Simioni L.,S Maria Del Prato Feltre Hospital |
Vianello A.,S Maria Del Prato Feltre Hospital |
Bonadonna P.,Verona General Hospital |
Marcer G.,University of Padua |
And 5 more authors.
Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology | Year: 2013
Background: Standard venom immunotherapy involves the administration of the maintenance dose every 4 to 6 weeks. This regimen may have adherence problems, especially in the long term; thus, extended intervals have been proposed. Objective: We prospectively compared the efficacy of 3- or 4-month extended maintenance dose vs the conventional regimen. Methods: Patients receiving immunotherapy with a single venom were offered the extended maintenance dose (EMD) and were then followed up for field re-stings. Only the re-stings by the insect for which the patients received immunotherapy were considered. A comparable group of patients receiving the conventional maintenance dose (CMD) was used for comparison by logistic regression analysis. Results: Seventy-six patients (60 male; mean age, 48 years) receiving the EMD were re-stung on 247 occasions by the insect for which they were receiving immunotherapy. The group receiving CMD included 110 patients (82 male; mean age, 44 years) certainly re-stung on 167 occasions by the specific insect. The percentage of re-sting without reaction was 93.5% in the EMD group and 81.5% in the CMD group, with a significant difference in favor of the former (P=.001). At logistic regression analysis, only age, but not maintenance dose protocol, was predictive of subsequent systemic reactions. Conclusion: The EMD is as effective and safe as the CMD. An increased maintenance seems to be the best option in term of convenience and economic savings. © 2013 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.
Cernadas J.R.,University of Porto |
Brockow K.,Helmholtz Center Munich |
Romano A.,Allergy Unit |
Aberer W.,Medical University of Graz |
And 7 more authors.
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | Year: 2010
Drug hypersensitivity reactions can occur with most drugs, are unpredictable, may affect any organ or system, and range widely in clinical severity from mild pruritus to anaphylaxis. In most cases, the suspected drug is avoided in the future. However, for certain patients, the particular drug may be essential for optimal therapy. Under these circumstances, desensitization may be performed. Drug desensitization is defined as the induction of a temporary state of tolerance of a compound responsible for a hypersensitivity reaction. It is performed by administering increasing doses of the medication concerned over a short period of time (from several hours to a few days) until the total cumulative therapeutic dose is achieved and tolerated. It is a high-risk procedure used only in patients in whom alternatives are less effective or not available after a positive risk/benefit analysis. Desensitization protocols have been developed and are used in patients with allergic reactions to antibiotics (mainly penicillin), insulins, sulfonamides, chemotherapeutic and biologic agents, and many other drugs. Desensitization is mainly performed in IgE-mediated reactions, but also in reactions where drug-specific IgE have not been demonstrated. Desensitization induces a temporary tolerant state, which can only be maintained by continuous administration of the medication. Thus, for treatments like chemotherapy, which have an average interval of 4 weeks between cycles, the procedure must be repeated for every new course. In this paper, some background information on rapid desensitization procedures is provided. We define the drugs and drug reactions indicated for such procedures, describe the possible mechanism of action, and discuss the indications and contraindications. The data should serve as background information for a database (accessible via the EAACI-homepage) with standardized protocols for rapid desensitization for antibiotics, chemotherapeutic agents, monoclonal antibodies/fusion proteins, and other drugs. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Craig T.J.,Pennsylvania State University |
Bewtra A.K.,Creighton University |
Bahna S.L.,Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center |
Hurewitz D.,Allergy Clinic of Tulsa Inc. |
And 13 more authors.
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | Year: 2011
Background: The placebo-controlled study International Multicentre Prospective Angioedema C1-INH Trial 1 (I.M.P.A.C.T.1) demonstrated that 20 U/kg C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) concentrate (Berinert®; CSL Behring, Marburg, Germany) is effective in treating acute abdominal and facial Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) attacks. Methods: I.M.PA.CT.2 was an open-label extension study of I.M.P.A.C.T.1 to evaluate the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with 20 U/kg C1-INH for successive HAE attacks at any body location. Efficacy outcomes included patient-reported time to onset of symptom relief (primary) and time to complete resolution of all symptoms (secondary), analysed on a per-patient and per-attack basis. Safety assessments included adverse events, vital signs, viral safety and anti-C1-INH antibodies. Results: During a median study duration of 24 months, 1085 attacks were treated in 57 patients (10-53 years of age). In the per-patient analysis, the median time to onset of symptom relief was 0.46 h and was similar for all types of attacks (0.39-0.48 h); the median time to complete resolution of symptoms was 15.5 h (shortest for laryngeal attacks: 5.8 h; 12.8-26.6 h for abdominal, peripheral and facial attacks). Demographic factors, type of HAE, intensity of attacks, time to treatment, use of androgens and presence of anti-C1-INH antibodies had no clinically relevant effect on the efficacy outcomes. There were no treatment-related safety concerns. No inhibitory anti-C1-INH antibodies were detected in any patient. Conclusions: A single dose of 20 U/kg C1-INH concentrate is safe and provides reliable efficacy in the long-term treatment of successive HAE attacks at any body location. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Zuberbier T.,University Hospital Berlin |
Aberer W.,Medical University of Graz |
Asero R.,Allergy Clinic |
Bindslev-Jensen C.,University of Southern Denmark |
And 27 more authors.
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology | Year: 2014
This guideline is the result of a systematic literature review using the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) methodology and a structured consensus conference held on 28 and 29 November 2012, in Berlin. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA 2LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), and the World Allergy Organization (WAO) with the participation of delegates of 21 national and international societies. Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease, presenting with wheals, angioedema, or both. The life-time prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous urticaria and other chronic forms of urticaria do not only cause a decrease in quality of life, but also affect performance at work and school and, as such, are members of the group of severe allergic diseases. This guideline covers the definition and classification of urticaria, taking into account the recent progress in identifying its causes, eliciting factors and pathomechanisms. In addition, it outlines evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Cortellini G.,Rimini Hospital |
Severino M.,Allergy Clinic |
Francescato E.,Entomon Sas |
Turillazzi S.,University of Florence |
And 3 more authors.
Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology | Year: 2012
Background: The honeybee sting challenge is considered a reliable procedure to evaluate the efficacy of specific immunotherapy, but it is difficult and unpractical to perform in clinical practice, because live insects are required. Objective: To assess the feasibility and reliability of a challenge test using a micro-syringe, and compared the procedure with sting challenge. Methods: Patients on bee venom immunotherapy and without systemic reactions at field sting were enrolled. They underwent a sting challenge with live bee, and large local reactions were assessed up to 48 hours. Those patients displaying systemic reactions at the sting challenge were excluded from the syringe challenge for ethical reasons. The syringe challenge was done by injecting 0.5 μL fresh unfiltered bee venom at 2 mm depth (the length of the sting left by a bee). The same follow-up as at the first challenge was performed. Bee-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and tryptase were measured after each challenge. Results: Nineteen patients underwent the sting challenge with live bees. Four had immediate systemic reactions (urticaria or asthma) and were excluded from the second challenge. The remaining 15 patients with large local reaction underwent the syringe challenge. No significant difference was seen in the maximum area of the large local reactions between the challenge with live bees and the syringe challenge. Also, no change was seen in tryptase and specific antibodies. Conclusion: This preliminary study suggests that the micro-syringe challenge with honeybee venom is feasible and produces results indistinguishable from those of the traditional sting challenge. © 2012 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.
Valovirta E.,Allergy Clinic |
Boza M.L.,University of Chile |
Robertson C.F.,Murdoch Childrens Research Institute |
Verbruggen N.,Merck And Co. |
And 6 more authors.
Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology | Year: 2011
Background: No standard, optimal treatment exists for severe intermittent (ie, episodic) asthma in children. However, evidence suggests that both daily and episode-driven montelukast are effective for this phenotype. Objective: To assess the regimen-related efficacy of montelukast in treating pediatric episodic asthma. Methods: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, 52-week study was performed in children 6 months to 5 years of age comparing placebo with two regimens of montelukast 4 mg: (1) daily; or (2) episode-driven for 12 days beginning with signs/symptoms consistent with imminent cold or breathing problem. The main outcome measure was the number of asthma episodes (symptoms requiring treatment) culminating in an asthma attack (symptoms requiring physician visit, emergency room visit, corticosteroids, or hospitalization). Results: Five hundred eighty-nine patients were randomized to daily montelukast, 591 to intermittent montelukast, and 591 to placebo. Compared with placebo, no significant difference was seen between daily montelukast (P = .510) or intermittent montelukast (P = .884) in the number of asthma episodes culminating in an asthma attack over 1 year. Daily montelukast reduced symptoms over the 12-day treatment period of asthma episodes compared with placebo (P = .045). Beta-agonist use was reduced with both daily (P = .048) and intermittent montelukast (P = .028) compared with placebo. However, because of prespecified rules for multiplicity adjustments (requiring a positive primary endpoint), statistical significance for secondary endpoints cannot be concluded. All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusions: Montelukast did not reduce the number of asthma episodes culminating in an asthma attack over 1 year in children 6 months to 5 years of age, although numerical improvements occurred in some endpoints. © 2011 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.
Vena G.A.,Private Practice |
Cassano N.,Private Practice |
Marzano A.V.,University of Milan |
Asero R.,Allergy Clinic
International Archives of Allergy and Immunology | Year: 2016
Background: Platelets are implicated in many pathophysiological processes, including inflammation and immunity. Ever-growing evidence suggests the active involvement of platelets in the pathogenesis of various inflammatory disorders, including cutaneous inflammatory diseases. A limited number of studies have investigated the role of platelets in chronic urticaria (CU). In this review, we summarize the current knowledge regarding the role of platelets in chronic spontaneous and inducible urticarias. Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar, and the references of relevant literature were reviewed. Results: Overall, in CU patients, conflicting results have been obtained from the assessment of platelet indices, such as mean platelet volume, platelet count and distribution width, as well as markers of platelet aggregation and activation. Nevertheless, a few studies showed significant changes of such parameters in CU patients compared to controls, in apparent correlation with clinical severity, autoreactivity and/or inflammatory status. Conclusions: In the absence of definitive conclusions, the pathogenic role of platelets in CU needs to be further explored. Platelets might represent a link between inflammation, coagulation and histamine release in the pathophysiological network of CU. © 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Schapowal A.,Allergy Clinic |
Klein P.,d.s.h. Statistical Services Gmbh |
Johnston S.L.,Imperial College London
Advances in Therapy | Year: 2015
Introduction: Respiratory tract infections are common, and these infections occur frequently in children, susceptible adults, and older persons. The risk for recurrences and complications relates not only to the presence of viruses but also to immune function. Therefore, modulation of the immune system and antiviral interventions such as echinacea might reduce the risk of recurrences and possibly the development of complications.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CAplus, BIOSIS, CABA, AGRICOLA, TOXCENTER, SCISEARCH, NAHL, and NAPRALERT were searched for clinical trials that studied recurrent respiratory infections and complications on treatment with echinacea extracts in a generally healthy population. Two independent reviewers selected randomized, placebo-controlled studies of high methodological quality and a Jadad score of ≥4. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated according to a fixed effect model.Results: Six clinical studies with a total of 2458 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Use of echinacea extracts was associated with reduced risk of recurrent respiratory infections (RR 0.649, 95% CI 0.545–0.774; P < 0.0001). Ethanolic extracts from echinacea appeared to provide superior effects over pressed juices, and increased dosing during acute episodes further enhanced these effects. Three independent studies found that in individuals with higher susceptibility, stress or a state of immunological weakness, echinacea halved the risk of recurrent respiratory infections (RR 0.501, 95% CI 0.380–0.661; P < 0.0001). Similar preventive effects were observed with virologically confirmed recurrent infections (RR 0.420, 95% CI 0.222–0.796; P = 0.005). Complications including pneumonia, otitis media/externa, and tonsillitis/pharyngitis were also less frequent with echinacea treatment (RR 0.503, 95% CI 0.384–0.658; P < 0.0001).Conclusion: Evidence indicates that echinacea potently lowers the risk of recurrent respiratory infections and complications thereof. Immune modulatory, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory effects might contribute to the observed clinical benefits, which appear strongest in susceptible individuals. © 2015, Springer Healthcare.
Schapowal A.,Allergy Clinic
Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift | Year: 2013
Summary Echinaforce→ is the standardised extract of Echinacea purpurea from Bioforce, Switzerland. Recent studies show immunomodulation and broad antiviral effects against respiratory tract viruses. Haemagglutinin and Neuraminidase are blocked. In contrast to Oseltamivir no resistance is caused by Echinaforce→. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study over four months confirms that Echinaforce→ supports the immune resistance and acts directly against a series of viruses. Echinaforce→ is efficacious and safe in respiratory tract infections for long-term and short-term prevention as well as for acute treatment. © Springer-Verlag Wien 2013.
PubMed | Allergy Clinic
Type: Journal Article | Journal: Advances in therapy | Year: 2015
Respiratory tract infections are common, and these infections occur frequently in children, susceptible adults, and older persons. The risk for recurrences and complications relates not only to the presence of viruses but also to immune function. Therefore, modulation of the immune system and antiviral interventions such as echinacea might reduce the risk of recurrences and possibly the development of complications.MEDLINE, EMBASE, CAplus, BIOSIS, CABA, AGRICOLA, TOXCENTER, SCISEARCH, NAHL, and NAPRALERT were searched for clinical trials that studied recurrent respiratory infections and complications on treatment with echinacea extracts in a generally healthy population. Two independent reviewers selected randomized, placebo-controlled studies of high methodological quality and a Jadad score of 4. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated according to a fixed effect model.Six clinical studies with a total of 2458 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Use of echinacea extracts was associated with reduced risk of recurrent respiratory infections (RR 0.649, 95% CI 0.545-0.774; P < 0.0001). Ethanolic extracts from echinacea appeared to provide superior effects over pressed juices, and increased dosing during acute episodes further enhanced these effects. Three independent studies found that in individuals with higher susceptibility, stress or a state of immunological weakness, echinacea halved the risk of recurrent respiratory infections (RR 0.501, 95% CI 0.380-0.661; P < 0.0001). Similar preventive effects were observed with virologically confirmed recurrent infections (RR 0.420, 95% CI 0.222-0.796; P = 0.005). Complications including pneumonia, otitis media/externa, and tonsillitis/pharyngitis were also less frequent with echinacea treatment (RR 0.503, 95% CI 0.384-0.658; P < 0.0001).Evidence indicates that echinacea potently lowers the risk of recurrent respiratory infections and complications thereof. Immune modulatory, antiviral, and anti-inflammatory effects might contribute to the observed clinical benefits, which appear strongest in susceptible individuals.