Sublingual and oral immunotherapy

Tolerability and clinical efficacy of oral immunotherapy with house dust mites in a model of canine atopic dermatitis: a pilot study

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, life-long disease. In humans, immunotherapy (IT) is the only treatment that can alter the course of AD. Oral IT is appealing owing to the ease of administration and the potential for increased compliance. The purposes of this study were to investigate the tolerability, clinical efficacy and effects on allergen-specific IgE of oral IT using a canine AD model. Thirteen atopic beagles sensitized to house dust mites (HDMs) were randomly divided into two groups. One group received daily oral doses of HDMs while the other group received vehicle only for 7 months. The investigator evaluating the dogs was blinded to the allocation of treatments. Prior to and after 2 and 7 months of IT, dogs were challenged daily with HDMs for 3 days concurrently, and clinical signs were scored using a modified Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI). Prior to and at completion of oral IT, serum was collected for measurement of allergen-specific IgE. Oral IT was well tolerated, and no adverse effects were noted. Analysis of variance showed no significant effect of time, group and group × time interaction for CADESI scores. In addition, there were no significant differences in allergen-specific IgE levels. In conclusion, it appears that oral administration of HDMs is well tolerated in these atopic beagles but that this protocol was not sufficient to induce clinical improvement. Further, longer-term studies will be necessary to explore the potential of oral IT in veterinary medicine.

Frequency of acute systemic reactions in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma treated with sublingual immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of respiratory allergy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of systemic adverse reactions in patients treated with standardized extracts of sublingual immunotherapy.

METHODS

Allergic patients with rhinitis with or without asthma and sensitized to at least 1 allergen were included. Increasing doses of standardized allergens were administered until reaching an average dose accumulated of 7,200 U after 26 weeks of treatment. Adverse events were graded according to the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology immunotherapy position paper.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients with a median age of 11 years (interquartile range, 8-20 years) were included. All the patients had allergic rhinitis, and 63% had asthma; they were sensitized mostly to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farinae. Four patients (9%) presented with an immediate and 1 (2%) with a late systemic reaction. In total, 7 systemic reactions occurred in 23,154 doses, and all were associated with wheezing or worsening of nasal symptoms (grade 2); in addition, 1 patient had angioedema and urticaria (grade 3).

CONCLUSIONS

In this group, systemic reaction frequency was 11.6%, and all were classified as grade 2 or 3. Further assessments in larger samples of patients are required in the context of randomized controlled trials.

Sublingual immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sublingual immunotherapy is an established treatment option for allergic rhinitis in many European countries, but it is not approved in the United States and is considered investigational. Sublingual immunotherapy has received increasing attention in the United States as an alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and possibly asthma.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence for the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy is accumulating. The immunological effects of sublingual immunotherapy appear to be similar to those of subcutaneous immunotherapy, but their mechanisms may differ. The unique attributes of sublingual immunotherapy may offer advantages in selected patients. Controlled studies are being extended to evaluate sublingual immunotherapy for other indications, including allergic asthma, latex allergy, atopic dermatitis and food allergies.

SUMMARY

Increasing data support the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy and its validity as a first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis; however, acceptance in the United States is hindered by the lack of confirmatory evidence with United States-licensed products and the reluctance of allergists to accept evidence based on European studies and products. The future of sublingual immunotherapy in the United States will require addressing regulatory, economic and medical criteria.

Pollen immunotherapy: selection,prevention, and future directions

Pollens are an important cause of allergic rhinitis and asthma. Pollen immunotherapy is effective and potentially curative. It has been shown to prevent new sensitizations, to prevent the development of asthma in children, and to induce long-term benefit. Standardization of allergen extracts is necessary to improve immunotherapy safety and efficacy. Knowledge of the local plant taxonomy and allergen cross-reactivity is important in selecting clinically relevant vaccines. In general, allergenic cross-reactivities correspond to taxonomic relations. Tree and weed species demonstrate variable degrees of cross-reactivity. Most grasses have extensive allergenic cross-reactivity. Mechanism of action continues to be an area of investigation, including the induction of immunoglobulin G blocking antibodies. Sublingual immunotherapy, concurrent anti-immunoglobulin E use, hypoallergic peptides, and DNA vaccines are other promising technologies.

Sublingual immunotherapy: a comprehensive review

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used with increasing frequency in Europe and is viewed with increasing interest by allergists in the United States. To address this interest, a Joint Task Force of the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology's Immunotherapy and Allergy Diagnostic Committees reviewed the available literature on SLIT and prepared this report. The task force concluded that despite clear evidence that SLIT is an effective treatment, many questions remained unanswered, including effective dose, treatment schedules, and overall duration of treatment. Until these have been determined, an assessment of the cost/benefit ratio of the treatment cannot be made. SLIT does appear to be associated with few serious side effects, but it has not been administered in high-risk asthmatic patients, nor in the studies reviewed has it been administered as a mixture of non-cross-reacting allergens. Furthermore, there is currently no allergy extract approved for this use in the United States, nor is there a Current Procedural Terminology code for billing purposes. All of these factors should be given careful consideration by anyone contemplating initiating SLIT treatment for their allergic patients.

Immunology and homeopathy. 3. Experimental studies on animal models

A search of the literature and the experiments carried out by the authors of this review show that there are a number of animal models where the effect of homeopathic dilutions or the principles of homeopathic medicine have been tested. The results relate to the immunostimulation by ultralow doses of antigens, the immunological models of the ‘simile’, the regulation of acute or chronic inflammatory processes and the use of homeopathic medicines in farming. The models utilized by different research groups are extremely etherogeneous and differ as the test medicines, the dilutions and the outcomes are concerned. Some experimental lines, particularly those utilizing mice models of immunomodulation and anti-inflammatory effects of homeopathic complex formulations, give support to a real effect of homeopathic high dilutions in animals, but often these data are of preliminary nature and have not been independently replicated. The evidence emerging from animal models is supporting the traditional ‘simile’ rule, according to which ultralow doses of compounds, that in high doses are pathogenic, may have paradoxically a protective or curative effect. Despite a few encouraging observational studies, the effectiveness of the homeopathic prevention or therapy of infections in veterinary medicine is not sufficiently supported by randomized and controlled trials.

Immune mechanisms of allergen-specific sublingual immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy has been shown in some clinical studies to modulate allergen-specific antibody responses [with a decrease in the immunoglobulin E/immunoglobulin G4 (IgE/IgG4) ratio] and to reduce the recruitment and activation of proinflammatory cells in target mucosa. Whereas a central paradigm for successful immunotherapy has been to reorient the pattern of allergen-specific T-cell responses in atopic patients from a T helper (Th)2 to Th1 profile, there is currently a growing interest in eliciting regulatory T cells, capable of downregulating both Th1 and Th2 responses through the production of interleukin (IL)-10 and/or transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta. We discuss herein immune mechanisms involved during allergen-specific sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), in comparison with subcutaneous immunotherapy. During SLIT, the allergen is captured within the oral mucosa by Langerhans-like dendritic cells expressing high-affinity IgE receptors, producing IL-10 and TGF-beta, and upregulating indoleamine dioxygenase (IDO), suggesting that such cells are prone to induce tolerance. The oral mucosa contains limited number of proinflammatory cells, such as mast cells, thereby explaining the well-established safety profile of SLIT. In this context, second-generation vaccines based on recombinant allergens in a native conformation formulated with adjuvants are designed to target Langerhans-like cells in the sublingual mucosa, with the aim to induce allergen-specific regulatory T cells. Importantly, such recombinant vaccines should facilitate the identification of biological markers of SLIT efficacy in humans.

Targeting memory Th2 cells for the treatment of allergic asthma

Th2 memory cells play an important role in the pathogenesis of allergic asthma. Evidence from patients and experimental models indicates that memory Th2 cells reside in the lungs during disease remission and, upon allergen exposure, become activated effectors involved in disease exacerbation. The inhibition of memory Th2 cells or their effector functions in allergic asthma influence disease progression, suggesting their importance as therapeutic targets. They are allergen specific and can potentially be suppressed or eliminated using this specificity. They have distinct activation, differentiation, cell surface phenotype, migration capacity, and effector functions that can be targeted singularly or in combination. Furthermore, memory Th2 cells residing in the lungs can be treated locally. Capitalizing on these unique attributes is important for drug development for allergic asthma. The aim of this review is to present an overview of therapeutic strategies targeting Th2 memory cells in allergic asthma, emphasizing Th2 generation, differentiation, activation, migration, effector function, and survival.