Economic evaluation of sublingual immunotherapy vs. symptomatic treatment in allergic asthma

RIAIT (Italian Registry of Allergen Immunotherapy): Protocol for a New Tool in a New Vision of Disease-Modifying Therapy for Allergists

Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated responses to clinical parameters, but a significant proportion of allergy patients in real-life settings would have been excluded from such studies. Therefore, real-world research is needed, and there is a growing body of information on allergen immunotherapy's long-term effectiveness and safety. Real-world evidence can be a valuable instrument to better understand the patient's journey and the effectiveness and safety of therapies. For this purpose, a registry will be used for the first time in Italy to evaluate the impact of allergen immunotherapy on several outcomes, including quality of life and disease-related effects in the pediatric and adult allergic population with a socio-economic assessment and respect to real-world health.

Efficacy of Sublingual Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis Patients with Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been widely applied to treat patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). However, meta-analyses on the efficacy of SLIT in AR patients with asthma are still limited.

METHODS

Literature without language limitation published before October 28, 2022, were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. STATA 16.0 software was used for the meta-analysis of the extracted data. The results reported were symptom scores, drug scores, adverse effects rates, and cost of treatment.

RESULTS

Ten studies involving 1722 patients met the inclusion criteria. The total rhinitis score (TRSS) (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.23, 95% CI: -1.39--1.06, P < .001) and total asthma symptom score (TASS) (WMD = -1.00, 95% CI: -1.12-0.89, P < .001) were significantly lower in the SLIT group than the placebo group. The SLIT group had higher rates of treatment-related adverse events (relative risk [RR] = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.77-4.48, P < .001) and total costs of treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.45-0.97, P < .001). There was no significant difference in inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dose (P = .195), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) (P = .158), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (P = .237), and direct costs of treatment (P = .630) between the SLIT and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

SLIT may be a therapeutic method for improving rhinitis symptoms and asthma symptoms in AR patients with asthma. However, as there was significant heterogeneity in results, more high-quality and well-designed studies are needed in the future to elucidate the efficacy of SLIT.

Indonesia-Based Study of the Clinical and Cost-Saving Benefits of Subcutaneous Allergen Immunotherapy for Children with Allergic Rhinitis in Private Practice

BACKGROUND

Until now, the cost of allergy treatment in the insured public health care system and the non-insured self-financing private health care system in Indonesia has not been well documented and published, as well as the cost of allergy treatment with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and cost benefits of allergic rhinitis treatment in children with subcutaneous immunotherapy in a non-insured self-financing private health care system.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study conducted from 2015 until 2020 that compared the clinical improvement and health care costs over 18 months in newly diagnosed AR children who received SCIT versus matched AR control subjects who did not receive SCIT, with each group consisting of 1098 subjects.

RESULTS

A decrease in sp-HDM-IgE level (kU/mL) from 20.5 + 8.75 kU/mL to 12.1 + 3.07 kU/mL was observed in the SCIT group. To reduce the symptom score of allergic rhinitis by 1.0 with SCIT, it costs IDR 21,753,062.7 per child, and for non-SCIT, it costs IDR 104,147,878.0 per child. Meanwhile, to reduce the medication score (MS) by 1.0 with SCIT, it costs IDR 17,024,138.8, while with non-SCIT, it costs IDR 104,147,878.0. Meanwhile, to lower combination symptoms and medication score (CSMS) by 1.0, with SCIT, it costs IDR 9,550,126.6, while with non-SCIT, it costs IDR 52,073,938.9.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, this first Indonesia-based study demonstrates substantial health care cost savings associated with SCIT for children with AR in an uninsured private health care system and provides strong evidence for the clinical benefits and cost-savings benefits of AR treatment in children.

Pharmacoeconomics of allergy immunotherapy versus pharmacotherapy

Introduction: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of allergy immunotherapy (AIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, asthma, and other allergic conditions.Area covered: An extensive search of the PubMed and Medline database (January 1996 up to June of 2020) was conducted using the search terms allergy immunotherapy, pharmacoeconomics, cost-effectiveness, allergic rhinitis, and asthma. Studies were included if they included information on the economics of AIT in comparison to pharmacotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis or asthma either as actual costs or based on theoretical models. Systematic reviews were included if they included information about the cost-effectiveness of AIT.Most clinical trials found significant cost-savings with AIT. The cost-effective time-point ranged from a few months to several years after treatment initiation.. Cost savings were demonstrated as early as 3 months after treatment initiation and were as great as 80% less than SDT in some studies.Expert opinion: There is strong evidence in the collective literature that AIT is cost-effective as compared to SDT alone. The magnitude of AIT's cost-effectiveness is likely underestimated because most of the studies considered during treatment costs and not AIT's long-term benefits or preventive/prophylactic effects or its impact on co-morbid conditions.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Allergen Immunotherapy Compared with Pharmacotherapy for Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma

This article evaluates the cost-effectiveness of allergy immunotherapy (AIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, asthma, and other allergic conditions. An extensive search of the PubMed and Medline databases (up to December 2018) was conducted. There is strong evidence in the collective literature, which included individual studies and systematic reviews, that AIT is cost-effective in the management of allergic rhinitis and asthma as compared with standard drug treatment alone. The magnitude of AIT's cost-effectiveness is likely underestimated because most of the studies considered during-treatment costs and not the long-term benefits or preventive or prophylactic effects of AIT.

Approach to Patients with Allergic Rhinitis: Testing and Treatment

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

The effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy for house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis and its co-morbid conditions

Aim: We investigated sublingual immunotherapy for mite-induced allergic rhinitis and its comorbid allergic conditions. Patients & methods: A prospective case-controlled study of 120 patients (case = 80, control = 40) over 12 months. Results: There was 53.6% reduction in total rhinitis symptom score (p < 0.0001), but not in controls (-7.3%, p = 0.99). The total symptom scores for concurrent asthma decreased from 17.79 to 8.8 (p < 0.0001); for allergic conjunctivitis from 20.89 to 10.0 (p = 0.0002); for atopic dermatitis from 46.40 to 29.38 (p = 0.0004) and 74.6% of patients weaned off nasal topical steroids. The treatment-related adverse reactions were mild and self-limiting. Conclusion: Though sublingual immunotherapy may be more expensive than conventional treatments, it was an adjunctive therapy that improved not only the outcomes for allergic rhinitis, but also its comorbid allergic conditions.

Patient characteristics in German allergological practices - a nationwide survey

Introduction: In Western societies a significant incidence and prevalence of allergic asthma and other allergic diseases is observable. The present study investigated epidemiological patterns of allergic diseases and the utilization of health care resources by subjects who are already under specialized allergological treatment. Furthermore the study was performed to identify factors which had a significant impact on accessibility to specific immunotherapy (SIT). Methods: The study was based on a cross-sectional survey on patient characteristics, which was performed by participating physicians, who were specialized in the field of allergological disorders and SIT, in collaboration with their patients. The analysis of data was divided into descriptive analyses and an analytical part, in which influencing factors for accessibility to specific immunotherapy were investigated. Logistic regression models to identify several predictor variables were used. Results: 495 physicians documented the data of 19,990 patients. 18,177 patients were included in the analyses. Patients had a mean age of 31.5 ± 15.5 years and 53.2% were female. The most frequent and most severe allergic disorders observable in German allergological practices were conjunctivitis and rhinitis. The seasonal symptoms occurred mainly during March to August, while seasonal disease manifestation was 2.5 times more frequent than perennial forms. The most received anti-symptomatic medications are antihistamines and corticosteroids. Patients who receive SIT were mainly treated using subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) – only in lower age groups, the likelihood of receiving sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was increased. Conclusion: In Germany, conjunctivitis and rhinitis are the most severe allergic disorders in allergological practices. Compared to the German general patient population, people who were already in allergological treatment had better access to SIT.

Health economic analysis of allergen immunotherapy for the management of allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy: A systematic overview

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing guidelines for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the management of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, IgE-mediated food allergy and venom allergy. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook systematic reviews to critically assess evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions. This study focusses on synthesizing data and gaps in the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for these conditions.

METHODS

We produced summaries of evidence in each domain, and then, synthesized findings on health economic data identified from four recent systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis, asthma, food allergy and venom allergy, respectively. The quality of these studies was independently assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for health economic evaluations.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies satisfied our inclusion criteria. Of these, 19 studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of AIT in allergic rhinitis, of which seven were based on data from randomized controlled trials with economic evaluations conducted from a health system perspective. This body of evidence suggested that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) would be considered cost-effective using the (English) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). However, the quality of the studies and the general lack of attention to characterizing uncertainty and handling missing data should be taken into account when interpreting these results. For asthma, there were three eligible studies, all of which had significant methodological limitations; these suggested that SLIT, when used in patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, may be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10 726 per QALY. We found one economic modelling study for venom allergy which, despite being based largely on expert opinion and plausible assumptions, suggested that AIT for bee and wasp venom allergy is only likely to be cost-effective for very high-risk groups who may be exposed to multiple exposures to venom/year (eg bee keepers). We found no eligible studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of AIT is limited and of low methodological quality, but suggests that AIT may be cost-effective for people with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma and in high-risk subgroups for venom allergy. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of AIT for food allergy.

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

BACKGROUND

To inform the development of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic asthma, we assessed the evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review, which involved searching nine databases. Studies were screened against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

98 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Short-term symptom scores were reduced with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.11 (95% CI -1.66, -0.56). This was robust to a prespecified sensitivity analyses, but there was evidence suggestive of publication bias. Short-term medication scores were reduced SMD -1.21 (95% CI -1.87, -0.54), again with evidence of potential publication bias. There was no reduction in short-term combined medication and symptom scores SMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.23, 0.58), but one study showed a beneficial long-term effect. For secondary outcomes, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) improved quality of life and decreased allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity (AHR), but this was not the case for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). There were no consistent effects on asthma control, exacerbations, lung function, and nonspecific AHR. AIT resulted in a modest increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Although relatively uncommon, systemic AEs were more frequent with SCIT; however no fatalities were reported. The limited evidence on cost-effectiveness was mainly available for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and this suggested that SLIT is likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT can achieve substantial reductions in short-term symptom and medication scores in allergic asthma. It was however associated with a modest increased risk of systemic and local AEs. More data are needed in relation to secondary outcomes, longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy

Allergen-specific immunotherapy remains the only causal treatment of allergic disease to date. Its efficacy in symptom reduction was demonstrated in double blind, placebo-controlled studies of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic asthma, and Hymenoptera venom hypersensitivity, including long-term effects after discontinuation of treatment. In addition, immunotherapy decreases the risk of developing new sensitisations to aeroallergens in monosensitised patients and allergic asthma in patients with mere allergic rhinitis. The mechanism of immunotherapy entails redirection of the T lymphocyte response from a T helper cell Type 2 phenotype in favour of induction of regulatory T cells and/or immune deviation toward a T helper cell Type 1 phenotype, with resulting inhibition of downstream effector pathways and induction of immunoglobulin G-associated blocking antibodies. Two main application forms are used in clinical practice: subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. The advantage of subcutaneous immunotherapy is its proven efficacy over a broad range of indications. Disadvantages are systemic allergic reactions and inconvenience for the patient due to frequent doctor visits. Sublingual immunotherapy has been shown to result in less systemic allergic reactions and may be more convenient due to home application; however, efficacy has only been proven for allergic rhinitis. For clinicians, the adherence to practice guidelines and thorough knowledge of allergen products, application routes, indications, immunomodulatory mechanisms, efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness is important for successful treatment and will be addressed in this review article.

International Consensus on Allergen Immunotherapy II: Mechanisms, standardization, and pharmacoeconomics

This article continues the comprehensive international consensus (ICON) statement on allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The initial article also recently appeared in the Journal. The conclusions below focus on key mechanisms of AIT-triggered tolerance, requirements in allergen standardization, AIT cost-effectiveness, and regulatory guidance. Potential barriers to and facilitators of the use of AIT are described in addition to future directions. International allergy specialists representing the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization critically reviewed the existing literature and prepared this summary of recommendations for best AIT practice. The authors contributed equally and reached consensus on the statements presented herein.

Allergy immunotherapy in reducing healthcare cost

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma. Individual studies and systematic reviews that included information on AIT economic outcomes as compared with symptomatic drug treatment (SDT) were evaluated.

RECENT FINDINGS

One systematic review that included 14 studies concluded that subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy may be cost-effective compared with SDT from around 6 years. Another systematic review of 24 studies comparing economic outcomes of subcutaneous allergy immunotherapy and/or sublingual allergy immunotherapy with SDT found compelling evidence for cost-savings with both forms of AIT over SDT. There was no strong evidence indicating superior cost-efficacy of subcutaneous allergy immunotherapy or sublingual allergy immunotherapy over SDT in either of these systematic reviews. Individual studies have demonstrated AIT cost-savings as high as 80% compared with SDT. Significant cost-savings were reported as early as 3 months after AIT initiation. In some studies, cost-efficacy time-point was not established until after treatment discontinuation - presumably due to time required for the clinical benefits to outweigh the AIT treatment costs. Although some economic modeling studies included the costs of 'asthma prevented', the collective literature of AIT economics provides very little to no information about the cost benefits of the preventive aspect of AIT.

SUMMARY

Overall, individual studies and systematic reviews provide strong evidence for the cost-effectiveness of AIT over SDT. The magnitude of cost-efficacy is likely underestimated in that few studies consider the cost-savings due to AIT's long-term benefits or preventive effect.

Investigating the Generalizability of Economic Evaluations Conducted in Italy: A Critical Review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the methodological quality of Italian health economic evaluations and their generalizability or transferability to different settings.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on the PubMed search engine to identify trial-based, nonexperimental prospective studies or model-based full economic evaluations carried out in Italy from 1995 to 2013. The studies were randomly assigned to four reviewers who applied a detailed checklist to assess the generalizability and quality of reporting. The review process followed a three-step blinded procedure. The reviewers who carried out the data extraction were blind as to the name of the author(s) of each study. Second, after the first review, articles were reassigned through a second blind randomization to a second reviewer. Finally, any disagreement between the first two reviewers was solved by a senior researcher.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-one economic evaluations eventually met the inclusion criteria. Over time, we observed an increasing transparency in methods and a greater generalizability of results, along with a wider and more representative sample in trials and a larger adoption of transition-Markov models. However, often context-specific economic evaluations are carried out and not enough effort is made to ensure the transferability of their results to other contexts. In recent studies, cost-effectiveness analyses and the use of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a quite positive temporal trend, generalizability of results still appears as an unsolved question, even if some indication of improvement within Italian studies has been observed.

Allergy immunotherapy: what is the evidence for cost saving?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the widespread prevalence of allergic disease, its substantially associated clinical and economic burden, the unique disease-modifying benefits of allergy immunotherapy (AIT), and increased availability of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), a critical update of the evidence for AIT-related cost savings [for both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and SLIT] is particularly relevant and timely. The present article reviews the evidence for SCIT-related and SLIT-related cost savings derived from a systematic review of the published literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Examined were 24 publications pertaining to the health economics of AIT. Except for one early study comparing the costs of AIT to symptomatic drug treatment (SDT), the remainder provide compelling evidence for AIT cost savings (whether SCIT or SLIT) over SDT. Furthermore, of the six studies comparing cost outcomes of SLIT to SCIT, four reported cost savings favoring SLIT.

SUMMARY

This review, spanning research from Southern Europe, Scandinavia, Northern Europe, North America, and the Czech Republic, encompasses a range of perennial and seasonal allergic conditions, including allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis with or without asthma, and rhinoconjunctivitis with or without allergic rhinitis due to house dust mite, grass or ragweed pollen, or a mixture of various allergens. All but one study compellingly demonstrate cost savings conferred by AIT over SDT.

Will sublingual immunotherapy offer benefit for asthma?

Evidence shows that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is indicated in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). In this article we discuss whether SLIT could offer benefit for children and adults with asthma.We reviewed individual trials on SLIT in asthmatic patients, but also asthma data reported in some SLIT trials conducted in AR patients. Findings were complemented with data from systematic reviews and metaanalysis on the subject since 2000 and some guidelines that mention immunotherapy for asthma treatment. In AR patients with concomitant persistent asthma, SLIT reduces medication needs while maintaining symptom control. This holds especially true for house dust mite SLIT. Data on pollen SLIT and lung symptom improvement with SLIT, however, are less convincing. Therefore, we suggest SLIT should be added as an optional add-on therapy for patients with asthma whenever a causative allergen has been demonstrated and AR is associated with asthma. For the future, SLIT should be studied in specifically designed asthma studies in allergic asthmatics without AR.

The cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: a review

This article reviews the international literature on the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy for respiratory allergy. Included studies conducted an economic evaluation of immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic rhinitis, asthma or allergic rhinitis in combination with asthma. Although there were few economic evaluations and these suffered from methodological shortcomings, the evidence appears to support the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy as compared with pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, subcutaneous immunotherapy as compared with pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis and immunotherapy as compared with pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma. One economic evaluation suggested that immunotherapy as compared with pharmacotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective for asthma. The questions of the cost-effectiveness of sublingual vs subcutaneous immunotherapy and of the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy for allergic conjunctivitis have not been resolved to date. The cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy depends on the duration of the clinical benefit of immunotherapy following treatment cessation, and on the break-even point of cumulative costs between immunotherapy and pharmacotherapy. There is a need for economic evaluations based on high-quality prospective and long-term clinical studies comparing immunotherapy with pharmacotherapy in real-life practice and comparing sublingual with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

Requirements for acquiring a high-quality house dust mite extract for allergen immunotherapy

The house dust mite is a major cause of respiratory allergy worldwide. The management of mite allergy is based on avoidance measures, drug treatment, and allergen immunotherapy, but only allergen immunotherapy is able to modify the natural history of the disease. Injectable subcutaneous immunotherapy was introduced a century ago, while sublingual immunotherapy was proposed in the 1980s and emerged in the ensuing years as an effective and safe option to subcutaneous immunotherapy. However, the quality of the extracts to be used in allergen immunotherapy is crucial for the success of treatment. The mite extract for sublingual immunotherapy known as Staloral 300 was developed to offer optimal characteristics concerning the mite culture medium, standardization, and allergen dose. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with Staloral 300 have provided a substantial part of the clinical evidence analyzed in a meta-analysis of the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy in mite-induced rhinitis and asthma. Safety and tolerability are very good, mild local reactions in the mouth being the most common side effect. This makes it feasible to carry out sublingual immunotherapy for the 3–5-year duration needed to achieve long-lasting tolerance to the specific allergen. The performance of Staloral 300 may provide optimal conditions for an effective and safe sublingual immunotherapy in patients with mite-induced respiratory allergy.

Sublingual immunotherapy in allergic asthma: Current evidence and needs to meet

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is aimed at modifying the natural history of allergy by inducing tolerance to the causative allergen. In its traditional, subcutaneous form, immunotherapy has complete evidence of efficacy in allergic asthma. However, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has a major flaw in side effects, and especially in possible anaphylactic reactions, and this prompted the search for safer ways of administration of allergen extracts. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has met such need while maintaining a clinical efficacy comparable to SCIT. In fact, the safety profile, as outlined by a systematic revision of the available literature, was substantially free from serious systemic reactions. A number of meta-analyses clearly showed that SLIT is effective in allergic rhinitis by significantly reducing the clinical symptoms and the use of anti-allergic drugs, while the efficacy in allergic asthma is still debated, with some meta-analyses showing clear effectiveness but other giving contrasting results. Besides the efficacy on symptoms, the preventive activity and the cost-effectiveness are important outcomes of SLIT in asthma. The needs to meet include more data on efficacy in house dust mite asthma, optimal techniques of administration and, as previously done with SCIT, introduction of adjuvants able to enhance the immunologic response and use of recombinant allergens.

Sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-established treatment option for allergic rhinitis in several European countries, but it is considered investigational in the United States. Studies conducted in Europe provided a large body of evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of SLIT, but those studies used allergen products that are different from those that are likely to be approved in the United States, and many of them were not controlled, randomized, double-blinded trials. This review summarize research conducted on the efficacy, safety, and mechanisms of SLIT published during the past year, with a focus on ragweed and grass antigens. Results of recent US studies document the safety and efficacy of SLIT and have started to yield insight into the mechanisms of SLIT.

Specific immunotherapy by the sublingual route for respiratory allergy

Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment able to act on the causes and not only on the symptoms of respiratory allergy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced as an option to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), the clinical effectiveness of which is partly counterbalanced by the issue of adverse systemic reactions, which occur at a frequency of about 0.2% of injections and 2-5% of the patients and may also be life-threatening. A large number of trials, globally evaluated by several meta-analyses, demonstrated that SLIT is an effective and safe treatment for allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, severe reactions being extremely rare. The application of SLIT is favored by a good compliance, higher than that reported for SCIT, in which the injections are a major factor for noncompliance because of inconvenience, and by its cost-effectiveness. In fact, a number of studies showed that SLIT may be very beneficial to the healthcare system, especially when its effectiveness persists after treatment withdrawal because of the induced immunologic changes.