House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy: results of a US trial

The evidence for commercial house dust mite immunotherapy products: A pragmatic systematic review with narrative synthesis

House dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has an established role in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) triggered by HDM sensitization. We aimed to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AR and AA in humans and to summarize the evidence for AIT products that are currently manufactured and available for clinical use. A total of 56 eligible double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AA and/or AR in humans fit the inclusion criteria and investigated a total of 14 commercial AIT products; together, the 56 studies enrolled a total of 14,619 patients. Of the 56 studies, 39 studies investigated the current manufacturer-recommended maintenance dose (MRMD) of the product, and 17 investigated other doses. We identified 39 studies (12,539 patients randomized) for 8 sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) products and 17 studies (2,080 patients randomized) for subcutaneous immunotherapy products. For AR, 3 products, the ALK 12 standardized-quality (SQ-HDM) SLIT tablet, the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, and the SG 300 index of reactivity SLIT tablet, had both dose-finding studies (DFSs) and phase III definitive studies (DSs) to demonstrate efficacy of the MRMD of the product. For AA, 2 products, the ALK 12 SQ-HDM SLIT tablet and the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, had both DFSs and DSs for the MRMD. No subcutaneous immunotherapy product had a paired DFS and DS supporting the MRMD. A total of 30 studies of products no longer commercially manufactured were excluded. This study will help to inform clinical care and product selection for the treatment of HDM-induced AR and AA.

Allergen immunotherapy combined with Notch pathway inhibitors improves HDM-induced allergic airway inflammation and inhibits ILC2 activation

Introduction

Group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s) play a crucial role in house dust mite (HDM)-induced allergic inflammation, and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) holds promise for treating the disease by reducing the frequency of ILC2s. Despite significant progress in AIT for allergic diseases, there remains a need to improve the control of allergic symptoms.

Methods

We investigated the synergistic effect of the Notch signaling pathway and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in treating allergic airway inflammation in mice and their impact on the ratio of ILC2s in lung tissues. This was achieved by establishing the HDM-induced airway allergic disorders (HAAD) model and SCIT model. Additionally, we conducted in vitro investigations into the effect of the Notch signaling pathway on the secretory function of activated ILC2s using fluorescence-activated cell sorting. Furthermore, we explored the coactivation of the Notch signaling pathway with SCIT in vitro by sorting ILC2s from the lung tissues of mice after SCIT modeling.

Results

Previously, our group demonstrated that Notch signaling pathway inhibitors can reduce allergic airway inflammation in mice. Notch signaling induces lineage plasticity of mature ILC2s. In this study, we showed that AIT alleviates allergic airway inflammation and suppresses the frequency of ILC2s induced by HDM. Interestingly, AIT combined with a γ-secretase inhibitor (GSI), an inhibitor of the Notch signaling pathway, significantly inhibited the frequency of ILC2s, reduced airway inflammation, and suppressed Th2-type responses in a mouse model. Furthermore, lung ILC2s from HDM-challenged mice with or without AIT were treated with GSI in vitro, and we found that GSI dramatically reduced the secretion of type 2 inflammatory factors in ILC2s.

Discussion

These findings suggest that Notch signaling pathway inhibitors can be used as adjuvant therapy for AIT and may hold potential treatment value in the cooperative control of allergic airway inflammation during early AIT.

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.

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.

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.

Mouse Models of Asthma: Characteristics, Limitations and Future Perspectives on Clinical Translation

Asthma is a complex and heterogeneous inflammatory airway disease primarily characterized by airway obstruction, which affects up to 15% of the population in Westernized countries with an increasing prevalence. Descriptive laboratory and clinical studies reveal that allergic asthma is due to an immunological inflammatory response and is significantly influenced by an individual's genetic background and environmental factors. Due to the limitations associated with human experiments and tissue isolation, direct mouse models of asthma provide important insights into the disease pathogenesis and in the discovery of novel therapeutics. A wide range of asthma models are currently available, and the correct model system for a given experimental question needs to be carefully chosen. Despite recent advances in the complexity of murine asthma models, for example humanized murine models and the use of clinically relevant allergens, the limitations of the murine system should always be acknowledged, and it remains to be seen if any single murine model can accurately replicate all the clinical features associated with human asthmatic disease.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

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.

Comparison of Sublingual Immunotherapy in Patients With Allergic Rhinitis Sensitive to House Dust Mites in Korea

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) using 2 kinds of SLIT medications (LAIS and Staloral) in patients with allergic rhinitis for Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farinae. We have evaluated the patient's characteristics, safety, and compliance in 293 patients and also analyzed the symptom score, medication score, satisfaction rate, and immunologic measurement in 84 patients who have continued the treatment over 1 year. The symptom scores were significantly improved in both treatment groups, 51% versus 44% (LAIS vs Starloral) at 1 year (P < .05). The medication score was also significantly decreased in both treatment groups (P < .05), 50.8% versus 60%. The subjective improvement score was 44.4% versus 46.1%, and satisfaction rate was 29% versus 40% (P < .05). The serum immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) level was significantly increased in Staloral group (P < .05). The adverse events were 6.2% versus 33.3% and the compliance was 37.7% versus 25.1%. In conclusion, the improvements in symptom score and medication scores were not significant different between 2 SLIT medications at 1 year. LAIS was more compliant, less side effects and Staloral has shown increased satisfaction rate and IgG4 level.

Association between Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Allergic Diseases: To Make a Case for Aeroallergen

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disease and the most common cause of prolonged abdominal pain and bowel disturbances in the developed world. While initially thought to be functional or psychosomatic in nature, IBS is now recognized as a heterogeneous group of conditions. A subset of IBS patients and patients with allergic diseases share some characteristic inflammatory features. In fact, atopic children show an increased likelihood of developing IBS as adults. Given these findings, a subset of IBS may be suffering from allergy-related gut diseases. In this review, we present the allergy-related comorbidities of IBS, including genetic, environmental, and immunologic factors. We discuss studies demonstrating an increased sensitization of IBS patients to aeroallergens compared to food allergens. We then postulate potential pathophysiological mechanisms underlying both IBS and aeroallergens in the gut, followed by potential implications in the screening and treatment of allergies in IBS patients.

Prospective comparison of a nonmodified and a modified mite extract for immunotherapy in children and adolescents

Aim: This prospective study compares nonmodified and modified house dust mite extracts for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in pediatric patients with allergic asthma. Materials & methods: Total 95 patients underwent bronchial allergen provocation (BAP). AIT was recommended to 62 patients. Complete datasets of 54 subjects were obtained. Primary aim was the comparison of treatment success defined by BAP between two extracts after 1 year. Secondary parameters were laboratory parameters and clinical symptoms. Results: Significant improvement (p < 0.001) was measured by BAP in both treatment groups. No change was seen in the controls. Both extracts exerted comparable effects on all parameters. Conclusion: After 1 year of AIT, the extracts were equally efficient, with significant improvements in 70.0% (nonmodified) and 72.2% (modified) of patients.

Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets Relieve Symptoms in Adults with Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background:

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been proven to be effective against house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis. However, the efficacy in adults with allergic rhinitis has never been reported on SLIT tablets. The current meta-analysis aimed to illustrate the differentiated efficacy of SLIT tablets on allergic rhinitis.

Methods:

Our systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on allergic rhinitis patients and aimed to summarize those randomized controlled studies (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and MEDLINE were screened for associated articles. We included RCTs on allergic rhinitis patients undergoing SLIT therapy and reporting outcomes on symptom relief and serum-specific IgE levels. The effect of SLIT tablets on the Rhinitis Quality Life Questionnaire Score (RQLQ), Rhinitis Total Symptom Score (RTSS), and serum-specific IgE levels was evaluated using RevMan 5.3.

Results:

Seven studies were included, with 2723 patients identified. All of the studies were RCT. The included seven studies were all conducted on adults. Among the included seven articles, five researches administered patients with SLIT tablets and were eligible for meta-analysis of RTSS, consisting of 1490 patients. Overall, RTSS was significantly reduced in the SLIT tablet group compared with that in the placebo group (standard mean difference = −0.33, 95% confidence interval [−0.54, −0.13], P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in specific IgE levels between SLIT and placebo patients.

Conclusions:

SLIT tablets effectively relieve rhinitis symptoms in adults with allergic rhinitis. Nevertheless, the current evidence may be limited due to sample size and the heterogeneity between studies. Large sample size and multiple center RCTs on the efficacy of different formulations of SLIT drugs are still needed to provide further evidence and a more precise recommendation.

Major allergen content consistency of SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets and relevance across geographic regions

BACKGROUND

Consistency in composition and potency, particularly regarding major allergens, is crucial for the quality of extracts for allergen immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the major allergen composition of house dust mite (HDM) extracts commercially available in the United States and the SQ HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet, and to relate the composition to patient sensitization patterns.

METHODS

Der 1/Der 2 ratios were determined in 10,000- and 30,000-AU/mL HDM extracts from 5 US companies and the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet. Allergen content was analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and compared with an in-house reference. Sensitivity toward Der p 1, Der p 2, and Der p 10 was determined in serum from randomly selected subgroups of 220 individuals from North American and European SQ HDM SLIT-tablet trials.

RESULTS

Mean Der 1/Der 2 ratios in US HDM extracts ranged from 0.4 to 20.5. For the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (20 batches), variability did not exceed 12% regarding content of Der f 1 (SD, 11.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.06), Der p 1 (SD, 6.1%; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03), and combined Der 2 allergen (SD, 6.4%; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03), indicating a consistent Der 1/Der 2 ratio. High allergen sensitivity frequencies toward Der p 1 and Der p 2 were observed regardless of geographic region. Efficacy of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet has been demonstrated in 5 clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

The SQ HDM SLIT-tablet has efficacy potential for a broad range of patients because it includes a consistent 1:1 ratio of the 2 major HDM allergens to which individuals were most frequently sensitized across geographic regions. Efficacy has been demonstrated.

Biomarkers for monitoring clinical efficacy of allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma: an EAACI Position Paper

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) with or without asthma. It is important to note that due to the complex interaction between patient, allergy triggers, symptomatology and vaccines used for AIT, some patients do not respond optimally to the treatment. Furthermore, there are no validated or generally accepted candidate biomarkers that are predictive of the clinical response to AIT. Clinical management of patients receiving AIT and efficacy in randomised controlled trials for drug development could be enhanced by predictive biomarkers.

METHOD

The EAACI taskforce reviewed all candidate biomarkers used in clinical trials of AR patients with/without asthma in a literature review. Biomarkers were grouped into seven domains: (i) IgE (total IgE, specific IgE and sIgE/Total IgE ratio), (ii) IgG-subclasses (sIgG1, sIgG4 including SIgE/IgG4 ratio), (iii) Serum inhibitory activity for IgE (IgE-FAB and IgE-BF), (iv) Basophil activation, (v) Cytokines and Chemokines, (vi) Cellular markers (T regulatory cells, B regulatory cells and dendritic cells) and (vii) In vivo biomarkers (including provocation tests?).

RESULTS

All biomarkers were reviewed in the light of their potential advantages as well as their respective drawbacks. Unmet needs and specific recommendations on all seven domains were addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended to explore the use of allergen-specific IgG4 as a biomarker for compliance. sIgE/tIgE and IgE-FAB are considered as potential surrogate candidate biomarkers. Cytokine/chemokines and cellular reponses provided insight into the mechanisms of AIT. More studies for confirmation and interpretation of the possible association with the clinical response to AIT are needed.

Sublingual immunotherapy tablets as a disease-modifying add-on treatment option to pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma

Allergic rhinitis (AR) with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) is associated with a significant health and economic burden, and is often accompanied by asthma. Pharmacotherapies are the mainstay treatment options for AR and asthma, but guidelines also recommend allergy immunotherapy (AIT). Unlike pharmacotherapies, AIT has the ability to modify the underlying immunologic mechanisms of AR and asthma with the potential for long-term benefits after treatment is discontinued. Immunotherapy may also prevent progression of AR/C to asthma. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a self-administered alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy that provide the benefits of AIT without the cost and inconvenience of frequent office visits or the discomfort of injections. SLIT-tablets are also an option that can be utilized by primary care clinicians. Pharmacotherapies are generally effective in mild disease although a number of patients remain uncontrolled. SLIT-tablets have proven efficacy for AR in adults, children, and poly-sensitized allergic patients. Indirect comparisons indicate that SLIT-tablets have superior or comparable efficacy compared with traditional pharmacotherapies for seasonal AR, and superior efficacy for perennial AR. House dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablets have also demonstrated clinically relevant benefits for asthma, with significant observed reductions in daily inhaled corticosteroid use, risk of asthma exacerbations, and asthma symptoms. SLIT-tablets are well tolerated, with minimal risk of systemic allergic reactions. The most common treatment-related adverse events are oral site reactions such as oral pruritus and throat irritation. Based on the favorable efficacy and safety profile, as well as the convenience of at-home oral administration and disease-modifying effects, SLIT-tablets should be considered as an alternative or add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy for AR/C, and as an add-on treatment for HDM allergic asthma.

Is allergic sensitization relevant in severe asthma? Which allergens may be culprit?

Severe asthma is a major health concern. The allergic (IgE-mediated) form of asthma is well known from a pathogenic viewpoint. We searched the available literature to identify which allergens are most frequently associated with severe, refractory or life threatening asthma. According to the results, molds, pet dander, cockroach and ragweed were more frequently responsible for severe asthma. Thunderstorm asthma, in addition, represents a special association between allergic sensitization and an external climatic factor. A detailed knowledge of the most harmful allergens is mandatory for an appropriate diagnostic and preventive approach.

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.

Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablet in North American adolescents and adults in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet (MK-8237; Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ/ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark) has demonstrated beneficial effects on allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma outcomes in European trials.

OBJECTIVE

This is the first trial to assess the efficacy/safety of HDM SLIT-tablets in North American subjects with HDM-induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C).

METHODS

In this double-blind, multicenter trial (NCT01700192) 1482 subjects (aged ≥12 years) with HDM-induced AR/C with or without asthma were randomized to a daily SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (12 SQ-HDM dose) or placebo for up to approximately 52 weeks. A rhinitis daily symptom score (DSS; 4 nasal symptoms, maximum score = 12) of 6 or greater, or 5 or greater with 1 symptom being severe, on 5 of 7 consecutive days before randomization was required. The primary end point was the average total combined rhinitis score, which was defined as the rhinitis DSS plus rhinitis daily medication score (DMS), during the last 8 treatment weeks.

RESULTS

Treatment with 12 SQ-HDM improved the total combined rhinitis score by 17% (95% CI, 10% to 25%) versus placebo. Improvements versus placebo in the secondary end points of average rhinitis DSS, rhinitis DMS, total combined rhinoconjunctivitis score, and visual analog scale-assessed AR/C symptoms were 16%, 18%, 17%, and 16%, respectively. All nominal P values were less than .001 versus placebo, except rhinitis DMS (P = 0.15). No treatment-related adverse events meeting the International Council on Harmonization definition of a serious adverse event were reported; 1 nonserious treatment-related systemic allergic reaction occurred (assessed as moderate intensity) at first administration under medical supervision and was treated with epinephrine.

CONCLUSIONS

In the first North American trial of use of a SLIT-tablet for HDM allergy, 12 SQ-HDM was well tolerated and improved HDM-induced rhinitis symptoms in adults and adolescents.

The effects of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis according to duration

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have been demonstrated in the recent 2 decades. However, the data is still mixed regarding the efficacy of house dust mite (HDM) SLIT. The objective of this work was to evaluate the different clinical efficacy SLIT in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) according to different durations of treatment.

METHODS

A total of 500 subjects with HDM-induced AR were randomized to receive SLIT with Dermatophagoides farinae (Der.f) drops or pharmacotherapy with oral antihistamines. Patients in the SLIT group were further divided into SLIT1, SLIT2, and SLIT3 subgroups. After SLIT completion, a yearly follow-up visit was given to patients in the SLIT1 and SLIT2 subgroups. The total nasal symptom score (TNSS), the proportion of medication withdrawal, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores were assessed at each monthly visit.

RESULTS

Comparing with the baseline value, TNSS, VAS, and RQLQ were significantly improved in 3 SLIT subgroups after treatment (p < 0.05). In addition, patients in SLIT3 subgroup achieved the highest proportion of medication withdrawal compared to the SLIT1 and SLIT2 subgroups (p < 0.05). After 1-year follow-up, no significant differences were observed in TNSS, VAS scores, and the proportion of medication withdrawal of SLIT1 and SLIT2 subgroups (p > 0.05) with respect to the completion value. No severe systemic adverse events (AEs) were reported.

CONCLUSION

The randomized study suggested that 3-year courses of SLIT in patients with AR was more efficacious than 1-year or 2-year courses. Furthermore, patients achieved 1-year long-term clinical benefits from HDM SLIT.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. However, it is not clear whether the sublingual delivery route is safe and effective in asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. The search is up to date as of 25 March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and presented results in the 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 5077 participants to comparisons of interest. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, but studies varied in duration from one day to three years. Most participants had mild or intermittent asthma, often with co-morbid allergic rhinitis. Eighteen studies recruited only adults, 25 recruited only children and several recruited both or did not specify (n = 9).With the exception of adverse events, reporting of outcomes of interest to this review was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence. Allocation procedures generally were not well described, about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of bias for performance or detection bias or both and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies.One short study reported exacerbations requiring a hospital visit and observed no adverse events. Five studies reported quality of life, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. Serious adverse events were infrequent, and analysis using risk differences suggests that no more than 1 in 100 are likely to suffer a serious adverse event as a result of treatment with SLIT (RD 0.0012, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0077 to 0.0102; participants = 2560; studies = 22; moderate-quality evidence).Within secondary outcomes, wide but varied reporting of largely unvalidated asthma symptom and medication scores precluded meaningful meta-analysis; a general trend suggested SLIT benefit over placebo, but variation in scales meant that results were difficult to interpret.Changes in inhaled corticosteroid use in micrograms per day (MD 35.10 mcg/d, 95% CI -50.21 to 120.42; low-quality evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events) and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.69, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence) were not often reported. This led to many imprecise estimates with wide confidence intervals that included the possibility of both benefit and harm from SLIT.More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.38; low-quality evidence; participants = 1755; studies = 19), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild.Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lack of data for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life and use of different unvalidated symptom and medication scores have limited our ability to draw a clinically useful conclusion. Further research using validated scales and important outcomes for patients and decision makers is needed so that SLIT can be properly assessed as clinical treatment for asthma. Very few serious adverse events have been reported, but most studies have included patients with intermittent or mild asthma, so we cannot comment on the safety of SLIT for those with moderate or severe asthma. SLIT is associated with increased risk of all adverse events.

Dosing of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: evidence-based review with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Since the mid 1980s, the clinical use of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has dramatically increased. However, 1 of the primary barriers to providing SLIT is lack of a published dosing recommendations. The purpose of this work is to provide a range of effective SLIT dosing based upon a rigorous review of the existing evidence base. An appendix with SLIT dosing recommendations is also included.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the past 25 years of the medical literature using PubMed was performed for specific antigens. Inclusion criteria for articles included: randomized, placebo-controlled studies of SLIT, studies with clinical allergic rhinitis outcomes, and dosing units available to determine the micrograms per month of major allergen administered. The extracted data was used to compile a range of effective SLIT dosing for individual antigens.

RESULTS

Seventy-five articles met the inclusion criteria, providing a range of effective dosing for some allergens. There was commonly a wide range in doses for particular antigens between the individual studies. For some antigens, there was significant overlap in dosage amount between studies showing efficacy and lack of efficacy. Clinical trials meeting inclusion criteria are not available for many allergens.

CONCLUSION

This study provided a comprehensive review of the published sublingual dosing ranges for specific antigens. The review provided a range of effective sublingual doses for some allergens, whereas for other allergens there was insufficient published data to determine specific doses. Recommendations for SLIT dosing were produced based on the data revealed in the review and expert opinion.

Mite-Allergic Rhinitis: How to Evaluate Clinical Efficacy in Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy Trials?

House dust mite (HDM) allergen exposure is the most important cause of perennial allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. Although allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) with HDM is well established, published studies have been characterized by substantial heterogeneity in clinical endpoints. Standardization in measuring clinical efficacy is required. Moreover, when designing an AIT trial with HDM allergens, several considerations have to be taken into account. The history of HDM allergy is less clear cut than the typical history of pollen allergy. In addition, clinical features of HDM allergy may differ from those of pollen allergy. Moreover, although not easily measurable, fluctuation in allergen exposure may cause variation in symptom severity and determine the timing of assessment of clinical effects of HDM AIT. Key points 1. A combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) is recommended as standard for the primary endpoint in future house dust mite (HDM) allergen-specific immunotherapy trials. 2. The diagnosis of HDM allergy is based on a carefully taken history in combination with sensitization to HDM allergens. 3. Eye symptoms are less prominent in patients with HDM-induced allergic rhinitis. Nasal symptoms, but not eye symptoms, should be included in the CSMS and in symptom scores as well. 4. As methods to determine allergen exposure vary and the efficacy of environmental control is a matter of debate, a practical approach consists of restraining patients from implementing HDM-reducing measures, such as removing carpets and introducing anti-mite covers, after the start of the study. 5. Efficacy evaluation in the period with the highest exposure to mites is recommended.

In vitro evaluation of allergen potencies of commercial house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy reagents

Purpose

The clinical efficacy of allergen-immunotherapy is known to be dose dependent. However, optimal maintenance dosage has not yet been determined for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Furthermore, since companies adopt their own units for expression of allergenicity, the allergen concentrations of individual reagents cannot be compared easily. We sought to measure and compare the allergenicities of 3 commercially available house dust mite (HDM) SLIT regents and a subcutaneous immunotherapy reagent.

Methods

We measured the HDM allergenic potency of the maintenance dosages of three SLIT reagents: Staloral® (300 index of reactivity [IR] /mL, recommended maintenance dosage [MD]: 120 IR), SLITone® (1,000 standard therapeutic unit [STU]/mL, recommended MD: 200 STU), Wolwopharma® (100 µg/mL, recommended MD: 20 µg), and subcutaneous immunotherapy regents of Hollister-Stier (10,000 allergy unit [AU] /mL). The allergenic potency was assessed by measuring the total protein concentrations, mite group 1 and 2 allergens using 2-site ELISA, and an inhibition test against IgE specific to Dermatophagoides farinae and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus.

Results

The protein content of the Wolwopharma® reagent was 1.5-261.4 times higher than that of the other 2 SLIT reagents. The concentration of group 1 major allergens in Staloral® (132.03 µg/mL) was 33- to 44.5-fold higher than in SLITone® (4.00 µg/mL) and Wolwopharma® (2.97 µg/mL). The concentration of group 2 major allergen was also 8.9- to 10.5-fold higher in Staloral® (15.7 µg/mL) than in SLITone® (1.8 µg/mL) or Wolwopharma® (1.5 µg/mL). An ELISA inhibition study against HDM-specific IgE showed that the allergen potency of Staloral® reagent is 8.5-fold and 21-fold higher than that of SLITone® or Wolwopharma®, respectively. The differences between the maintenance dosages are further exaggerated by the differences in the recommended volumes of SLIT reagents.

Conclusions

The allergen potencies of commercially available HDM SLIT reagents are markedly different. Consensus regarding the optimal allergen concentration for SLIT reagents used to treat HDM respiratory allergies is needed.

Immunotherapy for house dust mite sensitivity: where are the knowledge gaps?

House dust mites (HDMs) are found in the environments where human habitation exists. Their density is dependent on environmental relative humidity; therefore, higher populations are present in areas of the world with higher humidity levels, e.g., coastal areas and tropics. To date, 24 HDM allergens have been identified. Many of these represent digestive enzymes since HDM feces are the major source of allergen exposure. IgE- medicated sensitization to HDM allergens is an important factor in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases since it is the most common aeroallergen detected by skin testing or in vitro IgE assays. Sensitization to HDM allergens often occurs early in life and appears to play an important role in the progression from allergic rhinitis to asthma (the so-called Allergic March) in children. HDM sensitization is also associated with asthma across all age groups. Efforts to control environmental exposure to HDM allergens have often proven to be unsuccessful. While medications can improve symptoms, only immunotherapy currently provides disease-modifying effects in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Several systemic reviews and meta-analysis indicate that both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma for HDM sensitivity. In this report, we review recent studies and the evidence for the use of HDM SCIT and SLIT. Fundamental gaps in knowledge are identified which could lead to improved approaches to HDM allergy.

A milestone in house dust-mite-allergen immunotherapy: the new sublingual tablet S-524101 (actair)

Subcutaneous allergen-specific immunotherapy has long been used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma and its efficacy has been confirmed. However, due to the discomfort of injections and the risk of severe adverse reactions, alternative routes of allergen administration have emerged. Delivery of allergens through the mucosal route had been proposed and investigated thoroughly, confirming the sublingual route to be the most efficacious. Later, the efficacy and safety of this route have been documented by numerous controlled trials both for house dust mite (HDM) and pollens. Recently, sublingual orodispersable grass pollen allergen tablets were in use followed by the newly developed HDM allergen tablets with satisfactory clinical results: Moreover, very recently 1 year of HDM tablet treatment was demonstrated to exert its clinical efficacy 1 year after discontinuation of tablet IT. The persistence of efficacy after only 1 year of treatment is a new and promising era. Currently, Sublingual Immunotherapy is the most easily administered and safe treatment option until more immunogenic, less allergenic and more efficient allergen extracts are developed.

Sublingual immunotherapy: the U.S. experience

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is likely that approval of allergen preparations for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) will soon occur in the United States. This article reviews experience with SLIT in this country, concentrating on the large, multicenter trials that will provide the evidence of safety and efficacy necessary to obtain that approval.

RECENT FINDINGS

Large multicenter trials have been conducted with both grass and short ragweed. In five single-season studies with sublingual grass tablets, usually starting 4 months prior to and continuing through the pollen season, the combined symptom medication score was improved 20-28% relative to placebo-treated individuals. Short ragweed tablets, initiated 4 months prior to and continued through the pollen season, reduced symptom/medication scores by 24-26%. Similar results have been reported with short ragweed aqueous extract administered sublingually. To date, there has been only one small study each with house dust mite and cat allergen extracts. All of these studies were conducted with a single allergen. One small study, comparing timothy alone to the same dose of timothy combined with nine other pollen extracts, raised still unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of SLIT with multiple allergen mixes.

SUMMARY

SLIT is coming to the United States. There will be approved allergen preparations for which the appropriate dosing for efficacy and safety has been established. It would be inappropriate to use the evidence generated by these large studies to justify off-label use of allergen extracts approved for injection or the administration of multiple allergen preparations sublingually.

Dropouts in sublingual allergen immunotherapy trials - a systematic review

Participant dropouts can reduce the power of allergen immunotherapy clinical trials. Evaluation of the dropout rate and reasons for dropout are important not only in the planning of clinical studies but are also relevant for adherence to immunotherapy in daily clinical practice. A systematic review was carried out in order to establish the overall dropout rate among published double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergic diseases. Dropouts were analysed in regards to allergen, formulation, treatment schedule, participant age, study size, number of centres and type of allergic disease. Relative dropout rates in placebo and active groups as well as reasons for dropout were also assessed. A total of 81 studies, comprising 9998 patients, were included. Dropout rates in sublingual immunotherapy controlled studies do not appear to be a major problem with a composite dropout percentage of 14% (95% CI:11.9-16). Furthermore, they are not different for active compared to placebo-treated participants. This lends support to the positive clinical outcomes seen in meta-analyses of these trials.

Sublingual immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization position paper 2013 update

We have prepared this document, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2013 Update", according to the evidence-based criteria, revising and updating chapters of the originally published paper, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009", available at http://www.waojournal.org. Namely, these comprise: "Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy;" "Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy" - reporting all the data of all controlled trials published after 2009; "Safety of sublingual immunotherapy" - with the recently published Grading System for adverse reactions; "Impact of sublingual immunotherapy on the natural history of respiratory allergy" - with the relevant evidences published since 2009; "Efficacy of SLIT in children" - with detailed analysis of all the studies; "Definition of SLIT patient selection" - reporting the criteria for eligibility to sublingual immunotherapy; "The future of immunotherapy in the community care setting"; "Methodology of clinical trials according to the current scientific and regulatory standards"; and "Guideline development: from evidence-based medicine to patients' views" - including the evolution of the methods to make clinical recommendations.Additionally, we have added new chapters to cover a few emerging crucial topics: "Practical aspects of schedules and dosages and counseling for adherence" - which is crucial in clinical practice for all treatments; "Perspectives and new approaches" - including recombinant allergens, adjuvants, modified allergens, and the concept of validity of the single products. Furthermore, "Raising public awareness about sublingual immunotherapy", as a need for our patients, and strategies to increase awareness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among patients, the medical community, all healthcare stakeholders, and public opinion, are also reported in detail.

Development of cockroach immunotherapy by the Inner-City Asthma Consortium

BACKGROUND

Cockroach allergy is a key contributor to asthma morbidity in children living in urban environments.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to document immune responses to cockroach allergen and provide direction for the development of immunotherapy for cockroach allergy.

METHODS

Four pilot studies were conducted: (1) an open-label study to assess the safety of cockroach sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in adults and children; (2) a randomized, double-blind biomarker study of cockroach SLIT versus placebo in adults; (3) a randomized, double-blind biomarker study of 2 doses of cockroach SLIT versus placebo in children; and (4) an open-label safety and biomarker study of cockroach subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in adults.

RESULTS

The adult SLIT trial (n = 54; age, 18-54 years) found a significantly greater increase in cockroach-specific IgE levels between the active and placebo groups (geometric mean ratio, 1.92; P < .0001) and a trend toward increased cockroach-specific IgG4 levels in actively treated subjects (P = .09) but no evidence of functional blocking antibody response. The pediatric SLIT trial (n = 99; age, 5-17 years) found significant differences in IgE, IgG, and IgG4 responses between both active groups and the placebo group but no consistent differences between the high- and low-dose groups. In the SCIT study the treatment resulted in significant changes from baseline in cockroach IgE, IgG4, and blocking antibody levels. The safety profile of cockroach immunotherapy was reassuring in all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of cockroach allergen by means of SCIT is immunologically more active than SLIT, especially with regard to IgG4 levels and blocking antibody responses. No safety concerns were raised in any age group. These pilot studies suggest that immunotherapy with cockroach allergen is more likely to be effective with SCIT.

Oral and sublingual immunotherapy

Allergic diseases have continued to increase throughout the developed world. Subcutaneous immunotherapy has been a mainstay of treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma, however, some patients are precluded from treatment. On the other hand, in the case of food allergy, treatments simply do not exist. Oral and sublingual immunotherapy, with its superior safety and ease of administration, offers an alternative for patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma and has also been promising as a potential treatment for food allergy. The review summarizes significant advances from the past year including further data on the effectiveness of existing treatments, preliminary data on novel treatments, and further understanding of the mechanisms of these new therapies.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of standardized ragweed sublingual-liquid immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy with liquid extracts provides an appealing alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC), but a lack of robust evidence has deterred its use in North America.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of standardized glycerinated short ragweed sublingual allergen immunotherapy liquid (RW-SAIL) extract in subjects with ragweed-related ARC.

METHODS

This phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in North America. Subjects (age range, 18-55 years) with or without asthma were selected based on ARC symptom severity and erythema skin prick reaction to short ragweed. Subjects self-administered the maximum tolerated dose of RW-SAIL (n = 218) or placebo (n = 211) daily beginning approximately 8 to 16 weeks before and through the end of the ragweed pollen season. The primary end point was subject-assessed total combined daily rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication scores (TCS).

RESULTS

During the entire season, there was a 43% decrease in TCS in subjects treated with RW-SAIL compared with placebo. Similar decreases were observed in TCS between the 2 groups during peak season (42%) and in daily symptom scores during the entire (42%) and peak (41%) seasons. The occurrence of adverse events was similar between the treatment groups; most were mild in severity. Treatment-related oromucosal local application site reactions occurred early and were transient and self-limited. No anaphylaxis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first successful North American confirmatory phase 3 clinical trial to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a sublingual standardized ragweed allergen immunotherapy liquid extract for the treatment of ARC.

An evidence-based analysis of house dust mite allergen immunotherapy: a call for more rigorous clinical studies

BACKGROUND

According to meta-analyses and reviews, subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) are beneficial in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) induced by house dust mites (HDMs). However, the reported effect sizes have varied greatly from one study to another.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to perform an evidence-based medicine assessment of commercially available SCIT and SLIT formulations in patients with HDM-induced AA and HDM-induced AR.

METHODS

We searched for double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and analyzed study designs, doses, regimens, patient-reported outcomes, safety reporting, and compliance.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. Some studies tested both SLIT and SCIT or scored both AA and AR outcomes; therefore we reviewed 35 treatment arms in patients with AA (20 for SCIT and 15 for SLIT) and 23 treatment arms in patients with AR (7 for SCIT and 16 for SLIT). The treatment duration ranged from 6 weeks to 3 years. For SCIT, the dose of Der p 1 major allergen (when reported) ranged from 7 to 30 μg for maintenance doses and 60 to 420 μg for cumulative doses. For SLIT, the doses of Der p 1 (when reported) were 0.8 to 70 μg for maintenance doses and 60 to 23,695 μg for cumulative doses. Safety data were often absent or poorly reported. A statistically significant active versus placebo symptom score was observed more frequently for SCIT than for SLIT.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus on basic treatment parameters (eg, dose and duration) in HDM SCIT and SLIT. There is an urgent need for rigorous, long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an efficacy criterion that reflects the particular features of HDM-induced allergic disease.

Allergen immunotherapy for house dust mite: clinical efficacy and immunological mechanisms in allergic rhinitis and asthma

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing prevalence of atopic diseases such as allergic rhinitis and asthma with house dust mite (HDM) being the common allergen that is highly associated with allergic rhinitis and asthma. Allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy are part of treatment but it has proved difficult to change the course of HDM-related allergic diseases. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been in use for the past century and has been shown to be effective in the treatment of allergic respiratory disease.

AREAS COVERED

This review exclusively focuses on HDM-AIT and discusses the differences in clinical efficacy and safety, long-term effect after discontinuation and immunological changes observed in both HDM-subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and HDM-sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in both pediatric and adult populations.

EXPERT OPINION

The majority of studies involved small numbers of patients, variable doses of major allergens and are of variable quality. There is good evidence for HDM-SCIT efficacy and its long-term effect in adults and children, whereas at the present time, evidence for HDM-SLIT is unconvincing, particularly in children. In carefully selected patients, HDM-SCIT is effective and safe. More definitive trials are needed before HDM-SLIT can be recommended in routine practice for rhinitis and/or asthma.

Sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis mono-sensitized to house-dust-mites: a double-blind-placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Although sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been demonstrated to be a safe and efficient treatment in children with seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR), there is little evidence on the efficacy of SLIT with house-dust-mite (HDM) extract in children with isolated perennial AR.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of HDM-SLIT in children with isolated allergic rhinitis-conjunctivitis mono-sensitized to HDM without asthma symptoms.

METHODS

Twenty-two children (aged 5-10 years) with perennial AR and conjunctivitis symptoms mono-sensitized to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farinae were enrolled. During a 2 months run-in period, symptom and medication scores, lung functions, bronchial hyperreactivity, nasal provocation and skin prick tests were evaluated. Subjects were randomized to active or placebo using a double-blind method. A total of eighteen subjects were randomised to receive either active SLIT or placebo for 12 months. Daily symptom and medication scores, baseline lung functions, bronchial hyperreactivity, nasal provocation and skin prick tests were recorded and re-evaluated at the end of treatment.

RESULTS

After one year of treatment, no significant differences were detected in the between groups and within group comparisons based on total rhinitis symptom/medication scores (p > 0.05). Skin reactivity to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus was significantly reduced in HDM-SLIT compared to placebo group (p = 0.018). A significant reduction in nasal sensitivity was observed in SLIT group after one year treatment when compared to baseline (p = 0.04). Total conjunctivitis symptoms were reduced significantly in both active and lacebo group at the end of treatment compared to baseline. The proportion of patients with non-specific bronchial hyperreactivity increased to almost 3-fold in placebo group compared to baseline.

CONCLUSION

HDM-SLIT was not superior to placebo in reducing isolated rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms within 12 months of treatment. However, HDM-SLIT has a modulating effect on allergen-specific nasal and skin reactivity in isolated perennial AR children.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at Anzctr.org.au number, ACTRN12613000315718.

Fast onset of action of sublingual immunotherapy in house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To investigate how quickly an allergic rhinitis (AR) patients' symptoms will improve with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blind placebo study.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of SLIT used to treat house dust mite-induced AR. A total of 120 AR patients, aged 4 to 60 years, were treated for 6 months and randomized into two groups: 1) SLIT with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (D.p.) and Dermatophagoides farina (D.f.) extract (n = 60) ; and 2) matched placebo controls (n = 60). Symptom, medications received, and a visual analog scale score were recorded during the whole study. Serum-specific IgE and IgG4 to D. p. and D. f. were assessed before and after the treatment.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients (70.8%) completed the study. Twelve patients (20%) chose to withdraw from the SLIT group, but none because of serious adverse effects. The total symptom and visual analog scores VAS in the SLIT group decreased significantly when compared to the placebo controls (P <0.05) after week 14, as well as for the significant (P <0.05) improvement of all individual AR symptoms in the SLIT group (e.g., sneezing, nasal discharge, itching, and nasal obstruction) after week 22. There was a significant (P <0.05) increase of IgG4 to both D.f. and D.p. in the SLIT, but not in the placebo group after treatment.

CONCLUSION

SLIT with a mixture of D.f. and D.p. extract is an effective and safe treatment for patients with house dust mite-induced AR. Its onset of action can be observed as early as 14 weeks after treatment.

New directions in immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is effective in reducing the clinical symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis, asthma and venom-induced anaphylaxis. Subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with unmodified allergen extracts are the most widely prescribed AIT regimens. The efficacy of these 2 routes appears comparable, but the safety profile with SLIT is more favorable allowing for home administration and requiring less patient time. However, both require that the treatment is taken regularly over several years, e.g., monthly in a supervised medical setting with SCIT and daily at home with SLIT. Despite the difference in treatment settings, poor adherence has been reported with both routes. Emerging evidence suggests that AIT may be effective in other allergic conditions such as atopic dermatitis, venom sting-induced large local reactions, and food allergy. Research with oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies suggest that many patients can be desensitized during treatment, but questions remain about whether this can produce long term tolerance. Further studies are needed to identify appropriate patients and treatment regimens with these conditions. Efforts to develop safer and more effective AIT for inhalant allergies have led to investigations with modified allergens and alternate routes. Intralymphatic (ILIT) has been shown to produce long-lasting clinical benefits after three injections comparable to a 3-year course of SCIT. Epicutaneous (EPIT) has demonstrated promising results for food and inhalant allergies. Vaccine modifications, such as T cell epitopes or the use of viral-like particles as an adjuvant, have been shown to provide sustained clinical benefits after a relatively short course of treatment compared to the currently available AIT treatments, SLIT and SCIT. These newer approaches may increase the utilization and adherence to AIT because the multi-year treatment requirement of currently available AIT is a likely deterrent for initiating and adhering to treatment.

Severe asthma: an expanding and mounting clinical challenge

Although all patients with asthma have variable airflow obstruction, airway inflammation, and bronchial hyperresponsiveness, some have disease that is severe in many aspects: persistent airflow obstruction, ongoing symptoms, increased frequency of exacerbations, and, most importantly, a diminished response to medications. A number of definitions have emerged to characterize the clinical features of severe asthma, but a central feature of this phenotype is the need for high doses of medications, especially corticosteroids, in attempts to achieve disease control. The prevalence of severe asthma is also undergoing reevaluation from the usual estimate of 10% to larger numbers on the basis of medication needs and the lack of disease control achieved. At present, the underlying mechanisms of severe asthma are not established but likely reflect a heterogeneous pattern, rather than a single unifying process. Guideline-directed treatment for severe asthma has limits with usual approaches centered on high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β-agonists, and trials with omalizumab, the monoclonal antibody to IgE. With the development of approaches to recognize asthma phenotypes with distinct pathogenesis and hence unique therapeutic targets, it is hoped that a personalized strategy in treatment directed toward disease-specific features will improve outcomes for this high-risk, severely affected population of patients.

Component-resolved diagnosis with commercially available D. pteronyssinus Der p 1, Der p 2 and Der p 10: relevant markers for house dust mite allergy

OBJECTIVE

To establish the prevalence and serum levels of IgE to commercial Der p 1, Der p 2, Der p 10 and the carbohydrate MUXF3 in house dust-mite allergic patients. To compare individual vs. allergen microarray methods.

METHODS

Prevalence and serum levels of IgE to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus extract and components Der p 1, Der p 2, Der p 10 and MUXF3, specific IgG4 to D. pteronyssinus, total serum IgE levels, and clinical features (age, asthma, rhinitis and atopic dermatitis) were determined in 123 patients (64 children) with the ImmunoCAP® method. ImmunoCAP ISAC® was performed in 24 patients.

RESULTS

All patients had serum IgE to D. pteronyssinus. Prevalences of serum IgE to commercial components were Der p 1 93%, Der p 2 77% (Der p 1 or Der p 2 94%), Der p 10 28% and MUXF3 25%. Levels of D. pteronyssinus IgE strongly correlated with Der p 1 and Der p 2 IgE (r = 0.89 and 0.85 respectively), but not Der p 10 and MUXF3. ImmunoCAP® and ImmunoCAP ISAC® were concordant, but the quantitative correlation was poor. No clinical implication for the prevalence, levels, or molecular IgE reactivity profile to house dust mite components was found.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Commercially available Der p 1 and Der p 2 strongly correlate with IgE D. pteronyssinus. The lack of Der p 1 and Der p 2 IgE may help with differential diagnosis. Der p 10 serum IgE prevalence and levels suggest different patterns in food and mite-related tropomyosin sensitization. Serum IgE to carbohydrate MUXF3, although unexpectedly prevalent, were low and did not modify D. pteronyssinus IgE levels. Follow-up may be best carried out with individual rather than microarrayed components.

House dust allergy and immunotherapy

HDM allergy is associated with asthma, allergic rhinitis and atopic dermatitis. In many countries childhood asthma is predominantly found in HDM-allergic children with their probability of developing disease being proportional to their IgE antibody titers and the early development of Th2 responses. While the pathogenesis is complex and increasingly linked to infection the immunologically-based allergen immunotherapy and anti-IgE antibody therapy are highly beneficial. Immunotherapy could be a short-term treatment providing lifelong relief but the current regimens depend on repeated administration of allergen over years. Immunological investigations point to a contribution of responses outside the Th2 pathway and multiple potential but unproven control mechanisms. Over half of the IgE antibodies are directed to the group 1 and 2 allergens with most of remainder to the group 4, 5, 7 and 21 allergens. This hierarchy found in high and low responders provides a platform for introducing defined allergens into immunotherapy and defined reagents for investigation.

Recent developments in buccal and sublingual delivery systems

INTRODUCTION

There have been several advances in the delivery of drugs through the buccal mucosa over the last 5 years, which have resulted in a number of new buccal delivery products appearing on the market.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the most recent developments in the area of buccal and sublingual drug delivery, with a focus on marketed drugs. Likely future directions are also considered and reported.

EXPERT OPINION

The future potential of buccal and sublingual delivery systems looks favorable. It is envisaged that in the future, buccal and sublingual delivery technologies will provide a platform for the successful delivery of vaccines and antigens. It is also foreseen that physical means of enhancing drug uptake (e.g., sonophoresis, iontophoresis and electroporation) will be commercialized for buccal delivery, thereby expanding the current drug candidate list for this area. The formulation of delivery systems for photosensitizers in photodynamic therapy is a potential emerging area, while buccal and sublingual delivery, in general, is attractive for the development of intellectual property.

A comparison between IgE and IgG4 as markers of allergy in children: an experimental trial in a model of natural antigen avoidance

IgG4 have been hypothesized to act as blocking antibodies capable of preventing IgE-mediated effector cell triggering. This study aims to evaluate the changes in IgG4 in children during a period of natural antigen avoidance. Serum IgE and IgG4 were evaluated in a group of asthmatic children, aged between 7 and 17 years, admitted to the residential house Istituto Pio XII (Misurina, BL, Italy), located at 1,756 m, in a natural model of antigen avoidance. All the patients were skin prick test positive to at least two of the following allergens: Dermatophagoides pteronissynus, Dermatophagoides farinae, cat epithelium, timothy grass pollen and Parietaria pollen. During the 180 days of hospitalization, serum specific IgE and IgG4 were measured six times. A significant decrease (p&#x2264;0.05) in serum specific IgE to house dust mite and pollen allergens was observed; by contrast, no significant variations were shown by IgG4 and IgG4/IgE ratio. No significant relationship was found between serum specific IgE, IgG4 and IgG4/IgE ratio variations and the re-exposure to house dust mite allergens during the Christmas holidays. A positive correlation between specific IgE and specific IgG4 was observed at each considered time (T0: r=0.57, p=0.08; T1: r=0.85, p=0.001; T3: r=0.76, p=0.01). The positive correlation between specific IgE and specific IgG4, enduring throughout the entire time of study, suggests a relationship between these classes of immunoglobulins.