Clinical efficacy of 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in a US study: The importance of allergen-specific serum IgE

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

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

Allergen Immunotherapy: The Evidence Supporting the Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy and Sublingual Forms of Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis/Conjunctivitis and Asthma

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a recognized key therapeutic modality for the treatment of allergic respiratory disease. Definitive studies have provided evidence-based data to demonstrate its effectiveness in allergic rhinitis and asthma due to the inhalation of proteinaceous allergic substances from specific seasonal pollens, dust mites, animal allergens, and certain mold spores. Over the ensuing decades, laboratory investigations have provided objective evidence to demonstrate immunologic changes, including production of protective IgG antibody, suppression of IgE antibody, upregulation of regulatory T cells, and induction of a state of immune tolerance to the offending allergen(s). Tangential to this work were carefully designed clinical studies that defined allergen dose and duration of treatment, established the importance of preparing extracts with standardized allergens (or well-defined extracts) based on major protein moieties, and used allergen provocation models to demonstrate efficacy superior to placebo. In the United States, the use of subcutaneous immunotherapy extracts for AIT was grandfathered in by the Food and Drug Administration based on expert literature review. In contrast, sublingual tablet immunotherapy underwent formal clinical development programs (phase I-III clinical trials) that provided the necessary clinical evidence for safety and efficacy that led to regulatory agency approvals for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in properly characterized patients with allergy. The allergy specialist's treatment options currently include traditional subcutaneous AIT and specific sublingual tablets approved for grass, ragweed, house dust mites, trees belonging to the birch-homologous group, and Japanese cedar. Tangential to this are sublingual drops that are increasingly being used off-label (albeit not approved by the Food and Drug Administration) in the United States. This article will review the evidence-based literature supporting the use of these forms of AIT, as well as focus on several current controversies and gaps in our knowledge base that have relevance for the appropriate selection of patients for treatment with specific AIT.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Plain Language Summary: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

The plain language summary explains allergen immunotherapy to patients, families, and caregivers. The summary is for patients aged 5 years and older who are experiencing symptoms from inhalant allergies and are considering immunotherapy as a treatment option. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for health care providers. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities.

The Art of Dosing for Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in North America

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

Clinical relevance of pre- and coseasonal sublingual immunotherapy with a 300 index of reactivity 5-grass SLIT tablet in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

There is considerable interest in improving the scoring methods for evaluating the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and to show if this is associated with clinically meaningful results from the patient's perspective. We aimed to assess the efficacy and clinical relevance of a 300 index of reactivity (IR) 5-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet in children, adolescents and adults with moderate to severe grass-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with or without controlled asthma using the combined symptom and medication score CSMS0-36 .

METHODS

The data of the European population that participated in 3 Phase III, international, randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials were analyzed post hoc.

RESULTS

A total of 864 patients randomized to 300 IR 5-grass tablet or placebo were analyzed. Over the primary evaluation period, the difference in CSMS0-36 between the 300 IR and placebo groups was statistically significant (point estimates: -2.51, CI95% [-3.88; -1.14], p < 0.0001 in clinical trial1; -2.31, CI95% [-3.39; -1.23], p < 0.0001 in CT2; and -2.31, CI95% [-3.58; -1.03], p = 0.0004 in CT3). The relative differences between the 300 IR 5-grass tablet and placebo were -29.7%, -33.8%, and -26.3%, respectively. The results based on CSMS0-36 were consistent with those obtained with the primary endpoints of the trials and support the consideration of the 2-point threshold of the CSMS0-36 for clinical relevance of AIT.

CONCLUSION

Post hoc analysis of 3 CTs with the 300 IR 5-grass SLIT tablet confirmed its significant and clinically relevant effect in the European population with grass pollen-induced ARC with or without controlled asthma.

Safety and effectiveness of a 300 IR house dust mite sublingual tablet: descriptive 4-year final analysis of a post-marketing surveillance in Japan

Background: Data are limited for clinical outcomes with house dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy beyond 2 years' observation. Materials & methods: A post-marketing drug-use survey assessed the safety and effectiveness of the 300 index of reactivity (IR) HDM tablet during use for up to 4 years in Japan. Results: 538 patients were evaluable for safety and 383 for effectiveness. Most adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred early and were local reactions; 5.6% of 249 total events were reported during years 2 to 4 as new ADRs after the interim analysis. The CAP-RAST score was identified as a potential risk factor for ADRs. The proportion of evaluable patients with severe allergic rhinitis symptoms decreased from 46.4% at baseline (n = 317) to 1.0% at 4 years (n = 104). Patients (n = 16) who discontinued 300 IR HDM tablet due to symptomatic improvement had sustained improvement relative to baseline 1 to 2 years later. Conclusion: Long-term use of the 300 IR HDM tablet is safe and effective.

Differences in allergen-specific basophil activation and T cell proliferation in atopic dermatitis patients with comorbid allergic rhinoconjunctivitis treated with a monoclonal anti-IL-4Rα antibody or allergen-specific immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic inflammatory disorder, is often accompanied by allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) as a co-morbidity. The use of a monoclonal anti-IL-4Rα antibody has been effective in controlling moderate to severe AD symptoms. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is widely used for the treatment of ARC and asthma. The effects of AIT on basophil reactivity/effector functions have already been examined and used as indicators of the treatment efficacy. However, it is unclear, how an anti-IL-4Rα antibody can influence allergen-specific immune responses of basophils and T cells of AD patients with comorbid ARC.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of a monoclonal anti-IL-4Rα antibody on the in vitro allergic responses of basophils and T cells deriving from AD patients with comorbid ARC.

METHODS

Blood samples of 32 AD patients were obtained before, after 4 and 16 weeks of an anti-IL-4Rα antibody therapy (300 mg subcutaneously/2 weeks; n = 21) or AIT (daily sublingual application; n = 11). Patients treated with an anti-IL-4Rα antibody were grouped according to their serum specific immunoglobulin E levels and ARC symptoms, while patients receiving an AIT were additionally grouped according to the allergen specificity of their AIT. Basophil activation test and T cell proliferation assays were undertaken after an in vitro allergen stimulation.

RESULTS

A significant reduction of the immunoglobulin E levels and the allergen-specific T cell proliferation was observed in AD patients treated with an anti-IL-4Rα -antibody, while the allergen-specific basophil activation/sensitivity were found to be significantly increased. In patients receiving an AIT, the in vitro allergen-specific basophil activation and the T cell proliferation were found to be significantly decreased in response to seasonal allergens.

CONCLUSIONS

An IL-4Rα blockade induced by a monoclonal anti-IL-4Rα antibody leads to an increased activity/sensitivity of early effector cells (such as basophils), in contrast to a decreasing reactivity observed under an AIT. The late-phase T cell reaction to allergens did not differ between the herein assessed treatments.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual allergen immunotherapy

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

Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America

Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.

Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3–5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.

Rupatadine to prevent local allergic reactions to sublingual allergy immunotherapy: a case series

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-T) are an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR), but some patients experience local allergic reactions (LAR) in the first few weeks of treatment that can lead to treatment discontinuation. Although oral antihistamines are recommended for the treatment and pretreatment of LAR associated with SLIT-T, there are no clinical trial data to support this recommendation. Rupatadine is an H1 antihistamine that also inhibits platelet activating factor activity. The objective of this case series is to describe real-world clinical situations in which rupatadine was used to treat or mitigate SLIT-T-related LAR.

CASE PRESENTATIONS

Five cases are presented by the managing allergist and off-label use of rupatadine is their expert opinion only. Patients in all 5 cases were treated with a SLIT-T (e.g. ragweed, tree, grass, or house dust mites) for the management of allergic rhinitis and experienced bothersome LAR with the first SLIT-T administration. In 3 cases, rupatadine 10 mg was administered for the immediate treatment of LAR (either in-office with the first SLIT-T dose or for subsequent LAR experienced at home) and the symptoms resolved. In 3 cases, pretreatment with other second-generation H1 antihistamines was unable to prevent LAR and the patients discontinued the SLIT-T. In these 3 cases, switching to pretreatment with rupatadine allowed the patients to restart and tolerate SLIT-T treatment with minimal or no LAR. In these patients with an established history of LAR, proactive pretreatment with rupatadine in subsequent seasons or with initiation of a different SLIT-T mitigated the previously experienced LARs.

CONCLUSIONS

In the cases presented, treatment with rupatadine resolved LAR associated with SLIT-T treatment and rupatadine pretreatment appeared to mitigate subsequent LAR. Rupatadine may be an option to treat or improve the tolerability of the SLIT-T, potentially improving early treatment persistence.

Patient needs and benefits of sublingual immunotherapy for grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis: an observational study

Aim: Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) needs to translate into patient benefit. Patients & methods: Patients received Oralair (Stallergenes, Antony, France) in real-life medical practice. Patient-relevant treatment benefits were measured with the AR-specific Patient Benefit Index. Subgroups were analyzed regarding distinct patient characteristics. Results: Data of 883 patients (children, adolescents, and adults) were analyzed. The highest-ranked patient needs referred to having less AR-symptoms, being able to go outdoors, and being free in the choice of leisure activities. Most patients (89.2-94.6%) attained at least minimally relevant benefit. All subgroups reported relevant benefits, with significantly higher scores in some subgroups. Conclusion: Treatment with Oralair was associated with considerable patient-relevant benefit in all age groups.

Recent development on the use of sublingual immunotherapy tablets for allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated inflammatory condition that causes sneezing, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and nasal itch. Although subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of AR has been in use and well established as a treatment modality, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly considered to be the safer and more convenient alternative. Thus, the objective of this review is to describe recent findings pertaining to the use of SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) for AR.

DATA SOURCES

A database search (PubMed.gov) for articles published between January 1, 2017, and February 9, 2021, was conducted using the following key words: "allergic rhinitis," AND-ed "sublingual immunotherapy." Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials. Other experimental design studies were excluded.

STUDY SELECTIONS

A total of 11 randomized placebo-controlled trials were selected for full-text review and included in the analysis. All studies investigated the use of SLIT on patients with seasonal AR (4 tree pollen, 1 grass pollen, and 1 Japanese cedar) or perennial AR (3 house dust mite).

RESULTS

Our review of 7 recently published randomized placebo-controlled trials with 2348 subjects receiving SLIT reported increased efficacy, safety, supportive immunologic parameters (IgE and IgG4 pre- and posttreatment levels), and improved quality of life. All studies excluded subjects with overlapping seasonal or perennial allergens, a history of moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma, or reduced lung function.

CONCLUSION

Our review highlights that SLIT is a safe and effective treatment that considerably reduces symptoms and medication requirements in AR and improves quality of life.

Subcutaneous Versus Sublingual Immunotherapy for Adults with Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) better improves patient outcomes and quality of life for adults with allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis (AR/C) with or without mild to moderate asthma.

METHODS

Systematic review methodology was based on the Cochrane Collaboration handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) were queried from inception to July 30, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened potentially relevant studies and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes of interest were symptom score (SS), medication score (MS), combined symptom medication score (CSMS), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Meta-analyses with an adjusted indirect comparison were conducted in RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Seven SCIT versus SLIT randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated no significant differences for any outcomes, but insufficient data precluded direct meta-analysis. For the adjusted indirect comparison, 46 RCTs over 39 studies were included for SCIT versus placebo (n = 13) and SLIT versus placebo (n = 33). Statistically significant results favoring SCIT were found for SS (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.49), MS (SMD = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.14-0.39), CSMS (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.17-0.67), and RQLQ (MD = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.04-0.44). Statistically significant results favoring SLIT were found for SS (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.32-0.53), MS (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.28-0.53), CSMS (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.29-0.45), and RQLQ (MD = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.20-0.43). No significant differences were found between SCIT and SLIT for SS (SMD = -0.02; 95% CI = -0.15 to 0.11), MS (SMD = -0.14; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.03), CSMS (SMD = 0.05; 95% CI = -0.21 to 0.31), or RQLQ (MD = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.15).

CONCLUSION

SCIT and SLIT are comparably effective treatments for adults with AR/C. More RCTs analyzing SCIT versus SLIT are needed to directly compare the two. Laryngoscope, 2021.

Changes in Immunologic Indicators During Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis and Determinants of Variability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

To date, there are no generally recognized biomarkers for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and even the changes in immunological indicators during AIT are inconsistent in different publications.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to quantify the immunological changes that occur during AIT and identify the determinants of heterogeneity.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of AIT published in the past 10 years were searched in Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Data on immunological indicators were extracted, and the characteristics of the included studies were collected. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted for each indicator. The study was registered on the PROSPERO website (CRD42020176127).

RESULTS

We reviewed 1898 studies. Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and 31 studies were included in the quantitative analyses. Subset analyses by time demonstrated that serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) of AIT patients increased in the first 12 months, then decreased and became slightly lower than that of control patients. Allergen-specific IgG4 (sIgG4) was elevated in the AIT group during and after treatment. IgE-blocking factor (IgE-BF) was increased and IgE-facilitated allergen binding (IgE-FAB) was reduced in AIT patients. Both of them of the 2 factors were associated with clinical efficacy in the multivariate regression analysis. sIgE/sIgG4 decreased in AIT patients, while there was no change in total IgE.

CONCLUSION

The levels of serum sIgE and sIgG4 during AIT showed a time-dependent pattern. IgE-BF and IgE-FAB should be further investigated as biomarkers for predicting and monitoring AIT efficacy.

The safety of sublingual immunotherapy, can the rare systemic reactions be prevented?

Introduction: The safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), and particularly the dramatic issue of fatal reactions, has been an obstacle that limited the implementation of a therapy with unique characteristics of action on the causes of allergy. The introduction of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was aimed at solving safety problems while maintaining clinical efficacy.Areas covered: For more than 20 years, SLIT has been based on allergen extracts in drops at low average doses. As evidenced by meta-analyses, the typical adverse events (AE) have consisted of local reactions in the mouth and throat. Unlike the injection route, no correlation was observed between the administered dose and AEs. The development of SLIT products in tablets, based on higher doses than drops, has somewhat changed the concept of SLIT safety. Although large trials, performed to obtain regulatory agency approval, have shown overall high safety, rare anaphylactic reactions have been described.Expert opinion: SLIT is globally safe, and no fatal reactions have ever been reported, but with currently available high biological potency products it is necessary to follow prudential rules, such as the administration of the first dose under medical supervision and the thorough education of patients to avoid taking of higher doses than recommended.

Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy tablets in dust mite and pollen allergy

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

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.

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

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

Clinical aspects of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and drops

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is administered via tablets (SLIT-T) or liquid drops (SLIT-D). In North America, currently 4 SLIT-T formulations are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for allergy immunotherapy, and SLIT-D is an off-label use of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) extracts.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast aspects of SLIT-T and SLIT-D, including physical characteristics, mechanism of action, dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed literature review (no limits), product prescribing information, and manufacturer websites.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Publications related to physical characteristics, mechanism of action, dosing, efficacy, safety, and adherence.

RESULTS

Published evidence indicates that tablet and drop formulations differ in regard to physical characteristics, dosing, and strength of evidence for efficacy. Whether there are any differences in absorption and mechanism of action between the 2 formulations is currently unknown. Optimal dosing, efficacy, and safety have been established for SLIT-T. In contrast, in North America there is little support for efficacy of SLIT-D from randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, and dose ranges have not been appropriately evaluated. SLIT-T treats a single allergen, whereas in the United States SLIT-D often contains multiple allergens to treat polysensitization. The safety profiles of SLIT-T and SLIT-D appear similar, and both formulations are considered safer than SCIT.

CONCLUSION

Professional guidelines should make a clear distinction between SLIT-T and SLIT-D in their recommendations to minimize confusion with the umbrella term SLIT.

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

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

The Use of Biomarkers to Predict Aero-Allergen and Food Immunotherapy Responses

The incidence of allergic conditions has continued to rise over the past several decades, with a growing body of research dedicated toward the treatment of such conditions. By driving a complex range of changes in the underlying immune response, immunotherapy is the only therapy that modulates the immune system with long-term effects and is presently utilized for the treatment of several atopic conditions. Recent efforts have focused on identifying biomarkers associated with these changes that may be of use in predicting patients with the highest likelihood of positive clinical outcomes during allergen immunotherapy (AIT), providing guidance regarding AIT discontinuation, and predicting symptomatic relapse and the need for booster AIT after therapy. The identification of such biomarkers in food allergy has the additional benefit of replacing oral food challenges, which are presently the gold standard for diagnosing food allergies. While several markers have shown early promise, research has yet to identify a marker that can invariably predict clinical response to AIT. Skin prick testing (SPT) and specific IgE have commonly been used as inclusion criteria for the initiation of AIT and prediction of reactions during subsequent allergen challenge; however, existing data suggests that changes in these markers are not always associated with clinical improvement and can be widely variable, reducing their utility in predicting clinical response. Similar findings have been described for the use of allergen-specific functional IgG4 antibodies, basophil activation and histamine release, and type 2 innate lymphoid cells. There appears to be a promising association between changes in the expression of dendritic cell-associated markers, as well as the use of DNA promoter region methylation patterns in the prediction of allergy status following therapy. The cellular and molecular changes brought about by immunotherapy are still under investigation, but major strides in our understanding are being made.

An observational cohort study of the use of five-grass-pollen extract sublingual immunotherapy during the 2015 pollen season in France

Background

Allergic rhinitis affects around one quarter of the Western European population. Prophylactic allergen immunotherapy may be useful to reduce the risk of acute symptomatic attacks (hayfever). A five-grass pollen extract sublingual immunotherapy (5GPE-SLIT) has been developed for the treatment of allergic rhinitis to grass pollen. The objective of this study was to describe real-world treatment patterns with 5GPE-SLIT in France with respect to the prescribing information.

Methods

This prospective cohort study was conducted by 90 community and hospital allergists. Adults and children (> 5 years old) starting a first treatment with 5GPE-SLIT prior to the 2015 pollen season were eligible. Data was collected at the inclusion visit and at the end of the pollen season. The primary outcome variable was compatibility of 5GPE-SLIT prescription with the prescribing information. This was determined with respect to four variables: (1) interval between 5GPE-SLIT initiation and onset of the pollen season ≥ 3 months, (2) age of patient ≥ 5 years, (3) intermittent symptoms or mild symptom severity (4) confirmatory diagnostic test. At study end, symptoms reported during the pollen season and any modifications to treatment or adverse events were documented.

Results

280 adults and 203 children were enrolled. The prescribing information was respected for 82.5% of adults and 86.7% of children. A skin test was performed for all patients. 5GPE-SLIT was started 3–5 months before the pollen season for 85.3%. Treatment was discontinued before the start of the pollen season in 11.0% of patients overall, generally because of an adverse event (78.8% of discontinuations). The mean duration of treatment was 5.2 months in adults and 5.6 months in children. At the end of follow-up, symptoms during the pollen season were intermittent for 75.0% of adults and 85.7% of children, and severity was mild for 61.8 and 66.0% respectively. During 5GPE-SLIT, the following symptoms reported during the previous year were not reported again in > 50% of patients: nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, repeated sneezing, conjunctivitis and nasal pruritus.

Conclusions

5GPE-SLIT use was generally consistent with prescribing recommendations and was associated with an improvement of AR severity, with resolution of the principal AR symptoms in around half the patients treated.

Trial registration EUPAS9358. Registered 13 May 2015. Not prospectively registered. http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=16229

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13223-018-0262-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

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

Sublingual Immunotherapy Dosing Regimens: What Is Ideal?

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a treatment for allergic respiratory diseases that has demonstrated efficacy and safety. Several formulations of SLIT are now available worldwide for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Grass tablets containing 15 to 25 μg of group 5 major allergen reduced combined AR symptoms and medication use by 23% to 41% in 3 treatment years and 2 follow-up years. Ragweed pollen tablets (12 μg of Ambrosia artemisiifolia 1) and liquid extracts (50 μg of Ambrosia artemisiifolia 1) reduced combined AR symptoms and medication use by 26% and 43%, respectively. House dust mite tablets containing 300 index of reactivity (16 μg of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus 1 and 68 μg of Dermatophagoides farinae 1) reduced AR symptoms by 17.9% and 17.0% in 1 treatment year and 1 follow-up year, respectively. A different house dust mite tablet (12 standardized quality house dust mite) was able to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbation compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.96). Most adverse events were local and mild to moderate in severity. For SLIT products reviewed herein, effective doses range from 1.12 to 84 μg of major allergen(s). However, allergen content is not uniformly standardized, can be expressed in arbitrary or proprietary units (depending on the manufacturer), and assays for determination of allergen content are highly variable. Thus, results from one study of a given product cannot be extrapolated to other products. Despite these limitations, this Clinical Management Review aims to provide practitioners with relevant information on the dosing of selected SLIT formulations in the treatment of allergic respiratory disease.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

METHODS

We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.

Immunotherapy: Treating with Fewer Allergens?

Polysensitization, sensitization to more than one allergen, is a common feature of patients with allergic rhinitis, and may be a risk factor for subsequent development of allergic diseases, especially allergic asthma. However, a polysensitized patient does not necessarily have polyallergy, a documented, causal relationship between exposure to 2 or more specific, sensitizing allergens and the subsequent occurrence of relevant clinical symptoms of allergy. Allergen immunotherapy treatment strategy for the polysensitized patient in Europe is to treat the single or 2 most clinically relevant allergen(s), whereas patients in the United States are usually treated for all potential clinically relevant allergens.

The SQ House Dust Mite SLIT-Tablet Is Well Tolerated in Patients with House Dust Mite Respiratory Allergic Disease

BACKGROUND

The SQ house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet (ALK, Denmark) addresses the underlying cause of HDM respiratory allergic disease, and a clinical effect has been demonstrated for both HDM allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. Here, we present pooled safety data from an adult population with HDM respiratory allergy, with particular focus on the impact of asthma on the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet tolerability profile.

METHODS

Safety data from 2 randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials were included: MT-04: 834 adults with HDM allergic asthma not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids and with HDM allergic rhinitis, and MT-06: 992 adults with moderate-to-severe HDM allergic rhinitis despite the use of allergy pharmacotherapy and with or without asthma.

RESULTS

The proportion of subjects experiencing adverse events (AEs) was greater in the active treatment group (12 SQ-HDM; 73% of subjects) compared to placebo (53%). The most common treatment-related AEs were local allergic reactions. No AEs were reported as systemic allergic reactions. Regardless of asthma status, most AEs were mild or moderate (>97% of AEs) and the frequency of serious AEs was low. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the risk of experiencing moderate or severe treatment-related AEs for subjects with asthma compared to subjects without asthma (p = 0.88). In addition, subjects with partly controlled or uncontrolled asthma were no more likely to experience moderate or severe treatment-related AEs than subjects with controlled asthma (p = 0.42).

CONCLUSION

The SQ HDM SLIT-tablet is well tolerated, and the safety profile was comparable for subjects with HDM respiratory allergic disease irrespective of asthma status.

Debates in Allergy Medicine: Allergy skin testing cannot be replaced by molecular diagnosis in the near future

Percutaneous skin prick tests (SPT) have been considered the preferred method for confirming IgE-mediated sensitization. This reliable and minimally invasive technique correlates with in vivo challenges, has good reproducibility, is easily quantified, and allows analyzing multiple allergens simultaneously. Potent extracts and a proficient tester improve its accuracy.

Molecular-based allergy diagnostics (MA-Dx) quantifies allergenic components obtained either from purification of natural sources or recombinant technology to identify the patient’s reactivity to those specific allergenic protein components. For a correct allergy diagnosis, the patient selection is crucial. MA-Dx has been shown to have a high specificity, however, as MA-Dx testing can be ordered by any physician, the pre-selection of patients might not always be optimal, reducing test specificity. Also, MA-Dx is less sensitive than in vitro testing with the whole allergen or SPT. Secondly, no allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) trial has yet shown efficacy with patients selected on the basis of their MA-Dx results. Thirdly, why would we need molecular diagnosis, as no molecular treatment can yet be offered? Then there are the practical arguments of costs (SPT highly cost-efficient), test availability for MA-Dx still lacking in wide areas of the world and scarce in others. As such, it is hard physicians can build confidence in the test and their interpretation of the MA-Dx results. In conclusion: as of now these techniques should be reserved for situations of complex allergies and polysensitization; in the future MA-Dx might help to reduce the number of allergens for AIT, but trials are needed to prove this concept.

An update on ocular allergy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The update reviews prevalence, classification, cause, and treatment options for allergic eye disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

The incidence of allergic eye disease is underreported but may affect almost all patients with allergic rhinitis. Increased rates of oculonasal symptoms have been reported in the United States resulting in significant economic expenditures. The spectrum of allergic conjunctivitis and its differential considerations include seasonal and perennial conjunctivitis, vernal and atopic keratoconjunctivitis, and giant papillary conjunctivitis. Patients with allergic conjunctivitis have classic immunoglobulin E-mediated pathophysiology and treatments directed at allergen avoidance, traditional pharmacotherapy with oral antihistamines, topical dual-acting antihistamine/mast cell stabilizer agents, and treatment of tear film dysfunction are first-line management strategies. Immunotherapy is an effective treatment option and refractory cases may require ophthalmology comanagement for consideration of topical ester-based corticosteroid therapy and consideration of topical immunomodulators.

SUMMARY

Ocular allergy involving specific modifiable and treatable environmental sensitizations is common and often underrecognized. It can impair quality of life to varying degrees. Some cases are quite refractory to management and may require multidisciplinary coordination of care between allergy and ophthalmology specialists. Understanding classification, triggers, and treatment options is important in designing the most appropriate patient-tailored management plans.

The efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy in children and adult patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Clinical research has shown that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is effective and safe in moderate-severe allergic rhinitis (AR) induced by house dust mite (HDM). However, the sample size in many studies is small. Meanwhile, the controversy on the efficacy and safety in the very young children younger than four years old still existed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SLIT with Dermatophagoides farinae (Der.f) extracts in children and adult patients with allergic rhinitis, particularly in the very young children.

METHOD

A total of 573 subjects aged 3-69 with AR received a three-year course of sublingual immunotherapy with Der.f extracts along with pharmacotherapy. The total nasal symptoms score (TNSS), total medication score (TMS), visual analogue score (VAS) and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated at each visit.

RESULT

TNSS, TMS, VAS were significantly improved during the three-year course of treatment in comparison to the baseline values (P<0.01). Besides, significant improvement in nasal symptoms and reduction of medication use were also observed in young children aged 3-6 years (P<0.01). No severe systemic adverse events (AEs) were reported.

CONCLUSION

SLIT with Der.f drops is clinically effective and safe in children and adult patients with HDM-induced AR, including the very young children less than four years old.

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.

Proteomics for Allergy: from Proteins to the Patients

Proteomics encompasses a variety of approaches unraveling both the structural features, post-translational modifications, and abundance of proteins. As of today, proteomic studies have shed light on the primary structure of about 850 allergens, enabling the design of microarrays for improved molecular diagnosis. Proteomic methods including mass spectrometry allow as well to investigate protein-protein interactions, thus yielding precise information on critical epitopes on the surface of allergens. Mass spectrometry is now being applied to the unambiguous identification, characterization, and comprehensive quantification of allergens in a variety of matrices, as diverse as food samples and allergen immunotherapy drug products. As such, it represents a method of choice for quality testing of allergen immunotherapy products.

Safety Review of 5-Grass Pollen Tablet from Pooled Data of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet has been approved for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in subjects with or without intermittent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the safety profile of the 5-grass tablet on the basis of pooled data from 8 clinical trials.

METHODS

Subjects (5-65 years old) with medically confirmed grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were included in the double-blind studies. Those with intermittent asthma not requiring treatment other than inhaled beta-2 agonists could participate. Randomized subjects received a 5-grass or placebo tablet daily 2 or 4 months preseasonally and coseasonally (5 single-season studies, over 3 years in a long-term study) or outside the season (phase I studies). Adverse events were pooled and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Among 2,512 subjects enrolled, 1,514 received the 5-grass tablet. A total of 1,038 adults and 154 pediatric (5-17 years old) subjects were treated with the 300 Index of Reactivity dose (vs 840 and 158 placebo recipients, respectively); 17% had intermittent asthma, and 62% were polysensitized. Adverse reactions (ADRs) reported in more than 10% of actively treated subjects were mild or moderate application-site reactions, for example, oral pruritus 25% (placebo 4%) and throat irritation 21% (placebo 3%). These generally occurred during the first week of treatment and decreased over time. They led to discontinuation in less than 2.5% of subjects. None of the 3 serious ADRs were reports of anaphylaxis. No notable differences were detected in terms of incidence, nature, and severity of ADRs between adult and pediatric populations, nor between subjects with or without asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled analysis in 1,514 subjects from 8 clinical studies demonstrates that the 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet has a similar good safety profile in adult and pediatric patients with or without mild, intermittent asthma.

Allergen Immunotherapy Clinical Trial Outcomes and Design: Working Toward Harmonization of Methods and Principles

Progress has been made in the harmonization of efficacy and safety outcome measures for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) trials, but unresolved issues still remain. Furthermore, there are discrepancies in recommendations from professional medical societies and regulatory agencies regarding requirements for AIT trials. In this article, we reviewed published recommendations and current data from recent clinical trials, as well as the criteria applied by regulatory authorities for approval of AIT products, to provide updated considerations for conducting phase 3 AIT trials. Topics discussed include analysis of outcomes and trial designs for pediatric and asthma indications, as well as trial designs for perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. In addition, the need for harmonization of safety reporting is emphasized. Considerations presented in this article may further effort to find common ground among professional medical societies and government agencies in developing future recommendations for AIT trial design.

Molecular features of grass allergens and development of biotechnological approaches for allergy prevention

Allergic diseases are characterized by elevated allergen-specific IgE and excessive inflammatory cell responses. Among the reported plant allergens, grass pollen and grain allergens, derived from agriculturally important members of the Poaceae family such as rice, wheat and barley, are the most dominant and difficult to prevent. Although many allergen homologs have been predicted from species such as wheat and timothy grass, fundamental aspects such as the evolution and function of plant pollen allergens remain largely unclear. With the development of genetic engineering and genomics, more primary sequences, functions and structures of plant allergens have been uncovered, and molecular component-based allergen-specific immunotherapies are being developed. In this review, we aim to provide an update on (i) the distribution and importance of pollen and grain allergens of the Poaceae family, (ii) the origin and evolution, and functional aspects of plant pollen allergens, (iii) developments of allergen-specific immunotherapy for pollen allergy using biotechnology and (iv) development of less allergenic plants using gene engineering techniques. We also discuss future trends in revealing fundamental aspects of grass pollen allergens and possible biotechnological approaches to reduce the amount of pollen allergens in grasses.

Allergic conjunctivitis in Asia

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC), which may be acute or chronic, is associated with rhinitis in 30%-70% of affected individuals, hence the term allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR/C). Seasonal and perennial AC is generally milder than the more chronic and persistent atopic and vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Natural allergens like house dust mites (HDM), temperate and subtropical grass and tree pollen are important triggers that drive allergic inflammation in AC in the Asia-Pacific region. Climate change, environmental tobacco smoke, pollutants derived from fuel combustion, Asian dust storms originating from central/north Asia and phthalates may also exacerbate AR/C. The Allergies in Asia Pacific study and International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood provide epidemiological data on regional differences in AR/C within the region. AC significantly impacts the quality of life of both children and adults, and these can be measured by validated quality of life questionnaires on AR/C. Management guidelines for AC involve a stepped approach depending on the severity of disease, similar to that for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Topical calcineurin inhibitors are effective in certain types of persistent AC, and sublingual immunotherapy is emerging as an effective treatment option in AR/C to grass pollen and HDM. Translational research predominantly from Japan and Korea involving animal models are important for the potential development of targeted pharmacotherapies for AC.

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.

A practical guide to the sublingual immunotherapy tablet adverse event profile: implications for clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Treatment with allergy immunotherapy improves allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, but can also improve comorbidities associated with allergic rhinitis such as asthma. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a convenient and efficacious method of allergy immunotherapy. They are self-administered after the first tablet has been provided under medical supervision. Therapy may elicit local reactions or, rarely, systemic allergic reactions. The objective of this report is to inform healthcare practitioners about the safety and tolerability profile of SLIT-tablets and use this information to provide practical guidance that may inform patients regarding potential adverse reactions and how to manage them.

METHODS

Pooled analyses of safety data from completed randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 and phase 3 US and EU trials of timothy grass, short ragweed, and SQ house dust mite SLIT-tablets were conducted to characterize safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

SLIT-tablets are generally well tolerated. No life-threatening events, serious systemic allergic reactions, or events that compromised the airway have been reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) are oral site reactions, most of which begin on day 1 of treatment, recur for less than 2 weeks, and resolve after approximately 30-60 minutes. Systemic allergic reactions have been managed with conventional pharmacotherapy. Reactions treated with epinephrine are uncommon, but have been reported. Treatment of AEs, treatment discontinuation considerations, and patient FAQs regarding SLIT-tablet safety/tolerability are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

This report gives healthcare providers valuable information to educate patients regarding what to expect in terms of SLIT-tablet safety and tolerability. Practical guidance is also provided to ensure proper treatment of any adverse reactions.

Pharmacoeconomics of sublingual immunotherapy with the 5-grass pollen tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis has a very high burden regarding both direct and indirect costs. This makes essential in the management of AR to reduce the clinical severity of the disease and thus to lessen its costs. This particularly concerns allergen immunotherapy (AIT), that, based on its immunological action on the causes of allergy, extends its benefit also after discontinuation of the treatment. From the pharmacoeconomic point of view, any treatment must be evaluated according to its cost-effectiveness, that is, the ratio between the cost of the intervention and its effect. A favorable cost-benefit ratio for AIT was defined, starting from the first studies in the 1990s on subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in AR patients, that highlighted a clear advantage on costs over the treatment with symptomatic drugs. Such outcome was confirmed also for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), that has also the advantage on SCIT to be free of the cost of the injections. Here we review the available literature on pharmacoeconomic data for SLIT with the 5-grass pollen tablets.

Immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis and lower airway outcomes

Allergic rhinitis and asthma constitute two clinical expressions of a single-condition, respiratory allergy. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a form of treatment specifically aimed at modifying the response to sensitizing allergens. The inherent potential benefit of AIT is the simultaneous treatment of all clinical expressions of respiratory allergy. Current data support the effectiveness of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in rhinitis. Studies also provide proof for a beneficial effect in allergic asthma. Even more, substantial evidence points to the preventive effect on the progression from rhinitis to asthma. Despite the current knowledge on the basic mechanisms underlying the immunological effect of AIT is vast, the specific mechanisms for the preventive effect of primary sensitization or new sensitizations are poorly understood. This review aimed to provide a critical overview of the current knowledge on the effectiveness of AIT and its potential role in secondary prevention of respiratory allergy progression.

Sialylated Fetuin-A as a candidate predictive biomarker for successful grass pollen allergen immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Eligibility to immunotherapy is based on the determination of IgE reactivity to a specific allergen by means of skin prick or in vitro testing. Biomarkers predicting the likelihood of clinical improvement during immunotherapy would significantly improve patient selection.

METHODS

Proteins were differentially assessed by using 2-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis and label-free mass spectrometry in pretreatment sera obtained from clinical responders and nonresponders within a cohort of 82 patients with grass pollen allergy receiving sublingual immunotherapy or placebo. Functional studies of Fetuin-A (FetA) were conducted by using gene silencing in a mouse asthma model, human dendritic cell in vitro stimulation assays, and surface plasmon resonance.

RESULTS

Analysis by using quantitative proteomics of pretreatment sera from patients with grass pollen allergy reveals that high levels of O-glycosylated sialylated FetA isoforms are found in patients exhibiting a strong decrease in rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms after sublingual immunotherapy. Although FetA is involved in numerous inflammatory conditions, its potential role in allergy is unknown. In vivo silencing of the FETUA gene in BALB/c mice results in a dramatic upregulation of airway hyperresponsiveness, lung resistance, and T_H2 responses after allergic sensitization to ovalbumin. Both sialylated and nonsialytated FetA bind to LPS, but only the former synergizes with LPS and grass pollen or mite allergens to enhance the Toll-like receptor 4-mediated proallergic properties of human dendritic cells.

CONCLUSIONS

As a reflection of the patient's inflammatory status, pretreatment levels of sialylated FetA in the blood are indicative of the likelihood of clinical responses during grass pollen immunotherapy.

Comparison of scores associating symptoms and rescue medication use for evaluating the efficacy of allergy immunotherapy in seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: results from five trials

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, regulatory bodies and scientific societies recommended, as primary efficacy outcome, a score that reflects both symptom severity and use of rescue medication for clinical trials in allergy immunotherapy (AIT).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the results obtained with two subject-specific scores, the Combined Score (CS) and the Adjusted Symptom Score (AdSS), for assessment of AIT in seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis due to birch and grass pollen allergens.

METHODS

CS and AdSS were evaluated in subjects receiving a 300IR dose of allergen extract daily, by sublingual route, in four clinical trials with the 5-grass pollen tablet (NCT00367640, NCT00409409, NCT00955825 and NCT00418379) and one with the birch pollen solution (NCT01731249). The CS is derived from the Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score (RTSS) and the Rescue Medication Score (RMS) giving equal weight to symptoms and medication use. The AdSS is a symptom score adjusting for rescue medication use. Efficacy end-points were analysed using an analysis of covariance linear model.

RESULTS

In all trials, despite the different constructs of the two scores, Combined Score or Adjusted Symptom Score were similarly reduced in the 300IR group compared to the placebo group. Treatment effect was consistently demonstrated with both scores, CS and AdSS, used as either daily scores or average of the daily scores over the pollen season. Minor differences with the same statistical conclusions were observed between the results, leading to the same interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The two scores, combined and adjusted scores, for evaluation of clinical efficacy of AIT have led to similar results, with similar statistical conclusions and similar interpretation.

Current Evidence on Safety and Practical Considerations for Administration of Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy (SLIT) in the United States

Liquid sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used off-label for decades, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved grass and ragweed SLIT tablets have been available in the United States since 2014. Potentially life-threatening events from SLIT do occur, although they appear to be very rare, especially for FDA-approved products. Practice guidelines that incorporate safety precautions regarding the use of SLIT in the United States are needed. This clinical commentary attempts to address unresolved issues including controversy regarding the FDA mandate for the prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors for patients on SLIT; how to approach polysensitized patients; optimal timing and duration of SLIT administration; how to address gaps in therapy; whether antihistamines can prevent local reactions, if certain patient populations (such as persistent asthmatics) should not receive SLIT; and when to instruct patients to self-administer epinephrine. Key points are that physicians should focus on educating patients regarding: (1) when not to administer SLIT; (2) how to recognize a potentially serious allergic reaction to SLIT; and (3) when to administer epinephrine and seek emergency care.