No approved treatment for peanut allergy exists for children younger than 4 years of age, and the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy with a peanut patch in toddlers with peanut allergy are unknown.

We conducted this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy confirmed by a double-blind, placebo controlled food challenge. Patients who had an eliciting dose (the dose necessary to elicit an allergic reaction) of 300 mg or less of peanut protein were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive epicutaneous immunotherapy delivered by means of a peanut patch (intervention group) or to receive placebo administered daily for 12 months. The primary end point was a treatment response as measured by the eliciting dose of peanut protein at 12 months. Safety was assessed according to the occurrence of adverse events during the use of the peanut patch or placebo.

Of the 362 patients who underwent randomization, 84.8% completed the trial. The primary efficacy end point result was observed in 67.0% of children in the intervention group as compared with 33.5% of those in the placebo group (risk difference, 33.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 22.4 to 44.5; P<0.001). Adverse events that occurred during the use of the intervention or placebo, irrespective of relatedness, were observed in 100% of the patients in the intervention group and 99.2% in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 8.6% of the patients in the intervention group and 2.5% of those in the placebo group; anaphylaxis occurred in 7.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 0.4% of patients in the intervention group and none in the placebo group. Treatment-related anaphylaxis occurred in 1.6% in the intervention group and none in the placebo group.

In this trial involving children 1 to 3 years of age with peanut allergy, epicutaneous immunotherapy for 12 months was superior to placebo in desensitizing children to peanuts and increasing the peanut dose that triggered allergic symptoms.

Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is short-course administration of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). This study is aimed at assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of ILIT in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR).

MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane Library were used to conduct electronic searches for clinical trials comparing ILIT and placebo in patients with AR. The final search took place on August 24, 2022. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The outcomes included combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS), visual analog scale (VAS), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), Skin-prick test (SPT), and adverse events (AEs). Data were synthesized as mean difference (MD)/standard mean difference (SMD) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Thirteen studies (454 participants) were included in this study. The ILIT group had better clinical improvement on the CSMS (random effects model, SMD-0.85, 95% CI [-1.58, -0.11], P = 0.02) and RQLQ (fixed-effects model, MD-0.42, 95% CI [0.69, 0.15], P = 0.003) than the placebo group. The booster injection was beneficial for CSMS (P < 0.0001), and the 4-week injection interval was superior to the 2-week injection period for improving VAS (P < 0.0001). Local swelling or erythema was the main AE following injection (random effects model, RD 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], P = 0.005).

For individuals with AR, ILIT is safe and effective. ILIT alleviates clinical symptoms and reduces pharmaceutical consumption without causing severe AEs. However, the validity of this study is compromised by the substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias in the included researches.

Non-specific lipid-transfer protein (nsLTP) is a pan-allergen in the plant world, and a cause of significant concern as food allergen in the Mediterranean area, due to its general heat- and acid resistance and hence the risk of severe allergic reactions. Pru p 3, the peach nsLTP, is considered the primary sensitizer to this allergen family and this allergy is usually persistent. Allergen-free diet and acute treatment of manifestations are the main recognized management goals in food allergy.

The role of immunotherapy for treating food allergy in adult patients is controversial, but immunotherapy for Pru p 3 could potentially represent a relevant therapeutic strategy. We systematically searched databases for studies assessing the role of immunotherapy Pru p 3 in food allergy. Overall, nine studies were included. Immunotherapy with Pru p 3 appears to be effective and with a good safety profile in both peach and LTP allergy for some foods, such as peanut, in both RCT and real-life studies.

Immunotherapy with Pru p 3 is a possible treatment option for food allergy to the peach LTP in the Mediterranean area, although at present have not reached routinary clinical practice. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and identify predictive biomarkers.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) brings along changes in the immune system, restoring dendritic cell function, reducing T2 inflammation and augmenting the regulatory cell activation. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections, interferes with the immune system causing immune suppression during the first phase and over-activation in more advanced disease. We decided to explore the interaction of both in a real-world observational trial.

We registered COVID-19 outcomes in patients with allergic disorders in Latin America, treated with and without AIT. The registry was conducted during the first 1.3 years of the pandemic, with most of the data collected before COVID-19 vaccination was concluded in most countries. Data collection was anonymous via a web based instrument. Ten countries participated.

630/1095 (57.6%) of the included patients received AIT. Compared to patients without AIT, those treated with AIT had a reduced risk ratio (RR) for COVID-19 lower respiratory symptoms (RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.6703-0.9024; p = 0.001662) and need for oxygen therapy (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.4217-0.9992; p = 0.048). In adherent patients on maintenance sublingual immunotherapy/subcutaneous immunotherapy (SLIT/SCIT) the RR reduction was larger [RR = 0.6136 (95% CI 0.4623 0.8143; p < 0.001) and RR: 0.3495 (95% CI 0.1822-0.6701; p < 0.005), respectively]. SLIT was slightly more effective (NS). We excluded age, comorbidities, level of health care attendance, and type of allergic disorder as confounders, although asthma was related to a higher frequency of severe disease. When analyzing patients with allergic asthma (n = 503) the RR reduction favoring AIT was more pronounced with 30% for lower respiratory symptoms or worse (RR 0.6914, 95% CI 0.5264 to 0.9081, p = 0.0087) and 51% for need of oxygen therapy or worse (RR 0.4868, 95% CI 0.2829-0.8376, p = 0.0082). Among severe allergic patients treated with biologics (n = 24) only 2/24 needed oxygen therapy. There were no critical cases among them.

In our registry AIT was associated with reduced COVID-19 severity.

IgE-mediated atopic diseases such as allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis are common chronic diseases in the western world. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) plays a fundamental role in the treatment of allergic patients by modulating the underlying immune mechanisms. Though this treatment is integrated in practice-patterns globally, many differences are found in the application of AIT on the national or international level due to heterogeneous methods, and clinical recommendations are given in different parts of the world. This review from authors in Europe and the United States highlights differences and similarities in important aspects of AIT application in the 2 global regions. First, the regulatory situation differs regarding marketing authorization and licensing. Secondly, differences are elaborated in manufacturing practices, marketing distribution and formulations of AIT products. Thirdly, clinical administration patterns in the current guidelines show similarities in indications and contraindications of AIT, but also are divergent in some practical aspects. Informing the readership on similarities, as well as differences of standards in AIT in the United States and Europe, the authors highlight the unmet need of thorough harmonization of standards of AIT, as it is the only disease modifying treatment option available for patients with allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis.

Peanut oral immunotherapy (pOIT) is the only FDA-approved treatment for food allergy and its adoption amongst allergist immunologists and their patients is growing. pOIT is the subject of numerous clinical trials, however, the focus is often on treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability, rather than identifying patients most likely to benefit from pOIT. Here, we review existing data on the clinical and immunological outcomes of pOIT that inform best practices for pOIT candidate selection.

In this review, we describe the natural history of peanut allergy, summarize immunological and clinical outcomes of pOIT at different ages, discuss the optimization of pOIT in key age groups, and finally suggest an ideal age range at which to initiate pOIT for best outcomes.

pOIT is currently underutilized by patients and allergist immunologists. Developing guidelines for selecting appropriate patients and optimizing treatment may help to increase access to pOIT. Many aspects of pOIT need additional study to further our understanding of the optimal timing to start pOIT, with careful consideration to clinical, immunological, and quality of life outcomes.

Occupational lung disease, including asthma, is a significant cause of disability worldwide. The dose, exposure frequency, and nature of the causal agent influence the inflammatory pathomechanisms that inform asthma disease phenotype and progression. While surveillance, systems engineering, and exposure mitigation strategies are essential preventative considerations, no targeted medical therapies are currently available to ameliorate lung injury post-exposure and prevent chronic airway disease development.

This article reviews contemporary understanding of allergic and non-allergic occupational asthma mechanisms. In addition, we discuss the available therapeutic options, patient-specific susceptibility and prevention measures, and recent scientific advances in post-exposure treatment conception. The course of occupational lung disease that follows exposure is informed by individual predisposition, immunobiologic response, agent identity, overall environmental risk, and preventative workplace practices. When protective strategies fail, knowledge of underlying disease mechanisms is necessary to inform targeted therapy development to lessen occupational asthma disease severity and occurrence.

Local allergic rhinitis (LAR) is diagnosed based on the presence of clinical symptoms such as rhinorrhea, sneezing, and nasal itching using negative skin prick testing and serum IgE assessment. Several novel studies have shown that it is possible to use the assessment of nasal sIgE (specific immunoglobulin E) secretion as an additional diagnostic criterion for local allergic rhinitis. Additionally, allergen immunotherapy is a promising-albeit still not fully assessed and evaluated-future method of managing patients with LAR. In this review, the historical background, epidemiology, and main pathophysiological mechanisms of LAR shall be presented. Additionally, we address the current state of knowledge based on selected articles regarding the assessment of the local mucosal IgE presence in response to exposure to such allergens as mites, pollen, molds, and others. The impact of LAR on quality of life as well as the possible options of management (including allergen immunotherapy (AIT), which showed promising results) will then be presented.

Allergic rhinitis, the fifth most common chronic disease in the United States, is an immunoglobulin E-mediated process. A family history of allergic rhinitis, asthma, or atopic dermatitis increases a patient's risk of being diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. People in the United States are commonly sensitized to grass, dust mites, and ragweed allergens. Dust mite-proof mattress covers do not prevent allergic rhinitis in children two years and younger. Diagnosis is clinical and based on history, physical examination, and at least one symptom of nasal congestion, runny or itchy nose, or sneezing. History should include whether the symptoms are seasonal or perennial, symptom triggers, and severity. Common examination findings are clear rhinorrhea, pale nasal mucosa, swollen nasal turbinates, watery eye discharge, conjunctival swelling, and allergic shiners (i.e., dark circles under the eyes). Serum or skin testing for specific allergens should be performed when there is inadequate response to empiric treatment, if diagnosis is uncertain, or to guide initiation or titration of therapy. Intranasal corticosteroids are first-line treatment for allergic rhinitis. Second-line therapies include antihistamines and leukotriene receptor antagonists and neither shows superiority. If allergy testing is performed, trigger-directed immunotherapy can be effectively delivered subcutaneously or sublingually. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters are not effective at decreasing allergy symptoms. Approximately 1 in 10 patients with allergic rhinitis will develop asthma.

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) increases the threshold of reaction in children older than 4 years with food allergy. The risk for severe allergic reactions (ARs) during OIT has been reported in several studies, often in the presence of concomitant cofactors such as physical exercise, empty stomach, medications, poorly controlled asthma, menses, and alcohol consumption. Cases Presentation: We describe a case series of 5 scholar age patients undergoing OIT who showed ARs to a known, previously tolerated dose of allergen during permanent tooth eruption, in which other known cofactors were excluded. Conclusions: Patients may be exposed to cofactors due to behavioral habits not only in the second and third decades of life, but also in the first decade of life, due to the timing of mixed dentition. More studies are needed to estimate the frequency and entity of tooth eruption as cofactor, as well as to know the correct management of children undergoing dentition during OIT.