Systemic Reactions in Pediatric Patients Receiving Standardized Allergen Subcutaneous Immunotherapy with and without Seasonal Dose Adjustment

Focused allergic rhinitis practice parameter for Canada

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a prevalent disease in Canada that affects both children and adults. Several guidelines for the management of AR have been published by professional allergy societies worldwide. However, there are regional differences in the clinical management of AR, and regulatory approval of some AR pharmacotherapies varies among countries. Thus, six research questions specific to the treatment of AR in Canada were identified for this focused practice parameter. Reviews of the literature published since 2016 were conducted to obtain evidence-based support for the responses of the Work Group to each research question. In response to research question 1 "In patients with symptoms indicative of AR, is serum-specific IgE sufficient to identify candidates for immunotherapy or is a skin prick test mandatory?" the Work Group concluded that either sIgE testing or skin prick test are acceptable for diagnosing AR and guiding immunotherapy. In response to research question 2 "When taking into account the preferences of the patient and the prescriber (stakeholder engagement) should second-generation oral antihistamine (OAH) or intranasal corticosteroid (INCS) be first line?" the Work Group concluded that existing guidelines generally agree on the use of INCS as a first-line therapy used for AR, however, patient and provider preferences and considerations can easily shift the first choice to a second-generation OAH. In response to research question 3 "Is a combination intranasal antihistamine (INAH)/INCS formulation superior to INCS plus OAH? Do they become equivalent after prolonged use?" the Work Group concluded that that the combination INAH/INCS is superior to an INCS plus OAH. However, there was insufficient evidence to answer the second question. In response to research question 4 "Do leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) have a greater benefit than OAH in AR for some symptoms to justify a therapeutic trial in those who cannot tolerate INCS?" the Work Group concluded that LTRAs have inferior, or at best equivalent, daytime or overall symptom control compared with OAH, but LTRAs may improve nighttime symptom control and provide benefits in patients with AR and concomitant asthma. In response to research question 5 "Should sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets be considered first-line immunotherapeutic options over subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) based on the evidence of efficacy?" the Work Group concluded that the choice of SLIT or SCIT cannot be made on efficacy alone, and differences in other factors outweigh any differences in efficacy. In response to research question 6 "Based on efficacy data, should ALL patients seen by an allergist be offered SLIT or SCIT as a treatment option?" the Work Group concluded that the efficacy data suggests that SLIT or SCIT should be used broadly in patients with AR, but other clinical concerns also need to be taken into consideration.

Safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy with Novo-Helisen-Depot in the children: a retrospective analysis from a single center in Northern China

Background

Little is known about the safety of mite extract product Novo-Helisen Depot (NHD) as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in the children with mite allergy especially immediate/late local reaction (LRs).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study analyzing the adverse events of the children undergoing subcutaneous immunotherapy with NHD. Adverse events included local and systemic adverse reactions (SRs) at the very early and late stage. The correlation of the basic characteristics, laboratory analysis results, LRs and SRs were analyzed.

Results

Two hundred and eighty-seven patients received at least 15 months of subcutaneous immunotherapy with NHD were included in the analysis. Skin-prick testing (SPT) results of D. pteronyssinus was associated with an increased risk of immediate LRs in build-up phase (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.37) and delayed LRs in maintenance phase (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.46), while SPT results of D. farinae was associated with an increased risk of SRs (OR = 3.22, 95% CI: 1.17, 10.00) and severe SRs (OR = 7.68, 95% CI: 1.13, 109.50). Serum IgE level of D. pteronyssinus was associated with an increased risk of SRs (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.03). Patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis was associated with an increased risk of SR, and severe SRs (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

NHD as SCIT is safe. The children with higher SPT level with D. farinae or D. pteronyssinus, higher serum IgE level of D. pteronyssinus, children with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, and the children with treatment interruption had higher risk of adverse events.

The Art of Immunotherapy

Selection of a patient with rhinitis/conjunctivitis or asthma for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) requires several decisions. First, does the patient's sensitization, pattern of exposure to an allergen, and degree of exposure to that allergen reasonably suggest a causal relationship? Does the level and duration of symptoms warrant the cost and inconvenience of immunotherapy, or is the patient motivated by the disease-modifying potential of AIT? If AIT is selected, is the choice to be greater safety and convenience with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets, but with treatment probably limited to 2 or 3 allergens, or for subcutaneous immunotherapy where multiple allergen therapy is the rule and efficacy may be somewhat greater, at least initially, or does the physician go off-label into the unknowns of liquid SLIT? Are there extracts of sufficient potency to achieve likely effective doses? How does the physician deal with large local or systemic reactions, with gaps in treatment, with pollen seasons, and the use of premedication or cautionary prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors? How can adherence to AIT be improved? These and other questions are addressed in this paper.

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.

Safety of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) is a unique treatment option for managing patients with allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and stinging insect allergy. Although systemic reactions to allergen injections are rare, near-fatal, and fatal anaphylactic reactions can occur. Patients with asthma are at greatest risk for more severe reactions as are those with previous systemic reactions. Treating allergists should institute best clinical practices to prevent and manage severe systemic reactions to SCIT, including the following: (1) prescreening patients with asthma for recent increases in asthma symptoms, (2) not prescribing SCIT to patients with severe and uncontrolled asthma, (3) instituting clinic protocols to prevent dosing errors, (4) considering modifying allergen doses during peak allergy seasons in patients at high risk, (5) instituting measures that require all patients on SCIT to be observed for at least 30 minutes after injections, and (6) regular training of all clinical staff in the recognition and expeditious treatment of anaphylaxis.

Pediatric subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a widely used therapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma. It is a useful adjunct to standard medical management of these conditions that can lead to long-term benefits and possible resolution of symptoms. The benefits of SCIT, particularly for children, include avoiding prolonged use and side effects from medications, preventing new aeroallergen sensitizations, and reducing the risk of developing asthma. The primary risks of SCIT include local and systemic reactions. Standard schedules for SCIT include advancing through multiple doses usually in four vials (diluted to 1:1000) on a weekly basis; however, there are benefits of using accelerated schedules, especially for children who need to coordinate school and parent work schedules. Special considerations for pediatric patients include fear of needles, avoiding discomfort with injections, consent, optimal injection scheduling, and difficulty communicating about symptoms during reactions in very young children. Overall, SCIT can be a safe and beneficial therapy for children.

Systemic Allergic Reactions and Anaphylaxis Associated with Allergen Immunotherapy

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) is a proven treatment of allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and prevention of Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis. The known benefit of SCIT, however, must be considered in each patient relative to the potential risks of systemic allergic reactions (SRs). A mean of 1 SR per 1000 injection visits (0.1%) was estimated to occur between 2008 and 2018. Life-threatening anaphylactic events are estimated to occur in 1/160,000 injection visits. The factors that contribute to SRs and fatal reactions (FRs) are reviewed. Risk management strategies are proposed to prevent and decrease future SCIT associated with SRs, anaphylaxis, and FR.

Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for pediatric allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem in adults as well as the younger population, continuously increasing and posing a significant problem for patients, health care systems and economies. For the younger population, some aspects differ from treatment of adults, namely, prevention, compliance and adherence.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review summarizes all the pharmacotherapeutic options with special focus on the pediatric population. Moreover, it elucidates prevention strategies as well as future developments of AR treatment. Currently, symptomatic therapy in the form of steroids and antihistamines is applied topically and systemically where steroids need to be administered with caution and for a very short term. The only disease-modifying and causal treatment is allergen immunotherapy administered sublingually and subcutaneously. Future and current novel therapeutic options are human monoclonal antibodies.

EXPERT OPINION

The greatest potential for future developments currently lie in allergen immunotherapy and here in different routes of administration and modification of (recombinant) allergens as well as immune-modulating adjuvants and nanoparticles. Secondly, monoclonal antibodies are promising molecules blocking and/or interfering with up- and downstream immune mechanisms. Another important aspect lies in prevention of allergic sensitization and disease progression through both AIT and biologics which is particularly true for the pediatric population.

Allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: to what extent can the risk of systemic reactions be reduced?

INTRODUCTION

Allergen immunotherapy is an effective treatment for respiratory allergy, but the administration to patients of extracts of the causative allergen may elicit systemic reactions, which include, particularly with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), anaphylaxis. In the past, the occurrence (tough rare) of fatal reactions has represented a serious problem that has limited the prescription of SCIT.

AREAS COVERED

The authors analyzed in this review the safety data of SCIT, especially concerning the years following the identification of uncontrolled asthma at the moment of allergen injection as the major risk of life-threatening reactions and fatalities. The safety of SLIT, which is far better than SCIT, was analyzed and its specific risk factors for systemic reactions were highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

Presently, the safety profile of SCIT and SLIT is satisfactory, provided the treatment is administered by physicians experienced in this treatment, who are aware of the known risk factors for severe reactions and who implement all measures to avoid them. For SLIT, which is self-administered by the patient, receiving the first dose under medical control is recommended.

Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Safety: Incidence per Surveys and Risk Factors

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is effective for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, asthma, and insect venom hypersensitivity. The risk of severe allergic reactions induced by SCIT remains low, and mild systemic reactions have recently shown a tendency to decline. However, near-fatal and fatal anaphylactic reactions may occur. Clinicians administering allergen-specific immunotherapy should receive specialized training and be aware of risk factors and preventive measures to avoid severe allergic reactions induced by SCIT.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2018 Highlights

A large number of clinically impactful studies and reviews were published in this journal in 2018. This article provides highlights of the original research published in 2018 issues of The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunolgy: In Practice on the subjects of anaphylaxis, asthma, dermatitis, drug allergy, eosinophilic disorders, food allergy, immune deficiency, rhinitis, and urticaria/angioedema and mast cell disorders. Within each topic, practical aspects of diagnosis and management are emphasized. Treatments discussed include lifestyle modifications, 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.

A twenty-two-year experience with Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy in a US pediatric tertiary care center 1996-2018

BACKGROUND

The rate of systemic reactions (SRs) to venom immunotherapy (VIT) in children has not been well evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the rate of SRs to VIT in pediatric patients age 5 to 18 years who were treated with a standard protocol.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients who received VIT at Boston Children's Hospital from 1996 through 2018. Information on venom testing, severity of reaction to insect field sting, and SRs to VIT were retrieved.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients were included. Most had moderate to severe reactions to insect sting before VIT. The rate of SRs was 0.2% of injection visits, occurring in 9% of patients. The SRs from VIT were mild (mostly grade 1 and some grade 2), and no grades 3, 4, or 5 reactions were seen. Male sex was a significant risk factor for moderate to severe reactions to insect sting. Positive testing to vespinae was seen in 98.7% of patients, and none had exclusive sensitivity to honeybee. The severity of the initial, pre-VIT insect sting reactions in our patients did not correlate with the occurrence of SRs from VIT. Twenty-seven percent of the patients were subsequently stung while on VIT. Only 1 patient (5%) had a mild SR, while all others had only local or no reaction at all.

CONCLUSION

In the largest US study evaluating the safety of VIT in children, SRs to VIT were mild, and none required epinephrine. Male sex was significantly associated with higher risk of moderate to severe reactions to insect sting. Larger multicenter studies are needed to further evaluate the rate of SRs to VIT in pediatric patients.