Pub Date : 2026-02-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2026.01.006
{"title":"Systemic Treatments for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Anti-IgE and BeyondSystemic Treatments for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Anti-IgE and Beyond","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2026.01.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jaip.2026.01.006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"Pages 373-374"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146116338","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2025.12.014
Paul V. Williams MD , Lynda Kabbash MD
{"title":"Underpayment and Economic Harm in Aeroallergen Immunotherapy","authors":"Paul V. Williams MD , Lynda Kabbash MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.12.014","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.12.014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"Pages 400-401"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146116355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only treatment for honeybee venom allergy; however, some patients develop severe allergic reactions (SARs) during therapy. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, may improve VIT tolerance, though data in honeybee VIT remain limited.
Objective
To evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant omalizumab in honeybee VIT, identify predictors of omalizumab requirement, and inform protocol selection.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was conducted of all adults undergoing honeybee VIT at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, from 2015 to 2024. Baseline characteristics, biomarkers, protocols, and outcomes were analyzed.
Results
Among 354 VIT patients, 57 (16%) experienced SARs, with 36 (10%) receiving omalizumab. Predictors of omalizumab need included severe sting anaphylaxis, asthma, and elevated basal tryptase. One patient used omalizumab to escalate VIT dosing after already reaching maintenance. Of 35 patients using omalizumab during VIT uptitration, 22 (63%) achieved unsupported maintenance, 7 (20%) ceased because of SARs, and 5 (14%) remain on omalizumab. Excluding 5 patients who declined or lacked access to ongoing omalizumab, the success rate increases to 73%. The most common protocol involved a 12-week VIT uptitration to 100 μg with omalizumab 300 mg loading 2 weeks previously, followed by 150 mg fortnightly until maintenance VIT was reached. SARs most frequently occurred at omalizumab cessation. In 3 cases, these were overcome by resuming omalizumab with a higher VIT maintenance dose target.
Conclusions
Omalizumab could be considered in patients experiencing recurrent SARs to standard VIT. A semi-rush protocol with omalizumab loading 1 to 2 weeks previously was well tolerated.
{"title":"Omalizumab Enables Bee Venom Desensitization in Patients With Anaphylactic Reactions to Venom Immunotherapy","authors":"Kris Capper MD , Benjamin McGettigan MB ChB, FRACP, FRCPA , Cate Willis MBBS , Brittany Stevenson MBBS, FRACP, FRCPA","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.09.038","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.09.038","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Venom immunotherapy (VIT) is the only treatment for honeybee venom allergy; however, some patients develop severe allergic reactions (SARs) during therapy. Omalizumab, an anti-IgE antibody, may improve VIT tolerance, though data in honeybee VIT remain limited.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant omalizumab in honeybee VIT, identify predictors of omalizumab requirement, and inform protocol selection.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective chart review was conducted of all adults undergoing honeybee VIT at Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, from 2015 to 2024. Baseline characteristics, biomarkers, protocols, and outcomes were analyzed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 354 VIT patients, 57 (16%) experienced SARs, with 36 (10%) receiving omalizumab. Predictors of omalizumab need included severe sting anaphylaxis, asthma, and elevated basal tryptase. One patient used omalizumab to escalate VIT dosing after already reaching maintenance. Of 35 patients using omalizumab during VIT uptitration, 22 (63%) achieved unsupported maintenance, 7 (20%) ceased because of SARs, and 5 (14%) remain on omalizumab. Excluding 5 patients who declined or lacked access to ongoing omalizumab, the success rate increases to 73%. The most common protocol involved a 12-week VIT uptitration to 100 μg with omalizumab 300 mg loading 2 weeks previously, followed by 150 mg fortnightly until maintenance VIT was reached. SARs most frequently occurred at omalizumab cessation. In 3 cases, these were overcome by resuming omalizumab with a higher VIT maintenance dose target.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Omalizumab could be considered in patients experiencing recurrent SARs to standard VIT. A semi-rush protocol with omalizumab loading 1 to 2 weeks previously was well tolerated.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"Pages 475-481.e1"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145276855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although both dupilumab and tezepelumab are approved for severe asthma, real-world evidence comparing their effectiveness remains limited.
Objective
To compare the effectiveness of tezepelumab versus dupilumab in reducing asthma exacerbations among patients with asthma.
Methods
Data were obtained from the Global Collaborative Network of TriNetX. Adults aged ≥18 years who initiated dupilumab or tezepelumab between December 17, 2021, and September 1, 2024, were included. The primary outcome was time to first asthma exacerbation, and the secondary outcome was systemic corticosteroid use. Both outcomes were assessed over 1 year. Subgroup analyses were conducted by blood eosinophil counts, presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), prior biologics use, and obesity. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates between groups. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were used to estimate comparative effectiveness.
Results
After 1:1 matching, 688 matched patients were included in each group. In the matched cohorts, the risk of asthma exacerbation did not differ between dupilumab and tezepelumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.10). This finding was consistent across sensitivity analyses. Both biologics showed similar benefits across all blood eosinophil levels and regardless of COPD, prior biologics use, or obesity. The risk of systemic corticosteroid use was also similar between both biologics (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85-1.10).
Conclusion
No significant difference in exacerbation risk was found between dupilumab and tezepelumab. Because residual confounding may exist, further investigation is warranted to guide the selection of biological therapies in clinical practice.
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness of Tezepelumab and Dupilumab in Asthma: A Multinational Retrospective Cohort Study","authors":"Chun-Tse Hung MS, PharmD , Yu-Chien Hung MD , Chen-Yen An BPharm, RPh , Chi-Won Suk MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.11.024","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.11.024","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Although both dupilumab and tezepelumab are approved for severe asthma, real-world evidence comparing their effectiveness remains limited.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the effectiveness of tezepelumab versus dupilumab in reducing asthma exacerbations among patients with asthma.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data were obtained from the Global Collaborative Network of TriNetX. Adults aged ≥18 years who initiated dupilumab or tezepelumab between December 17, 2021, and September 1, 2024, were included. The primary outcome was time to first asthma exacerbation, and the secondary outcome was systemic corticosteroid use. Both outcomes were assessed over 1 year. Subgroup analyses were conducted by blood eosinophil counts, presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), prior biologics use, and obesity. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates between groups. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models were used to estimate comparative effectiveness.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After 1:1 matching, 688 matched patients were included in each group. In the matched cohorts, the risk of asthma exacerbation did not differ between dupilumab and tezepelumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.10). This finding was consistent across sensitivity analyses. Both biologics showed similar benefits across all blood eosinophil levels and regardless of COPD, prior biologics use, or obesity. The risk of systemic corticosteroid use was also similar between both biologics (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85-1.10).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>No significant difference in exacerbation risk was found between dupilumab and tezepelumab. Because residual confounding may exist, further investigation is warranted to guide the selection of biological therapies in clinical practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"Pages 427-435.e5"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145641863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2025.11.037
Richard P. Ramonell MD , Patricia Choi MD , Marc C. Gauthier MD , Merritt L. Fajt MD , Anuradha Ray PhD , Sally E. Wenzel MD
{"title":"Reply to “Association of Asthma and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Conundrum Still Unsolved”","authors":"Richard P. Ramonell MD , Patricia Choi MD , Marc C. Gauthier MD , Merritt L. Fajt MD , Anuradha Ray PhD , Sally E. Wenzel MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.11.037","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.11.037","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"Page 535"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146116420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2025.10.047
Melanie C. Dispenza MD, PhD , Brian S. Kim MD
Kinase inhibitors are emerging as transformative therapeutic agents in allergy. Advances in drug design have produced highly selective inhibitors with improved safety and efficacy, extending their clinical use beyond oncologic indications to the treatment of immune-mediated and hypersensitivity disorders. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors offer rapid, on-demand control of IgE-mediated reactivity and are approved for use in chronic urticaria. Janus kinase inhibitors demonstrate potent anti-inflammatory and anti-pruritic effects in atopic dermatitis and may expand into other chronic itch disorders. KIT inhibitors, both mutant- and wild type–specific, are redefining treatment possibilities for mastocytosis and chronic urticaria through mast cell suppression. This review highlights recent progress in the development and application of these drugs in allergic diseases. We summarize the mechanistic rationale for targeting each pathway, review pivotal clinical trial findings, and discuss safety profiles and practical considerations for clinical use. Collectively, these inhibitors are important additions to the therapeutic options in immune-mediated disorders.
{"title":"Updates on Kinase Inhibitors in Allergy","authors":"Melanie C. Dispenza MD, PhD , Brian S. Kim MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.10.047","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.10.047","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Kinase inhibitors are emerging as transformative therapeutic agents in allergy. Advances in drug design have produced highly selective inhibitors with improved safety and efficacy, extending their clinical use beyond oncologic indications to the treatment of immune-mediated and hypersensitivity disorders. Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors offer rapid, on-demand control of IgE-mediated reactivity and are approved for use in chronic urticaria. Janus kinase inhibitors demonstrate potent anti-inflammatory and anti-pruritic effects in atopic dermatitis and may expand into other chronic itch disorders. KIT inhibitors, both mutant- and wild type–specific, are redefining treatment possibilities for mastocytosis and chronic urticaria through mast cell suppression. This review highlights recent progress in the development and application of these drugs in allergic diseases. We summarize the mechanistic rationale for targeting each pathway, review pivotal clinical trial findings, and discuss safety profiles and practical considerations for clinical use. Collectively, these inhibitors are important additions to the therapeutic options in immune-mediated disorders.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"Pages 336-343"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145598101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2025.11.014
Zeynep Meric MD , Betul Kosa MD , Betul Gemici Karaaslan MD , Sezin Aydemir MD , Muhammed Aydin MD , Dilan Demir Gumus MD , Nergis Akay MD , Emre Ozer MD , Ahmet Kan MD , Sevgi Sipahi Çimen MD , Muhlis Cem Ar MD , Ayse Deniz Yucelten MD , Ozgur Kasapcopur MD , Tugba Kevser Uzuncakmak MD , Esra Yucel MD , Ayca Kiykim MD
Background
Inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) comprise a heterogeneous group of more than 500 genetic disorders, often presenting with recurrent infections, autoimmunity, malignancies, allergic inflammation, and various skin manifestations.
Objective
To evaluate the prevalence, phenotypes, and treatment responses of skin manifestations in IEIs.
Methods
Patient data from 2018 to 2024 were retrospectively analyzed in a single-center cohort from Turkey and classified according to the 2024 report of the International Union of Immunological Societies. Recorded skin manifestations included atopic dermatitis–like lesions, infections, granulomas, pigmentary abnormalities, vascular changes, and autoimmune lesions.
Results
Among 389 patients with IEIs, 155 (39.8%) exhibited skin manifestations, with 48.3% presenting as an initial symptom. The median (interquartile range) age at onset of skin manifestations was 8.5 (2.2-84) months, whereas the median age at referral was 84 (19-174) months. The predominant IEI categories were combined immunodeficiencies with associated or syndromic features (21%) and immunodeficiencies affecting cellular and humoral immunity (20.5%). Cutaneous manifestations were most frequent in congenital phagocyte defects (56.8%). Predominant skin manifestations included infections (59.3%), atopic dermatitis–like lesions (37.4%), and chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis (16.7%). During the median follow-up period of 44 (17-68) months, the most common comorbidities were recurrent sinopulmonary infections (67.3%) and growth delay (50.6%). Biological agents were administered to 11.6% of patients, whereas 20% underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Conclusions
Skin manifestations are common and often early indicators of IEIs. Their coexistence with recurrent infections or growth delay should prompt immunologic evaluation. Early recognition may facilitate timely diagnosis, targeted treatment, and improved long-term outcomes.
{"title":"The Skin Tells the Story: Early Signs of Inborn Errors of Immunity","authors":"Zeynep Meric MD , Betul Kosa MD , Betul Gemici Karaaslan MD , Sezin Aydemir MD , Muhammed Aydin MD , Dilan Demir Gumus MD , Nergis Akay MD , Emre Ozer MD , Ahmet Kan MD , Sevgi Sipahi Çimen MD , Muhlis Cem Ar MD , Ayse Deniz Yucelten MD , Ozgur Kasapcopur MD , Tugba Kevser Uzuncakmak MD , Esra Yucel MD , Ayca Kiykim MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.11.014","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.11.014","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Inborn errors of immunity (IEIs) comprise a heterogeneous group of more than 500 genetic disorders, often presenting with recurrent infections, autoimmunity, malignancies, allergic inflammation, and various skin manifestations.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the prevalence, phenotypes, and treatment responses of skin manifestations in IEIs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patient data from 2018 to 2024 were retrospectively analyzed in a single-center cohort from Turkey and classified according to the 2024 report of the International Union of Immunological Societies. Recorded skin manifestations included atopic dermatitis–like lesions, infections, granulomas, pigmentary abnormalities, vascular changes, and autoimmune lesions.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 389 patients with IEIs, 155 (39.8%) exhibited skin manifestations, with 48.3% presenting as an initial symptom. The median (interquartile range) age at onset of skin manifestations was 8.5 (2.2-84) months, whereas the median age at referral was 84 (19-174) months. The predominant IEI categories were combined immunodeficiencies with associated or syndromic features (21%) and immunodeficiencies affecting cellular and humoral immunity (20.5%). Cutaneous manifestations were most frequent in congenital phagocyte defects (56.8%). Predominant skin manifestations included infections (59.3%), atopic dermatitis–like lesions (37.4%), and chronic mucocutaneous candidiasis (16.7%). During the median follow-up period of 44 (17-68) months, the most common comorbidities were recurrent sinopulmonary infections (67.3%) and growth delay (50.6%). Biological agents were administered to 11.6% of patients, whereas 20% underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Skin manifestations are common and often early indicators of IEIs. Their coexistence with recurrent infections or growth delay should prompt immunologic evaluation. Early recognition may facilitate timely diagnosis, targeted treatment, and improved long-term outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"Pages 464-474.e4"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145589811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2026-02-01DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2025.10.052
Irene M. Scholl MD , Aaron M. Drucker MD, PhD , Carsten Flohr MD, PhD , Louise A.A. Gerbens MD, PhD
Atopic dermatitis is a highly prevalent chronic inflammatory skin disease worldwide, with a significant burden on patients’ quality of life. Although most patients with atopic dermatitis are effectively managed with topical treatments, a significant minority requires systemic therapy. In recent years, the therapeutic landscape for this patient population has expanded beyond conventional treatments, introducing novel targeted therapies such as biologic agents and Janus kinase inhibitors. These novel therapies vary in aspects such as efficacy, safety profile, route of administration, monitoring requirements, and impact on comorbidities, necessitating individualized treatment decision-making. As a result, selecting the most appropriate therapy can be challenging. This article provides a practical overview of the current targeted therapies to support informed clinical decision-making regarding treatment selection, monitoring, and dosing considerations.
{"title":"Systemic Therapy for Atopic Dermatitis: Choosing Biologics or Janus Kinase Inhibitors for Children and Adults","authors":"Irene M. Scholl MD , Aaron M. Drucker MD, PhD , Carsten Flohr MD, PhD , Louise A.A. Gerbens MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.10.052","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jaip.2025.10.052","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Atopic dermatitis is a highly prevalent chronic inflammatory skin disease worldwide, with a significant burden on patients’ quality of life. Although most patients with atopic dermatitis are effectively managed with topical treatments, a significant minority requires systemic therapy. In recent years, the therapeutic landscape for this patient population has expanded beyond conventional treatments, introducing novel targeted therapies such as biologic agents and Janus kinase inhibitors. These novel therapies vary in aspects such as efficacy, safety profile, route of administration, monitoring requirements, and impact on comorbidities, necessitating individualized treatment decision-making. As a result, selecting the most appropriate therapy can be challenging. This article provides a practical overview of the current targeted therapies to support informed clinical decision-making regarding treatment selection, monitoring, and dosing considerations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology-In Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"Pages 344-359"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145598157","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}