The only causative treatment for IgE-mediated allergies is allergenspecific immunotherapy. However, fewer than 5% of allergy patients receive immunotherapy because of its long duration and risk of allergic side effects. We aimed at enhancing s.c. immunotherapy by direct administration of allergen into s.c. lymph nodes. The objective was to evaluate safety and efficacy compared with conventional s.c. immunotherapy. In a monocentric open-label trial, 165 patients with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis were randomized to receive either 54 s.c. injections with pollen extract over 3 years [cumulative allergen dose 4,031,540 standardized quality units (SQ-U)] or 3 intralymphatic injections over 2 months (cumulative allergen dose 3,000 SQ-U). Patients were evaluated after 4 months, 1 year, and 3 years by nasal provocation, skin prick testing, IgE measurements, and symptom scores. Three low-dose intralymphatic allergen administrations increased tolerance to nasal provocation with pollen already within 4 months (P < 0.001). Tolerance was long lasting and equivalent to that achievable after standard s.c. immunotherapy (P ‫؍‬ 0.291 after 3 years). Intralymphatic immunotherapy ameliorated hay fever symptoms (P < 0.001), reduced skin prick test reactivity (P < 0.001), decreased specific serum IgE (P < 0.001), caused fewer adverse events than s.c. immunotherapy (P ‫؍‬ 0.001), enhanced compliance (P < 0.001), and was less painful than venous puncture (P ‫؍‬ 0.018). In conclusion, intralymphatic allergen administration enhanced safety and efficacy of immunotherapy and reduced treatment time from 3 years to 8 weeks.allergy ͉ pollen ͉ rhinoconjunctivitis

Biologics are essential to oncology care. As patents for older biologics begin to expire, the United States is developing an abbreviated regulatory process for the approval of similar biologics (biosimilars), which raises important considerations for the safe and appropriate incorporation of biosimilars into clinical practice for patients with cancer. The potential for biosimilars to reduce the cost of biologics, which are often high-cost components of oncology care, was the impetus behind the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, a part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. In March 2011, NCCN assembled a work group consisting of thought leaders from NCCN Member Institutions and other organizations, to provide guidance regarding the challenges health care providers and other key stakeholders face in incorporating biosimilars in health care practice. The work group identified challenges surrounding biosimilars, including health care provider knowledge, substitution practices, pharmacovigilance, naming and product tracking, coverage and reimbursement, use in off-label settings, and data requirements for approval.

These data support the continued development of AI for treatment of pulmonary infections in patients with CF.

Biosimilars are highly similar versions of approved branded biologics. Unlike generics, they are not exact replicas of reference products. Minor differences between biosimilars and reference products in some aspects are expected; likewise, biosimilar products will differ from each other. The objective of this review is to discuss the challenges associated with the development and approval of biosimilar products that are unique because of their complex structure and specialized manufacturing processes, which can impact not only efficacy but also immunogenicity and safety. Regulatory guidelines recommend a totality-of-evidence approach focused on stepwise development that involves demonstration of structural similarity and functional equivalence. Structural and functional characteristics of the proposed biosimilar are compared with the reference product; similarity of these functions forms the foundation of the biosimilar development program, including potential animal studies, a human pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics equivalence study, and a clinical study to confirm similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. The clinical study should be performed in a sensitive population using appropriate endpoints to allow detection of any clinically meaningful differences between the biosimilar and the reference product if such differences exist. In conclusion, development of biosimilars is focused on the minimization of potential differences between the proposed biosimilar and reference product and the establishment of a robust manufacturing process to consistently produce a high-quality biosimilar product.

Objectives. Estimate and compare the proportion of cancer patients with cachexia using different definitions from available clinical data. Methods. Electronic medical records were examined to estimate the proportion of cancer patients with cachexia using 4 definitions: (1) ICD-9 diagnostic code of 799.4 (cachexia), (2) ICD-9 diagnosis of cachexia, anorexia, abnormal weight loss, or feeding difficulties, (3) prescription for megestrol acetate, oxandrolone, somatropin, or dronabinol, and (4) ≥5% weight loss. Patients with cancer of the stomach, pancreas, lung, colon/rectum, head/neck, esophagus, prostate, breast, or liver diagnosed between 1999 and 2004 were followed for cachexia. Results. Of 8541 cancer patients (60% men and 55% Caucasian), cachexia was observed in 2.4% of patients using the cachexia diagnostic code, 5.5% expanded diagnoses, 6.4% prescription medication definition, and 14.7% with ≥5% weight loss. Conclusions. The proportion of patients with cachexia varied considerably depending upon the definition employed, indicating that a standard operational definition is needed.