COVID-19 pandemic and allergen immunotherapy-an EAACI survey

Background As in many fields of medical care, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in an increased uncertainty regarding the safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Therefore, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to analyze the situation in different countries and to systematically collect all information available regarding tolerability and possible amendments in daily practice of sublingual AIT (SLIT), subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) for inhalant allergies and venom AIT. Methods Under the framework of the EAACI, a panel of experts in the field of AIT coordinated by the Immunotherapy Interest Group set-up a web-based retrospective survey (SurveyMonkey(R)) including 27 standardized questions on practical and safety aspects on AIT in worldwide clinical routine. Results 417 respondents providing AIT to their patients in daily routine answered the survey. For patients (without any current symptoms to suspect COVID-19), 60% of the respondents informed of not having initiated SCIT (40% venom AIT, 35% SLIT) whereas for the maintenance phase of AIT, SCIT was performed by 75% of the respondents (74% venom AIT, 89% SLIT). No tolerability concern arises from this preliminary analysis. 16 physicians reported having performed AIT despite (early) symptoms of COVID-19 and/or a positive test result for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Conclusions This first international retrospective survey in atopic diseases investigated practical aspects and tolerability of AIT during the COVID-19 pandemic and gave no concerns regarding reduced tolerability under real-life circumstances. However, the data indicate an undertreatment of AIT, which may be temporary, but could have a long-lasting negative impact on the clinical care of allergic patients.Peer reviewe

Concepts for the Development of Person-Centered, Digitally Enabled, Artificial Intelligence–Assisted ARIA Care Pathways (ARIA 2024)

Funding Information: This work has received funding from ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact of Asthma); CATALYSE (Climate Action To Advance HeaLthY Societies in Europe), the European Union\u2019s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 101057131; FRAUNHOFER Institute for Translational Medicine and Pharmacology (ITMP), Immunology and Allergology, Berlin, Germany; University of Porto, Portugal; and MASK-air, which has been supported by EU grants (Impact of air Pollution on Asthma and Rhinitis [POLLAR] project of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology Health; Structural and Development Funds, R\u00E9gion Languedoc Roussillon and Provence-Alpes-C\u00F4te d\u2019Azur; Twinning, European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, DG Sant\u00E9 and DG Connect); educational grants from Mylan-Viatris, Allergologisk Laboratorium K\u00F8benhavn, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Stallerg\u00E8nes-Greer, and Noucor; and funding from Breathing Together Onlus Association (Associazione Respiriamo Insieme Onlus), Italy; Esp\u00EDritu Santo University, Samborond\u00F3n, Ecuador; Finnish Anti-Tuberculosis Association Foundation and Tampere Tuberculosis Foundation; GA 2 LEN; German Allergy Society AeDA (\u00C4rzteverband Deutscher Allergologen); IPOKRaTES (International Postgraduate Organization for Knowledge transfer, Research and Teaching Excellent Students) Lithuania Fund; Polish Society of Allergology (POLSKIE TOWARZYSTWO ALLERGOLOGICZNE); and University of Li\u00E8ge, Belgium. Funding Information: Conflicts of interest: J. Bousquet reports personal fees from Cipla, Menarini, Mylan, Novartis, Purina, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva, Noucor, other from KYomed-Innov, and other from Mask-air-SAS, outside the submitted work. M. Blaiss reports personal fees from Sanofi, personal fees from Regeneron, personal fees from ALK, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from GSK, personal fees from Prollergy, personal fees from Lanier Biotherapeutics, and nonfinancial support from Bryn Phama, outside the submitted work. J. Lity\u0144ska reports personal fees from Evidence Prime Sp. z o.o., outside the submitted work. T. Iinuma reports grants from Sanofi, outside the submitted work. P. Tantilipikorn reports grants from Abbott, other from GSK, and other from Sanofi Aventis, outside the submitted work. T. Haahtela reports personal fees from Orion Pharma, outside the submitted work. Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The AuthorsThe traditional healthcare model is focused on diseases (medicine and natural science) and does not acknowledge patients’ resources and abilities to be experts in their own lives based on their lived experiences. Improving healthcare safety, quality, and coordination, as well as quality of life, is an important aim in the care of patients with chronic conditions. Person-centered care needs to ensure that people's values and preferences guide clinical decisions. This paper reviews current knowledge to develop (1) digital care pathways for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity and (2) digitally enabled, person-centered care.1 It combines all relevant research evidence, including the so-called real-world evidence, with the ultimate goal to develop digitally enabled, patient-centered care. The paper includes (1) Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), a 2-decade journey, (2) Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), the evidence-based model of guidelines in airway diseases, (3) mHealth impact on airway diseases, (4) From guidelines to digital care pathways, (5) Embedding Planetary Health, (6) Novel classification of rhinitis and asthma, (7) Embedding real-life data with population-based studies, (8) The ARIA-EAACI (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology) strategy for the management of airway diseases using digital biomarkers, (9) Artificial intelligence, (10) The development of digitally enabled, ARIA person-centered care, and (11) The political agenda. The ultimate goal is to propose ARIA 2024 guidelines centered around the patient to make them more applicable and sustainable.proofinpres

Cabbage and fermented vegetables : From death rate heterogeneity in countries to candidates for mitigation strategies of severe COVID-19

Large differences in COVID-19 death rates exist between countries and between regions of the same country. Some very low death rate countries such as Eastern Asia, Central Europe, or the Balkans have a common feature of eating large quantities of fermented foods. Although biases exist when examining ecological studies, fermented vegetables or cabbage have been associated with low death rates in European countries. SARS-CoV-2 binds to its receptor, the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). As a result of SARS-CoV-2 binding, ACE2 downregulation enhances the angiotensin II receptor type 1 (AT(1)R) axis associated with oxidative stress. This leads to insulin resistance as well as lung and endothelial damage, two severe outcomes of COVID-19. The nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2 (Nrf2) is the most potent antioxidant in humans and can block in particular the AT(1)R axis. Cabbage contains precursors of sulforaphane, the most active natural activator of Nrf2. Fermented vegetables contain many lactobacilli, which are also potent Nrf2 activators. Three examples are: kimchi in Korea, westernized foods, and the slum paradox. It is proposed that fermented cabbage is a proof-of-concept of dietary manipulations that may enhance Nrf2-associated antioxidant effects, helpful in mitigating COVID-19 severity.Peer reviewe

Nrf2-interacting nutrients and COVID-19 : time for research to develop adaptation strategies

There are large between- and within-country variations in COVID-19 death rates. Some very low death rate settings such as Eastern Asia, Central Europe, the Balkans and Africa have a common feature of eating large quantities of fermented foods whose intake is associated with the activation of the Nrf2 (Nuclear factor (erythroid-derived 2)-like 2) anti-oxidant transcription factor. There are many Nrf2-interacting nutrients (berberine, curcumin, epigallocatechin gallate, genistein, quercetin, resveratrol, sulforaphane) that all act similarly to reduce insulin resistance, endothelial damage, lung injury and cytokine storm. They also act on the same mechanisms (mTOR: Mammalian target of rapamycin, PPAR gamma:Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor, NF kappa B: Nuclear factor kappa B, ERK: Extracellular signal-regulated kinases and eIF2 alpha:Elongation initiation factor 2 alpha). They may as a result be important in mitigating the severity of COVID-19, acting through the endoplasmic reticulum stress or ACE-Angiotensin-II-AT(1)R axis (AT(1)R) pathway. Many Nrf2-interacting nutrients are also interacting with TRPA1 and/or TRPV1. Interestingly, geographical areas with very low COVID-19 mortality are those with the lowest prevalence of obesity (Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia). It is tempting to propose that Nrf2-interacting foods and nutrients can re-balance insulin resistance and have a significant effect on COVID-19 severity. It is therefore possible that the intake of these foods may restore an optimal natural balance for the Nrf2 pathway and may be of interest in the mitigation of COVID-19 severity

Health-related quality of life assessment in patients with allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways, which can interfere with many aspects of an individual's life and severely diminish the quality of life of the person affected. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of life of patients suffering from allergic rhinitis during and out of pollen season. The study involved 100 patients diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, 48 of who had seasonal, 25 perennial, and 27 who manifested both forms of allergic rhinitis. All study participants were treated at the Institute of Allergology and Immunology, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade, in the period March-November 2002. A specific quality of life questionnaire for patients with rhinoconjunctivitis was used in the study. During pollen season, itchy eyes (x2=6.34; p=0.042), red eyes (x2=7.44; p=0.024), and swollen eyes (x2=6.65; p=0.036) caused significantly more difficulties for subjects with seasonal and those with both seasonal and perennial rhinitis than for subjects with perennial allergic rhinitis. A highly significant difference in the mean scores of the indoors activity variable during and out of pollen season (F=347.28; p=0.000) was noted, that is to say, significant irritation was noted during pollen season among subjects with seasonal and those with both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, however the dynamics of irritation remained the same in both study groups (F=0.145; p=0.704).The patients with seasonal and those with both seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis experienced a significantly poorer quality of life during pollen season than out of it, as well as an inferior quality of life in comparison to patients with perennial allergic rhinitis during pollen season

Fungi-Induced Upper and Lower Respiratory Tract Allergic Diseases: One Entity

Introduction:Aspergillus can cause different allergic diseases including allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) and allergic fungal rhinosinusitis (AFRS). ABPA is allergic pulmonary disease against Aspergillus antigens. AFRS is a type of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) presented as hypersensitivity reactions to the fungal presence in sinuses. The aim of the present study was to clarify if ABPA and AFRS could be considered as a common disease entity.Methodology: The prospective cohort study included 75 patients with ABPA. Patients were divided into two groups and compared with each other: (i) patients with CT confirmation of rhinosinusitis and presence of fungi in sinuses (ABPA+AFRS group) and (ii) patients without CT or without mycological evidence of AFRS (ABPA group).Results: Findings of this study were: (i) AFRS was confirmed in 80% of patients with ABPA; (ii) all ABPA+AFRS patients had allergic mucin while fungal hyphae were present in 60% sinonasal aspirate; (iii) ABPA+AFRS patients had more often complicated CRS with (nasal polyps) NP (p < 0.001) and more severe forms of CRS; (iv) culture of sinonasal aspirate revealed fungal presence in 97% patients with ABPA+AFRS; (v) patients with ABPA+AFRS had more common positive skin prick test (SPT) for A. fumigatus (p = 0.037), while patients without AFRS had more common positive SPT for Alternaria alternata and Penicillium notatum (p = 0.04 and p = 0.03, respectively); (vi) 67% of ABPA patients had Aspergillus induced AFRS; (vii) larger number of fungi was isolated from the air-samples obtained from homes of patients with ABPA+AFRS than from the homes of patients without AFRS, while the most predominant species were A. fumigatus and A. niger isolated from almost 50% of the air-samples.Conclusion: The pathogenesis of ABPA and AFRS is similar, and AFRS can be considered as the upper airway counterpart of ABPA. Fungi-induced upper and lower respiratory tract allergic diseases present common entity. Next studies should clarify the mechanism by which fungi turn from “normal flora” into trigger of immunological reactions, resulting in ABPA or AFRS as well as to find new approaches for its' diagnosis and treatment

Successful Desensitization to Sorafenib and Imatinib—A Report of Two Cases and a Literature Review

Background: Drug desensitization allows for safe administration of a drug to a patient with a previous hypersensitivity reaction. Successful desensitization protocols have been described for different medications, including protocols for oncology patients. Few cases of desensitization to sorafenib and imatinib have been described in the literature so far. Objective: The objective of this paper is to describe the process of the sorafenib and imatinib drug hypersensitivity diagnosis and desensitization process in two patients. Methods: Two oncology patients who experienced non-immediate hypersensitivity reactions to sorafenib and imatinib underwent desensitization to these drugs. We designed a protocol for the first patient and used a modified protocol from the literature for the second patient. Results: By using a slow desensitization technique and gradual tapering of corticosteroids and antihistamines, both patients reached the target dose of the incriminated drug. Conclusions: Desensitization to sorafenib and imatinib can be an effective therapeutic option in patients with hypersensitivity to those medications, without alternative treatment options