Current Update of Local Allergic Rhinitis

Local allergic rhinitis (LAR) is a localized nasal allergic response in the absence of systemic atopy. The symptoms, duration, severity, and comorbidities of LAR are similar to those of allergic rhinitis. Although pathophysiology of LAR is not fully understood, in some patients specific IgE can be demonstrated in the nasal secretions. The diagnosis currently relies on the positive results of nasal provocation test. Nasal provocation test has shown high sensitivity and specificity with safety, and is considered as the gold standard. LAR patients benefit from the same therapeutic strategies as allergic rhinitis patients, including the avoidance of allergen exposure and the pharmacotherapy. Effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy open a window of treatment opportunity in LAR. This review provides a current update on LAR.

Subjects develop tolerance to Pru p 3 but respiratory allergy to Pru p 9: A large study group from a peach exposed population

Peach tree allergens are present in fruit, pollen, branches, and leaves, and can induce systemic, respiratory, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal symptoms. We studied the capacity of peach fruit/Pru p 1, Pru p 3, Pru p 4, Pru p 7 and peach pollen/Pru p 9 for inducing symptoms following oral or respiratory exposure in a large group of subjects. We included 716 adults (aged 21 to 83 y.o.) exposed to peach tree pollen and fruit intake in the study population. Participants completed a questionnaire and were skin tested with a panel of inhalant and food allergens, including peach tree pollen, Pru p 9 and peach fruit skin extract. Immunoglobulin E antibodies (SIgE) to Pru p 1, Pru p 3, Pru p 4 and Pru p 7 were quantified. Sensitised subjects underwent oral food challenge with peach fruit and nasal provocation test with peach tree pollen and Pru p 9. The prevalence of sensitisation to peach fruit was 5% and most of these had SIgE to Pru p 3, with a very low proportion to Pru p 4 SIgE and no SIgE to Pru p 1 and Pru p 7. In only 1.8%, anaphylaxis was the clinical entity induced. Cases with positive skin tests to peach and SIgE to Pru p 3 presented a good tolerance after oral challenge with peach fruit. The prevalence of skin sensitisation to peach tree pollen was 22%, with almost half recognising Pru p 9. This induced respiratory symptoms in those evaluated by nasal provocation. In a large population group exposed to peach fruit and peach tree pollen, most individuals were tolerant, even in those with SIgE to Pru p 3. A positive response to Pru p 9 was associated with respiratory allergy.

The Importance of Nasal Provocation Testing in the Diagnosis of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus-Induced Allergic Rhinitis

Background Allergen identification is the first step for allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) of allergic rhinitis (AR). Currently, the diagnosis of AR is based mainly on the positive results of the skin prick test (SPT) and/or serum specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) measurement. However, the results of these two tests may not always directly correlate with AR. Objective To investigate the importance of nasal provocation testing (NPT) in the diagnosis of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Der p)-induced AR. Methods Rhinitis patients willing to undergo AIT (n = 171) were enrolled. The correlations of Der p SPT, sIgE, NPT, and clinical symptom severity were assessed. Results NPT-positive responses were more common in patients with higher SPT and sIgE levels. The optimal cut-off value for a NPT-positive response for SPT was 5.5 mm and for sIgE was 2.77 kUA/L, based on the respective receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The area under the curve (AUC) of the ROCs was 0.814 (SPT only) and 0.794 (sIgE only) and increased to 0.828 with the combination of SPT and sIgE. The Der p-NPT concentration was inversely correlated with SPT and sIgE levels ( r = −0.477, P < .001, and r = −0.461, P < .001, respectively), but none was correlated with the total nasal symptom score. Conclusion For patients who are willing to receive Der p AIT, NPT is a useful and safe test to confirm diagnosis prior to treatment initiation, especially in patients with lower levels of Der p SPT (< 5.5 mm) or sIgE (< 2.77 kUA/L).

Intralymphatic immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Only a fraction of patients with allergic rhinitis receive allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). AIT is most commonly delivered subcutaneously in a series of injections over 3‐5 years. Common obstacles to completing this therapy include cost and inconvenience. Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) has been proposed as a faster alternative, which requires as few as three injections spaced 4 weeks apart. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the current evidence that supports the use of ILIT for allergic rhinitis. Methods: Clinical trials were identified in the published literature by using an electronic search strategy and were evaluated by using a risk of bias tool. Treatment outcome (symptom scores, medication scores, and combined symptom and medication scores) and provocation testing results (nasal provocation and skin-prick testing) were included in a meta-analysis of standardized mean difference with subgrouping by using a random-effects model. Overall adverse event rates were tabulated, and overall risk ratios were calculated by using a random-effects model. Results: We identified 17 clinical trials that met eligibility criteria. The standardized mean difference of ILIT on the symptom and medication score was ‐0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], ‐0.98 to ‐0.46; p < 0.0001) (n = 10). The standardized mean difference of ILIT on nasal provocation and skin-prick testing was ‐1.00 (95% CI, ‐1.38 to ‐0.61; p < 0.0001) (n = 7) and ‐0.73 (95% CI, ‐0.99 to ‐0.47; p < 0.0001) (n = 7), respectively. No statistically significant heterogeneity was detected. The overall adverse event rate was 39.5% for ILIT and 23.5% for placebo. Also, 98.4% of adverse events were mild. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that ILIT was safe, conferred desensitization to seasonal and nonseasonal allergens, alleviated allergic rhinitis symptoms, and reduced medication use. A larger randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial will be necessary for wider adaptation of this form of AIT.

How reliable is anamnestic data in predicting the clinical relevance of house dust mite sensitization?

Purpose For perennial inhalant allergens such as house dust mite (HDM), the German guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy explicitly recommends provocation testing. This procedure is time-consuming, expensive, and potentially dangerous for the patient. Recently it has been discussed whether provocation tests are really necessary for diagnosing allergy to Dermatophagoides species. Thus, our study aimed to analyze the concordance between nasal provocation tests with Dermatophagoides species and anamnestic data. Methods We retrospectively analyzed the concordance between patients’ histories including self-reported symptom scores and the results of provocation testing in 471 individuals with proven sensitization to Dermatophagoides species. Results 248 patients had a positive nasal provocation test (NPT) result to Dermatophagoides species and 223 individuals a negative NPT result. Patients allergic to HSM suffered significantly more often from atopic dermatitis (14% vs. 7%, p = 0.046) and more from asthma (20% vs. 19%, p = 0.851). Moreover, individuals with clinically silent sensitization complained less about nasal secretion (37% vs. 45%, p = 0.244) but significantly more about nasal dryness (46% vs. 34%, p = 0.046) whereas rates of nasal airway obstruction, ocular complaints and sleep quality were comparable in both groups. Allergic patients reported more often perennial (34% vs. 30%, p = 0.374) and location-dependent (39% vs. 31%, p = 0.090) symptoms. However, the discrepant prevalence of atopic dermatitis was the only statistically significant difference between both groups. Conclusion Despite slight differences between both patient groups, clinical data are not sufficient to distinguish between silent sensitization and clinically relevant allergic rhinitis to HDM. Therefore, nasal provocation testing remains the gold standard for assessing clinical relevance in patients sensitized to Dermatophagoides species.

Prunus persica 9, a new occupational allergen from peach tree pollen involved in rhinitis and asthma

ObjectivesSeveral studies have described peach tree (PT) as an occupational allergen. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of Prunus persica 9 (Pru p 9), a recently identified allergen from PT pollen, in exposed workers.MethodsThe study included people who reported respiratory symptoms after handling PT in orchards during the flowering period (Blanca village, Murcia region, south-east Spain). After completing a detailed questionnaire, participants underwent skin prick test (SPT) and nasal provocation test (NPT). The IgE response was analysed by SDS-PAGE and immunoblotting assays.ResultsA total of 21 cases were included (mean age 45 years; 57% women). Most were polysensitised to common pollens, although one person was sensitised only to PT pollen. All cases had a positive SPT to this pollen, and 43% also to Pru p 9. All participants reported having rhinitis, and six participants reported having also asthma. Immunoblotting showed a heterogeneous IgE pattern for several proteins, with Pru p 9 recognised in nine cases. Most participants sensitised to PT pollen and Pru p 9 had positive NPTs, while those who were not sensitised to Pru p 9 tested negative.ConclusionsWe demonstrate for the first time that Pru p 9, an allergen from PT pollen, can induce respiratory symptoms following occupational exposure. This must be considered a relevant allergen when people working with PT cultivars develop respiratory symptoms.