Search

Background: Systemic allergic reactions (sARs) following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines were initially reported at a higher rate than after traditional vaccines., Objective: We aimed to evaluate the safety of revaccination in these individuals and to interrogate mechanisms underlying these reactions., Methods: In this randomized, double-blinded, phase 2 trial, participants aged 16 to 69 years who previously reported a convincing sAR to their first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were randomly assigned to receive a second dose of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) vaccine and placebo on consecutive days in a blinded, 1:1 crossover fashion at the National Institutes of Health. An open-label BNT162b2 booster was offered 5 months later if the second dose did not result in severe sAR. None of the participants received the mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) vaccine during the study. The primary end point was recurrence of sAR following second dose and booster vaccination; exploratory end points included biomarker measurements., Results: Of 111 screened participants, 18 were randomly assigned to receive study interventions. Eight received BNT162b2 second dose followed by placebo; 8 received placebo followed by BNT162b2 second dose; 2 withdrew before receiving any study intervention. All 16 participants received the booster dose. Following second dose and booster vaccination, sARs recurred in 2 participants (12.5%; 95% CI, 1.6 to 38.3). No sAR occurred after placebo. An anaphylaxis mimic, immunization stress-related response (ISRR), occurred more commonly than sARs following both vaccine and placebo and was associated with higher predose anxiety scores, paresthesias, and distinct vital sign and biomarker changes., Conclusions: Our findings support revaccination of individuals who report sARs to COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Distinct clinical and laboratory features may distinguish sARs from ISRRs., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Peanut allergy affects 1% to 2% of European children. Early introduction of peanut into the diet reduces allergy in high-risk infants., Objective: We aimed to determine the optimal target populations and timing of introduction of peanut products to prevent peanut allergy in the general population., Methods: Data from the Enquiring About Tolerance (EAT; n = 1303; normal risk; 3-year follow-up; ISRCTN14254740) and Learning Early About Peanut Allergy study (LEAP; n = 640; high risk; 5-year follow-up; NCT00329784) randomized controlled trials plus the Peanut Allergy Sensitization (PAS; n = 194; low and very high risk; 5-year follow-up) observational study were used to model the intervention in a general population. Peanut allergy was defined by blinded peanut challenge or diagnostic skin prick test result., Results: Targeting only the highest-risk infants with severe eczema reduced the population disease burden by only 4.6%. Greatest reductions in peanut allergy were seen when the intervention was targeted only to the larger but lower-risk groups. A 77% reduction in peanut allergy was estimated when peanut was introduced to the diet of all infants, at 4 months with eczema, and at 6 months without eczema. The estimated reduction in peanut allergy diminished with every month of delayed introduction. If introduction was delayed to 12 months, peanut allergy was only reduced by 33%., Conclusions: The preventive benefit of early introduction of peanut products into the diet decreases as age at introduction increases. In countries where peanut allergy is a public health concern, health care professionals should help parents introduce peanut products into their infants' diet at 4 to 6 months of life., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute increases of ≥20% + 2 ng/mL (20 + 2 rule) over basal serum tryptase (BST) is the recommended threshold supporting a clinical diagnosis of anaphylaxis. Prospective studies have demonstrated high sensitivity for this algorithm after parenteral exposure, but specificity has not been evaluated., Objective: We sought to define a serum tryptase change that distinguishes baseline variability from anaphylaxis on the basis of intraindividual variation in BST., Methods: Ninety-three total subjects with atopy (n = 62) or hereditary α-tryptasemia (HαT) (n = 31) and ≥2 BST measurements were identified. Sequential BST variability measurements were modeled and threshold ratios that optimized sensitivity and/or specificity determined. Models were tested in 22 individuals with physician-diagnosed anaphylaxis and validated in independent cohorts of individuals with HαT (n = 33), indolent systemic mastocytosis (ISM) (n = 52), and ISM + HαT (n = 12). Mature tryptase levels were measured in HαT (n = 19) and ISM (n = 20). An online application was developed for clinical use., Results: As a result of BST variability, 9.7% (9/93) of primary cohort patients, and 18% (6/33) of HαT, 30% (16/53) of ISM, and 25% (3/12) of ISM + HαT patients from validation cohorts met the 20 + 2 rule despite absent immediate hypersensitivity symptoms; mature tryptase was noncontributory among individuals with HαT or ISM at baseline. A ratio of acute tryptase/BST exceeding 1.685 provided the optimized diagnostic rule for jointly maximizing sensitivity and specificity. Statistically significant improvement in specificity relative to the 20 + 2 rule was observed among individuals with elevated BST caused by HαT and ISM., Conclusions: Using an acute tryptase/BST ratio of 1.685 improves specificity of measured changes among individuals with HαT and ISM while maintaining high sensitivity for confirmation of anaphylaxis., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases organized a workshop to develop trial concepts that could improve the use and effectiveness of aeroallergen immunotherapy (AAIT). Expert groups were formed to accomplish the following tasks: (1) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous versus sublingual AAIT; (2) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of AAIT by using 1 or a few allergens versus all or most allergens to which a patient is sensitized; (3) propose a study design to determine whether AAIT can alter the progression of childhood allergic airways disease; and (4) propose a study design to determine the optimal dose and duration of AAIT to achieve maximal effectiveness with acceptable safety. Study designs were presented by the workgroups, extensively discussed at the workshop, and revised for this report. The proposed trials would be of long duration and require large highly characterized patient populations. Scientific caveats and feasibility matters are discussed. These concepts are intended to help the development of clinical trials that can address some of the major questions related to the practice of AAIT for the management and prevention of allergic airways disease., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: In our recent clinical trial, the addition of omalizumab to oral immunotherapy (OIT) for milk allergy improved safety, but no significant clinical benefit was detected., Objective: We sought to investigate mechanisms by which omalizumab modulates immunity in the context of OIT and to identify baseline biomarkers that predict subgroups of patients most likely to benefit from omalizumab., Methods: Blood was obtained at baseline and multiple time points during a placebo-controlled trial of OIT for milk allergy in which subjects were randomized to receive omalizumab or placebo. Immunologic outcomes included measurement of basophil CD63 expression and histamine release and casein-specific CD4 + regulatory T-cell proliferation. Biomarkers were analyzed in relationship to measurements of safety and efficacy., Results: Milk-induced basophil CD63 expression was transiently reduced in whole blood samples from both omalizumab- and placebo-treated subjects. However, IgE-dependent histamine release increased in washed cell preparations from omalizumab- but not placebo-treated subjects. No increase in regulatory T-cell frequency was evident in either group. Subjects with lower rates of adverse reactions, regardless of arm, experienced better clinical outcomes. Pre-OIT basophil reactivity positively associated with occurrence of symptoms during OIT, whereas the baseline milk IgE/total IgE ratio correlated with the likelihood of achieving sustained unresponsiveness. A combination of baseline basophil and serologic biomarkers defined a subset of patients in which adjunctive therapy with omalizumab was associated with attainment of sustained unresponsiveness and a reduction in adverse reactions., Conclusions: Combining omalizumab therapy with milk OIT led to distinct alterations in basophil reactivity but not T-cell responses. Baseline biomarkers can identify subjects most likely to benefit from adjunctive therapy with omalizumab., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. All rights reserved.)