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

Breaking the mold: nontraditional approaches to allergen immunotherapy for environmental allergens

Allergen immunotherapy is a disease-modifying treatment for allergic diseases. The predominant traditional immunotherapy is through subcutaneous administration of allergens to gradually desensitize allergic individuals. While effective, traditional allergen immunotherapy approaches are often lengthy, time consuming for patients and can result in local or systemic adverse reactions. Nontraditional immunotherapies are emerging as promising alternatives, offering potentially more convenient, safe and efficacious treatment options. This review sought to comprehensively examine the safety, efficacy and performance of various nontraditional immunotherapies for environmental allergens. Nontraditional immunotherapy approaches covered in this review include sublingual, local nasal, intralymphatic rush and ultra-rush immunotherapy, allergoid, microbial and anti-IgE immunotherapies. Nontraditional immunotherapies show significant promise in addressing the limitations of traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy. Methods like intralymphatic and rush immunotherapy offer shorter treatment regimens, enhancing patient adherence and convenience. The co-administration of probiotics or monoclonal antibodies, like omalizumab, with AIT appears to improve treatment efficacy and safety. Despite these advancements, further large-scale, long-term studies are needed to establish standardized protocols, dosing and validate long-term effects of these nontraditional immunotherapies. Standardizing outcome measurements across studies is crucial for accurate comparisons of nontraditional immunotherapies prior to widespread clinical adoption of these innovative techniques.

Safety of 300IR house dust mite sublingual tablet from pooled clinical trial and post-marketing data

Background

The 300IR house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet is approved for treatment of HDM-induced allergic rhinitis (AR). To provide a comprehensive review of the 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet safety profile based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) pooled data and post-marketing (PM) pharmacovigilance data.

Methods

Subjects (5-65 years) with confirmed HDM-AR with or without controlled asthma were treated with 300IR or placebo in 8 RCTs. Reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were pooled and analyzed descriptively in subsets of adults/adolescents and children. Adverse reactions (ADRs) collected from spontaneous reporting and PM studies through a pharmacovigilance system since the first marketing authorization were also analyzed.

Results

Across RCTs, 1853 subjects were treated with the 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet and 1846 with placebo. In both subsets of adults/adolescents and children whichever their asthma status, treatment-related TEAEs of higher incidence in active groups vs placebo were mostly consistent with mild or moderate local application-site reactions. They were mainly reported on the first days of treatment and decreased over time. 4 severe laryngopharyngeal reactions (2 requiring adrenaline/epinephrine) and 1 moderate eczema considered serious rapidly resolved with medications; no anaphylaxis was reported. In PM settings, ADRs reported in more than 235,000 patients were in line with RCT findings. Severe systemic reactions occurred rarely; 12 anaphylactic reactions resolved safely (5 with adrenaline). No new safety signal was raised.

Conclusion

Safety data from RCTs and more than 7 years of real-life experience confirmed the favorable safety profile of 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet in patients across different regions, regardless of age and asthma status.

Clinical trial registrations

NCT00674700; Retrospectively registered 06 May 2008.NCT01199133; Retrospectively registered 09 September 2010.NCT01527188; Retrospectively registered 01 February 2012.NCT02443805; Registered 29 April 2015/EudraCT 2014-004223-46; Registered 16 September 2015.jRCT2080221872/JapicCTI-121917; Registered 01 August 2012.jRCT2080222929/JapicCTI-15298; Registered 04 August 2015.

Exploring Side Effects of Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as a potentially safe and convenient option for allergen immunotherapy for patients with inhalant allergy. Larger studies on the overall side effects and severe reactions anaphylaxis are still lacking. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Author's review was completed in the University of Texas Medical Branch. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials focusing on SLIT safety published from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2021, was conducted. Results: Twenty-six studies were included with analysis of 7827 patients, representing over 2.7 million SLIT doses. All studies focused on single-antigen immunotherapy. The mean duration of treatment was 11.54 months. Local side effects were present in 40.83% of patients [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.78-57.96]. Systemic side effects were encountered in 1.09% of SLIT patients (95% CI 0.57-1.78). Anaphylaxis was reported in 0.13% of patients (95% CI 0.06-0.22). Discontinuation rates due to side effects were low, at 4.32% of patients (95% CI 3.28-5.49). Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows that single-antigen SLIT is well-tolerated, with overall low rates of systemic side effects including anaphylaxis. Although there is a high rate of minor local side effect, the treatment attrition during the first year is low. With growing allergy burden worldwide, SLIT is a convenient and economically feasible option for immunotherapy. Further work is needed to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of single as well as multi-antigen SLIT, including quality of life assessments.

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.

Anaphylaxis in Clinical Trials of Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus method to identify anaphylaxis in sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) trials. Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) queries (SMQs) are standardized groupings of MedDRA terms used in drug safety monitoring.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a method to identify potential anaphylaxis in SLIT-tablet trials using SMQ searches and case definitions of anaphylaxis adopted from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

METHODS

The SMQ search tool contained 2 criteria including treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs): (1) narrow MedDRA terms related to anaphylaxis and (2) all AEs with broad MedDRA terms from at least 2 of 3 categories (respiratory/skin/cardiovascular) occurring on the same day. Criteria were applied to a pooled data set of all subjects from 48 timothy grass, ragweed, house dust mite, and tree SLIT-tablet trials (SLIT-tablet, N = 8200; placebo, N = 7033). Additional search strategies were any treatment-emergent AE with MedDRA preferred term "hypersensitivity" and epinephrine administrations. Identified potential cases underwent blinded independent medical expert review. Nonanaphylaxis cases were designated local AEs or mild to moderate systemic reactions.

RESULTS

Using the SMQ search tool and after subsequent medical review, 8 anaphylaxis cases were identified; 3 were considered treatment-related, resulting in a proportion of anaphylaxis cases/subject of 0.02% (2 of 8200) with SLIT-tablet and 0.01% (1 of 7033) with placebo. One additional anaphylaxis case related to SLIT-tablet was identified by the preferred term "hypersensitivity." The 3 anaphylaxis cases associated with SLIT-tablet treatment were not life-threatening. The epinephrine administration rate was 17 of 8200 (0.2%) with SLIT-tablet treatment and 2 of 7033 (0.03%) with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

SMQ search criteria for identifying potential anaphylaxis related to SLIT were developed. Anaphylaxis was rare for SLIT-tablets.

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.

Characteristics of dust mite sublingual immunotherapy-associated adverse events in the early phase

BACKGROUND

Few studies reported the characteristics of house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) adverse events (AEs) during early phase treatment. The aim of this prospective study was mainly to explore the characteristics of AEs in allergic rhinitis (AR) patients during 6 months of HDM SLIT.

METHODS

A total of 242 patients with AR were enrolled in this study. Telephone follow-up and administration were conducted in the every week of the first month, the third month, and the sixth month of SLIT treatment. Furthermore, the early efficacy, AEs, and compliance were analyzed in our study.

RESULTS

Overall, 70.25% (170/242) of the AR patients completed the study, while 29.75% (72/242) of the AR patients failed to complete the whole 6 months of SLIT treatment process. On the whole, symptoms improved in 87.65% (149/170) of patients including 34.12% (58/170) well-controlled and 53.53% (91/170) partially controlled. The correlation analysis results showed that the treatment effect was negatively correlated with the age (r = -0.1614, P = 0.0355). The AEs mainly occurred in the first month, comprised of local rashes, gastrointestinal reactions, and itching of mouth and tongue. Subgroup analysis in the first month showed the itching of mouth and tongue, gastrointestinal reactions, fatigue, and other AEs in ≥14 years old group (14-65 years old, n = 42) were significant differences when compared with that in the <14 years old group (4-13 years old, n = 128, all P < 0.05). In the study, the main reasons for terminated immunotherapy were drug inaccessibility, loss of follow-up and long course of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Patients with AR who received HDM SLIT revealed an early efficacy after 6 months, with AEs mostly occurred in the first month.

Is immunotherapy safe for treatment of severe asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The benefits of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), including subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT), for IgE-mediated asthma are well established, especially for dust mite. This review will explore whether the benefits of AIT outweigh the risks in severe asthmatic patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have mostly included mild and moderate asthmatic patients, but at least a few studies do show improvements in asthma symptoms and medication use in severe asthmatic patients. Asthma, and especially uncontrolled asthma, is a major risk factor for severe and fatal systemic reactions from SCIT. Uncontrolled asthma is an absolute contraindication for SCIT. It is less clear whether the benefits of SCIT and SLIT may outweigh the risks in well controlled, severe asthmatic patients, and further study is needed in this area. Asthma biologics, especially Omalizumab, may improve outcomes in severe, controlled asthmatic patients on SCIT, but further data are needed regarding timing of initiation and duration of treatment.

SUMMARY

Although severe asthmatic patients may benefit from AIT, significant risks exist, especially in those with uncontrolled asthma. Further study is needed regarding optimal strategies to minimize risks.

Efficacy and safety of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets in allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

House dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets have been approved for the treatment of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the meta-analysis on the efficacy of HDM-SLIT tablets for HDM-induced AR patients remained limited.

Methods

Five databases were searched including: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that addressed the efficacy and safetyof HDM-SLIT tablets compared with placebo until January 2022. The primary outcome was a combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) after treatment.

Results

Eight eligible RCTs were identified with a total of 3601 patients treated with HDM-SLIT tablets and 2783 patients who received a placebo. The CSMS was significantly lower in the HDM-SLIT tablet group compared with the placebo (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.28 [95% CI: -0.32 to -0.23]). There was a significant reduction in rhinitis symptom scores, rhinitis medication scores, total combined conjunctivitis scores, and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire scores. The consistent efficacy compared to the placebo has been exhibited over the different kinds and doses of HDM tablets (6 SQ, 12 SQ, 300 IR, and 500 IR) and age groups (>5 years old, adolescents and adults) with low degrees of variability across the studies. There was no significant difference in proportions of participants who were injected with epinephrine between the treatment- and placebo groups.

Conclusions

HDM-SLIT tablet is an effective treatment in reducing rhinitis symptoms and medication use in AR patients with favorable safety. They also improve quality of life and conjunctivitis symptoms.

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic respiratory disease

Subcutaneous immunotherapy is recognized as a cornerstone in the management of allergic respiratory disease in patients who are properly characterized with allergy and with allergic rhinoconjunctivis and/or well-controlled asthma, and who are willing to adhere to the rigorous treatment program. A key tenet is that it affords the opportunity to effect long-term clinical remission through its disease-modifying properties. Furthermore, it has the potential to prevent the progression of allergic rhinitis to asthma, prevent new allergen sensitivities, and improve a patient's quality of life.

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.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and allergen immunotherapy: Lights and shadows

Allergic diseases, such as IgE-mediated food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, are relevant health problems worldwide and show an increasing prevalence. Therapies for food allergies are food avoidance and the prompt administration of intramuscular epinephrine in anaphylaxis occurring after accidental exposure. However, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is being investigated as a new potential tool for treating severe food allergies. Effective oral immunotherapy (OIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) induce desensitization and restore immune tolerance to the causal allergen. While immediate side effects are well known, the long-term effects of food AIT are still underestimated. In this regard, eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs), mainly eosinophilic esophagitis, have been reported as putative complications of OIT for food allergy and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic asthma and rhinitis. Fortunately, these complications are usually reversible and the patient recovers after AIT discontinuation. This review summarizes current knowledge on the possible causative link between eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders and AIT, highlighting recent evidence and controversies.

Worldwide surveys on anaphylaxis to sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite tablets are urgently needed

In the 1980s, a global number of 72 fatalities were reported in the UK and the USA following the application of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). This resulted in a significant limitation of SCIT use and in the search of other routes of administration, among which sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) showed the best balance between efficacy and safety. Data from controlled studies suggest that tablets‐related anaphylaxis is an uncommon event. However, in the Eudravigilance (European database of suspected adverse drug reactions from Europe) we found reports of life‐threatening events or severe local reactions under SLIT increasing over the last few years. Therefore, all efforts to minimize the related risk have to be strongly encouraged.

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

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

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.

Asthma and allergies in pregnancy

Asthma is the most common respiratory disease observed in pregnancy and is estimated to occur in approximately 5-8% of pregnant women. The course of asthma during gestation may be affected by normal physiologic changes associated with the pregnancy, environmental exposures, and adherence to medical therapy. Uncontrolled asthma poses serious risks not only to the mother but also to the fetus. However, if asthma is controlled, then most women have outcomes at or near that of the general population. Appropriate management of asthma during pregnancy includes evaluation of symptoms, regular monitoring of pulmonary function, and patient education with regard to the risks and benefits of medications. Overall, the advantages of treating asthma in pregnancy markedly outweigh any potential risks of standard medical therapies. Comorbid conditions, including allergic rhinitis or vasomotor rhinitis of pregnancy, should also be managed during pregnancy.

Coadministration of Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets and Management of Potential Adverse Effects: Austrian, German, and Swiss Expert Recommendations

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is currently available as liquid drops and tablets for treatment of allergic patients. Because several allergens are available and many patients are polyallergic, it is possible to treat patients with multiple clinically relevant allergies by >1 SLIT product. Austrian, German, and Swiss medical experts discussed the available data on allergen uptake at the oral mucosa and recently published data on coadministration of a grass and a ragweed tablet. The experts agreed on a schedule considering data from a North American trial on sequential administration of 2 SLIT-tablets with different allergens and their own experiences made during initiation of treatment with >1 SLIT-tablet in their clinics and subsequent self-administration by the patient and discussed the handling and management of potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). According to the medical experts' opinion, tolerability at each phase of administration and patient preference should be taken into consideration to ensure a high level of adherence to treatment. Local ADRs that are uncomfortable for the patient may be alleviated by a 2- to 4-week course of antihistamine pretreatment. ADRs with severe swelling and/or systemic ADRs need the physician's particular attention and a decision together with the patient on continuation of treatment with SLIT or possible alternative routes of administration.

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.

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.

Allergic sensitization and clinical outcomes in urban children with asthma, 2013-2016

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to examine if food and/or aeroallergen sensitization was associated with worse asthma, pulmonary function tests (PFT), and laboratory markers.

METHODS

At our institution, 386 children with asthma were divided into allergic and nonallergic groups based on allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing classes 1-6 versus 0. Asthma severity and/or control, IgE level, eosinophil counts and/or percentages, forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV1), and FEV1/FVC, were compared by using bivariate, regression, and subgroup analyses for children who were highly allergic (≥4 allergens).

RESULTS

A total of 291 subjects with asthma were allergic, significantly older, and had higher mean IgE levels and eosinophil counts and percentages (all p < 0.001). A total of 203 subjects who were highly allergic had worse obstruction on PFTs. Increasing age predicted allergen sensitization after confounder adjustment, odds ratio (OR) 1.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-2.02). Similarly, PFT obstruction was associated with multiple allergen sensitization (OR 0.97 [95% CI, 0.93-1.02]).

CONCLUSION

Increasing age predicted allergic sensitization and multiple allergen sensitization. Worse obstruction on PFT also predicted multiple allergen sensitization. Continued surveillance of aeroallergen sensitization and PFT results may be beneficial in asthma management, particularly in older urban children.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2017 Year in Review

An impressive number of clinically impactful studies and reviews were published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2017. As a service to our readers, the editors provide this Year in Review article to highlight and contextualize the advances published over the past year. We include information from articles on asthma, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, immunotherapy, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, drug hypersensitivity, urticarial/angioedema, eosinophilic disorders, and immunodeficiency. Within each topic, epidemiologic findings are presented, relevant aspects of prevention are described, and diagnostic and therapeutic advances are enumerated. Treatments discussed include behavioral therapy, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of patients.

Chinese Guideline on allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

The present document is based on a consensus reached by a panel of experts from Chinese Society of Allergy (CSA) and Chinese Allergic Rhinitis Collaborative Research Group (C2AR2G). Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), has increasingly been used as a treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) globally, as it has been shown to provide a long-term effect in improving nasal and ocular symptoms, reducing medication need, and improving quality of life. AIT is currently the only curative intervention that can potentially modify the immune system in individuals suffering from AR and prevent the development of new sensitization and the progression of disease from AR to asthma. Although the use of AIT is becoming more acceptable in China, to date no AR immunotherapy guideline from China is available for use by the international community. This document has thus been produced and covers the main aspects of AIT undertaken in China; including selection of patients for AIT, the allergen extracts available on the Chinese market, schedules and doses of allergen employed in different routes of AIT, assessment of effect and safety, patients' administration and follow-up, and management of adverse reactions. The Chinese guideline for AR immunotherapy will thus serve as a reference point by doctors, healthcare professionals and organizations involved in the AIT of AR in China. Moreover, this guideline will serve as a source of information for the international community on AIT treatment strategies employed in China.