Perception and practice of sublingual immunotherapy among practicing allergists in the United States: A follow-up survey

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.

The Art of Immunotherapy

Selection of a patient with rhinitis/conjunctivitis or asthma for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) requires several decisions. First, does the patient's sensitization, pattern of exposure to an allergen, and degree of exposure to that allergen reasonably suggest a causal relationship? Does the level and duration of symptoms warrant the cost and inconvenience of immunotherapy, or is the patient motivated by the disease-modifying potential of AIT? If AIT is selected, is the choice to be greater safety and convenience with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets, but with treatment probably limited to 2 or 3 allergens, or for subcutaneous immunotherapy where multiple allergen therapy is the rule and efficacy may be somewhat greater, at least initially, or does the physician go off-label into the unknowns of liquid SLIT? Are there extracts of sufficient potency to achieve likely effective doses? How does the physician deal with large local or systemic reactions, with gaps in treatment, with pollen seasons, and the use of premedication or cautionary prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors? How can adherence to AIT be improved? These and other questions are addressed in this paper.

Pediatric sublingual allergen immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) offers an important therapeutic modality in the management of children with respiratory allergies. Along with subcutaneous immunotherapy, these modalities are the only selections that have shown not merely relief of symptoms but also disease-modifying activity. SLIT can be given as either a dissolvable tablet (SLIT-T) or liquid drops (SLIT-D). In studies that examined the efficacy and safety in allergic rhinitis and asthma, SLIT-T and SLIT-D both show efficacy in reducing symptoms and the need for medication, although it seems that SLIT-T may show a better response. Almost all SLIT-D efficacy studies are with single allergens. There are virtually no data on the efficacy of mixing unrelated allergens in the same prescription. Both SLIT-T and SLIT-D treatments are safe, with the most common adverse effects being local ones, such as oral pruritus and mouth irritation, which tend to be mild and short lived. Studies that assess the role of SLIT in the prevention of new sensitizations and asthma in the pediatric population are insufficient and of mixed results; therefore, no conclusions can be made. In the treatment of other pediatric conditions, such as food allergy and atopic dermatitis, there are few studies that assessed if, and the degree of, the benefit with SLIT. In determining if SLIT should be prescribed for the pediatric patient, there is a need for shared decision-making to allow the older child and parents or caregivers to understand the pros and cons, and the costs of all the options and relate their values and preferences to the physician.

Current concepts in optimized construction of allergen immunotherapy vaccines: Practical implications

The administration of allergen immunotherapy, since its inception more than 100 years ago, remains a therapy unique to the field of allergy and immunology. The practicing, board-certified allergist is best equipped to evaluate and manage the allergic patient. The safety and efficacy of allergen immunotherapy is well established, and both are discussed in specific chapters in this primer. The practical application of each of these within the confines of the shot room (i.e., the places or places in the medical facility where injections are administered in the allergy clinic) are addressed in this chapter. In addition, practical suggestions are provided to enhance patient adherence with allergen immunotherapy while maximizing the practice management model as services are executed. The successful implementation of each of these areas (safety, efficacy, adherence, and profit margin) will allow the practicing allergist to optimize the clinical delivery of allergen immunotherapy within communities and to the patients being served. The optimization of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) depends on four specific defining factors: 1) safety; 2) efficacy; 3) adherence; and 4) profit margin. Identifying specific problems which could impede each of these four factors is necessary to ensure the success of AIT. The practical implications of these core concepts as they apply to AIT will be explored in this chapter.

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.

To mix or not to mix in allergy immunotherapy vaccines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

European and US allergists generally do not agree on the approach to subcutaneous allergy immunotherapy in patients with multiple allergies. The North American approach is to treat with a mixture that contains all the allergen extracts to which the patient has evident clinical sensitivity, whereas the European approach is to select for treatment the one or at the most two allergens that are clinically most important for the patient.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent society guidelines continue to recommend these differing practices of treating the polyallergic patient and reviews of prescribing practices indicate these divergent recommendations are followed in Europe and the USA.

SUMMARY

The objections by European allergists to the practice by US allergists are that multiallergen immunotherapy leads to dilution of allergens to less than effective doses, that proteases in some extracts can degrade allergens in other extracts, that there is a problem of safety and inability to determine which component extract caused a systemic reaction, and finally that there is alack of convincing studies demonstrating efficacy of multiallergen mixtures. Each of these contentions is addressed.

Efficacy of House Dust Mite Sublingual Immunotherapy in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Sensitization to house dust mites (HDMs) is frequent in patients with atopic dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus extract in patients with atopic dermatitis sensitized to HDM.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled 91 patients 3 years or older, with SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score greater than or equal to 15 and positive skin test result and/or IgE to D pteronyssinus. Patients were stratified according to age (<12 and ≥12 years) to receive HDM SLIT or placebo for 18 months. Primary outcome was a greater than or equal to 15-point decrease in SCORAD score. Secondary outcomes were decreases in SCORAD and objective SCORAD, Eczema Area and Severity Index, visual analog scale for symptoms, and pruritus scale scores; Investigator's Global Assessment 0/1; and decrease greater than or equal to 4 points in Dermatology Life Quality Index. Background therapy was maintained.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients completed the study (35 HDM SLIT, 31 placebo). After 18 months, 74.2% and 58% of patients in the HDM SLIT group and the placebo group, respectively, showed greater than or equal to 15-point decrease in SCORAD score (relative risk, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.89-1.83). Significant SCORAD score decreases from baseline of 55.6% and 34.5% in HDM SLIT and placebo groups (mean difference, 20.4; 95% CI, 3.89-37.3), significant objective SCORAD score decreases of 56.8% and 34.9% in HDM SLIT and placebo groups (mean difference, 21.3; 95% CI, 0.66-41.81), and more patients with Investigator's Global Assessment 0/1 in the HDM SLIT group as compared with the placebo group (14 of 35 vs 5 of 31; relative risk, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.09-6.39) were observed at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that HDM SLIT may be effective in HDM-sensitized patients as an add-on treatment for atopic dermatitis.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy takes more than the time in the clinic

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the time use and both direct and indirect costs associated with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for adults with allergic rhinitis (AR) and caregivers of children with AR in the US.

METHODS

We conducted a survey to assess the retrospective time use and direct costs of SCIT. The populations surveyed included adults and caregivers of children (aged 5-17) with symptomatic AR of moderate or higher severity who are currently receiving or have previously started allergy immunotherapy (AIT). The retrospectively collected, self-reported time consumption and direct costs per clinic visit when receiving SCIT were assessed as well as the productivity loss associated with SCIT. Data were analyzed using univariate descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The study included 106 adults with AR and 191 caregivers of children with AR. We found that the median time spent per visit to the clinic was 50 min for both groups, including travel time and time at the clinic. The direct costs related to each visit included parking fees, road tolls and other costs. Adults spent $10 on parking, $9 on tolls and $10 on other costs. Finally, a median of 4 h of work was missed for both the adult patients and the adults accompanying a child.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that SCIT is associated with substantial direct patient costs and productivity loss for both adults with AR and caregivers of children with AR.

How important is proper dosing for subcutaneous and sublingual allergy immunotherapy?

Background: Results of surveys report that allergists use a wide range of doses for allergy immunotherapy; however, results of randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies suggest that the range of the optimum effective dosing is relatively narrow. Objective: To review studies that established effective or less than fully effective doses for allergy immunotherapy. Methods: Studies were reviewed that established effective and ineffective subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy doses. Only those studies that expressed dosing in terms of the content of a major allergen in the maintenance doses were included in defining effective and ineffective doses. Results: Studies were identified that showed effective doses for subcutaneous injection, established in randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials, for short ragweed, timothy grass, house-dust mites, cat and dog dander, birch, and Alternaria. For short ragweed, timothy grass, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, and cat and dog dander, less-effective doses were determined, along with effective doses; the less-effective doses were only one-fifth to one-tenth less in allergen content than were the effective doses. Effective doses of cockroach and all fungal extracts except Alternaria have not been established. Information is available on the mean major allergen content of U.S. standardized and a few nonstandardized extracts, which allows the information on effective and ineffective dosing to be used in prescribing subcutaneous allergy immunotherapy. With sublingual allergy immunotherapy, all the approved tablets had multidose studies that determined the optimal dose. For the U.S. liquid extracts, to my knowledge, there are no studies to define effective doses except for ragweed. Conclusions: Although a wide range of doses are prescribed by U.S. allergists, analysis of available data suggests that effective doses fall within a narrow range and that use of doses one-fifth or one-tenth of the effective doses may sacrifice most or all of the potential efficacy of the treatment.

Shifts in allergy practice in a COVID-19 world: Implications of pre-COVID-19 national health care provider and patient surveys of treatments for nasal allergies

Background: Most U.S. patient and health care provider surveys with regard to nasal allergy treatments were conducted before sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets and allergy immunotherapy (AIT) shared decision-making tools were available. Objective: Patient and health care provider surveys with regard to current perceptions of nasal allergy burden, symptoms, and treatments were conducted to compare with previous surveys and provide insight into the use of SLIT-tablets and AIT shared decision-making tools. Methods: From November-December 2019, adults (N = 510) diagnosed with nasal allergies and health care providers (N = 304) who treated nasal allergies in the United States completed surveys with regard to nasal allergy management. Results: Of the patient respondents, 42% reported that their symptoms were only somewhat controlled and 48% had avoided activities because of their nasal allergies. In all, 38% were using only over-the-counter (OTC) medications for treatment, and 42%, 7%, and 8% had ever received subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual allergy drops, or SLIT-tablets, respectively; 56% and 85% reported that they had never discussed SCIT or SLIT, respectively, with their health care provider. Of the health care provider respondents, 45%, 58%, and 20% were very likely to discuss OTC medications, SCIT, or SLIT, respectively. Allergists were more inclined to discuss SCIT with their patients than other health care providers (82% versus 33%, respectively). Most allergists (67%) and other health care providers (62%) reported that they did not use an AIT shared decision-making tool, primarily because of unawareness. Conclusion: The patients with nasal allergies continued to report inadequate symptom control and activity impairment. SLIT-tablets and AIT shared decision-making tools were underused. In the coronavirus disease 2019 era, social distancing may limit office visits, which impacts SCIT administration and prompts increased use of telemedicine and a possible advantage for at-home-administered SLIT-tablets over SCIT.

Preference for Immunotherapy with Tablets by People with Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Mechanisms of Particles in Sensitization, Effector Function and Therapy of Allergic Disease

Humans have always been in contact with natural airborne particles from many sources including biologic particulate matter (PM) which can exhibit allergenic properties. With industrialization, anthropogenic and combustion-derived particles have become a major fraction. Currently, an ever-growing number of diverse and innovative materials containing engineered nanoparticles (NPs) are being developed with great expectations in technology and medicine. Nanomaterials have entered everyday products including cosmetics, textiles, electronics, sports equipment, as well as food, and food packaging. As part of natural evolution humans have adapted to the exposure to particulate matter, aiming to protect the individual's integrity and health. At the respiratory barrier, complications can arise, when allergic sensitization and pulmonary diseases occur in response to particle exposure. Particulate matter in the form of plant pollen, dust mites feces, animal dander, but also aerosols arising from industrial processes in occupational settings including diverse mixtures thereof can exert such effects. This review article gives an overview of the allergic immune response and addresses specifically the mechanisms of particulates in the context of allergic sensitization, effector function and therapy. In regard of the first theme (i), an overview on exposure to particulates and the functionalities of the relevant immune cells involved in allergic sensitization as well as their interactions in innate and adaptive responses are described. As relevant for human disease, we aim to outline (ii) the potential effector mechanisms that lead to the aggravation of an ongoing immune deviation (such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, etc.) by inhaled particulates, including NPs. Even though adverse effects can be exerted by (nano)particles, leading to allergic sensitization, and the exacerbation of allergic symptoms, promising potential has been shown for their use in (iii) therapeutic approaches of allergic disease, for example as adjuvants. Hence, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is introduced and the role of adjuvants such as alum as well as the current understanding of their mechanisms of action is reviewed. Finally, future prospects of nanomedicines in allergy treatment are described, which involve modern platform technologies combining immunomodulatory effects at several (immuno-)functional levels.

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.

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.

Principles of Allergen Immunotherapy and Its Clinical Application in China: Contrasts and Comparisons with the USA

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic rhinitis (AR), asthma, and other allergic diseases has developed quickly. House dust mite (HDM), Artemisia (wormwood), Humulus japonicus (Japanese hop), Alternaria alternata, and Cladosporium herbarum are the five most common inhalant allergens in China. AIT has been performed in China for over 60 years. With the support of the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) and the Chinese Medical Doctors Association (CMDA), the Chinese College of Allergy and Asthma (CCAA) was established in 2016 as a specialized branch of CDMA and is the main certification authority for AIT. Chinese allergists and scientists have made tremendous progress in the development of AIT. There have been many publications by Chinese allergists and scientists worldwide encompassing original research studies, systematic reviews, case studies, and clinical trials. Currently, conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the preferred AIT in China, but sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is beginning to gain recognition. An increasing number of clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the clinical efficacy and side effects of SLIT and SCIT. In China, HDM is the only commercial standardized allergen extracts in clinical use, whereas the others are crude allergen extracts. Besides standardized allergen extracts, other forms of hypoallergenic extracts are still being investigated and developed in China. Immunotherapy in China is similar to that in the USA in which allergen extracts can be mixed for SCIT. However, allergen extracts cannot be mixed for SCIT in Europe.