Omalizumab is a humanized murine monoclonal antibody directed toward a portion of the IgE indicated in Europe for the treatment of severe persistent allergic asthma, inadequately controlled despite high-dose of ICS (mean BDP equivalent dose of inhaled corticosteroid 2224.68microg/die) in association with long-acting beta(2) agonists. Our aim was to describe the experience, efficacy and safety in a cohort of Italian patients treated with omalizumab in a real-life clinical setting. One hundred and forty two patients from 13 Italian Centers were observed and analysed. The dosage of omalizumab was established according to the labelling indication, with a median dose of IgE of 297.38IU/ml or kU/l. During the previous year, all patients experienced frequent exacerbations (mean=4.87), emergency visits (mean=4.45) and hospitalisation (mean=1.53). Following treatment with omalizumab, the annual rate of exacerbations, emergency visits and hospitalisation decreased by 79%, 88% and 95%, respectively. The proportion of patients without exacerbation, not needing emergency visits and hospitalization increased by 610%, 154% and 28%, respectively. The response to omalizumab measured with the GETE (global evaluation of treatment effectiveness) scale rated as good to excellent in 77% of patients. Overall, 9.6% (n=9) of the patients experienced one single adverse effect. Only one patient reported a serious adverse event (local reaction at the site of injection) leading to interruption of treatment. The observed reduction of asthma-related events in particularly poorly controlled patients in this Italian real-life setting is consistent with the results of other observational studies.

There is now an increasing body of evidence to support the practice of allergen-specific sublingualswallow immunotherapy (SLIT) in the treatment of IgE-mediated respiratory allergies. Recent studies on traditional injection therapy have pointed out that this form of treatment is not only capable to decrease actual allergic symptoms, but may also have long-term clinical and preventive effects and may influence atopy natural history. In the year 2000, our group published a retrospective, multicenter study showing the efficacy and safety of SLIT in a survey of 302 patients. We now carried out a second study on the same patients, with the aim of investigating long-term and preventive effects of SLIT. Beside the well-known safety and efficacy of this treatment (80.8 % of patients reported clinical benefits), SLIT proved also to elicit long term clinical effects: over a mean follow-up of 11.6 months after the end of treatment, 80.8 % of patients stilI mantained the previously achieved benefits. During the follow-up period, only 1% of nonasthma patients reported an onset of respiratory symptoms, and only 9.6 % of patients undergoing new skin tests showed new sensitizations. All the clinical benefits were strongly linked to the length of treatment: patients with long-lasting benefits were treated for a mean length of 29.1 months, while patients showing a return to pre-SLIT condition were treated for a mean 13.3 months. SLIT can obtain long-term and preventive effects so far attributed to injection immunotherapy.

BackgroundThe query “are there animals at home?” is usually administered for collecting information on anamnesis. This modality to consider exposure to pet allergens constitutes a potential bias in epidemiological studies and in clinical practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate/quantify different modalities of exposure to cat/dog in inducing allergic sensitization.MethodsThirty Italian Allergy units participated in this study. Each centre was required to collect the data of at least 20 consecutive outpatients sensitized to cat/dog allergens. A standardized form reported all demographic data and a particular attention was paid in relieving possible modalities of exposure to cat/dog.ResultsA total 723 patients sensitized to cat/dog were recorded, 359 (49.65%) reported direct pet contact, 213 patients (29.46%) were pet owners, and 146 subjects (20.19%) were exposed to pets in other settings. Other patients were sensitized by previous pet ownership (150–20.75%) or indirect contact (103–14.25%), in 111 subjects (15.35%) any contact was reported.ConclusionsOnly 213 patients (29.46%) would be classified as “exposed to animals” and 510 (70.54%) as “not exposed” according to usual query. Our classification has shown that many “not-exposed” subjects (399–55.19%) were “really exposed”. The magnitude of exposure to pet allergens at home is not related exclusively to pet ownership. These considerations should be taken into account during the planning of epidemiological studies and in clinical practice for the management of pet allergic individuals.

Background: Horses play a significant role in people’s leisure time in Italy and other countries, but few data are available on IgE-mediated sensitization to horse allergens in patients without occupational exposure. We assessed, in a multicentric survey, the prevalence of horse sensitization in atopic subjects and its clinical characteristics. Methods: Allergists from the whole Italian territory were required to collect the results of skin prick tests from at least 100 consecutive subjects. Those patients with a positive skin test to horse dander underwent a detailed interview concerning clinical history, pet ownership and possible exposure. Results: Data from 3,235 outpatients were collected and 2,097 had at least 1 skin positivity. Among them, 113 (5.38%) were sensitized to horse dander (9 monosensitized). Thirty patients reported direct horse contact (4 owners and 26 for riding or occasional contact), 23 patients were sometimes in contact with horse owners and 60 subjects denied any direct or indirect exposure. Among 9 horse monosensitized patients, 6 had intermittent and mild rhinitis and 3 persistent moderate/severe rhinitis plus asthma. Three of them were horse owners or riders and the remaining had no contact with the animal. Conclusions: Our data evidence that the rate of sensitization to horse dander is not negligible and probably underestimated. In susceptible, not occupationally exposed individuals, horse contact, but also indirect or no apparent exposure, may induce sensitization. We recommend inclusion of horse allergen in the routine panel for the diagnosis of respiratory allergy.

No abstract