Post-treatment efficacy of discontinuous treatment with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in adults with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Allergy immunotherapy: the future of allergy treatment

Allergic respiratory disease represents a significant and expanding health problem worldwide. Allergic symptoms, such as asthma and hay fever, cause sleep impairment and reduce school and work performance. The cost to society is substantial. Allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy cannot control the disease. Only allergy immunotherapy has disease-modifying potential and should be included in optimal treatment strategies. Allergy immunotherapy was first administered as subcutaneous injections and has been practiced for the past 100 years or so. Recently, tablet-based sublingual allergy immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced with comprehensive clinical documentation. SLIT tablets represent a more patient-friendly concept because they can be used for self-treatment at home.

Developments in the field of allergy in 2013 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

2013 was another exciting year for allergy in general and Clinical and Experimental Allergy in particular. In the field of asthma and rhinitis, there continued to be a focus on heterogeneity and phenotypes with increasing use of biostatistical techniques to determine clusters of similar populations. Obesity- and aspirin-associated disease are intriguing associations with asthma which were explored in a number of papers. We published a number of excellent papers on mechanisms of airway inflammation and how this relates to physiology, pathology, genetics and biomarkers in both human and experimental model systems. In terms of mechanisms, there is less on individual cell types in allergic disease at the moment, but the immunology of allergic disease continued to fascinate our authors. Another area that was popular both in the mechanisms and in the epidemiology sections was early life events and how these lead to allergic disease, with an increasing focus on the role of the microbiome and how this influences immune tolerance. In the clinical allergy section, oral immunotherapy for food allergy is clearly a major topic of interest at the moment as was in vitro testing to distinguish between sensitization and allergic disease. There was less on inhalant allergy this year, but a good representation from the drug allergy community including some interesting work on non-IgE-mediated mechanisms. In the allergen section, important new allergens continue to be discovered, but the major focus as in the last couple of years was on working out how component-resolved approaches can improve diagnosis and management of food and venom allergy.

Oral/sublingual Phleum pretense grass tablet (Grazax/Grastek) to treat allergic rhinitis in the USA

With the approval of two grass tablets and one ragweed tablet for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) by the US FDA in April 2014, the practice of allergy immunotherapy (AIT) in the USA has dramatically changed. Until this time, there were no approved allergen extracts for sublingual administration and physicians who prescribed SLIT for their patients did so without full knowledge of proper dosing or assurance of its safety. Now sublingual allergen tablets are available that have proven safe and effective doses. This article describes, in detail, the studies that have been conducted with a timothy grass SLIT tablet and draws some comparisons to the alternative 5-grass SLIT tablet. It also attempts to predict what will be the impact of the introduction of these tablets on the practice of AIT in the USA over the next few years.

Specific IgE recognition of pollen allergens from subtropic grasses in patients from the subtropics

BACKGROUND

Pollens of subtropical grasses, Bahia (Paspalum notatum), Johnson (Sorghum halepense), and Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon), are common causes of respiratory allergies in subtropical regions worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate IgE cross-reactivity of grass pollen (GP) found in subtropical and temperate areas.

METHODS

Case and control serum samples from 83 individuals from the subtropical region of Queensland were tested for IgE reactivity with GP extracts by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. A randomly sampled subset of 21 serum samples from patients with subtropical GP allergy were examined by ImmunoCAP and cross-inhibition assays.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients with allergic rhinitis and GP allergy had higher IgE reactivity with P notatum and C dactylon than with a mixture of 5 temperate GPs. For 90% of 21 GP allergic serum samples, P notatum, S halepense, or C dactylon specific IgE concentrations were higher than temperate GP specific IgE, and GP specific IgE had higher correlations of subtropical GP (r = 0.771-0.950) than temperate GP (r = 0.317-0.677). In most patients (71%-100%), IgE with P notatum, S halepense, or C dactylon GPs was inhibited better by subtropical GP than temperate GP. When the temperate GP mixture achieved 50% inhibition of IgE with subtropical GP, there was a 39- to 67-fold difference in concentrations giving 50% inhibition and significant differences in maximum inhibition for S halepense and P notatum GP relative to temperate GP.

CONCLUSION

Patients living in a subtropical region had species specific IgE recognition of subtropical GP. Most GP allergic patients in Queensland would benefit from allergen specific immunotherapy with a standardized content of subtropical GP allergens.

Prolonged efficacy of the 300IR 5-grass pollen tablet up to 2 years after treatment cessation, as measured by a recommended daily combined score

BACKGROUND

The 300IR (index of reactivity) 5-grass pollen tablet has favorable short-term and sustained clinical efficacy in patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). Here, we report maintenance of efficacy and safety over 2 years following treatment discontinuation.

METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter Phase 3 trial in patients aged 18-50 years with ARC. During study years 1-3, patients received a daily sublingual tablet containing either 300IR 5-grass pollen extract or placebo, according to a discontinuous pre- and coseasonal protocol. Study years 4 and 5 were treatment-free. In response to health authorities' recommendations, the daily combined score (DCS) was assessed in a post-hoc analysis as the efficacy endpoint. Components of the DCS were daily rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score (DRTSS) and daily rescue medication score (DRMS).

RESULTS

633 patients with ARC were randomized to placebo (n = 219) or 300IR 5-grass pollen tablet, beginning 4 months (4 M, n = 207) or 2 months (2 M, n = 207) prior to the estimated start of the grass pollen season and continuing until season's end. During the first post-treatment year, a statistically significant difference versus placebo in least squares (LS) mean DCS was noted in patients previously receiving active treatment (300IR (2 M) point estimate: -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI95%): [-0.26, -0.06], p = 0.0019; -31.1%; 300IR (4 M) point estimate: -0.13, CI95%: [-0.23, -0.03], p = 0.0103, -25.3%). During the second post-treatment year, patients in the 300IR (4 M) group, but not the 300IR (2 M) group, showed a statistically significant difference in LS mean DCS versus placebo (point estimate: -0.11, CI95%: [-0.21; 0.00], p = 0.0478, -28.1%). This significant efficacy seen during the post-treatment years in patients previously treated with 5-grass pollen tablet compared favorably with that during the 3 prior years of active treatment. A statistically significant difference versus placebo was also noted in secondary efficacy measures in both post-treatment years (except for DRTSS in year 5). In the absence of any active treatment, the safety profile was similar in the active groups versus placebo group during either post-treatment year.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with grass pollen-associated ARC, 5-grass pollen tablet therapy beginning 4 months before the pollen season and continuing to season's end demonstrated efficacy across all variables during active treatment, and this effect was prolonged for up to 2 years post-treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00418379.

"The value of pre- and co-seasonal sublingual immunotherapy in pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis"

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a guidelines-approved, disease-modifying treatment option for respiratory allergies, including allergic rhinitis (AR) induced by pollen. The various AIT regimens employed to date in pollen-induced AR can be classified as continuous (i.e. year-round) or discontinuous (i.e. pre-seasonal alone, co-seasonal alone or pre- and co-seasonal). Pre-and co-seasonal regimens are typically used for sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) and have economic and compliance advantages over perennial (year-round) regimens. However, these advantages must not come at the expensive of poor efficacy or safety. The results of recent double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials show that pre- and co-seasonal SLIT is safe and effective in patients with AR induced by grass pollen (treated with a tablet formulation) or by birch pollen (treated with a liquid formulation). Progress in SLIT has been made in defining the optimal dose of major allergen, the administration frequency (daily), the duration of pre-seasonal treatment (four months) and the number of treatment seasons (at least three). Post-marketing, "real-life" trials of pre- and co-seasonal birch or grass pollen SLIT regimens have confirmed the efficacy and safety observed in the clinical trials. In the treatment of pollen-induced AR, pre- and co-seasonal SLIT regimens appear to be at least as effective and safe as perennial SLIT regimens, and are associated with lower costs and good compliance. Good compliance may mean that pre- and co-seasonal SLIT regimens are inherently more effective and safer than perennial SLIT regimens. When considering the pre- and co-seasonal discontinuous regimen in particular, a 300 IR five-grass-pollen formulation is the only SLIT tablet with a clinical development programme having provided evidence of short-term, sustained and post-treatment efficacy.

Safety and tolerability of 5-grass pollen tablet sublingual immunotherapy: pooled analysis and clinical review

INTRODUCTION

The 5-grass pollen tablet (Oralair®, Stallergenes, Antony, France) is a once-daily preseasonal and coseasonal sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) that is effective in controlling the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and in reducing the need for symptomatic medication.

AREAS COVERED

The body of safety data gathered from the 5-grass pollen tablet clinical development program, post-approval studies, and more than 6 years of real-life experience demonstrates the safety and tolerability profile of the 5-grass pollen tablet across all age groups. Adverse events (AEs) are generally mild or moderate in severity, and rarely lead to treatment discontinuation. AEs also tend to decline in frequency and severity over time and with repeated treatment. The most frequent treatment-emergent AEs are local-site oropharyngeal reactions (e.g., oral pruritus, throat irritation, tongue pruritus, mouth edema, ear pruritus), which are consistent with the sublingual route of administration.

EXPERT OPINION

The first dose of the 5-grass pollen tablet should be administered under the supervision of an experienced physician, to allow for optimal monitoring and timely management of AEs, should they occur. The 5-grass pollen tablet can be administered at home after the first dose, and patients and carers should be educated on how to manage adverse reactions, unplanned treatment interruptions and situations in which SLIT should be withheld.

Allergy immunotherapy: what is the evidence for cost saving?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the widespread prevalence of allergic disease, its substantially associated clinical and economic burden, the unique disease-modifying benefits of allergy immunotherapy (AIT), and increased availability of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), a critical update of the evidence for AIT-related cost savings [for both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and SLIT] is particularly relevant and timely. The present article reviews the evidence for SCIT-related and SLIT-related cost savings derived from a systematic review of the published literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Examined were 24 publications pertaining to the health economics of AIT. Except for one early study comparing the costs of AIT to symptomatic drug treatment (SDT), the remainder provide compelling evidence for AIT cost savings (whether SCIT or SLIT) over SDT. Furthermore, of the six studies comparing cost outcomes of SLIT to SCIT, four reported cost savings favoring SLIT.

SUMMARY

This review, spanning research from Southern Europe, Scandinavia, Northern Europe, North America, and the Czech Republic, encompasses a range of perennial and seasonal allergic conditions, including allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis with or without asthma, and rhinoconjunctivitis with or without allergic rhinitis due to house dust mite, grass or ragweed pollen, or a mixture of various allergens. All but one study compellingly demonstrate cost savings conferred by AIT over SDT.

Health economic comparison of SLIT allergen and SCIT allergoid immunotherapy in patients with seasonal grass-allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Allergoids are chemically modified allergen extracts administered to reduce allergenicity and to maintain immunogenicity. Oralair® (the 5-grass tablet) is a sublingual native grass allergen tablet for pre- and co-seasonal treatment. Based on a literature review, meta-analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis the relative effects and costs of the 5-grass tablet versus a mix of subcutaneous allergoid compounds for grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were assessed.

METHODS

A Markov model with a time horizon of nine years was used to assess the costs and effects of three-year immunotherapy treatment. Relative efficacy expressed as standardized mean differences was estimated using an indirect comparison on symptom scores extracted from available clinical trials. The Rhinitis Symptom Utility Index (RSUI) was applied as a proxy to estimate utility values for symptom scores. Drug acquisition and other medical costs were derived from published sources as well as estimates for resource use, immunotherapy persistence, and occurrence of asthma. The analysis was executed from the German payer's perspective, which includes payments of the Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) and additional payments by insurants. Comprehensive deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and different scenarios were performed to test the uncertainty concerning the incremental model outcomes.

RESULTS

The applied model predicted a cost-utility ratio of the 5-grass tablet versus a market mix of injectable allergoid products of € 12,593 per QALY in the base case analysis. Predicted incremental costs and QALYs were € 458 (95% confidence interval, CI: € 220; € 739) and 0.036 (95% CI: 0.002; 0.078), respectively. Compared to the allergoid mix the probability of the 5-grass tablet being the most cost-effective treatment option was predicted to be 76% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of € 20,000. The results were most sensitive to changes in efficacy estimates, duration of the pollen season, and immunotherapy persistence rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests the sublingual native 5-grass tablet to be cost-effective relative to a mix of subcutaneous allergoid compounds. The robustness of these statements has been confirmed in extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Sublingual immunotherapy: what we can learn from the European experience

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the recent European studies on sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). SLIT is currently widely used in Europe and is gaining popularity in the United States.

RECENT FINDINGS

Longer treatment with SLIT compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is needed to reduce the rhinitis symptoms in house dust mite (HDM) allergic children. SLIT appears to be well tolerated and effective for treating rhinitis and asthma in children, adults, and the elderly. Studies on HDM, grass, and ragweed have demonstrated posttreatment efficacy in both monosensitized and polysensitized patients.

SUMMARY

SLIT has been shown to be an effective treatment for airway allergies, and recent studies give support for the use of SLIT as the first choice for allergy treatment compared with medication and SCIT. The use of SLIT may potentially improve the compliance of allergen immunotherapy and may make allergy treatment more accessible and well tolerated.

300IR 5-Grass pollen sublingual tablet offers relief from nasal symptoms in patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablets have been approved for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) with or without conjunctivitis in adults and children >5 years with grass pollen allergy. This study was designed to review data on nasal symptoms with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablets in adults and children.

METHODS

We reviewed data from four double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. Two groups of patients who received a daily dose of either placebo or 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablets starting 4 months before the expected start of the pollen season and continuing through the season were compared (analysis of covariance) for scores of sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal pruritus, nasal congestion, total nasal symptom score (TNSS), and adult Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores.

RESULTS

Data for 266 children (one pediatric trial) and 1036 adults (three trials) were analyzed. Compared with the placebo groups, mean TNSS in the 300IR groups was lower by 22% in children and 19-36% in adults. Among the four nasal symptoms, the lowest scores relative to placebo were for nasal congestion in children (31%) and adults (43%). Mean adult RQLQ scores were 21-31% lower in the 300IR group than in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Allergen immunotherapy with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablets was consistently associated with AR symptom relief in adults and children and provided a clinically meaningful improvement in quality of life.

Five-grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet for the treatment of grass-pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: 5 years of experience

Oralair(®) (OA) (Stallergenes, Antony, France) is a unique pre- and co-seasonal 5-grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet launched in 2008, and now approved in 31 countries worldwide for the treatment of grass-pollen allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis. OA is the first oral treatment with a consistent, well-balanced allergen extract that mimics natural exposure and sensitization. A wealth of data exists from over 5 years of clinical and real-world experience demonstrating the efficacy and safety of OA for grass-pollen-allergy treatment. OA is highly effective from the first pollen season in all patient subgroups, including children and those with comorbid mild asthma, irrespective of sensitization status and symptom severity. OA also has sustained long-term benefits for symptom control and quality of life. This article provides an overview of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacology of OA; its efficacy, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis and its role in clinical practice.

Sublingual immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization position paper 2013 update

We have prepared this document, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2013 Update", according to the evidence-based criteria, revising and updating chapters of the originally published paper, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009", available at http://www.waojournal.org. Namely, these comprise: "Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy;" "Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy" - reporting all the data of all controlled trials published after 2009; "Safety of sublingual immunotherapy" - with the recently published Grading System for adverse reactions; "Impact of sublingual immunotherapy on the natural history of respiratory allergy" - with the relevant evidences published since 2009; "Efficacy of SLIT in children" - with detailed analysis of all the studies; "Definition of SLIT patient selection" - reporting the criteria for eligibility to sublingual immunotherapy; "The future of immunotherapy in the community care setting"; "Methodology of clinical trials according to the current scientific and regulatory standards"; and "Guideline development: from evidence-based medicine to patients' views" - including the evolution of the methods to make clinical recommendations.Additionally, we have added new chapters to cover a few emerging crucial topics: "Practical aspects of schedules and dosages and counseling for adherence" - which is crucial in clinical practice for all treatments; "Perspectives and new approaches" - including recombinant allergens, adjuvants, modified allergens, and the concept of validity of the single products. Furthermore, "Raising public awareness about sublingual immunotherapy", as a need for our patients, and strategies to increase awareness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among patients, the medical community, all healthcare stakeholders, and public opinion, are also reported in detail.

Selection of patients for sublingual versus subcutaneous immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy is the sole treatment for IgE-mediated allergic diseases directed at the underlying mechanism. The two widely accepted administration routes are sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT). We reviewed how patients should best be selected for immunotherapy and how the optimal administration route can be defined. Before deciding SCIT or SLIT, appropriate selection of patients for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is mandatory. To be eligible for AIT, subjects must have a clear medical history of allergic disease, with exacerbation of symptoms on exposure to one or more allergens and a corresponding positive skin or in vitro test. Then the route of administration should be based on: published evidence of clinical and immunologic efficacy (which varies per allergic disease and per allergen); mono- or multi-allergen immunotherapy, for SLIT multi-allergen immunotherapy was not effective; safety: adverse events with SLIT are more frequent, but less severe; and, costs and patient preferences, closely related to adherence issues. All these are discussed in the article.

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto- Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD)

The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already being investigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.

Update on immune mechanisms associated with sublingual immunotherapy: practical implications for the clinician

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is established as a safe and efficacious treatment for patients with type I respiratory allergies. The ability of SLIT to elicit antigen (allergen)-specific tolerance is linked to the peculiar biology of oral antigen-presenting cells. In the absence of danger signals, Langerhans cells, myeloid dendritic cells, and macrophages located in oral tissues, tonsils, and draining cervical lymph nodes are biased toward the induction of T(H)1 and IL-10-producing CD4(+) regulatory T cells, thus supporting tolerance as opposed to inflammation. Sublingual administration does not lead to any detectable systemic exposure of intact allergens nor to IgE neosensitization. Oral tissues contain limited numbers of mast cells located in submucosal areas, thereby explaining the well-established safety profile of SLIT, with mostly local but rare systemic reactions. The induction of CD4(+) regulatory T cells and blocking anti-inflammatory IgGs or IgAs are considered important for tolerance induction after SLIT. Specific molecular signatures associated with tolerogenic dendritic cells were recently reported during the onset of SLIT efficacy in the peripheral blood of patients exhibiting clinical benefit. Collectively, these observations confirm the induction of strong allergen-specific suppressive/tolerogenic immune responses during SLIT and pave the ground for the identification of biomarkers of efficacy. Practical implications of this emerging scientific knowledge are presented (1) to support the rational design of second-generation sublingual vaccines based on purified allergens, vector systems and/or adjuvants and (2) to help the clinician in decision making during his/her practice.