Search

The seventh "Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT)" workshop held in 2019 provided a platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review current developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Key domains of the meeting included the following: (a) Biomarkers for AIT and allergic asthma; (b) visions for the future of AIT; (c) progress and data for AIT in asthma and the updates of GINA and EAACI Asthma Guidelines (separated for house dust mite SCIT, SLIT tablets and SLIT drops; patient populations) including a review of clinically relevant endpoints in AIT studies in asthma; (d) regulatory prerequisites such as the "Therapy Allergen Ordinance" in Germany; (e) optimization of trial design in AIT clinical research; (f) challenges planning and conducting phase III (field) studies and the future role of Allergen Exposure Chambers (AEC) in AIT product development from the regulatory point of view. We report a summary of panel discussions of all six domains and highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causally effective, disease-modifying form of therapy that, in addition to alleviating allergic symptoms, counteracts disease progression.This article provides an up-to-date overview of immunological, regulatory and practical aspects of AIT. Current literature was included and recent conceptual regulatory developments from the Division of Allergology at the higher federal authority (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut) are presented.The 62 AIT products currently approved in Germany and further 61 AIT products under the development program of the Therapy Allergen Ordinance (TAO) include 95 products for subcutaneous (SCIT) and 28 for sublingual (SLIT) treatment of birch/alder/hazel pollen, grass pollen, weed pollen, house dust mite and insect venom allergies. Native and chemically modified allergen extracts (allergoids) adsorbed to aluminium, tyrosine (partly monophosphoryl lipid A-adjuvanted) or lactose or based on lyophilisates are used as active ingredients.These 123 AIT products are subject to official state batch release testing. This does not apply to named patient products (NPPs) available for the treatment of less prevalent allergies (e.g. to olive pollen, animal hair, storage mites or moulds). There is a particular need for development of AIT products for children.As a new class of active ingredients, food allergens are in clinical phase II and III studies. A first food preparation for oral AIT of peanut allergy in children is currently undergoing a central European marketing authorization (MA) procedure. MA can only be granted if the benefit-risk balance is positive. Science and regulation are in continuous exchange on the development of AIT products that correspond to the current state of clinical research and regulation in the EU and enable early causal treatment of widespread allergies.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is currently available as liquid drops and tablets for treatment of allergic patients. Because several allergens are available and many patients are polyallergic, it is possible to treat patients with multiple clinically relevant allergies by >1 SLIT product. Austrian, German, and Swiss medical experts discussed the available data on allergen uptake at the oral mucosa and recently published data on coadministration of a grass and a ragweed tablet. The experts agreed on a schedule considering data from a North American trial on sequential administration of 2 SLIT-tablets with different allergens and their own experiences made during initiation of treatment with >1 SLIT-tablet in their clinics and subsequent self-administration by the patient and discussed the handling and management of potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). According to the medical experts' opinion, tolerability at each phase of administration and patient preference should be taken into consideration to ensure a high level of adherence to treatment. Local ADRs that are uncomfortable for the patient may be alleviated by a 2- to 4-week course of antihistamine pretreatment. ADRs with severe swelling and/or systemic ADRs need the physician's particular attention and a decision together with the patient on continuation of treatment with SLIT or possible alternative routes of administration., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The following guideline of the "Arbeitsgruppe Nahrungsmittelallergie der DGAKI" (Task Force on Food Allergy of the German Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology) and the ADA ("Arzteverband Deutscher Allergologen", Medical Association of German Allergologists) and the GPA (German Society of Pediatric Allergology) summarizes the approach to be taken when food allergy is suspected in patients with atopic dermatitis (neurodermatitis, atopic eczema). The problem is clinically relevant because many patients assume that allergic reactions against foods are responsible for triggering or worsening their eczema. It is important to identify those patients who will benefit from an elimination diet but also to avoid unnecessary diets. Elimination diets (especially in early childhood) are associated with the risk of malnutrition and additional emotional stress for the patients. The gold standard for the diagnosis of food-dependent reactions is to perform placebo-controlled, double-blind oral food challenges because specific IgE, prick tests and history often do not correlate with clinical reactivity. This is particularly true in the case of delayed eczematous skin reactions. Diagnostic elimination diets should be used before an oral provocation test. If multiple sensitizations against foods are discovered in a patient, an oligoallergenic diet and a subsequent stepwise supplementation of the nutrition should be performed. If a specific food is suspected of triggering food allergy, oral provocation should be performed after a diagnostic elimination diet. As eczema-tous skin reactions may develop slowly (i. e. within one or two day), the skin be inspected the day after the provocation test and that a repetitive test be performed if the patient has not reacted to a given food on the first day of oral provocation. The guideline discusses various clinical situations for patients with atopic dermatitis to facilitate differentiated diagnostic procedures.

Chronic urticaria, recurrent angioedema and non-allergic asthma have all been associated with pseudoallergic reactions to food ingredients. For atopic dermatitis and diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, this association is controversial. Pseudoallergic reactions can be elicited by additives as well as by natural food ingredients. An altered histamine metabolism may be associated with pseudoallergy. Acute urticaria or a short episode of angioedema is not an indication for exhaustive evaluation. If basic diagnostic screening is negative in chronic urticaria, a low-pseudoallergen diet can be considered. Skin and serological tests are not objective diagnostic parameters for pseudoallergic reactions. The severity of symptoms should be documented while the patient is on a low-pseudoaller-gen diet. Oral provocation with additives leads to reproducible symptoms only in a few cases. Therefore, if a low-pseudoallergen diet brings improvement, the patient is then exposed to a pseudoallergen-rich "super meal". After a positive reaction to the "super meal" the challenge with additives takes place in the form of collective group exposition. When the patient has asthma or a history of anaphylac-toid reactions, testing with individual substances in carefully increasing dosages is required. The suspicion of adverse reactions against histamine can be confirmed by a challenge with histamine dihydrochloride. In the case of respiratory symptoms, provocation by inhalation should be considered. Objectifying symptoms especially in gastrointestinal diseases is mandatory and should include double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge, if possible.

Skin testing has a central role in the diagnosis of food allergy. Prick testing is well- established as a routine diagnostic tool. Nonetheless, unstable allergens and the lack of standardized extracts create difficulties in the identification of sensitization to foods in patients with suspected food allergy. Therefore prick-to-prick tests with native (raw, fresh) foods are still recommended. The indications and contraindications are the same as those of routine skin testing in clinical allergology. We recommend a careful and restricted application of skin tests in patients with a history of severe anaphylaxis to foods.