Safety of allergen immunotherapy

Safety considerations in providing allergen immunotherapy in the office

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights the risks of allergy immunotherapy, methods to improve the quality and safety of allergy treatment, the current status of allergy quality metrics, and the future of quality measurement. In the current healthcare environment, the emphasis on outcomes measurement is increasing, and providers must be better equipped in the development, measurement, and reporting of safety and quality measures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Immunotherapy offers the only potential cure for allergic disease and asthma. Although well tolerated and effective, immunotherapy can be associated with serious consequence, including anaphylaxis and death. Many predisposing factors and errors that lead to serious systemic reactions are preventable, and the evaluation and implementation of quality measures are crucial to developing a safe immunotherapy practice. Although quality metrics for immunotherapy are in their infancy, they will become increasingly sophisticated, and providers will face increased pressure to deliver safe, high-quality, patient-centered, evidence-based, and efficient allergy care.

SUMMARY

The establishment of safety in the allergy office involves recognition of potential risk factors for anaphylaxis, the development and measurement of quality metrics, and changing systems-wide practices if needed. Quality improvement is a continuous process, and although national allergy-specific quality metrics do not yet exist, they are in development.

Impact of quality improvement measures on the delivery of allergy immunotherapy: a 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Anaphylaxis is the most serious potential complication from allergy treatment with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Quality measures were developed with the goal to decrease the incidence of complications resulting from SCIT and improve the safety of care provided.

METHODS

The incidence and characteristics of anaphylaxis episodes resulting from SCIT was measured between 2008 and 2012 prior to implementation of quality measures including vial verification, vial testing, and standardized training across 6 allergy delivery sites. Errors and anaphylaxis rates were then tracked prospectively over a 2-year period after implementation of these process measures.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2012 there were 9 episodes of anaphylaxis or 0.02% of injections/year. Eight patients had sufficient information from which to derive meaningful data. Patient identification error led to anaphylaxis in 2 patients, dosing error in 2, and compounding error in 1 patient. In 2 patients, anaphylaxis occurred with advancement during pollen season, and in 1 patient no clear reason could be identified although she had asthma as a risk factor. After implementation of quality improvement measures the anaphylaxis rate fell to 0 of 8948 injections for years 2013 and 2014.

CONCLUSION

Errors in the mixing and administration of allergy serum comprised the majority of identifiable factors that led to anaphylaxis. Implementation of quality measures, including vial verification and vial testing, can improve safety and decrease anaphylaxis rates in the delivery of allergy immunotherapy.

Safety of home-based and office allergy immunotherapy: A multicenter prospective study

During a 1-year period, 27 otolaryngic allergy practices recorded all systemic reactions to immunotherapy resulting from 635,600 patient visits and 1,144,000 injections. Sixty percent of injections were given at home. Major systemic reactions were observed after 0. 005% of injections. There were no hospitalizations or deaths. Eighty-seven percent of major reactions began within 20 minutes of injection. Frequently observed risk factors for major reactions were buildup phase of immunotherapy, active asthma, and first injection from a treatment vial. Home and office injections had similar rates of total systemic reactions, but home-based immunotherapy had far fewer major reactions. Home-based immunotherapy was found to be safe. The methods and precautions used to treat patients with this degree of safety are specified and discussed.

A double-blind study of the discontinuation of ragweed immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy effectively treats the symptoms of allergic rhinitis and improves its pathophysiology. We studied whether the effects of immunotherapy on the early response to nasal challenge with antigen and seasonal symptoms persist after discontinuation.

METHODS

Twenty subjects with ragweed allergy who were receiving immunotherapy and who had nasal challenges performed before initiation of treatment were selected. The patients had been receiving maintenance therapy with aqueous ragweed extract at a dose of 12 microg of Amb a 1 equivalent for a minimum of 3 years, at which point they were randomized to receive either placebo injections or to continue with the maintenance dose. Nasal challenges were performed before and 1 year after randomization. Nasal challenges were monitored by counting the number of sneezes and measuring histamine, N-alpha-tosyl-L-arginine methyl ester-esterase activity, and kinins in recovered nasal lavages. In the same year symptom diaries were collected during the ragweed season.

RESULTS

The initial immunotherapy significantly reduced responses to nasal challenge in both groups. The group continuing to receive active treatment showed no significant changes from the response before randomization. In contrast, the group randomized to placebo treatment showed a partial return of histamine, kinins, and N-alpha-tosyl-L-arginine methyl ester-esterase in nasal secretions and the numbers of sneezes. IgG antibodies to ragweed declined only in the group switched to placebo treatment. Seasonal rises of IgE antibodies to ragweed did not return during the first season after treatment was stopped. Symptoms reported during the ragweed season were not different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

One year after discontinuation of ragweed immunotherapy, nasal challenges showed partial recrudescence of mediator responses even though reports during the season appeared to indicate continued suppression of symptoms.

Grass pollen immunotherapy: efficacy and safety during a 4-year follow-up study

Grass pollen immunotherapy is effective, although efficacy must be balanced against side-effects. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 40 adult patients with summer hay fever, immunotherapy with a depot grass pollen extract (Phleum pratense, Alutard SQ) reduced symptoms and medication requirements with an acceptable minimal level of side-effects (31). The original placebo group, as well as the actively treated group, have now received active immunotherapy in an open fashion for a further 3 years. An important question was whether continued injection treatment was accompanied by maintained clinical improvement. By analysis of diary symptoms, rescue medication, and visual analogue scores during the pollen season, we show that efficacy was maintained throughout the 3-4-year study period. Clinical improvement was accompanied by a sustained and marked decrease in immediate conjunctival allergen sensitivity and a further significant decrease in the size of the allergen-induced late cutaneous response. In contrast, an initial decrease in the allergen-induced immediate cutaneous response was not maintained at 3-4 years. Of the patients, 37/40 completed the first year, 33/40 the second year, and 32/40 the third year of treatment. Patients dropped out for reasons other than the outcome of immunotherapy. During a total of 2598 injections, five immediate systemic reactions were observed, all during the induction (not maintenance) phase, and all occurred within 10 min of injection and responded promptly to adrenaline. Grass pollen immunotherapy is effective and safe, provided it is performed on carefully selected patients by trained physicians with immediate access to resuscitative measures.

Allergen immunotherapy. Review of efficacy and current practice

The modern use of allergen immunotherapy is described. Evidence for efficacy in inhalant allergy and insect sting allergy is reviewed. Current indications for allergen immunotherapy are discussed.