Imunoterapia específica com venenos de Hymenoptera: revisão sistemática

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The only effective treatment for patients who have severe reactions after Hymenoptera stings is venom immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to review the literature to assess the effects of venom immunotherapy among patients presenting severe reactions after Hymenoptera stings. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled trials in the worldwide literature were reviewed. The manuscript was produced in the Discipline of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Universidade de São Paulo (USP). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials involving venom immunotherapy versus placebo or only patient follow-up were evaluated. The risk of systemic reactions after specific immunotherapy was evaluated by calculating odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: 2,273 abstracts were identified by the keywords search. Only four studies were included in this review. The chi-square test for heterogeneity showed that two studies were homogeneous and could be included in a meta-analysis. By combining the two studies, the odds ratio became significant: 0.29 (0.10-0.87). However, analysis on the severity of the reactions after immunotherapy showed that the benefits may not be so significant because the reactions were mostly similar to or milder than the original reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Specific immunotherapy should be recommended for adults and children with moderate to severe reactions, but there is no need to prescribe it for children with skin reactions alone, especially if the exposure is very sporadic. On the other hand, the risk-benefit relation should always be assessed in each case.CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: O único tratamento eficaz para pacientes que têm reações graves após ferroada de Hymenoptera é a imunoterapia com veneno. O objetivo deste estudo foi rever a literatura para avaliar os efeitos da imunoterapia com veneno em pacientes com reações graves após ferroada de Hymenoptera. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Foram revisados na literatura mundial ensaios clínicos controlados e aleatórios. O manuscrito foi realizado na Disciplina de Alergia e Imunologia Clínica, Universidade de São Paulo (USP). MÉTODOS: Ensaios clínicos controlados e aleatórios envolvendo imunoterapia com veneno de Hymenoptera versus placebo ou apenas acompanhamento dos pacientes foram avaliados. Realizada imunoterapia específica, o risco de reações sistêmicas foi avaliado através de cálculo do "odds ratio" e intervalo de confiança de 95%. RESULTADOS: 2.273 resumos foram identificados na busca pelas palavras chave. Apenas quatro estudos foram incluídos nesta revisão. O teste qui-quadrado de heterogeneidade mostrou que dois estudos foram homogêneos e puderam ser incluídos na metanálise. Ao combinar os dois estudos, o "odds ratio" passou a ser significativo: 0.29 (0.10-0.87). Entretanto, ao analisar a gravidade das reações ocorridas após a imunoterapia, observou-se que os benefícios podem não ser tão relevantes, pois as reações foram, na grande maioria, ou mais leves ou semelhantes à reação original. CONCLUSÕES: A imunoterapia específica deve ser recomendada para adultos e crianças com reações moderadas a graves, porém não há necessidade de prescrevê-la para as crianças apenas com reações cutâneas, especialmente se a exposição é muito esporádica. No outro lado, a relação risco-benefício deve ser sempre avaliada em cada caso

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Anti-inflammatory effect of bee venom on antigen-induced arthritis in rabbits: Influence of endogenous glucocorticoids

Aim of the study: This study assessed the involvement of endogenous glucocorticoids (GCs) in the anti-arthritic properties of bee venom (BV) on antigen-induced arthritis (AIA) in rabbits. Materials and methods: BV (1.5-6 mu g/kg/day) was injected for 7 days before AIA induction, whereas the control group received sterile saline. The total and differential leukocyte count. PGE(2) levels in synovial fluid and synovial membrane cell infiltrate were evaluated. The contribution of GCs to BV action was assessed in rabbits treated with BV plus metyrapone, an inhibitor of GC synthesis, or RU-38 486, a steroid antagonist. Results: Treatment with BV (1.5 mu g/kg/day) reduced the leukocyte count and PGE2 level (18571 +/- 1909 cells/mm(3) and 0.49 +/- 0.05 ng/mL, respectively) as well as the cellular infiltrate compared with the control group (40968 +/- 5248 cells/mm(3) and 2.92 +/- 0.68 ng/mL, p < 0.05). The addition of metyrapone to BV treatment completely reversed the inhibition of AIA, whereas RU-38 486 was ineffective. Conclusion: Our data show that bee venom treatment prevents the development of antigen-induced arthritis in rabbits through the action of GCs. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

Sensitization to foods in gastroesophageal reflux disease and its relation to eosinophils in the esophagus: is it of clinical importance?

Background: Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can be related to greater sensitization to foods. Objective: To evaluate sensitization to foods in patients with refractory GERD. Methods: Patients with refractory GERD after using at least 40 mg of a proton pump inhibitor were given a restriction diet based on the results of skin prick testing and atopy patch testing with foods. The characteristics of sensitized patients were compared with those of nonsensitized patients in relation to atopy and number of eosinophils in the esophageal mucosa. Results: The prevalence of sensitization to foods was 27.7%. Asthmatic patients showed higher sensitization to foods (P = .008). Eosinophils were determined to be present in the esophageal mucosa in 15.8% of patients, and this correlated with greater sensitization to foods (P = .01). One case of eosinophilic esophagitis was confirmed. A diet excluding identified sensitizing foods led to clinical improvement regarding GERD symptoms (P = .004). Conclusion: The presence of eosinophils in esophageal mucosa associated with greater sensitization to foods and the response to a restriction diet in patients with positive test results suggest that refractory GERD can represent an initial stage of eosinophilic esophagitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010;105:359-363.NovartisAstraZenecaMSDSanofi-AventisBoeringherAch

Mometasone furoate in the treatment of mild, moderate, or severe persistent allergic rhinitis: a non-inferiority study (PUMA)

AbstractIntroductionAllergic rhinitis is considered the most prevalent respiratory disease in Brazil and worldwide, with great impact on quality of life, affecting social life, sleep, and also performance at school and at work.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of two formulations containing mometasone furoate in the treatment of mild, moderate, or severe persistent allergic rhinitis after four weeks of treatment.MethodsPhase III, randomized, non-inferiority, national, open study comparing mometasone furoate in two presentations (control drug and investigational drug). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with reduction of at least 0.55 in nasal index score (NIS) after four weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included total nasal index score score after four and 12 weeks of treatment; individual scores for symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal pruritus; as well as score for pruritus, lacrimation, and ocular redness after four and 12 weeks of treatment. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the reference number NCT01372865.ResultsThe efficacy primary analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of the investigational drug in relation to the control drug, since the upper limit of the confidence interval (CI) of 95% for the difference between the success rates after four weeks of treatment (12.6%) was below the non-inferiority margin provided during the determination of the sample size (13.7%). Adverse events were infrequent and with mild intensity in most cases.ConclusionThe efficacy and safety of investigational drug in the treatment of persistent allergic rhinitis were similar to the reference product, demonstrating its non-inferiority

Specific immunotherapy using Hymenoptera venom: systematic review

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The only effective treatment for patients who have severe reactions after Hymenoptera stings is venom immunotherapy. The aim of this study was to review the literature to assess the effects of venom immunotherapy among patients presenting severe reactions after Hymenoptera stings. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled trials in the worldwide literature were reviewed. The manuscript was produced in the Discipline of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Universidade de São Paulo (USP). METHODS: Randomized controlled trials involving venom immunotherapy versus placebo or only patient follow-up were evaluated. The risk of systemic reactions after specific immunotherapy was evaluated by calculating odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: 2,273 abstracts were identified by the keywords search. Only four studies were included in this review. The chi-square test for heterogeneity showed that two studies were homogeneous and could be included in a meta-analysis. By combining the two studies, the odds ratio became significant: 0.29 (0.10-0.87). However, analysis on the severity of the reactions after immunotherapy showed that the benefits may not be so significant because the reactions were mostly similar to or milder than the original reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Specific immunotherapy should be recommended for adults and children with moderate to severe reactions, but there is no need to prescribe it for children with skin reactions alone, especially if the exposure is very sporadic. On the other hand, the risk-benefit relation should always be assessed in each case