Specific immunotherapy was observed retrospectively to reduce new sensitizations in monosensitized subjects suffering from respiratory allergic diseases.

Our data suggest that sublingual immunotherapy is both clinically effective and safe in treating patients with Parietaria-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and mild asthma.

Polysensitization is quite frequent in allergic children and may cause difficulties for the allergist in prescribing allergen-specific immunotherapy. This study aimed at evaluating the clinical effectiveness of 1 year of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in a cohort of Italian allergic children with polysensitization. This open study was performed on 51 polysensitized children (34 boys; mean age, 11.8 years; range, 5.2-17.7 years) with allergic rhinitis and/or mild to moderate asthma. All of them were treated with SLIT for 1 year. The kind and the number of prescribed allergen extracts, the type of diagnosis, the severity of symptoms, and the use of drugs were evaluated at baseline and after 1 year. The adverse events to SLIT were also evaluated. Forty-two children were treated with a single extract, four with two different extracts and three with a mix of allergens. SLIT treatment induced a significant reduction in the number of sensitizations (p = 0.018); significant improvement of allergic rhinitis classification and severity; significant reduction of ocular, nasal, and bronchial symptoms (p < 0.01 for all); and drugs use (p < 0.01 for all drugs). No systemic reactions to SLIT were observed. This open study provides evidence that polysensitization is not an obstacle for prescribing SLIT in polysensitized children. Indeed, SLIT efficacy on clinical parameters is significant after 1 year and the therapy is safe.

No abstract

Introduction There is, so far, no universal definition of severe asthma. This definition usually relies on: number of exacerbations, inhaled therapy, need for oral corticosteroids, and respiratory function. The use of such parameters varies in the different definitions used. Thus, according to the parameters chosen, each patient may result in having severe asthma or not. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the choice of a specific definition of severe asthma can change the allocation of patients. Methods Data collected from the Severe Asthma Network Italy (SANI) registry were analyzed. All the patients included were then reclassified according to the definitions of U-BIOPRED, NICE, WHO, ATS/ERS, GINA, ENFUMOSA, and TENOR. Results 540 patients, were extracted from the SANI database. We observed that 462 (86%) met the ATS/ERS criteria as well as the GINA criteria, 259 (48%) the U-Biopred, 222 (41%) the NICE, 125 (23%) the WHO, 313 (58%) the Enfumosa, and 251 (46%) the TENOR criteria. The mean eosinophil value were similar in the ATS/ERS, U-Biopred, and Enfumosa (528, 532 and 516 cells/mcl), higher in WHO and Tenor (567 and 570 cells/mcl) and much higher in the NICE classification (624 cells/mcl). Lung function tests resulted similarly in all groups, with WHO (67%) and ATS/ERS-GINA (73%), respectively, showing the lower and upper mean FEV1 values. Conclusions The present observations clearly evidence the heterogeneity in the distribution of patients when different definitions of severe asthma are used. However, the recent definition of severe asthma, provided by the GINA document, is similar to that indicated in 2014 by ATS/ERS, allowing mirror reclassification of the patients examined. This lack of homogeneity could complicate the access to biological therapies. The definition provided by the GINA document, which reflects what suggested by ATS/ERS, could partially overcome the problem.