Subcutaneous injection immunotherapy for optimal effectiveness

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Allergic Rhinitis: What Do We Know About Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy?

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated disease that is characterized by Th2 joint inflammation. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is indicated for AR when symptoms remain uncontrolled despite medication and allergen avoidance. AIT is considered to have been effective if it alleviated allergic symptoms, decreased medication use, improved the quality of life even after treatment cessation, and prevented the progression of AR to asthma and the onset of new sensitization. AIT can be administered subcutaneously or sublingually, and novel routes are still being developed, such as intra-lymphatically and epicutaneously. AIT aims at inducing allergen tolerance through modification of innate and adaptive immunologic responses. The main mechanism of AIT is control of type 2 inflammatory cells through induction of various functional regulatory cells such as regulatory T cells (Tregs), follicular T cells (Tfr), B cells (Bregs), dendritic cells (DCregs), innate lymphoid cells (IL-10⁺ ILCs), and natural killer cells (NKregs). However, AIT has a number of disadvantages: the long treatment period required to achieve greater efficacy, high cost, systemic allergic reactions, and the absence of a biomarker for predicting treatment responders. Currently, adjunctive therapies, vaccine adjuvants, and novel vaccine technologies are being studied to overcome the problems associated with AIT. This review presents an updated overview of AIT, with a special focus on AR.

The evolution of allergy immunotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to trace the evolution of the art and science of allergy immunotherapy (AIT).

DATA SOURCES

Original reports relating to the evolution of the concept of respiratory allergy and its specific treatment were identified by following references in journal articles, review articles, and allergy textbooks from the mid-20th century to the present.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies highlighting substantial milestones in the evolution of the practice of allergy immunotherapy were included.

RESULTS

The story of AIT begins with the recognition of hay fever as a distinct entity and subsequent studies that established grass pollen as one of the causes. This knowledge led several investigators, most notable Leonard Noon and John Freeman who worked at St. Mary's Hospital in London, to attempt to induce tolerance giving grass pollen extract by injection to their patients. After the publication of the work of Noon and Freeman in 1911, the practice of AIT spread rapidly and was applied to many other pollen allergens besides grass and for perennial rhinitis and asthma. The early studies were largely anecdotal, but over the past 60 to 70 years, studies of AIT have been conducted with increasingly sophisticated scientific methods. Nowadays, not only is the practice of AIT based on carefully conducted studies, but the underlying immunologic basis of allergy and the response to AIT have also been and still are being firmly established.

CONCLUSION

Both the art and the science behind the practice of AIT have been established by a solid base of clinical and immunologic studies.

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.

Evidence-based dosing of maintenance subcutaneous immunotherapy: a contemporary review of state-of-the-art practice

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous immunotherapy is an effective allergy treatment only if properly dosed. In this article we review the data on the probable effective dose range for subcutaneous immunotherapy and convert the recommended doses into a clinically relevant format.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of dose-response subcutaneous immunotherapy studies was done of EBM databases, Medline database, PreMedline, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse for the period 1980-2016. Recommended doses were converted to the volume of allergen extract that should be added to a 5-mL maintenance vial.

RESULTS

A safe and effective dose for subcutaneous immunotherapy is likely 5-20 μg of major allergen per injection. A 0.5-mL injection from a 5-mL maintenance vial containing 0.2 mL of manufacturer's extract of each allergen should reach the lower end of the probable effective dose range for most allergens. A larger volume of extract is required to reach that range when treatment includes cat, dog, or only 1 dust mite. Increasing beyond the commonly prescribed 0.2 mL of manufacturer's extract added to a 5-mL treatment vial is reasonable for nearly all allergens to achieve a maintenance dose higher in the probable effective dose range.

CONCLUSION

Current otolaryngic allergy practice usually escalates patients to 0.5-mL injections from 5-mL maintenance vials containing 0.2 mL of manufacturer's extract of each allergen. With the main exceptions of cat and dog, those injections administered 1 or 2 times per month likely provide an efficacious dose of allergen and are consistent with published guidelines. A larger volume of extract should be considered in certain clinical situations.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Comparison of Pediatric and Adult Systemic Reactions to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been used to treat allergic rhinitis for over a century, and current regimens have wide variability with an array of practice styles and dosing strategies. Although there are some statements about contraindications and cautions, no specific formal age- or weight-based dosing guidelines are utilized when administering SCIT.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to estimate the overall incidence rate of any reaction to SCIT and to consider the severity of the reaction by grade in children and adults.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to document the number and severity of episodes of systemic reactions (SRs) in pediatric and adult subjects. Crude incidence rates were estimated as the number of SRs relative to the total injections administered. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were generated using a generalized estimating equation approach, which accounted for multiple visits within subjects.

RESULTS

The incidence rate for any SR was 0.2%. The unadjusted incidence rate of any SR was significantly higher in children compared with adults (P < .001), although not significant when adjusted for asthma, gender, and phase of SCIT (P < .054). However, the incidence rate for grade 1 and 2 SRs in children was 1.89 times the incidence rate for adults, adjusting for these variables (P < .015).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that current SCIT practices are associated with a higher rate of SRs, specifically of grade 1 and 2 SRs, in children than adults. Further studies are necessary to evaluate if changes in dosing strategies for children, such as a lower starting dose, a decrease in target maintenance dose, or a slower build-up phase, are warranted.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the multiple-pollen sensitive patient

INTRODUCTION

The majority of allergic subjects are polysensitized. In Europe, allergy immunotherapy (AIT) in these patients is usually limited to their single clinically most troublesome allergy while in the U.S. the immunotherapy prescription usually includes all allergen extracts to which the patient has evidence of clinical sensitivity. Areas covered: This article will review the evidence supporting the U.S. practice. It will also review the major new development in the management of polysensitized patients, the introduction of component-resolved diagnosis (CRD). Expert commentary: This allows, in many cases, distinguishing in polysensitized patients between sensitization to the major allergens of several unrelated allergen extracts and to panallergens that cause broad patterns of cross-reactivity.

Subcutaneous Immunotherapy and Sublingual Immunotherapy: Comparative Efficacy, Current and Potential Indications, and Warnings--United States Versus Europe

Subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy are effective for allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma and with some support for use in selected patients with atopic dermatitis. The sequence of immunologic responses is the same, irrespective of the route of administration, and similar disease modification has been demonstrated. However, there are differences between the two approaches. The most important is the greatly reduced likelihood of sublingual immunotherapy producing systemic reactions. There are major drawbacks for sublingual immunotherapy in regard to dosing. Finally, there is the question of relative clinical efficacy, with the currently available data favoring subcutaneous immunotherapy.

Update on house dust mite immunotherapy: are more studies needed?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although systematic reviews have confirmed the effectiveness of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, a review of studies employing extracts of house dust mites (HDMs) for immunotherapy found no consensus on basic treatment parameters.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last 2 years nine additional reports on immunotherapy with HDM extract preparations have been published. Six studies were with SLIT, five for allergic rhinitis and one for allergic asthma. The other three studies were all with SCIT in children with allergic asthma.

SUMMARY

The publication of these nine studies supports the efficacy of HDM-SLIT for allergic rhinitis and asthma and for HDM-SCIT for asthma in children. The reported safety data are also reassuring, especially for SLIT.HDM-SLIT tablets under development will have optimal doses established in large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. The HDM-SCIT trial in children with allergic asthma confirms the efficacy of a commercialized HDM preparation for injection immunotherapy. However, the information that is presented on dosing in the articles on SLIT-liquid is unsatisfactory, as doses are not presented in a form that the clinician can use to guide their practice.

Oral/sublingual Phleum pretense grass tablet (Grazax/Grastek) to treat allergic rhinitis in the USA

With the approval of two grass tablets and one ragweed tablet for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) by the US FDA in April 2014, the practice of allergy immunotherapy (AIT) in the USA has dramatically changed. Until this time, there were no approved allergen extracts for sublingual administration and physicians who prescribed SLIT for their patients did so without full knowledge of proper dosing or assurance of its safety. Now sublingual allergen tablets are available that have proven safe and effective doses. This article describes, in detail, the studies that have been conducted with a timothy grass SLIT tablet and draws some comparisons to the alternative 5-grass SLIT tablet. It also attempts to predict what will be the impact of the introduction of these tablets on the practice of AIT in the USA over the next few years.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy versus sublingual immunotherapy: which is more effective?

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are both effective treatments for allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, both show clinical evidence of disease modification by decreasing new sensitizations in individuals who were monosensitized, by reducing the development of asthma in patients with allergic rhinitis, and by inducing clinical improvement that persists for years after discontinuation of a successful course of treatment. Initiation of SLIT is accompanied by a high incidence of local symptoms, but these are generally mild and do not usually persist beyond the first few weeks. Systemic reactions do occasionally occur with SLIT but much less frequently than with SCIT, and, to date, no fatal or near fatal reactions have been reported. Effective doses have been defined for many allergens for SCIT and are now being defined for SLIT. There remains the unanswered question of the effectiveness of SLIT with multiple allergen extracts. The relative clinical efficacy of SCIT and SLIT remains to be defined. When each is compared with placebo, results of meta-analyses suggest greater efficacy of SCIT. In the limited number of randomized, head-to-head studies, SCIT has more often provided greater clinical and immunologic responses. However, head-to-head studies with well-defined effective doses by the 2 routes are urgently needed.

Update on allergy immunotherapy: American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology/PRACTALL consensus report

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic asthma and rhinitis, as well as venom-induced anaphylaxis. In addition to reducing symptoms, AIT can change the course of allergic disease and induce allergen-specific immune tolerance. In current clinical practice immunotherapy is delivered either subcutaneously or sublingually; some allergens, such as grass pollen, can be delivered through either route, whereas others, such as venoms, are only delivered subcutaneously. Both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy appear to have a duration of efficacy of up to 12 years, and both can prevent the development of asthma and new allergen sensitivities. In spite of the advances with AIT, safer and more effective AIT strategies are needed, especially for patients with asthma, atopic dermatitis, or food allergy. Novel approaches to improve AIT include use of adjuvants or recombinant allergens and alternate routes of administration. As part of the PRACTALL initiatives, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology nominated an expert team to develop a comprehensive consensus report on the mechanisms of AIT and its use in clinical practice, as well as unmet needs and ongoing developments in AIT. This resulting report is endorsed by both academies.

Immunotherapies in dermatologic disorders

Treatment modalities and therapeutic response experience support the use of immunotherapy in the treatment of many diseases in all fields of medicine. The aim of this article is to conduct and present a review of literature on the use of immunotherapy in the treatment of skin diseases analyzing scientific literature available up to January 2012. Studies that presented evidence-based data were selected. The article discusses how blocking or reverting the effect of a specific immunologic disequilibrium can treat dermatoses and intends to transfer a large amount of immunotherapy knowledge into a historical perspective for physicians naive to immunotherapy practices.