Dosing of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: evidence-based review with recommendations

Allergen Immunotherapy: The Evidence Supporting the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy and Sublingual Forms of Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis/Conjunctivitis and Asthma

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a recognized key therapeutic modality for the treatment of allergic respiratory disease. Definitive studies have provided evidence-based data to demonstrate its effectiveness in allergic rhinitis and asthma due to the inhalation of proteinaceous allergic substances from specific seasonal pollens, dust mites, animal allergens, and certain mold spores. Over the ensuing decades, laboratory investigations have provided objective evidence to demonstrate immunologic changes, including production of protective IgG antibody, suppression of IgE antibody, upregulation of regulatory T cells, and induction of a state of immune tolerance to the offending allergen(s). Tangential to this work were carefully designed clinical studies that defined allergen dose and duration of treatment, established the importance of preparing extracts with standardized allergens (or well-defined extracts) based on major protein moieties, and used allergen provocation models to demonstrate efficacy superior to placebo. In the United States, the use of subcutaneous immunotherapy extracts for AIT was grandfathered in by the Food and Drug Administration based on expert literature review. In contrast, sublingual tablet immunotherapy underwent formal clinical development programs (phase I-III clinical trials) that provided the necessary clinical evidence for safety and efficacy that led to regulatory agency approvals for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in properly characterized patients with allergy. The allergy specialist's treatment options currently include traditional subcutaneous AIT and specific sublingual tablets approved for grass, ragweed, house dust mites, trees belonging to the birch-homologous group, and Japanese cedar. Tangential to this are sublingual drops that are increasingly being used off-label (albeit not approved by the Food and Drug Administration) in the United States. This article will review the evidence-based literature supporting the use of these forms of AIT, as well as focus on several current controversies and gaps in our knowledge base that have relevance for the appropriate selection of patients for treatment with specific AIT.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America

Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.

Clinical Relevance and Advantages of Intradermal Test Results in 371 Patients with Allergic Rhinitis, Asthma and/or Otitis Media with Effusion

Background: We evaluated the value of positive intradermal dilution testing (IDT) after negative skin prick tests (SPT) by retrospectively determining allergy immunotherapy (AIT) outcomes. Methods: This private practice, cohort study compared the relative value of SPT vs. IDT in 371 adults and children with suspected manifestations of allergy: chronic allergic rhinitis (AR), asthma and/or chronic otitis media with effusion (OME). The primary outcome measure was symptom resolution following immunotherapy, as determined by symptom severity questionnaires completed by patients before and after AIT. Results: Positive IDT identified 193 (52%) patients who would not otherwise have been diagnosed. IDT detected 3.7-fold more allergens per patient than SPT (8.56 vs. 2.3; p < 0.01). Patients positive only on IDT responded to AIT equally well as those identifiable by SPT, independent of allergen sensitivity (67% by SPT vs. 62% by IDT; p = 0.69, not significantly different). Conclusion: Intradermal titration can identify patients who will benefit from allergy immunotherapy more accurately than SPT. Outcomes analysis in 371 patients shows that IDT doubled their chance of successful treatment with no greater risk of therapeutic failure. Positive IDT, following negative SPT, is clinically relevant and offers superior sensitivity over SPT for detecting allergens clinically relevant to diagnosis of AIT-responsive atopic disease.

Epicutaneous Allergen Administration with Microneedles as a Novel Method of Immunotherapy for House Dust Mite (HDM) Allergic Rhinitis

PURPOSE

Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) is being studied as a method for treating allergic rhinitis because of skin immunology, user convenience and enhanced patient compliance. However, the use of EPIT is limited because of the very low skin permeability of the allergen. In this study, the limitations of EPIT were overcome by using sophisticated delivery with microneedles. The immunological efficacy of this method was studied in a murine model of house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

The length of the microneedles was 400 μm, and the coating formulation containing HDM was locally distributed near the end of the microneedle tips. The change of distribution of FITC-dextran in porcine skin in vitro was observed over time using a confocal microscope. The effect of immunotherapy in the allergic rhinitis model, sensitized by HDM-coated microneedles (HDM MNs), was observed according to the amount of HDM applied.

RESULTS

The microneedles delivered the coating formulation with precision into the porcine skin layer, and the coated formulation on the microneedles was all dissolved in the porcine skin in vitro within 20 min of administration and then gradually diffused into the skin layer. When HDM MNs were administered to mice, a 0.1-μg dose of HDM provided the most effective immunization, and improved efficacy was shown between 0.1- and 0.5- μg doses of HDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective immunotherapy can be achieved by precision delivery of the allergen into the skin layer, and microneedles can provide effective immunological therapy by delivering the appropriate amount of allergen.

Enhanced Efficacy of Dust Mite Sublingual Immunotherapy in Low-Response Allergic Rhinitis Patients after Dose Increment at 6 Months: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) involves a dose-response relationship and inadequate dosage might not achieve a favorable clinical effect.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of increasing SLIT dosage at 6 months in patients with house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) who had low response to treatment.

METHODS

A total of 157 AR participants aged 4-60 years were enrolled and received SLIT with Dermatophagoides farinae drops. After 6 months of SLIT, patients were interviewed and then classified into a high-response (HR) group and a low-response (LR) group based on the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) reduction rate. Patients with a CSMS reduction rate over 50% were defined as HR and continued the original dose, while patients with a CSMS reduction rate ranging from 20 to 50% were defined as LR and received an increased dose (percentage of dosage increment, 33.33% for patients aged <14 years and 50% for patients aged ≥14 years). Patients with a CSMS reduction rate below 20% were considered nonresponse (NR) and recommended to withdraw from SLIT. CSMS, visual analog scale (VAS), and adverse events were assessed at 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 years during the 3-year treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 54 and 56 patients completed the treatment in the HR and LR groups, respectively. The CSMS and VAS of both groups decreased significantly at 6 months (p < 0.05). Significant differences between the two groups were found in CSMS and VAS at 6 months and 1 year (p < 0.05), but not in later follow-ups (p > 0.05). The improvement of adults in the LR group was significantly lower than that of children at 6 months (p < 0.05), but there was no difference in later follow-ups (p > 0.05). There was no difference in CSMS or VAS in patients with monosensitization and polysensitization in the same treatment group at 1 year and in subsequent visits (p> 0.05). Overall, 47 patients withdrew from this study due to NR (n = 22) and other reasons (n = 25).

CONCLUSIONS

Six months might be a critical time point for efficacy assessment and dosage adjustment for AR patients after SLIT. In patients with low response, dosage enhancement within a certain range may enhance the effectiveness of SLIT.

Clinical aspects of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and drops

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is administered via tablets (SLIT-T) or liquid drops (SLIT-D). In North America, currently 4 SLIT-T formulations are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for allergy immunotherapy, and SLIT-D is an off-label use of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) extracts.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast aspects of SLIT-T and SLIT-D, including physical characteristics, mechanism of action, dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed literature review (no limits), product prescribing information, and manufacturer websites.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Publications related to physical characteristics, mechanism of action, dosing, efficacy, safety, and adherence.

RESULTS

Published evidence indicates that tablet and drop formulations differ in regard to physical characteristics, dosing, and strength of evidence for efficacy. Whether there are any differences in absorption and mechanism of action between the 2 formulations is currently unknown. Optimal dosing, efficacy, and safety have been established for SLIT-T. In contrast, in North America there is little support for efficacy of SLIT-D from randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, and dose ranges have not been appropriately evaluated. SLIT-T treats a single allergen, whereas in the United States SLIT-D often contains multiple allergens to treat polysensitization. The safety profiles of SLIT-T and SLIT-D appear similar, and both formulations are considered safer than SCIT.

CONCLUSION

Professional guidelines should make a clear distinction between SLIT-T and SLIT-D in their recommendations to minimize confusion with the umbrella term SLIT.

SCIT Versus SLIT: Which One Do You Recommend, Doc?

Allergic rhinitis is a prevalent condition that has a significant impact on the quality of life of many patients. When initial therapy fails to control the symptoms, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been suggested as an option by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters. The 2 main forms of AIT are via subcutaneous and sublingual routes, called subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy, respectively. There is debate about which is the better option for patients with each method offering its own pros and cons. We present 2 patients with allergic rhinitisAR that were deemed good candidates for AIT and explore current evidence for both subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed with the goal of providing a framework for the physician when deciding on AIT for their patients. In addition, we explore the use of AIT in patients with asthma and atopic dermatitis as potential patient populations that may benefit from the treatment. We use the discussion to provide recommendations regarding which method of AIT is best suited for both our patients.

Quality-of-life outcomes in patients who underwent subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy in a real-world clinical setting

OBJECTIVE

To compare changes in quality of life (QOL) that resulted from sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in a real-world clinical setting.

BACKGROUND

SLIT is established as a viable alternative to SCIT for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Although comparative trials are increasingly available, few studies have examined QOL outcomes between these two treatments.

METHODS

One hundred and five participants who underwent immunotherapy for airborne allergies were enrolled in this prospective, single-center study. Forty participants completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) at initiation of therapy, after 6 months, and after 1 year of therapy. Only patients with complete time points were included in the ultimate analysis. Twenty-nine of these participants underwent SCIT and 11 underwent SLIT. The effects of age, sex, and asthma history were also examined.

RESULTS

The participants in both groups demonstrated improvements in QOL regarding allergic rhinoconjunctivitis over the study period. However, the change in the RQLQ score from both baseline to 6 months and baseline to 1 year was only statistically significant in the SCIT group (p = 0.002, 6 months and 1 year). The participants in the SCIT group also demonstrated statistically significant improvement from baseline to 1 year in the specific domains of practical and emotional functioning, nasal symptoms, non-nasal/eye symptoms, and sleep. After 1 year, both SCIT and SLIT demonstrated a minimally important difference from baseline in the overall RQLQ score. Age <35 years in the SCIT group had a significant positive impact on QOL improvement (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Although improvements in QOL were noted in both groups, changes in overall scores and the majority of domains only achieved statistical significance in the SCIT group. A small study population and difficulties adhering to immunotherapy dosing schedules in the SLIT group may be contributing factors.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Sublingual versus subcutaneous immunotherapy: patient adherence at a large German allergy center

BACKGROUND

Many placebo-controlled studies have demonstrated that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective therapy for treating allergies. Both commonly used routes, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), require high patient adherence to be successful. In the literature, numbers describing adherence vary widely; this investigation compares these two routes of therapy directly.

METHODS

All data were retrieved from the patient data management system of a center for dermatology, specific allergology, and environmental medicine in Germany. All 330 patients (aged 13-89 years) included in this study had commenced AIT between 2003 and 2011, thus allowing a full 3-year AIT cycle to be considered for each investigated patient.

RESULTS

In this specific center, SCIT was prescribed to 62.7% and SLIT to 37.3% of all included patients. The total dropout rate of the whole patient cohort was 34.8%. Overall, SLIT patients showed a higher dropout rate (39.0%) than did SCIT patients (32.4%); however, the difference between these groups was not significant. Also, no significant difference between the overall dropout rates for men and for women was observed. A Kaplan-Meier curve of the patient collective showed a remarkably high dropout rate for the first year of therapy.

CONCLUSION

The analysis presented in this single-center study shows that most patients who discontinue AIT do so during the first year of therapy. Patients seem likely to finish the 3-year therapy cycle if they manage to adhere to treatment throughout the first year. Strategies for preventing nonadherence in AIT, therefore, need to be developed and standardized in future investigations.

Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Useful Tool for the Allergist in Private Practice

This is a review of the author's experience with Sublingual Immunotherapy in a private office setting. Sublingual Immunotherapy should be considered by any allergy practitioner as a useful tool. Sublingual Immunotherapy is safe while at the same time it is effective. It enables the practitioner to treat asthmatics and young children without the concerns implicit with allergy injections.