Allergen-specific immunotherapy and risk of autoimmune disease

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Clinical trial registrations

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

Effect of sublingual immunotherapy on clinical and laboratory autoimmunity

Background: There still are few data on the long-term safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). The aim of this study was to assess the appearance of autoimmune diseases in patients before and after SLIT. Materials & methods: New cases of autoimmune diseases were monitored. Patients in the SLIT group (n = 816) were compared with controls (n = 1096). Results: The new incidences of autoimmune diseases in the SLIT group were lower compared with the control group: 18 (2.2%) versus 58 (5.3%); p < 0.05. Systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis and Hashimoto appeared much more often in the control group. Conclusion: SLIT had no significant effect on the induction of autoimmune diseases.

Allergen immunotherapy, cancer, and immune disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the intriguing relationships between allergies, allergen immunotherapy, cancer, and immune disorders. Allergic diseases and cancer are increasing in incidence and prevalence and a potential relationship, or not, between these diseases have been suggested for many years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent findings suggest that there may be some causative effects between certain types of cancer and allergic diseases, as described in the text. Some types of cancer may be more linked to the presence of an allergic disease, than others. However, epigenetic factors, such as tobacco smoke alcohol and toxic substances should also be taken into consideration.

SUMMARY

The association between allergy and cancer is complex and depends on the specific allergy and the specific organ under consideration. Regarding pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer (CRC), and glioma, all types of allergies were shown to be a protective factor. Conversely, asthma is a risk factor for lung cancer as is atopic dermatitis for skin cancer. Despite extensive research, no definite relationship has been determined, and no clear relationship, either positive or negative, to allergies can be observed. These results should be corroborated with large epidemiological well designed prospective studies due to some weaknesses in the previous investigations.

Effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis complicated by rheumatic autoimmune diseases: a case series study

Background

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only treatment that has modified the natural history of allergic diseases. However, since its overall effect on the immune system has not been elucidated, AIT is either absolutely or relatively contraindicated in patients with rheumatic autoimmune diseases (RADs). Therefore, there have been no long-term observations of patients with RADs receiving AIT; thus, the effectiveness and safety of AIT in these patients remain unclear.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective observational study. RAD patients receiving AIT for allergic rhinitis at our institution were selected. Changes in the activity of RAD patients were investigated for 2 years from baseline, including those who discontinued AIT. The effectiveness of AIT was also investigated using the Japan Allergic Rhinitis Standard Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Results

Thirteen patients with RADs were enrolled in the study. All patients received sublingual immunotherapy, of which four discontinued AIT owing to adverse events. Among all patients, the symptoms of RADs in three patients worsened during the observation period; however, none of them were causally related to AIT. Most of the adverse events associated with AIT were mild, in which only one patient required drug intervention due to worsening rhinitis symptoms. In the nine patients who were able to continue AIT, their eye and nasal symptom scores showed a significant improvement from 1.67 (1.5–2.0) at baseline to 0.67 (0–1.17) in the 2nd year of treatment (p = 0.0141).

Conclusions

AIT is a safe and effective treatment modality for patients with allergic rhinitis complicated by RADs.

SARS-CoV-2 the ASIA virus (autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants), the risk of infertility and vaccine hesitancy

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 has had a calamitous impact on the global community. The current death toll far exceeds 6 million and large numbers of patients are experiencing long-term medical and psychiatric morbidity from the infection. The immunopathology of severe COVID-19 is now better understood. In severely affected patients, there is a chaotic, destructive immune response triggered by SARS-CoV-2, where autoimmunity features prominently.

AREAS COVERED

COVID-19 vaccines ensure a coordinated, balanced immune response to future SARS-CoV-2 infection. The rapid global deployment of effective COVID-19 vaccines has been hindered by financial, logistical and political barriers. Of concern is increasing vaccine hesitancy caused by unfounded conspiracy theories of vaccine adverse effects, often fueled by misinformation and disinformation on social media.

EXPERT OPINION

This perspective discusses the potential impact of the so-called autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome caused by adjuvants (ASIA) on COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Proponents of the ASIA syndrome have inappropriately linked infertility to HPV vaccines and have recently suggested antigenic cross-reactivity between SARS-CoV-2 and ovarian follicles. COVID-19 vaccines have also been linked to ASIA and unfounded fear of infertility is a leading cause of vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine hesitancy caused by spurious disorders such as ASIA are likely to harm individuals and delay global vaccination efforts leading to emergence of vaccine and monoclonal antibody resistant mutants, thereby prolonging the COVID-19 pandemic.

An Overview of Vaccine Adjuvants: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

Vaccinations are one of the most important preventive tools against infectious diseases. Over time, many different types of vaccines have been developed concerning the antigen component. Adjuvants are essential elements that increase the efficacy of vaccination practises through many different actions, especially acting as carriers, depots, and stimulators of immune responses. For many years, few adjuvants have been included in vaccines, with aluminium salts being the most commonly used adjuvant. However, recent research has focused its attention on many different new compounds with effective adjuvant properties and improved safety. Modern technologies such as nanotechnologies and molecular biology have forcefully entered the production processes of both antigen and adjuvant components, thereby improving vaccine efficacy. Microparticles, emulsions, and immune stimulators are currently in the spotlight for their huge potential in vaccine production. Although studies have reported some potential side effects of vaccine adjuvants such as the recently recognised ASIA syndrome, the huge worth of vaccines remains unquestionable. Indeed, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of vaccines, especially in regard to managing future potential pandemics. In this field, research into adjuvants could play a leading role in the production of increasingly effective vaccines.

Evidence Refuting the Existence of Autoimmune/Autoinflammatory Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA)

Autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) was described in 2011. Over time the condition and its triggers have broadened to include several autoimmune disorders, the macrophagic myofasciitis syndrome, the Gulf war syndrome, the sick building syndrome, siliconosis, and the chronic fatigue syndrome. The aluminum-containing adjuvants in the hepatitis B vaccine and the human papillomavirus vaccine in particular have been stated to be the major causes of the disorder. Here, we review the specificity of the diagnostic criteria for ASIA. We also examine relevant human data, pertaining to causation, particularly from patients undergoing allergen-specific immunotherapy (IT). Patients undergoing allergen-specific IT receive 100 to 500 times more injected aluminum over 3 to 5 years, compared with hepatitis B and human papillomavirus vaccine recipients. In a large pharmacoepidemiological study, in contrast to case series of ASIA, patients receiving aluminum-containing allergen IT preparations were shown to have a lower incidence of autoimmune disease. In another clinical trial, there were no increases in exacerbations in a cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus immunized with the hepatitis B vaccine. Current data do not support the causation of ASIA by vaccine adjuvants containing aluminum, which should be of reassurance to patients undergoing routine immunizations as well as to those undergoing allergen-specific IT.

Risk and safety requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology: World Allergy Organization Statement

One of the major concerns in the practice of allergy is related to the safety of procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic disease. Management (diagnosis and treatment) of hypersensitivity disorders involves often intentional exposure to potentially allergenic substances (during skin testing), deliberate induction in the office of allergic symptoms to offending compounds (provocation tests) or intentional application of potentially dangerous substances (allergy vaccine) to sensitized patients. These situations may be associated with a significant risk of unwanted, excessive or even dangerous reactions, which in many instances cannot be completely avoided. However, adverse reactions can be minimized or even avoided if a physician is fully aware of potential risk and is prepared to appropriately handle the situation. Information on the risk of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergic diseases has been accumulated in the medical literature for decades; however, except for allergen specific immunotherapy, it has never been presented in a systematic fashion. Up to now no single document addressed the risk of the most commonly used medical procedures in the allergy office nor attempted to present general requirements necessary to assure the safety of these procedures. Following review of available literature a group of allergy experts within the World Allergy Organization (WAO), representing various continents and areas of allergy expertise, presents this report on risk associated with diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology and proposes a consensus on safety requirements for performing procedures in allergy offices. Optimal safety measures including appropriate location, type and required time of supervision, availability of safety equipment, access to specialized emergency services, etc. for various procedures have been recommended. This document should be useful for allergists with already established practices and experience as well as to other specialists taking care of patients with allergies.

The relationship between autoimmunity and specific immunotherapy for allergic diseases

The aim of this study was to perform a 20-year post-specific immunotherapy (SIT) observational evaluation for an assessment of any manifestations of autoimmune disease or the appearance of autoantibodies in serum. In total, 1,888 patients (902 women and 986 men) were observed. The mean age of the patients was 34.1 ± 12.4 y at the start of the prospective observation after finishing SIT. New incidences of autoimmune disease and/or the presence of autoantibodies in serum were monitored. The SIT group was compared with control groups consisting of allergic patients who had very received SIT and with non-allergic subjects. There were no significant differences in the autoimmune disease prevalence between the allergic patients with or without SIT. However, significantly higher prevalence of 4 different autoimmune diseases (AID) were observed in the non-allergic patients during the same period. Additionally, the incidence of 8 different autoantibodies was significantly higher in non-allergic patients than in control subjects. Hashimoto disease was the most common autoimmune disease observed. The results of this long-term observational study indicated a lack of a significant prevalence of new instances of autoimmune disease during 20 y of observation post-SIT and at a rate lower than that of non-allergic control subjects, suggesting that SIT is safe in this regard in the long term.

Safety and tolerability of 5-grass pollen tablet sublingual immunotherapy: pooled analysis and clinical review

INTRODUCTION

The 5-grass pollen tablet (Oralair®, Stallergenes, Antony, France) is a once-daily preseasonal and coseasonal sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) that is effective in controlling the symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and in reducing the need for symptomatic medication.

AREAS COVERED

The body of safety data gathered from the 5-grass pollen tablet clinical development program, post-approval studies, and more than 6 years of real-life experience demonstrates the safety and tolerability profile of the 5-grass pollen tablet across all age groups. Adverse events (AEs) are generally mild or moderate in severity, and rarely lead to treatment discontinuation. AEs also tend to decline in frequency and severity over time and with repeated treatment. The most frequent treatment-emergent AEs are local-site oropharyngeal reactions (e.g., oral pruritus, throat irritation, tongue pruritus, mouth edema, ear pruritus), which are consistent with the sublingual route of administration.

EXPERT OPINION

The first dose of the 5-grass pollen tablet should be administered under the supervision of an experienced physician, to allow for optimal monitoring and timely management of AEs, should they occur. The 5-grass pollen tablet can be administered at home after the first dose, and patients and carers should be educated on how to manage adverse reactions, unplanned treatment interruptions and situations in which SLIT should be withheld.

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.

Update on immune mechanisms associated with sublingual immunotherapy: practical implications for the clinician

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is established as a safe and efficacious treatment for patients with type I respiratory allergies. The ability of SLIT to elicit antigen (allergen)-specific tolerance is linked to the peculiar biology of oral antigen-presenting cells. In the absence of danger signals, Langerhans cells, myeloid dendritic cells, and macrophages located in oral tissues, tonsils, and draining cervical lymph nodes are biased toward the induction of T(H)1 and IL-10-producing CD4(+) regulatory T cells, thus supporting tolerance as opposed to inflammation. Sublingual administration does not lead to any detectable systemic exposure of intact allergens nor to IgE neosensitization. Oral tissues contain limited numbers of mast cells located in submucosal areas, thereby explaining the well-established safety profile of SLIT, with mostly local but rare systemic reactions. The induction of CD4(+) regulatory T cells and blocking anti-inflammatory IgGs or IgAs are considered important for tolerance induction after SLIT. Specific molecular signatures associated with tolerogenic dendritic cells were recently reported during the onset of SLIT efficacy in the peripheral blood of patients exhibiting clinical benefit. Collectively, these observations confirm the induction of strong allergen-specific suppressive/tolerogenic immune responses during SLIT and pave the ground for the identification of biomarkers of efficacy. Practical implications of this emerging scientific knowledge are presented (1) to support the rational design of second-generation sublingual vaccines based on purified allergens, vector systems and/or adjuvants and (2) to help the clinician in decision making during his/her practice.