Management of the polyallergic patient with allergy immunotherapy: A practice-based approach

Background: The great majority (60-80 %) of patients consulting specialist physicians for allergic respiratory disease are polysensitized and thus may be potentially clinically polyallergic. However, management approaches to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in polysensitized and polyallergic patients are not standardized. Methods: An international group of clinicians with in-depth expertise in AIT product development, clinical trials and clinical practice met to generate up-to-date, unambiguous, pragmatic guidance on AIT in polysensitized and polyallergic patients. The guidance was developed after reviewing (1) the current stance of regulatory bodies and learned societies, (2) the literature data on single- and multi-AIT and (3) the members' confirmed clinical experience with polysensitized patients. Results: AIT is safe and effective in polysensitized and polyallergic patients, and should always be based on the identification of one or more clinically relevant allergens (based on the type and severity of symptoms, the duration of induced symptoms, the impact on quality of life and how difficult an allergen is to avoid). Single-AIT is recommended in polyallergic patients in whom one of the relevant allergens is nevertheless clearly responsible for the most intense and/or bothersome symptoms. Parallel 2-allergen immunotherapy or mixed 2-allergen immunotherapy is indicated in polyallergic patients in whom two causal relevant allergens have a marked clinical and QoL impact. In parallel 2-allergen immunotherapy (whether subcutaneous or sublingual), high-quality, standardized, single-allergen formulations must be administered with an interval of 30 min. Mixing of allergen extracts may be considered, as long as (1) the mixture is technically feasible, (2) the mixture is allowed from a regulatory standpoint, (3) the allergen doses are reduced in proportion to the number of components but are still at concentrations with demonstrated efficacy. Conclusions: Physicians can prescribe AIT (preferably with high-quality, standardized, single-allergen formulations) with confidence in polysensitized and polyallergic patients by focusing on clinical/QoL relevance and safety

UK Immunotherapy Study: reanalysis by a combined symptom and medication score

Reanalysis of UK22 subcutaneous immunotherapy trial according to WAO/EAACI recommendations revealed clinically relevant improvements at both doses. Starting at the lower dose should enable efficacy with lower risk of adverse events

Effects of allergen immunotherapy in the MASK-air study: a proof-of-concept analysis

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Effects of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and other eicosanoid pathway modifiers on antiviral and allergic responses. EAACI task force on eicosanoids consensus report in times of COVID‐19

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and other eicosanoid pathway modifiers are among the most ubiquitously used medications in the general population. Their broad anti‐inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic effects are applied against symptoms of respiratory infections, including SARS‐CoV‐2, as well as in other acute and chronic inflammatory diseases that often coexist with allergy and asthma. However, the current pandemic of COVID‐19 also revealed the gaps in our understanding of their mechanism of action, selectivity, and interactions not only during viral infections and inflammation, but also in asthma exacerbations, uncontrolled allergic inflammation, and NSAIDs‐exacerbated respiratory disease (NERD). In this context, the consensus report summarizes currently available knowledge, novel discoveries, and controversies regarding the use of NSAIDs in COVID‐19, and the role of NSAIDs in asthma and viral asthma exacerbations. We also describe here novel mechanisms of action of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs), outline how to predict responses to LTRA therapy and discuss a potential role of LTRA therapy in COVID‐19 treatment. Moreover, we discuss interactions of novel T2 biologicals and other eicosanoid pathway modifiers on the horizon, such as prostaglandin D2 antagonists and cannabinoids, with eicosanoid pathways, in context of viral infections and exacerbations of asthma and allergic diseases. Finally, we identify and summarize the major knowledge gaps and unmet needs in current eicosanoid research

Considerations on biologicals for patients with allergic disease in times of the COVID-19 pandemic: An EAACI statement

The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2-induced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic re-shaped doctor-patient interaction and challenged capacities of healthcare systems. It created many issues around the optimal and safest way to treat complex patients with severe allergic disease. A significant number of the patients are on treatment with biologicals, and clinicians face the challenge to provide optimal care during the pandemic. Uncertainty of the potential risks for these patients is related to the fact that the exact sequence of immunological events during SARS-CoV-2 is not known. Severe COVID-19 patients may experience a “cytokine storm” and associated organ damage characterized by an exaggerated release of pro-inflammatory type 1 and type 3 cytokines. These inflammatory responses are potentially counteracted by anti-inflammatory cytokines and type 2 responses. This expert-based EAACI statement aims to provide guidance on the application of biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation in patients with allergic disease. Currently, there is very little evidence for an enhanced risk of patients with allergic diseases to develop severe COVID-19. Studies focusing on severe allergic phenotypes are lacking. At present, noninfected patients on biologicals for the treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, or chronic spontaneous urticaria should continue their biologicals targeting type 2 inflammation via self-application. In case of an active SARS-CoV-2 infection, biological treatment needs to be stopped until clinical recovery and SARS-CoV-2 negativity is established and treatment with biologicals should be re-initiated. Maintenance of add-on therapy and a constant assessment of disease control, apart from acute management, are demanded

State‐of‐the‐art in marketed adjuvants and formulations in Allergen Immunotherapy: a position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)

Since the introduction of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) over 100 years ago, focus has been on standardization of allergen extracts, with reliable molecular composition of allergens receiving the highest attention. While adjuvants play a major role in European AIT, they have been less well studied. In this Position Paper we summarize current unmet needs of adjuvants in AIT citing current evidence. Four adjuvants are used in products marketed in Europe: aluminium hydroxide (Al(OH)3) is the most frequently used adjuvant, with microcrystalline tyrosine (MCT), monophosphoryl lipid A (MPLA) and calcium phosphate (CaP) used less frequently. Recent studies on humans, and using mouse models, have characterized in part the mechanisms of action of adjuvants on pre‐existing immune responses. AIT differs from prophylactic vaccines that provoke immunity to infectious agents, as in allergy the patient is pre‐sensitized to the allergen. The intended mode of action of adjuvants is to simultaneously enhance the immunogenicity of the allergen, while precipitating the allergen at the injection site to reduce the risk of anaphylaxis. Contrasting immune effects are seen with different adjuvants. Aluminium hydroxide initially boosts Th2 responses, while the other adjuvants utilised in AIT redirect the Th2 immune response toward Th1 immunity. After varying lengths of time, each of the adjuvants supports tolerance. Further studies of the mechanisms of action of adjuvants may advise shorter treatment periods than the current three‐to‐five‐year regimens, enhancing patient adherence. Improved lead compounds from the adjuvant pipeline are under development and are explored for their capacity to fill this unmet need

Novel approaches and perspectives in allergen immunotherapy

In this review, we report on relevant current topics in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) which were broadly discussed during the first Aarhus Immunotherapy Symposium (Aarhus, Denmark) in December 2015 by leading clinicians, scientists and industry representatives in the field. The aim of this symposium was to highlight AIT-related aspects of public health, clinical efficacy evaluation, mechanisms, development of new biomarkers and an overview of novel therapeutic approaches. Allergy is a public health issue of high socioeconomic relevance, and development of evidence-based action plans to address allergy as a public health issue ought to be on national and regional agendas. The underlying mechanisms are in the focus of current research that lays the ground for innovative therapies. Standardization and harmonization of clinical endpoints in AIT trials as well as current knowledge about potential biomarkers have substantiated proof of effectiveness of this disease-modifying therapeutic option. Novel treatments such as peptide immunotherapy, intralymphatic immunotherapy and use of recombinant allergens herald a new age in which AIT may address treatment of allergy as a public health issue by reaching a large fraction of patients

Contraindications to immunotherapy: a global approach

Background Recommendations on contraindications to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) have been independently developed by National and International Societies/Academies. AIT contraindications are mainly based on case reports, case-series, or experts' opinion, while evidence-based information is limited. The aim of the present review was to describe existing guidelines on contraindications to AIT and to highlight differences between them. Main body An extended review of the literature regarding contraindications to AIT for respiratory allergy and venom hypersensitivity was performed. Furthermore, Societies and Academies registered in the World Allergy Organization and EAACI databases, were asked for additional information. Only AIT guidelines published under official auspicies were included. A large heterogeneity among the various recommendations on contraindications was registered. Common contraindications to most of the guidelines were: lack of adherence, pregnancy before the start of AIT, the use of beta-blockers, certain age groups, uncontrolled asthma, autoimmune diseases and malignancies. Conclusion As new data arise, revisions might soon be needed allowing AIT in the cases of patients treated with ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, in elderly patients and in patients with concomitant autoimmune diseases and neoplasias in remission. The decision to prescribe AIT is always tailor-made, balancing risk vs benefit. Creating globally accepted guidelines would help Allergologists in their decision making