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

[Allergen immunotherapy for rare allergens]

Among allergies to aeroallergens, approximately 20% are allotted to the so-called rare allergens. These include ash pollen, weed pollen, storage mites, molds, and animal allergens. The prevalences of allergies to these allergens are lower, but affected patients also suffer considerably from their "rare" allergy. Hence, these allergies should neither be overseen nor completely forgotten in daily practice. Especially mold, mite, and animal allergens often induce asthma, so that the significance of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) should not be neglected in causal therapy. This work summarizes the current state of knowledge on the groups of rare aeroallergens in terms of characteristics, prevalences, and data on AIT. It is based on a systematic literature search performed in the MEDLINE (PubMed®) and Google Scholar databases. AIT preparations for rare allergens are classified as individual formulations and are not subject to the German Therapy Allergen Ordinance. Due to the low case numbers, the levels of evidence for these formulations are not as high as those for dust mites, grass, or birch pollen, but exhibit good efficacy in practical experience.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy prevents house dust mite inhalant type 2 immunity through dendritic cell-mediated induction of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) is an emerging treatment option for allergic asthma and a potential disease-modifying strategy for asthma prevention. The key cellular events leading to such long-term tolerance remain to be fully elucidated. We administered prophylactic SLIT in a mouse model of house dust mite (HDM)-driven allergic asthma. HDM extract was sublingually administered over 3 weeks followed by intratracheal sensitization and intranasal challenges with HDM. Prophylactic SLIT prevented allergic airway inflammation and hyperreactivity with a low lab-to-lab variation. The HDM-specific T helper (Th)2 (cluster of differentiation 4 Th) response was shifted by SLIT toward a regulatory and Th17 response in the lung and mediastinal lymph node. By using Derp1-specific cluster of differentiation 4+ T cells (1-DER), we found that SLIT blocked 1-DER T cell recruitment to the mediastinal lymph node and dampened IL-4 secretion following intratracheal HDM sensitization. Sublingually administered Derp1 protein activated 1-DER T cells in the cervical lymph node via chemokine receptor7+ migratory dendritic cells (DC). DCs migrating from the oral submucosa to the cervical lymph node after SLIT-induced Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. When mice were sensitized with HDM, prior prophylactic SLIT increased Derp1 specific regulatory T cells (Tregs) and lowered Th2 recruitment in the lung. By using Foxp3-diphtheria toxin receptor mice, Tregs were found to contribute to the immunoregulatory prophylactic effect of SLIT on type 2 immunity. These findings in a mouse model suggest that DC-mediated functional Treg induction in oral mucosa draining lymph nodes is one of the driving mechanisms behind the disease-modifying effect of prophylactic SLIT.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of Artemisia annua sublingual immunotherapy in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis over two pollen seasons

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with A. annua allergens in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis over two pollen seasons.

METHODS

Seventy patients with moderate-severe seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were divided evenly into the SLIT and control groups. The SLIT last from 3 months before the summer-autumn pollen season in 2021 till the end of the summer-autumn pollen season in 2022. The daily individual symptom score, total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (dTRSS), total medication score (dTMS), combined score of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptom (dCSMRS), visual analog scale (VAS) score, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The average pollen concentration in 2022 was twice that previous two-year during the pollen season. Fifty-six patients completed treatments (SLIT group: 29, control group: 27). Compared with baseline, the individual symptoms, dTRSS, dTMS, dCSMRS, and VAS scores of SLIT group declined in 2021. After 16 months of SLIT, all efficacy indexes in 2022 were still lower than baseline and equivalent to those in 2021. In control group, the efficacy indexes in 2022 were higher than that in 2020 and 2021. The efficacy indexes of SLIT group were lower than those of control group in 2021 and 2022. SLIT is effective for both mono- and poly-sensitized patients. AEs incidence in SLIT group was 82.7% without severe AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The A. annua-SLIT can obtain efficacy and safety over two pollen seasons for patients with moderate-severe seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Recent Updates of Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis in Children

Purpose of Review

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a novel treatment approach with disease-modifying and preventative benefits that are not shared with other strategies for treating allergic illnesses. It has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in children. This review provides the most recent information on AIT in children as well as any pertinent updates.

Recent Findings

Although there is not a standard way to begin AIT, there are clear indications for AIT. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own by weighing the pros and downsides. AIT has been proven to significantly improve symptoms and quality of life in children with allergic illness, reduce medication use, stop the development of new allergen sensitizations, and stop the progression of allergic rhinitis to asthma. Novel approaches are under investigation to overcome some known AIT disadvantages.

Summary

This review provides a thorough summary of the most recent research and updates on AIT in children.

Allergen immunotherapy: past, present and future

Allergen immunotherapy is a form of therapeutic vaccination for established IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to common allergen sources such as pollens, house dust mites and the venom of stinging insects. The classical protocol, introduced in 1911, involves repeated subcutaneous injection of increasing amounts of allergen extract, followed by maintenance injections over a period of 3 years, achieving a form of allergen-specific tolerance that provides clinical benefit for years after its discontinuation. More recently, administration through the sublingual route has emerged as an effective, safe alternative. Oral immunotherapy for peanut allergy induces effective ‘desensitization’ but not long-term tolerance. Research and clinical trials over the past few decades have elucidated the mechanisms underlying immunotherapy-induced tolerance, involving a reduction of allergen-specific T helper 2 (T_H2) cells, an induction of regulatory T and B cells, and production of IgG and IgA ‘blocking’ antibodies. To better harness these mechanisms, novel strategies are being explored to achieve safer, effective, more convenient regimens and more durable long-term tolerance; these include alternative routes for current immunotherapy approaches, novel adjuvants, use of recombinant allergens (including hypoallergenic variants) and combination of allergens with immune modifiers or monoclonal antibodies targeting the T_H2 cell pathway.

Durham and Shamji review the history and future of allergen immunotherapy for established IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to common allergens. They describe the mechanisms of immunotherapy-induced tolerance and the new strategies being explored to achieve safer, more effective, long-term tolerance.

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.

Ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Ragweed allergen causes Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and sublingual immunotherapy is one of the treatment modalities to desensitize allergic individuals. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused due to Ragweed.

METHODS

The databases search was done through December 2020. English-language randomized controlled trials were included if they compared sublingual immunotherapy with placebo, pharmacotherapy, or other sublingual immunotherapy regimens, and reported clinical outcomes. The strength of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was graded based on the risk of bias, consistency, magnitude of effect, and the directness of the evidence.

RESULTS

The searches performed according to the protocol identified 134 abstracts of which 67 were duplicates. A total of 37 full papers were therefore reviewed of which 5 were included for the final study. Participants' ages ranged from 4 to 58 years. The risk of bias was low in most studies. The review suggests that sublingual immunotherapy improves rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, with 4 of 4 studies reporting efficacy showed improvement in the symptom score of SLIT groups compared to placebo. Local reactions were frequent, but anaphylaxis was not reported in any of the studies. Serious adverse events were very few in all the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall evidence showed the effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma, but high-quality studies are still needed to answer questions regarding optimal dosing strategies.

One hundred and ten years of Allergen Immunotherapy: A journey from empiric observation to evidence

One hundred and ten years after Noon's first clinical report of the subcutaneous application of allergen extracts, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has evolved as the most important pillar of the treatment of allergic patients. It is the only disease-modifying treatment option available and the evidence for its clinical efficacy and safety is broad and undisputed. Throughout recent decades, more insights into the underlying mechanisms, in particular the modulation of innate and adaptive immune responses, have been described. AIT is acknowledged by worldwide regulatory authorities, and following the regulatory guidelines for product development, AIT products are subject to a rigorous evaluation before obtaining market authorization. Knowledge and practice are anchored in international guidelines, such as the recently published series of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). Innovative approaches continue to be further developed with the focus on clinical improvement by, for example, the usage of adjuvants, peptides, recombinants, modification of allergens, new routes of administration, and the concomitant use of biologicals. In addition, real-life data provide complementary and valuable information on the effectiveness and tolerability of this treatment option in the clinical routine. New mobile health technologies and big-data approaches will improve daily treatment convenience, adherence, and efficacy of AIT. However, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has also had some implications for the feasibility and practicability of AIT. Taken together, AIT as the only disease-modifying therapy in allergic diseases has been broadly investigated over the past 110 years laying the path for innovations and further improvement.

Effects of Local Nasal Immunotherapy with FIP-fve Peptide and Denatured Tyrophagus putrescentiae for Storage Mite-Induced Airway Inflammation

Allergic diseases are affecting public health and have increased over the last decade. Sensitization to mite allergens is a considerable trigger for allergy development. Storage mite-Tyrophagus putrescentiae shows great significance of allergenic potential and clinical relevance. The fungal immunomodulatory peptide FIP-fve has been reported to possess immunomodulatory activity. We aimed to determine whether T. putrescentiae-induced sensitization and airway inflammation in mice could be downregulated by FIP-fve in conjunction with denatured T. putrescentiae (FIP-fve and DN-Tp). Immune responses and physiologic variations in immunoglobulins, leukocyte subpopulations, cytokine productions, pulmonary function, lung pathology, cytokines in CD4⁺ and Treg cells were evaluated after local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT). After the LNIT with FIP-fve and DN-Tp, levels of specific IgE, IgG1, and IgG2a in the sera and IgA in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were significantly reduced. Infiltrations of inflammatory leukocytes (eosinophils, neutrophils, and lymphocytes) in the airway decreased significantly. Production of proinflammatory cytokines (IL-5, IL-13, IL-17F and IL-23) and chemokine (IL-8) were significantly reduced, and Th1-cytokine (IL-12) increased in the airway BALF after LNIT. Pulmonary functions of Penh values were significantly decreased after the methacholine challenge, which resulted in a reduction of airway hypersensitivity after LNIT. Bronchus pathology showed a reduction of inflammatory cell infiltration and epithelium damage after LNIT. The IL-4⁺/CD4⁺ T cells could be downregulated and the IFN-γ⁺/CD4⁺ T cells upregulated. The Treg-related immunity of IL-10 and Foxp3 expressions in CD4⁺CD25⁺ cells were both upregulated after LNIT. In conclusion, LNIT with FIP-fve and DN-Tp had an anti-inflammatory effect on mite-induced airway inflammations and possesses potential as an immunomodulatory therapy agent for allergic airway diseases.

Effects of a Cloth Panel Containing a Specific Ore Powder on Patients with Chamaecyparis obtusa (Cypress) Pollen Allergy

Pollen allergy to Japanese cedar and cypress is a serious illness that impairs daily life and sleep, especially during pollen season. We have reported that placing a cloth panel containing a specific natural ore powder (CCSNOP) in a room may alleviate the symptoms of hay fever and may also benefit the immune system. This ore is from the Aso mountain range, a volcano on Kyushu Island in the southwestern part of Japan. The purpose of this study was to verify the effect of CCSNOP on cypress pollen. Thirty-one double-blind tests, which investigated cedar pollen allergies, were conducted from February to March 2018 and have already been reported. After this, in early April, 10 of these cases were recruited and all had CCSNOP installed in their bedrooms. Before that, various symptoms and changes in medication were recorded in a “Symptom Diary” and included a mood survey by a questionnaire, stress test using saliva amylase, changes in cypress-specific immunoglobulins IgE and IgG4 by blood sampling, and eosinophil changes. In addition, changes in 29 types of cytokines were investigated. Exposure to CCSNOP relieved symptoms and subjects decreased their intake of medication. There was no change in mood or stress, but eosinophil levels tended to decrease. Although there were no statistical changes in cypress-specific IgE or IgG4, an increase in the former and a decrease in the latter were observed in some individuals during the period of pollen dispersal. Furthermore, levels of GM-CSF and IL8 decreased significantly after use of CCSNOP. The CCSNOP was shown to be effective against cypress pollen allergy, and future investigations will be necessary to observe the long-term effects of CCSNOP.

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.

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.

State of the Art: Development of a Sublingual Allergy Immunotherapy Tablet for Allergic Rhinitis in Japan

Allergic rhinitis (AR) caused by house dust mite (HDM) and Japanese cedar pollen (JCP) represents a significant, expanding health problem in Japan. Allergic symptoms often have a severe impact on the QOL such as sleep disturbance and reduced school and work performance. In addition to the classical symptoms, AR is known to be a risk factor for the development of allergic asthma, a potentially life-threatening condition. Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is a well-documented, safe, effective treatment option for respiratory allergic disease. It has been demonstrated that AIT can provide relief from clinical symptoms and that AIT has the potential to provide long-term post-treatment effect. Although the mechanism of AIT is not fully understood, it can actively modulate protective allergen-reactive pathways of the immune system and alter the natural course of disease. Unlike pharmacotherapy, AIT addresses the basic immunological mechanisms that are responsible for the development and persistence of allergic conditions. Currently two main routes of AIT administration are commonly available, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Both SCIT and SLIT are clinically effective, and SLIT is particularly well tolerated, with a lower risk of systemic allergic reactions compared with SCIT. To date, SLIT tablets have been developed for a range of different allergies including HDM and JCP and are the best-documented AIT treatment form. Here we introduce the current status of development of a SLIT tablet in Japan for AR, examine the clinical aspects and mechanism of action of AIT, and discuss the future directions of SLIT.

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.

Artemisia Annua sublingual immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis: A multicenter, randomized trial

Background

Artemisia annua is the most common outdoor aeroallergen throughout Northern China; however, no multicenter study has investigated sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) as a treatment option for Artemisia annua-induced allergic rhinitis (AR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an innovative SLIT for Artemisia annua-related AR.

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial conducted in China (NCT XXX). A total of 702 Artemisia annua-sensitized eligible patients were randomized in a ratio of 2:1 to receive Artemisia annua-SLIT or placebo. The treatment lasted 32 weeks; including 5-weeks up-dosing phase and 27-weeks maintenance phase. The primary endpoint was the daily combined score of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptom (CSMRS), and secondary endpoints were daily total nasal symptom score (dTNSS) and daily rescue medication score (dRMS) during peak pollen period. Safety of treatment was evaluated according to adverse events (AEs) experienced.

Results

Mean daily CSMRS was significantly improved during the peak pollen period in the SLIT group compared with the placebo group (1.46 ± 0.47 vs 1.88 ± 0.42, P < 0.0001 in full analysis set [FAS]; 1.49 ± 0.52 vs 1.95 ± 0.46, P < 0.0001 in per protocol set [PPS]); representing a 22.3% and 23.6% reduction, respectively, relative to placebo. In specifically Artemisia annua monosensitized patients, mean daily CSMRS reductions were demonstrated as 24.1% and 27.0% in the FAS and PPS populations, respectively, when comparing the active treatment to placebo treatment. Similarly, SLIT decreased dTNSS in peak pollen period by 19.0% in FAS and 22.3% in PPS, respectively, relative to placebo. In coincidence, dRMS in peak pollen period was reduced by 22.0% in FAS and 26.0% in PPS. 65.8% patients in SLIT group experienced treatment-related AEs, none of which was serious.

Conclusion

This study indicates that SLIT with Artemisia annua drops is an effective and safe treatment option in Chinese patients with Artemisia Annua-induced AR.

Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: What Are the Important Therapeutic and Real-World Considerations?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen immunotherapy has been used for over 100 years in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. With two major options for administering this disease-modifying therapy, SCIT, and SLIT, what is our current understanding of the efficacy and safety of each one? How do we determine who is the appropriate candidate for each one in the real world?

RECENT FINDINGS

SCIT and SLIT show significant improvement in clinical symptoms and need for medication in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In recent meta-analyses, there is no significant difference in the efficacy between the two treatments, but SLIT has more local side effects though less systemic ones. Shared decision-making should be instituted to determine which treatment should be started in a patient with allergic rhinitis. This review provides up-to-date information on the efficacy and safety of SCIT vs SLIT in the care of children and adults with allergic rhinitis in the real world and the role of shared decision-making in the use of these modalities.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04145219 and NCT02478398.

Decreased numbers of metachromatic cells in nasal swabs in Japanese cedar pollinosis following sublingual immunotherapy

Background and Objective

Nasal symptoms were reduced following allergen‐specific sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic rhinitis. The mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of SLIT for Japanese cedar pollinosis are poorly understood. We studied changes in the numbers of metachromatic cells, eosinophils, and neutrophils following SLIT for Japanese cedar pollinosis.

Methods

Nasal swabs were taken in the preseason (n = 32) and in pollinosis season (n = 49) from subjects given sublingual drop immunotherapy for an average duration of 1.5 years. The numbers of metachromatic cells (mast cells and basophils), eosinophils and neutrophils were determined and compared with those from untreated subjects in preseason (n = 65) and in season (n = 54).

Results

SLIT subjects had a significantly reduced frequency of moderate to most severe symptoms in comparison to untreated subjects in preseason (P < .001, the Mann‐Whitney U test), and (P < .00001) in season. Metachromatic cell counts in nasal swabs of SLIT subjects in preseason and in season were lower than those of untreated subjects (P = .014, the Mann‐Whitney U test) and (P = .00001) respectively. Eosinophil numbers in SLIT subjects were not significantly different than in untreated subjects in both preseason (P = .29) and in season (P = .09). However, when SLIT subjects in season were divided into those with greater than or equal to 1.5 years, or <1.5 years of SLIT duration, the degree of eosinophilia in those with SLIT greater than or equal to 1.5 years was significantly lower (P = .011) than in untreated patients, but not in those with SLIT less than 1.5 years (P = .9). There were no significant differences in neutrophil numbers in nasal swabs between untreated and SLIT subjects in preseason and in season.

Conclusion

One of mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of sublingual drop immunotherapy for Japanese cedar pollinosis is a reduction of the number of metachromatic cells in preseason and in season. Eosinophilia was also reduced in season in those given SLIT for greater than or equal to 1.5 years.

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.

Approach to Patients with Allergic Rhinitis: Testing and Treatment

This article evaluates the role of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). AIT has been shown to be effective in treating AR symptoms with resultant improvements in overall quality of life, comorbid illnesses, and medication requirements. Persistent clinical benefits have been shown years after AIT treatment discontinuation. AIT may prevent the progression of AR to asthma. AIT may more cost-effective than pharmacotherapy. Multiple individual studies and systematic reviews provide strong evidence for the clinical effectiveness of AIT in the treatment of AR. Cost-effectiveness and disease modification of AIT compared with standard drug treatment are additional advantages.

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.

Mind the gaps: Clinical trial concepts to address unanswered questions in aeroallergen immunotherapy-An NIAID/AHRQ Workshop

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases organized a workshop to develop trial concepts that could improve the use and effectiveness of aeroallergen immunotherapy (AAIT). Expert groups were formed to accomplish the following tasks: (1) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous versus sublingual AAIT; (2) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of AAIT by using 1 or a few allergens versus all or most allergens to which a patient is sensitized; (3) propose a study design to determine whether AAIT can alter the progression of childhood allergic airways disease; and (4) propose a study design to determine the optimal dose and duration of AAIT to achieve maximal effectiveness with acceptable safety. Study designs were presented by the workgroups, extensively discussed at the workshop, and revised for this report. The proposed trials would be of long duration and require large highly characterized patient populations. Scientific caveats and feasibility matters are discussed. These concepts are intended to help the development of clinical trials that can address some of the major questions related to the practice of AAIT for the management and prevention of allergic airways disease.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: a systematic review

The objective of the systematic review is to provide complete and updated information on efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) formulations for the treatment of allergic respiratory diseases (ARDs). The literature search was conducted on PubMed database, involving double-blind, randomized clinical trials published between January 1992 and 2018, written in English, and performed in humans. The number of articles finally selected for review was 112. Data from the majority of properly controlled clinical trials demonstrate that SLIT is effective not only with short-term use (first year) but also with long-term use (up to the third year of active therapy), for treating ARDs in children and adults. Both continuous and discontinuous schemes of administration showed significant reductions in symptom and medication scores. Moreover, a SLIT-induced disease-modifying effect has been documented mainly with grass pollen extracts, since improvement is maintained during at least 2 years of follow-up after a 3-year treatment period. Additionally, allergen immunotherapy should also be considered a preventive strategy, especially for decreasing bronchial asthma incidence in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis treated with SLIT. This therapy is also safe, producing only a few mainly local and mild-to-moderate adverse events, and usually self-limited in time. The registration and authorization of allergen SLIT preparations (grasses and house-dust mite tablets) as drugs by regulatory agencies, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), has represented a landmark in allergy immunotherapy research. Further long-term studies, specially designed with allergens other than grass pollen or house-dust mites, not only in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis but also on asthmatic subjects, as well as studies comparing different administration schedules and/or routes, are required in order to continue the progress in the modern development of this particularly promising therapy.

Ragweed allergy immunotherapy tablet MK-3641 (Ragwitek®) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is among the most common chronic conditions affecting both children and adults. It is the cause of significant morbidity from the symptoms and interference with sleep. It results in major impairment of performance both at school and at work. In the U.S. and certain parts of Europe, ragweed pollen is a major cause of seasonal AR. In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a sublingual ragweed tablet (MK-3641) for use in adults with ragweed-induced AR. Areas covered: This paper will review the impact of ragweed-induced AR and available treatments including subcutaneous immunotherapy and studies with MK-3641. The principal search method was PubMed. Expert commentary: One dosing finding, two 28-day safety and two 52-week safety and efficacy studies have been conducted with MK-3641. The 12-U (12μg Amb a 1) tablet was the most effective. Local application site reactions were common but usually not serious. Only one, non-serious systemic reaction was reported in four safety studies. MK-3641 is a safe and effective treatment for ragweed-pollen-induced AR when treatment is initiated ≥ 12 weeks prior to the onset of the ragweed pollen season.

Allergen Extracts for In Vivo Diagnosis and Treatment of Allergy: Is There a Future?

Today, in vivo allergy diagnosis and allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) are still based on allergen extracts obtained from natural allergen sources. Several studies analyzing the composition of natural allergen extracts have shown severe problems regarding their quality such as the presence of undefined nonallergenic materials, contaminants as well as high variabilities regarding contents and biological activity of individual allergens. Despite the increasing availability of sophisticated analytical technologies, these problems cannot be overcome because they are inherent to allergen sources and methods of extract production. For in vitro allergy diagnosis problems related to natural allergen extracts have been largely overcome by the implementation of recombinant allergen molecules that are defined regarding purity and biological activity. However, no such advances have been made for allergen preparations to be used in vivo for diagnosis and therapy. No clinical studies have been performed for allergen extracts available for in vivo allergy diagnosis that document safety, sensitivity, and specificity of the products. Only for very few therapeutic allergen extracts state-of-the-art clinical studies have been performed that provide evidence for safety and efficacy. In this article, we discuss problems related to the inconsistent quality of products based on natural allergen extracts and share our observations that most of the products available for in vivo diagnosis and AIT do not meet the international standards for medicinal products. We argue that a replacement of natural allergen extracts by defined recombinantly produced allergen molecules and/or mixtures thereof may be the only way to guarantee the supply of clinicians with state-of-the-art medicinal products for in vivo diagnosis and treatment of allergic patients in the future.

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.

From genomes to diaries: a 3-year prospective, real-life study of ragweed-specific sublingual immunotherapy

During the last decades, the prevalence of allergy has dramatically increased. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only currently available medical intervention that has the potential to affect the natural course of the disease, but there are still many questions and unmet needs hindering its widespread use to fulfill its treatment potential and maximize its benefits for the society. To provide a comprehensive phenome-wide overview in sublingual immunotherapy, using ragweed allergy as a target, we planned and carried out a longitudinal, prospective, observational, open-label study (DesensIT). In this paper we present challenges of using deep and comprehensive phenotypes embracing biological, clinical and patient-reported outcomes in allergen-specific immunotherapy and show how we designed the DesensIT project to optimize data collection, processing and evaluation.

SLIT's Prevention of the Allergic March

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The progression of atopic disorders from atopic dermatitis in infants to allergic rhinitis and asthma in children, adolescents, and adults defines the allergy march. Allergen immunotherapy is the only causal treatment altering the immunological mechanism underlying the allergic diseases. The sublingual administration route is more acceptable than the subcutaneous one in pediatric age.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies show the efficacy and safety profile of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of respiratory allergy diseases, but few data are available on its effect of primary and secondary prevention of allergic disease. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the latest studies addressing the effect of SLIT on the development of new sensitizations in not sensitized or already sensitized patients and progression of the allergy march.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

ACTUAL CONCEPTION OF ALLERGEN-SPECIFIC IMMUNOTHERAPY MECHANISMS, POTENTIAL BIOMARKERS OF EFFICACY AND WAYS OF ENHANCEMENT

The article analyzes international position papers on the allergen-specific immunotherapy mechanisms, discusses potential biomarkers for evaluation of ASIT efficacy, as well as the perspectives for ASIT enhancement.

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.

Long-term effects of allergen-specific subcutaneous immunotherapy for house dust mite induced allergic rhinitis

Background:

Allergic rhinitis is strongly associated with the presence of house dust mites. This study investigated the long-term effects of allergen-specific immunotherapy. Allergen-specific immunotherapy was applied over three years. The study was based on a 10-year follow up of patients with allergic rhinitis.

Methods:

The study was conducted between 2001 and 2015. Skin prick test results and symptom scores were evaluated before (26 patients) and after 3 years (20 patients) of allergen-specific immunotherapy (using data from a previously published study), and 10 years after allergen-specific immunotherapy had ended (20 of 26 patients).

Results:

The symptom scores before allergen-specific immunotherapy were significantly higher than those obtained after 3 years of allergen-specific immunotherapy and 10 years after allergen-specific immunotherapy (p < 0.0175). There were no significant differences between the scores obtained at 3 years and 10 years after allergen-specific immunotherapy (p > 0.0175).

Conclusion:

Subcutaneous immunotherapy is an effective treatment for house dust mite induced allergic rhinitis.

Future Horizons in Allergy

There are several advances in diagnosis and management for the otolaryngologist treating allergy. These include new technologies and the refinement of current techniques, and reflect overall trends in health care toward personalized medicine. Local immunoglobulin, urinary leukotriene E4, lipidomics, microRNA within extracellular vesicles, and optical rhinometry all offer to improve the diagnostic accuracy of allergy and related nonallergic conditions. New delivery systems for intranasal steroids and antihistamines, recombinant allergens, advances in allergen immunotherapy delivery, and biologics will improve current management options. These developments will aid the otolaryngologist in diagnosing and treating allergy and related diseases.

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.

Immunotherapy for Cat Allergies: A Potential Strategy to Scratch Back

Cat allergies are a common and costly problem in the United States. Various drug and nondrug therapies exist to alleviate and control symptoms once allergic disease has developed. However, these therapies are often ineffective or do not address the underlying condition itself. Immunotherapy is an option for patients when symptoms are not adequately controlled by medications and/or avoidance measures, when adverse effects of medications are unacceptable, or when the patient wants to reduce their long-term use of medication. The purpose of this article is to describe the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy when used to prevent or treat cat allergies.

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.

Subcutaneous and Sublingual Immunotherapy in Allergic Asthma in Children

This review presents up-to-date understanding of immunotherapy in the treatment of children with allergic asthma. The principal types of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) are subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Both of them are indicated for patients with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma, who have evidence of clinically relevant allergen-specific IgE, and significant symptoms despite reasonable avoidance measures and/or maximal medical therapy. Studies have shown a significant decrease in asthma symptom scores and in the use of rescue medication, and a preventive effect on asthma onset. Although the safety profile of SLIT appears to be better than SCIT, the results of some studies and meta-analyses suggest that the efficacy of SCIT is better and that SCIT has an earlier onset than SLIT in children with allergic asthma. Severe, not controlled asthma, and medical error were the most frequent causes of SCIT-induced adverse events.

The role of allergen immunotherapy in the management of allergic rhinitis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the role of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHOD

Individual studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines that included information on sublingual AIT (SLIT) and subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) in the treatment of AR were considered.

RESULTS

AIT via the SLIT or SCIT route has been shown to be effective in treating AR symptoms with resultant improvements in overall quality of life, comorbid illnesses, and medication requirements. Persistent clinical benefits have been demonstrated years after AIT treatment discontinuation. AIT may prevent the progression of AR to asthma. In addition, studies that evaluated the pharmacoeconomics of AR treatment indicate that AIT may be more cost effective than pharmacotherapy. The AIT cost savings are likely underestimated in that few cost comparison studies considered AIT's long-term benefits or preventive effects.

CONCLUSION

Multiple individual studies and systematic reviews provide strong evidence for the clinical effectiveness of AIT in the treatment of AR. Cost-effectiveness and disease modification are additional advantages of AIT compared with standard drug treatment in the management of AR.