Suppression spontaneous and induced expression of CD203c basophils after subcutaneous immunotherapy with ragweed and mugwort allergens

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The basophil activation test (BAT) reflects the presence of immunoglobulin E on the cell surface and can be a tool for monitoring the effectiveness of allergen-specific immunotherapy. Spontaneous and allergen-induced BAT levels may likely change after effective subcutaneous immunotherapy, and this is of clinical importance.

AIMS: To determine the basophil activation markers in patients sensitized to weed pollen during subcutaneous immunotherapy

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This clinical study of 2 years included 60 patients with allergic rhinitis who underwent subcutaneous immunotherapy with weed allergens for two seasons. The proportion of basophil-expressing CD203c, spontaneously and after exposure to a trigger allergen, was determined. BAT was performed before treatment and after the first and second courses of preseason subcutaneous immunotherapy (0, 3, and 15 months of treatment). The effectiveness of subcutaneous immunotherapy was assessed by the dynamics of the symptom scale (Rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score [RTSS]) and the drug assessment (Daily medical score [DMS]).

RESULTS: Subcutaneous immunotherapy with water–salt extracts was effective. The median RTSS in patients after two courses decreased from 13.0 [10.0; 15.0] to 4.5 [3.00; 7.25] points (p <0.001) and DMS score from 2.0 [2.0; 2.0] to 1.0 [1.0; 2.0] points (p <0.001). Spontaneous BAT remained unchanged after the first course of allergen-specific immunotherapy. The mean BAT values before therapy and after the first course of subcutaneous immunotherapy did not differ (8.15% [6.10; 11.9] vs. 9.0% [6.30; 12.0]). The spontaneous BAT decreased after the second course of treatment (8.15% [6.10; 11.9] vs. 6.20% [4.27; 9.00], χ2=15.5, p <0.001). Allergen-induced BAT significantly decreased from the first year of treatment. The overall change in the total group for BAT with ragweed after the first course of subcutaneous immunotherapy was 11.25% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.10–15.10, p <0.001). The overall difference in the induced ВAT test at the end of therapy reached 8.63% (95% CI: 5.30–12.05, p <0.001). The indices of induced BAT decreased by 12.0% after the first course of therapy with mugwort allergens (95% CI: 6.95–17.90, p <0.001), and the difference from the initial values after the second course was 9.67% (95% CI: 6.85–15.90, p <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous immunotherapy with ragweed and mugwort allergens was effective. The change in spontaneous and induced BAT is associated with a positive effect of allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Liudmila Yu. Barycheva

Stavropol State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: for_ludmila@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4069-0566
SPIN-code: 8946-3393

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Stavropol

Liudmila V. Dushina

Stavropol State Medical University; Stavropol Regional Clinical Consultative and Diagnostic Center

Email: dushina.stv@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5806-972X
SPIN-code: 3599-5095

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Stavropol; Stavropol

Sergey S. Masalskiy

Association Pediatric Allergist and Immunologist Russia; Scientific-Clinical Consultative Center of Allergology and Immunology

Email: masalsky85@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2048-5709
SPIN-code: 1709-2182

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

Yuri S. Smolkin

Association Pediatric Allergist and Immunologist Russia; Scientific-Clinical Consultative Center of Allergology and Immunology; Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Federal Research and Clinical Center of Specialized Medical Care and Medical Technologies

Email: smolking@df.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7876-6258
SPIN-code: 7068-4939

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.)

Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow; Moscow

Natalia A. Kozmova

Stavropol State Medical University

Email: kozmova@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0971-5347
SPIN-code: 5236-9634
Russian Federation, Stavropol

Elena A. Kuropatnikova

Scientific-Clinical Consultative Center of Allergology and Immunology; Academy of Postgraduate Education of the Federal Research and Clinical Center of Specialized Medical Care and Medical Technologies

Email: Lenysionok@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5764-6441
SPIN-code: 2065-9023
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow

References

  1. D’Amato G, Chong-Neto HJ, Monge Ortega OP, et al. The effects of climate change on respiratory allergy and asthma induced by pollen and mold allergens. Allergy. 2020;75(9):2219–2228. doi: 10.1111/all.14476
  2. Katelaris CH, Beggs PJ. Climate change: allergens and allergic diseases. Intern Med J. 2018;48(2):129–134. doi: 10.1111/imj.13699
  3. Damialis A, Traidl-Hoffmann C, Treudler R. Climate change and pollen allergies. Biodiversity Health Face Climate Change. Springer, Cham; 2019. Р. 47–66. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-02318- 8_3
  4. Bergmann KC, Heinrich J, Niemann H. Current status of allergy prevalence in Germany: position paper of the environmental medicine commission of the Robert Koch institute. Allergo J Int. 2016;25:6–10. doi: 10.1007/s40629-016-0092-6
  5. Allergology and clinical immunology. Clinical recommendations. Ed. by R.M. Khaitov, N.I. Ilyina. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2019. 336 р. (In Russ).
  6. Trofimenko SL, Rakova KA. Pollen allergy in Rostov-on-Don. Russ Rhinology. 2015;(23):36–39. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/rosrino201523136-39
  7. Macharadze DS. Ambrosia allergy. Features of diagnosis and treatment. Med Оpponent. 2019;2(6)48–55. (In Russ).
  8. Pfaar O, Bonini S, Cardona V, et al. Perspectives in allergen immunotherapy: 2017 and beyond. Allergy. 2018;73(Suppl 104):5–23. doi: 10.1111/all.13355
  9. Smolkin YS, Masalskiy SS. Antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Allergol Immunol Pediatrics. 2018;2(53):5–13. (In Russ). doi: 10.24411/2500-1175-2018-00006
  10. Balabolkin II. Pollinosis in children and adolescents: modern aspects of pathogenesis and tendencies in therapy. Allergol Immunol Pediatrics. 2020;62(3):6–14. (In Russ). doi: 10.24411/2500-1175-2020-10007
  11. Mueller RS. Update on allergen immunotherapy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2019;49(1):1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2018.08.001
  12. Drazdauskaitė G, Layhadi JA, Shamji MH. Mechanisms of allergen immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2020;21(1):2. doi: 10.1007/s11882-020-00977-7
  13. Sindher SB, Long A, Acharya S, et al. The use of biomarkers to predict aero-allergen and food immunotherapy responses. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2018;55(2):190–204. doi: 10.1007/s12016-018-8678-z
  14. Moingeon P. Biomarkers for allergen immunotherapy: a “panoromic” view. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2016;36(1): 161–179. doi: 10.1016/j.iac.2015.08.004
  15. Matricardi PM, Dramburg S, Potapova E, et al. Molecular diagnosis for allergen immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143(3):831–843. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.12.1021
  16. Callery EL, Keymer С, Barnes NA, Rowbottom AW. Component-resolved diagnostics in the clinical and laboratory investigation of allergy. Ann Clin Biochem. 2020;57(1):26–35. doi: 10.1177/0004563219877434
  17. Feng M, Zeng X, Su Q. Allergen immunotherapy-induced immunoglobulin g4 reduces basophil activation in house dust mite-allergic asthma patients. J Front Cell Dev Biol. 2020;8:30. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2020.00030
  18. Barycheva LY, Dushina LV, Medvedenko YN. Changes in basophil reactivity and synthesis of specific immunoglobulins e influenced by allergen-immunotherapy. Allergology Immun Pediatrics. 2020;1(64):15–23. doi: 10.24412/2500-1175-2021-1-15-23
  19. Pfaar O, Demoly P, Gerth van Wijk R, et al.; European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Recommendations for the standardization of clinical outcomes used in allergen immunotherapy trials for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an EAACI Position Paper. Allergy. 2014;69(7):854–867. doi: 10.1111/all.12383
  20. Ado AD. Chastnaya allergologiya. Moscow: Medicine; 1976. 510 р. (In Russ).
  21. Chen J, Zhou Y, Wang Y, et al. Specific immunoglobulin E and immunoglobulin G4 toward major allergens of house-dust mite during allergen-specific immunotherapy. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2017;31(3):156–160. doi: 10.2500/ajra.2017.31.4434
  22. Sahin E, Bafaqeeh SA, Guven SG, et al. Mechanism of action of allergen immunotherapy. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2016;30(5):1–3. doi: 10.2500/ajra.2016.30.4367
  23. Narisety SD, Frischmeyer-Guerrerio PA, Keet CA, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of sublingual versus oral immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;135(5):1275–1282. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.11.005
  24. Vickery BP, Scurlock AM, Kulis M, et al. Sustained unresponsiveness to peanut in subjects who have completed peanut oral immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;133(2):468–475. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.11.007
  25. Gorelik M, Narisety SD, Guerrerio AL, et al. Suppression of the immunologic response to peanut during immunotherapy is often transient. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;135(5):1283–1292. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.11.010
  26. Zidarn M, Kosnik M, Silar M, et al. Sustained effect of grass pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy on suppression of allergen-specific basophil response; a real-life, nonrandomized controlled study. Allergy. 2015;70:547–555. doi: 10.1111/all.12581
  27. Liм Q, Li M, Yue W, et al. Predictive factors for clinical response to allergy immunotherapy in children with asthma and rhinitis. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2014;164(3):210–217. doi: 10.1159/000365630
  28. Andorf S, Borres MP, Block W, et al. Association of clinical reactivity with sensitization to allergen components in multifood-allergic children. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017;5(5):1325–1334. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2017.01.016
  29. Bidad K, Nawijn MC, Van Oosterhout AJ, et al. Basophil activation test in the diagnosis and monitoring of mastocytosis patients with wasp venom allergy on immunotherapy. Cytometry B Clin. Cytom. 2014;86(3):183–190. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.21148
  30. Ozdemir SK, Sin BA, Guloglu D, et al. Short-term preseasonal immunotherapy: is early clinical efficacy related to the basophil response? Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2014;164(3):237–245. doi: 10.1159/000365628
  31. Hoffmann HJ, Valovirta E, Pfaar O, et al. Novel approaches and perspectives in allergen immunotherapy. Allergy. 2017;72(7): 1022–1034. doi: 10.1111/all.13135
  32. Santos AF, Alpan O, Hoffmann H. Basophil activation test: Mechanisms and considerations for use in clinical trials and clinical practice. Allergy. 2021;76(8):2420–2432. doi: 10.1111/all.14747
  33. Sainte-Laudy J, Touraine F, Cluzan D, Moudourou F. Follow-up of venom immunotherapy on flow cytometry and definition of a protective index. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2016;170(4):243–250. doi: 10.1159/000449162
  34. Santos AF, James LK, Bahnson HT, et al. IgG4 inhibits peanut-induced basophil and mast cell activation in peanut-tolerant children sensitized to peanut major allergens. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;135(5):1249–1256. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.01.012
  35. Kanagaratham C, El Ansari YS, Lewis OL, Oettgen HC. IgE and IgG antibodies as regulators of mast cell and basophil functions in food allergy. Front Immunol. 2020;11:603050. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.603050
  36. Plewako H, Wosinska K, Arvidsson M, et al. Basophil interleukin 4 and interleukin 13 production is suppressed during the early phase of rush immunotherapy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2006;141(4): 346–353. doi: 10.1159/000095461
  37. Gokmen NM, Ersoy RO, Gulbahar O, et al. Desensitization effect of preseasonal seven-injection allergoid immunotherapy with olive pollen on basophil activation: the efficacy of olive pollen-specific preseasonal allergoid immunotherapy on basophils. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2012;159(1):75–82. doi: 10.1159/000335251
  38. Schmid JM, Würtzen PA, Dahl R, Hoffmann HJ. Early improvement in basophil sensitivity predicts symptom relief with grass pollen immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(3):741–744. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.04.029
  39. Schmid JM, Wurtzen PA, Siddhuraj P, et al. Basophil sensitivity reflects long-term clinical outcome of subcutaneous immunotherapy in grass pollen-allergic patients. Allergy. 2021;76(5):1528–1538. doi: 10.1111/all.14264
  40. Van Overtvelt L, Baron-Bodo V, Horiot S, et al. Changes in basophil activation during grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy do not correlate with clinical efficacy. Allergy. 2011;66(12): 1530–1537. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02696.x
  41. Czarnobilska EM, Bulanda M, Śpiewak R. The usefulness of the basophil activation test in monitoring specific immunotherapy with house dust mite allergens. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2018;35(1): 93–98. doi: 10.5114/ada.2018.73169
  42. Kim SH, Kim SH, Chung SJ, et al. Changes in basophil activation during immunotherapy with house dust mite and mugwort in patients with allergic rhinitis. Asia Pac Allergy. 2018;8(1):6. doi: 10.5415/apallergy.2018.8.e6
  43. Trabado RA, Hijón CC, Cantariño RA, et al. Short-, intermediate-, and long-term changes in basophil reactivity induced by venom immunotherapy. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2016;8(5):412–420. doi: 10.4168/aair.2016.8.5.412
  44. Christensen SK, Krohn I, Thuraiaiyah J, et al. Sequential allergen desensitization of basophils is non-specific and may involve p38 MAPK. Allergy. 2014;69(10):1343–1349. doi: 10.1111/all.12482
  45. Keet CA, Frischmeyer-Guerrerio PA, Thyagarajan A, et al. The safety and efficacy of sublingual and oral immunotherapy for milk allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;129(2):448–455. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.10.023
  46. Thyagarajan A, Jones SM, Calatroni A, et al. Evidence of pathway-specific basophil anergy induced by peanut oral immunotherapy in peanut-allergic children. Clin Exp Allergy. 2012;42(8):1197–1205. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2012.04028.x
  47. MacGlashan DW. Syk expression and IgE-mediated histamine release in basophils as biomarkers for predicting the clinical efficacy of omalizumab. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(5):1680–1682. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2016.12.965

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. Fig. 2. Representation of sensitization to major allergens, number of patients (n=60).Note: Major allergens: nAmb a 1 ― Ambrosia; nArt v 1 ― Artemisia; rPhl p 1, 5 ― Phleum; Bet v 1 ― Betula.

Download (217KB)
Indexing metadata
2. Fig. 3. Dynamics of symptom changes: a ― after the 1st course of subcutaneous immunotherapy on the RTSS scale (RTSS_0 ― indicators pre-treatment, RTSS_1 ― indicators after the 1st course of subcutaneous immunotherapy); b ― after the 2nd course of subcutaneous immunotherapy on the RTSS scale (RTSS_1 ― indicators after the 1st course of subcutaneous immunotherapy, RTSS_2 ― indicators after the 2nd course of subcutaneous immunotherapy).Note: On the Y axis ― the number of RTSS points; on the X ― the number of therapy courses.

Download (331KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Fig. 4. Comparison of median values of spontaneous basophil activation test (BAT) before therapy in patients with different numbers of symptoms.Note: Group 1 ― RTSS quartile 1 (0–10 points); group 2 ― RTSS quartile 2 (10–13 points); group 3 ― RTSS quartile 3 (13–15 points); group 4 ― RTSS quartile 4 (>15 points).

Download (523KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Fig. 5. Dynamics of changes in spontaneous activation of basophils after treatment (ВАТ): a (BAT_spontaneous) ― spontaneous test of basophil activation before therapy; b (BAT_spont_1) ― test after 1st course of subcutaneous immunotherapy; c (BAT_spont_2) ― test after 2nd years of subcutaneous immunotherapy.Note: On the Y axis ― activated basophils, %.

Download (434KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Fig. 6. Comparison of median values of spontaneous activation of basophils (BAT) after the second course of therapy in patients with different numbers of symptoms.Note: On the Y axis ― activated basophils (%). Group 1 ― RTSS quartile 1 (0–10 points); group 2 ― RTSS quartile 2 (10–13 points); group 3 ― RTSS quartile 3 (13–15 points); group 4 ― RTSS quartile 4 (>15 points).

Download (519KB)
Indexing metadata
6. Fig. 7. Comparison of ragweed allergen-induced basophil activation test (BAT) before treatment in groups of patients with different number of symptoms, determined by the RTSS scale and divided by 4 quartiles.Note: On the Y axis ― activated basophils (%). Group 1 ― RTSS quartile 1 (0–10 points); group 2 ― RTSS quartile 2 (10–13 points); group 3 ― RTSS quartile 3 (13–15 points); group 4 ― RTSS quartile 4 (>15 points).

Download (480KB)
Indexing metadata
7. Fig. 8. Comparison of ragweed allergen-induced basophil activation test (BAT) after the second course of subcutaneous immunotherapy in groups of patients with different number of symptoms, determined by the RTSS scale and divided by 4 quartiles.Note: On the Y axis ― activated basophils (%). Group 1 ― RTSS quartile 1 (0–10 points); group 2 ― RTSS quartile 2 (10–13 points); group 3 ― RTSS quartile 3 (13–15 points); group 4 ― RTSS quartile 4 (>15 points).

Download (482KB)
Indexing metadata
8. Fig. 9. Dynamics of changes in average basophil activation test (BAT) values induced by ragweed allergen: a ― differences between tests before therapy and after 1st course of subcutaneous immunotherapy; b ― differences between tests before therapy and after 2nd course of subcutaneous immunotherapy; c ― differences between tests after 1st and 2nd courses of subcutaneous immunotherapy.

Download (608KB)
Indexing metadata
9. Fig. 10. Dynamics of changes in average basophil activation test (BAT) values induced by mugwort allergen: a ― differences between tests before therapy and after 1st course of subcutaneous immunotherapy; b ― differences between tests before therapy and after 2nd course of subcutaneous immunotherapy; c ― differences between tests after 1st and 2nd courses of subcutaneous immunotherapy.

Download (580KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright © Pharmarus Print Media, 2022



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies