Intralymphatic Immunotherapy (ILIT) With Bee Venom Allergens: A Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study and the Very First ILIT in Humans.

Autor:	Chabot A; Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., Senti G; Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland., Erdmann I; Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., Prinz BM; Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., Wüthrich B; Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland., Šošić L; Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland., Kündig TM; Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland., Johansen P; Department of Dermatology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.; Department of Dermatology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Frontiers in allergy [Front Allergy] 2022 Mar 16; Vol. 3, pp. 832010. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Mar 16 (Print Publication: 2022).
DOI:	10.3389/falgy.2022.832010
Abstrakt:	Background: Subcutaneous venom immunotherapy (VIT) represents an effective treatment against bee venom allergy. However, it involves long treatment times, high costs, and the risk of adverse events (AEs). Shorter, safer, and cheaper treatment options are therefore pursued. Objective: To determine the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of bee venom intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT). Methods: In an open pilot study, 12 patients received bee venom ILIT in three sessions with 14-day intervals: 0.1-5 μg/dose. Ultrasound imaging was applied to guide an injection and to document the lymph node structure. In a second study, 67 patients from 15 centers in Europe and Australia were randomized to receive four doses of either 10- or 20-μg bee venom ILIT with 28-day intervals. Clinical endpoints included specific IgE and IgG and protection after a bee sting challenge. These studies were performed in the years 2000-2003. Results: In a proof-of-concept study, no serious AEs were observed. An increase in allergen-specific IgG1 but no IgG4 and IgE was observed. ILIT induced the protection against a bee sting challenge in 7 out of 8 challenged patients. In a multicenter study, an increase in allergen-specific IgG and IgE was observed, with the highest increase in patients receiving a higher ILIT dose. The study was terminated due to several serious AEs upon the sting challenge provocation after the completion of treatment. However, out of 45 patients challenged, 15 (65%) and 18 (82%) patients in the 10- and 20-μg group, respectively, showed an improvement of two grades or more. No correlation was observed between antibody levels and sting protection. Conclusions: While a pilot study suggested the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT, a high number of AEs seen after the sting challenge following a randomized study indicate that the immunology protection offered by bee venom ILIT is insufficient. Of note, the bee venom allergen extract used in the two studies were from the two different providers. While the first study used a formulation approved for use in subcutaneous VIT, the second study used a nonapproved formulation never tested in humans. Further studies on approved formulations should be performed to generate conclusive results regarding the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT. Competing Interests: At the time of the study, TK was scientific advisor to MannKind Corp (Valencia, CA) and received financial support for the conduction of the described trials. TK and PJ have received research funding and travel grants from Allergy Therapeutics (Worthing, UK), which however has no involvement related to the current report. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. (Copyright © 2022 Chabot, Senti, Erdmann, Prinz, Wüthrich, Šošić, Kündig and Johansen.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu