Literature DB >> 31890153

Association between component-resolved diagnosis of house dust mite and efficacy of allergen immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis patients.

Yanran Huang1, Chengshuo Wang1, Xi Lin1,2,3, Hongfei Lou1, Feifei Cao3, Wenhan Li4,5, Yuan Zhang1,2,3, Luo Zhang1,2,3.   

Abstract

Data regarding clinical relevance of house dust mite (HDM) components over allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic rhinitis (AR) are lacking. 18 adult AR patients receiving HDM-AIT for 52 weeks were followed up to assess serum levels of sIgE and sIgG4 to HDM components. The study showed that Der p1, p2, p23, Der f1 and f2, are important sensitizing components of HDM, of which Der p1 appears to be the most clinically relevant allergenic component for effective AIT.
© The Author(s) 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Allergen immunotherapy; Allergic rhinitis; Component resolved diagnosis; House dust mite

Year:  2019        PMID: 31890153      PMCID: PMC6921530          DOI: 10.1186/s13601-019-0305-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Transl Allergy        ISSN: 2045-7022            Impact factor:   5.871


To the editor, Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects 10–40% of the global population and exerts huge economic and social burdens [1]. The most important allergen responsible for perennial AR (PAR) in China is HDM, including components Dermatophagoides farina (Der f) and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Der p) [2]. Component resolved diagnostics (CRD) makes it possible for precision medication and individual management, while Der p 1, Der p 2, Der p 23, Der f 1 and Der f 2 are considered to be the main HDM allergens [3-5]. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), including mainly subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy, is the only available etiological treatment for AR. Studies have shown that the levels of sIgE and sIgG4 actually increase during AIT [6, 7]. The levels of specific IgE present an early increase and a late decrease, while the levels of specific IgG4 show a relatively early increase instead [8]. Indeed, both sIgE and sIgG4 have been documented as potential biomarkers for monitoring clinical efficacy of AIT [9]. However, data regarding the clinical relevance of association between specific components of HDM and sIgE and sIgG4 levels during the course of AIT are still lacking. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the different HDM components and the profiles of sIgEs and sIgG4s generated against these components over a 1-year course of AIT in patients with HDM-induced AR. The study was approved by the ethics review board of the Beijing TongRen Hospital (TRECKY2017-06). Study methods are described in Additional file 1 and a schematic diagram is provided in Additional file 1: Figure S1. A total of 18 adult AR patients, receiving HDM-AIT for 52 weeks were serially followed up to assess serum levels of sIgE and sIgG4 to allergenic HDM components over the 52-week treatment. The demographic and clinical characteristics are shown in Additional file 1: Table S1. Clinically, symptoms were significantly improved during the 52-week HDM-AIT (detailed results were shown in Additional file 1). Additional file 1: Table S2 shows the sensitization patterns of sIgE and sIgG4 to allergenic HDM components at baseline (W0), and indicate that the prevalence of sensitization to the individual components was in the order Der p 2 (66.7%) = Der f 2 (66.7%) > Der p 1 (55.6%) > Der f 1 (44.4%) > Der p 23 (33.3%); where sensitization to specific allergenic HDM components leading to generation of significant levels of sIgG was in the order Der f 2 (38.9%) > Der p 1 (27.8%) = Der p23 (27.8%) > Der p 2 (22.2%) = Der p 3 (22.2%). All participants were found to be negative (EAST class 0) with respect to significant generation of sIgE against Der p 3, Der p 5 and Der p 10; and generation of sIgG4 against Der p3, Der p10 and Der p23. Moreover, sIgE against Der p 7 and sIgG4 against Der p 7 and Der f 1 was found to be of little relevance, as they demonstrated intensities below 2 (clinically grade 0). However, 22% patients (4/18) were found to have clinically relevant sIgG4 levels against Der p 3. The trends of the allergenic HDM components leading to production of sIgE are shown in Fig. 1. During the course of AIT, compared with W0 (baseline), the level of Der p sIgE was significantly elevated at W5 (25.27 ± 16.29 versus 20.13 ± 15.19, P = 0.022), and then decreased at W19 (15.53 ± 13.79, P = 0.047) before progressively attaining levels comparable with baseline at W52 (18.93 ± 16.04, P = 0.76). The production of Der p 1 and Der p 2 sIgE followed a trend consistent with Der p sIgE. In contrast, the levels of Der p 23 sIgE were significantly increased from baseline at W2 (25.61 ± 37.73 versus 18.56 ± 27.86, P = 0.027), and then remained significantly higher than the baseline throughout the rest of the treatment period (W5, 33.17 ± 43.64, P = 0.0078; W7, 30.67 ± 38.31, P = 0.025; W19, 28.89 ± 28.40, P = 0.028; W35, 30.29 ± 28.10, P = 0.049; W52, 37.11 ± 25.2, P = 0.0174).
Fig. 1

The profiles of sIgE and sIgG4 levels generated for allergenic HDM components during AIT. a sIgE of Der p and its components; b sIgE of Der f and its components; c sIgG4 of Der p and its components; d sIgG4 of Der f and its components. HDM, house dust mite; AIT, allergen immunotherapy

The profiles of sIgE and sIgG4 levels generated for allergenic HDM components during AIT. a sIgE of Der p and its components; b sIgE of Der f and its components; c sIgG4 of Der p and its components; d sIgG4 of Der f and its components. HDM, house dust mite; AIT, allergen immunotherapy Similar to Der p sIgE, the level of Der f sIgE was also significantly elevated at W5 compared to baseline level (38.06 ± 20.77 versus 31.56 ± 19.94, P = 0.0049), and then decreased at W19 (23.67 ± 18.56, P = 0.020). Likewise, the levels of Der f 1 and Der f 2 sIgE significantly increased at W5 (Der f 1, 18.78 ± 18.87 versus 13.78 ± 18.05, P < 0.0001; Der f 2, 65.61 ± 51.3 versus 57.33 ± 48.23, P < 0.0001), but remained comparable at the other time-points. The trends of the specific HDM components leading to production of sIgG4 are shown in Fig. 1. The levels of sIgG4 against Der p, Der f and their components (Der p 1, p 2, p 23, f 1 and f 2) were increased rapidly during the first 7 weeks of treatment and then progressively increased at a slower rate over the remaining course of the 52-weeks treatment. The clinical efficacy of AIT was defined according the percentage improvement observed in total combined score (TCS) at 52 W compared with the baseline (W0) (with ≥ 20% improvement = responder; < 20% improvement = nonresponder) [10]. 6 out of 18 patients were unresponsive to HDM-SCIT and 12 patients responsive HDM-SCIT. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the ratio of sIgE and sIgG4 for Der p and Der p 1 were good predictors for clinical responsiveness, as demonstrated by areas under the curves (AUCs) of 0.75 and 0.92, respectively (Fig. 2a, b). Further, the Der p1 sIgE/sIgG4 was significantly and moderately correlated with the rate of clinical improvement in the patients (R = − 0.65, P = 0.0035; Fig. 2c).
Fig. 2

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the baseline sIgE/sIgG4 ratio of Der p (a) and Der p 1 (b) as predictive parameters of clinical responsiveness, and the correlation between baseline sIgE/sIgG4 ratio for Der p 1 and clinical improvement rate for TCS at 52-weeks of AIT (c). AIT, allergen immunotherapy

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the baseline sIgE/sIgG4 ratio of Der p (a) and Der p 1 (b) as predictive parameters of clinical responsiveness, and the correlation between baseline sIgE/sIgG4 ratio for Der p 1 and clinical improvement rate for TCS at 52-weeks of AIT (c). AIT, allergen immunotherapy A limitation of the study is that a 52-week course for AIT is relatively short compared to the traditional 3-year course for AIT. Secondly, the study population was relatively small. In summary, this study has provided preliminary information of the allergenic profiles of major HDM components; especially Der p 1, Der p 2, Der p 23, Der f 1 and Der f 2; at baseline and over a course of 52-week AIT in patients with HDM-induced AR. Furthermore, Der p 1 appears to be the most clinically relevant allergenic component for effective AIT, and the ratio of Der p 1-sIgE/Der p 1-sIgG4 levels may be useful as a biomarker for predicting the clinical responses of AIT. Additional file 1. Supplemental materials and methods. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population at baseline and clinical evaluation. Table S1. Demographics and baseline disease characteristics of participants. Table S2. Baseline levels of sIgE and sIgG4. Figure S1. Schematic diagram showing the SCIT protocol employed. Figure S2. The effect of HDM-AIT on nasal/conjunctivitis symptoms (A nasal congestion, B rhinorrhea, C nasal itching, D sneezing, E gritty eyes, F watery eyes) scores over a course of 52-weeks. AIT, allergen immunotherapy. Figure S3. The effect of HDM-AIT on DMS (A) and TCS (B) over a course of 52-weeks. DMS, daily medication score; TCS, total combined score; AIT, allergen immunotherapy.
  10 in total

1.  Grass tablet sublingual immunotherapy downregulates the TH2 cytokine response followed by regulatory T-cell generation.

Authors:  Abel Suárez-Fueyo; Tania Ramos; Agustín Galán; Lucia Jimeno; Peter A Wurtzen; Alicia Marin; Consolación de Frutos; Carlos Blanco; Ana C Carrera; Domingo Barber; Rosa Varona
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 10.793

2.  Der p 23: Clinical Relevance of Molecular Monosensitization in House Dust Mite Allergy.

Authors:  F Matos Semedo; Y Dorofeeva; A P Pires; E Tomaz; L Taborda Barata; F Inácio; R Valenta
Journal:  J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Clinical and immunological differences between asymptomatic HDM-sensitized and HDM-allergic rhinitis patients.

Authors:  Mihaela Zidarn; Maša Robič; Anja Krivec; Mira Šilar; Yvonne Resch-Marat; Susanne Vrtala; Peter Kopač; Nissera Bajrović; Rudolf Valenta; Peter Korošec
Journal:  Clin Exp Allergy       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 5.018

4.  Longitudinal profiles of serum specific IgE and IgG4 to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus allergen and its major components during allergen immunotherapy in a cohort of southern Chinese children.

Authors:  Guangqiao Zeng; Peiyan Zheng; Wenting Luo; Huimin Huang; Nili Wei; Baoqing Sun
Journal:  Mol Immunol       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 4.407

Review 5.  Molecular diagnosis for allergen immunotherapy.

Authors:  Paolo Maria Matricardi; Stephanie Dramburg; Ekaterina Potapova; Chrysanthi Skevaki; Harald Renz
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 10.793

Review 6.  Recommendations for standardization of clinical trials with Allergen Specific Immunotherapy for respiratory allergy. A statement of a World Allergy Organization (WAO) taskforce.

Authors:  G W Canonica; C E Baena-Cagnani; J Bousquet; P J Bousquet; R F Lockey; H-J Malling; G Passalacqua; P Potter; E Valovirta
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 13.146

7.  Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines-2016 revision.

Authors:  Jan L Brożek; Jean Bousquet; Ioana Agache; Arnav Agarwal; Claus Bachert; Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich; Romina Brignardello-Petersen; G Walter Canonica; Thomas Casale; Niels H Chavannes; Jaime Correia de Sousa; Alvaro A Cruz; Carlos A Cuello-Garcia; Pascal Demoly; Mark Dykewicz; Itziar Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta; Ivan D Florez; Wytske Fokkens; Joao Fonseca; Peter W Hellings; Ludger Klimek; Sergio Kowalski; Piotr Kuna; Kaja-Triin Laisaar; Désirée E Larenas-Linnemann; Karin C Lødrup Carlsen; Peter J Manning; Eli Meltzer; Joaquim Mullol; Antonella Muraro; Robyn O'Hehir; Ken Ohta; Petr Panzner; Nikolaos Papadopoulos; Hae-Sim Park; Gianni Passalacqua; Ruby Pawankar; David Price; John J Riva; Yetiani Roldán; Dermot Ryan; Behnam Sadeghirad; Boleslaw Samolinski; Peter Schmid-Grendelmeier; Aziz Sheikh; Alkis Togias; Antonio Valero; Arunas Valiulis; Erkka Valovirta; Matthew Ventresca; Dana Wallace; Susan Waserman; Magnus Wickman; Wojtek Wiercioch; Juan José Yepes-Nuñez; Luo Zhang; Yuan Zhang; Mihaela Zidarn; Torsten Zuberbier; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 10.793

8.  Mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Fujita; Michael B Soyka; Mübeccel Akdis; Cezmi A Akdis
Journal:  Clin Transl Allergy       Date:  2012-01-05       Impact factor: 5.871

9.  Sensitization patterns and minimum screening panels for aeroallergens in self-reported allergic rhinitis in China.

Authors:  Hongfei Lou; Siyuan Ma; Yan Zhao; Feifei Cao; Fei He; Zhongyan Liu; Jean Bousquet; Chengshuo Wang; Luo Zhang; Claus Bachert
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-24       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Biomarkers for monitoring clinical efficacy of allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma: an EAACI Position Paper.

Authors:  M H Shamji; J H Kappen; M Akdis; E Jensen-Jarolim; E F Knol; J Kleine-Tebbe; B Bohle; A M Chaker; S J Till; R Valenta; L K Poulsen; M A Calderon; P Demoly; O Pfaar; L Jacobsen; S R Durham; C B Schmidt-Weber
Journal:  Allergy       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 13.146

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Specific IgE and IgG4 Profiles of House Dust Mite Components in Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy.

Authors:  Lin Yang; Yaqi Yang; Qingxiu Xu; Wei Zhang; Qing Jiang; Wenjing Li; Yin Wang; Dongxia Ma; Xiaomin Lin; Baoqing Sun; Rongfei Zhu
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 7.561

2.  Immunological parameters as biomarkers of response to MicroCrystalline Tyrosine-adjuvanted mite immunotherapy.

Authors:  José L Justicia; Clara Padró; Albert Roger; Francisco Moreno; Manuel J Rial; Antonio Parra; Antonio Valero; Alfons Malet; Aina Teniente; Anna Boronat; Carla Torán-Barona
Journal:  World Allergy Organ J       Date:  2021-06-06       Impact factor: 4.084

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.