Effect of antihistamine up-dosing in chronic urticaria

Chronic urticaria has an important impact upon patient quality of life, and no treatment has yet been developed capable of effectively controlling the disease. The most recent guidelines recommend the use of non-sedating antihistamines at high doses as second-step therapy before resorting to other treatments. The present review examines the studies published to date on the use of H1 antihistamines at doses higher than those indicated as therapeutic doses in chronic urticaria. Most of the studies report no significant differences among the studied doses – only a tendency towards increased response on elevating the dose.There are no clinically well designed, randomized double-blind trials comparing efficacy between therapeutic doses and doses higher than those indicated in the corresponding Summary of Product Characteristics. Likewise, there are insufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis and thus classify the degree of evidence of the few available studies, which moreover present contradictory results. At present, the prescription of high-dose H1 antihistamines is based only on experts opinion. However, considering the high safety profile of these drugs, it would be a good option to evaluate their efficacy at high doses, before moving on to other therapeutic steps

Use of multiple epinephrine doses in anaphylaxis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Regulatory bodies recommend that all patients at risk of anaphylaxis be prescribed 2 epinephrine autoinjectors, which they should carry at all times. This is in contrast to some guidelines. The proportion of anaphylaxis reactions that are treated with multiple doses of epinephrine has not been systematically evaluated. Objective: Our aim was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting epinephrine treatment for anaphylaxis in which data relating to the number of doses administered were available. Methods: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies reporting at least 10 anaphylaxis events (due to food or venom) from 1946 until January 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate for the meta-analysis, and the risk of bias was assessed. The study was registered under the PROSPERO identifier CRD42017069109. Results: A total of 86 studies (36,557 anaphylaxis events) met the inclusion criteria (20 of the studies [23%] were prospective studies; 64 [74%] reported reactions in the community, and 22 [26%] included food challenge data). Risk of bias was assessed as low in 50 studies. Overall, 7.7% of anaphylaxis events from any cause (95% CI = 6.4-9.1) were treated with multiple doses of epinephrine. When only epinephrine-treated reactions for which subsequent doses were administered by a health care professional were considered, 11.1% of food-induced reactions (95% CI = 9.4-13.2) and 17.1% of venom-induced reactions (95% CI = 11.3-25.0) were treated with at least 1 epinephrine dose. Heterogeneity was moderate to high in the meta-analyses, but at sensitivity analysis it was not affected by study design or anaphylaxis definition. Conclusion: Around 1 in 10 anaphylaxis reactions are treated with at least 1 dose of epinephrine

The Allergenic Structure of the Thaumatinlike Protein Ole e 13 Is Degraded by Processing of Raw Olive Fruits

Background: The thaumatin-like protein (TLP) Ole e 13 in raw olive fruit is responsible for occupational allergy in olive oil mill workers. However,these workers do not experience allergic symptoms after ingestion of edible olive.Objectives: To analyze the presence of IgE-reactive TLP in raw and edible olive fruit and to assess the allergenic potency of both sources.Methods: The content of TLP in raw and edible olive fruit protein extracts was analyzed using immunoblotting with sera from allergic patients and with olive TLP–specific IgG. The structural and immunological stability of TLP were assayed using immunoblotting after treatment of both raw olive and purified TLP with 0.25 M NaOH solution for 24 hours. Olive pollen extract was investigated by immunoblotting for TLP content. Results: The TLP contained in raw olive fruit was not present in edible olives as a result of maceration before human consumption. No TLP was detected in olive pollen using specific IgG or sera from patients allergic to olive fruit. Sera from patients allergic to olive pollen did not react with purified TLP. Conclusions: IgE-reactive TLP is not present in edible olive, thus explaining the low number of patients allergic to this highly consumed fruit. Patients allergic to olive pollen are not sensitized to TLP and, therefore, not expected to be at risk of food allergy to olive fruit or TLP plant source

Steric and Electronic Effects on the Structure and Photophysical Properties of Hg(II) Complexes

Since many factors influence the coordination around a metal center, steric and electronic effects of the ligands mainly determine the connectivity and, thus, the final arrangement. This is emphasized on Hg(II) centers, which have a zero point stabilization energy and, thus, a flexible coordination environment. Therefore, the unrestricted Hg(II) geometry facilitates the predominance of the ligands during the structural inception. Herein, we synthesized and characterized a series of six Hg(II) complexes with general formula (Hg(Pip)2(dPy)) (Pip = piperonylate, dPy = 3- phenylpyridine (3-phpy) (1), 4-phenylpyridine (4-phpy) (2), 2,2′- bipyridine (2,2′-bipy) (3), 1,10-phenanthroline (1,10-phen) (4), 2,2′:6′,2′-terpyridine (terpy) (5), or di(2-picolyl)amine (dpa) (6)). The elucidation of their crystal structures revealed the arrangement of three monomers (3, 5, and 6), one dimer (4), and two coordination polymers (1 and 2) depending on the steric requirements of the dPy and predominance of the ligands. Besides, the study of their photophysical properties in solution supported by TD-DFT calculations enabled us to understand their electronic effects and the influence of the structural arrangement on them

Sensitisation to Act 2d in patientsallergic to Alternaria alternanta: an epiphenomenom without clinical significance?

In the last few years, the introduction of microarrays in the diagnosis of type I allergy is allowing the clinicians to have a much more accurate picture of their allergenic profile. However, the simultaneous measurement of specific IgE to multiple molecules can show unexpected sensitisations, without knowing their clinical relevance. For instance, we have been observing a high prevalence (74%) of sensitisation to Act d 2 (the thaumatin of kiwifruit) in patients sensitised to Alt a 1 (major allergen of Alternaria alternata) with a confirmed allergy to this mould. The aim of the present study was to clarify if there was any clinical relevance in this finding

Allergic rhinitis: continuous or on demand antihistamine therapy?

Allergic rhinitis is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa, caused by an IgE-mediated reaction after exposure to the allergen to which the patient is sensitized. Histamine is the most important preformed mediator released in the early stage of the allergic reaction, and also contributes to the late phase of the latter, exhibiting proinflammatory effects. Minimal persistent inflammation is a physiopathological phenomenon induced by the presence of an inflammatory cell infiltrate, together with ICAM-1 expression in the epithelial cells of the mucosa exposed to the allergen to which they are sensitized, in the absence of clinical symptoms. This molecule is considered to be an allergic inflammatory marker. The priming effect first described by Connell in 1968 consists of the reduction in the allergen concentration required to elicit a nasal hyper-response when performing a daily nasal exposure test. This implies that with natural exposure to inhaled allergens, small amounts of environmental allergen will maintain the patient symptoms, and thus of course minimal persistent inflammation. Considering the above, it is questionable whether antihistamines should be administered on a continuous basis or upon demand. The antihistamines, and fundamentally the second-generation drugs, have been shown to exert an antiinflammatory effect, and this effect is greater when the drug is administered continuously than when administered upon demand. Likewise, a reduction in treatment cost and an improvement in quality of life among patients treated on a continuous basis has been documented. However, no studies have been specifically designed to clarify the indication of treatment on a continuous basis or upon demand, as occurs in the GINA. As a result, the individualization of treatment according to the concrete characteristics of each patient seems to be the best approach, at least for the time being

Basophil Activation Test Utility as a Diagnostic Tool in LTP Allergy

Plant-food allergy is an increasing problem, with nonspecific lipid transfer proteins (nsLTPs) triggering mild/severe reactions. Pru p 3 is the major sensitizer in LTP food allergy (FA). However, in vivo and in vitro diagnosis is hampered by the need for differentiating between asymptomatic sensitization and allergy with clinical relevance. The basophil activation test (BAT) is an ex vivo method able to identify specific IgE related to the allergic response. Thus, we aimed to establish the value of BAT in a precise diagnosis of LTP-allergic patients. Ninety-two individuals with peach allergy sensitized to LTP, Pru p 3, were finally included, and 40.2% of them had symptoms to peanut (n = 37). In addition, 16 healthy subjects were recruited. BAT was performed with Pru p 3 and Ara h 9 (peanut LTP) at seven ten-fold concentrations, and was evaluated by flow cytometry, measuring the percentage of CD63 (%CD63+) and CD203c (%CD203chigh) cells, basophil allergen threshold sensitivity (CD-Sens), and area under the dose–response curve (AUC). Significant changes in BAT parameters (%CD63+ and %CD203chigh) were found between the controls and patients. However, comparisons for %CD63+, %CD203chigh, AUC, and CD-Sens showed similar levels among patients with different symptoms. An optimal cut-off was established from ROC curves, showing a significant positive percentage of BAT in patients compared to controls and great values of sensitivity (>87.5%) and specificity (>85%). In addition, BAT showed differences in LTP-allergic patients tolerant to peanut using its corresponding LTP, Ara h 9. BAT can be used as a potential diagnostic tool for identifying LTP allergy and for differentiating peanut tolerance, although neither reactivity nor sensitivity can distinguish the severity of the clinical symptoms.Partial funding for open access charge: Universidad de Málaga. This research was funded by grants from the “Instituto de Salud Carlos III” (ISCIII) of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness: PI17/01318, PI18/00288, PI21/00346, AC18/00031; RETICS ARADyAL (RD16/0006/0001, RD16/0006/0007); Sara Borrell (CD20/00085) Program; RICORS (RD21/0002/0008, RD21/0002/0058); and Next Generation EU funds. Andalusian Regional Ministry of Health (PE-0039-2018, RH-0085-2020, and PI-0099-2020), Senior Clinical Researcher Program (B-0005-2019), and Nicolas Monardes Program (RC-0004-2021). Roche Pharma S.A. “Stop Fuga de Cerebros” Program (SFC-0002-2020). Grants were co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). “Una manera de hacer Europa” “Andalucía se mueve con Europa”

Use of antihistamines in pediatrics

Drugs with antihistamine action are among the most commonly prescribed medicines in pediatrics. According to the International Medical Statistics (IMS), almost two million antihistamine units (in solution) for pediatric use were sold in Spain during 2006 - at a cost of nearly 6 million euros. Of this amount, 34% corresponded to first-generation (or sedating) antihistamines. The difficulties inherent to research for drug development increase considerably when the pediatric age range is involved. The use of any medication in this age group must adhere to the strictest safety criteria, and must offer the maximum guarantees of effi cacy. For this reason, detailed knowledge of the best scientific evidence available in relation to these aspects is essential for warranting drug use. The first-generation antihistamines have never been adequately studied for pediatric age groups, though they are still widely used in application to such patients. In contrast, studies in children have been made with the second-generation antihistamines, allowing us to know their safety profile, and such medicines are available at pediatric dosages that have been well documented from the pharmacological perspective. The present review affords an update to our most recent knowledge on antihistamine use in children, based on the best scientific evidence available