Search

Background: In Mexico, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and immunotherapy with hymenoptera venom (VIT) is traditionally practiced combining aspects of the European and American school. In addition, both types of extracts (European and American) are commercially available in Mexico. Moreover, for an adequate AIT/VIT a timely diagnosis is crucial. Therefore, there is a need for a widely accepted, up-to-date national immunotherapy guideline that covers diagnostic issues, indications, dosage, mechanisms, adverse effects and future expectations of AIT (GUIMIT 2019)., Method: With nationwide groups of allergists participating, including delegates from postgraduate training-programs in Allergy/Immunology-forming, the guideline document was developed according to the ADAPTE methodology: the immunotherapy guidelines from European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology, The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology were selected as mother guidelines, as they received the highest AGREE-II score among international guidelines available; their evidence conforms the scientific basis for this document., Results: GUIMIT emanates strong or weak (suggestions) recommendations about practical issues directly related to in vivo or in vitro diagnosis of IgE mediated allergic diseases and the preparation and application of AIT/VIT and its adverse effects. GUIMIT finishes with a perspective on AIT modalities for the future. All the statements were discussed and voted on until > 80 % consensus was reached., Conclusions: A wide and diverse group of AIT/VIT experts issued transculturized, evidence-based recommendations and reached consensus that might improve and standardize AIT practice in Mexico.

Background: The prevalence of food sensitization in adults shows differences owing to geographic, regional and cultural circumstances., Objective: To identify the prevalence and factors associated with food sensitization in adults with allergic diseases., Methods: Cross-sectional study, where medical records of adult patients with any allergic disease and who tested positive to airborne allergens on at least one skin test were reviewed. Age, sex, underlying allergic disease and skin test result were recorded. Statistical analyses included food sensitization prevalence with the corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CI), as well as a multivariate analysis to determine associated factors., Results: We included 258 patients with a mean of 36 years of age; 75 % were of the female sex. The most common underlying condition was allergic rhinitis (59 %). The prevalence of food sensitization was 37 % (95 % CI, 31.5-43.3) and it did not vary significantly according to sex or allergic disease in question. The most sensitizing food was soybeans (44.8 %), and associated factors were sensitization to cat dander (OR = 1.8; 95 % CI, 1.03-3.2) and 5 or more positive skin tests (OR = 4.3, 95 % CI 2.3-8.1)., Conclusion: The prevalence of food sensitization in people with allergic disease was 40 %. Further studies are required to determine its prevalence in the general population.

The clinical behavior of asthma varies with age at onset. This study was undertaken to identify associated markers of adult-onset allergic asthma (age ≥20 years).This cross-sectional study compared two groups: 58 patients with asthma onset at ≥20 years and 66 with onset at ≥20 years. They were compared depending on results of clinical history, and body mass index (BMI), aeroallergen sensitization, total serum IgE, eosinophil count, asthma control test, and asthma severity level.Ages at first asthma episode were 10.0 ± 6.6 and 33.4 ± 10.5 (p<0.001) in the <20 and ≥20 group, respectively. BMI was higher in adult asthmatic subjects (29.8 versus 27.1, P=0.017), but BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) was not associated with asthma onset in ≥20 years (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.759 to 3.211; p= 0.227). After multivariate analysis, allergic rhinitis and IgE ≥150 IU/mL were negatively correlated with asthma onset in ≥20 years old (OR adjusted [ORa] = 0.255, 95% CI 0.078 to 0.837, P= 0.024, and ORa =0.385, 95% CI 0.175 to 0.849, p= 0.018, respectively).Adult-onset allergic asthma was not different from early-onset asthma.

Background: Studies related to the patterns of sensitization to rare species of aeroallergens are uncommon., Objective: To determine the frequency of sensitization to pollens clinically relevant in Allergology, corresponding to subclass Rosidae in patients with respiratory allergy., Patients and Method: A cross-sectional study was done with patients included in a group with allergic rhinitis or asthma, respectively. We studied the clinical history, physical examination and reactivity to a panel of allergens, including the species Prosopis, Schinus, Acacia and Eucalyptus. Frequency of sensitization and confidence intervals at 95% (95%CI) were calculated., Results: A total of 104 allergic rhinitis patients and 99 patients with asthma diagnosis were included. In both groups, the mean age corresponded to fourth decade of life. Women had greater frequency. In patients with allergic rhinitis, frequencies of sensitization were: mesquite tree 26.2% (95%CI: 17.7% to 34.6%), American pepper tree 11.5% (95%CI: 5.4% to 17.6%), eucalypt tree 6.7% (95%CI: 1.9% to 11.5%) and acacia tree 3% (95%CI: 0.3% to 6.3%). In subjects with asthma the results were as follows: mesquite tree 13.1% (95%CI: 6.5% to 19.7%), American pepper tree 7.1% (95%CI: 2% to 12.2%), eucalypt tree 4% (95%CI: 0.1% to 7.9%) and acacia tree 3% (95%CI: 0.4% to 6.4%). Both groups had a high frequency of sensitization to ash tree and oak tree followed by eucalypt, pine and acacia tree., Conclusions: Studied capacity of sensitization to tree pollens for this population is low, except for mesquite tree.

Background: Allergen exposure leads to allergen sensitization in susceptible individuals and this might influence allergic rhinitis (AR) phenotype expression. We investigated whether sensitization patterns vary in a country with subtropical and tropical regions and if sensitization patterns relate to AR phenotypes or age., Methods: In a national, cross-sectional study AR patients (2-70 y) seen by allergists underwent blinded skin prick testing with a panel of 18 allergens and completed a validated questionnaire on AR phenotypes., Results: 628 patients were recruited. The major sensitizing allergen was house dust mite (HDM) (56%), followed by Bermuda grass (26%), ash (24%), oak (23%) and mesquite (21%) pollen, cat (22%) and cockroach (21%). Patients living in the tropical region were almost exclusively sensitized to HDM (87%). In the central agricultural zones sensitization is primarily to grass and tree pollen. Nationwide, most study subjects had perennial (82.2%), intermittent (56.5%) and moderate-severe (84.7%) AR. Sensitization was not related to the intermittent-persistent AR classification or to AR severity; seasonal AR was associated with tree (p < 0.05) and grass pollen sensitization (p < 0.01). HDM sensitization was more frequent in children (0-11 y) and adolescents (12-17 y) (subtropical region: p < 0.0005; tropical region p < 0.05), but pollen sensitization becomes more important in the adult patients visiting allergists (Adults vs children + adolescents for tree pollen: p < 0.0001, weeds: p < 0.0005)., Conclusions: In a country with (sub)tropical climate zones SPT sensitization patterns varied according to climatological zones; they were different from those found in Europe, HDM sensitization far outweighing pollen allergies and Bermuda grass and Ash pollen being the main grass and tree allergens, respectively. Pollen sensitization was related to SAR, but no relation between sensitization and intermittent-persistent AR or AR severity could be detected. Sensitization patterns vary with age (child HDM, adult pollen). Clinical implications of our findings are dual: only a few allergens -some region specific- cover the majority of sensitizations in (sub)tropical climate zones. This is of major importance for allergen manufacturers and immunotherapy planning. Secondly, patient selection in clinical trials should be based on the intermittent-persistent and severity classifications, rather than on the seasonal-perennial AR subtypes, especially when conducted in (sub)tropical countries.

Background: Several drugs for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis and its symptoms have been investigated since some years ago. These drugs are: steroidal-type immunoregulators, immunotherapy and antihistamines. Because of first generation of the last ones originated several side effects, pharmacological research was oriented to the search of formulas with the same of higher efficacy, but with fewer effects on central nervous system., Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of epinastine 10 mg plus pseudoephedrine 120 mg vs loratadine 5 mg plus pseudoephedrine 120 mg, twice a day, in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis., Material and Methods: A comparative, random, open, prospective, longitudinal and multicenter study was made in 62 patients with an average age of 26.17 +/- 9.75 years (13-56 years) with diagnosis of perennial allergic rhinitis, who attended to external consultation of the different departments of allergy of the participant institutions. All patients were submitted to: complete clinical history, physical exploration, measurement of vital signs, nasal exploration, qualification of allergic symptoms and record of daily symptoms. Moreover, washout during a week and pharmacological treatment was given during two weeks. Symptoms referred by patient and findings of physical exploration during the different visits, as well as rhinoscopic findings, were assessed by a scale of five parameters of rhinitis. Tolerance grade of drugs was assessed based on frequency and severity of side effects., Results: According to the basal clinical assessment symptoms qualification of patients of groups of epinastine and loratadine was of 9.12 +/- 2.78 and 7.90 +/- 2.7, respectively. Seven side effects appeared: three cases of somnolence, one of sickness and one of anxiety in patients of group of loratadine and one case of somnolence and one of dysmenorrhea in the subjects of group of epinestine. Although it did not have statistically significant difference, it is clinically important for patients. Frequency of side effects was higher in the loratadine group., Conclusion: Both drugs are efficient for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.