Patient preferences for route of allergy immunotherapy: a comparison of four delivery methods

Shared Decision-Making in Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) Options Using a Questionnaire for Respiratory Allergic Patients: A Delphi Consensus Study

Purpose

The objective of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire, through a Delphi consensus, to be used by allergists in their routine clinical practice to assess the preferences of patients starting allergen immunotherapy (AIT) treatment using an objective approach.

Patients and Methods

A Delphi consensus-driven process was used. The scientific committee, composed of 15 allergists, led the study and participated in the preparation of the questionnaire. Two-hundred panelists from different Spanish regions were invited to complete a 16-item questionnaire on a nine-point Likert scale covering six topic blocks. Consensus was achieved if ≥66.6% of panelists reached agreement or disagreement.

Results

Of the 200 experts invited to participate in the Delphi process, a total of 195 (97.5%) answered the questionnaire. The panel experts reached a consensus on "agreement" on a total of 12 of the 16 (75.0%) items, covering a total of six categories: (a) patient knowledge (2 questions), (b) barriers to patient adherence (3 questions), (c) patient behavior (4 questions), (d) future actions (3 questions), (e) treatment costs (2 questions), and (f) final patient preferences (2 questions).

Conclusion

This Delphi consensus study validated a set of twelve recommended questions for patients objectively assessing their preferences and suitability for the most common AIT options available. The questionnaire intends to assist allergists in making an objective, unconditioned decision regarding the best AIT option for each patient, after informing them about the different routes.

Minimization of ragweed allergy immunotherapy costs through use of the sublingual immunotherapy tablet in Canadian children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT), in the form of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with alum-precipitated aqueous extracts, SCIT with a modified ragweed pollen allergen tyrosine adsorbate (MRPATA; Pollinex^®-R), or a sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet are options for the treatment of ragweed pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in Canadian children. A cost minimization analysis evaluated the economic implications of the use of the ragweed SLIT-tablet vs SCIT in Canadian children with ragweed ARC.

METHODS

A cost minimization analysis was conducted comparing the short ragweed SLIT-tablet, 12 Amb a 1-U, preseasonally with preseasonal ragweed SCIT, annual ragweed SCIT, or MRPATA. The analysis was conducted over a time horizon of 3 years from a public payer perspective in Ontario and Quebec. Resources and costs associated with medication and services of healthcare professionals were considered for each treatment. The resource and cost input values for the model were obtained from published literature and validated by Canadian clinical experts in active allergy practice. A discount rate of 1.5% was applied. Several scenario analyses were conducted to determine the impact of many of the key base case assumptions on the outcomes.

RESULTS

Over the total 3-year time horizon, the ragweed SLIT-tablet had a potential cost savings of $900.14 in Ontario and $1023.14 in Quebec when compared with preseasonal ragweed SCIT, of $6613.22 in Ontario and $8750.64 in Quebec when compared with annual ragweed SCIT, and $79.62 in Ontario and $429.49 in Quebec when compared with MRPATA. The ragweed SLIT-tablet had higher drug costs compared with the other AIT options, but lower costs for healthcare professional services. The lower costs for healthcare professional services with the ragweed SLIT-tablet were driven by the need for fewer office visits than SCIT. Scenario analysis indicated that costs were most impacted by including societal costs (e.g., costs associated with patient/caregiver travel and time lost). The potential cost savings of the ragweed SLIT-tablet versus SCIT and MRPATA was maintained in most scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cost minimization analysis, the ragweed SLIT-tablet provided estimated cost savings from a public payer perspective for the treatment of ragweed ARC in Canadian children compared with SCIT or MRPATA.

Preference for sublingual immunotherapy with tablets in a Spanish population with allergic rhinitis

Background

This study investigated patients' preference for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) administered as either sublingual immunotherapy‐tablets versus monthly or weekly subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) from a Spanish patient perspective.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of two blocks with eight choice sets in each was constructed to elicit the preferences for AIT. Three attributes were included in the DCE for the mode of administration, including the frequency of administration, the risk of systemic reactions and the co‐payment. Adults and caregivers of children with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) were included if they were not currently receiving or had not previously received AIT.

Results

In total, 587 adults and 613 caregivers started the survey. Of those, 579 adults and 611 caregivers completed the survey and were included in the study. Both adults and caregivers had a significant preference for tablets compared with both monthly and weekly injections (p ≤ 0.0001). Furthermore, the respondents showed a significant preference for reducing the risk of systemic reactions. Subgroup analyses showed that caregivers of polyallergic children and female caregivers were significantly less price sensitive when choosing their preferred treatment.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that both adults with AR and caregivers of children with AR prefer daily SLIT‐tablets to SCIT with either a weekly or monthly dose schedule.

Randomized controlled trial of ragweed sublingual immunotherapy tablet in the subpopulation of Canadian children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Background

Post hoc analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability of the ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet in Canadian adults with ragweed pollen-induced allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C). This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the ragweed SLIT-tablet in the subpopulation of Canadian children and adolescents with AR/C in a previously described randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Methods

The trial (NCT02478398) was conducted in North American and European children/adolescents ages 5–17 years with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C with or without asthma (FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted). Participants were randomized to daily ragweed SLIT-tablet (12 Amb a 1-U) or placebo for up to 28 weeks. The primary endpoint was the average total combined score (TCS; sum of rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score [DSS] and daily medication score [DMS]) during peak ragweed pollen season (RPS). Key secondary endpoints were TCS during the entire RPS, and DSS and DMS during peak RPS. Post hoc analyses of the primary and key secondary endpoints were conducted in the subpopulation of Canadian participants.

Results

Of the 1025 randomized participants, 246 (SLIT-tablet, n = 116; placebo, n = 130) were in the Canadian subpopulation. In the total study population, relative TCS (95% CI) improvement with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo was − 38.3% (− 46.0%, − 29.7%; least square [LS] mean difference, − 2.73; P < 0.001) during peak RPS. In the Canadian subpopulation, relative TCS improvements with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo were − 40.8% (− 54.5%, − 20.2%; LS mean difference, − 1.59; P = 0.001) during peak RPS and − 36.6% (− 50.2%, − 16.5%; LS mean difference, − 1.36; P = 0.002) during the entire RPS. DSS and DMS during peak RPS in the Canadian subpopulation improved with SLIT-tablet versus placebo by − 30.6% (− 45.2%, − 7.7%; LS mean difference, − 0.94; P = 0.010) and − 77.2% (− 97.5%, − 44.2%; LS mean difference, − 0.66; P = 0.003), respectively. No events of anaphylaxis, airway compromise, intramuscular epinephrine administration, eosinophilic esophagitis, or severe treatment-related systemic allergic reactions were reported in the overall population or Canadian subpopulation.

Conclusion

Efficacy and safety of the ragweed SLIT-tablet in Canadian children/adolescents with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C was consistent with the total study population. The ragweed SLIT-tablet resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms, decreased symptom-relieving medication use, and was well tolerated in Canadian children/adolescents.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02478398. Registered June 23, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02478398?term=NCT02478398&draw=2&rank=1

Preference for Immunotherapy with Tablets by People with Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

People with allergic rhinitis (AR) who are not controlled on conventional therapy can be treated using allergy immunotherapy (AIT) administered as tablets, injections or drops. In the US, the use of sublingual immunotherapy as tablets (SLIT-tablets) is limited in comparison to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated patients' preference for SLIT-tablets vs monthly or weekly SCIT from a US patient perspective.

METHODS

We carried out a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of two blocks with eight choice sets. Adults and caregivers of children with moderate-to-severe AR were included if they had not previously or were not currently receiving AIT. Three attributes were included in the design: the mode and frequency of administration, the risk of systemic reactions and the co-payment.

RESULTS

A total of 724 adults with AR and 665 caregivers of children with AR were included in the study. Both adults and caregivers had a significant preference for SLIT-tablets compared with both weekly and monthly injections and for less risk of anaphylactic shock. Caregivers were more risk-averse than adults when choosing their treatment, and the younger the child, the more risk-averse the caregiver. The preference for SLIT-tablets was found for both monoallergic and polyallergic adults and caregivers of monoallergic and polyallergic children. Respondents not wanting AIT for free were more risk-averse than those indicating that they wanted AIT for free.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SLIT-tablets is the preferred route of administration for AIT among adults and caregivers of children with AR.

Compliance in subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy: A nationwide study

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhino-conjunctivitis is a highly prevalent condition. In moderate to severe cases, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a cost-effective therapeutic option. Previous data have reported a large difference in treatment compliance of subcutaneously (SCIT) and sublingually (SLIT) administered AIT.

METHODS

By use of the unique civil registration number assigned to all Danish citizens and the Danish National Health Service Prescription Database, compliance rates of all patients prescribed with grass pollen AIT from January 1998 until December 2016 were analysed annually during the three-year treatment period.

RESULTS

The male/female ratio was close to 1:1 in SCIT, while SLIT was more frequently used by men. A large proportion of users was children or adolescents (32% and 45%, SCIT and SLIT, respectively). Compliance of both subcutaneous and sublingual treatment gradually fell each year; compliance in year 3 was 57% and 53% for subcutaneous and sublingual treatment, respectively. Compliance of grass pollen sublingual treatment was also analysed each year after registration on the Danish market. Compliance significantly increased following the introduction and stabilised on a relatively high level.

CONCLUSION

Based on previous studies, we hypothesised that AIT compliance would be low, especially in SLIT. However, in Denmark, compliance in SCIT and SLIT was almost similar, and the majority of patients completed the three-year treatment period with a compliance in the last quintile.

Efficacy and Safety of Ragweed SLIT-Tablet in Children with Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis in a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet reduces symptoms and symptom-relieving medication use in adults with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) but has not been evaluated in children.

OBJECTIVE

This international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ragweed SLIT-tablet in children with AR/C.

METHODS

Children (N = 1025; 77.7% polysensitized) aged 5 to 17 years with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C with or without asthma (FEV₁ ≥80% predicted) were randomized 1:1 to daily ragweed SLIT-tablet (12 Amb a 1-Unit) or placebo for up to 28 weeks (NCT02478398). The primary end point was the average total combined score (TCS; sum of rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score [DSS] and daily medication score [DMS]) during peak ragweed pollen season (RPS). Key secondary end points were TCS during the entire RPS, and DSS and DMS during the peak RPS.

RESULTS

Relative TCS (95% CI) improvements with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo were -38.3% (-46.0% to -29.7%; least square [LS] mean difference, -2.73; P < .001) during peak RPS and -32.4% (-40.7% to -23.3%; LS mean difference, -1.86; P < .001) during the entire RPS. DSS and DMS during peak RPS improved with SLIT-tablet versus placebo by -35.4% (-43.2% to -26.1%; LS mean difference, -1.40; P < .001) and -47.7% (-59.8% to -32.5%; LS mean difference, -1.84; P < .001), respectively. Asthma DSS, short-acting β-agonist use, and nocturnal awakenings during peak RPS improved with SLIT-tablet versus placebo by -30.7%, -68.1%, and -75.1%, respectively (all nominal P ≤ .02). No events of anaphylaxis, airway compromise, or severe treatment-related systemic allergic reactions were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Ragweed SLIT-tablet significantly improved symptoms and decreased symptom-relieving medication use in children with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C and was well tolerated.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy suppresses Th2 inflammation and induces neutralizing antibodies, but sublingual immunotherapy suppresses airway hyperresponsiveness in grass pollen mouse models for allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Both subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SCIT and SLIT) have been shown to effectively suppress allergic manifestations upon allergen exposure, providing long-term relief from symptoms in allergic disorders including allergic asthma. Clinical studies directly comparing SCIT and SLIT report a different kinetics and magnitude of immunological changes induced during treatment. Comparative studies into the mechanisms underlying immune suppression in SCIT and SLIT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to establish an experimental model for grass pollen (GP) SCIT and SLIT that would allow a head-to-head comparison of the two treatments.

METHODS

BALB/c mice were sensitized with GP extract, followed by SCIT and SLIT treatments with various GP dosages. Subsequently, we challenged mice with GP and measured airway responsiveness (AHR), GP-specific immunoglobulins, ear swelling tests (EST), eosinophilic inflammation in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and T cell cytokine release after restimulation of lung cells (IL-5, IL-10, and IL-13).

RESULTS

We find that SLIT treatment was able to suppress allergen-induced AHR, while allergic inflammation was not effectively suppressed even at the highest GP dose in this model. In contrast, SCIT treatment induced higher levels of GP-specific IgG1, while SLIT was superior in inducing a GP-specific IgG2a response, which was associated with increased Th1 activity in lung tissue after SLIT, but not SCIT treatment. Interestingly, SCIT was able to suppress Th2-type cytokine production in lung cell suspensions, while SLIT failed to do so.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In conclusion, GP-SCIT suppresses Th2 inflammation and induced neutralizing antibodies, while GP-SLIT suppresses the clinically relevant lung function parameters in an asthma mouse model, indicating that the two application routes depend on partially divergent mechanisms of tolerance induction. Interestingly, these data mirror observations in clinical studies, underscoring the translational value of these mouse models.

[Adherence in specific immunotherapy]

Allergies are steadily gaining in importance in the Western world. For over one hundred years, immunology has been the only causal treatment. Specific immunotherapy (SIT) aims at the cure of allergy or at least freedom from allergy symptoms. In association with this, adherence poses a complex problem. Both treatment applications commonly used in Germany-sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy-show poor persistence on the part of the patients. In most cases, SIT is not carried out to the end of the recommended duration and instead is discontinued prematurely. Corresponding figures from 3‑year studies in the literature range from 41- 93% for uncompleted SLIT and from 40-77% for uncompleted SCIT. Patient adherence is subject to influencing factors of various dimensions that are interdependent in complex relationships. The physician-patient relationship is just as decisive a factor for treatment success as the patient's understanding of allergy, treatment, and the importance of adherence.

New Routes of Allergen Immunotherapy

Objectives

Allergen immunotherapy is the only cure for immunoglobulin E mediated type I respiratory allergies. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are the most common treatments. In this article, we reviewed new routes of allergen immunotherapy.

Methods

Data on alternative routes to allow intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT), epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT), oral immunotherapy (OIT), and oral mucosal immunotherapy (OMIT) were gathered from the literature and were discussed.

Results

ILIT features direct injection of allergens into lymph nodes. ILIT may be clinically effective after only a few injections and induces allergen-specific immunoglobulin G, similarly to SCIT. A limitation of ILIT is that intralymphatic injections are required. EPIT features allergen administration by using patches mounted on the skin. EPIT seeks to target epidermal antigen–presenting Langerhans cells rather than mast cells or the vasculature; this should reduce both local and systemic adverse effects. LNIT involves the spraying of allergen extracts into the nasal cavity. Natural or chemically modified allergens (the latter, termed allergoids, lack immunoglobulin E reactivity) are prepared in a soluble form. OIT involves the regular administration of small amounts of a food allergen by mouth and commences with low oral doses, which are then increased as tolerance develops. OMIT seeks to deliver allergenic proteins to an expanded population of Langerhans cells in the mucosa of the oral cavity.

Conclusions

ILIT, EPIT, LNIT, OIT, and OMIT are new routes for allergen immunotherapy. They are safe and effective.