Allergen Immunotherapy: Current and Future Trends

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the sole disease-modifying treatment for allergic rhinitis; it prevents rhinitis from progressing to asthma and lowers medication use. AIT against mites, insect venom, and certain kinds of pollen is effective. The mechanism of action of AIT is based on inducing immunological tolerance characterized by increased IL-10, TGF-β, and IgG4 levels and Treg cell counts. However, AIT requires prolonged schemes of administration and is sometimes associated with adverse reactions. Over the last decade, novel forms of AIT have been developed, focused on better allergen identification, structural modifications to preserve epitopes for B or T cells, post-traductional alteration through chemical processes, and the addition of adjuvants. These modified allergens induce clinical-immunological effects similar to those mentioned above, increasing the tolerance to other related allergens but with fewer side effects. Clinical studies have shown that molecular AIT is efficient in treating grass and birch allergies. This article reviews the possibility of a new AIT to improve the treatment of allergic illness.

Tolerability, course and follow-up of specific immunotherapy using a modified ultra-rush procedure in children and adolescents with insect venom allergy

Summary Background Specific immunotherapy with insect venom (hymenoptera venom (HG)-AIT) is an effective and the only causal treatment for patients with systemic reactions due to IgE-mediated insect venom allergy. The present study investigated the quality of care after bee and wasp venom allergy, the tolerability of modified ultra-rush immunotherapy and the course after the conclusion of maintenance therapy in children and adolescents. Studies on the quality of life of children with insect venom allergy are scarce. Methods The efficacy, safety and tolerability of an ultra-rush protocol was analysed in 114 patients aged 4–17 years with insect venom allergy. After the end of HG-AIT, patients were contacted by questionnaire and asked to report on the quality of care as well as the course of insect venom allergy, including accidental stinging events. Quality of life was validated using the established questionnaire VQLQ‑d (Vespid Quality of Life Questionnaire), which is also used for bee venom allergy patients. Results Discontinuation of the initial therapy was not necessary in any patient. Side effects were mostly mild and did not require treatment. In 16 patients, a new sting reaction occurred during maintenance therapy, in another 15 patients a sting event was documented after cessation of HG-AIT. The intensity of the reaction to the accidental insect bite according to the severity classification after Ring and Messmer decreased from an average of 2.3 to 0.9 in these patients. This corresponds to a decrease of 61%. An emergency kit was carried by 70% of the patients, the expiry date of which, however, had already passed in almost 40% of the respondents. After the end of the therapy, most patients were not under any medical care or had never been to a check-up (92%). The evaluation of the VQLQ‑d showed a medium to low level of stress during or after therapy. Discussion Ultra-rush AIT in childhood and adolescence is safe, tolerable and effective. HG-AIT has a lasting positive effect on the health-related quality of life of patients. However, after the end of HG-AIT, there are deficits in the follow-up and care of the patients.

Quadruple or triple action creams for insect venom treatments

Editorial (no abstract required). Author's opinion.

COVID-19 vaccine testing & administration guidance for allergists/immunologists from the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (CSACI)

Background Safe and effective vaccines provide the first hope for mitigating the devastating health and economic impacts resulting from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and related public health orders. Recent case reports of reactions to COVID-19 vaccines have raised questions about their safety for use in individuals with allergies and those who are immunocompromised. In this document, we aim to address these concerns and provide guidance for allergists/immunologists. Methods Scoping review of the literature regarding COVID-19 vaccination, adverse or allergic reactions, and immunocompromise from PubMed over the term of December 2020 to present date. We filtered our search with the terms “human” and “English” and limited the search to the relevant subject age range with the term “adult.” Reports resulting from these searches and relevant references cited in those reports were reviewed and cited on the basis of their relevance. Results Assessment by an allergist is warranted in any individual with a suspected allergy to a COVID-19 vaccine or any of its components. Assessment by an allergist is NOT required for individuals with a history of unrelated allergies, including to allergies to foods, drugs, insect venom or environmental allergens. COVID-19 vaccines should be offered to immunocompromised patients if the benefit is deemed to outweigh any potential risks of vaccination. Interpretation This review provides the first Canadian guidance regarding assessment of an adolescent and adult with a suspected allergy to one of the COVID-19 vaccines currently available, or any of their known allergenic components, and for patients who are immunocompromised who require vaccination for COVID-19. As information is updated this guidance will be updated accordingly.

Effects of a 90-min educational intervention for patients with insect venom allergy: a prospective controlled pilot study

Background Anaphylactic sting reactions need a prompt management. A structured educational intervention for patients with insect sting allergy has not been implemented so far. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of a structured 90-min educational intervention for patients with insect sting allergy. Methods Patients with an insect venom allergy were offered to participate in a structured 90-min group education (intervention group (IG)) or to attend a control group (CG). The patients’ subjective self-assurance in using the emergency medication, the willingness to always carry the emergency medication, the mental health status, absolute one-time willingness-to-pay (WTP) for complete cure, a disease knowledge assessment and a simulation test to examine the ability to manage an acute sting reaction were estimated at baseline (t0) and at follow-up (t1) as outcome parameters. Results 55 patients participated in the IG (n = 25, 52.0% female, mean age 55.9 years) or the CG (n = 30, 56.7% female, mean age 52.0 years). Both arms showed a significant gain in self-assurance in using the emergency medication (IG: 6.1 at t0 vs. 8.6 at t1, p < 0.0001 and CG: 7.1 vs. 8.0, p = 0.0062) and ability to manage an acute sting reaction (IG: 6.7 vs. 11.4, p < 0.0001 and CG: 9.0 vs. 10.5, p = 0.0002) at t1. However, trained participants showed a significantly higher gain in the respective parameters. There were no significant changes regarding the remaining examined outcome parameters. Conclusions Patients who are willing to invest 90 min in a patient education intervention benefit significantly by an increased subjective and objective empowerment to manage an acute sting reaction.