen. The majority of allergy centres (76%) enroll patients over 3 years of age, with 44% enrolling patients above the age of 5. Not-controlled asthma, unreliability of parents in the management of OFD and/or risk of adverse events, are the main reasons for exclusion from the procedure., Conclusion: Although OFD may sometimes be successful and may be considered a valid alternative to an elimination diet, further randomized controlled trials are needed, in order to clarify some controversial points, such as the characteristics of the child undergoing OFD, and the methods of food preparation and administration. Moreover, further studies should further investigate OFD safety, efficacy and costs.

The sublingual route of administration of allergen (SLIT) has emerged as an effective treatment. Other non-injective route of administration of vaccines failed their goals; oral immunotherapy (OIT), local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT), local bronchial immunotherapy (LBIT) were reported as too expensive or unsafe or ineffective. Oral regimens were used in the first half of the 20th century but then they lost ground to injection immunotherapy. SLIT is suitable for home treatment and it has not to be regarded not only as a substitute of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), but also as a complementary or additional therapeutic tool in conventional medical practice. Currently, the balance sheet for SLIT is improving: with the steadily increasing number of patients with IgE mediated disorders, looking for a "cheap, safe and effective therapy" becomes a priority.

Background: Immunotherapy is a recognized treatment for allergic respiratory diseases., Objective: To study the usefulness of immunotherapy in combination with optimal pharmacological therapy., Methods: Thirty-eight children (8-14 years) suffering from seasonal asthma+/-rhinoconjunctivitis due to Parietaria poorly controlled by anti-allergic drugs treatment were selected. After randomization according to a double-blind placebo-controlled design they received active sublingual immunotherapy (15 children) or placebo (15 children) for 13 months combined with inhaled fluticasone twice a day during the pollen season. Eight children were taken as control, whereas all patients were instructed to take symptomatic drugs on need. Early and late skin response to the allergen were assessed in all patients before and after treatment. Drug and symptom scores, as well as visual analogue scores (VASs) and Parietaria pollen counts were assessed during the pollen season., Results: Groups were well balanced for age, gender, early and late skin response before treatment. Four children dropped out, in one case in relationship with active sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) administration. Chest and nose symptoms, as well as drug scores and VASs were significantly better in both the active or placebo SLIT+fluticasone (S+F) as compared to the control group (P between <0.001 and 0.043). Eye symptoms were significantly better in the active S+F group as compared to control (P=0.025). The VASs were significantly better in the active S+F group as compared to the placebo S+F group (P=0.037). The early skin response decreased significantly in the active S+F group (P<0.001), whereas the late skin response changed significantly in all groups, with an increase in the placebo+fluticasone group (P=0.019) and in the control group (P=0.037) and a decrease (P<0.0001) in the active S+F group., Conclusion: The clinical efficacy of S+F is equal to that of fluticasone alone, but the addition of SLIT has effects also on non-bronchial symptoms.

Background: The use of ammoniated or nonammoniated latex extracts for the diagnosis of latex allergy is still a matter of debate. The aim of our study was to compare the characteristics of the two types of extracts by immunoblotting and RAST techniques in children with ascertained latex allergy., Methods: Ammoniated (AL) and nonammoniated latex (NAL) extracts were prepared and blotted on SDS-PAGE to resolve their components. Also a solid phase for RAST assays was prepared with the two extracts. The sera from 18 children (mean age 11.4 years, range 6-15 years), with ascertained latex allergy (clinical history, skin test, CAP-RAST and provocation) were used for the experiments., Results: The NAL extract is resolved in many bands (5-100 kDa), whereas AL showed only few components, likely Hev b 4, 6 and 7. IgE reactivity against AL was observed only in 5/18 patients, whereas 12/18 were positive with NAL. The blotting profile against NAL was complex and the IgE recognition pattern involved different bands., Conclusion: The extract obtained from NAL is able to detect specific IgE against a greater number of allergenic determinants, and therefore a greater diagnostic accuracy can be expected.

Background: Immunotherapy through local routes is thought to be a valuable therapeutic option for respiratory allergy. We investigated the clinical efficacy and immunologic effects of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in asthmatic children with mite-induced respiratory allergy., Methods: Twenty-four patients (age range 8-15 years), suffering from mild to moderate asthma, with single sensitization to mite allergen, were enrolled. After a 1-year observation phase, patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups, and were given SLIT (sublingual-spit) as drops for 2 years according to a double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) design. Symptoms/medication scores (diary card), visual analog scale, and immunologic parameters (house-dust-mite [HDM]-specific IgE, and total HDM-specific IgG and IgG4) were determined during the observation phase and during the DBPC treatment period., Results: Twenty-one patients completed the study. At the beginning of the treatment, no difference in environmental allergenic pressure could be shown between the groups. After 2 years of therapy, there was a significant decrease in asthmatic symptoms (P=0.0001) and medication use (P=0.0001) in the active group compared to the placebo group. The visual analog score on overall asthma symptoms improved in the SLIT group (P=0.0001), but not in the placebo group. Nevertheless, the immunologic results did not show significant differences in HDM-specific IgE and total HDM-specific IgG or IgG4 between the active and placebo groups (P = NS). No relevant side-effects were recorded throughout the study., Conclusions: Our results suggest that treatment for 2 years with SLIT is clinically safe and effective in significantly decreasing respiratory symptoms in children with mild to moderate asthma sensitized to HDM. On the other hand, the lack of changes of the immunologic parameters calls for further investigations with special reference to kinetics and mechanism(s) of action of this mode of treatment.

A group of 28 patients from Italy was studied who had asthma after consumption of snail. All patients also had asthma and/or rhinitis caused by house-dust mite. RAST analyses confirmed the combined sensitization to snail and mite. In a few sera, IgE antibodies reactive with other foods of invertebrate origin (mussel and shrimp) were detected. RAST inhibition showed that most IgE antibodies against snail were cross-reactive with house-dust mite. In contrast, the mite RAST was not significantly inhibited by snail. This indicates that house-dust mite was the sensitizing agent. Immunoblot analyses revealed multiple bands in snail extract recognized by IgE. In contrast to what has been described for cross-reactivity between shrimp and mite, tropomyosin played only a minor role as a cross-reactive allergen in these patients. The observations in this study indicate that snail consumption can cause severe asthmatic symptoms in house-dust-mite-allergic patients. It might, therefore, be advisable to screen mite-allergic asthma patients for allergy to snail and other invertebrate animal foods.

Abstract: Food allergy can result in considerable morbidity, impairment of quality of life, and healthcare expenditure. There is therefore interest in novel strategies for its treatment, particularly food allergen immunotherapy (FA‐AIT) through the oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), or epicutaneous (EPIT) routes. This Guideline, prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Task Force on Allergen Immunotherapy for IgE‐mediated Food Allergy, aims to provide evidence‐based recommendations for active treatment of IgE‐mediated food allergy with FA‐AIT. Immunotherapy relies on the delivery of gradually increasing doses of specific allergen to increase the threshold of reaction while on therapy (also known as desensitization) and ultimately to achieve post‐discontinuation effectiveness (also known as tolerance or sustained unresponsiveness). Oral FA‐AIT has most frequently been assessed: here, the allergen is either immediately swallowed (OIT) or held under the tongue for a period of time (SLIT). Overall, trials have found substantial benefit for patients undergoing either OIT or SLIT with respect to efficacy during treatment, particularly for cow's milk, hen's egg, and peanut allergies. A benefit post‐discontinuation is also suggested, but not confirmed. Adverse events during FA‐AIT have been frequently reported, but few subjects discontinue FA‐AIT as a result of these. Taking into account the current evidence, FA‐AIT should only be performed in research centers or in clinical centers with an extensive experience in FA‐AIT. Patients and their families should be provided with information about the use of FA‐AIT for IgE‐mediated food allergy to allow them to make an informed decision about the therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]