Immunology

Celiac disease is a chronic, immune-mediated, systemic disorder caused by intolerance to gluten — a protein present in rye, barley, and wheat grains — that affects genetically predisposed individuals.

Due to its wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, celiac disease resembles a multisystemic disorder. Its most common gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms include chronic diarrhea, weight loss, and abdominal distention. However, celiac disease can also manifest in myriad extraintestinal symptoms, ranging from headache and fatigue to delayed puberty and psychiatric disorders, with differing presentations in children and adults.

To date, the only treatment is adopting a gluten-free diet (GFD). Although key to preventing persistent villous atrophy, the main cause of complications in celiac disease, lifelong adherence to GFD is challenging and may not resolve all clinical issues. These shortcomings have driven recent efforts to develop novel therapeutic options for patients with this disease.

Here are five things to know about celiac disease.
 

1. Rising Prevalence of Celiac Disease and Other Autoimmune Disorders Suggests Environmental Factors May Be at Play

Gluten was first identified as the cause of celiac disease in the 1950s. At that time, the condition was thought to be a relatively rare GI disease of childhood that primarily affected people of European descent, but it is now known to be a common disease affecting those of various ages, races, and ethnicities.

A 2018 meta-analysis found the pooled global prevalence of celiac disease was 1.4%. Incidence has increased by as much as 7.5% annually over the past several decades.

Increased awareness among clinicians and improved detection likely play a role in the trend. However, the growth in celiac disease is consistent with that seen for other autoimmune disorders, according to a 2024 update of evidence surrounding celiac disease. Shared environmental factors have been proposed as triggers for celiac disease and other autoimmune diseases and appear to be influencing their rise, the authors noted. These factors include migration and population growth, changing dietary patterns and food processing practices, and altered wheat consumption.
 

2. No-Biopsy Diagnosis Is Accepted for Children and Shows Promise for Adults

It is estimated that almost 60 million people worldwide have celiac disease, but most remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, or they experience significant diagnostic delays.

Prospective data indicate that children with first-degree relatives with celiac disease are at a significantly higher risk of developing the condition, which should prompt screening efforts in this population.

The 2023 updated guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) state that serology testing plays a central role in screening. This commonly involves serological testing for positive serological markers of the disease, including immunoglobulin A (IgA), anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA), anti-deamidated gliadin peptide, or endomysial antibodies.

To confirm diagnosis, clinicians have relied on intestinal biopsy since the late 1950s. The ACG still recommends esophagogastroduodenoscopy with multiple duodenal biopsies for confirmation of diagnosis in both children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. However, recent years have seen a shift toward a no-biopsy approach.

For more than a decade in Europe, a no-biopsy approach has been established practice in pediatric patients, for whom the burden of obtaining a histological confirmation is understandably greater. Most guidelines now permit children to be diagnosed with celiac disease in the absence of a biopsy under specific circumstances (eg, characteristic symptoms of celiac disease and tTG-IgA levels > 10 times the upper limit of normal). The ACG guidelines state that “this approach is a reasonable alternative to the standard approach to a [celiac disease] diagnosis in selected children.”

The ACG does not recommend a no-biopsy approach in adults, noting that, in comparison with children, there is a relative lack of data indicating that serology is predictive in this population. However, it does recognize that physicians may encounter patients for whom a biopsy diagnosis may not be safe or practical. In such cases, an “after-the-fact” diagnosis of likely celiac disease can be given to symptomatic adult patients with a ≥ 10-fold elevation of tTG-IgA and a positive endomysial antibody in a second blood sample.

A 2024 meta-analysis of 18 studies involving over 12,103 adult patients from 15 countries concluded that a no-biopsy approach using tTG-IgA antibody levels ≥ 10 times the upper limit of normal was highly specific and predictive of celiac disease.
 

3. Celiac Disease Is Associated With Several Life-Threatening Conditions

Emerging data indicate that gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening patients with celiac disease for several other GI conditions.

Inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease have a strong bidirectional association, suggesting a possible genetic link between the conditions and indicating that physicians should consider the alternate diagnosis when symptoms persist after treatment.

Given the hypervigilance around food and diet inherent to celiac disease, patients are at an increased risk of developing avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, according to a 2022 retrospective study.

In 2023, Italian investigators showed that children with celiac disease have an elevated prevalence of functional GI disorders even after adopting a GFD for a year, regardless of whether they consumed processed or natural foods. It was unclear whether this was due to a chronic inflammatory process or to nutritional factors.

Complications resulting from celiac disease are not limited to GI disorders. For a variety of underlying pathophysiological reasons, including intestinal permeability, hyposplenism, and malabsorption of nutrients, patients with celiac disease may be at a higher risk for non-GI conditions, such as osteopenia, women’s health disorders (eg, ovarian failure, endometriosis, or pregnancy loss), juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children and rheumatoid arthritis in adults, certain forms of cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiomyopathy.
 

4. GFD Is the Only Treatment, but It’s Imperfect and Frustrating for Patients

GFD is the only treatment for celiac disease and must be adhered to without deviation throughout a patient’s life.

Maintaining unwavering adherence reaps considerable benefits: Improved clinical symptoms, robust mucosal healing, and normalization of serological markers. Yet it also takes a considerable toll on patients. Patients with celiac disease struggle with a host of negative physical, psychological, and social impacts. They also report a higher treatment burden than those with gastroesophageal reflux disease or hypertension, and comparable with end-stage renal disease.

GFD also poses financial challenges. Although the price of gluten-free products has decreased in recent years, they still cost significantly more than items with gluten.

Adherence to GFD does not always equate to complete mucosal recovery. While mucosal recovery is achieved in 95% of children within 2 years of the diet’s adoption, only 34% and 66% of adults obtain it within 2 and 5 years, respectively.

GFD may lead to nutrient imbalances because gluten-free foods are typically low in alimentary fiber, micronutrients (eg, vitamin D, vitamin B12, or folate), and minerals (eg, iron, zinc, magnesium, or calcium). With higher sugar and fat content, GFD may leave patients susceptible to unwanted weight gain.

The pervasiveness of gluten in the food production system makes the risk for cross-contamination high. Gluten is often found in both naturally gluten-free foods and products labeled as such. Gluten-sensing technologies, some of which can be used via smartphone apps, have been developed to help patients identify possible cross-contamination. However, the ACG guidelines recommend against the use of these technologies until there is sufficient evidence supporting their ability to improve adherence and clinical outcomes.
 

5. Novel Therapies for Celiac Disease Are in the Pipeline

The limitations of GFD as the standard treatment for celiac disease have led to an increased focus on developing novel therapeutic interventions. They can be sorted into five key categories: Modulation of the immunostimulatory effects of toxic gluten peptides, elimination of toxic gluten peptides before they reach the intestine, induction of gluten tolerance, modulation of intestinal permeability, and restoration of gut microbiota balance.

Three therapies designed to block antigen presentation by HLA-DQ2/8, the gene alleles that predispose people to celiac disease, show promise: TPM502, an agent that contains three gluten-specific antigenic peptides with overlapping T-cell epitopes for the HLA-DQ2.5 gene; KAN-101, designed to induce gluten tolerance by targeting receptors on the liver; and DONQ52, a multi-specific antibody that targets HLA-DQ2. The KAN-101 therapy received Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2022.

These and several other agents in clinical and preclinical development are discussed in detail in a 2024 review article. Although no therapies have reached phase 3 testing, when they do, it will undoubtedly be welcomed by those with celiac disease.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Celiac disease is a chronic, immune-mediated, systemic disorder caused by intolerance to gluten — a protein present in rye, barley, and wheat grains — that affects genetically predisposed individuals.

Due to its wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, celiac disease resembles a multisystemic disorder. Its most common gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms include chronic diarrhea, weight loss, and abdominal distention. However, celiac disease can also manifest in myriad extraintestinal symptoms, ranging from headache and fatigue to delayed puberty and psychiatric disorders, with differing presentations in children and adults.

To date, the only treatment is adopting a gluten-free diet (GFD). Although key to preventing persistent villous atrophy, the main cause of complications in celiac disease, lifelong adherence to GFD is challenging and may not resolve all clinical issues. These shortcomings have driven recent efforts to develop novel therapeutic options for patients with this disease.

Here are five things to know about celiac disease.
 

1. Rising Prevalence of Celiac Disease and Other Autoimmune Disorders Suggests Environmental Factors May Be at Play

Gluten was first identified as the cause of celiac disease in the 1950s. At that time, the condition was thought to be a relatively rare GI disease of childhood that primarily affected people of European descent, but it is now known to be a common disease affecting those of various ages, races, and ethnicities.

A 2018 meta-analysis found the pooled global prevalence of celiac disease was 1.4%. Incidence has increased by as much as 7.5% annually over the past several decades.

Increased awareness among clinicians and improved detection likely play a role in the trend. However, the growth in celiac disease is consistent with that seen for other autoimmune disorders, according to a 2024 update of evidence surrounding celiac disease. Shared environmental factors have been proposed as triggers for celiac disease and other autoimmune diseases and appear to be influencing their rise, the authors noted. These factors include migration and population growth, changing dietary patterns and food processing practices, and altered wheat consumption.
 

2. No-Biopsy Diagnosis Is Accepted for Children and Shows Promise for Adults

It is estimated that almost 60 million people worldwide have celiac disease, but most remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, or they experience significant diagnostic delays.

Prospective data indicate that children with first-degree relatives with celiac disease are at a significantly higher risk of developing the condition, which should prompt screening efforts in this population.

The 2023 updated guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) state that serology testing plays a central role in screening. This commonly involves serological testing for positive serological markers of the disease, including immunoglobulin A (IgA), anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA), anti-deamidated gliadin peptide, or endomysial antibodies.

To confirm diagnosis, clinicians have relied on intestinal biopsy since the late 1950s. The ACG still recommends esophagogastroduodenoscopy with multiple duodenal biopsies for confirmation of diagnosis in both children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. However, recent years have seen a shift toward a no-biopsy approach.

For more than a decade in Europe, a no-biopsy approach has been established practice in pediatric patients, for whom the burden of obtaining a histological confirmation is understandably greater. Most guidelines now permit children to be diagnosed with celiac disease in the absence of a biopsy under specific circumstances (eg, characteristic symptoms of celiac disease and tTG-IgA levels > 10 times the upper limit of normal). The ACG guidelines state that “this approach is a reasonable alternative to the standard approach to a [celiac disease] diagnosis in selected children.”

The ACG does not recommend a no-biopsy approach in adults, noting that, in comparison with children, there is a relative lack of data indicating that serology is predictive in this population. However, it does recognize that physicians may encounter patients for whom a biopsy diagnosis may not be safe or practical. In such cases, an “after-the-fact” diagnosis of likely celiac disease can be given to symptomatic adult patients with a ≥ 10-fold elevation of tTG-IgA and a positive endomysial antibody in a second blood sample.

A 2024 meta-analysis of 18 studies involving over 12,103 adult patients from 15 countries concluded that a no-biopsy approach using tTG-IgA antibody levels ≥ 10 times the upper limit of normal was highly specific and predictive of celiac disease.
 

3. Celiac Disease Is Associated With Several Life-Threatening Conditions

Emerging data indicate that gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening patients with celiac disease for several other GI conditions.

Inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease have a strong bidirectional association, suggesting a possible genetic link between the conditions and indicating that physicians should consider the alternate diagnosis when symptoms persist after treatment.

Given the hypervigilance around food and diet inherent to celiac disease, patients are at an increased risk of developing avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, according to a 2022 retrospective study.

In 2023, Italian investigators showed that children with celiac disease have an elevated prevalence of functional GI disorders even after adopting a GFD for a year, regardless of whether they consumed processed or natural foods. It was unclear whether this was due to a chronic inflammatory process or to nutritional factors.

Complications resulting from celiac disease are not limited to GI disorders. For a variety of underlying pathophysiological reasons, including intestinal permeability, hyposplenism, and malabsorption of nutrients, patients with celiac disease may be at a higher risk for non-GI conditions, such as osteopenia, women’s health disorders (eg, ovarian failure, endometriosis, or pregnancy loss), juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children and rheumatoid arthritis in adults, certain forms of cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiomyopathy.
 

4. GFD Is the Only Treatment, but It’s Imperfect and Frustrating for Patients

GFD is the only treatment for celiac disease and must be adhered to without deviation throughout a patient’s life.

Maintaining unwavering adherence reaps considerable benefits: Improved clinical symptoms, robust mucosal healing, and normalization of serological markers. Yet it also takes a considerable toll on patients. Patients with celiac disease struggle with a host of negative physical, psychological, and social impacts. They also report a higher treatment burden than those with gastroesophageal reflux disease or hypertension, and comparable with end-stage renal disease.

GFD also poses financial challenges. Although the price of gluten-free products has decreased in recent years, they still cost significantly more than items with gluten.

Adherence to GFD does not always equate to complete mucosal recovery. While mucosal recovery is achieved in 95% of children within 2 years of the diet’s adoption, only 34% and 66% of adults obtain it within 2 and 5 years, respectively.

GFD may lead to nutrient imbalances because gluten-free foods are typically low in alimentary fiber, micronutrients (eg, vitamin D, vitamin B12, or folate), and minerals (eg, iron, zinc, magnesium, or calcium). With higher sugar and fat content, GFD may leave patients susceptible to unwanted weight gain.

The pervasiveness of gluten in the food production system makes the risk for cross-contamination high. Gluten is often found in both naturally gluten-free foods and products labeled as such. Gluten-sensing technologies, some of which can be used via smartphone apps, have been developed to help patients identify possible cross-contamination. However, the ACG guidelines recommend against the use of these technologies until there is sufficient evidence supporting their ability to improve adherence and clinical outcomes.
 

5. Novel Therapies for Celiac Disease Are in the Pipeline

The limitations of GFD as the standard treatment for celiac disease have led to an increased focus on developing novel therapeutic interventions. They can be sorted into five key categories: Modulation of the immunostimulatory effects of toxic gluten peptides, elimination of toxic gluten peptides before they reach the intestine, induction of gluten tolerance, modulation of intestinal permeability, and restoration of gut microbiota balance.

Three therapies designed to block antigen presentation by HLA-DQ2/8, the gene alleles that predispose people to celiac disease, show promise: TPM502, an agent that contains three gluten-specific antigenic peptides with overlapping T-cell epitopes for the HLA-DQ2.5 gene; KAN-101, designed to induce gluten tolerance by targeting receptors on the liver; and DONQ52, a multi-specific antibody that targets HLA-DQ2. The KAN-101 therapy received Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2022.

These and several other agents in clinical and preclinical development are discussed in detail in a 2024 review article. Although no therapies have reached phase 3 testing, when they do, it will undoubtedly be welcomed by those with celiac disease.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Celiac disease is a chronic, immune-mediated, systemic disorder caused by intolerance to gluten — a protein present in rye, barley, and wheat grains — that affects genetically predisposed individuals.

Due to its wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, celiac disease resembles a multisystemic disorder. Its most common gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms include chronic diarrhea, weight loss, and abdominal distention. However, celiac disease can also manifest in myriad extraintestinal symptoms, ranging from headache and fatigue to delayed puberty and psychiatric disorders, with differing presentations in children and adults.

To date, the only treatment is adopting a gluten-free diet (GFD). Although key to preventing persistent villous atrophy, the main cause of complications in celiac disease, lifelong adherence to GFD is challenging and may not resolve all clinical issues. These shortcomings have driven recent efforts to develop novel therapeutic options for patients with this disease.

Here are five things to know about celiac disease.
 

1. Rising Prevalence of Celiac Disease and Other Autoimmune Disorders Suggests Environmental Factors May Be at Play

Gluten was first identified as the cause of celiac disease in the 1950s. At that time, the condition was thought to be a relatively rare GI disease of childhood that primarily affected people of European descent, but it is now known to be a common disease affecting those of various ages, races, and ethnicities.

A 2018 meta-analysis found the pooled global prevalence of celiac disease was 1.4%. Incidence has increased by as much as 7.5% annually over the past several decades.

Increased awareness among clinicians and improved detection likely play a role in the trend. However, the growth in celiac disease is consistent with that seen for other autoimmune disorders, according to a 2024 update of evidence surrounding celiac disease. Shared environmental factors have been proposed as triggers for celiac disease and other autoimmune diseases and appear to be influencing their rise, the authors noted. These factors include migration and population growth, changing dietary patterns and food processing practices, and altered wheat consumption.
 

2. No-Biopsy Diagnosis Is Accepted for Children and Shows Promise for Adults

It is estimated that almost 60 million people worldwide have celiac disease, but most remain undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, or they experience significant diagnostic delays.

Prospective data indicate that children with first-degree relatives with celiac disease are at a significantly higher risk of developing the condition, which should prompt screening efforts in this population.

The 2023 updated guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) state that serology testing plays a central role in screening. This commonly involves serological testing for positive serological markers of the disease, including immunoglobulin A (IgA), anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA (tTG-IgA), anti-deamidated gliadin peptide, or endomysial antibodies.

To confirm diagnosis, clinicians have relied on intestinal biopsy since the late 1950s. The ACG still recommends esophagogastroduodenoscopy with multiple duodenal biopsies for confirmation of diagnosis in both children and adults with suspicion of celiac disease. However, recent years have seen a shift toward a no-biopsy approach.

For more than a decade in Europe, a no-biopsy approach has been established practice in pediatric patients, for whom the burden of obtaining a histological confirmation is understandably greater. Most guidelines now permit children to be diagnosed with celiac disease in the absence of a biopsy under specific circumstances (eg, characteristic symptoms of celiac disease and tTG-IgA levels > 10 times the upper limit of normal). The ACG guidelines state that “this approach is a reasonable alternative to the standard approach to a [celiac disease] diagnosis in selected children.”

The ACG does not recommend a no-biopsy approach in adults, noting that, in comparison with children, there is a relative lack of data indicating that serology is predictive in this population. However, it does recognize that physicians may encounter patients for whom a biopsy diagnosis may not be safe or practical. In such cases, an “after-the-fact” diagnosis of likely celiac disease can be given to symptomatic adult patients with a ≥ 10-fold elevation of tTG-IgA and a positive endomysial antibody in a second blood sample.

A 2024 meta-analysis of 18 studies involving over 12,103 adult patients from 15 countries concluded that a no-biopsy approach using tTG-IgA antibody levels ≥ 10 times the upper limit of normal was highly specific and predictive of celiac disease.
 

3. Celiac Disease Is Associated With Several Life-Threatening Conditions

Emerging data indicate that gastroenterologists should be vigilant in screening patients with celiac disease for several other GI conditions.

Inflammatory bowel disease and celiac disease have a strong bidirectional association, suggesting a possible genetic link between the conditions and indicating that physicians should consider the alternate diagnosis when symptoms persist after treatment.

Given the hypervigilance around food and diet inherent to celiac disease, patients are at an increased risk of developing avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, according to a 2022 retrospective study.

In 2023, Italian investigators showed that children with celiac disease have an elevated prevalence of functional GI disorders even after adopting a GFD for a year, regardless of whether they consumed processed or natural foods. It was unclear whether this was due to a chronic inflammatory process or to nutritional factors.

Complications resulting from celiac disease are not limited to GI disorders. For a variety of underlying pathophysiological reasons, including intestinal permeability, hyposplenism, and malabsorption of nutrients, patients with celiac disease may be at a higher risk for non-GI conditions, such as osteopenia, women’s health disorders (eg, ovarian failure, endometriosis, or pregnancy loss), juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children and rheumatoid arthritis in adults, certain forms of cancer, infectious diseases, and cardiomyopathy.
 

4. GFD Is the Only Treatment, but It’s Imperfect and Frustrating for Patients

GFD is the only treatment for celiac disease and must be adhered to without deviation throughout a patient’s life.

Maintaining unwavering adherence reaps considerable benefits: Improved clinical symptoms, robust mucosal healing, and normalization of serological markers. Yet it also takes a considerable toll on patients. Patients with celiac disease struggle with a host of negative physical, psychological, and social impacts. They also report a higher treatment burden than those with gastroesophageal reflux disease or hypertension, and comparable with end-stage renal disease.

GFD also poses financial challenges. Although the price of gluten-free products has decreased in recent years, they still cost significantly more than items with gluten.

Adherence to GFD does not always equate to complete mucosal recovery. While mucosal recovery is achieved in 95% of children within 2 years of the diet’s adoption, only 34% and 66% of adults obtain it within 2 and 5 years, respectively.

GFD may lead to nutrient imbalances because gluten-free foods are typically low in alimentary fiber, micronutrients (eg, vitamin D, vitamin B12, or folate), and minerals (eg, iron, zinc, magnesium, or calcium). With higher sugar and fat content, GFD may leave patients susceptible to unwanted weight gain.

The pervasiveness of gluten in the food production system makes the risk for cross-contamination high. Gluten is often found in both naturally gluten-free foods and products labeled as such. Gluten-sensing technologies, some of which can be used via smartphone apps, have been developed to help patients identify possible cross-contamination. However, the ACG guidelines recommend against the use of these technologies until there is sufficient evidence supporting their ability to improve adherence and clinical outcomes.
 

5. Novel Therapies for Celiac Disease Are in the Pipeline

The limitations of GFD as the standard treatment for celiac disease have led to an increased focus on developing novel therapeutic interventions. They can be sorted into five key categories: Modulation of the immunostimulatory effects of toxic gluten peptides, elimination of toxic gluten peptides before they reach the intestine, induction of gluten tolerance, modulation of intestinal permeability, and restoration of gut microbiota balance.

Three therapies designed to block antigen presentation by HLA-DQ2/8, the gene alleles that predispose people to celiac disease, show promise: TPM502, an agent that contains three gluten-specific antigenic peptides with overlapping T-cell epitopes for the HLA-DQ2.5 gene; KAN-101, designed to induce gluten tolerance by targeting receptors on the liver; and DONQ52, a multi-specific antibody that targets HLA-DQ2. The KAN-101 therapy received Fast Track designation by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2022.

These and several other agents in clinical and preclinical development are discussed in detail in a 2024 review article. Although no therapies have reached phase 3 testing, when they do, it will undoubtedly be welcomed by those with celiac disease.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — Allergic comorbidities such as asthma and rhinitis are common among pregnant women. During the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology, Dario Ebode, MD, otolaryngologist and cervicofacial surgeon at Hôpital de la Conception in Marseille, France, described gestational rhinitis and detailed its management.

A Hormonal Rhinitis

The prevalence of rhinitis during pregnancy ranges from 18% to 30%, whether it is pre-existing (eg, allergic or infectious) or newly diagnosed. About half of the cases of pre-existing rhinitis worsen during pregnancy, leading to gestational rhinitis, which has a prevalence of approximately 22%.

“The latter is characterized by its onset in the 2nd or 3rd trimester, a duration of > 6 weeks, an absence of associated allergic symptoms, and complete spontaneous resolution 2-3 weeks after delivery,” said Dr. Ebode.

Uncertainties about the pathophysiology of gestational rhinitis, a “hormonal rhinitis,” remain, he added. Beta-estradiol and progesterone hormones lead to an increase in H1 histamine receptors on epithelial and endothelial cells, which promotes the migration or degranulation of eosinophils.
 

Management

While gestational rhinitis is benign, its symptoms can still be bothersome and can be relieved. In addition to dietary and hygienic (nasal irrigation with large volumes) measures and allergen avoidance, local treatments include nasal corticosteroids, possibly combined with antihistamines, and systemic antihistamines. “During pregnancy, nasal corticosteroids, oral antihistamines [excluding azelastine hydrochloride before 10 weeks], and ipratropium bromide are allowed,” said Dr. Ebode. Regarding sprays that combine corticosteroids and antihistamines, the combination of mometasone furoate and olopatadine is possible but not the combination of azelastine hydrochloride and fluticasone propionate before 10 weeks.

Finally, oral vasoconstrictors (which are found in many over-the-counter medications) should be avoided, as should Kenacort (triamcinolone acetonide), “which also has no place in women outside of pregnancy due to an unfavorable risk-benefit balance in rhinitis,” said Dr. Ebode. Allergen immunotherapy plans should be postponed after delivery.

Dr. Ebode reported a financial relationship with Zambon.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS — While anaphylaxis requires immediate adrenaline administration through autoinjection, the use of this treatment is not optimal. Therefore, the development of new adrenaline formulations (such as for intranasal, sublingual, and transcutaneous routes) aims to facilitate the drug’s use and reduce persistent delays in administration by patients and caregivers. An overview of the research was presented at the 19th French-speaking Congress of Allergology.

Anaphylaxis is a severe and potentially fatal immediate hypersensitivity reaction with highly variable and dynamic clinical presentations. It requires prompt recognition for immediate treatment with intramuscular (IM) adrenaline (at the anterolateral aspect of the mid-thigh).

One might think that this reflex is acquired, but in France, while the number of prescribed adrenaline autoinjection (AAI) devices has been increasing for a decade, reaching 965,944 units in 2022, this first-line treatment is underused. Anapen (150, 300, and 500 µg), EpiPen (150 and 300 µg), Jext (150 µg and 300 µg), and Emerade (150, 300, and 500 µg) are the four products marketed in France in 2024.

“Only 17.3% of individuals presenting to the emergency department in the Lorraine region used it in 2015,” said Catherine Neukirch, MD, a pneumologist at Hôpital Bichat–Claude Bernard in Paris, France, with rates of 11.3% for children and 20.3% for adults.
 

Anaphylaxis Incidence Increasing

Approximately 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1-0.5) of the population will experience an anaphylaxis episode in their lifetime. Incidence in Europe, across all causes, is estimated between 1.5 and 7.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year. Although anaphylaxis is on the rise, its associated mortality remains low, ranging between 0.05 and 0.51 per million per year for drugs, between 0.03 and 0.32 per million per year for foods, and between 0.09 and 0.13 per million per year for hymenopteran venoms.

Data from the European Anaphylaxis Registry indicate that anaphylaxis manifests rapidly after allergen exposure: 55% of cases occur within 10 minutes and 80% within 30 minutes. In addition, a biphasic reaction, which can occur up to 72 hours after exposure, is observed in < 5% of cases.

While a delay in adrenaline use is associated with risk for increased morbidity and mortality, AAI significantly reduces error rates compared with manual treatments involving ampoules, needles, and syringes. It also reduces the associated panic risks. However, there are multiple barriers to adrenaline use. The clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis may be misleading, especially if it occurs without cutaneous and urticarial manifestations but with only acute bronchospasm. It may present as isolated laryngeal edema without digestive involvement, hypotension, or other respiratory problems.

Other limitations to adrenaline use include technical difficulties and the possibility of incorrect administration, the need for appropriate needle sizes for patients with obesity, needle phobia, potential adverse effects of adrenaline injections, failure to carry two autoinjectors, constraints related to storage and bulky transport, as well as the need for training and practice.

“These factors contribute to underuse of adrenaline by patients and caregivers,” said Dr. Neukirch, which results in delays in necessary administration.
 

Adrenaline Treatment Criteria?

An analysis published in 2023 based on pharmacovigilance data from 30 regional French centers from 1984 to 2022 included 42 reported cases (average age, 33 years; 26% children) of reactions to AAI, which probably is an underestimate. About 40% of AAI uses occurred during anaphylaxis. The remaining 60% were triggered outside of reactions. The main reasons were accidental injections, mainly in the fingers, and cases of not triggering the autoinjector, underlining the importance of patient education.

In 2015, the European Medicines Agency required pharmacological studies for injectable adrenaline on healthy volunteers. These studies include ultrasound measurements of bolus injection, pharmacokinetics (ie, absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion), and pharmacodynamics (ie, the effect of the drug and the mechanism of action in the body), with precise evaluation of cardiovascular effects (eg, systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate).

Among the information collected with the different products, ultrasound studies have shown a different localization of the adrenaline bolus (ie, in muscle in patients with normal BMI and mostly in adipose tissue in patients with BMI indicating overweight and obesity). The consequences of this finding are still unknown.

In a study with 500 µg Anapen, women with overweight or obesity showed different pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic profiles from those in men with normal weight, with an increase in the area under the curve (0-240 min) and marked changes in the heart rate time curve.

IM administration of 0.5 mg produces rapid pharmacokinetic effects in patients with normal weight, overweight, or obesity, with a delay for the second peak in the latter case. This delay perhaps results from initial local vasoconstriction due to adrenaline.

The early peak plasma concentration occurs at 5-10 minutes for AAI, with a faster speed for Anapen and EpiPen.

Moreover, needle size is not the most important factor. Rather, it is the strength and speed of injection, which can vary depending on the AAI.

Also, the optimal plasma concentration of adrenaline to treat anaphylaxis is not known; studies cannot be conducted during anaphylaxis. In terms of pharmacokinetics, a small series discovered that increased skin or muscle thickness delays the absorption of EpiPen AAI.
 

Intranasal Adrenaline

To facilitate rapid adrenaline use and convince reluctant patients to carry and use adrenaline, intranasal, sublingual, or transcutaneous forms are under development.

Three intranasal forms of adrenaline are already well advanced, including Neffy from ARS Pharma, epinephrine sprays from Bryn Pharma and Hikma, and Oxero from Oragoo, which contains dry powder.

A comparison of intranasal adrenaline Neffy and AAI shows that the former has satisfactory pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.

In a phase 1 randomized crossover study of 42 healthy adults comparing the pharmacokinetic effects of Neffy adrenaline (2 mg) and EpiPen (0.3 mg), as well as IM epinephrine 0.3 mg, several observations were made. For a single dose, the maximum concentration (Cmax) of Neffy was lower than that of EpiPen.

However, with repeated doses administered 10 minutes apart, the Cmax of Neffy was higher than that of EpiPen. At this stage, pharmacodynamic responses to intranasal products are at least comparable with those of approved injectable products.

A comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects, such as systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate, of Neffy adrenaline and AAI concluded that the profile of Neffy is comparable with that of EpiPen and superior to that of IM epinephrine.

In patients with a history of allergic rhinitis, adrenaline Cmax appears to be increased, while time to peak plasma concentration (Tmax) is reduced. Low blood pressure does not prevent Neffy absorption. Neffy is currently under review by the American and European health authorities.

Intranasal absorption of dry powder adrenaline appears to be faster than that of EpiPen, thus offering a clinical advantage in the short therapeutic window for anaphylaxis treatment.

In an open-label trial conducted on 12 adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis without asthma, the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of adrenaline were compared between FMXIN002 (1.6 and 3.2 mg), which was administered intranasally with or without nasal allergen challenge, and IM EpiPen 0.3 mg. Pharmacokinetics varied by patient. Nevertheless, nasal FMXIN002 had a shorter Tmax, a doubled Cmax after the allergen challenge peak, and a higher area under the curve in the 8 hours following administration compared with EpiPen. Pharmacodynamic effects comparable with those of EpiPen were noted at 15 minutes to 4 hours after administration. The tolerance was good, with mild and local side effects. The powder seems to deposit slightly better in the nasal cavity. It remains stable for 6 months at a temperature of 40 °C and relative humidity of 75% and for 2 years at a temperature of 25 °C and relative humidity of 60%.
 

Sublingual Adrenaline Film

AQST-109 is a sublingual film that is intended to allow rapid administration of epinephrine 1, which is a prodrug of adrenaline. The product is the size of a postage stamp, weighs < 30 g, and dissolves on contact with the tongue.

The EPIPHAST II study was a phase 1, multiperiod, crossover study conducted on 24 healthy adults (age, 24-49 years) who were randomly assigned to receive either 12 or 0.3 mg of AQST-109  of manual IM adrenaline in the first two periods. All participants received 0.3 mg of EpiPen in the last period.

EpiPen 0.3 mg resulted in a higher Cmax than AQST-109 12 mg. AQST-109 12 mg had the fastest median Tmax of 12 minutes. The areas under the curve of AQST-109 12 mg fell between those of EpiPen 0.3 mg and manual IM adrenaline 0.3 mg.

Early increases in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate were observed with AQST-109 12 mg. Changes were more pronounced with AQST-109 12 mg despite a higher Cmax with EpiPen 0.3 mg.

Part 3 of the EPIPHAST study evaluated the impact of food exposure (ie, a peanut butter sandwich) on the pharmacokinetics of AQST-109 12 mg in 24 healthy adults. Oral food residues did not significantly affect pharmacodynamic parameters, and no treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Researchers concluded that AQST-109 12 mg absorption would not be altered by “real” situations if used during meals. “These results suggest that the sublingual adrenaline film could be promising in real situations,” said Dr. Neukirch, especially in cases of food allergy with recent ingestion of the allergenic food.
 

Transcutaneous Adrenaline

A transcutaneous form of adrenaline that uses the Zeneo device developed by Crossject, a company based in Dijon, France, comes in the form of an AAI that requires no needle. This project, funded by the European Union, uses a gas generator to propel the drug at very high speed through the skin in 50 milliseconds. This method allows for extended drug storage.

Dr. Neukirch reported financial relationships with Viatris, Stallergènes, ALK, Astrazeneca, Sanofi, GSK, and Novartis.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A mix of microbes may help explain why some people develop dry eye disease, new research showed.

This finding suggests that bacteria may cause dry eye and could someday point to new treatments for the condition and related disorders, which affect an estimated 27 million Americans, according to researchers.

Current treatments aim to preserve and enhance tears and tear production to ease the grittiness and itchiness that accompany dry eye disease. 

To examine the role of the ocular microbiome in dry eye disease, scientists in Texas analyzed swab samples from 30 men and women, nine of whom had dry eye.

They found Streptococcus and Pedobacter species were the most common bacteria in healthy eyes.

In people with dry eye, however, more Acinetobacter species were detected.

“We think the metabolites produced by these bacteria are responsible for dry eye conditions,” study coauthor Pallavi Sharma said in a news release about the findings. 

Sharma, a graduate student at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, presented this research last month at the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The research team was led by Alexandra Van Kley, PhD, a professor of biology at the university.

“Once we understand the eye microbiota properly, it will improve disease diagnosis at an early stage,” Van Kley predicted in the news release. “This knowledge can also serve as a catalyst for developing innovative therapies aimed at preventing and treating ocular disease as well as those that affect the central microbiome site: The gut.”

Investigators in Australia have conducted similar experiments in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction, a condition marked by underproduction of key oils in the eye.

One group reported in August 2023 the finding of “detectable differences in the bacterial richness, diversity, and community structure of the conjunctiva and eyelid margin between individuals with meibomian gland dysfunction with and without lacrimal dysfunction, as well as to healthy controls.”

More research is needed to confirm and understand the findings, though, and “to determine if manipulating the microbiome could be a potential treatment for the condition,” they wrote.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A mix of microbes may help explain why some people develop dry eye disease, new research showed.

This finding suggests that bacteria may cause dry eye and could someday point to new treatments for the condition and related disorders, which affect an estimated 27 million Americans, according to researchers.

Current treatments aim to preserve and enhance tears and tear production to ease the grittiness and itchiness that accompany dry eye disease. 

To examine the role of the ocular microbiome in dry eye disease, scientists in Texas analyzed swab samples from 30 men and women, nine of whom had dry eye.

They found Streptococcus and Pedobacter species were the most common bacteria in healthy eyes.

In people with dry eye, however, more Acinetobacter species were detected.

“We think the metabolites produced by these bacteria are responsible for dry eye conditions,” study coauthor Pallavi Sharma said in a news release about the findings. 

Sharma, a graduate student at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, presented this research last month at the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The research team was led by Alexandra Van Kley, PhD, a professor of biology at the university.

“Once we understand the eye microbiota properly, it will improve disease diagnosis at an early stage,” Van Kley predicted in the news release. “This knowledge can also serve as a catalyst for developing innovative therapies aimed at preventing and treating ocular disease as well as those that affect the central microbiome site: The gut.”

Investigators in Australia have conducted similar experiments in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction, a condition marked by underproduction of key oils in the eye.

One group reported in August 2023 the finding of “detectable differences in the bacterial richness, diversity, and community structure of the conjunctiva and eyelid margin between individuals with meibomian gland dysfunction with and without lacrimal dysfunction, as well as to healthy controls.”

More research is needed to confirm and understand the findings, though, and “to determine if manipulating the microbiome could be a potential treatment for the condition,” they wrote.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A mix of microbes may help explain why some people develop dry eye disease, new research showed.

This finding suggests that bacteria may cause dry eye and could someday point to new treatments for the condition and related disorders, which affect an estimated 27 million Americans, according to researchers.

Current treatments aim to preserve and enhance tears and tear production to ease the grittiness and itchiness that accompany dry eye disease. 

To examine the role of the ocular microbiome in dry eye disease, scientists in Texas analyzed swab samples from 30 men and women, nine of whom had dry eye.

They found Streptococcus and Pedobacter species were the most common bacteria in healthy eyes.

In people with dry eye, however, more Acinetobacter species were detected.

“We think the metabolites produced by these bacteria are responsible for dry eye conditions,” study coauthor Pallavi Sharma said in a news release about the findings. 

Sharma, a graduate student at Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, presented this research last month at the annual meeting of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. The research team was led by Alexandra Van Kley, PhD, a professor of biology at the university.

“Once we understand the eye microbiota properly, it will improve disease diagnosis at an early stage,” Van Kley predicted in the news release. “This knowledge can also serve as a catalyst for developing innovative therapies aimed at preventing and treating ocular disease as well as those that affect the central microbiome site: The gut.”

Investigators in Australia have conducted similar experiments in patients with meibomian gland dysfunction, a condition marked by underproduction of key oils in the eye.

One group reported in August 2023 the finding of “detectable differences in the bacterial richness, diversity, and community structure of the conjunctiva and eyelid margin between individuals with meibomian gland dysfunction with and without lacrimal dysfunction, as well as to healthy controls.”

More research is needed to confirm and understand the findings, though, and “to determine if manipulating the microbiome could be a potential treatment for the condition,” they wrote.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The acronym AIDS is redundant, loaded with stigma, and potentially harmful, according to a group of specialists who suggest replacing the term with “advanced HIV.”

The acronym AIDS has “outlived its usefulness and we should transition toward a more descriptive language that aligns with contemporary challenges in HIV,” reports Isaac Núñez, MD, from the Department of Medical Education, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, Mexico, and colleagues.

People generally associate the acronym AIDS with patients who have no available treatment options and a short life expectancy, said Dr. Núñez. That mischaracterization may affect treatment decisions by patients and clinicians and could result in exaggerated infection-control measures.

Using the HIV/AIDS combination erroneously implies equivalence and can mislead the public and clinicians, which the authors explained in their Viewpoint article published in The Lancet HIV.
 

Original Reason for the Term

AIDS, which stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, was coined in 1982 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to name a disease with an unknown cause that affected people with weakened cell-mediated immunity.

“When HIV was found to be the cause of the disease (labeled HIV in 1986), the term AIDS, strictly speaking, became unnecessary,” Dr. Núñez said.

AIDS was originally intended as a case definition for surveillance purposes, and treatment decisions were based on whether patients met the case definition for AIDS, he pointed out.

“The fact that some people still do so in this day and age shows that this is not only unhelpful, but misleading and even harmful,” he noted. Without the label AIDS, clinicians can focus on whether and for how long people have been on treatment, whether they recently switched treatment, and other factors that will help determine appropriate care.
 

Some Organizations Removed AIDS From Their Names

Some organizations have already removed AIDS from their names. For example, the International AIDS Society–USA, which issues guidelines on antiretroviral treatment, changed its name to the International Antiviral Society–USA. 

In 2017, the name of AIDS.gov was changed to HIV.gov. In its explanation, the group wrote, “Today, people with HIV who are diagnosed early, linked to care, start antiretroviral therapy, and take it as prescribed can achieve life-long viral suppression that prevents HIV infection from progressing to AIDS.”

A different view on the term AIDS comes from Greg Millett, MPH, vice president at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and the director of amfAR’s Public Policy Office. 

Although he believes that AIDS is an anachronistic term, as a researcher for more than 30 years in the field; a policy director in Washington; a scientist; and a person living with HIV, “it feels like a distinction without a difference. At least from where I sit, there are far more pressing issues that we’re facing as an HIV community,” Millett shared. 

For instance, “we’re seeing that global, as well as domestic, HIV funding is in, by far, the most precarious position that I’ve ever seen in the field. Calling it AIDS or HIV makes no difference in trying to alleviate that jeopardy,” he said.

Millett also said that the stigma and persecution and, in some cases, criminalization of people living with HIV or AIDS is pervasive and won’t go away with a name change, which is a point the authors also acknowledged.

“We need to focus on the social determinants of health,” he said. “That is the thing that is going to move the needle among people living with HIV, not nomenclature.”

Millett likens the argument to the one between Black and African American. “As a Black American, I remember fierce debates in the early ‘90s over whether we should be called African Americans or Blacks. Some argued that African American carried greater dignity and would help with self-esteem and address inequities by emphasizing that we are American. Many others said that it doesn’t make a difference.”

“It is clear that being called African American has not fixed intractable issues like poverty, structural racism, or inequities in incarceration,” he pointed out.
 

End the Epidemic, Not the Name 

The authors misinterpret the impact of the term on stigma, said James W. Curran, MD, MPH, dean emeritus of the Rollins School of Public Health and professor of epidemiology and global health at Emory University, both in Atlanta, Georgia. The term AIDS “is more likely attributed to the fatal nature of the infection itself,” without treatment, he explained, and the mode of transmission, exacerbated by homophobia.

“The term has been in widespread use for 40 years and recognized worldwide,” Dr. Curran, who led the nation’s efforts in the battle against HIV and AIDS at the CDC for 15 years before joining Emory as dean, said.

He also worries about the continued trajectory of lives lost: “Over 35 million people worldwide have perished from HIV/AIDS, including over 500,000 per year now.”

Meanwhile, “global programs such as PEPFAR [the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] are under fire and threatened by Congress as no longer necessary. Removing AIDS from the terminology may add to confusion,” making people think “that the epidemic is over,” he said.

Although the authors argue that keeping the term may cause harm, eliminating it might worsen a different kind of harm. “There is a risk that abolishing the term will further de-emphasize the importance of the problem, with no significant impact on stigma,” Dr. Curran added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The acronym AIDS is redundant, loaded with stigma, and potentially harmful, according to a group of specialists who suggest replacing the term with “advanced HIV.”

The acronym AIDS has “outlived its usefulness and we should transition toward a more descriptive language that aligns with contemporary challenges in HIV,” reports Isaac Núñez, MD, from the Department of Medical Education, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, Mexico, and colleagues.

People generally associate the acronym AIDS with patients who have no available treatment options and a short life expectancy, said Dr. Núñez. That mischaracterization may affect treatment decisions by patients and clinicians and could result in exaggerated infection-control measures.

Using the HIV/AIDS combination erroneously implies equivalence and can mislead the public and clinicians, which the authors explained in their Viewpoint article published in The Lancet HIV.
 

Original Reason for the Term

AIDS, which stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, was coined in 1982 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to name a disease with an unknown cause that affected people with weakened cell-mediated immunity.

“When HIV was found to be the cause of the disease (labeled HIV in 1986), the term AIDS, strictly speaking, became unnecessary,” Dr. Núñez said.

AIDS was originally intended as a case definition for surveillance purposes, and treatment decisions were based on whether patients met the case definition for AIDS, he pointed out.

“The fact that some people still do so in this day and age shows that this is not only unhelpful, but misleading and even harmful,” he noted. Without the label AIDS, clinicians can focus on whether and for how long people have been on treatment, whether they recently switched treatment, and other factors that will help determine appropriate care.
 

Some Organizations Removed AIDS From Their Names

Some organizations have already removed AIDS from their names. For example, the International AIDS Society–USA, which issues guidelines on antiretroviral treatment, changed its name to the International Antiviral Society–USA. 

In 2017, the name of AIDS.gov was changed to HIV.gov. In its explanation, the group wrote, “Today, people with HIV who are diagnosed early, linked to care, start antiretroviral therapy, and take it as prescribed can achieve life-long viral suppression that prevents HIV infection from progressing to AIDS.”

A different view on the term AIDS comes from Greg Millett, MPH, vice president at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and the director of amfAR’s Public Policy Office. 

Although he believes that AIDS is an anachronistic term, as a researcher for more than 30 years in the field; a policy director in Washington; a scientist; and a person living with HIV, “it feels like a distinction without a difference. At least from where I sit, there are far more pressing issues that we’re facing as an HIV community,” Millett shared. 

For instance, “we’re seeing that global, as well as domestic, HIV funding is in, by far, the most precarious position that I’ve ever seen in the field. Calling it AIDS or HIV makes no difference in trying to alleviate that jeopardy,” he said.

Millett also said that the stigma and persecution and, in some cases, criminalization of people living with HIV or AIDS is pervasive and won’t go away with a name change, which is a point the authors also acknowledged.

“We need to focus on the social determinants of health,” he said. “That is the thing that is going to move the needle among people living with HIV, not nomenclature.”

Millett likens the argument to the one between Black and African American. “As a Black American, I remember fierce debates in the early ‘90s over whether we should be called African Americans or Blacks. Some argued that African American carried greater dignity and would help with self-esteem and address inequities by emphasizing that we are American. Many others said that it doesn’t make a difference.”

“It is clear that being called African American has not fixed intractable issues like poverty, structural racism, or inequities in incarceration,” he pointed out.
 

End the Epidemic, Not the Name 

The authors misinterpret the impact of the term on stigma, said James W. Curran, MD, MPH, dean emeritus of the Rollins School of Public Health and professor of epidemiology and global health at Emory University, both in Atlanta, Georgia. The term AIDS “is more likely attributed to the fatal nature of the infection itself,” without treatment, he explained, and the mode of transmission, exacerbated by homophobia.

“The term has been in widespread use for 40 years and recognized worldwide,” Dr. Curran, who led the nation’s efforts in the battle against HIV and AIDS at the CDC for 15 years before joining Emory as dean, said.

He also worries about the continued trajectory of lives lost: “Over 35 million people worldwide have perished from HIV/AIDS, including over 500,000 per year now.”

Meanwhile, “global programs such as PEPFAR [the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] are under fire and threatened by Congress as no longer necessary. Removing AIDS from the terminology may add to confusion,” making people think “that the epidemic is over,” he said.

Although the authors argue that keeping the term may cause harm, eliminating it might worsen a different kind of harm. “There is a risk that abolishing the term will further de-emphasize the importance of the problem, with no significant impact on stigma,” Dr. Curran added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The acronym AIDS is redundant, loaded with stigma, and potentially harmful, according to a group of specialists who suggest replacing the term with “advanced HIV.”

The acronym AIDS has “outlived its usefulness and we should transition toward a more descriptive language that aligns with contemporary challenges in HIV,” reports Isaac Núñez, MD, from the Department of Medical Education, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán in Mexico City, Mexico, and colleagues.

People generally associate the acronym AIDS with patients who have no available treatment options and a short life expectancy, said Dr. Núñez. That mischaracterization may affect treatment decisions by patients and clinicians and could result in exaggerated infection-control measures.

Using the HIV/AIDS combination erroneously implies equivalence and can mislead the public and clinicians, which the authors explained in their Viewpoint article published in The Lancet HIV.
 

Original Reason for the Term

AIDS, which stands for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, was coined in 1982 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to name a disease with an unknown cause that affected people with weakened cell-mediated immunity.

“When HIV was found to be the cause of the disease (labeled HIV in 1986), the term AIDS, strictly speaking, became unnecessary,” Dr. Núñez said.

AIDS was originally intended as a case definition for surveillance purposes, and treatment decisions were based on whether patients met the case definition for AIDS, he pointed out.

“The fact that some people still do so in this day and age shows that this is not only unhelpful, but misleading and even harmful,” he noted. Without the label AIDS, clinicians can focus on whether and for how long people have been on treatment, whether they recently switched treatment, and other factors that will help determine appropriate care.
 

Some Organizations Removed AIDS From Their Names

Some organizations have already removed AIDS from their names. For example, the International AIDS Society–USA, which issues guidelines on antiretroviral treatment, changed its name to the International Antiviral Society–USA. 

In 2017, the name of AIDS.gov was changed to HIV.gov. In its explanation, the group wrote, “Today, people with HIV who are diagnosed early, linked to care, start antiretroviral therapy, and take it as prescribed can achieve life-long viral suppression that prevents HIV infection from progressing to AIDS.”

A different view on the term AIDS comes from Greg Millett, MPH, vice president at the Foundation for AIDS Research (amfAR) and the director of amfAR’s Public Policy Office. 

Although he believes that AIDS is an anachronistic term, as a researcher for more than 30 years in the field; a policy director in Washington; a scientist; and a person living with HIV, “it feels like a distinction without a difference. At least from where I sit, there are far more pressing issues that we’re facing as an HIV community,” Millett shared. 

For instance, “we’re seeing that global, as well as domestic, HIV funding is in, by far, the most precarious position that I’ve ever seen in the field. Calling it AIDS or HIV makes no difference in trying to alleviate that jeopardy,” he said.

Millett also said that the stigma and persecution and, in some cases, criminalization of people living with HIV or AIDS is pervasive and won’t go away with a name change, which is a point the authors also acknowledged.

“We need to focus on the social determinants of health,” he said. “That is the thing that is going to move the needle among people living with HIV, not nomenclature.”

Millett likens the argument to the one between Black and African American. “As a Black American, I remember fierce debates in the early ‘90s over whether we should be called African Americans or Blacks. Some argued that African American carried greater dignity and would help with self-esteem and address inequities by emphasizing that we are American. Many others said that it doesn’t make a difference.”

“It is clear that being called African American has not fixed intractable issues like poverty, structural racism, or inequities in incarceration,” he pointed out.
 

End the Epidemic, Not the Name 

The authors misinterpret the impact of the term on stigma, said James W. Curran, MD, MPH, dean emeritus of the Rollins School of Public Health and professor of epidemiology and global health at Emory University, both in Atlanta, Georgia. The term AIDS “is more likely attributed to the fatal nature of the infection itself,” without treatment, he explained, and the mode of transmission, exacerbated by homophobia.

“The term has been in widespread use for 40 years and recognized worldwide,” Dr. Curran, who led the nation’s efforts in the battle against HIV and AIDS at the CDC for 15 years before joining Emory as dean, said.

He also worries about the continued trajectory of lives lost: “Over 35 million people worldwide have perished from HIV/AIDS, including over 500,000 per year now.”

Meanwhile, “global programs such as PEPFAR [the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] are under fire and threatened by Congress as no longer necessary. Removing AIDS from the terminology may add to confusion,” making people think “that the epidemic is over,” he said.

Although the authors argue that keeping the term may cause harm, eliminating it might worsen a different kind of harm. “There is a risk that abolishing the term will further de-emphasize the importance of the problem, with no significant impact on stigma,” Dr. Curran added.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Dou_Diana_CA_web.jpg

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

Anguera_Montserrat_PA_web.jpg

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

167534_photo_web.jpg

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Darrah_Erika_MD_web.jpg

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

Plath_Kathrin_CA_web.jpg

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Dou_Diana_CA_web.jpg

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

Anguera_Montserrat_PA_web.jpg

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

167534_photo_web.jpg

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Darrah_Erika_MD_web.jpg

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

Plath_Kathrin_CA_web.jpg

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

Female bias in autoimmune disease can be profound, with nine females developing lupus for every male affected, and nearly twice that ratio seen in Sjögren disease.

For years, researchers have worked to determine the reasons for sex-linked differences in immune response and autoimmunity, with environmental factors, sex hormones, and X-chromosome inactivation — the process by which a second X chromosome is silenced — all seen as having roles.

More recently, different groups of researchers have homed in on a long noncoding RNA fragment called X-inactive specific transcript, or Xist, as a potential driver of sex bias in autoimmune disease. Xist, which occurs in female mammals, has been known since the 1990s as the master regulator of X-chromosome inactivation, the process by which the second X chromosome is silenced, averting a fatal double dose of X-linked genes.

The inactivation process, which scientists liken to wrapping the extra X with a fluffy cloud of proteins, occurs early in embryonic development. After its initial work silencing the X, Xist is produced throughout the female’s life, allowing X inactivation to be maintained.

But is it possible that Xist, and the many dozens of proteins it recruits to keep that extra X chromosome silent, can also provoke autoimmunity? This is the question that several teams of researchers have been grappling with, resulting in provocative findings and opening exciting new avenues of discovery.
 

Xist Protein Complexes Make Male Mice Vulnerable to Lupus

In February, researchers Howard Chang, MD, PhD, and Diana Dou, PhD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California, made worldwide news when they published results from an experiment using male mice genetically engineered to carry a non-silencing form of Xist on one of their chromosomes.

Dou_Diana_CA_web.jpg

Xist acts like a scaffold, recruiting multiple protein complexes to help it do its job. Dr. Dou explained in an interview that her team has been eyeing suspiciously for years the dozens of proteins Xist recruits in the process of X-chromosome inactivation, many of which are known autoantigens.

When the mice were injected with pristane, a chemical that induces lupus-like autoimmunity in mice, the Xist-producing males developed symptoms at a rate similar to that of females, while wild-type male mice did not.

By using a male model, the scientists could determine whether Xist could cause an increased vulnerability for autoimmunity absent the influence of female hormones and development. “Everything else about the animal is male,” Dr. Dou commented. “You just add the formation of the Xist ribonucleoprotein particles — Xist RNA plus the associating proteins — to male cells that would not ordinarily have these particles. Is just having the particles present in these animals sufficient to increase their autoimmunity? This is what our paper showed: That just having expression of Xist, the presence of these Xist [ribonucleoproteins], is enough in permissive genetic backgrounds to invoke higher incidence and severity of autoimmune disease development in our pristane-induced lupus model.”

The Stanford group sees the Xist protein complex, which they have studied extensively, as a key to understanding how Xist might provoke autoimmunity. Nonetheless, Dr. Dou said, “It’s important to note that there are other contributing factors, which is why not all females develop autoimmunity, and we had very different results in our autoimmune-resistant mouse strain compared to the more autoimmune-prone strain. Xist is a factor, but many factors are required to subvert the checkpoints in immune balance and allow the progression to full-blown autoimmunity.”
 

Faulty X Inactivation and Gene Escape

The understanding that Xist might be implicated in autoimmune disease — and explain some of its female bias — is not new.

About a decade ago, Montserrat Anguera, PhD, a biologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, began looking at the relationship of X-chromosome inactivation, which by definition involves Xist, and lupus.

Anguera_Montserrat_PA_web.jpg

Dr. Anguera hypothesized that imperfect X inactivation allowed for greater escape of genes associated with immunity and autoimmunity. Studying patients with lupus, Dr. Anguera found that the silencing process was abnormal, allowing more of these genes to escape the silenced X — including toll-like receptor 7 (TLR-7) and other genes implicated in the pathogenesis of lupus.

“If you get increased expression of certain genes from the [silenced] X, like TLR-7, it can result in autoimmune disease,” Dr. Anguera said. “So what we think is that in the lupus patients, because the silencing is impacted, you’re going to have more expression happening from the inactive X. And then in conjunction with the active X, that’s going to throw off the dosage [of autoimmunity-linked genes]. You’re changing the dosage of genes, and that’s what’s critical.”

Even among patients with lupus whose symptoms are well controlled with medication, “if you look at their T cells and B cells, they still have messed up X inactivation,” Dr. Anguera said. “The Xist RNA that’s supposed to be tethered to the inactive X in a fluffy cloud is not localized, and instead is dispersed all over the nucleus.”

Dr. Anguera pointed out that autoimmune diseases are complex and can result from a combination of factors. “You also have a host of hormonal and environmental contributors, such as previous viral infections,” she said. And of course men can also develop lupus, meaning that the X chromosome cannot explain everything.

Dr. Anguera said that, while the findings by the Stanford scientists do not explain the full pathogenesis of lupus and related diseases, they still support a strong role for Xist in sex-biased autoimmune diseases. “It’s sort of another take on it,” she said.
 

Is It the Proteins, the RNA, or Both?

The Stanford team points to the proteins recruited by Xist in the process of X-chromosome inactivation as the likely trigger of autoimmunity. However, a group of researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, made the case in a 2022 paper that Xist RNA itself was dangerous. They found that numerous short RNA sequences within the Xist molecule serve as ligands for TLR-7. And TLR-7 ligation causes plasmacytoid dendritic cells to overproduce type 1 interferon, a classic hallmark of lupus.

167534_photo_web.jpg

“Within rheumatology, the diseases that tend to be most female biased are the ones that are antibody positive and have this presence of upregulated interferon,” explained Brendan Antiochos, MD. “Lupus is an example of that. Sjögren’s syndrome is another. So there’s always been this quest to want to understand the mechanisms that explain why women would have more autoimmunity. And are there specific pathways which could contribute? One of the key pathways that’s been shown in humans and in mice to be important in lupus is toll-like receptor signaling.” Most convincingly, one recent study showed that people who have a gain-of-function mutation in their TLR-7 gene get a spontaneous form of lupus.

Darrah_Erika_MD_web.jpg

These findings led Erika Darrah, PhD, and her colleague Dr. Antiochos to begin looking more deeply into which RNAs could be triggering this signaling pathway. “We started to think: Well, there is this sex bias. Could it be that women have unique RNAs that could potentially act as triggers for TLR-7 signaling?” Dr. Darrah said.

Dr. Darrah and Dr. Antiochos looked at publicly available genetic data to identify sex-biased sources of self-RNA containing TLR-7 ligands. Xist, they found, was chock full of them. “Every time we analyzed that data, no matter what filter we applied, Xist kept popping out over and over again as the most highly female skewed RNA, the RNA most likely to contain these TLR-7 binding motifs,” Dr. Darrah said. “We started to formulate the hypothesis that Xist was actually promoting responses that were dangerous and pathogenic in lupus.”

That finding led the team to conduct in-vitro experiments that showed different fragments of Xist can activate TLR-7, resulting in higher interferon production. Finally, they looked at blood and kidney cells from women with lupus and found that higher Xist expression correlated with more interferon production, and higher disease activity. “The more Xist, the sicker people were,” Dr. Darrah said.
 

Xist’s Other Functions

Xist was first studied in the 1990s, and most research has centered on its primary role in X-chromosome inactivation. A research group led by Kathrin Plath, PhD, at the University of California, Los Angeles, has been occupied for years with untangling exactly how Xist does what it does. “It’s a very clever RNA, right? It can silence the whole chromosome,” Dr. Plath said in an interview.

Plath_Kathrin_CA_web.jpg

In 2021, Dr. Plath and her colleagues established in detail how Xist executes silencing, setting down pairs of molecules in specific spots along the chromosome and building huge protein clouds around them. “We worked on learning where Xist binds and what proteins it binds, drilling down to understand how these proteins and the RNA are coming together.”

Dr. Plath has long suspected that Xist has other functions besides X inactivation, and she and her colleagues are starting to identify them. Early this year they published the surprising finding that Xist can regulate gene expression in autosomes, or non–sex-linked chromosomes, “which it might well also do in cancer cells and lymphocytes,” Dr. Plath said. “And now there is this new evidence of an autoimmune function,” she said. “It’s a super exciting time.”

The different hypotheses surrounding Xist’s role in sex-biased autoimmunity aren’t mutually exclusive, Dr. Plath said. “There’s a tremendous enrichment of proteins occurring” during X inactivation, she said, supporting the Stanford team’s hypothesis that proteins are triggering autoimmunity. As for the Johns Hopkins researchers’ understanding that Xist RNA itself is the trigger, “I’m totally open to that,” she said. “Why can’t it be an autoantigen?”

The other model in the field, Dr. Plath noted, is the one proposed by Dr. Anguera — “that there’s [gene] escape from X-inactivation — that females have more escape expression, and that Xist is more dispersed in the lymphocytes [of patients with lupus]. In fact, Xist becoming a little dispersed might make it a better antigen. So I do think everything is possible.”

The plethora of new findings related to autoimmunity has caused Dr. Plath to consider redirecting her lab’s focus toward more translational work, “because we are obviously good at studying Xist.” Among the mysteries Dr. Plath would like to solve is how some genes manage to escape the Xist cloud.

What is needed, she said, is collaboration. “Everyone will come up with different ideas. So I think it’s good to have more people look at things together. Then the field will achieve a breakthrough treatment.”

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hospitalization for influenza is linked to a greater risk for subsequent neurologic disorders including migraine, stroke, or epilepsy than is hospitalization for COVID-19, results of a large study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used healthcare claims data to compare 77,300 people hospitalized with COVID-19 with 77,300 hospitalized with influenza. The study did not include individuals with long COVID.
• In the final sample of 154,500 participants, the mean age was 51 years, and more than half (58%) were female.
• Investigators followed participants from both cohorts for a year to find out how many of them had medical care for six of the most common neurologic disorders: migraine, epilepsy, stroke, neuropathy, movement disorders, and dementia.
• If participants had one of these neurologic disorders prior to the original hospitalization, the primary outcome involved subsequent healthcare encounters for the neurologic diagnosis.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants hospitalized with COVID-19 versus influenza were significantly less likely to require care in the following year for migraine (2% vs 3.2%), epilepsy (1.6% vs 2.1%), neuropathy (1.9% vs 3.6%), movement disorders (1.5% vs 2.5%), stroke (2% vs 2.4%), and dementia (2% vs 2.3%) (all P < .001).
• After adjusting for age, sex, and other health conditions, researchers found that people hospitalized with COVID-19 had a 35% lower risk of receiving care for migraine, a 22% lower risk of receiving care for epilepsy, and a 44% lower risk of receiving care for neuropathy than those with influenza. They also had a 36% lower risk of receiving care for movement disorders, a 10% lower risk for stroke (all P < .001), as well as a 7% lower risk for dementia (P = .0007).
• In participants who did not have a preexisting neurologic condition at the time of hospitalization for either COVID-19 or influenza, 2.8% hospitalized with COVID-19 developed one in the next year compared with 5% of those hospitalized with influenza.

IN PRACTICE:

“While the results were not what we expected to find, they are reassuring in that we found being hospitalized with COVID did not lead to more care for common neurologic conditions when compared to being hospitalized with influenza,” study investigator Brian C. Callaghan, MD, of University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

Adam de Havenon, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, led the study, which was published online on March 20 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on ICD codes in health claims databases, which could introduce misclassification bias. Also, by selecting only individuals who had associated hospital-based care, there may have been a selection bias based on disease severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. De Havenon reported receiving consultant fees from Integra and Novo Nordisk and royalty fees from UpToDate and has equity in Titin KM and Certus. Dr. Callaghan has consulted for DynaMed and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

When the world needed a COVID vaccine, leading HIV investigators answered the call to intervene in the coronavirus pandemic. Now, efforts to discover the world’s first HIV vaccine are revitalized.

“The body is capable of making antibodies to protect us from HIV,” says Yunda Huang, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, who sat down with me before her talk today at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

Dr. Huang spoke about the path forward for neutralizing antibody protection after the last attempt in a generation of HIV vaccine development ended in disappointment.

The past two decades marked the rise in HIV broadly neutralizing antibodies, with vaccine strategies to induce them. Promising advances include germline approaches, mRNA, and nanoparticle technologies.

The PrEP vaccine trial testing two experimental prevention regimens in Africa was stopped after investigators reported there is “little to no chance” the trial will show the vaccines are effective.
 

A Shape-Shifting Virus

HIV has been called the shape-shifting virus because it disguises itself so that even when people are able to make antibodies to it, the virus changes to escape.

But Dr. Huang and others are optimistic that an effective vaccine is still possible.

“We cannot and will not lose hope that the world will have an effective HIV vaccine that is accessible by all who need it, anywhere,” International AIDS Society (IAS) Executive Director Birgit Poniatowski said in a statement in December, when the trial was stopped.

HIV is a still persistent problem in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reports it has affected an estimated 1.2 million people.

With new people infected every day around the globe, Dr. Huang says she feels a sense of urgency to help. “I think about all the people around the globe and the large number of young girls being hurt and I know our big pool of talent can intervene to change what we see happening.” 

Dr. Huang says the clinical trial failures we’ve seen so far will help guide next steps in HIV research as much as successes typically do.
 

Advances in the Field

With significant advances in protein nanoparticle science, mRNA technology, adjuvant development, and B-cell and antibody analyses, a new wave of clinical trials are on the way.

And with so many new approaches in the works, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network is retooling how it operates to navigate a burgeoning field and identify the most promising regimens.

A new Discovery Medicine Program will help the network assess new vaccine candidates. It will also aim to rule out others earlier on.

For COVID-19 and the flu, multimeric nanoparticles are an important alternative under investigation that could also be adapted for HIV.

Dr. Huang says she is particularly excited to watch the progress in cocktails of combination monoclonals. “I’ve been working in this field for 20 years now and there is a misconception that with pre-exposure prophylaxis, our job is done, but HIV is so far from away from being solved.”

But you just never know, Dr. Huang says. With new research, “we could bump on something at any point that changes everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the world needed a COVID vaccine, leading HIV investigators answered the call to intervene in the coronavirus pandemic. Now, efforts to discover the world’s first HIV vaccine are revitalized.

“The body is capable of making antibodies to protect us from HIV,” says Yunda Huang, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, who sat down with me before her talk today at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

Dr. Huang spoke about the path forward for neutralizing antibody protection after the last attempt in a generation of HIV vaccine development ended in disappointment.

The past two decades marked the rise in HIV broadly neutralizing antibodies, with vaccine strategies to induce them. Promising advances include germline approaches, mRNA, and nanoparticle technologies.

The PrEP vaccine trial testing two experimental prevention regimens in Africa was stopped after investigators reported there is “little to no chance” the trial will show the vaccines are effective.
 

A Shape-Shifting Virus

HIV has been called the shape-shifting virus because it disguises itself so that even when people are able to make antibodies to it, the virus changes to escape.

But Dr. Huang and others are optimistic that an effective vaccine is still possible.

“We cannot and will not lose hope that the world will have an effective HIV vaccine that is accessible by all who need it, anywhere,” International AIDS Society (IAS) Executive Director Birgit Poniatowski said in a statement in December, when the trial was stopped.

HIV is a still persistent problem in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reports it has affected an estimated 1.2 million people.

With new people infected every day around the globe, Dr. Huang says she feels a sense of urgency to help. “I think about all the people around the globe and the large number of young girls being hurt and I know our big pool of talent can intervene to change what we see happening.” 

Dr. Huang says the clinical trial failures we’ve seen so far will help guide next steps in HIV research as much as successes typically do.
 

Advances in the Field

With significant advances in protein nanoparticle science, mRNA technology, adjuvant development, and B-cell and antibody analyses, a new wave of clinical trials are on the way.

And with so many new approaches in the works, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network is retooling how it operates to navigate a burgeoning field and identify the most promising regimens.

A new Discovery Medicine Program will help the network assess new vaccine candidates. It will also aim to rule out others earlier on.

For COVID-19 and the flu, multimeric nanoparticles are an important alternative under investigation that could also be adapted for HIV.

Dr. Huang says she is particularly excited to watch the progress in cocktails of combination monoclonals. “I’ve been working in this field for 20 years now and there is a misconception that with pre-exposure prophylaxis, our job is done, but HIV is so far from away from being solved.”

But you just never know, Dr. Huang says. With new research, “we could bump on something at any point that changes everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When the world needed a COVID vaccine, leading HIV investigators answered the call to intervene in the coronavirus pandemic. Now, efforts to discover the world’s first HIV vaccine are revitalized.

“The body is capable of making antibodies to protect us from HIV,” says Yunda Huang, PhD, from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington, who sat down with me before her talk today at the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

Dr. Huang spoke about the path forward for neutralizing antibody protection after the last attempt in a generation of HIV vaccine development ended in disappointment.

The past two decades marked the rise in HIV broadly neutralizing antibodies, with vaccine strategies to induce them. Promising advances include germline approaches, mRNA, and nanoparticle technologies.

The PrEP vaccine trial testing two experimental prevention regimens in Africa was stopped after investigators reported there is “little to no chance” the trial will show the vaccines are effective.
 

A Shape-Shifting Virus

HIV has been called the shape-shifting virus because it disguises itself so that even when people are able to make antibodies to it, the virus changes to escape.

But Dr. Huang and others are optimistic that an effective vaccine is still possible.

“We cannot and will not lose hope that the world will have an effective HIV vaccine that is accessible by all who need it, anywhere,” International AIDS Society (IAS) Executive Director Birgit Poniatowski said in a statement in December, when the trial was stopped.

HIV is a still persistent problem in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that reports it has affected an estimated 1.2 million people.

With new people infected every day around the globe, Dr. Huang says she feels a sense of urgency to help. “I think about all the people around the globe and the large number of young girls being hurt and I know our big pool of talent can intervene to change what we see happening.” 

Dr. Huang says the clinical trial failures we’ve seen so far will help guide next steps in HIV research as much as successes typically do.
 

Advances in the Field

With significant advances in protein nanoparticle science, mRNA technology, adjuvant development, and B-cell and antibody analyses, a new wave of clinical trials are on the way.

And with so many new approaches in the works, the HIV Vaccine Trials Network is retooling how it operates to navigate a burgeoning field and identify the most promising regimens.

A new Discovery Medicine Program will help the network assess new vaccine candidates. It will also aim to rule out others earlier on.

For COVID-19 and the flu, multimeric nanoparticles are an important alternative under investigation that could also be adapted for HIV.

Dr. Huang says she is particularly excited to watch the progress in cocktails of combination monoclonals. “I’ve been working in this field for 20 years now and there is a misconception that with pre-exposure prophylaxis, our job is done, but HIV is so far from away from being solved.”

But you just never know, Dr. Huang says. With new research, “we could bump on something at any point that changes everything.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sandra Hong, MD, chair of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, sees firsthand how situations that feel ordinary to most people strike fear in the hearts of her patients with food allergies. 

Not only do some experience reactions to milk when they eat a cheese pizza — they can’t be in the same room with someone enjoying a slice nearby. “That would be terrifying,” Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab (Xolair), recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for the treatment of food allergies, may now bring peace of mind to these patients and their families by reducing their risk of dangerous allergic reactions to accidental exposure.

While the drug does not cure food allergies, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial found that after 16 weeks of treatment, two thirds of participants were able to tolerate at least 600 mg of peanut protein — equal to about 2.5 peanuts — without experiencing moderate to severe reactions. 

An open-label extension trial also found the monoclonal antibody reduced the likelihood of serious reactions to eggs by 67%, milk by 66%, and cashews by 42%. The results of the study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The treatment is approved for children as young as the age of 1 year and is the only treatment approved for multiple food allergies. It does not treat anaphylaxis or other emergency situations.

Patient Selection Key

While 8% of children and 10% of adults in the United States have a true food allergy, Brian Vickery, MD, chief of allergy and immunology and director of the Food Allergy Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, noted that a significantly higher proportion of the population restricts their diet based on perceived food intolerances.

“Most important for family doctors prior to prescribing the medication will be to be sure that the diagnosis is correct,” Kim said. “We know that allergy blood and skin testing is good but not perfect, and false positive results can occur,” said Edwin Kim, MD, chief of the Division of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and director of the University of North Carolina Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, who was a coauthor on the study in the New England Journal of Medicine. “ An allergist can conduct food challenges to confirm the diagnosis if results are unclear.”

Even for patients with confirmed IgE-mediated allergies, Dr. Hong said selecting patients who are good candidates for the therapy has “nuances.” 

Patients must be willing and able to commit to injections every 2-4 weeks. Dosing depends on body weight and the total IgE levels of each patient. Patients with IgE levels > 1850 UI/mL likely will be disqualified from treatment since the clinical trial did not enroll patients with total IgE above this level and the appropriate dose in those patients is unknown.

“My recommendation for family physicians who are counseling food-allergic patients interested in omalizumab treatment is to partner with an allergist-immunologist, if at all possible,” Dr. Vickery said. He added that patients should have a comprehensive workup before beginning treatment because starting omalizumab would reduce reactivity and alter the outcome a diagnostic oral food challenge.

Two populations Dr. Hong thinks might particularly benefit from the therapy are college students and preschoolers, who may be unable to completely avoid allergens because of poor impulse control and food sharing in group settings.

“The concerns we have about this age group are whether or not there might be other factors involved that may impede their ability to make good decisions.”

Less control of the environment in dorms or other group living situations also could increase the risk of accidental exposure to a food allergen.

For the right patients, the treatment regimen has significant advantages over oral immunotherapy treatment (OIT), including the fact that it’s not a daily medication and it has the potential to treat allergic asthma at the same time.

“The biggest pro for omalizumab is that it can treat all of your food allergies, whether you have one or many, and do it all in one medication,” Dr. Kim said. 

Managing Potential Harms

Omalizumab carries risks both primary care providers and patients must consider. First among them is that the drug carries a “black box” warning for an increased risk of anaphylaxis, Dr. Hong said. 

Although patients with multiple food allergies typically already have prescriptions for epinephrine, primary care physicians (PCPs) considering offering omalizumab must be comfortable treating severe systemic reactions and their offices capable of post-dose monitoring, Dr. Hong said. 

Anaphylaxis “can occur after the first dose or it can be delayed,” she said. “Typically, allergists will give these in our offices and we’ll actually have people wait for delayed amounts of time, for hours.”

The drug has been available since 2003 as a treatment for allergic asthma and urticaria. In addition to the warning for anaphylaxis, common reactions include joint pain and injection-site reactions. It also increases the risk for parasitic infection, and some studies show an increase in the risk for cancer.

Still, Dr. Kim said omalizumab’s safety profile is reassuring and noted it has advantages over OIT. “Since the patient is not exposing themselves to the food they are allergic to like in OIT, the safety is expected to be far better,” he said.

Lifelong Treatment 

Dr. Vickery, Dr. Hong, and Dr. Kim all cautioned that patients should understand that, while omalizumab offers protection against accidental exposure and can meaningfully improve quality of life, it won’t allow them to loosen their allergen-avoidant diets.

Further, maintaining protection requires receiving injections every 2-4 weeks for life. For those without insurance, or whose insurance does not cover the treatment, costs could reach thousands of dollars each month, Dr. Hong said.

Omalizumab “has been well covered by insurance for asthma and chronic hives, but we will have to see what it looks like for food allergy. The range of plans and out-of-pocket deductibles available to patients will also play a big role,” Dr. Kim said. 

Other novel approaches to food allergies are currently in clinical trials, and both Dr. Hong and Dr. Vickery are optimistic about potential options in the pipeline.

“We’re just on the brink of really exciting therapies coming forward in the future,” Dr. Hong said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, both part of the National Institutes of Health; the Claudia and Steve Stange Family Fund; Genentech; and Novartis. Dr. Hong, Dr. Kim, and Dr. Vickery reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.