Position Paper: Immunotherapy

Mailing, H.‐J.; Weeke, B.

doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.1993.tb04754.x

Cited by 335 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 162 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The potential risk of severe immediate-type side-effects during this treatment (injection of allergen extract) is well established [2,3]. The precise mechanisms by which SIT achieves clinical improvement are poorly understood [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of the allergic immune response in BALB/c mice by subcutaneous injection of high doses of the dominant T cell epitope from the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1

Bauer

Bohle

Jahn‐Schmid

et al. 1997

Clinical and Experimental Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYSeveral in vitro and in vivo studies indicate that application of high doses of dominant T cell epitopes can induce a state of antigen-specific non-responsiveness (anergy). In the present study, we developed a murine model of an allergic immune response to Bet v 1, the major birch pollen allergen. Mice were sensitized by injection of rBet v 1 and the allergic state was proven by the presence of allergen-specific IgE and positive immediate-type skin tests to Bet v 1. In epitope mapping experiments, an immunodominant T cell epitope of Bet v 1 in BALB/c mice was identified by the use of overlapping peptides. This peptide (BV139) was subsequently employed for treatment. Two tolerization protocols were used: in one approach, the peptide was administered to naive mice before immunization (group BV139-S), in the second, already sensitized mice were treated (S-BV139). The results demonstrated that administering high doses of the dominant T cell epitope of Bet v 1 profoundly diminished T cell proliferation to the peptide in the BV139-S group, and to the peptide as well as to the whole protein in the S-BV139 group. Skin test reactivity to Bet v 1 was reduced in the BV139-S group. However, no differences in terms of specific antibody production between treated and untreated mice could be observed. This study provides evidence that administration of dominant T cell epitopes can down-regulate the allergenspecific T cell response. Proceeding on the assumption that the T lymphocyte response to allergens is crucial for the induction and maintenance of the allergic disease, a modulation of the immune response to allergens by treatment with T cell epitope peptides could represent a promising concept for immunotherapy in the future.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modulation of the allergic immune response in BALB/c mice by subcutaneous injection of high doses of the dominant T cell epitope from the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1

Bauer

Bohle

Jahn‐Schmid

et al. 1997

Clinical and Experimental Immunology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a document published in 1993 in allergy about immunotherapy, the authors wrote in the preface: why does a diagnostic etiology in a patient with allergic respiratory disease indicate the specific therapy as the only logical solution of this specific diagnosis [26].…”

Section: From Subcutaneous Immunotherapy To Sublingual Immunotherapy:mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unmet Needs in Understanding Sublingual Immunotherapy to Grass Pollen

Lorenzo¹,

Leto-Barone²,

Piana³

et al. 2017

Immunotherapy - Myths, Reality, Ideas, Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lack of medication for allergy symptoms at the end of the last millennium has been the promoter of the idea of treating allergies as if you were treating an infectious disease, by vaccination prophylaxis. Two forms of AIT 1) subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and 2) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are used in the world. Considerable interest has emerged in SLIT both scientifically and especially financially. SLIT is not a new treatment modality. First description dates back to 1900 when H. Curtis. It was relatively widely used until the late 1970's mainly in US by homeopathic therapists.A number of case series describing experience with the oral route were published during the 1920s and 1930s, but it seems to have been perceived not as efficacious nor as well tolerated as subcutaneous immunotherapy. The companies producing allergen immunotherapy have an alliance with important opinion leaders on both shores of the Atlantic.If SLIT did not work for 40 years, why should it work for respiratory allergic diseases today? This question is the mother of all questions in the field of respiratory allergic diseases. The purpose of this chapter is to provide past and current information about immunotherapy, and discuss controversies over efficacy and safety, and dosing considerations for SLIT to grass.

show abstract

“…New insights into the pathogenesis of allergic diseases and new publications on immunotherapy have called for its revision. Immunotherapy position paper was introduced to public in 1993 [27].…”

Section: History Of Allergen Immunotherapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Present and Future of Subcutaneous Aero-Allergen Immunotherapy

Lukan¹

2017

Immunotherapy - Myths, Reality, Ideas, Future

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present review summarizes the literature-acquired knowledge as well as author's own experience in conducting aero-allergen immunotherapy, particularly in subcutaneous route of administration (SCIT) of all modalities of respiratory allergy disease from allergic rhinosinusitis, bronchial asthma to united airway disease. Because of the better adherence resulting in appropriate efficacy in connection with satisfactory safety, the author favours conventional schedules of subcutaneous route of therapeutic intervention. Given the lack of specific biomarker in monitoring treatment course, the main control mechanism of efficacy is the evaluation of quality of life using simple evaluation scale as visual analogue scale or standardized respiratory allergy questionnaires. The future of allergen immunotherapy should be focused on new routes of allergen administration (e.g. oral, epicutaneous, intradermal, intralymphatic) and on the searching potential biomarkers which could be objectively measured and easily accessible from body fluids (blood, nasal secretion, sputum). The combination of estimated biomarkers obtained from biological samples in conjunction with evaluation of quality of life could lead to the generation of the overall satisfactory monitoring protocol.

show abstract

Position Paper: Immunotherapy

Cited by 335 publications

References 162 publications

Modulation of the allergic immune response in BALB/c mice by subcutaneous injection of high doses of the dominant T cell epitope from the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1

Modulation of the allergic immune response in BALB/c mice by subcutaneous injection of high doses of the dominant T cell epitope from the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1

Unmet Needs in Understanding Sublingual Immunotherapy to Grass Pollen

Present and Future of Subcutaneous Aero-Allergen Immunotherapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About