Tree nut allergy is a lifelong and potentially life-threatening condition. The standard of care is strictly avoiding the culprit nut and treating accidental reactions symptomatically. To evaluate potential therapeutic options for desensitizing patients with IgE-mediated tree nut allergy, we systematically searched three bibliographic databases for studies published until January 2024. We looked for active treatments of IgE-mediated allergy to tree nuts (walnut, hazelnut, pistachio, cashew, almond, pecan, macadamia nut, and brazil nut). We focused on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) using oral (OIT), sublingual (SLIT), epicutaneous (EPIT), or subcutaneous (SCIT) delivery, or other disease-modifying treatments. We found 19 studies that met our criteria: 3 studies investigated sublingual immunotherapy, 5 studied oral immunotherapy to a single tree nut, and 6 used multi-food oral immunotherapy with or without omalizumab. The remaining studies investigated the effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies or IgE-immunoadsorption in multi-food allergic patients, including patients with tree nut allergy. The heterogeneity of the studies prevented pooling and meta-analysis. Oral immunotherapy, single or multi-nut, with or without omalizumab, was the most studied approach and appears effective in conferring protection from accidental exposures. Omalizumab monotherapy is the only approved alternative management for reducing allergic reactions that may occur with accidental exposure.

Peanut allergy is a leading cause of severe food reactions. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) compared to placebo for peanut-allergic individuals. After prospectively registering on PROSPERO, we searched three databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and 2 trial registries till September 2023. Analysis was conducted via RevMan where data was computed using risk ratios (RR). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE criteria were used to appraise and evaluate the evidence. From 4927 records, six multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trials comprising 1453 participants were included. The 250 µg EPIT group had a significant increase in successful desensitization compared to placebo (RR: 2.13 (95% C.I: 1.72, 2.64), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%), while the 100 µg EPIT group did not (RR: 1.54 (95% C.I: 0.92, 2.58), P = 0.10, I2 = 0%) (moderate certainty evidence). Moreover, there was a significant increase in local (RR: 1.69 (95% C.I: 1.06, 2.68), P = 0.03, I2 = 89%) and systemic adverse events (RR: 1.75 (95% C.I: 1.14, 2.69), P = 0.01, I2 = 0%) with EPIT. Additionally, individuals administered EPIT have an increased probability of requiring rescue medications like epinephrine (RR: 1.91 (95% C.I: 1.12, 3.28), P = 0.02, I2 = 0%) and topical corticosteroids (RR: 1.49 (95% C.I: 1.29, 1.73), P < 0.01, I2 = 0%) to treat adverse events. The association of adverse events post-treatment including anaphylaxis (RR: 2.31 (95% C.I: 1.00, 5.33), P = 0.05, I2 = 36%), skin/subcutaneous disorders like erythema or vesicles (RR: 0.93 (95% C.I: 0.79, 1.08), P = 0.33, I2 = 0%), and respiratory disorders like dyspnea or wheezing (RR: 0.94 (95% C.I: 0.77, 1.15), P = 0.55, I2 = 0%) with EPIT is inconclusive. EPIT, although effective in desensitization, is linked to an increased risk of adverse events. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023466600.

Background: Seafood allergy is a significant global health concern that greatly impacts a patient\'s quality of life. The intervention efficacy of oral immunotherapy (OIT), an emerging intervention strategy, for seafood allergy remains controversial. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of slightly processed allergen/meat from fish and crustacea in OIT, both in mouse models and clinical patients. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed in four mainstream databases and the EBSCOhost database to identify all relevant case-control and cohort studies. The aim was to elucidate the intervention efficacy, encompassing various processing methods and assessing the efficacy of multiple major allergens in OIT. Results: The meta-analysis included five case-control studies on crustacean allergens in mouse models and 11 cohort studies on meat from fish and crustacea in clinical patients for final quantitative assessments. In mouse models, crustacean allergen substantially decreased the anaphylactic score after OIT treatment (mean difference (MD) = -1.30, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses with low-level heterogeneities provided more reliable results for crab species (MD = -0.63, p < 0.01, I2 = 0), arginine kinase allergen (MD = -0.83, p < 0.01, I2 = 0), and Maillard reaction processing method (MD = -0.65, p < 0.01, I2 = 29%), respectively. In clinical patients, the main meta-analysis showed that the slightly processed meat significantly increased the incidence rate of oral tolerance (OT, incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 2.90, p < 0.01). Subgroup analyses for fish meat (IRR = 2.79, p < 0.01) and a simple cooking treatment (IRR = 2.36, p = 0.01) also demonstrated a substantial increase in the incidence rate of OT. Sensitivity and meta-regression analyses successfully identified specific studies contributing to heterogeneity in mouse models and clinical patients, although these studies did not impact the overall significant pooled effects. Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence for the high intervention efficacy of slightly processed allergen/meat from fish and crustacea in OIT, both in mouse models and clinical patients. The Maillard reaction and cooking processing methods may emerge as potentially effective approaches to treating allergen/meat in OIT for clinical patients, offering a promising and specific treatment strategy for seafood allergy. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further supporting evidence is necessary.

The aim of this review is to highlight key published oral immunotherapy (OIT) protocols and post-desensitization strategies for the major food allergens and to cover important concepts to consider when evaluating OIT for food-allergic patients. Shared decision-making should help identify patient and family values which will help influence the type of evidence-based protocol and maintenance strategy to use.
With food OIT emerging as a treatment option, there is a pressing need for patients, physicians, and other providers to have a nuanced understanding of the management choices available to them. There are now randomized controlled trials (RCT) of OIT for peanut, egg, milk, and wheat, and reports of cohorts of patients who have undergone OIT for tree nuts and sesame clinically. The current published protocols contain significant diversity in terms of starting dose, build-up schedule, maintenance dose, and even the product used for desensitization. Emerging data can help direct the long-term maintenance strategy for patients on OIT. Based on patient and family values elicited through the shared decision-making process, an OIT protocol may be selected that balances the level of desensitization, potential side effects, frequency of clinic visits, and potential to induce sustained unresponsiveness, among other factors. Once maintenance dosing is reached, most patients will need to maintain regular exposure to the food allergen to remain desensitized. The option to transition to commercial food products with equivalent amounts of food protein as the OIT maintenance dose would simplify the dosing process and perhaps improve palatability as well. Less frequent or decreased OIT dosing can provide practical benefits but may affect the level of desensitization and safety for some patients.

This narrative review aims to provide an up-to-date definition of local allergic rhinitis (LAR), its classification, mechanisms, comorbidities, recommendations for diagnosis and treatment, and define needs in this area. Both \'PubMed\' and \'Science Direct\' literature was reviewed systematically, and a manual search for studies not previously encountered in the databases was also carried out. Published studies were identified in PubMed covering the period from 1947 to 2022. The following keyword search strategy was used: (local allergic rhinitis* OR entopy* OR local Immunoglobulin E * OR nasal specific Immunoglobulin E). LAR involves Type 2 nasal inflammation with local IgE and cannot be diagnosed by systemic methods, such as skin prick or blood IgE tests. A nasal allergen challenge is necessary for diagnosis. LAR can respond to usual AR treatments, including allergen specific immunotherapy (AIT). LAR is a novel entity that requires additional investigation in terms of prevalence, proper diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. The target outcomes and possible benefits of this review are to achieve a consensus for the study and diagnosis of LAR and increase interest in this area.

Food allergy affects a large population throughout the world. Recently, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has been reported as an effective treatment for severe food allergy. Although OIT was successful in numerous trials in desensitisation, adverse events including anaphylaxis during OIT frequently occur. Additionally, some patients fail to be desensitised after OIT and the response to treatment is often not sustained. As a further adjunctive therapy to facilitate OIT, the role of biological agents has been identified. For example, efficacy and safety of omalizumab as an adjuvant therapy of OIT has become apparent through some RCTs and observational studies. Interest towards this topic is growing worldwide, and ongoing trials will provide additional data on the biologics in food allergy.We aim to systematically analyse the efficacy and safety of OIT combined with biological agents for food allergy.
This paper provides a protocol for a systematic review of the relevant published analytical studies using an aggregate approach following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Two authors will perform a comprehensive search for studies on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases. Subsequently, two independent authors will perform abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate.
The protocol of this systematic review will be provided in a peer-reviewed journal. As the researchers will not identify the individual patients included in the studies, they do not need to acquire ethics approval.
CRD42022373015.

To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children with allergic rhinitis (AR).
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2, 2023. Outcomes included symptom scores (SSs), medication scores (MSs), symptom and medication scores (SMSs), new sensitizations, development of asthma, improvement, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The quality of the included studies was assessed by the modified Jadad scale and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-regression was carried out to explore the source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was further conducted in terms of study design [randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies], allergen [house dust mites (HDMs), grass pollen], treatment duration (≥ 24, 12-23 or < 12 months), allergen immunotherapy (AIT) modality (drops or tablets), and AIT protocol [continuous, pre-seasonal, co-seasonal, or after the grass pollen season (GPS)]. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for all outcomes. A Bayesian framework and a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) model were developed for indirect comparison.
Totally 50 studies with 10813 AR children were included, with 4122 treated with SLIT, 1852 treated with SCIT, and 4839 treated with non-SLIT or non-SCIT therapy. For direct comparison, the SLIT group had a similar SS to the SCIT group [pooled standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.46, 1.28, P = 0.353]. Comparable MSs were observed in the SLIT and SCIT groups (pooled SMD: 0.82, 95%CI: -0.88, 2.53, P = 0.344). For indirect comparison, no significant differences were found in SSs (pooled SMD: 1.20, 95% credibility interval (CrI): -1.70, 4.10), MSs (pooled SMD: 0.57, 95%CrI: -1.20, 2.30), SMSs (pooled SMD: 1.80, 95%CrI: -0.005, 3.60), new sensitizations [pooled relative risk (RR): 0.34, 95%CrI: 0.03, 3.58], and development of asthma (pooled RR: 0.68, 95%CrI: 0.01, 26.33) between the SLIT and SCIT groups; the SLIT group illustrated a significantly lower incidence of TRAEs than the SCIT group (pooled RR: 0.17, 95%CrI: 0.11, 0.26).
Considering both efficacy and safety, SLIT might be a more favorable AIT than SCIT in the treatment of pediatric AR, which may serve as a decision-making reference for clinicians.
PROSPERO (CRD42023460693).

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Background. Sensitization to food and airborne allergens is common in the majority of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Although there is not a direct cause-effect relationship of IgE-mediated allergy with the pathogenesis of EoE, there is a growing evidence that oral desensitization to food and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) may induce the development of EoE as an adverse effect. As part of the \'EoE and Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT)\' Task Force funded by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), a systematic approach will be followed to review the evidence from the published scientific literature on the development of EoE in children and adults under any type of AIT. Methods. This systematic review will be carried out following the PRISMA statement guidelines. Studies will be assessed for inclusion in the review according to the Population-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes (PICO) criteria. Results. Expected outcomes will provide evidence on the AIT-EoE development connection. Conclusions. The findings from this review will be used as a reference to provide useful guidelines for physicians treating patients with EoE and/or are practicing AIT.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only treatment which acts on the causes of allergic diseases by modifying their natural history. In the eighties subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with high biological power allergen extracts caused a number of severe systemic reactions and also fatalities in the UK and the US, resulting in its limitation and in the introduction of other routes of administration. A decisive advance for SCIT safety was understanding that the major cause of mortality was injecting the allergen extract to patients with uncontrolled asthma at the time of injection.
This awareness resulted in a significant decrease in fatalities, but not in their abolition. In 2019, an increase in SCIT-related mortality was observed, suggesting to continue the research for still unidentified factors favoring severe reactions, such as the administration of a wrong extract or of allergen doses higher than listed, unintentional intravenous administration, and missed dose reduction after protracted interruption. Moreover, in the context of the improving of the safety, the role played in tolerance-promoting by adjuvants such as CpG oligodeoxynucleotides has to be taken into account, as well as the potential preventive effect performed by the monoclonal anti-IgE antibody omalizumab against the exacerbation of severe reactions during SCIT.
The safety of SCIT is good, but the research to improve it further must continue. In particular, the pathophysiological mechanisms related to AIT for inhalants and for Hymenoptera venom should be studied, based on the evident diversity demonstrated by the complete absence of fatal reactions to Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy from its introduction in comparison with the history of serious and fatal offenses examined in this review.