Efficacy and safety of grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet, MK-7243: a large randomized controlled trial

Consistent efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy tablets across allergens and geographic regions

Background: The clinical development program of the SQ grass, ragweed, tree, and house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets for allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) included clinical trials conducted in North America, Europe, and Japan. Objective: Data from these trials were analyzed to assess efficacy, immunologic mechanisms, and safety outcomes across allergens and geographic regions. Methods: Thirteen phase III, double-blind, placebo controlled trials in the subjects with AR/C were conducted in North America, Europe (including Russia), and Japan (N = 7763 analyzed). Trials were generally similar with respect to medical practice, target population, eligibility criteria, and efficacy and safety monitoring. Data were analyzed for the approved doses in North America and Europe. Four statistical models were used to enhance comparison of the efficacy end points among the trials. Results: The SLIT-tablets demonstrated consistent efficacy across allergens and regions, regardless of the statistical analysis used. Relative improvement in the primary efficacy end point compared with placebo by using the predefined protocol analysis ranged from 17.9% to 32.8%, 17.5% to 19.3%, 20.6% to 38.3%, and 39.6% with the grass, HDM, ragweed, and tree SLIT-tablets, respectively. The kinetics of specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgG4 responses were similar among the allergens and regions. Local application-site reactions were the most common adverse events for all allergens and in all regions. Most treatment-related adverse events for all allergens and in all regions were mild in severity. The rate of systemic allergic reactions was similar across regions (0%-0.54%). Conclusion: Confirmatory phase III trials for SLIT-tablets in the treatment of AR/C showed consistent efficacy, immunologic, and safety outcomes across allergens and geographic regions.

Exploring Side Effects of Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as a potentially safe and convenient option for allergen immunotherapy for patients with inhalant allergy. Larger studies on the overall side effects and severe reactions anaphylaxis are still lacking. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Author's review was completed in the University of Texas Medical Branch. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials focusing on SLIT safety published from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2021, was conducted. Results: Twenty-six studies were included with analysis of 7827 patients, representing over 2.7 million SLIT doses. All studies focused on single-antigen immunotherapy. The mean duration of treatment was 11.54 months. Local side effects were present in 40.83% of patients [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.78-57.96]. Systemic side effects were encountered in 1.09% of SLIT patients (95% CI 0.57-1.78). Anaphylaxis was reported in 0.13% of patients (95% CI 0.06-0.22). Discontinuation rates due to side effects were low, at 4.32% of patients (95% CI 3.28-5.49). Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows that single-antigen SLIT is well-tolerated, with overall low rates of systemic side effects including anaphylaxis. Although there is a high rate of minor local side effect, the treatment attrition during the first year is low. With growing allergy burden worldwide, SLIT is a convenient and economically feasible option for immunotherapy. Further work is needed to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of single as well as multi-antigen SLIT, including quality of life assessments.

Sublingual Tablet Immunotherapy Improves Quality of Life in Adults With Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis can negatively impact many aspects of quality of life (QoL). The efficacy and safety of standardized quality (SQ) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets have been confirmed across large clinical trials in adults with grass, tree, ragweed, and house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

This pooled analysis investigates whether the reduction in symptom burden found across the clinical trials is supported by improvements in QoL.

METHODS

A total of 11 phase II/III randomized placebo-controlled trials across the SQ grass, tree, ragweed, and HDM SLIT tablets (grass: N = 3179; ragweed: N = 767; tree: N = 634; HDM: N = 2221) were included. QoL was assessed using the standardized Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), with the exception of 3 grass trials, which used the nonstandardized version. The overall RQLQ scores were expressed as a mean of 7 domains. In the pooled analysis, treatment was used as fixed effect; and the trial, and the interaction between region/country and trial as random effects.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis showed consistent and statistically significant improvements in overall RQLQ scores across all 4 SQ SLIT tablets versus placebo (pooled estimate [95% CI], P value-grass: -0.20 [-0.28 to -0.12], P < .001; tree: -0.42 [-0.58 to -0.26], P < .001; ragweed: -0.36 [-0.55 to -0.17], P < .001; HDM: -0.28 [-0.39 to -0.17], P < .001). Furthermore, significant improvements versus placebo for all 4 SQ SLIT tablets were seen across the 7 individual domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The proven efficacy of SQ SLIT tablets to reduce symptoms across 4 of the most common respiratory allergens is supported by concurrent significant improvements in RQLQ scores overall and for all 7 domains.

SQ sublingual immunotherapy tablets for children with allergic rhinitis: A review of phase three trials

AIM

To provide paediatricians with a summary of efficacy and safety of SQ sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets from phase three, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis, with and without asthma.

METHODS

PubMed searches were conducted and unpublished data were included if necessary.

RESULTS

Of the 93 publications, 12 were identified reporting 10 trials. One trial was excluded as paediatric-specific efficacy data were unavailable. The nine eligible trials evaluated grass, house dust mite, ragweed and tree SLIT tablets. Consistent reductions in allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms and medication use were observed with SQ SLIT tablets versus placebo. In a five-year trial, sustained reduction of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, asthma symptoms and medication use were observed with SQ grass SLIT tablet versus placebo. The number-needed-to-treat to prevent asthma symptoms and medication use in one additional child during follow-up was lowest in younger children. SQ SLIT tablets were generally well tolerated across trials.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supports use of SQ SLIT tablets in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis, with and without asthma. Long-term data demonstrate disease-modifying effects of SQ grass SLIT tablet and suggest the clinical relevance of initiating allergy immunotherapy earlier in the disease course.

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.

Immune Cell Alterations and PI3K-PKB Pathway Suppression in Patients with Allergic Rhinitis Undergoing Sublingual Immunotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Our prior clinical study assessed the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with standardized Dermatophagoides farina drops on patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) while analyzing the characteristics of adverse reactions. This study was conducted to evaluate the immune cell composition alterations in AR patients before and after SLIT, and to comprehensively investigate the role and changes of antigen-specific immune cells associated with treatment efficacy.

METHODS

A total of 68 AR patients who completed 12 months of SLIT were included in the study. Before the trial's initiation and after 1 year of SLIT, 10 ml of venous blood was collected. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated using the Ficoll gradient method. The mRNA transcriptome was analyzed using an Affymetrix microarray. The proportions of 22 immune cell types were calculated via the CIBERSORTx platform. Correlations between each immune cell type and SLIT were analyzed. PI3K-PKB pathway dysregulation were analyzed using quantitative PCR and Western blot. Flow cytometry was utilized to assess the percentages of Th1 and Th2 cells.

RESULTS

Mono-sensitized AR patients exhibited marked increases in plasma cells, activated memory T cells, regulatory T cells, and activated dendritic cells, while experiencing decreased neutrophils and resting dendritic cells. In poly-sensitized AR patients, the most notable change was an increase in regulatory T cells, coupled with decreased T follicular helper cells, resting dendritic cells, and activated mast cells. These findings indicated that SLIT reshaped immune cell profiles in AR patients, and, notably, the specific changes differed between mono-sensitized and poly-sensitized individuals. Furthermore, SLIT appeared to shift the immune response towards a Th2 decrease profile in both groups. Importantly, suppression of the PI3K-PKB pathway was evidenced as inhibition of PKB phosphorylation and the decrease of glycogen synthase kinase 3 β (GSKβ) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) expression after SLIT.

CONCLUSION

Our study has demonstrated that SLIT treatment led to distinct changes in immune cell profiles between mono-sensitized and poly-sensitized AR patients. Furthermore, SLIT appeared to reduce a Th2 immune response, highlighting its efficacy in AR treatment. Importantly, the study revealed the suppression of the PI3K-PKB pathway, shedding light on the immunological mechanisms underlying SLIT's effectiveness.

The Art of Dosing for Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in North America

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a long-established treatment option for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Proper dosing of the allergens is critical for the efficacy and safety of SCIT. Of the hundreds of liquid allergen extracts in the United States, effective and well-tolerated SCIT dosing has only been established for a small number. Thus, SCIT dosing remains largely empiric and continues to be, by necessity, an art. To highlight the complexity of SCIT dosing, this review summarizes the historical and current landscape of U.S. allergen extracts, differences among U.S. and European allergen extracts, allergen selection for SCIT, considerations for compounding of allergen extract mixtures, and recommended dosing. As of 2021, 18 standardized allergen extracts are available in the United States; all other extracts remain unstandardized without characterization of allergen content or potency. U.S. allergen extracts differ from European extracts in formulation and potency characterization. There is no standardized methodology for SCIT allergen selection, and interpretation of allergen sensitization is not straightforward. Compounding of SCIT mixtures requires consideration of potential dilution effects, allergen cross-reactivity, proteolytic activity, and additives. Probable effective dose ranges for SCIT are recommended in U.S. allergy immunotherapy practice parameters, although there are few studies using U.S. extracts supporting these doses as therapeutic. In contrast, optimized doses of sublingual immunotherapy tablets have been confirmed in North American phase 3 trials. The SCIT dosing for each patient remains an art that requires clinical experience and consideration of polysensitization, tolerability, compounding of allergen extract mixtures, and the range of recommended doses within the context of extract potency variability.

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.

Sublingual immunotherapy tablets in monosensitized and polysensitized adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Background: Most patients with allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) are sensitized to more than one allergen. An ongoing question is the efficacy of single-allergen immunotherapy in patients who are polysensitized. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of grass, ragweed, tree, and house-dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets in adults with AR/C who are mono- or polysensitized. Methods: Data from adults (ages ≥ 18 years) with AR/C who participated in phase III double-blind, placebo controlled field trials (four grass, two ragweed, two HDM, one tree) were included in the post hoc analyses. Efficacy was assessed by the total combined score (TCS) (sum of AR/C daily symptom and medication scores) during the entire pollen season for grass and tree trials, and peak pollen season for ragweed trials versus placebo. Efficacy for the HDM SLIT-tablet was assessed by the total combined rhinitis score (TCRS) (sum of rhinitis daily symptom and medication scores) during the last 8 weeks of treatment versus placebo. Results: For the grass SLIT-tablet, TCS improved by 20% (mean difference 1.33 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.44-2.22]) in the subjects who were monosensitized (n = 442) and 20% (mean difference 1.28 [95% CI, 0.90-1.67]) in the subjects who were polysensitized (n = 1857). For the ragweed SLIT-tablet, TCS improved by 19% (mean difference 1.72 [95% CI, -0.20 to 3.63]) in the subjects who were monosensitized (n = 115) and 27% (mean difference 2.27 [95% CI, 1.28-3.27]) in the subjects who were polysensitized (n = 528). For the tree SLIT-tablet, TCS improved by 54% (mean difference 4.65 [95% CI, 2.48-6.82]) in the subjects who were monosensitized (n = 138) and 34% (mean difference 2.51 [95% CI, 1.34-3.69]) in the subjects who were polysensitized (n = 437). For the HDM SLIT-tablet, TCRS improved by 20% (mean difference 1.24 [95% CI, 0.48-1.99]) in the subjects who were monosensitized (n = 468) and 17% (mean difference 0.85 [95% CI, 0.43-1.28]) in the subjects who were polysensitized (n = 1294). The overall safety profile was not qualitatively different between the subjects who were monosensitized and the subjects who were polysensitized. Conclusion: Grass, ragweed, tree, or HDM SLIT-tablet treatment is effective for the specific allergen in question in adults with AR/C and who are monosensitized or polysensitized. Targeting one relevant allergen with SLIT-tablets induces a clinical effect for that allergen in patients who were polysensitized.

A practical guide to prescribing sublingual immunotherapy tablets in North America for pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an injection-free allergy immunotherapy option

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is a common disease that affects individuals of all ages. Pediatricians may be the first (and only) point of care for children with ARC. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a convenient at-home, injection-free allergy immunotherapy option that can be used for the treatment of ARC. This paper provides a practical guide for pediatricians to aid in prescribing SLIT-tablets to children with ARC in North America. Topics include a summary of the available SLIT-tablets and their efficacy and safety, guidance on when SLIT-tablets are an appropriate option, and how to diagnose ARC and identify culprit allergens. Practical guidance is also provided through a proposed decision tree, a prescribing checklist and prescribing procedures, and suggested follow-up assessments.

Short-course subcutaneous treatment with PQ Grass strongly improves symptom and medication scores in grass allergy

BACKGROUND

A modified grass allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) product with MicroCrystalline Tyrosine and monophosphoryl lipid-A as an adjuvant system (Grass MATA MPL [PQ Grass]) is being developed as short-course treatment of grass-pollen allergic rhinitis (SAR) and/or rhinoconjunctivitis. We sought to evaluate the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) of the optimized cumulative dose of 27,600 standardized units (SU) PQ Grass in a field setting prior to embarking on a pivotal Phase III trial.

METHODS

In this exploratory, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial subjects were enrolled across 14 sites (Germany and the United States of America). Six pre-seasonal subcutaneous injections of PQ Grass (using conventional or extended regimens) or placebo were administered to 119 subjects (aged 18-65 years) with moderate-to-severe SAR with or without asthma that was well-controlled. The primary efficacy endpoint was CSMS during peak grass pollen season (GPS). Secondary endpoints included Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire standardized (RQLQ-S) and allergen-specific IgG4 response.

RESULTS

The mean CSMS compared to placebo was 33.1% (p = .0325) and 39.5% (p = .0112) for the conventional and extended regimens, respectively. An increase in IgG4 was shown for both regimens (p < .01) as well as an improvement in total RQLQ-S for the extended regimen (mean change -0.72, p = .02). Both regimens were well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrated a clinically relevant and statistically significant efficacy response to PQ Grass. Unprecedented effect sizes were reached for grass allergy of up to ≈40% compared to placebo for CSMS after only six PQ Grass injections. Both PQ Grass regimens were considered equally safe and well-tolerated. Based on enhanced efficacy profile extended regime will be progressed to the pivotal Phase III trial.

Malaysian Society of Allergy and Immunology Consensus Statement on Sublingual Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated inflammatory disease of the upper airway. AR affects the patients' quality of life, is a known risk factor for asthma and a socio-economic burden. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), comprising sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), involves administering increasing doses of the causative allergen to induce clinical and immunologic tolerance to the allergens. It is the only currently available treatment for AR that has been proven to induce disease-modifying effects (i.e., long-term remission of allergic symptoms or potential prevention of asthma and new sensitizations). Although AIT is conventionally recommended for patients who are non-responsive to symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy, it is presently recommended as a first-line treatment for patients with moderate to severe AR who prefer a treatment with the potential for long-term remission. In light of the relatively recent implementation of AIT in Malaysia, guidelines on its appropriate indication and application are important to attain optimal outcomes. This consensus statement was developed by an expert group formed by the Malaysian Society of Allergy and Immunology to provide evidence-based recommendations for the practice of AIT in Malaysia. Patient and product selection, choice of AIT, and strategy towards an effective treatment outcome in AIT are presented.

Cell-penetrating albumin enhances the sublingual delivery of antigens through macropinocytosis

Innovations in oral immunotherapy have greatly advanced the therapeutic control of allergies. However, these therapeutic effects suffer from the fact that the amount of antigen delivered to antigen-presenting cells is limited given the formulations that are currently available. We recently designed a cell-penetrating albumin and found that this modified albumin enters cells via the induction of macropinocytosis. Herein, we report on a novel system for delivering antigens based on cell-penetrating albumin-inducible macropinocytosis that allows larger amounts of antigens to be delivered to antigen-presenting cells. A treatment with cell-penetrating albumin significantly increased the permeability of ovalbumin (45 kDa) or dextran (2000 kDa) on monolayers derived from human oral squamous carcinoma cells. Flow cytometric analyses showed that the cell-penetrating albumin treatment resulted in a significant elevation in the amount of dextran that was delivered to two types of antigen-presenting cells. Finally, mice that had been sensitized by Japanese cedar pollen extract (JCPE) and cell-penetrating albumin showed a decline in the frequency of nose-rubbing against a subsequent intranasal administration of JCPE. These findings suggest that the sublingual administration of cell-penetrating albumin efficiently delivers antigens to antigen-presenting cells via the induction of macropinocytosis, resulting in an enhancement in the therapeutic effect of sublingual immunotherapy.

Pharmacological Management of Allergic Rhinitis: A Consensus Statement from the Malaysian Society of Allergy and Immunology

The goal of allergic rhinitis (AR) management is to achieve satisfactory symptom control to ensure good quality of life. Most patients with AR are currently treated with pharmacotherapy. However, knowledge gaps on the use of pharmacotherapy still exist among physicians, particularly in the primary care setting, despite the availability of guideline recommendations. Furthermore, it is common for physicians in the secondary care setting to express uncertainty regarding the use of new combination therapies like intranasal corticosteroid plus antihistamine combinations. Inadequate treatment leads to significant reduction of quality of life that affects daily activities at home, work, and school. With these concerns in mind, a practical consensus statement was developed to complement existing guidelines on the rational use of pharmacotherapy in both the primary and secondary care settings.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual allergen immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets represent a new allergen immunotherapy option for clinicians. In North America, there are five SLIT-tablets approved for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). No SLIT-drops products are currently approved in the United States or Canada. This work reviewed the efficacy of the timothy grass SLIT-tablet, five-grass SLIT-tablet, ragweed SLIT-tablet, house-dust mite SLIT-tablet, and tree SLIT-tablet in patients with ARC. All the SLIT-tablets showed consistent clinical efficacy for the treatment of ARC in large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, including for both patients who were monosensitized and those who were polysensitized. Treatment with house-dust mite SLIT-tablet has shown efficacy in patients who are pollen sensitized during their respective pollen seasons. In contrast to SLIT-tablets, efficacy studies of SLIT-drops show high heterogeneity of treatment effect. Although data are scarce, data that compared the efficacy of SLIT-tablets versus ARC pharmacotherapy generally indicated that SLIT-tablets had a greater benefit than pharmacotherapy when compared with placebo, particularly for perennial ARC. When compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy, analysis of these data indicated that SLIT-tablets had a benefit over subcutaneous immunotherapy in regard to safety but somewhat less benefit in regard to efficacy. The safety of SLIT-tablets has been well documented, and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration class label with safety considerations is present in the prescribing information for all SLIT-tablets. No new safety signals have been observed after reinitiating SLIT-tablets after a short treatment interruption.

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.

Determining the minimal important differences in the RQLQ score with grass and tree allergy immunotherapy versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe allergy

BACKGROUND

Pollen from grasses and trees can trigger allergic rhinitis (AR), where the symptoms and associated consequences can negatively affect quality of life (QoL). The Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) is frequently used in clinical trials of AR to assess QoL. To help interpret RQLQ data, the minimal important difference (MID) can be used to assess whether a mean difference in QoL between treatment groups is clinically meaningful. In seasonal allergy, an MID differs according to the allergen, pollen exposure, symptom severity, patient age and treatment; the same MID cannot be applied to all scenarios.

METHODS

Using data from four Phase III clinical trials of SQ sublingual immunotherapy-tablets in adults with moderate-to-severe allergy, between-group MIDs were derived for the RQLQ in grass pollen allergy (during the peak [n = 501] and entire [n = 514] pollen seasons), and in tree pollen allergy (during the birch [n = 516] and tree [n = 518] pollen seasons), using anchor-based methodology, supported by distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

For grass pollen allergy, anchor-based derived between-group MIDs were 0.22 for the entire pollen season (n = 343) and 0.10 for the peak pollen season (n = 335). For tree pollen allergy, anchor-based derived between-group MIDs were 0.26 for the tree pollen season (n = 306) and 0.16 for the birch pollen season (n = 305) (representative of peak season). Distribution-based derived MIDs were supportive of the anchor-based values.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis has derived between-group MIDs specific to the trial populations evaluated and to the conditions under which the data were obtained, and highlights the need for a range of MIDs to reflect the unique nature of seasonal allergic disease.

Alternatives to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an important public health issue worldwide due to its increasing prevalence and impact on quality of life, school performance, and work productivity. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is used to treat AR and involves repeated injections of allergen extracts. SCIT is used for cases of severe AR with symptoms that are not adequately controlled by medication, when the side effects of medication limit treatment options, or where the aim is to cure rather than symptomatically treat. Although SCIT is effective, it is not necessarily curative. Furthermore, there is also a low but present risk of systemic allergic reactions, with systemic side effects occurring in less than 0–1% of treated patients. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as an effective and safe alternative to SCIT. SCIT and SLIT are the only immunotherapies currently available for AR. In addition to sublingual administration as an alternative to SCIT, other routes of antigen administration have been attempted with the goal of increasing safety while maintaining efficacy. This review discusses the efficacies of SCIT and SLIT, their mechanisms, the utility of intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) as an alternative route of antigen administration, and the potential for immunotherapy using other routes of antigen administration.

Safety of the standardized quality tree sublingual immunotherapy tablet: Pooled safety analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The standardized quality (SQ) tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet has recently been approved for treatment of tree pollen allergy. Healthcare workers should be provided with detailed safety data for clinical use.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the tolerability and safety of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet (12 SQ-Bet) in adults and adolescents.

METHODS

Safety data were pooled from three double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (2 phase-II/1 phase-III) including adults and adolescents 12-65 years with allergic rhinitis and/or conjunctivitis treated before and during one pollen season once-daily with 12 SQ-Bet (n = 471) or placebo (n = 458): EudraCT no: 2012-000031-59; NCT02481856; EudraCT 2015-004821-15.

RESULTS

The most frequently reported investigational medicinal product (IMP)-related AEs with 12 SQ-Bet were oral pruritis (39% of subjects) and throat irritation (29%). IMP-related AEs were mainly mild or moderate in severity, and the majority resolved without treatment and did not lead to treatment interruption/discontinuation. With 12 SQ-Bet, oral pruritus was more frequent among subjects with pollen food syndrome (PFS) (45%) than without PFS (29%). The 12 SQ-Bet did not seem to induce an increased risk of asthma: 7 events were reported in 7 subjects with 12 SQ-Bet and 11 in 10 subjects with placebo. No differences were seen in the risk of moderate-to-severe IMP-related AEs regardless of age, PFS status and asthma medical history.

CONCLUSIONS

The 12 SQ tree SLIT-tablet was well tolerated in tree pollen allergic subjects with no major safety concerns detected. This safety profile supports daily at-home sublingual administration once the first dose is tolerated when administered under medical supervision.

Dogmas, challenges, and promises in phase III allergen immunotherapy studies

The concept of treatment of an allergy with the offending allergen was introduced more than a century ago. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease modifying treatment of allergic diseases caused by inhalational allergens and insect venoms. Despite this, only few AIT products have reached licensure in the US or an official marketing authorization status in European countries. Moreover, most of these AIT products are provided on an individual patient basis as named patient products (NPP) in Europe, while individualized preparations of (mixed) allergenic extract vials for subcutaneous administration (compounding) is common practice in the US. AIT products are generally considered safe and well tolerated, but the major practical clinical development challenge is to define the optimal dose and prove the efficacy and safety of these products using state-of-the art Phase II and pivotal Phase III studies. In planning Phase II-III AIT studies, a thorough understanding of the study challenges is essential (e.g. variability and non-validated status of subjective primary endpoints, limitations of pollen season definitions) and dogmas of these products (e.g., for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) trials double-blinding conditions cannot be maintained, resulting in stronger placebo responses in the active treatment group and inflated treatment effects in Phase III). There is future promise for more objective biomarker endpoints (e.g. basophil activation (CD63 and CD203c), subsets of regulatory dendritic, T and B cells, IL-10–producing group 2 innate lymphoid cells; alone or in combination) to overcome several of these dogmas and challenges; innovation in AIT clinical trials can only progress with integral biomarker research to complement the traditional endpoints in Phase II-III clinical development. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of these dogmas, challenges and recommendations based on published data, to facilitate the design of Phase III studies and improve the evidence basis of safe and effective AIT products.

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.

Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy tablets in dust mite and pollen allergy

The latest evidence on the mechanisms, efficacy, and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was reviewed. Interleukin (IL) 35 and IL-35-producing regulatory T cells were assessed as new biomarkers for SLIT responsiveness. A detailed analysis of clinical studies, including timothy grass pollen, 5-grass pollen, ragweed, and house-dust mite SLIT tablets, was provided, including a comparative analysis of efficacy and safety of SLIT versus subcutaneous immunotherapy.

Allergy to oak pollen in North America

Background: Oak pollen is an important allergen in North America. The genus Quercus (oak) belongs to the family Fagaceae under the order Fagales. Objective: The objective of this article was to narratively review the oak pollen season, clinical and epidemiologic aspects of allergy to oak pollen, oak taxonomy, and oak allergen cross-reactivity, with a focus on the North American perspective. Methods: A PubMed literature review (no limits) was conducted. Publications related to oak pollen, oak-related allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, and oak-related allergic asthma were selected for review. Results: Oak species are common throughout the United States and contribute up to 50% to overall atmospheric pollen loads. Mean peak oak pollen counts can reach >2000 grains/m³. The start of the oak pollen season generally corresponds to the seasonal shift from winter to spring based on latitude and elevation, and may begin as early as mid February. The duration of the season can last > 100 days and, in general, is longer at lower latitudes. In the United States, ∼30% of individuals with allergy are sensitized to oak. The oak pollen season correlates with increased allergic rhinitis symptom-relieving medication use and asthma-related emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Oak falls within the birch homologous group. Extensive immunologic cross-reactivity has been demonstrated between oak pollen and birch pollen allergens, and, more specifically, their major allergens Que a 1 and Bet v 1. The cross-reactivity between oak and birch has implications for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) because guidelines suggest selecting one representative allergen within a homologous group for AIT, a principle that would apply to oak. Conclusion: Allergy to oak pollen is common in North America and has a substantial clinical impact. Oak pollen allergens are cross-reactive with birch pollen allergens, which may have implications for AIT.

Presentation, diagnosis, and the role of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in the management of ocular allergy

Allergic eye disease or ocular allergy is a debilitating condition with a significant impact on quality of life and productivity. As atopy continues to be on the rise, primary care providers are likely to encounter increasing numbers of patients with allergic eye disease. This review outlines the classification and pathophysiology of allergic eye disease and its clinical presentation. This paper does not detail traditional first-line therapies of allergic eye disease but describes the interdisciplinary management between the eye-care provider and allergist. It is recommended that patients with ongoing signs and symptoms of ocular allergy despite first-line therapies be referred for allergen immunotherapy, as it is highly effective for treatment of allergic eye disease. Through induction of immune tolerance, allergen immunotherapy is a disease-modifying therapy that can result in long-term improvement of ocular allergy. A thorough literature review was conducted on the efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy, including subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy, and its role in allergic eye disease.

Artemisia annua-sublingual immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Artemisia annua is an important autumnal pollen allergen for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in northern China. To date, no study has investigated allergen immunotherapy with A annua. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and mechanisms underlying A annua-sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial involving 71 SAR patients, randomized to SLIT with A annua extract (n = 47) or placebo (n = 24) for 32 weeks. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS; primary clinical end point) was evaluated at baseline (peak pollen phase (PPP) in the previous year), initiation of A annua-SLIT, 1st PPP during SLIT, end of SLIT and 2nd PPP during follow-up. Blood samples and nasal secretions were collected at beginning and after SLIT for assessment of T cells and inflammatory mediators. Safety was assessed according to adverse events (AEs) reported.

RESULTS

Artemisia annua-SLIT significantly reduced TNSS to a greater level from baseline (from 9.45 ± 1.68 to 6.16 ± 2.27) than placebo (from 9.29 ± 2.09 to 9.05 ± 2.40) at the 1st PPP (P < .001) and sustained the improvement in symptoms throughout to the 2nd PPP. Preseasonal A annua-SLIT for 16 weeks significantly decreased Th2 cells, increased nTreg and Tr1 cells in blood; and increased cystatin 1 (CST1) in nasal secretion after 16 and 32 weeks compared with pretreatment. Overall, 17/47 patients experienced mild local AEs and 2 patients mild systemic AEs, after A annua-SLIT.

CONCLUSION

Artemisia annua-SLIT is an efficacious and safe treatment in patients with A annua SAR.

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.

Clinical Practice of Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and Asthma: An Expert Panel Report

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) reduces symptoms and medication use associated with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis and allergic asthma. Although several AIT guidelines exist, there remain unanswered questions about AIT that are relevant to everyday practice. Our objective was to prepare an evidence-based overview addressing the practical aspects of AIT in clinical practice based on published evidence and the experience of international experts in the field. Topics covered include interpretation and translation of clinical trial data into everyday clinical practice (eg, allergen doses and treatment duration), assessment of risk and treatment of local and systemic allergic reactions, recommendations for improvement of AIT guidelines, and identification of appropriate data for seeking regulatory approval, to name a few. Many informational gaps in AIT practice need further evaluation as products and practices evolve.

[Effect of sublingual immunotherapy with Dermatophagoides Farinae on the expression of specific IgG4 in patients with allergic rhinitis in Hainan area]

Objective:The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of sublingual immunotherapy with Dermatophagoides Farinae on the expression of specific IgG4（sIgG4） in patients with allergic rhinitis （AR） in Hainan area. Method:Seventy-two patients with dust-mite allergic rhinitis, all three generations of whom were local islanders in Hainan, were randomly divided into control group（36 cases） and SLIT group（36 cases）. sIgG4 and sIgE expression levels were detected before treatment, 6 months after treatment, 12 months after treatment, and 18 months after treatment. The patient's symptom score, medication score, VAS score and adverse reactions was also assessed. Finally, through statistical analysis of the relevant data collected at 4 time points in the two groups of patients, the efficacy, safety and changes of sIgG4 antibody expression level in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving sublingual specific immunotherapy in Hainan were observed. Result:Symptoms scores, medication scores and VAS scores were significantly improved in the SLIT group after treatment compared with before treatment（P<0.05）, and serum sIgG4 increased significantly（P<0.01）, serum sIgE showed no significant change（P>0.05）. In the control group, symptom scores, medication scores and VAS scores were also significantly improved compared with before treatment（P<0.05）, while serum sIgG4 and sIgE showed no significant change（P>0.05）. When comparing the two groups, Symptoms scores, medication scores and VAS scores of the SLIT group were significantly lower than those of the control group at 12 months and 18 months after treatment（P<0.05）. sIgG4 expression levels in the SLIT group were significantly higher than those in the control group after 6, 12 and 18 months of treatment（P<0.01）. There was no significant difference in sIgE expression level between the two groups（P>0.05）. No severe systemic adverse reactions occurred in the two groups, and 3 patients showed mild adverse reactions in the SLIT group. Conclusion:Sublingual immunotherapy of Dermatophagoides Farinae was effective and could increase the expression of sIgG4 in patients with Dermatophagoides farinae AR, sIgG4 is expected to be an immunological marker for the objective evaluation of the clinical efficacy of Hapten.

Safety of Timothy Grass Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablet in Children: Pooled Analyses of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Timothy grass sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets are indicated for children with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

To use pooled analyses to assess the short- and long-term tolerability and safety of timothy grass SLIT-tablet in children.

METHODS

Data from 9 double-blinded, randomized European or North American trials that included children with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis treated up to 3 years with once-daily timothy grass SLIT-tablet or placebo were pooled.

RESULTS

In all, 1818 (timothy grass SLIT-tablet, n = 923; placebo, n = 895) subjects were included in the analysis. The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 86% in the SLIT-tablet group and 83% in the placebo group, and the frequency of treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) was 59% and 23%, respectively. Most (98%) TRAEs were mild to moderate in severity. The 2 most common TRAEs with SLIT-tablet were oral pruritus (33%) and throat irritation (19%), which had a median onset of 1 day and recurrence of 14.5 and 5 days, respectively. In all, 8% of subjects in the SLIT-tablet group and 2% in the placebo group discontinued because of AEs. There were 7 serious AEs assessed as related to SLIT-tablet, 1 systemic allergic reaction (severe with a drop in blood pressure), 3 epinephrine administrations, no eosinophilic esophagitis events, and no serious airway obstructions. The safety profile was similar in subjects across geographic regions and with and without asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled data indicate that short- and long-term timothy grass SLIT-tablet is well tolerated in children, regardless of geographic region. AEs were generally local, mild, and transient allergic reactions.

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.

The impact of perennial allergic rhinitis with/without allergic asthma on sleep, work and activity level

Background

Allergic respiratory diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) are common conditions that can influence sleep and daytime functioning. However, the significance of this impact is unclear—particularly in perennial allergy sufferers. This study investigates the impact of perennial allergy on sleep, daily activities and productivity.

Methods

Adults with self-reported or physician-diagnosed perennial AR aged ≥ 18 years were recruited in Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden. Allergy sufferers were identified using online panels closely matching national population characteristics for each country. Impact on sleep, work, productivity and activity (by the Work, Productivity and Activity Index) were analysed. Descriptive analyses were conducted.

Results

In total, 511 subjects with perennial AR (47.4% also with seasonal allergy) completed the survey. Most subjects (77.5%) had a physician-diagnosis of AR; 46.4% were diagnosed with both AA and AR. Most subjects (65.2%) reported sensitisation to house dust mites. Of all subjects, 66.0% reported sleep problems. Subjects with sleep problems woke, on average, 3.8 times per night, with 92.0% taking 15+ min to fall asleep (22.2% took 60+ min). Upon waking at night, 40.8% struggled to get back to sleep, and 69.2% had difficulties waking in the morning due to tiredness. Disturbances in daily functioning due to sleep issues were reported in 85.5–95.0% of subjects with sleep problems across all aspects investigated. Overall work and activity impairment were 53.3% and 47.1%, respectively. Sleep issues were more frequent (78.1% vs 54.7%) in those diagnosed with both AR and AA compared to AR alone, and more burdensome, with a greater impact on daily functioning (47.0% vs 33.3%) and impairment in work and activity (62.0% and 54.9% vs 39.3% and 35.2%, respectively). Of all subjects, 20.5% were receiving AIT at the time of the survey; of these, 36.4% reported moderate or great improvement in sleep due to allergy treatment.

Conclusions

In perennial AR sufferers, sleep problems are common and impact on daily functioning, with results indicating a greater burden in those with both AR and AA compared to AR alone.

Perspectives in allergen immunotherapy: 2019 and beyond

The seventh "Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT)" workshop held in 2019 provided a platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review current developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Key domains of the meeting included the following: (a) Biomarkers for AIT and allergic asthma; (b) visions for the future of AIT; (c) progress and data for AIT in asthma and the updates of GINA and EAACI Asthma Guidelines (separated for house dust mite SCIT, SLIT tablets and SLIT drops; patient populations) including a review of clinically relevant endpoints in AIT studies in asthma; (d) regulatory prerequisites such as the "Therapy Allergen Ordinance" in Germany; (e) optimization of trial design in AIT clinical research; (f) challenges planning and conducting phase III (field) studies and the future role of Allergen Exposure Chambers (AEC) in AIT product development from the regulatory point of view. We report a summary of panel discussions of all six domains and highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for the future.

SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of adults with house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common chronic conditions affecting both children and adults. The house dust mites (HDM) account for a substantial part of the overall sources of allergens. In patients where allergen avoidance and symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy do not provide adequate disease control, specific allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is indicated. While subcutaneous injection (SCIT) is considered as a time-consuming and invasive treatment regimen, sublingual allergy immunotherapy (SLIT) appears as more convenient treatment strategy.Areas covered: This Drug Profile reviews the clinical data behind the development of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet, including both the early studies and the pivotal studies, which formed the basis for regulatory approval in Europe, Japan, and the U.S.Expert opinion: The clinical trials behind the development of the SQ HDM-SLIT have demonstrated that the tablet provides a safe, well-tolerated and robust efficacy in the treatment of HDM-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Further, studies show that the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet is a cost-effective treatment option compared with SCIT.

Options of immunotherapeutic treatments for children with asthma

Introduction: Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Avoiding triggers, and pharmacologic treatment with short acting beta-agonist, inhaler corticosteroids and anti-leukotriene are often enough to obtain symptoms control. Nevertheless, there is a subset of children with severe asthma and poor symptom control despite maximal therapy. In these patients, anti-IgE and anti-IL5 monoclonal antibodies are suggested as the fifth step of Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Area covered: Immunotherapeutic treatments are now suggested for asthma management. This article will discuss the available evidence on allergen immunotherapy and biologic drugs in pediatric asthma treatment. Expert opinion: Previously published studies demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile of Allergen Immunotherapy in patients with mild-moderate asthma and sensitization to one main allergen. New understanding of mechanisms underlying severe asthma inflammation has allowed the identifications of specific biomarkers guiding the clinician in the choice of patient specific drug. Among the suggested immunotherapeutic options, omalizumab (blocking IgE) remains the first choice for atopic 'early onset' asthma in patients aged over 6 years. Instead, mepolizumab (blocking the IL5 ligand) should be considered for 'eosinophilic' asthma. Other biologic drugs are under consideration but data on the pediatric population are still lacking.

Nasal challenges in allergen immunotherapy trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The nasal allergen challenge (NAC) model can be a valuable diagnostic tool for allergic rhinitis. Alongside its clinical use, NACs can be used as primary and secondary endpoints in studies evaluating allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products for allergic rhinitis treatment. This review will discuss the technical aspects of the NAC model and provide a summary of recent studies using NACs to assess existing and new AIT treatments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last 2 years, both titrated and single-dose nasal challenge protocols have been used to evaluate immunotherapies targeting grass, birch, house dust mite, and cat allergens. Early efficacy and dose-finding trials showed improvements in allergic symptoms and nasal tolerance to allergens after AIT treatment with standardized extracts or modified forms of whole allergen. NACs were also used in two proof-of-concept studies to illustrate the efficacy of intralymphatic immunotherapy with two concomitant allergens and subcutaneous immunotherapy with Fel d 1-specific IgG-blocking antibodies.

SUMMARY

Along with existing therapies, nasal challenges are useful in evaluating AIT treatments in the very early stages of clinical development. However, because of the variety in challenge techniques and symptom assessments available, special attention must be placed in the protocol design in order to compare the study results with existing NAC publications.

GRAZAX®: a sublingual immunotherapy vaccine for Hay fever treatment: from concept to commercialization

Allergen immunotherapy has been used for more than 100 y, but only recently underlying immunological mechanisms have started to be understood. New Allergy vaccines are now considered to be full pharmaceutical products, that should comply with general as well as specific pharmaceutical legal framework. GRAZAX® is the first global allergy vaccine developed in compliance with the new legal environment and is thus a reference for developing new allergy vaccines. Here, we provide a rationale description of GRAZAX®, providing a sequential description of its pharmaceutical and clinical development. With more than 25 clinical trials, involving more than 8000 patients, including as well three 5-y prospective clinical trials, GRAZAX® is a key product to understand the unique position of allergen-specific immunotherapy as a disease-modifying intervention.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis (Revised Edition 2017; First edition 2007)

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, first published in 2007. It was produced by the Standards of Care Committee of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, using accredited methods. Allergic rhinitis is common and affects 10-15% of children and 26% of adults in the UK, it affects quality of life, school and work attendance, and is a risk factor for development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is diagnosed by history and examination, supported by specific allergy tests. Topical nasal corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine is more effective than either alone and provides second line treatment for those with rhinitis poorly controlled on monotherapy. Immunotherapy is highly effective when the specific allergen is the responsible driver for the symptoms. Treatment of rhinitis is associated with benefits for asthma. Non-allergic rhinitis also is a risk factor for the development of asthma and may be eosinophilic and steroid-responsive or neurogenic and non- inflammatory. Non-allergic rhinitis may be a presenting complaint for systemic disorders such as granulomatous or eosinophilic polyangiitis, and sarcoidoisis. Infective rhinitis can be caused by viruses, and less commonly by bacteria, fungi and protozoa.

A birch sublingual allergy immunotherapy tablet reduces rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms when exposed to birch and oak and induces IgG4 to allergens from all trees in the birch homologous group

BACKGROUND

This randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to determine the optimal dose for clinical efficacy of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet. An environmental exposure chamber (EEC) was used to reduce variability of allergen exposure and allow investigation of symptom reduction towards different species from the birch homologous group in separate EEC sessions.

METHODS

Eligible subjects (N = 219) were randomized to receive treatment with placebo or the SQ tree SLIT-tablet (2, 7, or 12 DU) for 24 weeks. EEC pollen challenges were conducted outside the birch pollen season and included four birch and two oak EEC sessions. The primary efficacy endpoint was the average allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) total symptom score (TSS) after 24 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significantly lower TSS during the 24-week birch EEC session for 7 DU and 12 DU compared to placebo with relative differences of 24% (P = 0.03) and 25% (P = 0.02). For the 24-week oak EEC session, there was a statistically significant difference for 12 DU (24%, P = 0.03). IgE and IgG4 measurements supported these findings and demonstrated cross-reactivity to all other species within the birch homologous group. Treatment was well-tolerated with the most frequently reported adverse reactions being the local reactions in the oral cavity of mild-to-moderate severity.

CONCLUSION

This trial demonstrates that the SQ tree SLIT-tablet reduce ARC symptoms triggered by birch or oak pollen. The optimal dose for further development was 12 DU. Clinical and immunological findings suggest that the tablet may be used to treat allergies to all species within the birch homologous group.

The SQ tree SLIT-tablet is highly effective and well tolerated: Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial

BACKGROUND

The SQ tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet (ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark) is developed for treatment of tree pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pivotal phase III trial was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 634 subjects (12-65 years) with moderate-to-severe ARC despite use of symptom-relieving medication. Eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to active or placebo treatment. The primary end point was the average daily ARC total combined score (TCS) during the birch pollen season (BPS) analyzed for subjects with diary data during the BPS. Secondary end points included average daily symptom scores (DSS) during the BPS, average TCS and DSS during the tree pollen season (TPS), and average daily medication scores (DMS) in the BPS and TPS.

RESULTS

The primary and key secondary end points demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant effects of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet compared with placebo. For the BPS, absolute (relative) differences from placebo were 3.02 (40%) for TCS, 1.32 (37%) for DSS, and 1.58 (49%) for DMS (all P < .0001). For the TPS, absolute (relative) differences from placebo were 2.27 (37%) for TCS, 0.99 (33%) for DSS, and 1.20 (47%) for DMS (all P < .0001). Treatment was well tolerated. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate local reactions related to sublingual administration.

CONCLUSION

The trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet compared with placebo during the BPS and TPS in adolescents and adults with birch pollen-induced ARC (EudraCT 2015-004821-15).

Recent developments and highlights in allergen immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated inhalant allergies. Though used in clinical practice for more than 100 years, most innovations in AIT efficacy and safety have been developed in the last two decades. This expert review aimed to highlight the recent progress in AIT for both application routes, the sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT) forms. As such, it covers recent aspects regarding efficacy and safety in clinical trials and real-life data and outlines new concepts in consensus and position papers as well as in guidelines for AIT. Potential clinical and nonclinical biomarkers are discussed. This review also focuses on potential future perspectives in AIT, such as alternative application routes, immune-modulating adjuvants, and recombinant vaccines. In conclusion, this state of the art review provides a comprehensive overview of AIT and highlights unmet needs for the future.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: a systematic review

The objective of the systematic review is to provide complete and updated information on efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) formulations for the treatment of allergic respiratory diseases (ARDs). The literature search was conducted on PubMed database, involving double-blind, randomized clinical trials published between January 1992 and 2018, written in English, and performed in humans. The number of articles finally selected for review was 112. Data from the majority of properly controlled clinical trials demonstrate that SLIT is effective not only with short-term use (first year) but also with long-term use (up to the third year of active therapy), for treating ARDs in children and adults. Both continuous and discontinuous schemes of administration showed significant reductions in symptom and medication scores. Moreover, a SLIT-induced disease-modifying effect has been documented mainly with grass pollen extracts, since improvement is maintained during at least 2 years of follow-up after a 3-year treatment period. Additionally, allergen immunotherapy should also be considered a preventive strategy, especially for decreasing bronchial asthma incidence in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis treated with SLIT. This therapy is also safe, producing only a few mainly local and mild-to-moderate adverse events, and usually self-limited in time. The registration and authorization of allergen SLIT preparations (grasses and house-dust mite tablets) as drugs by regulatory agencies, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), has represented a landmark in allergy immunotherapy research. Further long-term studies, specially designed with allergens other than grass pollen or house-dust mites, not only in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis but also on asthmatic subjects, as well as studies comparing different administration schedules and/or routes, are required in order to continue the progress in the modern development of this particularly promising therapy.

New approaches to allergen immunotherapy

OBJECTIVE

New insights into mechanisms should enable strategic improvement of allergen immunotherapy, aiming to make it safer, faster, more effective, and able to induce long-term tolerance. We review novel approaches with potential to translate into clinical use.

DATA SOURCES

Database searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Search terms were based on current and novel approaches in immunotherapy. Literature was selected primarily from recent randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trials and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Alum, microcrystalline tyrosine, and calcium phosphate are adjuvants in current use. Toll-like receptor-4 agonists combined with allergen have potential to shorten duration of treatment. Other novel adjuvants, nanoparticles, and virus-like particles in combination with allergen have shown early promise. Omalizumab lessens systemic side effects but does not improve efficacy. Intralymphatic immunotherapy for aeroallergens, epicutaneous immunotherapy for food allergens, and use of modified allergens (allergoids), recombinant allergens (and hypoallergenic variants), and T- and B-cell peptide approaches have shown evidence of efficacy and permitted shortened courses but have only rarely been compared with conventional extracts.

CONCLUSION

Novel routes of immunotherapy, use of modified allergens, and combination of allergens with immunostimulatory adjuvants or immune modifiers have been developed to augment downregulation of T-helper cell type 2 immunity and/or induce "protective" blocking antibodies. Although these strategies have permitted shortened courses, confirmatory phase 3 trials are required to confirm efficacy and safety and head-to-head trials are required for comparative efficacy. Currently, subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapies using in-house standardized crude extracts remain the only approaches proved to induce long-term tolerance.

The global development and clinical efficacy of sublingual tablet immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is a treatment option for respiratory allergy that is complementary to pharmacotherapy, with a distinct mechanism of action. Alternative methods to subcutaneous administration of AIT that enable patients to safely self-administer AIT is considered an unmet clinical need. The sublingual immunotherapy tablet (SLIT-tablet) is an orally disintegrating pharmaceutical formulation (oral lyophilisate) containing standardized allergens. SLIT-tablets have been developed for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) of cedar-pollen, grass-pollen, ragweed-pollen, tree-pollen, and house dust mite allergies. It is a once-daily tablet treatment to be self-administered after the first dose has been provided under the supervision of a physician with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases. Once the first dose is adequately tolerated, subsequent doses may be self-administered. SLIT-tablets have proven efficacy for allergic rhinitis (AR) with and without conjunctivitis (C) and allergic asthma (AA) in adults, children, and poly-sensitized allergic patients. Meta-analyses indicate that SLIT-tablets have superior or similar efficacy compared with anti-allergic pharmacotherapies for seasonal AR and superior efficacy for perennial AR. SLIT-tablets have also demonstrated clinically relevant improvements of asthma, with significant reductions in the following: daily inhaled corticosteroid use, risk of asthma exacerbations, and asthma symptoms. SLIT-tablets are generally well tolerated, with a low risk of systemic allergic reactions. The most common treatment-related adverse events are mild-moderate oral reactions. Current evidence supports SLIT-tablets to be considered as an alternative or add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy for AR/C and asthma. Future SLIT developments may include early intervention to prevent the development or progression of allergic disease in children.