Kinetics of mast cell, basophil, and oral food challenge responses in omalizumab-treated adults with peanut allergy.
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies directed at IgE demonstrate clinical efficacy in subjects with peanut allergy, but previous studies have not addressed the kinetics of the clinical response or the role of mast cells and basophils in the food-induced allergic response. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the kinetics of the clinical response to omalizumab and whether clinical improvement is associated with either mast cell or basophil suppression. METHODS: Subjects with peanut allergy were treated with omalizumab for 6 months and assessed for clinical and cellular responses. At baseline, subjects had a double-blind, placebo-controlled oral food challenge (OFC), skin prick test titration (SPTT), and basophil histamine release (BHR) to peanut. BHR was repeated at week 2 and then weekly until it decreased to less than 20% of baseline values. The OFCs and SPTTs were repeated after the BHR reduction (or at week 8 if BHR did not decrease) and again at 6 months. RESULTS: Fourteen subjects enrolled in the study. At the second food challenge, there was a significant increase in the threshold dose of peanut inducing allergic symptoms (80 to 6500 mg, P < .01). Peanut-induced BHR was either completely suppressed (n = 5) or 10-fold more allergen was required to induce maximal BHR (n = 9), and SPTT responses were not significantly changed from baseline. After 6 months of omalizumab, further changes in the OFC threshold dose or BHR were not observed, but a significant suppression in SPTTs was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical response to omalizumab occurs early in treatment when the basophil, but not the mast cell, is suppressed, supporting a role for the basophil in acute food reactions.
- SourceAvailable from: Emily C McgowanThe Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 06/2014;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We recently showed a desensitization of FcεRI-mediated basophil response after short-term VIT. Our aim was to evaluate the allergen specificity of this desensitization. In 11 Hymenoptera-venom double positive subjects, basophil threshold sensitivity (CD-sens) to anti-FcεRI, honeybee, and Vespula venom was assessed at the beginning and just before the first maintenance dose (MD) of single ultra-rush VIT. In some patients we also monitored CD-sens to rApi m 1 and/or rVes v 5 or other co-sensitizations (i.e., grass pollen). In additional 7 patients, basophils were stripped and sensitized with house dust mite (HDM) IgEs at the same time points. We demonstrated a marked reduction of CD-sens to anti-FcεRI and VIT-specific venom before the first MD in all 18 subjects included. Furthermore, in 10 out of 11 double positive subjects, a significant and comparable decrease before the first MD was also evident for non-VIT venom; this nonspecific decrease was further supported by the opposite recombinant species-specific major allergen. In one subject with additional grass pollen allergy, a decrease of CD-sens to grass allergen was also demonstrated. Similarly, in 7 cases of patients with passively HDM-sensitized basophils, a significant reduction of CD-sens was also evident to de novo sensitized HDM allergen. Short-term VIT induced basophil desensitization to VIT-specific as well as to VIT-nonspecific venom. As opposed to long-term VIT, which induces venom-specific changes, the effect of short-term VIT seems to be venom-nonspecific.PLoS ONE 01/2014; 9(4):e94762. · 3.53 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Food allergy is a major public health problem without satisfactory treatment options. Of several new treatments being studied, oral immunotherapy (OIT) appears to be the most promising. Unfortunately, OIT is associated with an unacceptably high frequency of allergic reactions. However, recent studies suggest that OIT might be made safer and faster when performed in conjunction with anti-IgE monoclonal antibody as an adjunctive treatment.Expert Review of Clinical Immunology 08/2014; 10(9). · 2.89 Impact Factor