Clinical and immunological changes of immunotherapy in patients with atopic dermatitis: randomized controlled trial

Allergen immunotherapy for atopic dermatitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD.

METHODS

As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings.

CONCLUSIONS

SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.

Allergen-Specific IgE and IgG4 as Biomarkers for Immunologic Changes during Subcutaneous Allergen Immunotherapy

(1) Background: Biomarkers of efficacy for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) on allergic rhinitis have not been evaluated in details. The present study aims to assess the relevance of measuring of sIgE, sIgG4 and IgE/IgG4 ratio during SCIT in patients with allergic rhinitis; (2) Methods: 20 patients, 13 men and 7 women aged 19 to 58 years, with clinically manifested seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis were studied. At the initiation and in the end of the three-year course of SCIT serum allergen-specific IgE and IgG4 were measured with ImmunoCAP system. The sIgE/sIgG4 ratio was calculated as a biomarker for immunologic effectiveness; (3) Results: There was a significant increase of sIgG4 antibodies (p < 0.05), while at the end of SCIT for the sIgE levels no significant changes were seen (p > 0.05). Moreover, 90% of patients showed a decrease of the IgE/IgG4 ratio; (4) Conclusions: In most of treated patients with AR, SCIT with Bulgarian allergen products leads to clear immunological changes. After a 3-year of SCIT there is a significant increase in allergen specific IgG4 levels and both decrease of sIgE and IgE/IgG4 ratio. sIgE, sIgG4 and IgE/IgG4 ratio can be used as a substantial biomarker for predicting immunological effectiveness of SCIT.

Consensus Update for Systemic Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis

Background

In 2015, the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) working group published consensus guidelines for treating atopic dermatitis (AD).

Objective

We aimed to provide updated consensus recommendations for systemic treatment of AD in South Korea based on recent evidence and experience.

Methods

We compiled a database of references from relevant systematic reviews and guidelines on the systemic management of AD. Evidence for each statement was graded and classified based on thestrength of the recommendation. Forty-two council members from the KADA participated in three rounds of voting to establish a consensus on expert recommendations.

Results

We do not recommend long-term treatment with systemic steroids forpatients with moderate-to-severe AD due to the risk of adverse effects. We recommend treatment with cyclosporine or dupilumab and selective treatment with methotrexate or azathioprine for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. We suggest treatment with antihistamines as an option for alleviating clinical symptoms of AD. We recommend selective treatment with narrowband ultraviolet B for patients with chronic moderate-to-severe AD. We do not recommend treatment with oral antibiotics for patients with moderate-to-severe AD but who have no signs of infection. We did not reach a consensus on recommendations for treatment with allergen-specific immunotherapy, probiotics, evening primrose oil, orvitamin D for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. We also recommend educational interventions and counselling for patients with AD and caregivers to improve the treatment success rate.

Conclusion

We look forward to implementing a new and updated consensus of systemic therapy in controlling patients with moderate-to-severe AD.

Allergen Immunotherapy and Atopic Dermatitis: the Good, the Bad, and the Unknown

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In light of the recent advancements in atopic dermatitis treatment, this review aims to summarize the utility and efficacy of allergy immunotherapy in atopic dermatitis patients. We examine its mechanism, pathophysiology, cost-efficacy, and current guidelines for clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature supports the use of allergy immunotherapy in atopic conditions such as allergic rhinitis and asthma but insufficient evidence exists to suggest its efficacy in atopic dermatitis. The use of allergy immunotherapy has been shown to provide long-term cost savings in both the USA and the European Union in certain populations but differences in prescribing patterns and manufacturing make it difficult to study its impact on a larger, generalizable scale. Conflicting meta-analyses data and conclusions highlight the need for better, higher quality research to better understand allergy immunotherapy utility in atopic dermatitis.

Allergen immunotherapy in atopic dermatitis

INTRODUCTION

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing skin disease, characterized by flare-up due to the exposure to allergens in patients sensitized to them. Currently, therapy of AD is mainly based on symptomatic treatment and avoidance of irritating/allergenic factors, house dust mites being particularly important. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is suggested to be the only etiologic treatment, to modify the natural history of the disease. Areas covered: The aim of this review is investigating the putative role of AIT in AD through the evaluation of the most recent scientific literature. Several studies have been conducted since 1970, with promising results in improving the clinical outcome of AD, but they often lack the necessary scientific rigorousness. Moreover, heterogeneity of the studies makes it very difficult to compare and to analyze data in a systematic review or meta-analysis. Expert commentary: As a result of the above-mentioned limitations, the treatment of AD with causative aeroallergen can nowadays be suggested only as an add-on therapy in selected patients who are non-responsive to the traditional therapy.

Particular characteristics of atopic eczema in tropical environments. The Tropical Environment Control for Chronic Eczema and Molecular Assessment (TECCEMA) cohort study

Background

Atopic dermatitis is a prevalent health problem in the world. Allergic sensitization is an important risk factor, but the roles of other factors, inherent in tropic region, are unknown.

Objective

A cohort study was designed in a tropical city to investigate molecular and environmental risk factors for eczema, considering as particular features perennial exposure to mites, poor living conditions and others tropical characteristics.

Methods

433 patients were included at baseline and biological samples were collected during 24 months of follow-up. Clinical information was collected using questionnaires (SCORAD, DLQI and a subjective scale) during each clinical assessment.

Results

The prevalence of atopic eczema was 93%, with similar frequency between children and adults; parents history of eczema and polysensitization to mites, dogs, cats, cockroaches and birds, were risk factors for severe and persistent eczema and allergic comorbidities. Food sensitization was present in 16% of patients but food-induced allergies were scarce. Psychiatric, dental and ocular disorders were the most frequent non-allergic comorbidities.

Study limitations

selection bias.

Conclusion

We presented a tropical cohort of patients with eczema and we identified some risk factors for severe and persistent dermatitis. Some patterns of sensitization were associated with severe eczema and respiratory symptoms, and the natural history of "atopic march" is different to that described in some industrialized countries. The collection of biological samples will contribute to the understanding of the gene/environment interactions leading to allergy inception and evolution.

Particularities of allergy in the Tropics

Allergic diseases are distributed worldwide and their risk factors and triggers vary according to geographical and socioeconomic conditions. Allergies are frequent in the Tropics but aspects of their prevalence, natural history, risk factors, sensitizers and triggers are not well defined and some are expected to be different from those in temperate zone countries. The aim of this review is to investigate if allergic diseases in the Tropics have particularities that deserve special attention for research and clinical practice. Such information will help to form a better understanding of the pathogenesis, diagnosis and management of allergic diseases in the Tropics. As expected, we found particularities in the Tropics that merit further study because they strongly affect the natural history of common allergic diseases; most of them related to climate conditions that favor permanent exposure to mite allergens, helminth infections and stinging insects. In addition, we detected several unmet needs in important areas which should be investigated and solved by collaborative efforts led by the emergent research groups on allergy from tropical countries.

Scoping systematic review of treatments for eczema

Background

Eczema is a very common chronic inflammatory skin condition.

Objectives

To update the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) systematic review of treatments for atopic eczema, published in 2000, and to inform health-care professionals, commissioners and patients about key treatment developments and research gaps.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from the end of 2000 to 31 August 2013. Retrieved articles were used to identify further randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Review methods

Studies were filtered according to inclusion criteria and agreed by consensus in cases of uncertainty. Abstracts were excluded and non-English-language papers were screened by international colleagues and data were extracted. Only RCTs of treatments for eczema were included, as other forms of evidence are associated with higher risks of bias. Inclusion criteria for studies included availability of data relevant to the therapeutic management of eczema; mention of randomisation; comparison of two or more treatments; and prospective data collection. Participants of all ages were included. Eczema diagnosis was determined by a clinician or according to published diagnostic criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. We used a standardised approach to summarising the data and the assessment of risk of bias and we made a clear distinction between what the studies found and our own interpretation of study findings.

Results

Of 7198 references screened, 287 new trials were identified spanning 92 treatments. Trial reporting was generally poor (randomisation method: 2% high, 36% low, 62% unclear risk of bias; allocation concealment: 3% high, 15% low, 82% unclear risk of bias; blinding of the intervention: 15% high, 28% low, 57% unclear risk of bias). Only 22 (8%) trials were considered to be at low risk of bias for all three criteria. There was reasonable evidence of benefit for the topical medications tacrolimus, pimecrolimus and various corticosteroids (with tacrolimus superior to pimecrolimus and corticosteroids) for both treatment and flare prevention; oral ciclosporin; oral azathioprine; narrow band ultraviolet B (UVB) light; Atopiclair™ and education. There was reasonable evidence to suggest no clinically useful benefit for twice-daily compared with once-daily topical corticosteroids; corticosteroids containing antibiotics for non-infected eczema; probiotics; evening primrose and borage oil; ion-exchange water softeners; protease inhibitor SRD441 (Serentis Ltd); furfuryl palmitate in emollient; cipamfylline cream; andMycobacterium vaccaevaccine. Additional research evidence is needed for emollients, bath additives, antibacterials, specialist clothing and complementary and alternative therapies. There was no RCT evidence for topical corticosteroid dilution, impregnated bandages, soap avoidance, bathing frequency or allergy testing.

Limitations

The large scope of the review coupled with the heterogeneity of outcomes precluded formal meta-analyses. Our conclusions are still limited by a profusion of small, poorly reported studies.

Conclusions

Although the evidence base of RCTs has increased considerably since the last NIHR HTA systematic review, the field is still severely hampered by poor design and reporting problems including failure to register trials and declare primary outcomes, small sample size, short follow-up duration and poor reporting of risk of bias. Key areas for further research identified by the review include the optimum use of emollients, bathing frequency, wash products, allergy testing and antiseptic treatments. Perhaps the greatest benefit identified is the use of twice weekly anti-inflammatory treatment to maintain disease remission. More studies need to be conducted in a primary care setting where most people with eczema are seen in the UK. Future studies need to use the same core set of outcomes that capture patient symptoms, clinical signs, quality of life and the chronic nature of the disease.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Debates in allergy medicine: Specific immunotherapy in children with atopic dermatitis, the "con" view

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic skin condition in children that has a proven association with other atopic conditions and allergies. These associations, like the general pathophysiology of AD, are complex and not fully understood. While there is evidence for the efficacy of specific immunotherapy (SIT) in pediatric asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR), there is a lack of strong data to support its use in AD. IgE has been shown to be elevated in many patients with AD, but it is an unreliable biomarker due to variability and great fluctuation over time, poor positive predictive value for clinically relevant allergy, and poor correlation with disease state. In spite of this, almost all studies of SIT use either positive skin prick testing (SPT) or serum specific IgE levels to guide therapy. Allergen avoidance, with some exceptions, is generally not effective at controlling AD in children. The few studies that have investigated the efficacy of SIT in children with AD have produced conflicting results, and a lack of reproducibility with a standard treatment protocol. Limited studies have shown clinical improvement in mild to moderate AD cases, but no effect on more severe patients. Uncontrolled studies are difficult to interpret, due to the natural history of remission or “outgrowing” of AD over time in many patients without specific interventions. Drawbacks to SIT include the length of treatment, poor compliance, cost, and potential side effect profile. The potential for misdirection of time and energy away from skin directed therapy could negatively impact on AD outcomes.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.

The efficacy assessment of a self-administered immunotherapy protocol

Background

We previously reported the safety of a self‐administered subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) protocol. Here we report the results of the retrospective efficacy trial of the United Allergy Service (UAS) self‐administered SCIT protocol. We hypothesized that by utilizing a slow SCIT buildup phase, designed to attain recommended allergen concentrations on a cumulative basis, efficacious outcomes and clinical relevance would be achieved.

Methods

We enrolled 60 SCIT patients and 56 control patients. The study contrasted baseline and treatment period combined symptom plus medication scores (CSMS) as the primary outcome measure and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) scores as the secondary study outcome measure. Changes in pollen counts were also examined with regard to effects on these efficacy parameters.

Results

The treatment group showed significantly improved CSMS (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.97 to −1.18; p < 0.001) and RQLQ (SMD: −0.91; 95% CI, −1.23 to −0.59; p < 0.001). These treatment group outcome measures were respectively improved by 33% and 29% compared to baseline and greater than 40% in comparison to the control group (p < 0.0001). Significant results were also shown when examining these outcome measures with regards to either monotherapy or poly‐allergen SCIT. Furthermore, a comparison to recent meta‐analyses of SCIT studies showed equivalent efficacy and clinical relevance. Assessment of pollen counts during the baseline and treatment periods further corroborated the efficacy of the UAS SCIT protocol.

Conclusion

These efficacy results, and our previous safety results, show that a carefully designed and implemented self‐administered SCIT protocol is efficacious and safe.

The safety of self-administered allergen immunotherapy during the buildup and maintenance phases

BACKGROUND

Self-administered allergen immunotherapy is considered controversial. We believe the implementation of a self-administration protocol characterized by patient preselection and a slow buildup phase is safe.

METHODS

We analyzed 23,614 patient records and associated immunotherapy injections for systemic reactions (SR) during a 1-year period (2011 to 2012). SRs were graded in accordance with the World Allergy Organization (WAO) criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven SRs were reported for 23,614 patients who self-administered 2,021,600 injections yielding an annual SR rate of 0.16% (per patient) or 0.002% (per injection). Only 9 of 4643 pediatric (0.19%) and 28 of 18,971 adult patients (0.15%) experienced 1 or more SRs. No deaths (grade V SR) occurred. From 2009 through early 2014, over 90,000 patients received more than 10 million injections in accordance with the United Allergy Services (UAS) protocol without fatalities.

CONCLUSION

We believe this safety profile is due to a preselection of patients to exclude those with a high risk for adverse reactions and a slow immunotherapy buildup phase. In contrast, previous studies documented office-based SRs ranging from approximately 3% to greater than 14%. Thus, the UAS home-immunotherapy SR rate is significantly lower than office-based immunotherapy SR rates (p < 0.0001). The enhanced safety of this protocol results in a decreased frequency and severity of SRs. This safety report, derived from analyses of one of the largest patient cohorts studied, corroborates and expands the observations of previous studies of self-administered subcutaneous immunotherapy in a low-risk patient population by assessing self-administered allergen immunotherapy during the buildup and maintenance phases.

Inmunoterapia con alérgenos, ¿cuándo y por qué?

La inmunoterapia específica con alérgenos es el único tratamiento que modifica el curso natural de algunas enfermedades alérgicas como asma, rinitis, conjuntivitis, dermatitis atópica y alergia al veneno de himenópteros. Sin embargo, aún existe cierta controversia respecto a su seguridad y su utilidad clínica. En el presente artículo se presenta una revisión de los mecanismos moleculares, las indicaciones y contraindicaciones de dicha inmunoterapia, y se evalúan su seguridad y eficacia en cada una de estas enfermedades mediante casos ilustrativos y una breve revisión del tema.

Safety of immunotherapy in patients with rhinitis, asthma or atopic dermatitis using an ultra-rush buildup. A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is a proven, highly effective treatment for IgE-mediated diseases. However, ultra-rush immunotherapy is prescribed infrequently because of the perception that accelerated immunotherapy buildup leads to a higher rate of systemic reactions.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency of adverse reactions in patients with IgE-mediated diseases receiving house dust mite (HDM) ultra-rush immunotherapy.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study was conducted for patients with IgE-mediated diseases receiving allergen-specific immunotherapy. Subcutaneous immunotherapy with depigmented polymerized mites extract was administered in two refracted doses of 0.2 and 0.3 ml at first injection, and in single 0.5 ml doses in subsequent monthly injections. A 30 min observation time was required after each injection. Systemic reactions were graded using the World Allergy Organisation grading system.

RESULTS

575 patients were included. The age range was 1-83 years. Most patients had respiratory diseases (544) and 101 patients had atopic dermatitis. A total of 27 patients (4.6%) experienced 139 reactions (reactions/injections: 1.9%); 22 patients (3.8%) experienced 134 local reactions (local reactions/injections: 1.8%). Eight patients (1.3%) experienced eight systemic reactions (systemic reactions/injections: 0.1%). Five systemic reactions were grade 2 and three grade 1. Two systemic reactions were reported during buildup. There were no fatalities.

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the possible bias for the retrospective design of this study we observed that immunotherapy for patients with IgE-mediated diseases using a depigmented polymerized mites extract, with an ultra-rush buildup, has similar frequency of systemic reactions than that seen in slower buildup immunotherapy in other studies. Accelerated buildup could improve patients' adherence and reduce dropout rates.