Systematic review of real-world persistence and adherence in subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy

Otolaryngic Allergy Patient Journey Mapping: A Framework for Allergy Immunotherapy Adherence

OBJECTIVES

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic disease but requires long treatment duration and premature cessation is of significant concern. Drivers of premature cessation remain poorly understood and no predictive models currently exist. We hypothesized that a novel patient journey map and de novo real-time patient electronic health status instruments (eHSIs) could effectively capture patient perceived cost, commitment, and treatment benefit to identify individual patients at risk for premature AIT cessation.

STUDY TYPE

Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

METHODS

A single Otolaryngology allergy immunotherapy (AIT) program was studied over 5 years. Instances of premature cessation were classified. An Otolaryngic Allergy Patient Journey Map was developed to identify and target automated, real-time, patient-reported, electronic health status instrument responses.

RESULTS

Data capture was robust, with 61,406 data points collected and an eHSI survey completion rate of 81.3%. However, based on correlation analysis and logistic regression alone, real-time eHSI responses were not predictive of individual patient premature AIT cessation. A total of 597 AIT patients discontinued treatment prematurely: 64.4% stopping within the first year. Specifically, 74.0%-76.3% of subcutaneous AIT patients and 88.5%-100% of sublingual AIT patients did not complete the minimum recommended treatment duration of 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Patient journey mapping can aid in the design of longitudinal care models and patient engagement strategies. Yet, eHSI patient responses of perception of AIT cost, benefit, and convenience did not correlate with the likelihood of premature treatment cessation. Our imperfect clinical intuition may not account for the dynamic drivers of premature AIT discontinuation. Future development of predictive tools feed by large patient-centric data sets may be incorporated into routine practice resulting in delivery of a more streamlined and personalized approach with reduced premature AIT cessation, improved outcomes, and reduced health care expenditures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2024.

Unveiling the Impact of Smoking on Allergic Rhinitis: Disease Severity and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of smoking statuses on disease severity and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) efficacy in allergic rhinitis (AR).

STUDY DESIGN

Open observational cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Five hundred and five AR patients undergoing dust mite allergen SCIT were categorized into never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. AR severity was assessed using widely employed questionnaires. The changes in questionnaire scores pre- and post-SCIT were evaluated for SCIT efficacy. The differences in disease severity and SCIT efficacy were compared for different smoking statuses among AR patients.

RESULTS

Compared to never smokers, former and current smokers exhibited higher proportion of male, alcohol, and asthma (P < .05). Current smokers had a greater prevalence of allergic conjunctivitis than former smokers (P < .05). Before SCIT, AR severity was similar across 3 groups, even after adjusting for confounders (P > .05). Current smokers reported lower SCIT efficacy in the first year (P < .05). By the third year, 3 groups showed comparable long-term efficacy (P > .05). However, current smokers experienced a significant decrease in benefits 2 years post-SCIT (P < .05) and lower improvement rates at the end of the 3-years SCIT period and 2 years following SCIT (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

AR patients across different smoking statuses demonstrated similar baseline disease severity and long-time SCIT efficacy. Active smoking was associated with increased asthma risk, delayed early SCIT efficacy perception, reduced improvement over 3 years, and diminished benefits 2 years after SCIT. Prompt smoking cessation is crucial to mitigate these effects.

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.

Hot topics in allergen immunotherapy, 2023: Current status and future perspective

The importance of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is multifaceted, encompassing both clinical and quality-of-life improvements and cost-effectiveness in the long term. Key mechanisms of allergen tolerance induced by AIT include changes in memory type allergen-specific T- and B-cell responses towards a regulatory phenotype with decreased Type 2 responses, suppression of allergen-specific IgE and increased IgG1 and IgG4, decreased mast cell and eosinophil numbers in allergic tissues and increased activation thresholds. The potential of novel patient enrolment strategies for AIT is taking into account recent advances in biomarkers discoveries, molecular allergy diagnostics and mobile health applications contributing to a personalized approach enhancement that can increase AIT efficacy and compliance. Artificial intelligence can help manage and interpret complex and heterogeneous data, including big data from omics and non-omics research, potentially predict disease subtypes, identify biomarkers and monitor patient responses to AIT. Novel AIT preparations, such as synthetic compounds, innovative carrier systems and adjuvants, are also of great promise. Advances in clinical trial models, including adaptive, complex and hybrid designs as well as real-world evidence, allow more flexibility and cost reduction. The analyses of AIT cost-effectiveness show a clear long-term advantage compared to pharmacotherapy. Important research questions, such as defining clinical endpoints, biomarkers of patient selection and efficacy, mechanisms and the modulation of the placebo effect and alternatives to conventional field trials, including allergen exposure chamber studies are still to be elucidated. This review demonstrates that AIT is still in its growth phase and shows immense development prospects.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Does skin prick test response intensity predict symptom severity and efficacy of subcutaneous immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis?

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of response intensity of allergen skin prick test (SPT) on symptom severity and long-term efficacy of dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

AR Patients diagnosed with dust mite allergy and completed 3 years of SCIT were collected and classified into three groups: grade 2 (SPT of + +), grade 3 (SPT of +  + +) and grade 4 (SPT of +  +  + +). Comparisons between groups were performed to examine the associations of SPT categories and symptom severity and the long-term efficacy of SCIT in AR.

RESULTS

181 AR patients were included. There was no significant difference in the baseline TNSS, SMS, RQLQ and VAS, and particularly to symptom severity grading among three SPT grade groups (P > 0.05). The moderate-severe AR was more likely to be smoking and accompany with asthma and had higher prevalence of sensitization to cockroach, mixed grass and tree pollen than mild AR (P < 0.05). Prevalence of sensitization to cockroach, mixed grass, ragweed and animal dander was increased in AR patients with asthma and allergic conjunctivitis (P < 0.05). Furthermore, after 3 years of SCIT, no statistical differences in TNSS, SMS, RQLQ, VAS and long-term efficacy were observed among the three SPT grade groups (P > 0.05). Similarly, long-term outcomes of patients with different SPT grades did not differ among different clinical characteristics and different efficacy determination criteria (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The SPT response intensity cannot be used as an objective evaluation index for symptom severity and the long-term efficacy of SCIT in AR patients.

Future Directions of Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: Experts' Perspective

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is broadly used all over the world as the only available disease-modifying treatment option. The aim of this experts' perspective is to address 7 important unmet needs for the further direction of AIT and to provide the readership with the authors' positions on these topics. An international group of experts in the field of AIT have formulated 7 important aspects for the future position of AIT, performed a current literature review, and proposed a consented position on these topics. The aspects discussed and consented by the authors include: (1) alternative routes of allergen application in AIT, (2) potential of recombinant vaccines, (3) the role of allergy diagnosis based on component-resolved diagnosis for AIT composition, (4) the impact of COVID-19 vaccination for further innovations in AIT, (5) potential of combining biologics to AIT, (6) future innovations in high-risk children/adolescents, and (7) the future regulatory position on AIT. Important unmet needs and topics for AIT have been addressed in this expert review. The authors' views and personal position on these 7 aspects have also been elaborated.

Causes of Non-Adherence to Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy: A Foundation towards a Patient-Personalized Approach

BACKGROUND

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying therapy for allergic conditions, resulting in a long-lasting tolerance beyond the duration of the treatment. Due to the strong relationship between the effectiveness, its optimal duration (at least three years) and the observation of the correct administration protocol, appropriate adherence to the plan of treatment represents a critical factor for the therapeutical success of AIT.

METHODS

Analysis of studies about the rate of adherence in subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy, which are the main routes of administration of AIT.

RESULTS

There are different causes leading to a premature interruption of the therapy or to it being incorrectly carried out; the most reported include erroneous expectations of the effectiveness and the adverse effects, economic issues, inconvenience and unrelated clinical conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

An attentive analysis of the main causes of dropouts may be useful to improve the management of these patients and to develop new strategies for a personalized approach. These strategies should be dynamic, involving attentive communication between the physician and the patient about all the possible criticalities, especially in the initial phase of the therapy, and facilitating, as much as possible, access to healthcare providers over the course of the maintenance phase, including by exploiting technological tools.

Diagnosis and Management of Insect Allergy: Barriers and Facilitators in the United States

While guidelines recommend testing and treatment for patients with venom-induced anaphylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality, significant barriers prevent most patients from receiving the evaluation and treatments that they need. This review examines these barriers in the United States along with the facilitators that can be used to overcome them.

Sublingual immunotherapy persistence and adherence in real-world settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) adherence in the literature is often evaluated in closely monitored trials that may impact patient behavior; real-world SLIT adherence is relatively unknown. This systematic review intends to assess SLIT adherence in studies that reflect real-world settings.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus for real-world studies examining SLIT adherence was performed. Monitored clinical trials were excluded. Paired investigators independently reviewed all articles. For this review, "persistence" was defined as continuing therapy and not being lost to follow-up and "adherence" as persistence in accordance with prescribed SLIT dose, dosing schedule, and duration. Article quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale and then converted to AHRQ standards (good, fair, and poor).

RESULTS

The search yielded 1596 nonduplicate abstracts, from which 32 articles (n = 63,683 patients) met criteria. Twenty-six (81%) studies reported persistence rates ranging from 7.0% to 88.7%, and 18 (56%) reported adherence rates ranging from 9.6% to 97.0%. Twenty-one (66%) studies surveyed reasons for discontinuing SLIT. All studies were Oxford level of evidence 2b and of good (n = 12) to fair (n = 20) quality.

CONCLUSION

Reported rates of real-world SLIT persistence and adherence varied widely by study methodology (e.g., follow-up duration, objective vs subjective assessment). Studies with longer follow-up generally reported lower rates; 3-year persistence ranged from 7% to 59.0% and 3-year adherence from 9.6% to 49.0%. Future studies of SLIT adherence would benefit from following concordant definitions of persistence/adherence and standardized reporting metrics. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.