Allergen specific immunotherapy for atopic dermatitis

Nanomaterials for antigen-specific immune tolerance therapy

Impairment of immune tolerance might cause autologous tissue damage or overactive immune response against non-pathogenic molecules. Although autoimmune disease and allergy have complicated pathologies, the current strategies have mainly focused on symptom amelioration or systemic immunosuppression which can lead to fatal adverse events. The induction of antigen-specific immune tolerance may provide therapeutic benefits to autoimmune disease and allergic response, while reducing nonspecific immune adverse responses. Diverse nanomaterials have been studied to induce antigen-specific immune tolerance therapy. This review will cover the immunological background of antigen-specific tolerance, clinical importance of antigen-specific immune tolerance, and nanomaterials designed for autoimmune and allergic diseases. As nanomaterials for modulating immune tolerances, lipid-based nanoparticles, polymeric nanoparticles, and biological carriers have been covered. Strategies to provide antigen-specific immune tolerance have been addressed. Finally, current challenges and perspectives of nanomaterials for antigen-specific immune tolerance therapy will be discussed.

Allergen Immunotherapy in Young Children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been shown to be safe and effective in children and is a unique treatment strategy that has disease-modifying and preventative effects that are not shared with other treatment options for allergic diseases. This article reviews the present knowledge and relevant updates on AIT in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although there is no definite lower age limit for starting AIT, clear indications for AIT are established and each case should be considered individually by weighing risks and benefits. Documented short- and long-term benefits of AIT in children with allergic disease include significant improvement of symptoms and quality of life, and decreased use of medications as well as preventing the development of new allergen sensitizations and the progression of allergic rhinitis to asthma. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the present knowledge and key updates on AIT in the pediatric population.

Sublingual immunotherapy in mite-sensitized patients with atopic dermatitis: a randomized controlled study

Introduction

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been shown to be efficacious in patients with airway allergic diseases. However, less data have been demonstrated to show the efficacy of SLIT in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Aim

This study is to evaluate, in a randomized controlled study, the effect of SLIT with house dust mite (HDM) in patients with mild–moderate AD.

Material and methods

AD patients aged 4 to 60 years with a Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score of 7–40 and sensitization to HDM were enrolled in the study. SLIT or control treatment was given for 24 months. SCORAD, visual analog scale (VAS) score were recorded at 6, 12, 24 month, and rescue medications were required to be recorded in the diary card. A serum level of specific IgE was tested at 24-month treatment.

Results

Ninety-six patients were enrolled, and forty-eight were allocated to SLIT. Thirty-nine patients in the SLIT group and thirty-eight patients in the control group completed the study. The patients in the SLIT group had significantly decreased ΔSCORAD, VAS and rescue medication score from 12 months’ treatment compared with the control group (p < 0.05). At 24 months of treatment, no significant change of specific IgE (p < 0.05) was observed in both groups. No severe adverse events were reported during the treatment.

Conclusions

Two years’ SLIT to HDM significantly improved the clinical symptoms and reduced drug use in patients with mild–moderate AD. SLIT may represent an additional therapeutic tool for the treatment of AD in properly selected patients.

The future of immunotherapy for canine atopic dermatitis: a review

Allergen specific immunotherapy (ASIT) is a foundation treatment for canine atopic dermatitis (CAD), though few critical studies have documented its effectiveness as a disease-modifying treatment in dogs. The mechanisms by which ASIT works in dogs have not been elucidated, although they are likely to parallel those known for humans. Current ASIT approaches in CAD focus on either subcutaneous or sublingual administration. Greater knowledge of major allergens in dogs, ideal dosage regimes and details of allergen admixture are likely to lead to better efficacy in CAD. Evaluation of biomarkers for successful therapy may also be of benefit. Potentially important advances in human medicine, that have yet to be explored in dogs, include use of modified allergen preparations such as allergoids, recombinant major allergens or allergen peptides; modification with adjuvants; or packaging of the above in virus-like particles. Co-administration of immunomodulators such as CpG oligodeoxynucleotides or specific monoclonal antibodies might direct the immune response in the desired direction while calming the "cytokine storm" of active disease. Initial trials of alternative routes of administration such as intralymphatic immunotherapy have yielded exciting results in humans, and continuing study in dogs is underway. Progress in ASIT of human food allergy may provide clues that will assist with improved diagnosis and patient management of CAD. Importantly, further study must be undertaken to clarify the conditions under which ASIT is a valuable treatment modality for dogs.

Effectiveness of Specific Sublingual Immunotherapy in Korean Patients with Atopic Dermatitis

Background

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with house dust mites (HDM) preparation has recently been proven to be beneficial for treating allergic rhinitis and asthma. However, there has been no report regarding the efficacy and safety of SLIT in Korean patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Objective

We intended to investigate the efficacy and safety of SLIT in Korean patients with AD.

Methods

A total of 34 patients with AD and immunoglobulin E (IgE)-proven HDM sensitization (Class ≥3) were recruited. Eczema area and severity index (EASI) score, total serum IgE level, specific IgE assays to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, D. farinae, and adverse effects were recorded during follow-up. "Responder" was defined as a patient with ≥30% improvement in EASI score after SLIT.

Results

Twenty-three patients continued SLIT for 12 months or more, whereas 3 patients (8.8%) dropped out because of exacerbation of dermatitis, and 8 patients (23.5%) were lost to follow-up. The average duration of SLIT treatment was 22.4 months (range, 12~32 months). EASI scores reduced significantly after 6 months of treatment (p<0.05) compared with those at baseline. A total of 18 patients were determined to be responders to SLIT after 6 months. Total and specific IgE serum levels did not significantly reduce after SLIT. No patients experienced serious adverse events, with the exception of two patients who developed transient lip and tongue swelling.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that SLIT with HDM extracts is effective and tolerable in Korean patients with AD. Further controlled long-term trials are required to reinforce the current results.

Clinical practice recommendations for allergen-specific immunotherapy in children: the Italian consensus report

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is currently recognized as a clinically effective treatment for allergic diseases, with a unique disease-modifying effect. AIT was introduced in clinical practice one century ago, and performed in the early years with allergenic extracts of poor quality and definition. After the mechanism of allergic reaction were recognized, the practice of AIT was refined, leading to remarkable improvement in the efficacy and safety profile of the treatment. Currently AIT is accepted and routinely prescribed worldwide for respiratory allergies and hymenoptera venom allergy. Both the subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes of administration are used in the pediatric population.AIT is recommended in allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis with/without allergic asthma, with an evidence of specific IgE-sensitization towards clinically relevant inhalant allergens. Long-term studies provided evidence that AIT can also prevent the onset of asthma and of new sensitizations. The favorable response to AIT is strictly linked to adherence to treatment, that lasts 3-5 years. Therefore, several factors should be carefully evaluated before starting this intervention, including the severity of symptoms, pharmacotherapy requirements and children and caregivers' preference and compliance.In recent years, there have been increasing interest in the role of AIT for the treatment of IgE-associated food allergy and extrinsic atopic dermatitis. A growing body of evidence shows that oral immunotherapy represents a promising treatment option for IgE-associated food allergy. On the contrary, there are still controversies on the effectiveness of AIT for patients with atopic dermatitis.This consensus document was promoted by the Italian Society of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology (SIAIP) to provide evidence-based recommendations on AIT in order to implement and optimize current prescription practices of this treatment for allergic children.

MK-8237: a house dust mite vaccine for treating allergic rhinitis, asthma and atopic dermatitis

INTRODUCTION

Since its introduction in clinical practice one century ago for the treatment of respiratory allergic diseases, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) has exhibited a relevant clinical efficacy that was subsequently confirmed in controlled trials. Thus, AIT has been accepted worldwide, as testified by guidelines and international documents. AIT is considered pivotal in the management of allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis and with or without asthma. These conditions, in addition to hymenoptera venom allergy, currently are the accepted indications. The use of AIT in house-dust mite allergy still remains debated, especially due to the methodological problems in assessing this form of respiratory allergy. The more recent experimental data on MK-8237 sublingual tablets provided evidence that AIT, in the sublingual form, is effective in dust mite allergy.

AREAS COVERED

At present, the evidence of the efficacy of AIT in conditions other than respiratory allergy are not conclusive, but encouraging results have been obtained in food allergy and atopic dermatitis. Herein, the authors discuss the data for these indications.

EXPERT OPINION

Not all patients respond to AIT in the same way. Accordingly, AIT represents a promising path to precision medicine and hopefully will be able to reduce this burden of non-responding patients.

Debates in allergy medicine: specific immunotherapy efficiency in children with atopic dermatitis

Allergen specific immunotherapy (AIT) has been the only pathogenetically relevant treatment of IgE-mediated allergic diseases (ADs) for many years. The use of AIT for atopic dermatitis (AD) treatment is dubious and has both followers and opponents. The improvement of subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) and introduction of Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) gives prospects of their application both for adults and children suffering from AD. This review presents results of scientific research, system and meta-analyses that confirm the clinical efficacy of AIT for children with AD who has the sensitization to allergens of house dust mite, grass and plant pollen suffering from co-occurring respiratory ADs and with moderate and severe course of allergic AD. There have been analyzed the most advanced achievements in AIT studies as well as there have been specified the unmet needs in AD. The preliminary diagnostics of IgE-mediated AD and pathophysiological disorders, including immune ones, will allow a doctor to develop appropriate comprehensive treatment algorithm for children's AD aimed at its correction. The including of AIT to the children's comprehensive therapy program is reasonable only if AD has the allergic form. It is necessary better to design the randomized research studies and to acquire extended clinical practice in children with AD. Use of the successes of molecular-based allergy diagnostics will help to optimize and personalize the process of selecting the necessary allergens to determine the most appropriate vaccines for children considering the results of the allergen component diagnostics. The strategy of treatment of children with AD in future will be based on individual target therapy.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.

Clinical and immunological responses of dust mite sensitive, atopic dogs to treatment with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been reported to be beneficial in people with atopic dermatitis (AD) and dust mite sensitivity. Evaluation of this therapy has not been reported in spontaneous canine AD.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to preliminarily evaluate the effectiveness of an established SLIT protocol, as used in human patients, in dogs with AD.

ANIMALS

Ten dust mite sensitive dogs with spontaneous AD.

METHODS

Dogs underwent a 6 month open trial of SLIT concurrently with decreasing dose oral methylprednisolone. Clinical evaluations and quantitative serum anti-mite IgE and IgG levels were performed every 2 months.

RESULTS

Mean methylprednisolone use from the first 2 months of the study to the final 2 months declined from 10.2 to 4.3 mg/kg/2 months (P < 0.001, Student's paired t-test); at 6 months, four dogs required no oral corticosteroid administration. Over the course of the study, median Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI)-03 scores declined from 76.5 to 59; median pruritus scores declined from 65 to 37 (P < 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively; Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Pre- and post-SLIT intradermal test scores for mite allergen were not significantly different over time. Median Dermatophagoides farinae (DF)-specific IgE levels declined significantly from 150.2 × 10(3) AU/mL to 3.6 × 10(3) AU/mL (P < 0.05). Concurrently, median DF-specific IgG levels increased from 18.5 × 10(6) AU/mL to 3923.4 × 10(6) AU/mL (P < 0.05; Wilcoxon signed-rank tests).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

SLIT treatment produced clinical improvement in dogs with dust mite-associated AD and was associated with serological changes supporting this improvement. Further studies in larger numbers of dogs and those with polysensitization are warranted.

Arguing the misconceptions in allergen-specific immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has a clear evidence of efficacy and safety, as shown by a number of meta-analyses. However, a number of issues limit the use of AIT, many of them being not actually supported by solid data from the literature. In particular, several contraindications to AIT deserve to be argued, being needed to accurately balance in single cases the benefits versus the disadvantages. This concerns comorbidities, such as autoimmune diseases and malignancies, concomitant drug treatments, particularly β-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, pregnancy, patient's age, the severity of asthma, allergen polysensitization and the period of starting the treatment. Another important aspect producing misconceptions on AIT is the quality of the allergen extracts, because currently a patient with respiratory allergy to a given source may be prescribed to treat his allergyby products with very different quality. Improving characterization and standardization of allergen extracts will pave the way to the general acknowledgment of AIT as an effective treatment.

Specific immunotherapy in atopic dermatitis

Allergen specific immunotherapy (SIT) using house dust mite (HDM) extracts has been performed mainly with patients of asthma and allergic rhinitis. In the meanwhile, there has been a long debate on the efficacy of SIT in atopic dermatitis (AD) with only a few double-blind placebo-controlled trials. However, several randomized controlled trials of SIT in AD revealed significant improvement of clinical symptoms and also, positive result was shown by a following meta-analysis study of these trials. In order to predict and evaluate the treatment outcome, finding a biomarker that can predict treatment responses and treatment end-points is critical but it is very challenging at the same time due to the complexity of causes and mechanisms of AD. Other considerations including standardization of the easiest and safest treatment protocol and optimizing the treatment preparations should be studied as well. This review summarizes the basics of SIT in AD including the brief mechanisms, treatment methods and schedules, and also highlights the clinical efficacy of SIT in AD along with mild, controllable adverse reactions. Immunologic effects and studies of various biomarkers are also introduced and finally, future considerations with upcoming studies on SIT were discussed.

Immunological changes after ASIT in AD allergen-specific immunotherapy and their potential correlation with clinical response in patients with atopic dermatitis patients sensitized to house dust mite

BACKGROUND

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) is the main treatment for inducing long-term immunological and clinical tolerance in patients with IgE-mediated allergic diseases. Recent open-label and controlled studies on the efficacy of ASIT in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) have provided promising results. However, data about possible relationship between the improvement of clinical symptoms and changes of serum cytokines are limited.

METHODS

Seventy-nine patients with moderate to severe AD sensitized to house dust mite (HDM) were enrolled. Fifty-eight patients were treated with ASIT and 11 controls received only symptomatic treatment. The disease activity in AD patients was evaluated by using the patient-oriented eczema measure (POEM) system. Serum interleukin (IL)-4, IL-10, interferon (IFN)-γ, transforming growth factor (TGF) β1, total IgE, HDM-specific IgE (s-IgE) and HDM-specific IgG4 (s-IgG4) were measured before and after 2 years of therapy.

RESULTS

The mean patient-oriented eczema measure system (POEM) score of AD patients with ASIT significantly decreased after 2 years of treatment, compared to that in patients without ASIT. After ASIT, the serum levels of IL-10, TGF-β1, IFN-γ and s-IgG4 increased, while the level of IL-4 decreased. The change in the POEM score was negatively correlated with changes of serum concentration of TGF-β1, s-IgG4 and IFN-γ. Furthermore, s-IgG4 levels were positively correlated with changes in the IL-10 levels. No correlation between POEM score and serum IL-10 or IL-4 was observed.

CONCLUSION

Clinical symptoms and the quality of life of AD with HDM sensitization could be improved after 2 years of ASIT. Changes in serum IL-10, TGF-β1, s-IgG4 and IFN-γ might be considered as biomarkers to assist clinical evaluation of the therapeutic effects of ASIT in patients with AD.

Sublingual immunotherapy: recent advances

The practice of administering sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy is gaining more and more diffusion worldwide as a consequence of the robust demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety provided by recent high-powered and well-designed studies, confirming for individual seasonal allergens the results of previous metanalyses in adult and pediatric populations. Preliminary evidence derives from recent rigorous trials on perennial allergens, like house dust mites, and specifically designed studies addressed the benefits on asthma. Emerging research suggests that SLIT may have a future role in other allergic conditions such as atopic dermatitis, food, latex and venom allergy. Efforts to develop a safer and more effective SLIT for inhalant allergens have led to the development of allergoids, recombinant allergens and formulations with adjuvants and substances targeting antigens to dendritic cells that possess a crucial role in initiating immune responses. The high degree of variation in the evaluation of clinical effects and immunological changes requires further studies to identify the candidate patients to SLIT and biomarkers of short and long term efficacy. Appropriate management strategies are urgently needed to overcome the barriers to SLIT compliance.

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto- Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD)

The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already being investigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.

New directions in immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is effective in reducing the clinical symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis, asthma and venom-induced anaphylaxis. Subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with unmodified allergen extracts are the most widely prescribed AIT regimens. The efficacy of these 2 routes appears comparable, but the safety profile with SLIT is more favorable allowing for home administration and requiring less patient time. However, both require that the treatment is taken regularly over several years, e.g., monthly in a supervised medical setting with SCIT and daily at home with SLIT. Despite the difference in treatment settings, poor adherence has been reported with both routes. Emerging evidence suggests that AIT may be effective in other allergic conditions such as atopic dermatitis, venom sting-induced large local reactions, and food allergy. Research with oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies suggest that many patients can be desensitized during treatment, but questions remain about whether this can produce long term tolerance. Further studies are needed to identify appropriate patients and treatment regimens with these conditions. Efforts to develop safer and more effective AIT for inhalant allergies have led to investigations with modified allergens and alternate routes. Intralymphatic (ILIT) has been shown to produce long-lasting clinical benefits after three injections comparable to a 3-year course of SCIT. Epicutaneous (EPIT) has demonstrated promising results for food and inhalant allergies. Vaccine modifications, such as T cell epitopes or the use of viral-like particles as an adjuvant, have been shown to provide sustained clinical benefits after a relatively short course of treatment compared to the currently available AIT treatments, SLIT and SCIT. These newer approaches may increase the utilization and adherence to AIT because the multi-year treatment requirement of currently available AIT is a likely deterrent for initiating and adhering to treatment.

Treatment of severe atopic dermatitis with a combination of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy and cyclosporin

PURPOSE

The clinical efficacy of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) for the treatment of patients with severe atopic dermatitis (AD) using house dust mite (HDM) extract has been reported. Cyclosporin has been regarded as an effective medication for treatment of severe AD. In this study, we investigated a clinical usefulness of combined treatment with SCIT and cyclosporin in patients with severe AD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine patients with severe AD and hypersensitivity to HDM were treated with a combination of SCIT using HDM extract and cyclosporin for 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was the change in the standardized clinical severity scoring system for AD (SCORAD) values, measured at 6 and 12 months, in comparison with the values at baseline. Daily dose of cyclosporin was decreased or discontinued according to the degrees of clinical improvements in individual patients.

RESULTS

In 8 patients who completed 12 months of treatment, the SCORAD values significantly decreased from 71.5 ± 15.5 (mean ± SD) at baseline to 20.4 ± 14.6 at 6 months and 26.3 ± 13.6 at 12 months (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p=0.01), and no significant systemic side effects were observed. Cyclosporin was discontinued in 4 of 8 patients within 8 months after starting the combined treatment.

CONCLUSION

In this study, combined treatment with SCIT and cyclosporin resulted in significant clinical improvements in patients with severe AD. Further studies are needed to test the clinical usefulness of this combined treatment for patients with severe AD.

One century of allergen-specific immunotherapy for respiratory allergy

Among the treatments available for respiratory allergy, which include allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only treatment able to not only act on the symptoms of allergy but also act on the causes. SIT is the practice of administering gradually increasing doses of the specific causative allergen to reduce the clinical reactivity of allergic subjects and was introduced one century ago. SIT remained an empirical treatment for more than 40 years, but the first controlled trial in 1954 paved the way for the scientific era. At present, SIT may be administered in two forms: subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). A large number of trials, globally analyzed in several meta-analyses, evaluated the efficacy and safety of SCIT and SLIT in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Current available data give solid evidence to the clinical efficacy of both SCIT and SLIT in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Providing the recommended doses and administration schedules are adhered to, the safety and tolerability are very good; however, adverse systemic reactions remain a drawback for SCIT. After one century of use, accumulating evidence surrounds SIT and the central role in the management of respiratory allergy.

Safety of accelerated schedules of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy with house dust mite extract in patients with atopic dermatitis

The safety of accelerated schedules of allergen immunotherapy (ASAI) in patients with bronchial asthma (BA) has been reported but there are little data on the safety of ASAI for patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). In this study, we investigated the safety of ASAI in patients with AD. Sixty patients with AD and 18 patients with BA sensitized to house dust mites (HDM) were studied. A maximum maintenance dose of HDM extract, adsorbed to aluminum hydroxide, was administered to patients by subcutaneous injection with either a 3-day protocol (rush immunotherapy) or 1-day protocol (ultra-rush immunotherapy). Systemic reactions were observed 4 of 15 patients (26.7%) with AD during rush immunotherapy, 13 of 45 patients (28.9%) with AD during ultra-rush immunotherapy, and 4 of 18 patients (22.2%) with BA during rush immunotherapy (P > 0.05). No severe or near fatal systemic reactions occurred in 78 subjects of this study. Systemic reactions developed within 4 hr after administration of the maximum allergen dose in 20 of 21 patients (95.2%) with AD and BA who showed systemic reactions during rush or ultra-rush immunotherapy. In conclusion, ASAI was safe and well tolerated in patients with AD. ASAI can be a useful therapeutic option for AD.

Sublingual immunotherapy: other indications

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) represents a significant advance and it seems particularly suitable in pediatric patients. There are favorable results for food allergy in controlled trials. For latex allergy, the results of several trials are encouraging. For atopic dermatitis, previous experience with subcutaneous immunotherapy and some earlier trials suggest the possible application of SLIT in children with mild to moderate dermatitis and sensitization to dust mite, but this recommendation is considered insufficiently evidence based. In hymenoptera allergy, the only trial available is a proof-of-concept study in large local reactions that needs to be confirmed in well-controlled studies.

Tolerability and clinical efficacy of oral immunotherapy with house dust mites in a model of canine atopic dermatitis: a pilot study

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, life-long disease. In humans, immunotherapy (IT) is the only treatment that can alter the course of AD. Oral IT is appealing owing to the ease of administration and the potential for increased compliance. The purposes of this study were to investigate the tolerability, clinical efficacy and effects on allergen-specific IgE of oral IT using a canine AD model. Thirteen atopic beagles sensitized to house dust mites (HDMs) were randomly divided into two groups. One group received daily oral doses of HDMs while the other group received vehicle only for 7 months. The investigator evaluating the dogs was blinded to the allocation of treatments. Prior to and after 2 and 7 months of IT, dogs were challenged daily with HDMs for 3 days concurrently, and clinical signs were scored using a modified Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI). Prior to and at completion of oral IT, serum was collected for measurement of allergen-specific IgE. Oral IT was well tolerated, and no adverse effects were noted. Analysis of variance showed no significant effect of time, group and group × time interaction for CADESI scores. In addition, there were no significant differences in allergen-specific IgE levels. In conclusion, it appears that oral administration of HDMs is well tolerated in these atopic beagles but that this protocol was not sufficient to induce clinical improvement. Further, longer-term studies will be necessary to explore the potential of oral IT in veterinary medicine.

Speaking the same language: The World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Systemic Reaction Grading System

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis, asthma and venom hypersensitivity and has the potential of producing serious life-threatening anaphylaxis. Adverse reactions are generally classified into 2 categories: local reactions, which can manifest as redness, pruritus, and swelling at the injection site, and systemic reactions (SRs). SRs can range in severity from mild rhinitis to fatal cardiopulmonary arrest. Early administration of epinephrine, which is the treatment of choice to treat anaphylaxis, may prevent the progression of an SR to a more serious life-threatening problem. Although there is little debate about using epinephrine to treat a SCIT SR, there is a lack of consensus about when it should be first used. A uniform classification system for grading SCIT SRs will be helpful in assessing more accurately when epinephrine should be administered. The primary purpose of this article is to discuss the proposed grading system for SCIT SRs.

[Specific immunotherapy (SIT) in atopic dermatitis and food allergy]

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most frequent chronic inflammatory skin diseases with an increasing prevalence. About 80% of adult AD patients are sensitized against seasonal or perennial aeroallergens and/or food allergens which may play a pivotal role in triggering or maintaining eczema. In addition to local and systemic therapy adjusted to the stage of the disease, the search for relevant trigger factors and then their avoidance plays a crucial role in managing AD. While the effectiveness of SIT is best established in allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma and insect venom allergy, its use in AD is still controversial. Double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies are now available showing good efficacy of SIT in patients with AD. For food allergies there are clues from case reports and small clinical studies suggesting effectiveness of SIT both for food allergies and associated aeroallergens. Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies involving larger numbers of patients are needed to establish the clinical effectiveness and immunologic mechanisms of SIT in food allergies.