Posts Tagged ‘allergy clinic’

Allergy and Your Immune System
`The summer used to be such a miserable time for me because I’m allergic to grass pollen. For most of

my life I have had dreadful hayfever, and my asthma would get worse during the summer as well.

Antihistamines knocked me for six, and although there were nose drops that helped a little, they

certainly did not resolve the problem completely. Exam time was always a nightmare when I was a student

- then, as now, it coincided exactly with the pollen season.’
‘Getting a job in Chicago was a turning point in my health. My colleagues were amazed to see me

snuffling through the summer and just accepting that nothing could be done to improve matters. The

whole approach to treating allergies is different there. Eventually someone marched me off to see her

allergist, who said that I should have “allergy shots” and that my health insurance would cover it. The

process was very time-consuming at first, and it took a while to work, but the change is remarkable.

I’ve never regretted having the treatment. Summer is a time I can actually enjoy now.’
Not everyone responds this well to immunotherapy, but for those allergy sufferers who do benefit, this

is an excellent treatment. It tackles allergies right at their source, by teaching the immune system to

react differently to the allergen.
Also known as Specific Immunotherapy (SIT), Incremental Immunotherapy (11T) or simply as

hyposensitisation, this form of treatment was devised by two English medical researchers, Leonard Noon

and John Freeman, who reported their successes with hayfever patients in 1911. Ironically, their

treatment is now less readily available in Britain than in any other industrialised nation. Only a

small minority of British allergy patients receive immunotherapy. The cause of this strange situation

is a ruling made in 1986 by the Committee on the Safety of Medicines (CSM). This states that

immunotherapy must only be given where there is resuscitation equipment available, and that all

patients must wait for an hour after each injection, in case of
side effects. In addition, immunotherapy cannot be used for severe asthma.
The requirement for resuscitation equipment rules out most GP surgeries, and this effectively puts

immunotherapy beyond the reach of many allergic individuals in Britain, owing to the extreme shortage

of allergists and hospital allergy clinics (see p. 89). (In the past, the lack of allergy specialists

meant that most immunotherapy in Britain was given by GPs.)
The CSM ruling was triggered by a number of deaths due to immunotherapy: there were eleven fatalities

between 1980 and 1986, with five of these in the eighteen months just before the report. But almost all

these deaths were due to very basic errors in the way the injections were given – tragic as the deaths

were, the official response to them was inappropriate. Fatal reactions to immunotherapy can be avoided

with close attention to ordinary safeguards (see p. 166-7).
Allergen immunotherapy is still freely available elsewhere in the world, and is regarded as a key part

of allergy treatment. Britain is now out of step with all other developed countries, and most doctors

feel that British restrictions are far too strict.
There are hopes that this situation may change within the next few years, and that more allergy

sufferers may be able to take advantage of this valuable treatment. This could be achieved, in part, by

investing more National Health Service money in allergy clinics and allergy specialists. In addition,

there should be a relaxation of the regulations, so that properly trained GPs can give immunotherapy to

patients who are not at high risk of a fatal reaction. For people whose lives are affected by

allergies, the reintroduction of this treatment (with appropriate safeguards) would be a huge boon.
The uses of immunotherapy
Immunotherapy is mainly used for airborne allergens such as pollen, house-dust mite and mould spores.

Allergies to animals can also be treated with immunotherapy, but the treatment cannot work miracles –

if a cat-allergic person decides to keep the cat, the high dose of allergen inhaled every day limits

the impact of immunotherapy treatment.
People with straightforward allergic reactions affecting the nose and eyes (allergic rhinitis and

conjunctivitis) respond well to immunotherapy. In patients with hayfever, for example, the success rate

(patients showing some degree of improvement) is about 80-90%. When nasal allergies are complicated by

chronic sinusitis or nasal polyps, the chance of success is a little lower.
Some studies of the long-term effects of immunotherapy suggest that, if it is given to children with

hayfever or perennial rhinitis, those children are less likely to develop asthma.
The benefits of using immunotherapy to treat established asthma are less certain. Asthma is a more

complex disease than hayfever, and allergies are only one factor among many (see p. 36), which may

limit the impact that immunotherapy can make. Experience suggests that immunotherapy can be a great

help for an asthmatic with a strong allergic reaction to a single airborne allergen, such as grass

pollen or house-dust mite, but not for other asthmatics. Asthmatics with aspirin sensitivity or chronic

sinusitis are unlikely to benefit.
The value of immunotherapy to children with asthma is a subject of great debate among doctors in the

United States. Some studies suggest that it is of little real benefit, while others are more positive.

One interesting study, that followed asthmatic children for 15 years or more, found that if they were

given a full five-year course of immunotherapy when young, they tended to have fewer asthma symptoms

and need less medication in their late teens and early twenties.
Chronic urticaria (nettle rash) is occasionally due to airborne allergens, in which case immunotherapy

may help. However, immunotherapy is not recommended for atopic eczema. When people with both eczema and

rhinitis try immunotherapy for their nasal allergies, some find that their eczema gets worse.
Insect-sting allergy is a prime candidate for immunotherapy (see pp. 167-8) but food allergy is a

different matter, and is not treated with immunotherapy at present (see p. 168).
Who can get immunotherapy?
As a result of the CSM ruling (see p. 164) remarkably few allergy sufferers in Britain receive

immunotherapy.
Those with insect-sting allergy, who have suffered anaphylaxis (see p. 58), are the most likely to be

offered this treatment. However, even with this frightening and life-threatening problem, which can be

treated with almost 100% success by immunotherapy (see p. 167-8), such treatment is not automatically

available.
A few people with severe hayfever that does not respond well to drug treatment may also be given

immunotherapy. It is worth asking your doctor about such treatment if you feel you would benefit.
How immunotherapy works
Immunotherapy consists of a series of small injections, just under the skin. The liquid that is

injected contains an extract of the offending allergen, for example house-dust mite. The injections are

given at regular intervals, usually once a week, although other schedules are possible (see p. 167-8).
At the outset, a very dilute version of the allergen extract is used, way below the threshold for an

allergic reaction. People who seem highly sensitive, on the basis of their skin tests, start on an

extract that is even more dilute.
For the next injection, a slightly higher concentration of the allergen extract is used, and the

concentration goes on increasing with each successive injection. The idea is to habituate the immune

system to the offending allergen, by very gradually raising the dose. Eventually, when the dose reaches

a level which generally gives beneficial effects, no further increases are made.
If an allergy sufferer reacts badly to immunotherapy injections (see p. 166) on several successive

occasions, the dose may be levelled off before the ideal maximum dose is reached. However, a good

allergist will persist for some time in trying to increase the dose because stopping at a lower level

often results in the treatment being ineffective.
The first stage of immunotherapy, when the concentration of allergen is being increased week by week,

is referred to as the build-up stage. The second stage, when the dose is being kept at the same level,

is called maintenance therapy, and the dose used is the maintenance dose.
There is sometimes an obvious improvement by the time the build-up stage is complete, but not always.

The benefits of the treatment generally appear within six months of reaching the maintenance dose, but

some people have to wait a year or even two before things improve. As the immunotherapy begins to take

effect, symptoms decline and there is often less need for drugs.
A great deal of research effort has gone into finding out what lies behind these changes – in other

words, what is actually happening to the immune system when immunotherapy is effective. The answer is

that a surprising number of different changes may occur and no two allergy sufferers react to

immunotherapy in quite the same way. Frequently there is a shift in the kinds of antibodies the body

produces against the offending allergen. Levels of IgG antibodies (which help to block the allergic

reaction) go up, while levels of the allergy antibody, IgE, tend to stabilise and eventually go down.

The numbers of mast cells (see box on p. 12) may also decline, and they can become less responsive to

the allergen. The balance of power between Th1 cells and Th2 cells may also shift, with the pro-allergy

Th2 cells (see p. 11) becoming less influential.
What can go wrong
The secret of safe immunotherapy is to go at exactly the right speed for the immune system of the

individual being treated. The doctor should look for feedback from the immune system – signs that show

how well it is coping with the steadily increasing dose of allergen – and use these to pace the

immunotherapy schedule.
Going too fast – getting ahead of the immune system’s ability to cope – is hazardous. A major allergic

reaction, called anaphylaxis (see p. 58), can occur, and this is the cause of deaths during

immunotherapy. However, as long as there is injectable adrenaline (see p. 150) and resuscitation

equipment available, even such an extreme crisis can be dealt with safely.
Serious reactions to immunotherapy usually occur:
•    during the initial build-up phase; maintenance therapy is much safer
•    during the pollen season, for those with pollen allergy
•    when a new vial of allergen extract is first being used, because of variations in concentration

(see p. 168-9).
Those most vulnerable to severe reactions are:
•    people with asthma, especially severe or unstable asthma
•    those who have experienced systemic allergic reactions in the past
•    anyone who appears to be extremely allergic, on the basis of skin tests
•    anyone taking beta-Mockers (see box on p. 150).
With care, these fatalities can be avoided. Patients who are given immunotherapy can ensure their own

safety by being well informed about the procedure (see p. 167).
The timing of immunotherapy
There are various different approaches to the timing of immurotherapy. The basic method (which has a

good safety record in the United States where it is very commonly used) starts with injections once a

week. After the maintenance dose has been reached, maintenance injections are given once every 2-4

weeks. The frequency of these may be increased during the pollen season, for people with pollen

allergies.
It is the regularity of the injection schedule that gradually creates, and then sustains, immune

tolerance, so the treatment is only of value to patients who can reliably keep their appointments.
When immunotherapy is successful, it can eventually be discontinued without any reappearance of the

allergic reaction. It usually takes 4-5 years of regular therapy, from the time of the first injection,

to get to this point. The benefits then persist for many years, perhaps indefinitely in some people,

even without any further injections.
Rush immunotherapy
Trying to speed up the process of immunotherapy greatly increases the risk of a severe reaction

(anaphylaxis). However, there are some situations where fast results are needed, and in such cases rush

immunotherapy, also called accelerated immunotherapy, may be used.
During the build-up stage of rush immunotherapy, injections are given every day, or even several times

a day. All the usual safety procedures (see below) are observed with particular care, to reduce the

chance of a severe reaction.
In semi-rush immunotherapy, the build-up injections are given twice a week, and the risks are lower

than with daily injections, but still higher than with weekly injections.
Minimising the risks
If you are lucky enough to be offered immunotherapy treatment under the National Health Service, you

should not feel concerned about accepting the offer. There is very little risk of a bad reaction

because safety procedures are now so stringent.
To minimise the risk of suffering a severe reaction, the doctor will ask you, at each visit, about any

reactions that occurred after your previous injection. Reactions might include redness, itching or

swelling around the injection site, or (more seriously) symptoms elsewhere on the body, such as nettle

rash (urticaria), itchy skin, sneezing, a runny nose, red or itchy eyes, tightness in the throat or

chest, coughing or wheezing. Always make a note of such symptoms, so that you don’t forget to mention

them at the next visit. This is crucially important, as such reactions can indicate that the immune

system is being hurried along too fast.
The doctor will also ask if you have an infection of any kind, as this can alter your reaction. You

should also tell the doctor about any new medicines being taken, as some, such as betablockers (see box

on p. 150), can make a bad reaction to the injection more likely to occur.
Asthmatics can expect the doctor to ask about current asthma symptoms, and to check their peak flow

both before and after an injection. If there are any symptoms, or if the peak flow is less than 70% of

the best-ever value, the injection won’t be given.
Severe reactions can sometimes begin several hours after the injection, so stay within reach of a phone

for about 24 hours. Among United States allergists (who don’t require their patients to wait after the

injection for more than 20-30 minutes) there are some who believe that everyone undergoing

immunotherapy should carry an adrenaline (epinephrine) auto-injector (see p. 150) on the day an

injection has been given, for use in the event of a severe reaction. Anyone who has suffered

anaphylaxis in response to an insect sting will probably have an adrenaline auto-injector anyway, and

this can certainly be used to treat anaphylaxis following immunotherapy. Note, however, that using the

adrenaline is just the first step in treating anaphylaxis (see p. 98) and you must then go back to your

allergist, or to the nearest hospital emergency department, without any delay.
It is sensible to avoid exercise for two hours after an injection. Be extra-cautious during the pollen

season if you are receiving immunotherapy for pollen allergies.
Immunotherapy for insect-sting allergy
`Our daughter has had two really bad reactions from being stung by a wasp. After the second one, the

doctor at the accident and emergency department told us that she nearly died. We got so anxious about

it that we worried every time we left the house in the summer, and it was even worse if she went out

without us. My wife got so upset about it that she wasn’t sleeping well. It was affecting the whole

family badly.
‘Then we heard about desensitisation treatment, and asked our GP, but he said he couldn’t do it.

According to him, they might be able to do it at the hospital, but it might not work, and it was risky

too. We accepted that at first, but then I started doing some research on the Internet, and discovered

that in America and Germany this treatment is absolutely standard – someone like our daughter would

automatically be given it. We felt very angry when we found this out, and went back to the doctor.

Eventually Ann was referred to the allergy department at a hospital, and now she is getting this

desensitisation treatment. I’m pleased about that, obviously, but I still think it shouldn’t have been

such a fight to get it.’
Immunotherapy provides highly effective protection for those with insect-sting allergy, and should be

given to anyone who has had a severe systemic reaction (see p. 60). Some United States allergists also

recommend it for adults who have had a cutaneous systemic reaction (see p. 60), on the basis that they

may well progress to a severe systemic reaction with the next sting.
Studies of people who have suffered severe systemic reactions, and are then treated with immunotherapy,

show that 97% have no systemic reaction to future insect stings. For the 3% who are not fully

protected, the severity of the reaction is much reduced and far less likely to be life-threatening. In

other words, this is an excellent treatment which can save lives.
Targeting the treatment
Choosing the right venom for immunotherapy can sometimes be difficult. Not everyone with insect-sting

allergy sees the insect that caused the reaction. Skin tests may not give the answer either, because

there are often positive reactions to several different venoms. Some of these may be false positives

(see box on p. 91) and it is impossible for the allergist to say which one(s) are actually relevant.

Most allergists will recommend immunotherapy for all of them, using a mixture of venom extracts.
Where the guilty insect was seen and identified, but other venoms also give positive skin tests, a more

difficult decision has to be made. Many allergists carry out immunotherapy for all the venoms that gave

a positive skin test, on a ‘better safe than sorry’ basis. Since there are cross-reactions between

venoms (see box on p. 113), there is some sense in this. Other allergists just give immunotherapy for

the insect that did the deed.
Will immunotherapy against one insect protect against a related insect? With two closely related

insects such as wasps and hornets, which have many allergens in common, it might do – but there is no

guarantee. The problem is that, as well as the shared allergens, each venom also has its own unique

ingredients. It’s impossible to say, with the kind of tests available at present, if an allergic

reaction was to shared allergens or unique ones. So immunotherapy against wasp venom may give

protection against hornet venom, but it will not necessarily do so – and vice versa.
In the case of bumblebee allergy (seen almost exclusively in those, such as horticulturalists, whose

work involves handling bumblebees) a more definite answer can be given – honeybee immunotherapy does

not work. Immunotherapy with bumblebee venom does work, fortunately. The bumblebee extract has to be

obtained from specialist sources.
Injections are given weekly during the build-up phase, unless protection is needed urgently, as with

work-related sting allergy, in which case rush immunotherapy may be used. Once the maximum dose has

been reached, a maintenance injection is needed every four weeks. After a year, this maintenance dose

can be given every 6-8 weeks.
After 3-5 years of immunotherapy, skin tests with insect venoms are usually tried again. If the results

are negative, the immunotherapy will stop. Research now shows that, even if skin tests are still

positive when immunotherapy ends, there’s an 8090% chance that no systemic reaction will occur to

future stings. Some people are not reassured by this, and prefer to continue with immunotherapy for

their own peace of mind. Indeed, research shows that a near-fatal systemic reaction has a long-lasting

psychological impact, and that many people continue to feel anxious despite completing immunotherapy

and reacting negatively to skin tests.
At one time, challenge stings with live insects were given to check whether immunotherapy had actually

worked. Few doctors do this now, but your allergist may be prepared to do a challenge test if you ask.

Adrenaline and resuscitation equipment would be available if a challenge test were used, so any severe

reaction could be dealt with promptly and effectively. The fact that the psychological consequences of

insect-sting allergy are so persistent suggests that challenge tests with live insects may have a

particular value, in demonstrating that immunotherapy has worked. Challenge tests are also helpful for

those who work with stinging insects, such as honeybees and bumblebees, and who need to be sure that

they can go back to work safely.
Immunotherapy for food allergy?
Attempts to use standard immunotherapy for food allergy have been made repeatedly, but without success.

The process of giving the injections is nerve-racking because of the constant risk of a severe

reaction. The risks prevent the dose of allergen being increased very much, so the beneficial effects

are small. While there may be some reduction insensitivity, it is not enough – or not reliable enough –

to be of any practical value.
What doctors are aiming for here, incidentally, is simply to protect against the effects of

accidentally eating a tiny amount of the food – no one is expecting that someone with peanut allergy

will be able to eat peanut butter sandwiches as a result.
Some of the new developments in immunotherapy may be useful for food allergy, as described in the next

section.
The future of immunotherapy
Many different research teams are working on ways of improving immunotherapy – making it more

effective, safer to give, and less time-consuming.
One approach involves altering the allergen, so that it only interacts with those parts of the immune

system whose job is to control allergic reactions (and therefore bring about tolerance). The changes

made to the allergen are designed to make it ‘invisible’ to the parts of the immune system that

actually attack the allergen. The idea is to inject something that can’t cause a bad reaction, and is

therefore 100% safe.
The modified allergens are called allergoids. Another term often used is peptide immunotherapy – this

describes a technique in which the allergens are chopped up into small pieces to make them safe

(allergens are proteins, and a fragment of a protein is called a peptide).
Already, researchers in Germany have made an allergoid from birch pollen that can reduce hayfever

symptoms with a series of just seven injections given before the pollen season.
Meanwhile, a research team in London is working on peptides made from cat allergen, with encouraging

results so far. In a group of asthmatics who were allergic to cats, a series of 4-10 injections, over a

period of 2-8 weeks, produced benefits in about half those treated. The researchers believe that they

can improve on this and help the majority of people with cat allergy, at least enough to survive

temporary exposure to cat allergen (when visiting cat-owning friends, for example). They hope to refine

the treatment sufficiently to enable some cat-allergic people to keep their pet, rather than finding it

a new home. This is a relatively safe treatment that might be given by a GP, rather than only by

specialists. The research team hopes the treatment will be available by about 2009.
Could this kind of technique work for food allergy? Doctors believe that it can, and a great deal of

research work is being done, in both Britain and the United States. A major focus of this effort is

peanut allergy, since this puts so many young lives at risk. Even if the research is successful, It

will be several years before such treatments become available.
Researchers are also working hard to produce standardised allergen extracts – in other words, allergen

extracts that always contain a standard amount of the allergen. The aim is not only to reduce the

number of treatment failures (which can occur if the extract does not contain enough allergen) but also

to avoid mishaps when a new vial of allergen extract is used (differences in strength, between one vial

and another, are sometimes a cause of anaphylactic reactions).
Standardisation is difficult, because the starting materials –skin particles from horses, for example,

or dust-mite droppings –are natural materials and therefore variable. Some samples contain far more of

a particular allergenic ingredient than others.
One way around this problem is to develop accurate methods of measuring the amount of allergen in the

extract. Another approach is to abandon the whole business of making extracts, and produce allergens

artificially, in a laboratory. This is done by inserting the gene for the allergen – the gene for the

Der p1 allergen of house-dust mite, for example – into bacteria. These bacteria then act as production

units, manufacturing large amounts of the allergen every day. With this high-tech approach, the exact

content of the allergen preparations can be controlled.
These high-tech allergen preparations are extremely pure, and therefore very effective – as long as the

person receiving immunotherapy really is sensitised to the particular allergen that is included.

Unfortunately, most natural allergenic materials contain two, three or even more separate allergens. In

house-dust mite droppings, for example, while Der p1 is the allergen that affects most people, there is

also an allergen called Der p2, and a few people are more sensitive to this than to Der pl.
Artificially produced allergen preparations usually include the main allergen only. For the minority of

people who are more severely allergic to one of the other allergens, this extract will not work.

Eventually this problem will no doubt be circumvented by means of more precise skin testing before

immunotherapy begins – skin tests with individual allergens, rather than with allergen extract

containing a mix of allergens.
A third approach is to change from injections to oral immunotherapy – giving the allergen extracts by

mouth. The best results are obtained when the allergen is held under the tongue for a while and then

swallowed. This is known as Sub-lingual immunotherapy or SLIT, and has become very popular in Italy and

France, where it is a common treatment for hayfever. A recent pilot trial among GPs in Britain suggests

that it may be useful, but is not a miracle cure. Overall, the group treated with SLIT had fewer

symptoms during the pollen season, but antihistamines were still needed. There is some evidence from

Italy that SLIT might reduce the likelihood of children with hayfever going on to develop asthma, and

reduce the chance of new sensitivities.
Side effects are unusual with this treatment, and those that do occur are mostly mild – itching in the

mouth, for example. The treatment is safe enough for routine use in children.
Might oral immunotherapy work for food allergy? Other Italian studies suggest that it could. The

objective of these studies is to reduce the risk to children with cow’s-milk allergy from accidental

encounters with ‘hidden milk’ in prepared food or drink. The immunotherapy treatment begins with

miniscule amounts of milk – the doctors start with a single drop diluted in water, each day for a week

– and increase the dose extremely slowly. Antihistamines are given to minimise the risk of a reaction.
The whole process requires enormous patience, but after seven months, the majority of the children

involved can tolerate some milk – between three tablespoonfuls and a small cupful each day.
This is a very encouraging study that should be repeated by doctors in Britain. Because of the risks of

anaphylaxis – which can, of course, be fatal – it does require full medical supervision, and you should

not attempt it at home. Whether this method would work for allergens other than milk is something that

nobody has yet investigated.
A great many other approaches to immunotherapy are currently being tried for food allergy. Many of the

new techniques are highly experimental, and some show great promise, but it will be many years before

they are in use.
One innovation that is closer to being in general use in the United States involves giving the anti-IgE

drug omalizumab (see p. 149) alongside immunotherapy injections. The drug maximises the benefits from

the immunotherapy, and may make the build-up stage (see p. 165) safer, by lowering the risk of

anaphylaxis. For British allergy sufferers, who cannot yet get omalizumab, and whose chances of getting

immunotherapy are vanishingly small, it may seem unkind even to mention such treatments, but we can

only hope that things will improve here in the near future. You might take some comfort from the

thought that, by the time immunotherapy is available again in Britain, there will be a whole host of

highly effective new techniques available for doctors to try.
All the methods described above are forms of specific immunotherapy – they treat an allergy to dust

mites or to grass pollen or some other specific allergen.
A far more radical and ambitious approach to immunotherapy is now the aim of some medical researchers:

blocking the tendency to allergies as a whole.The underlying idea here is to reverse the basic shift in

the immune response, from Th1 cells to Th2 cells. It is this shift to Th2 cells which produces the

allergic tendency (see pp. 11 –13).
Some interesting findings have already been made in this area, including the surprising discovery that

the balance of Th1 cells and Th2 cells can be adjusted even in people with longstanding allergies.

Inspired by discoveries about hygiene and allergy (see p. 21), British researchers have made a vaccine

containing inactivated cells of a harmless bacterium found in the soil, Mycobacterium vaccae. This is

given as a single injection just under the surface of the skin. It has been used for adult patients

with asthma, and for children with severe atopic eczema, with some improvement in both groups. If the

treatment proves as useful as the preliminary studies suggest, this could be a common treatment in a

few years’ time.

`When I first arrived in Charlottesville in 1982, the senior allergist said “I’ve got to warn you that here in Virginia we have patients who have very severe fungal infection of their feet, and they also have urticaria. If you treat their feet, their urticaria gets better.”‘ Professor Tom Platts-Mills of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville is recalling how his innovative studies of fungal infections and allergy began. That surprising observation about athlete’s foot (a fungal infection) and urticaria (nettle rash) was made by his predecessor, Professor John Guerrant,
‘I followed his advice,’ Platts-Mills continues, ‘and found he was right. Then I started noticing asthmatics in our allergy clinic who also had fungal infections of their feet. They were mostly men with severe adult-onset asthma. We gave them skin-prick tests with the fungus Trichophyton and these were positive – showing they had an allergic reaction to it. So we tried treating them with anti-fungal drugs and the asthma got much better.’
This discovery is not an isolated instance. Research over the last decade or so has revealed that allergic reactions to long-standing infections (chronic infection is the medical term) are far more common than anyone expected. Infections by fungi are frequent offenders.
An infection becomes chronic because, although the immune system tries to rout the infectious agent, it never succeeds. Making IgE may be part of that futile defensive effort. Once the immune system starts making IgE against the allergens produced by the infectious microbe, new symptoms may begin, or existing allergic symptoms may get much worse. The link between the infection and the allergy is far from obvious, however. Both the allergens and the IgE can be carried in the
Fungal infections
‘Fungus’ means everything from an edible mushroom or a huge bracket fungus to the specks of mould on stale bread or a shower curtain. Fungal infections are caused, not by mushroom-like fungi, but by inconspicuous mould-like forms, or by yeasts (which are single-celled fungi).
Once they are flourishing, some fungal infections may be seen as whitish or creamy-coloured patches. But at an earlier stage, the fungi are so small that they cannot be seen without a microscope. They spread as invisibly as bacteria or viruses.
Some infectious fungi can exist in two different forms – a mycelial form (long thin strands, as in a mould) or a yeast form (single cells).
bloodstream, so the symptoms may be somewhere else in the body, far away from the site of infection.
If the symptoms of the infection itself are relatively mild, they may not receive medical attention. Infection-plus-allergy often explains severe long-term allergic problems for which no cause could previously be found. This is the kind of case that gets labelled as ‘intrinsic’ or ‘endogenous’, because all the allergy tests have proved negative. Most patients in this category have had years of simply being treated with steroids (often at high doses) to suppress the symptoms.
Sometimes the infection-plus-allergy is part of a larger picture, with other allergens or irritants also contributing to the symptoms, but with no stunning improvements when they are avoided because the allergic stimulus from the infection remains.
The links between allergy and fungal infections – all those that have been discovered so far – are described below. In such cases, anti-fungal drugs, taken by mouth, usually in capsule form, could be of value. However, they must be taken for an adequate length of time, normally several months.
Bear in mind that, with the possible exception of chronic sinusitis, an allergic reaction to fungal infection is a relatively uncommon cause of symptoms. It is important that, with the help of your doctor, you start with the more likely suspects such as airborne or contact allergens. These are described in detail, for each allergic disease, in the relevant sections of Chapter 2.
Asthma
the common causes and usual treatment of asthma.
Trichophyton – the fungus that causes athlete’s foot – can provoke allergic reactions that contribute to asthma, as already described. This fungus may also infect other parts of the body. Trichophyton diseases have names that begin with tinea (athlete’s foot, for example, is tinea pedis). Other terms you may come across are intertrigo (an itchy rash which develops in skin folds) and onychomycosis (also called `ringworm of the nails’ or tinea unguinum). The research on the link with asthma was published in a respected medical journal, The Lancet, but has been widely ignored, so if you think you have this problem, you may have to be quite persistent with your doctor. Very thorough treatment with anti-fungal drugs (swallowed in capsule form) is required.
Chronic urticaria
many possible causes of chronic urticaria.
Trichophyton infections in any part of the body (see above) can provoke allergies, producing chronic urticarla. A great variety of other infections, including fungal, viral and chronic bacterial
infections, can be the root of the problem in chronic urticaria . However, this may not be an allergic reaction. It could be a direct effect of the infection, provoking the immune system in such a way that it triggers mast cells by itself, without IgE.
Chronic sinusitis
 the causes and treatment of chronic sinusitis.
Long-standing (chronic) sinusitis may be due to a fungal infection with a subsequent allergy. This is now called allergic fungal sinusitis. Some doctors believe that a sensitivity reaction to fungal infection (not necessarily an allergic reaction) could account for 96% of chronic sinusitis. However this is widely disputed .
Atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis)
the causes and treatment of atopic eczema.
The Trichophyton fungus can infect eczematous skin, though this is far less common than infection by Staphylococcus aureus (see below). Among patients infected by it, there can be an allergic reaction to Trichophyton which then makes the eczema worse.
There can also be an IgE reaction to a yeast, Pityrosporum ovale (also called Malassezia ovalis), in atopic eczema. This yeast is a commensal – i.e. a natural, and normally harmless, inhabitant of healthy skin. The inflammation of eczema makes the immune system far more tetchy so that it reacts allergically to this yeast, an innocent bystander which it normally disregards.
Candida  can also provoke an allergic reaction in eczematous skin. This is a more complex story, because while Candida is a commensal in the gut, it does not normally live on the skin. However, it may flourish in the disturbed skin of eczema patients.
Those with atopic eczema may also develop an allergic reaction to toxins from Staphylococcus aureus, a bacterium that often infects skin which is inflamed by eczema and damaged by scratching. Antibiotics are needed to treat the infection .
Seborrheic dermatitis
Not so long ago, this disease – which causes a red, scaly rash on the forehead, nose and cheeks, and sometimes on the chest –was labelled ’cause unknown’. Now most doctors believe that the yeast Pityrosporum ovale could well have a role in causing it. This yeast is part of the normal skin flora (see above), but it is found in greater numbers on the skin of seborrheic dermatitis patients. As well as overgrowth of the yeast, there is an immune reaction against it, usually involving the antibody known as IgG, rather than Fungi in the lungs
One form of infection-plus-allergy has been well recognised for many years - allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, often shortened to aspergillosis.
The problem starts with the fungus Aspergillus fumigates, a ubiquitous mould that is found in special abundance in damp straw, compost heaps, bird cages and any decomposing material. Its spores are everywhere, and most immune systems quickly defeat them, but in some people, especially those with asthma, the spores begin to grow in the lungs. The fungus is found in the lung mucus, but does not actually invade the lungs. However, an allergic reation then occurs to the fungus.
This disease often goes together with asthma, or can be mistaken for asthma. There are three clues that point to aspergillosis:
• rubbery plugs of phlegm, either golden-
brown or green in colour
• fever whenever the asthma is severe
• worsening symptoms despite treatment.
Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis is treated with steroids to control the allergic reaction, and physiotherapy to clear the mucus from the lungs.
Anti-fungal drugs have not proved very effective in the past. There are some newer anti-fungal drugs that may well be more useful, such as itraconazole and terbinafine. These are not widely used for aspergillosis at present, except in patients who also have cystic fibrosis or an immune deficiency. Because there has been no large-scale trial of these drugs, they are not usually given to people who simply have aspergillosis. However, they are sometimes prescribed for people who are unable to take steroids, or are not responding to steroid treatment. Anti-fungal drugs may become more widely used in the next few years, so it is worth discussing the possibility of this treatment with your doctor.
the allergy antibody IgE. Only about 12% of people who suffer from seborrheic dermatitis make IgE against the yeast.
One problem with seborrheic dermatitis is that, while it may improve with anti-fungal treatment, it usually comes back when the treatment stops. Doctors have therefore been looking for ways of keeping seborrheic dermatitis at bay after a successful course of anti-fungal treatment. One method that seems to work is to use a good anti-dandruff shampoo, in place of soap, to wash your skin once a week.
A medical earthquake
The recent discoveries about infection-plus-allergy have not posed any serious challenge to conventional thinking about allergy, because a disease of just this kind - aspergillosis (see box at left) - was already well known. A far more fundamental shake-up of traditional ideas about allergy and sensitivity has been necessitated by new research into atopic eczema. It is little short of an earthquake in the basic concepts of allergy and sensitivity.
To understand the extent of this earthquake, you need to know about the time-honoured system for classifying hypersensitivity reactions, which recognises four distinct types:
• Type I hypersensitivity — the IgE-mediated allergies  such as hayfever.
• Type II hypersensitivity - irrelevant to allergy, these antibody reactions mainly occur after transplant surgery, if the transplanted organ is rejected.
• Type III hypersensitivity - caused by a massive overload of antibodies and antigen in the blood. It is a feature of certain infections and autoimmune diseases, and can also occur in allergic reactions, though this is rare (13).
• Type IV hypersensitivity - the odd man out, because antibodies are not involved, or are not of central importance. Immune cells that can launch a direct attack are the movers and shakers here. These attacking-cells are sensitised for a particular antigen, such as dust mite or lanolin. Type IV hypersensitivity is a very slow reaction. Generally speaking, 48 hours pass, after an encounter with the offending substance, before the symptoms appear. The most common form of Type IV hypersensitivity is contact dermatitis (54).
Mystery has always surrounded atopic eczema. Although it crops up in the same atopic families that suffer from hayfever and asthma, and high levels of IgE in the bloodstream are typical of the disease, the actual role played by allergies in causing the symptoms is far from obvious.
The results of skin-prick tests - the standard test for an IgEmediated reaction - are puzzling. Patients tend to give a lot of positive results, many of which don’t mean much - the substances concerned do not provoke actual symptoms. On the other hand, skin-prick tests are often negative for substances that clearly do cause symptoms in challenge tests. Many children who regularly get eczema when they drink cow’s milk, for example, give a negative skin-prick test to milk. This conundrum has puzzled allergists for decades.
New discoveries about eczema do not entirely solve the puzzle, but they do go some way towards an answer, by revealing an immune response that cuts across the traditional categories. The most surprising fact is that even where skin-prick tests are positive and milk-specific IgE is involved in milk-induced eczema, this is not necessarily a standard IgE-mediated allergy.
While IgE antibodies may be involved, they are not necessarily teamed up with mast cells, their usual partners in crime (see box on p. 12). Instead, the IgE molecules are attached to special skin cells called Langerhans cells and dendritic cells. These have the role of picking up the antigen and showing or ‘presenting’ it to attacking-cells in the skin (a task called antigen presentation which is the ‘go’ signal that starts off all immune reactions).
The involvement of these attacking-cells, which are sensitised for a particular antigen, was a big surprise when first discovered. It makes this resemble a Type IV hypersensitivity reaction rather than a Type I.
IgE is not essential here, it seems — some patients do not have IgE for the substance that triggers their atopic eczema — but when Langerhans cells and dendritic cells are associated with IgE they do become far more zealous. This excitement is communicated to the attacking-cells, which mount a more powerful attack.
It looks as if what really matters in atopic eczema is the presence of antigen-specific attacking-cells in the skin, plus the heightened activity of the Langerhans cells and dendritic cells. If the individual has IgE for the antigen, it can play a part, but it is not essential.
In other words, this reaction cuts across two different categories of immune response — Type I and Type IV. (However, the kind of antigens that provoke the reaction are typical of IgEmediated allergy, rather than the kind of antigens that provoke contact dermatitis.) This has been exploited in a new and more sensitive set of diagnostic tests for food-induced atopic eczema (69).
Why atopic eczema is a feature of atopic families is the crucial question that remains unanswered. One factor may be that high levels of IgE in the bloodstream (not IgE for a particular allergen, but total IgE) make the whole immune system more excitable and prone to over-react. The next few years will no doubt solve this part of the puzzle too.
Peace-keepers or aggressors?
`It is bad enough having a child on an ultra-strict diet — Tim can’t have even a trace of cow’s milk or else he becomes violently ill. What makes it worse is when people — teachers, for example —ask what’s wrong. I take a deep breath and say “eosinophilic oesophagitis” then watch their eyes roll in disbelief.’
Tim’s disease is caused by a particular type of immune cell called an eosinophil. In the right circumstances, eosinophils can be valuable — like IgE and mast cells, they are geared to destroying parasitic worms . They produce some very toxic substances to kill these invaders, and it is the toxins that cause serious symptoms for Tim and others like him.
Any disease with ‘eosinophilic’ in the name involves vast numbers of eosinophils converging on some unfortunate part of the body. The stimulus that attracts them often remains unknown but once there, the toxins they generate cause inflammation (140) of a particularly violent kind.
It is only in recent years that doctors have begun to distinguish between patients such as Tim and children with classical food allergy, and to understand the cause of Tim’s symptoms. Several different forms of eosinophilic food sensitivity are now recognised (72). The exact relationship with IgE-mediated allergy remains a puzzle, because some sufferers make IgE to the culprit food but others do not.
That is not all — the eosinophil is finally coming out of the shadows and being recognised as an important agent in classical allergic diseases as well.
The fact that eosinophils appeared during the aftermath of an allergic reaction had long been known, but their role was misunderstood. What confused researchers was that eosinophils can break down histamine, the substance that kick-starts allergic symptoms. This ability gave eosinophils the appearance of peacekeeping troops, coming in at the close of battle to restore order. In fact, eosinophils are major aggressors — they do a whole lot of other things besides breaking down histamine, most of them pro-inflammatory. They can release toxins, just as they do in eosinophilic diseases, and they attract other inflammatory cells into the area. In short, eosinophils play a big part in keeping allergic reactions going once the initial burst of activity is over. This `Late Phase Reaction’ is enormously important .