Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an update

Patient initiation and persistence with allergen immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is advised for patients with allergic rhinitis who remain symptomatic despite the use of pharmacotherapy and allergen avoidance. Several factors influence the decision to initiate and complete the AIT regimen.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient initiation and persistence with subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapies (SCIT and SLIT) according to physician recommendation.

METHODS

A retrospective review of electronic health records of patients with allergic rhinitis for whom AIT was recommended was conducted in a large private allergy practice in Pennsylvania.

RESULTS

Of 8,790 patients advised to consider AIT, 36.2% initiated AIT (57% adults, 43% children); 78% chose SCIT and 22% chose SLIT drops. Election of AIT was significantly associated with select comorbidities, specifically chronic sinusitis (8.1% for AIT vs 10% for no AIT), allergic conjunctivitis (12.5% for AIT vs 18.5% for no AIT), and asthma (33.8% for AIT vs 37.4% for no AIT; P < .05). Choice of SCIT vs SLIT drops was significantly associated with older age, female sex, select comorbidities, and more allergy medications at initiation (P < .05). Of adults, 30.2% completed at least 3 years of recommended treatment. Median time on treatment was longer for adults on SCIT vs SLIT drops (3 vs 1.6 years). Similarly, 35.4% of children completed treatment, with a longer median time on treatment for SCIT (4.7 years) vs SLIT drops (3.5 years).

CONCLUSION

A minority of patients initiated AIT according to allergist recommendation and a subset of these patients completed therapy. AIT might be an underused option that could benefit patients unable to manage allergic rhinitis symptoms by other means.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01549340.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy in children aged 3-13 years with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is recommended for allergic diseases. However, clinical studies containing evidence-based data of this treatment in young children, which is rarely reported in the literature, are needed. This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of SLIT in children, including very young children.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty-four children aged 3-13 years old (133 children, 3-5 years old) with Dermatophagoides farinae-induced allergic rhinitis with or without asthma treated by standard pharmacotherapy had randomly received either SLIT (SLIT group) or no SLIT (control group) for 12 months. Symptoms, medications, visual analog scale (VAS) and presence of adverse events (AEs) were assessed at monthly visits. Skin-prick test and Dermatophagoides farinae-specific IgE and IgG4 were measured before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Both treatments were effective in the global clinical scores during the first seven visits when compared with baseline (all, p < 0.01), and SLIT showed lower symptoms scores and VAS scores throughout this period (all, p < 0.01). These improvements continued until the later visits only in the SLIT group. Also, the asthma medication consumption was decreased by SLIT treatment only at the end of study (p < 0.01). The specific IgG4 was significantly increased after SLIT treatment when compared with the control group, but no significant change of specific IgE was observed in either groups. In the SLIT group, there was no significant difference between children less than or more than 5 years old in terms of clinical efficacy, onset of action, immunologic parameters, and safety. No severe systemic AEs were reported.

CONCLUSION

SLIT is effective and well-tolerated in children with allergic rhinitis 3-13 years old.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy in asthmatic children: from the basis to clinical applications

Atopic asthma in childhood with the tendency to persist into adult life is an important issue in pediatrics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only curative treatment option for these children, being directed to the causes of the disease. The Th2 phenotype is a predominant immunological pattern in atopic asthma and SIT leads to apoptosis/anergy of T cells and induces immune-regulatory responses and immune deviation towards Th1. Many factors can affect the safety and efficacy of SIT, such as pattern of sensitization, allergy vaccine (allergen extracts, adjuvants and conjugated molecules), route of administration (subcutaneous or sublingual) and different treatment schedules. Overall, asthma symptoms and medication scores usually decrease following a SIT course and the most common observed side effects are restricted to local swelling, erythema and pruritus. Compared with conventional pharmacotherapy, SIT may be more cost effective, providing a benefit after discontinuation and a steroid-sparing effect. In addition, it can prevent new sensitizations in monosensitized asthmatic children. Microbial supplements such as probiotics, immunomodulatory substances like anti-IgE/leukotrienes, antibodies and newer allergen preparations such as recombinant forms have been tested to improve the efficacy and safety of SIT with inconclusive results. In conclusion, SIT provides an appropriate solution for childhood asthma that should be employed more often in clinical practice. Further studies are awaited to improve current knowledge regarding the mechanisms behind SIT and determine the most appropriate materials and schedule of immunotherapy for children with asthma.

Fast onset of action of sublingual immunotherapy in house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To investigate how quickly an allergic rhinitis (AR) patients' symptoms will improve with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

STUDY DESIGN

Double-blind placebo study.

METHODS

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of SLIT used to treat house dust mite-induced AR. A total of 120 AR patients, aged 4 to 60 years, were treated for 6 months and randomized into two groups: 1) SLIT with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (D.p.) and Dermatophagoides farina (D.f.) extract (n = 60) ; and 2) matched placebo controls (n = 60). Symptom, medications received, and a visual analog scale score were recorded during the whole study. Serum-specific IgE and IgG4 to D. p. and D. f. were assessed before and after the treatment.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients (70.8%) completed the study. Twelve patients (20%) chose to withdraw from the SLIT group, but none because of serious adverse effects. The total symptom and visual analog scores VAS in the SLIT group decreased significantly when compared to the placebo controls (P <0.05) after week 14, as well as for the significant (P <0.05) improvement of all individual AR symptoms in the SLIT group (e.g., sneezing, nasal discharge, itching, and nasal obstruction) after week 22. There was a significant (P <0.05) increase of IgG4 to both D.f. and D.p. in the SLIT, but not in the placebo group after treatment.

CONCLUSION

SLIT with a mixture of D.f. and D.p. extract is an effective and safe treatment for patients with house dust mite-induced AR. Its onset of action can be observed as early as 14 weeks after treatment.

Budget impact analysis of two immunotherapy products for treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis constitutes a large burden for society. Up to 20% of European and United States (US) populations suffer from respiratory allergies, including grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The majority of patients are treated with symptomatic medications; however, a large proportion remains uncontrolled despite use of such treatments. Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment documented to target the underlying cause of the disease, leading to a sustained effect after completion of treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the economic consequences of treating patients suffering from allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with either a grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) or subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).

METHODS

A budget impact analysis was applied comparing SQ-standardized grass AIT (Grazax(®); Phleum pratense, 75,000 SQ-T/2,800 BAU; ALK, Denmark) with SCIT (Alutard(®); P. pratense, 100,000 SQ-U/mL; ALK, Denmark). Budget impact analysis included health care utilization measured in physical units based on systematic literature reviews, guidelines, and expert opinions, as well as valuation in unit costs based on drug tariffs, physician fees, and wage statistics. Budget impact analysis was conducted from a Danish health care perspective.

RESULTS

Treating patients suffering from allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with grass AIT instead of grass SCIT resulted in a total reduction in treatment costs of €1291 per patient during a treatment course. This cost saving implies that approximately 40% more patients could be treated with grass AIT per year without influencing the cost of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Budget impact analysis showed that grass AIT is a cost-saving alternative to SCIT when treating patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.