Search

Pollen food syndrome (PFS) is a highly prevalent food allergy affecting pollen‐sensitized children and adults. Sufferers experience allergic symptoms when consuming raw plant foods, due to the homology between the pollen allergens and unstable proteins in these foods. The triggers involved can vary depending on the pollen sensitization, which in turn is affected by geographical location. The British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) Standards of Care Committee (SOCC) identified a need to develop a guideline for the diagnosis and management of PFS in the United Kingdom (UK). Guidelines produced by the BSACI use either the GRADE or SIGN methodology; due to a lack of high‐quality evidence these recommendations were formulated using the SIGN guidelines, which is acknowledged to be less robust than the GRADE approach. The correct diagnosis of PFS ensures the avoidance of a misdiagnosis of a primary peanut or tree nut allergy or confusion with another plant food allergy to non‐specific lipid transfer proteins. The characteristic foods involved, and rapid‐onset oropharyngeal symptoms, mean PFS can often be diagnosed from the clinical history alone. However, reactions involving tree nuts, peanuts and soya milk or severe/atypical reactions to fruits and vegetables may require additional diagnostic tests. Management is through the exclusion of known trigger foods, which may appear to be simple, but is highly problematic if coupled with a pre‐existing food allergy or for individuals following a vegetarian/vegan diet. Immunotherapy to pollens is not an effective treatment for PFS, and although oral or sublingual immunotherapy to foods seems more promising, large, controlled studies are needed. The typically mild symptoms of PFS can lead to an erroneous perception that this condition is always easily managed, but severe reactions can occur, and anxiety about the onset of symptoms to new foods can have a profound effect on quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pollen and house dust mite (HDM) subcutaneous immunotherapy (SLIT) and pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) are effective therapies for children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR). There are no previous direct comparative studies investigating quality of life (QoL) of all three immunotherapy regimes. The aim of this study was to compare QoL and safety in children receiving these immunotherapies for AR. Methods: Demographic characteristics, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Visual Analogue (VAS) scores were assessed in 249 children undergoing HDM and pollen immunotherapy at a UK specialist paediatric centre between 2007 and 2019. Results: All three immunotherapy regimes led to a > 50% improvement in QoL and VAS after 3 years of therapy, with significant improvements by the end of the first year (p < 0.05) and further improvements between 1 and 3 years (p < 0.05). Age, gender, ethnicity and route of administration had no significant bearing on efficacy. Older, polysensitised children and those receiving HDM SLIT were all more likely to discontinue their treatment (all with p < 0.05). The only patient to suffer from anaphylaxis requiring intramuscular adrenaline, and 80% experiencing exacerbations of their asthma had received pollen SCIT. Conclusions: Pollen SCIT and pollen and HDM SLIT all lead to significant improvements in QoL. The risk of anaphylaxis is low, but SCIT is associates with a 1 in 5 chance of asthma flares in the days after its administration. Discontinuation of therapy is more frequent in older, polysensitised children, and those undergoing HDM immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pollen and house dust mite (HDM) subcutaneous immunotherapy (SLIT) and pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) are effective therapies for children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR). There are no previous direct comparative studies investigating quality of life (QoL) of all three immunotherapy regimes. The aim of this study was to compare QoL and safety in children receiving these immunotherapies for AR. Methods: Demographic characteristics, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Visual Analogue (VAS) scores were assessed in 249 children undergoing HDM and pollen immunotherapy at a UK specialist paediatric centre between 2007 and 2019. Results: All three immunotherapy regimes led to a > 50% improvement in QoL and VAS after 3 years of therapy, with significant improvements by the end of the first year (p < 0.05) and further improvements between 1 and 3 years (p < 0.05). Age, gender, ethnicity and route of administration had no significant bearing on efficacy. Older, polysensitised children and those receiving HDM SLIT were all more likely to discontinue their treatment (all with p < 0.05). The only patient to suffer from anaphylaxis requiring intramuscular adrenaline, and 80% experiencing exacerbations of their asthma had received pollen SCIT. Conclusions: Pollen SCIT and pollen and HDM SLIT all lead to significant improvements in QoL. The risk of anaphylaxis is low, but SCIT is associates with a 1 in 5 chance of asthma flares in the days after its administration. Discontinuation of therapy is more frequent in older, polysensitised children, and those undergoing HDM immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1980s, a global number of 72 fatalities were reported in the UK and the USA following the application of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). This resulted in a significant limitation of SCIT use and in the search of other routes of administration, among which sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) showed the best balance between efficacy and safety. Data from controlled studies suggest that tablets‐related anaphylaxis is an uncommon event. However, in the Eudravigilance (European database of suspected adverse drug reactions from Europe) we found reports of life‐threatening events or severe local reactions under SLIT increasing over the last few years. Therefore, all efforts to minimize the related risk have to be strongly encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]