Network Meta-analysis Shows Commercialized Subcutaneous and Sublingual Grass Products Have Comparable Efficacy

Efficacy and safety of intranasal medications for allergic rhinitis: Network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal antihistamines (INAH), corticosteroids (INCS), and their fixed combinations (INAH+INCS) are one of the cornerstones of the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). We performed a systematic review and network-meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of INAH, INCS, and INAH+INCS in patients with AR.

METHODS

We searched four electronic bibliographic databases and three clinical trial databases for randomised controlled trials assessing the use of INAH, INCS, and INAH+INCS in adults with seasonal or perennial AR. We performed a network meta-analysis on the Total Nasal Symptom Score, Total Ocular Symptom Score, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, development of adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE-NMA.

RESULTS

We included 167 primary studies, most of which assessed patients with seasonal AR. Among individual medications, azelastine-fluticasone, and fluticasone furoate were the most frequently highest-ranked interventions for efficacy outcomes, being regularly associated with clinically meaningful larger improvements when compared to other active treatments. Considering drug classes, INAH+INCS were the highest-ranked interventions for all outcomes in which they were assessed, followed in most cases by INCS. In 105 out of 184 comparisons in seasonal AR, and 28 out of 97 comparisons in perennial AR, certainty of evidence was considered "high" or "moderate".

CONCLUSION

Intranasal medications for AR display clinically relevant differences in their efficacy, but all show a good safety profile. To our knowledge, this is the first network meta-analysis comparing INAH, INCS, and INAH+INCS in AR, providing relevant evidence for guideline developers and practising physicians on the most efficacious treatments.

Allergen Testing: A Review of the Indications, Procedures, and Limitations in Ocular Allergy

Allergen-based diagnostics are essential in the management algorithm of allergic diseases. Unlike systemic allergy, where the indications and interpretation of these diagnostic modalities are well established, their utility in ocular allergy is not well-defined. With the rising prevalence of ocular allergies and the need for personalized treatment strategies, there is a growing demand for precision allergen diagnostics. This review describes the commonly used tests with their indications, procedures, and limitations. A review of the literature was carried out on articles on allergen diagnostics in ocular allergy, and after excluding articles that were not relevant, 82 papers were included in the current review. IgE-mediated pathways contribute significantly to seasonal and perennial ocular allergy and partly to vernal keratoconjunctivitis. Most diagnostic techniques aim to detect IgE sensitization. In vivo tests include skin prick (SPT), intradermal, and patch tests. SPT is considered the gold standard and directly evaluates the presence of allergen-specific IgE in the skin. In vitro tests measure total and specific IgE from either tears or sera. Tear IgE measurement is relatively specific for allergic conjunctivitis and can provide insight into the potential allergens responsible for local sensitization. The conjunctival provocation test can help establish true allergy, especially in patients with polysensitization. This review also provides an overview of evidence in literature segregated based on the test employed. This includes 17 studies on only SPT; 42 studies on IgE measured in serum, tears, or both; and 20 studies which have evaluated both SPT and IgE. The pattern of allergen sensitization can guide recommendations for avoidance measures and immunotherapy. Thus, this could create a corticosteroid-sparing therapy avenue in these patients, reducing disease severity and resulting visual morbidity.

A 300 IR 5-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet-specific systematic review and meta-analysis confirms its clinical benefits for patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma

Background

In the realm of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the quality of evidence varies across different products, making it unjustifiable to extend overall conclusions to all AIT products, as highlighted by WAO and EAACI.

Objective

To confirm the efficacy of the 300 IR 5-grass pollen sublingual AIT (SLIT)-tablet through a specific meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with allergic rhino-conjunctivitis (ARC) with/without mild/intermittent asthma.

Methods

Data from published RCTs on the 300 IR 5-grass SLIT-tablet were gathered from electronic databases (MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.gov) and manual searches up to November 2023. Populations, treatments, and outcome data were combined. Efficacy was assessed based on symptom score (SS) and medication score (MS), measured as standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD).

Results

Results from 5 RCTs comprising 1468 patients revealed a significant reduction in SS (SMD, -0.36; 95%confidence interval [CI], -0.52 to -0.19; P < 0.05) and MS (SMD, -0.29; 95%CI, -0.40 to -0.19; P < 0.05) compared to placebo. The difference of -0.36 SMD for SS corresponds to a MD of -1.26 SS points, greater than the minimal important difference. Subgroup analysis did not show differences in efficacy according to age, asthma status, and geographic location of the study (USA, Canada, Europe, Russia). No safety issues were reported.

Conclusion

This product-specific meta-analysis reinforces the evidence of clinical benefits associated with the 300 IR 5-grass SLIT-tablet, suggesting its appropriateness as a therapeutic choice for patients with ARC, irrespective of concurrent asthma, and exhibiting a favorable safety profile.

Sublingual Tablet Immunotherapy Improves Quality of Life in Adults With Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis can negatively impact many aspects of quality of life (QoL). The efficacy and safety of standardized quality (SQ) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets have been confirmed across large clinical trials in adults with grass, tree, ragweed, and house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

This pooled analysis investigates whether the reduction in symptom burden found across the clinical trials is supported by improvements in QoL.

METHODS

A total of 11 phase II/III randomized placebo-controlled trials across the SQ grass, tree, ragweed, and HDM SLIT tablets (grass: N = 3179; ragweed: N = 767; tree: N = 634; HDM: N = 2221) were included. QoL was assessed using the standardized Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), with the exception of 3 grass trials, which used the nonstandardized version. The overall RQLQ scores were expressed as a mean of 7 domains. In the pooled analysis, treatment was used as fixed effect; and the trial, and the interaction between region/country and trial as random effects.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis showed consistent and statistically significant improvements in overall RQLQ scores across all 4 SQ SLIT tablets versus placebo (pooled estimate [95% CI], P value-grass: -0.20 [-0.28 to -0.12], P < .001; tree: -0.42 [-0.58 to -0.26], P < .001; ragweed: -0.36 [-0.55 to -0.17], P < .001; HDM: -0.28 [-0.39 to -0.17], P < .001). Furthermore, significant improvements versus placebo for all 4 SQ SLIT tablets were seen across the 7 individual domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The proven efficacy of SQ SLIT tablets to reduce symptoms across 4 of the most common respiratory allergens is supported by concurrent significant improvements in RQLQ scores overall and for all 7 domains.

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.

The KAAACI Guidelines for Sublingual Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy is regarded as the only disease-modifying treatment option for various allergic conditions, including allergic rhinitis and asthma. Among the routes of administration of allergens, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has gained clinical interest recently, and the prescription of SLIT is increasing among patients with allergies. After 30 years of SLIT use, numerous pieces of evidence supporting its efficacy, safety, and mechanism allows SLIT to be considered as an alternative option to subcutaneous immunotherapy. Based on the progressive development of SLIT, the current guideline from the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Clinical Immunology aims to provide an expert opinion by allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology specialists with an extensive literature review. This guideline addresses the use of SLIT, including 1) mechanisms of action, 2) appropriate patient selection for SLIT, 3) the currently available SLIT products in Korea, and 4) updated information on its efficacy and safety. This guideline will facilitate a better understanding of practical considerations for SLIT.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual versus subcutaneous immunotherapy in children with allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children with allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2, 2023. Outcomes included symptom scores (SSs), medication scores (MSs), symptom and medication scores (SMSs), new sensitizations, development of asthma, improvement, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The quality of the included studies was assessed by the modified Jadad scale and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-regression was carried out to explore the source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was further conducted in terms of study design [randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies], allergen [house dust mites (HDMs), grass pollen], treatment duration (≥ 24, 12-23 or < 12 months), allergen immunotherapy (AIT) modality (drops or tablets), and AIT protocol [continuous, pre-seasonal, co-seasonal, or after the grass pollen season (GPS)]. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for all outcomes. A Bayesian framework and a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) model were developed for indirect comparison.

Results

Totally 50 studies with 10813 AR children were included, with 4122 treated with SLIT, 1852 treated with SCIT, and 4839 treated with non-SLIT or non-SCIT therapy. For direct comparison, the SLIT group had a similar SS to the SCIT group [pooled standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.46, 1.28, P = 0.353]. Comparable MSs were observed in the SLIT and SCIT groups (pooled SMD: 0.82, 95%CI: -0.88, 2.53, P = 0.344). For indirect comparison, no significant differences were found in SSs (pooled SMD: 1.20, 95% credibility interval (CrI): -1.70, 4.10), MSs (pooled SMD: 0.57, 95%CrI: -1.20, 2.30), SMSs (pooled SMD: 1.80, 95%CrI: -0.005, 3.60), new sensitizations [pooled relative risk (RR): 0.34, 95%CrI: 0.03, 3.58], and development of asthma (pooled RR: 0.68, 95%CrI: 0.01, 26.33) between the SLIT and SCIT groups; the SLIT group illustrated a significantly lower incidence of TRAEs than the SCIT group (pooled RR: 0.17, 95%CrI: 0.11, 0.26).

Conclusion

Considering both efficacy and safety, SLIT might be a more favorable AIT than SCIT in the treatment of pediatric AR, which may serve as a decision-making reference for clinicians.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023460693).

Evaluation of Intralymphatic Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is short-course administration of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). This study is aimed at assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of ILIT in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods

MEDLINE, PUBMED, and Cochrane Library were used to conduct electronic searches for clinical trials comparing ILIT and placebo in patients with AR. The final search took place on August 24, 2022. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The outcomes included combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS), visual analog scale (VAS), allergic rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life (RQLQ), Skin-prick test (SPT), and adverse events (AEs). Data were synthesized as mean difference (MD)/standard mean difference (SMD) or risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Thirteen studies (454 participants) were included in this study. The ILIT group had better clinical improvement on the CSMS (random effects model, SMD-0.85, 95% CI [-1.58, -0.11], P = 0.02) and RQLQ (fixed-effects model, MD-0.42, 95% CI [0.69, 0.15], P = 0.003) than the placebo group. The booster injection was beneficial for CSMS (P < 0.0001), and the 4-week injection interval was superior to the 2-week injection period for improving VAS (P < 0.0001). Local swelling or erythema was the main AE following injection (random effects model, RD 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], P = 0.005). Discussion. For individuals with AR, ILIT is safe and effective. ILIT alleviates clinical symptoms and reduces pharmaceutical consumption without causing severe AEs. However, the validity of this study is compromised by the substantial heterogeneity and risk of bias in the included researches. RegistrationCRD42022355329.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

MicroCrystalline Tyrosine-adsorbed immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the literature pertaining to the use of MicroCrystalline Tyrosine (MCT) in the immunotherapy with an emphasis on recent developments.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to significant effectiveness and safety profiles, additional aspects of interest such as booster immunotherapy concepts, sustained clinical effects, long-term efficacy and disease-modifying effects are being focused on in the recently published studies. The depot adjuvant MCT also shows potential in promising disease-challenge models such as for malaria and melanoma.

SUMMARY

MCT-adsorbed immunotherapy products have been shown to provide convincing overall safety, tolerability and efficacy outcomes, as well in vulnerable groups such as children and asthmatic patients.

ITULAZAX® versus Alutard SQ® in the treatment of allergic rhinitis induced by pollen from the birch homologous group: A cost-minimization modeling analysis from the Danish societal perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disorder triggered by an allergic immune response to inhaled allergens. Birch pollen is the major allergenic tree pollen in parts of Europe. ITULAZAX® is a sublingual immunotherapy tablet for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe AR and/or conjunctivitis induced by pollen from the birch homologous group. The aim was to compare the costs of treating AR with ITULAZAX® versus subcutaneous ALUTARD SQ® Betula verrucosa (ALUTARD SQ®) from a Danish societal perspective.

METHODS

A cost-minimization model was developed to capture costs of allergy immunotherapy (AIT), interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs) in three different care settings (general practice, allergy specialist, and hospital), and indirect costs arising from absenteeism and presenteeism. The cost-minimization analysis was conducted over a 3-year time horizon with costs reported in 2021 Danish Kroner (DKK) and Euros (EUR) based on the European Central Bank 365-day average exchange rate. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The base case analysis showed that the total cost of treatment over 3 years was estimated to be DKK 49,117 (EUR 6598) per patient with ALUTARD SQ®, compared with DKK 30,996 (EUR 4164) with ITULAZAX®, reflecting a cost saving of DKK 18,121 (EUR 2434) per patient with ITULAZAX® over 3 years. Over the 3-year time horizon, costs of AIT were predicted to increase by DKK 17,928 (EUR 2408) with ITULAZAX®, while costs of interactions with HCPs were predicted to decrease by DKK 22,528 (EUR 3027) versus ALUTARD SQ®, more than offsetting the increased cost of ITULAZAX®.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the equivalent effectiveness of the two AIT products, and the cost savings with ITULAZAX® versus ALUTARD SQ® from a Danish societal perspective, ITULAZAX® should be considered as a cost-saving alternative to ALUTARD SQ® for the treatment of birch pollen-induced moderate-to-severe AR in adults.

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.

House Dust Mite and Grass Pollen Allergen Extracts for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The treatment of allergic rhinitis is important due to the burden that the disease causes globally. The objective of this review is to explore the efficiency of house dust mite and grass pollen extracts in allergic rhinitis treatment.

METHODS

We performed research in electronic databases and searched relevant articles on PubMed, CINAHL, OVID, ScienceDirect, Cochrane CENTRAL, and MEDLINE. We used keywords such as 'allergic rhinitis', 'sublingual immunotherapy', 'randomized controlled trials', 'grass pollen', 'allergen immunotherapy', and 'house dust mite'. We included nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quality assessment of included studies was performed independently by two authors.

RESULTS

We included nine eligible RCTs in this review. Five RCTs were about grass pollen extracts and four RCTs were about house dust mite extracts. Most of the studies reported positive results and suggested further evaluation of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) treatment. Grass pollen extracts mostly used were Dactylis glomerata, Poa pratensis, Lolium perenne, Anthoxanthum odoratum, Phleum pratense, and Parietaria. House dust mite extracts used were from Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farina. According to the quality assessment, no bias was observed in the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although sublingual allergen immunotherapy shows a benefit compared to placebo in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and rhino-conjunctivitis in adults, the results are interpreted with caution due to the high heterogenicity among studies in treatment protocols and dosing. More standardization among studies is needed.

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.

Alternatives to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an important public health issue worldwide due to its increasing prevalence and impact on quality of life, school performance, and work productivity. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is used to treat AR and involves repeated injections of allergen extracts. SCIT is used for cases of severe AR with symptoms that are not adequately controlled by medication, when the side effects of medication limit treatment options, or where the aim is to cure rather than symptomatically treat. Although SCIT is effective, it is not necessarily curative. Furthermore, there is also a low but present risk of systemic allergic reactions, with systemic side effects occurring in less than 0–1% of treated patients. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as an effective and safe alternative to SCIT. SCIT and SLIT are the only immunotherapies currently available for AR. In addition to sublingual administration as an alternative to SCIT, other routes of antigen administration have been attempted with the goal of increasing safety while maintaining efficacy. This review discusses the efficacies of SCIT and SLIT, their mechanisms, the utility of intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) as an alternative route of antigen administration, and the potential for immunotherapy using other routes of antigen administration.

Allergen Immunotherapy: Current and Future Trends

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the sole disease-modifying treatment for allergic rhinitis; it prevents rhinitis from progressing to asthma and lowers medication use. AIT against mites, insect venom, and certain kinds of pollen is effective. The mechanism of action of AIT is based on inducing immunological tolerance characterized by increased IL-10, TGF-β, and IgG4 levels and Treg cell counts. However, AIT requires prolonged schemes of administration and is sometimes associated with adverse reactions. Over the last decade, novel forms of AIT have been developed, focused on better allergen identification, structural modifications to preserve epitopes for B or T cells, post-traductional alteration through chemical processes, and the addition of adjuvants. These modified allergens induce clinical-immunological effects similar to those mentioned above, increasing the tolerance to other related allergens but with fewer side effects. Clinical studies have shown that molecular AIT is efficient in treating grass and birch allergies. This article reviews the possibility of a new AIT to improve the treatment of allergic illness.

Efficacy of mite allergen immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis and the immune synergistic effect on cross-allergens

Aim: To compare the efficacy of single- and double-species mite allergen immunotherapy. Materials and methods: An open, pseudo-randomized, controlled study was conducted (n = 125 allergic rhinitis patients). The primary end point involved the visual analogue scale. Secondary end points included a basophil activation test and serum specific IgE and IgG4 assays. Results: Visual analogue scale analysis indicated considerable reductions in both groups. Both treatments improved quality of life and induced sIgG4 antibody production. Basophil activation and serum IgE inhibition were not evident in either treatment. Neither treatment displayed an early stage immune synergistic effect on cross-allergens. Conclusions: Both treatments were effective against allergic rhinitis, and statistical differences were not observed. Future studies may require long-term, large-scale research.

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Local Allergic Rhinitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been used for treating local allergic rhinitis (LAR) patients. However, the clinical efficacy and safety were still questioned.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to estimate the efficacy and safety of SCIT for treating LAR patients through meta-analysis.

METHODS

We systemically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase publications. Randomized, double-blind, clinical trials for the efficacy and safety of Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for LAR were included. A meta-analysis of 4 clinical endpoints (combined symptom and medication scores [CSMS], symptom scores [SS], medication scores [MS] and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire [RQLQ]) and adverse events (AEs)) was performed after bias and heterogeneity assessments. The immunologic response results were summarized.

RESULTS

Four RCTs with 134 patients were included. Four studies for analyzing primary outcomes (CSMS, SS, MS) and AEs, three for RQLQ results. The results indicated an important significant difference between SCIT and placebo groups, list as follows: CSMS (SMD = -2.42, 95% CI: -3.60 to -1.25, P < .0001), SS (SMD = -2.08, 95% CI -3.68 to -0.48, P = .01), MS (SMD = -1.43, 95% CI: -2.65 to -0.21, P = 0.02), RQLQ (SMD = -0.70, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.12, P = .02), Local AEs (RR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.77, P = .04). For immunologic response, significantly increased serum sIgG4 levels and improvements of allergen tolerance was observed after SCIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis suggests that SCIT has a significant effect on improving symptoms and reducing medicine consumption for LAR patients. Larger and multicenter clinical trials are needed to clarify the safety and long-term efficacy.

Effect of Medical Therapy in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS), oral antihistamines (POAH), and allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) are widely used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR); however, appraisal of treatment effect has been heterogenous, and few studies have interpreted these outcomes in context with measures of nasal airflow.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for common therapy classes for AR to assess standardized treatment effect on validated patient-reported outcomes and physiologic measures of airflow.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, OVID, and Cochrane library databases to identify randomized controlled trials meeting inclusion criteria. Treatment effects of INCS, POAH, and ASIT on total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analog scale (VAS), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), and peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) were analyzed by meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with 4673 AR patients were identified, with 5 INCS, 8 POAH, and 9 ASIT trials. INCS improved TNSS (mean difference [MD] 0.90; P = .002) and PNIF (MD 13.31 L/min [P = .0007]. POAH improved quality of life assessed by RQLQ [MD 0.36; P < .001], but no improvement was found in PNIF. ASIT improved RQLQ [MD 0.65; P < .001], with a trend toward improvement in TNSS.

CONCLUSION

Overall, INCS resulted in a clinically and statistically meaningful improvement in symptom scores and physiologic measures in AR. POAH and ASIT both improved symptom scores and quality of life, but their impacts upon nasal airflow are uncertain. There is a lack of studies assessing the effect of INCS on quality of life and the effect of POAH on symptom severity, particularly for mild AR. Future studies should assess the effect of treatment for each of these patient-reported measures.

Metabolomics Reveals Process of Allergic Rhinitis Patients with Single- and Double-Species Mite Subcutaneous Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only treatment that can change the course of allergic diseases. However, there has not been any research on metabolic reactions in relation to AIT with single or mixed allergens. In this study, patients with allergic rhinitis caused by Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Der p) and Dermatophagoides farinae (Der f) were treated with single-mite (Der p) and double-mite (Der p:Der f = 1:1) subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), respectively. To compare the efficacy and the dynamic changes of inflammation-related single- and double-species mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (SM-SCIT and DM-SCIT), we performed visual analogue scale (VAS) score, rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) score and serum metabolomics in allergic rhinitis patients during SCIT. VAS and RQLQ score showed no significant difference in efficacy between the two treatments. A total of 57 metabolites were identified, among which downstream metabolites (5(S)-HETE (Hydroxyeicosatetraenoic acid), 8(S)-HETE, 11(S)-HETE, 15(S)-HETE and 11-hydro TXB2) in the ω-6-related arachidonic acid and linoleic acid pathway showed significant differences after approximately one year of treatment in SM-SCIT or DM-SCIT, and the changes of the above serum metabolic components were correlated with the magnitude of RQLQ improvement, respectively. Notably, 11(S)-HETE decreased more with SM-SCIT, and thus it could be used as a potential biomarker to distinguish the two treatment schemes. Both SM-SCIT and DM-SCIT have therapeutic effects on patients with allergic rhinitis, but there is no significant difference in efficacy between them. The reduction of inflammation-related metabolites proved the therapeutic effect, and potential biomarkers (arachidonic acid and its downstream metabolites) may distinguish the options of SCIT.

Efficacy of Subcutaneous and Sublingual Immunotherapy for House Dust Mite Allergy: A Network Meta-Analysis-Based Comparison

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for house dust mite allergy are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of SLIT drops, SLIT tablets, and SCIT in patients with perennial allergic rhinitis through network analysis.

METHODS

Frequentist network meta-analyses estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) across the three immunotherapy modalities on allergic rhinitis symptom and medication score data from double-blind randomized clinical trials. Random effects models were investigated.

RESULTS

We included 26 double-blind randomized clinical trials in this meta-analysis for the symptom score and 18 for the medication score. In the direct pairwise meta-analysis, a significant reduction of the symptom score was observed for all immunotherapy modalities compared with the placebo: pooled SMDs of -0.461 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.795 to -0.127) for SLIT drop, -0.329 (95% CI, -0.426 to -0.231) for SLIT tablet, and -1.669 (95% CI, -2.753 to -0.585) for SCIT. For the medication score, a significant reduction was observed for all modalities. In network meta-analysis, the clinical efficacy of SCIT based on the symptom score was greater than for SLIT drop or SLIT tablet (SMD: -0.697, 95% CI, -1.105 to -0.288; and SMD: -0.819, 95% CI, -1.242 to -0.397). However, there was no significant difference in the symptom score between SLIT drop and SLIT tablet.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the clinical efficacy of all house dust mite immunotherapy modalities and suggests that SCIT may be more effective than SLIT drops or tablets in controlling symptoms of allergic rhinitis.

A meta-analysis on allergen-specific immunotherapy using MCT® (MicroCrystalline Tyrosine)-adsorbed allergoids in pollen allergic patients suffering from allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

The World Allergy Organization and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommend to perform product-specific meta-analyses for allergen-specific immunotherapies because of the high degree of heterogeneity between individual products. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of Glutaraldehyde-modified and MCT® (MicroCrystalline Tyrosine)-adsorbed allergoids (MATA).

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE, LILACS, embase, LIVIVO, Web of Science and Google (Scholar) were searched for publications on MATA up to June 2019. Primary endpoint was the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS). Secondary endpoints were single scores, immunogenicity and improvement of allergic condition. Secondary safety endpoints were the occurrence of side effects. A random effects model was applied with (standardized) mean differences ([S]MDs) including confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was analyzed using the I2 index and publication bias using Egger's test and Funnel plots. Subgroups were analyzed regarding age and asthma status.

RESULTS

Eight randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials were selected for efficacy and 43 publications for safety analysis. In total, 4531 patients were included in this analysis including eight studies containing data on children and adolescents. AIT with MATA significantly reduced allergic symptoms and medication use with a SMD for CSMS of -0.8 (CI: -1.24, -0.36) in comparison to placebo. Heterogeneity was moderate between the studies. The total symptom score (-1.2 [CI: -2.11, -0.29]) and the total medication score (-2.2 [CI: -3.65, -0.74]) were also significantly reduced after MATA treatment. Patient's condition improved significantly after treatment with MATA, with an odds ratio of 3.05 (CI: 1.90, 4.90) when compared to placebo. The proportion of patients, who developed side effects was 38% (CI: 19%, 57%). No serious side effects occurred. Safety in the subgroups of asthmatic patients, children and adolescents did not differ from the overall patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis reveals a large body of evidence from publications investigating MATA. MATA significantly improved allergic symptoms and reduced the use of anti-allergic medication in comparison to placebo, with an excellent safety profile. Especially for children and asthmatic patients, the use of MATAs can be considered as safe, because the safety profiles in these groups did not differ from the total patient population.

Allergen Immunotherapy in Pediatric Respiratory Allergy

Purpose of Review

Atopic diseases such as asthma and allergic rhinitis are highly prevalent in children. Common triggers include tree and grass pollens, house dust mites, molds, and animal dander. These diseases are most often treated symptomatically; however, many patients show partial or poor response and require long-term medication use. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) stands as the only treatment modality that can alter the underlying disease process and potentially offer a cure. In this review article, we discuss the merits of AIT with particular emphasis on its efficacy and safety in pediatric patients. We also discuss the challenges for AIT implementation and present an overview of current research that aims at improving its applicability for the treatment of allergic diseases.

Recent Findings

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are both safe and efficacious treatment options in children with allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. Additionally, AIT has efficacy in preventing the development of asthma in children. Although there are clear advantages with AIT, there are challenges to overcome to optimize treatment. Solutions include improved diagnostics with pre-treatment biomarkers and molecular multiplex assays, biomarkers for prediction of response (e.g., basophil activation markers), improved allergen immunogenicity with the use of recombinant AIT, adjuvants, and allergoids, and lastly improved safety with the concurrent use of omalizumab.

Summary

AIT has shown safety and efficacy in major clinical trials for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma in children. AIT provides a curative treatment option for atopic disorders and should be considered in children with allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. There are many continued advances being made in the field of allergy to further improve the safety and efficacy profile and shorten the duration of AIT treatment.

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.

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.

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.

Effectiveness and adverse events of topical and allergen immunotherapy for atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis protocol

BACKGROUND

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory chronic condition that affects the skin of children and adults and has an important impact on the quality of life. Treatments for AD are based on environmental controls, topical and systemic therapies, and allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). However, it remains unclear the effectiveness and adverse events of AIT and all conventional topical treatments compared with placebo and each other for AD.

METHODS

We will search five electronic databases [Central Cochrane register of controlled trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS] from inception until November 2019 with no language restriction, and we will include experimental studies [randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and quasi-RCTs]. The primary outcome is global and specific skin symptoms assessment. Secondary outcomes are hospital length of stay, quality of life, and adverse events. Reviewers independently will extract data from the studies that meet our inclusion criteria and will assess the risk of bias of individual primary studies. We will conduct random effects pairwise meta-analyses for the observed pairwise comparisons with at least two trials. Then, we will perform random-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to obtain treatment effects for all possible comparisons and to provide a hierarchy of all interventions for each outcome. Possible incoherence between direct and indirect sources of evidence will be investigated locally (if possible) and globally. To investigate sources of statistical heterogeneity, we will perform a series of meta-regression analyses based on pre-specified important effect modifiers. Two authors will appraise the certainty of the evidence for each outcome applying the GRADE's framework for NMA.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this systematic review will shed the light on the effectiveness and adverse events of all possible comparisons for treating AD and on the quality of the collated evidence for recommendations. It will also provide critical information to health care professionals to comprehend and manage this disease at different age stages, treatment type, duration, and severity of atopic dermatitis.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Protocol ID CRD42019147106.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of grass pollen allergen immunotherapy in adults

BACKGROUND

Major scientific societies, such as the EAACI or the AAAAI, do not express any suggestion on which form of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is to be preferred (subcutaneous immunotherapy, SCIT, vs sublingual immunotherapy, SLIT). This choice could depend on their relative pharmacoeconomic value.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of AIT for grass pollen, administered as SCIT or SLIT.

METHODS

We created a Markovian Model, to evaluate, in a hypothetical cohort of adult patients suffering from moderate-to-severe rhino-conjunctivitis with or without allergic asthma, the cost-effectiveness of SLIT (tablets, Grazax^® and Oralair^® ) or SCIT (various currently available products, plus indirect nonmedical costs, such as travel and productivity costs) in addition to pharmacological therapy, assuming a 9-year horizon to capture AIT long-term effects. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated assuming pharmacological therapy as the reference comparator.

RESULTS

In the base case, SCIT was slightly more expensive, but more effective than SLIT, being the most cost-effective option (ICER for SCIT, €11 418; ICER for SLIT, €15 212). ICERs greater than €120 000 for both SCIT and SLIT were demonstrated in a scenario assuming that low treatment persistence rates, which are common in real-life, lead to absence of long-term AIT clinical benefit. Considering indirect nonmedical costs SLIT resulted more cost-effective than SCIT (ICER for SCIT, €17 318; ICER for SLIT, €15 212).

CONCLUSION

In daily practice, AIT for grass pollens may be a cost-effective option only in patients with low discontinuation rates. SCIT, which is less affected by this limitation than SLIT, seems the most cost-effective AIT form.

Artemisia annua-sublingual immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Artemisia annua is an important autumnal pollen allergen for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) in northern China. To date, no study has investigated allergen immunotherapy with A annua. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and mechanisms underlying A annua-sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial involving 71 SAR patients, randomized to SLIT with A annua extract (n = 47) or placebo (n = 24) for 32 weeks. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS; primary clinical end point) was evaluated at baseline (peak pollen phase (PPP) in the previous year), initiation of A annua-SLIT, 1st PPP during SLIT, end of SLIT and 2nd PPP during follow-up. Blood samples and nasal secretions were collected at beginning and after SLIT for assessment of T cells and inflammatory mediators. Safety was assessed according to adverse events (AEs) reported.

RESULTS

Artemisia annua-SLIT significantly reduced TNSS to a greater level from baseline (from 9.45 ± 1.68 to 6.16 ± 2.27) than placebo (from 9.29 ± 2.09 to 9.05 ± 2.40) at the 1st PPP (P < .001) and sustained the improvement in symptoms throughout to the 2nd PPP. Preseasonal A annua-SLIT for 16 weeks significantly decreased Th2 cells, increased nTreg and Tr1 cells in blood; and increased cystatin 1 (CST1) in nasal secretion after 16 and 32 weeks compared with pretreatment. Overall, 17/47 patients experienced mild local AEs and 2 patients mild systemic AEs, after A annua-SLIT.

CONCLUSION

Artemisia annua-SLIT is an efficacious and safe treatment in patients with A annua SAR.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) was introduced in clinical practice on an empirical basis more than 100 years ago. Since the first attempts, AIT was administered subcutaneously. Indeed, other routes of administration were proposed and studied, in particular to improve the safety, but only the sublingual route (SLIT) achieved a credibility based on evidence and was then accepted as a viable "alternative" option to the subcutaneous route. SLIT was largely used in clinical trials and clinical practice in this last 30 years. Thus, a large amount of data is available, coming from either controlled trials and postmarketing surveillance studies. It is clear that SLIT is overall effective, but it is also clear that the efficacy is not "class-related," as derived from meta-analyses, but restricted to each specific product. The 30-year lasting use of SLIT allowed to clarify many clinical aspects, such as efficacy, safety, use in asthma, regimens of administration, and optimal doses. In parallel, the mechanisms of action of AIT were elucidated, and new indications were proposed (eg food allergy, atopic dermatitis). In addition, the introduction of molecular-based diagnosis, allowed to better refine the prescription of SLIT, based on specific sensitization profiles. The present article will describe the origin and evolution of SLIT for respiratory allergy, taking into account the clinical context that suggested this form of treatment, the recently developed aspects, the future perspectives and unmet needs, This is not, therefore, a systematic review, rather a narrative historical description of the past history, and a look forward to the future opportunities.

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.

Illustrative Case Series and Narrative Review of Therapeutic Failure of Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis

This is a series of 4 cases (3 therapeutic failure and 1 early relapse) in adult patients treated with allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic rhinitis (AR) in our immunotherapy clinic, which treats 110 new patients per year. AIT includes both subcutaneous and sublingual routes. The current national/international AIT recommendations and the literature have been searched to identify guidance for the optimal management of therapeutic failure of AIT in AR. There is scant information available to support clinicians when treatment failure and/or intolerable side effects occur. The importance is highlighted for developing the guidance and evidence base for the benefit of this patient subgroup. The potential strategies that clinicians have proposed are discussed in this article, though it is acknowledged that these are mostly not evidence-based.

Management of ocular allergy

The treatment and management of ocular allergy (OA) remain a major concern for different specialties, including allergists, ophthalmologists, primary care physicians, rhinologists, pediatricians, dermatologists, clinical immunologists, and pharmacists. We performed a systematic review of all relevant publications in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web Science including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Publications were considered relevant if they addressed treatments, or management strategies of OA. A further wider systematic literature search was performed if no evidence or good quality evidence was found. There are effective drugs for the treatment of OA; however, there is a lack an optimal treatment for the perennial and severe forms. Topical antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, or double-action drugs are the first choice of treatment. All of them are effective in reducing signs and symptoms of OA. The safety and optimal dosing regimen of the most effective topical anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, are still a major concern. Topical calcineurin inhibitors may be used in steroid-dependent/resistant cases of severe allergic keratoconjunctivitis. Allergen-specific immunotherapy may be considered in cases of failure of first-line treatments or to modify the natural course of OA disease. Based on the current wealth of publications and on the collective experience, recommendations on management of OA have been proposed.

Perception and practice of sublingual immunotherapy among practicing allergists in the United States: A follow-up survey

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available regarding the current perception and practice of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) use among US and international allergists. In light of 4 recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SLIT options, perceptions and practices may be changing.

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated information about current allergists' practice and perception of SLIT relative to 2007 and 2011.

METHODS

On behalf of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) Immunotherapy and Diagnostics Committee, an electronic survey was sent to all US and international allergists who were members of the ACAAI. Data were compared with previous surveys conducted and published in 2007 and 2011.

RESULTS

Of the 305 respondents, 268 (87.9%) practiced in the United States. A total of 197 of 268 respondents (73.5%) reported experience using SLIT compared with 45 of 766 US allergists (5.9%) in 2007 and 59 of 519 US allergists (11.4%) in 2011 (P < .001). Of the 188 respondents in the United States who used SLIT in their practice, 129 (68.6%) used FDA-approved SLIT tablets only, 44 (23.4%) used both FDA-approved SLIT tablets and SLIT drops using an extract that is FDA approved for subcutaneous immunotherapy, and 15 (8.0%) reported using only SLIT drops. Limitation of only treating one allergen was the primary barrier in using SLIT among 197 of 268 respondents (73.5%).

CONCLUSION

There has been a significant increase in SLIT use in the last 5 years, with 73.5% of respondents reporting experience with it. With 4 FDA-approved SLIT therapies, this likely contributes to its more widespread use. The greatest barrier to SLIT use is the limitation of only treating one allergen.

Maintenance-Phase Subcutaneous Immunotherapy with House Dust Mites Induces Cyclic Immunologic Effects

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is an effective treatment of respiratory allergies including house dust mite (HDM) and Hymenoptera venom allergy. During the build-up phase, the allergen is administered weekly at increasing doses, while during the maintenance phase, it is administered at a fixed high dose every 4 weeks. Upon SCIT injection, the allergen is driven to the draining lymph nodes where it most likely induces an immune response. Immunologic changes are thus supposedly induced at each injection.

OBJECTIVES

It is now established that SCIT induces tolerance in the long term, but the precise underlying immunologic mechanisms remain unclear. Therefore, we wanted to analyze the immunologic changes induced in both innate and adaptive immune cells at each individual SCIT administration during the maintenance phase in HDM-allergic patients. More specifically, we wondered whether the changes in regulatory T cell (Treg) and IgE+ B cell percentages, which are observed at the end of a 3-year course of SCIT, already occurred during the maintenance phase and whether these possible changes were sustained.

METHODS

We enrolled 6 patients suffering from HDM allergic rhinitis and undergoing maintenance HDM SCIT for 18-24 months. The same SCIT extract was used for all patients. We collected blood samples at 5 time points: T1 (immediately before a given SCIT injection), T2 (9 days after T1), T3 (29 days after T1 and right before the successive administration), T4 (39 days after T1), and T5 (61 days after T1 and just before the next injection). Six non-allergic age-matched healthy individuals were used as controls. Using flow cytometry, we assessed the following cell subsets in peripheral blood mononuclear cells: CD4 and CD8 T cells, Tregs, B cells, IgE+ B cells, NK and NKT cells, and total and activated basophils.

RESULTS

HDM-allergic patients displayed increased percentages of CD4 and CD8 T cells and NK cells compared to healthy controls. In contrast, NKT cells, total B cells, and basophils were diminished. These differences were maintained throughout the time course and seemed to be independent of the periodical SCIT injections. On the contrary, Treg percentages were significantly reduced in all HDM-allergic patients at T1. However, they increased at T2 and T4 (9 days after each SCIT injection) but decreased again at T3 and T5, just before the next one, resulting in cyclic changes. IgE+ B cells were significantly increased at T1, even more increased after each administration (T2, T4), and went back to their initial levels at T3 and T5, also resulting in a cyclic pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that during the SCIT maintenance phase, cycles of expansion/contraction of Tregs and IgE+ B cells occur at each SCIT injection. Therefore, the sustained induction of immune tolerance by SCIT, through the increase of Tregs, seems to depend on the periodical exposure to the allergen, at least during the early steady state.

SCIT Versus SLIT: Which One Do You Recommend, Doc?

Allergic rhinitis is a prevalent condition that has a significant impact on the quality of life of many patients. When initial therapy fails to control the symptoms, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been suggested as an option by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters. The 2 main forms of AIT are via subcutaneous and sublingual routes, called subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy, respectively. There is debate about which is the better option for patients with each method offering its own pros and cons. We present 2 patients with allergic rhinitisAR that were deemed good candidates for AIT and explore current evidence for both subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed with the goal of providing a framework for the physician when deciding on AIT for their patients. In addition, we explore the use of AIT in patients with asthma and atopic dermatitis as potential patient populations that may benefit from the treatment. We use the discussion to provide recommendations regarding which method of AIT is best suited for both our patients.

Recent developments and highlights in allergen immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated inhalant allergies. Though used in clinical practice for more than 100 years, most innovations in AIT efficacy and safety have been developed in the last two decades. This expert review aimed to highlight the recent progress in AIT for both application routes, the sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT) forms. As such, it covers recent aspects regarding efficacy and safety in clinical trials and real-life data and outlines new concepts in consensus and position papers as well as in guidelines for AIT. Potential clinical and nonclinical biomarkers are discussed. This review also focuses on potential future perspectives in AIT, such as alternative application routes, immune-modulating adjuvants, and recombinant vaccines. In conclusion, this state of the art review provides a comprehensive overview of AIT and highlights unmet needs for 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.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy suppresses Th2 inflammation and induces neutralizing antibodies, but sublingual immunotherapy suppresses airway hyperresponsiveness in grass pollen mouse models for allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Both subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SCIT and SLIT) have been shown to effectively suppress allergic manifestations upon allergen exposure, providing long-term relief from symptoms in allergic disorders including allergic asthma. Clinical studies directly comparing SCIT and SLIT report a different kinetics and magnitude of immunological changes induced during treatment. Comparative studies into the mechanisms underlying immune suppression in SCIT and SLIT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to establish an experimental model for grass pollen (GP) SCIT and SLIT that would allow a head-to-head comparison of the two treatments.

METHODS

BALB/c mice were sensitized with GP extract, followed by SCIT and SLIT treatments with various GP dosages. Subsequently, we challenged mice with GP and measured airway responsiveness (AHR), GP-specific immunoglobulins, ear swelling tests (EST), eosinophilic inflammation in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and T cell cytokine release after restimulation of lung cells (IL-5, IL-10, and IL-13).

RESULTS

We find that SLIT treatment was able to suppress allergen-induced AHR, while allergic inflammation was not effectively suppressed even at the highest GP dose in this model. In contrast, SCIT treatment induced higher levels of GP-specific IgG1, while SLIT was superior in inducing a GP-specific IgG2a response, which was associated with increased Th1 activity in lung tissue after SLIT, but not SCIT treatment. Interestingly, SCIT was able to suppress Th2-type cytokine production in lung cell suspensions, while SLIT failed to do so.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In conclusion, GP-SCIT suppresses Th2 inflammation and induced neutralizing antibodies, while GP-SLIT suppresses the clinically relevant lung function parameters in an asthma mouse model, indicating that the two application routes depend on partially divergent mechanisms of tolerance induction. Interestingly, these data mirror observations in clinical studies, underscoring the translational value of these mouse models.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

[Biologics in Rhinology - Forthcoming Personalized Concepts: the Future Starts Today]

Sinunasale Erkrankungen zählen mit zu den häufigsten chronischen Erkrankungen und führen zu einer erheblichen Störung der Lebensqualität, ein komorbides Asthma ist häufig. Trotz leitliniengerechter Therapie ist anzunehmen, dass mind. 20% der Patienten ihre Erkrankungssymptome nicht adäquat kontrollieren können. Neben den etablierten chirurgischen und konservativen Therapieoptionen finden sich nun vielversprechende Therapieansätze, die bspw. mittels therapeutischer Antikörper mechanistisch gezielt in die Pathophysiologie der Erkrankungen eingreifen können. Die Auswahl der geeigneten Patienten durch geeignete Biomarker und die richtige Therapie zum richtigen Stadium der Erkrankung anbieten zu können, ist das Ziel stratifizierter Medizin und eine wichtige Perspektive für die HNO.Chronic diseases of the nose and the paranasal sinuses are most common, frequently associated with bronchial asthma, and result in substantial reduction of quality of life. Despite optimal treatment according to guidelines, approx. 20 % of the patients will report inadequate control of symptoms. Apart from well established surgical and conservative approaches in therapy new therapeutic antibodies are available that aim specifically pathophysiological targets. The optimal allocation of effective therapy for patients using appropriate biomarkers at the most suitable timepoint is the hallmark of stratified medicine and an important perspective in ENT.