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

Oral immunotherapy with enteric-coated capsules for allergic rhinitis caused by house dust mites

Background

Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising allergen-specific approach in the management of food allergy; however, studies on OIT for allergic rhinitis (AR) have rarely been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OIT using enteric-coated capsules for AR induced by house dust mites.

Methods

A total of 49 patients with AR were enrolled, including 25 who received subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and 24 who received OIT. The clinical efficacy and safety in both groups were evaluated.

Results

After 1 year of treatment, both SCIT and OIT demonstrated significant therapeutic effects. OIT was found to be more effective than SCIT in reducing the total AR symptom score and improving the results of nasal provocation tests. Local and systemic adverse reactions were observed in the SCIT group, while none were reported in the OIT group.

Conclusion

OIT is an effective and safe treatment for mite-induced AR.

Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects more than 400 million people worldwide, making it 1 of the most prevalent chronic diseases. Childhood AR is increasing, and almost half of patients with AR develop symptoms before age 6 years. Although a diagnosis of AR is associated with higher socioeconomic status, underserved and urban populations have more indoor aeroallergen sensitizations and are likely underdiagnosed with AR, further exacerbating health-care disparities. AR negatively impacts quality of life, school performance, and overall health outcomes. Untreated AR in children increases the risk for poor asthma control, increased asthma severity, and exacerbations. Many patients believe that they have seasonal allergies only but in reality have both perennial and seasonal AR, which may change the approach to allergen avoidance measures and treatment recommendations. Pharmacotherapy of AR has expanded, with many intranasal corticosteroids, intranasal antihistamines, and second-generation oral antihistamines approved for pediatric use. Allergen immunotherapy, including both subcutaneous and sublingual forms, are approved for children and are disease modifying, potentially reducing further allergen sensitization and progression to asthma. Many of the currently available biological therapies indicated for pediatric asthma and/or atopic diseases reduce AR symptoms as well. Children with moderate to severe or refractory AR or those with comorbidities should be referred to allergists for diagnostic testing and expanded management options, including immunotherapy and potential biological treatment.

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.

Clinical and experimental treatment of allergic asthma with an emphasis on allergen immunotherapy and its mechanisms

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is currently the only form of treatment that modifies allergic asthma. Pharmacotherapy alone seeks to control the symptoms of allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis, and other atopic conditions. In contrast, AIT can induce long-term physiological modifications through the immune system. AIT enables individuals to live improved lives many years after treatment ends, where they are desensitized to the allergen(s) used or no longer have significant allergic reactions upon allergen provocation. The leading forms of treatment with AIT involve injections of allergen extracts with increasing doses via the subcutaneous route or drops/tablets via the sublingual route for several years. Since the initial attempts at this treatment as early as 1911 by Leonard Noon, the mechanisms by which AIT operates remain unclear. This literature-based review provides the primary care practitioner with a current understanding of the mechanisms of AIT, including its treatment safety, protocols, and long-term efficacy. The primary mechanisms underlying AIT include changes in immunoglobulin classes (IgA, IgE, and IgG), immunosuppressive regulatory T-cell induction, helper T cell type 2 to helper T cell type 1 cell/cytokine profile shifts, decreased early-phase reaction activity and mediators, and increased production of IL-10, IL-35, TGF-β, and IFN-γ. Using the databases PubMed and Embase, a selective literature search was conducted searching for English, full-text, reviews published between 2015 and 2022 using the keywords (with wildcards) "allerg*," "immunotherap*," "mechanis*," and "asthma." Among the cited references, additional references were identified using a manual search.

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.

Recent development on the use of sublingual immunotherapy tablets for allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated inflammatory condition that causes sneezing, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and nasal itch. Although subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of AR has been in use and well established as a treatment modality, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly considered to be the safer and more convenient alternative. Thus, the objective of this review is to describe recent findings pertaining to the use of SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) for AR.

DATA SOURCES

A database search (PubMed.gov) for articles published between January 1, 2017, and February 9, 2021, was conducted using the following key words: "allergic rhinitis," AND-ed "sublingual immunotherapy." Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials. Other experimental design studies were excluded.

STUDY SELECTIONS

A total of 11 randomized placebo-controlled trials were selected for full-text review and included in the analysis. All studies investigated the use of SLIT on patients with seasonal AR (4 tree pollen, 1 grass pollen, and 1 Japanese cedar) or perennial AR (3 house dust mite).

RESULTS

Our review of 7 recently published randomized placebo-controlled trials with 2348 subjects receiving SLIT reported increased efficacy, safety, supportive immunologic parameters (IgE and IgG4 pre- and posttreatment levels), and improved quality of life. All studies excluded subjects with overlapping seasonal or perennial allergens, a history of moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma, or reduced lung function.

CONCLUSION

Our review highlights that SLIT is a safe and effective treatment that considerably reduces symptoms and medication requirements in AR and improves quality of life.

Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: What Are the Important Therapeutic and Real-World Considerations?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen immunotherapy has been used for over 100 years in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. With two major options for administering this disease-modifying therapy, SCIT, and SLIT, what is our current understanding of the efficacy and safety of each one? How do we determine who is the appropriate candidate for each one in the real world?

RECENT FINDINGS

SCIT and SLIT show significant improvement in clinical symptoms and need for medication in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In recent meta-analyses, there is no significant difference in the efficacy between the two treatments, but SLIT has more local side effects though less systemic ones. Shared decision-making should be instituted to determine which treatment should be started in a patient with allergic rhinitis. This review provides up-to-date information on the efficacy and safety of SCIT vs SLIT in the care of children and adults with allergic rhinitis in the real world and the role of shared decision-making in the use of these modalities.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04145219 and NCT02478398.