Tamar Kinaciyan1, Birgit Nagl2, Sandra Faustmann2, Florian Frommlet3, Stephan Kopp4, Martin Wolkersdorfer5, Stefan Wöhrl6, Katharina Bastl7, Hans Huber4, Uwe Berger7, Barbara Bohle8. 1. Department of Dermatology, Division of Immunology, Allergy and Infectious Diseases (DIAID), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Pathophysiology and Allergy Research and Christian Doppler Laboratory for Immunomodulation, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Department of Medical Statistics (CEMSIIS), Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Biomay AG, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Production, Landesapotheke, Salzburg, Austria. 6. Floridsdorf Allergy Center (FAZ), Vienna, Austria. 7. Aerobiology and Pollen Information Research Unit, Department of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 8. Department of Pathophysiology and Allergy Research and Christian Doppler Laboratory for Immunomodulation, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: barbara.bohle@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Birch pollen-related apple allergy is among the most prevalent food allergies in adolescent/adult subjects and mainly results from sensitization to the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 and subsequent cross-reaction with the apple protein Mal d 1. However, specific immunotherapy with birch pollen has inconsistent effects on apple allergy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with 2 formulations containing either rMal d 1 or rBet v 1 on birch pollen-related apple allergy. METHODS:Sixty participants with birch pollen-related apple allergy were randomized to daily sublingual application of placebo (n = 20) or 25 μg of rMal d 1 (n = 20) or rBet v 1 (n = 20) for 16 weeks. Adverse events were regularly recorded. Sublingual challenges with standardized doses of rMal d 1, skin prick tests with recombinant allergens, and measurements of allergen-specific IgE and IgG4 antibodies were performed before and after treatment. RESULTS: Both formulations caused comparable, mainly local adverse events. No systemic reactions occurred. Compared with the placebo and rBet v 1-treated groups, SLIT with rMal d 1 reduced rMal d 1-induced oral symptoms (P = .001 and P = .038) accompanied by longitudinally reduced rMal d 1-specific cutaneous reactions (P = .022) and enhanced IgG4/IgE ratios (P = .012). SLIT with rBet v 1 neither improved the clinical reactivity to rMal d 1 nor enhanced rMal d 1-specific IgG4/IgE ratios. Participants receiving placebo showed no allergen-specific changes. CONCLUSION: Sublingual treatment with a recombinant food allergen was safe and clinically effective, as determined by using standardized challenges. We present a promising approach for the effective treatment of birch pollen-related apple allergy.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Birch pollen-related appleallergy is among the most prevalent food allergies in adolescent/adult subjects and mainly results from sensitization to the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 and subsequent cross-reaction with the apple protein Mal d 1. However, specific immunotherapy with birch pollen has inconsistent effects on appleallergy. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with 2 formulations containing either rMal d 1 or rBet v 1 on birch pollen-related appleallergy. METHODS: Sixty participants with birch pollen-related appleallergy were randomized to daily sublingual application of placebo (n = 20) or 25 μg of rMal d 1 (n = 20) or rBet v 1 (n = 20) for 16 weeks. Adverse events were regularly recorded. Sublingual challenges with standardized doses of rMal d 1, skin prick tests with recombinant allergens, and measurements of allergen-specific IgE and IgG4 antibodies were performed before and after treatment. RESULTS: Both formulations caused comparable, mainly local adverse events. No systemic reactions occurred. Compared with the placebo and rBet v 1-treated groups, SLIT with rMal d 1 reduced rMal d 1-induced oral symptoms (P = .001 and P = .038) accompanied by longitudinally reduced rMal d 1-specific cutaneous reactions (P = .022) and enhanced IgG4/IgE ratios (P = .012). SLIT with rBet v 1 neither improved the clinical reactivity to rMal d 1 nor enhanced rMal d 1-specific IgG4/IgE ratios. Participants receiving placebo showed no allergen-specific changes. CONCLUSION: Sublingual treatment with a recombinant food allergen was safe and clinically effective, as determined by using standardized challenges. We present a promising approach for the effective treatment of birch pollen-related appleallergy.
Authors: Era Upadhyay; Afnan Ahmad Mohammad AlMass; Nandita Dasgupta; Safikur Rahman; Jihoe Kim; Manali Datta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: B Nothegger; N Reider; C E Covaciu; V Cova; L Ahammer; R Eidelpes; J Unterhauser; S Platzgummer; M Tollinger; T Letschka; K Eisendle Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Sarah A Lyons; Anne M van Dijk; André C Knulst; Eleonora Alquati; Thuy-My Le; Harmieke van Os-Medendorp Journal: Nutrients Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 5.717