Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_2797_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана

.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
21 Мб
Скачать
202 Textbook of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in Allergy
https://t.me/medicina_free
Table 9. Complement profile in HAE and AAE.
Clinical Disease C4 C1q C3 C1-INH Antigen C1-INH Functional
HAE Type I HAE Type II AAE Type I AAE Type II ACEi Induced AAE Autoimmune Diseases
SLE; Sjogren
NOTE: D = Decreased; N = Normal and N/D = Could be Normal or Decreased; ACEi induced AAE = Angiotensin inhibitor-induced acquired angioedema.
D N N D D
D N N N D
D D N/D D D
D D N/D D/N D
N N N N N
D D N /D D D
No role for complement in pathogenesis. Angioedema is due to tissue persistence of bradykinin, which is because of the lack of ACE needed to degrade bradykinin. While C4 is decreased in both remission (asymptomatic) and exacerbation (symptomatic) of C1-INH deficiency, C2 is decreased during an exacerbation only and is normal in remission.
Genetic Testing
Genetic testing is a complementary tool in the diagnosis of C1-INH-HAE or other forms of hereditary angioedema, especially in the case of normal C1-INH HAE syndromes. Pathogenic variants in four different genes have been identified to cause HAE; these genes are serine protease inhibitor G1 (SERPING1), factor XII (F12), plasminogen (PLG) and angiopoietic 1 (ANGPT 1) (Banday et al. 2020). These gene variants lead to increased bradykinin two receptor-mediated signaling via increased production of bradykinin except mutations in ANGPT1 that disturbs the cytoskeletal assembly of vascular endothelial cells.
Genetic analysis of the SERPING1 gene is helpful to confirm a familial diagnosis or, very rarely, when results from the classical assays are still inconclusive after using samples of poor quality. It is required for patients younger than 1 year of age, where C1-INH expression is variable resulting in serum/plasma values that are hard to interpret, compared to the adult. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms that target the entire SERPING1 gene offer a powerful approach to the genetic analysis of patients with respect to C1-INH-HAE. A real advantage of NGS when associated with copy number variation analysis is to provide information about the size and localization of recombination fragments.
More than 500 SERPING1 variants have been reported in the online Human Gene Mutation database HMGD®. New SERPING1 variants need to be validated for their association with decreased C1-INH function and clinical phenotype. De novo mutations within the SERPING1 gene are not uncommon, requiring further attention to family segregation. Another advantage of genetic testing includes the identification of APP and ACE deficiencies as they could potentially help in identifying patients with more frequent or more severe angioedema attacks (Charignon et al. 2014). Identification of variants within the F12, PLG and ANGPT1 genes (described in normal C1-INH-HAE) and are important when C1-INH-associated angioedema syndromes have to be excluded in a patient.
Immunodeficiency may be primary (inherited genetic defects), or secondary (e.g., due to infection, malignancy or protein loss). In either case, partial or complete immune deficits can contribute to increased susceptibility to infection, autoimmunity, malignancy or autoinflammation. Primary immunodeficiency can manifest at any age, therefore, recognition of clinical features of primary
Conclusion
Laboratory Analysis of Primary Immunodeficiency 203
https://t.me/medicina_free
immunodeficiency and the use of appropriate laboratory testing is essential to guide both the diagnosis and management of such patients.
Glossary of Abbreviations
AAE – Acquired Angioedema ADA – Adenosine Deaminase aHUS – Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome AP – Alternative Pathway AR – Autosomal Recessive BTK – Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase C1-INH – C1 esterase inhibitor CBC – Complete Blood Count CGD – Chronic Granulomatous Disease CP – Classical Pathway CVID – Common Variable Immunodeficiency DGS – DiGeorge Syndrome DHR123 – Dihydrorhodamine 123 EdU – 5-ethynyl-2’-deoxyuridine FMF – Familial Mediterranean Fever HAE – Hereditary Angioedema HIV – Human Immunodeficiency Virus HTLV – Human T-Lymphotropic Virus HUS – Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome IEI – Inborn Errors of Immunity IUIS – International Union of Immunological Societies IVIG – Intravenous Immunoglobulin JAK – Janus Kinase LAD – Leukocyte Adhesion Deficiency LP – Leptin Pathway MAC – Membrane Attack Complex MSMD – Mendelian Susceptibility to Mycobacterial Disease NADPH – Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate NBS – Newborn Screen PAMP – Pathogen Associated Molecular Complex PAP – Pulmonary Alveolar Proteinosis PCR – Polymerase Chain Reaction PHA – Phytohemagglutinin PID – Primary Immunodeficiency PMA – Phorbol Myristate Acetate PNH – Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria RBC – Red Blood Cell ROS – Reactive Oxygen Species SAD – Specific Antibody Deficiency SCID – Severe Combined Immunodeficiency SCIG – Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin SID – Secondary Immunodeficiency SPEP – Serum Protein Electrophoresis THI – Transient Hypogammaglobulinemia of Infancy TREC – T Cell Receptor Excision Circle WBC – White Blood Cell XLA – X-Linked Agammaglobulinemia
204 Textbook of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in Allergy
https://t.me/medicina_free
References
Ambrosino, D. M., Siber, G. R., Chilmonczyk, B. A., Jernberg, J. B. and Finberg, R. W. 1987. An immunodeficiency
characterized by impaired antibody responses to polysaccharides. N Engl. J. Med. 316(13): 790–793. Banday, A. Z., Kaur, A., Jindal, A. K., Rawat, A. and Singh, S. 2020. An update on the genetics and pathogenesis of
hereditary angioedema. Genes Dis. 7(1): 75–83. Berbudi, A., Rahmadika, N., Tjahjadi, A. I. and Ruslami, R. 2020. Type 2 diabetes and its impact on the immune
system. Curr. Diabetes Rev. 16(5): 442–449. Bonilla, F. A., Barlan, I., Chapel, H., Costa-Carvalho, B. T., Cunningham-Rundles, C., de la Morena, M. T. et al. 2016.
International Consensus Document (ICON): Common variable immunodeficiency disorders. J. Allergy Clin.
Immunol. Pract. 4(1): 38–59. Booth, C. and Gaspar, H. B. 2009. Pegademase bovine (PEG-ADA) for the treatment of infants and children with
severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Biologics 3: 349–358. Bourke, C. D., Berkley, J. A. and Prendergast, A. J. 2016. Immune dysfunction as a cause and consequence of
malnutrition. Trends Immunol. 37(6): 386–398. Bousfiha, A., Jeddane, L., Picard, C., Al-Herz, W., Ailal, F., Chatila, T. et al. 2020. Human inborn errors of immunity:
2019 update of the IUIS phenotypical classification. J. Clin. Immunol. 40(1): 66–81. Boxer, L. A. 2012. How to approach neutropenia. Hematology Am. Soc. Hematol. Educ. Program 2012: 174–182. Bruton, O. C. 1952. Agammaglobulinemia. Pediatrics 9(6): 722–728. Buckley, R. H. 2002. Immunoglobulin G subclass deficiency: fact or fancy? Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2(5): 356–360. Chan, S. K. and Gelfand, E. W. 2015. Primary immunodeficiency masquerading as allergic disease. Immunol. Allergy
Clin. North Am. 35(4): 767–778. Charest-Morin, X., Betschel, S., Borici-Mazi, R., Kanani, A., Lacuesta, G., Rivard, G. E. et al. 2018. The diagnosis of
hereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency: a survey of Canadian physicians and laboratories. Allergy
Asthma Clin. Immunol. 14: 83. Charignon, D., Ghannam, A., Defendi, F., Ponard, D., Monnier, N., Lopez Trascasa, M. et al. 2014. Hereditary
angioedema with F12 mutation: factors modifying the clinical phenotype. Allergy 69(12): 1659–1665. Chinen, J. and Shearer, W. T. 2010. Secondary immunodeficiencies, including HIV infection. J. Allergy Clin.
Immunol. 125(2 Suppl 2): S195–203. Cicalese, M. P. and Aiuti, A. 2015. Clinical applications of gene therapy for primary immunodeficiencies. Hum Gene
Ther. 26(4): 210–219. Cicalese, M. P., Ferrua, F., Castagnaro, L., Rolfe, K., De Boever, E., Reinhardt, R. R. et al. 2018. Gene therapy for
adenosine deaminase deficiency: a comprehensive evaluation of short- and medium-term safety. Mol. Ther.
26(3): 917–931. Cicardi, M., Bergamaschini, L., Zingale, L. C., Gioffre, D. and Agostoni, A. 1999. Idiopathic nonhistaminergic
angioedema. Am. J. Med. 106(6): 650–654. Costabile, M. 2010. Measuring the 50% haemolytic complement (CH50) activity of serum. J. Vis. Exp. (37): 1923. Dalal, I., Reid, B., Nisbet-Brown, E. and Roifman, C. M. 1998. The outcome of patients with hypogammaglobulinemia
in infancy and early childhood. J. Pediatr 133(1): 144–146. Davies, E. G., Cheung, M., Gilmour, K., Maimaris, J., Curry, J., Furmanski, A. et al. 2017. Thymus transplantation
for complete DiGeorge syndrome: European experience. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 140(6): 1660–1670 e1616. Davis, A. E., 3rd. 1988. C1 inhibitor and hereditary angioneurotic edema. Annu Rev. Immunol. 6: 595–628. Demirdag, Y. Y. and Gupta, S. 2021. Update on Infections in Primary Antibody Deficiencies. Front Immunol.
12: 634181. Dinauer, M. C. 2020. Neutrophil defects and diagnosis disorders of neutrophil function: an overview. Methods Mol.
Biol. 2087: 11–29. Donadieu, J., Beaupain, B., Fenneteau, O. and Bellanne-Chantelot, C. 2017. Congenital neutropenia in the era of
genomics: classification, diagnosis, and natural history. Br J. Haematol. 179(4): 557–574. Etzioni, A. 2009. Genetic etiologies of leukocyte adhesion defects. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 21(5): 481–486. Feske, S., Picard, C. and Fischer, A. 2010. Immunodeficiency due to mutations in ORAI1 and STIM1. Clin. Immunol.
135(2): 169–182. Fodil, N., Langlais, D. and Gros, P. 2016. Primary immunodeficiencies and inflammatory disease: a growing genetic
intersection. Trends Immunol. 37(2): 126–140. Frauwirth, K. A. and Thompson, C. B. 2002. Activation and inhibition of lymphocytes by costimulation. J. Clin.
Invest. 109(3): 295–299.
Laboratory Analysis of Primary Immunodeficiency 205
https://t.me/medicina_free
Ghannam, A., Sellier, P., Defendi, F., Favier, B., Charignon, D., Lopez-Lera, A. et al. 2015. C1 inhibitor function
using contact-phase proteases as target: evaluation of an innovative assay. Allergy 70(9): 1103–1111. Gompels, M. M., Lock, R. J., Morgan, J. E., Osborne, J., Brown, A. and Virgo, P. F. 2002. A multicentre evaluation
of the diagnostic efficiency of serological investigations for C1 inhibitor deficiency. J. Clin. Pathol.
55(2): 145–147. Goronzy, J. J., Gustafson, C. E and Weyand, C. M. 2019. Immune deficiencies at the extremes of age. Clinical
Immunology 535–543.e531. Haddad, E. and Hoenig, M. 2019. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for severe combined immunodeficiency
(SCID). Front Pediatr. 7: 481. Henrickson, S. E., Ruffner, M. A. and Kwan, M. 2016. Unintended immunological consequences of biologic therapy.
Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 16(6): 46. Joseph, K., Bains, S., Tholanikunnel, B. G., Bygum, A., Aabom, A., Koch, C. et al. 2015. A novel assay to diagnose
hereditary angioedema utilizing inhibition of bradykinin-forming enzymes. Allergy 70(1): 115–119. Knight, V., Heimall, J. R., Wright, N., Dutmer, C. M., Boyce, T. G., Torgerson, T. R. et al. 2020. Follow-up for
an abnormal newborn screen for severe combined immunodeficiencies (NBS SCID): A Clinical Immunology
Society (CIS) survey of current practices. Int. J. Neonatal. Screen 6(3). Li, H. H., Busse, P., Lumry, W. R., Frazer-Abel, A., Levy, H., Steele, T. et al. 2015. Comparison of chromogenic
and ELISA functional C1 inhibitor tests in diagnosing hereditary angioedema. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract.
3(2): 200–205. Lumniczky, K., Impens, N., Armengol, G., Candeias, S., Georgakilas, A. G., Hornhardt, S. et al. 2021. Low dose
ionizing radiation effects on the immune system. Environ. Int. 149: 106212. McDonald-McGinn, D. M., Sullivan, K. E., Marino, B., Philip, N., Swillen, A., Vorstman, J. A. et al. 2015. 22q11.2
deletion syndrome. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 1: 15071. Moins-Teisserenc, H., Cordeiro, D. J., Audigier, V., Ressaire, Q., Benyamina, M., Lambert, J. et al. 2021. Severe
altered immune status after burn injury is associated with bacterial infection and septic shock. Front Immunol.
12: 586195. Notarangelo, L. D., Duse, M. and Ugazio, A. G. 1992. Immunodeficiency with hyper-IgM (HIM). Immunodefic Rev.
3(2): 101–121. Pai, S. Y., Lurain, K. and Yarchoan, R. 2021. How immunodeficiency can lead to malignancy. Hematology Am. Soc.
Hematol. Educ. Program 2021(1): 287–295. Puck, J. M. 2012. Laboratory technology for population-based screening for severe combined immunodeficiency in
neonates: the winner is T-cell receptor excision circles. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 129(3): 607–616. Reith, W. and Mach, B. 2001. The bare lymphocyte syndrome and the regulation of MHC expression. Annu. Rev.
Immunol. 19: 331–373. Schmidt, R. E., Grimbacher, B. and Witte, T. 2017. Autoimmunity and primary immunodeficiency: two sides of the
same coin? Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 14(1): 7–18. Schroder-Braunstein, J. and Kirschfink, M. 2019. Complement deficiencies and dysregulation: Pathophysiological
consequences, modern analysis, and clinical management. Mol. Immunol. 114: 299–311. Shearer, W. T., Dunn, E., Notarangelo, L. D., Dvorak, C. C., Puck, J. M., Logan, B. R. et al. 2014. Establishing
diagnostic criteria for severe combined immunodeficiency disease (SCID), leaky SCID, and Omenn
syndrome: the Primary Immune Deficiency Treatment Consortium experience. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol.
133(4): 1092–1098. Shih, A. R. and Murali, M. R. 2015. Laboratory tests for disorders of complement and complement regulatory
proteins. Am. J. Hematol. 90(12): 1180–1186. Steiger, S., Rossaint, J., Zarbock, A. and Anders, H. J. 2022. Secondary immunodeficiency related to kidney disease
(SIDKD)-definition, unmet need, and mechanisms. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 33(2): 259–278. Stone, K. D., Feldman, H. A., Huisman, C., Howlett, C., Jabara, H. H. and Bonilla, F. A. 2009. Analysis of in vitro
lymphocyte proliferation as a screening tool for cellular immunodeficiency. Clin. Immunol. 131(1): 41–49. Tangye, S. G., Al-Herz, W., Bousfiha, A., Cunningham-Rundles, C., Franco, J. L., Holland, S. M. et al. 2022. Human
inborn errors of immunity: 2022 update on the classification from the international union of immunological
societies expert committee. J. Clin. Immunol. Tarzi, M. D., Hickey, A., Forster, T., Mohammadi, M. and Longhurst, H. J. 2007. An evaluation of tests used
for the diagnosis and monitoring of C1 inhibitor deficiency: normal serum C4 does not exclude hereditary
angio-oedema. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 149(3): 513–516.
206 Textbook of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in Allergy
https://t.me/medicina_free
Toma, A., Fenaux, P., Dreyfus, F. and Cordonnier, C. 2012. Infections in myelodysplastic syndromes. Haematologica
97(10): 1459–1470. Walkovich, K. and Vander Lugt, M. 2009. ZAP70-related combined immunodeficiency. 2009 Oct 20 [Updated
2021 Sep 23]. In: Adam, M. P., Everman, D. B., Mirzaa, G. M. et al. (eds.). GeneReviews
(WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993–2022. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK20221/. Yamamoto, S., Kubotsu, K., Kida, M., Kondo, K., Matsuura, S., Uchiyama, S. et al. 1995. Automated homogeneous
liposome-based assay system for total complement activity. Clin. Chem. 41(4): 586–590. Yel, L. 2010. Selective IgA deficiency. J. Clin. Immunol. 30(1): 10–16. Yu, H. H., Yang, Y. H. and Chiang, B. L. 2021. Chronic granulomatous disease: a comprehensive review. Clin. Rev.
Allergy Immunol. 61(2): 101–113.
®
[Internet]. Seattle
Chapter 9
https://t.me/medicina_free
Allergy Immunotherapy for
Inhalant Allergens
Harold S. Nelson
Introduction
Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is a form of treatment for allergic diseases whose aim is to induce tolerance to the causative allergens (Burks 2013). In most cases, this involves the administration of allergens or derivatives of allergens with an initial build-up of doses, followed by the administration of the highest achieved dose as a maintenance treatment for several years. The allergen is conventionally administered either as subcutaneous injections (subcutaneous immunotherapy or SCIT) or by placing a tablet or liquid preparation of the allergen under the tongue (sublingual immunotherapy or SLIT). In the case of SLIT tablets, treatment is often initiated with the maintenance dose, omitting the initial build-up. There are many alternatives to traditional SCIT and SLIT that are under study (Table 1), typically they promise fewer administrations of the agent, but as none are currently approved in the United States; they will only be briefly mentioned at the end of this chapter.
1. Alternative routes of administration
a. Intralymphatic
b. Epicutaneous
2. Adjuvants
a. Vitamin D
b. Probiotics
c. Ligands for the innate immune system
d. Nanoparticles
3. Modified allergens
a. Allergoids
b. Modified recombinant allergens
c. Non-IgE binding peptides
1
Data from (Nelson 2022).
Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy and Immunology, National Jewish Health, 1500 Jackson
St. Denver, Colorado, USA 80206, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine.
Email: nelsonh@njhealth.org
Table 1. Future approaches to SCIT.
1
208 Textbook of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in Allergy
https://t.me/medicina_free
Indications for AIT
Many randomized, controlled studies have examined the effectiveness of AIT administered by both SCIT and SLIT in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. Studies have been positive with both approaches for reducing symptoms and medication use while inducing favorable changes in quality of life and specific immunologic markers (Calderon 2011). However, a Cochran systematic review in 2020, still found that the support for the treatment of asthma with SLIT was inadequate to recommend its use (Fulmali 2021).
AIT has also been used with non-inhalant allergens. SCIT with Hymenoptera venom and whole-body extract of fire ants has proven to reduce systemic reactions to the stings of these insects (Boyle 2012). There are a few studies reporting successful treatment of atopic dermatitis with house dust mite extracts by both SCIT and SLIT in patients sensitized to these allergens (Bae 2013; Pajno 2007). Finally, both oral and sublingual administration of several foods in patients with IgE-mediated food allergy has shown promising results.
Comparison of Efficacy of SCIT and SLIT
There are only a few studies that compared directly the efficacy of SCIT vs. SLIT using accepted dosing regimens for each. Two studies compared the response in subjects with seasonal allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen, treating subjects with the recommended doses of timothy pollen extract by SLIT-tablet (75,000 SQ-U daily) or injection (100,000 SQ-U every one or two months) and including placebo or untreated controls (Aasbjerg 2014; Scadding 2017). In both studies the response to nasal challenge with timothy extract was the primary outcome and in both the timothy SCIT was significantly more effective than the timothy SLIT-tablets early (3 months and 1st GPS, respectively); later (15 months or 2nd GPS respectively) although the same trend in favor of SCIT continued, the differences were no longer statistically significant. The advantage of SLIT over SCIT is its greater safety. Unlike SCIT, no fatal reactions have been reported with SLIT; therefore, after the first administration of SLIT that should be done under medical observation, the approved SLIT tablets can be administered at home. Despite this apparent advantage, adherence to SLIT is considerably poorer than to SCIT (Kiel 2013).
Selection of Patients With Respiratory Allergies for AIT
The first consideration in evaluating a patient for AIT with inhalant allergens is understanding if their symptoms are due to allergy. The questions here are: is there evidence by skin or in vitro testing of IgE sensitization to the allergen in question?; is the patient significantly exposed to that allergen?; and, finally, does the occurrence of symptoms in the patient correspond to their pattern of exposure to that allergen(s)?
The next consideration is, does the severity of symptoms warrant embarking on a fairly expensive and somewhat inconvenient course of treatment. The most effective form of treatment would be avoidance; however, this is almost impossible for seasonal allergens, is difficult for most allergens causing perennial symptoms and is usually unacceptable to patients who have indoor pets to which they are sensitive. Fairly effective and reasonably priced pharmacologic treatments, including systemic and topical antihistamines and topical corticosteroids, provide variable relief for symptoms of allergic rhinitis.
Should AIT be then limited to those failing symptomatic treatment? Here is a place for discussion between the physician and the patient. The advantages of selecting AIT as an adjunct to symptomatic treatment, in addition to more complete symptoms relief, are the disease-modifying effects of AIT, such as reduction in the development of asthma in patients only experiencing rhinoconjunctivitis and persisting clinical improvement after discontinuation of a successful course of AIT. For patients with asthma, considerations are the greater seriousness of the disease, but also the greater danger of the treatment, especially if the asthma is not well controlled.
Allergy Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergens 209
https://t.me/medicina_free
Contraindications for AIT
There are several contraindications to placing a patient on AIT. Perhaps the foremost is the presence of severe or poorly controlled bronchial asthma (Epstein 2021). European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidelines list as absolute contraindications for SCIT: uncontrolled or severe asthma, active systemic autoimmune disorders, active malignant neoplasm and pregnancy; as relative contraindications: partially controlled asthma, beta-adrenergic blocker therapy, severe cardiovascular disease, systemic autoimmune disorders in remission, severe psychiatric disorders, poor adherence, primary and secondary immunodeficiency and a history of serious systemic reaction to AIT (Roberts 2018). The 3rd update of the U.S. immunotherapy practice parameters considers active autoimmune conditions as only a relative contraindication and states that AIT should be initiated only if the patient’s asthma is stable with pharmacotherapy (Cox 2011).
Treatment of the Polyallergic Patient With AIT
The majority of patients in both the U.S. and Europe presenting to an allergy clinic for evaluation of an allergic respiratory condition are sensitized to multiple aeroallergens. (Nelson 2016). There is no difference in the response to AIT with a single allergen, whether they are sensitive to only the allergen being used for treatment or to multiple unrelated allergens (Nelson 2013). There is, however, a major disagreement between the majority of European and American allergists regarding the appropriate treatment of patients presenting with multiple allergies, as opposed to multiple positive skin tests most of which may not be clinically important. The US practice parameters recommend that patients be treated with a mixture(s) containing all clinically relevant allergen extracts (Cox 2011). European guidelines, however, do not recommend the use of mixtures of unrelated allergens (Demoly 2016; Roberts 2018). Instead, they recommend that only the most clinically important allergen extract be administered or if two extracts containing unrelated allergens are of equal importance, they are to be given on alternate days or during the same visit in the left and right arm with at least a 30-minute interval between injections. Support for the US practice is primarily provided by the studies of Lowell and Franklin who demonstrated, in two randomized placebo-controlled trials, that reduction or elimination of ragweed extract in a mixture of unrelated allergen extracts caused loss of protection against symptoms of allergic rhinitis during the ragweed pollen season, thus proving that ragweed pollen extract was clinically effective when administered in a mixture of unrelated pollen extracts.
In general, the immunologic responses to SCIT and SLIT are the same and represent an allergen-specific shift from the abnormalities found in allergic patients toward the immune response found in non-allergic individuals (Jutel 2004). Early after initiation of AIT, there is suppression of mast cell and basophil responsiveness and an increase in allergen-specific regulatory cells secreting the cytokine interleukin-10 (IL-10), these include not only regulatory T-lymphocytes, but also regulatory B cells, Treg follicular cells and regulatory innate lymphoid cells (Shamji 2021). In addition, there is induction of iTr35 cells secreting IL-35 which are potential immune regulators (Shamji 2021). These cellular changes are accompanied by suppression of specific Immunoglobulin E (IgE) and enhanced production of specific IgG4 and IgA (Jutel 2004). Later, there is an allergen-specific immune deviation from Type-2 to Type-1 cytokine response (Hamid 1997).
The physician prescribing immunotherapy should be trained and experienced in prescribing and administering immunotherapy (Cox 2011). They must select the appropriate allergen extracts based on that patient’s clinical history, allergen exposure and the results of tests for specific IgE antibodies
The Immunologic Response to AIT
Prescribing a Therapeutic Extract for AIT
210 Textbook of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in Allergy
https://t.me/medicina_free
Figure 1. Allergy treatment extract prescription form.
Patient name Prescribing physician Date of birth Address Patient number Telephone number Telephone number Fax
Extract Designation: Trees (T); Grasses (G); Weeds (W); Molds (M); House Dust Mites (HDM); Cockroach (Cr); Cat (C); Dog (D)
New vials Date prepared Expiration date Vial From vial / / / / Vial From vial / / / / Vial From vial / / / /
Allergen
Number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10.
Diluent
Total
Volume
Treatment Schedule
Allergen
Name
2
Concentration
Potency units
Standard Schedule Begin with Vial #4
Conservative Schedule See attached
Volume
3
Added
Manufacturer Lot # Expiration
Begin with Vial $5
Date
4
(1) Modified From Cox (2011). (2) Name May be Botanical or Common (If Unique). (3) Examples: Weight by Volume (w/v), Protein Nitrogen Units (PNU), Allergy Units (AU), Bioequivalent Allergy Units (BAU), 50% Glycerin (50% G), Aqueous
(AQ), Aluminum Precipitated (AP). (4) Expiration Date for the mixture is the Earliest of Any Component.
and ensure that effective doses of each unrelated allergen will be delivered with the maintenance injections. An example of a form for prescribing an AIT treatment extract is found in Figure 1.
If a patient is deemed to be a suitable candidate for immunotherapy, the prescribing physician must first decide whether to follow the European model, that AIT is administered for only one, or occasionally two unrelated allergen extracts, or follow the US practice of treating all clinically important allergies employing one or several vials containing mixtures of unrelated allergen extracts. If the European model is employed, the only decisions are the type of extract and the dose of the extract to be administered. If the US model is employed there are four considerations: selection of the allergen extracts to be included (i.e., aqueous or normal saline, 50% glycerinated saline or aluminum precipitated), adequate dosing of each allergen, attention to botanically related and hence often cross-acting allergens and avoidance of mixing extracts with strong proteolytic activity with other extracts which they may degrade.
Allergy Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergens 211
https://t.me/medicina_free
Allergen Extracts
Potency and Standardization
In the US, there are a limited number of standardized extracts of inhalant allergens, namely cat hair and dander or pelt, the HDM Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and D. farinae, short ragweed, the cross-reactive northern pasture grasses (NPG) timothy, June, meadow fescue, orchard, red top, rye, and sweet vernal. Also, Bermuda grass; that does not cross-react with the NPG. For these standardized extracts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established a standard of potency, expressed in one of several units (e.g., Allergy Units; Bioequivalent Allergy Units) that must be met for the allergen extract to be released by the manufacturer.
The potencies of non-standardize products are generally expressed by the weight of crude material and the volume of extracting fluid (weight/volume) or the protein nitrogen content per unit volume (PNU/mL); neither of these expressions of potency bears a strong relation to allergenic potency. However, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RDBPC) trials have been conducted with non-standardized birch, dog dander and Alternaria alternata with the effective doses expressed as the content of major allergen in the maintenance dose. In Europe, extracts are more often standardized, but there are no agencies setting standards; instead, each manufacturer maintains its own within house standards.
Diluents, Adjuvants and Modifications in Dose
In the U.S. extracts are available in saline solution with 0.4% phenol as a preservative or they may contain 50% glycerin. For diluting the extracts saline may be used but far preferable is saline containing 0.03% human serum albumin (HSA). The HSA helps maintain potency, particularly of dilute extracts. In the US, there is one line of pollen extracts precipitated by aluminum, creating a deport product. In Europe, aluminum-precipitated extracts are much more commonly used and allergoids, created by mixing an allergen extract with an aldehyde resulting in some denaturation and clumping of the proteins are available for several allergens. Both of these modifications reduce reactivity with IgE and reduce systemic reactions.
Selection of Doses
The response to AIT is dose-dependent. RDBPC trials have been conducted with a limited number of allergen extracts and the effects as well as suboptimal doses have been expressed by the major allergen content of the maintenance dose. Some extract manufacturers have performed analyses on US allergen extracts to determine their content of major allergens. This information was employed to develop recommendations for dosing with U.S. allergy extracts that appeared in the 3rd update of the Immunotherapy: Practice Parameters (Table 2). In Table 2, a range of doses is given for the standardized extracts, this reflects the range of major allergen content in the US commercial extracts of these allergens.
Since the prescriber will not know the major allergen content of the extract he/she is employing, it is recommended that the middle of the recommended dose range be used. The major allergen content of the non-standardized pollen extracts has been in the same range as the standardized pollens, therefore approximately the same doses of non-standardized pollen extracts should be employed as is recommended for standardized pollens. Non-standardized dog dander extracts, with the exception of one acetone-precipitated product (Meiser 2001), are probably too weak to achieve the optimal dose. Most extracts of Alternaria, the only fungus for which a major allergen target dose is established, are too weak to deliver the proven effective dose, but the strongest available, given as 1 mL, undiluted, could come close to achieving this dose. There are no RDBPC trials performed with a cockroach or fungi other than Alternaria that report the major allergen content of the extract employed, nor is there information on the major allergen content of most of these