Adverse Events During Immunotherapy Against Grass Pollen-Induced Allergic Rhinitis - Differences Between Subcutaneous and Sublingual Treatment

Intralymphatic immunotherapy with birch and grass pollen extracts. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

There is a need to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) for inducing tolerance in patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Thirty-seven patients with seasonal allergic symptoms to birch and grass pollen and skin prick test >3 mm and/or IgE to birch and timothy >0.35 kU/L were randomized to either ILIT, with three doses of 0.1 mL of birch pollen and 5-grass pollen allergen extracts on aluminium hydroxide (10,000 SQ-U/ml; ALK-Abelló) or placebo using ultrasound-guided intralymphatic injections at monthly intervals. Daily combined symptom medical score and rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score were recorded during the peak pollen seasons the year before and after treatment. Rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score, medication score and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire were recorded annually starting 2 years after treatment. Circulating proportions of T helper cell subsets and allergen-induced cytokine and chemokine production were analysed using flow cytometry and ELISA.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the groups related to daily combined symptom medical score the year before and after treatment. Two years after ILIT (after unblinding), the actively treated group reported significantly fewer symptoms, lower medication use and improved quality of life than did the placebo group. After the pollen seasons the year after ILIT, T regulatory cell frequencies and grass-induced IFN-γ levels increased only in the actively treated group.

CONCLUSION

In this randomized controlled trial, ILIT with birch and grass pollen extract was safe and accompanied by immunological changes. Further studies are required to confirm or refute the efficacy of the treatment.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Intralymphatic immunotherapy with one or two allergens renders similar clinical response in patients with allergic rhinitis due to birch and grass pollen

Introduction

There is a need for a fast, efficient and safe way to induce tolerance in patients with severe allergic rhinitis. Intralymphatic immune therapy has been shown to be effective.

Methods

Patients with severe birch and timothy allergy were randomized and received three doses of 0.1 ml of birch and 5‐grass allergen extracts (10,000 SQ units/ml, ALK‐Abelló), or birch and placebo or 5‐grass and placebo by ultrasound‐guided injections into inguinal lymph nodes at monthly intervals. Rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score, medication score and rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire were evaluated before treatment and after each birch and grass pollen season during three subsequent years. Circulating proportions of T helper subsets and allergen‐induced cytokine and chemokine production were analysed by flow cytometry and Luminex.

Results

The three groups reported fewer symptoms, lower use of medication and improved quality of life during the birch and grass pollen seasons each year after treatment at an almost similar rate independently of treatment with one or two allergens. Mild local pain was the most common adverse event. IgE levels to birch decreased, whereas birch‐induced IL‐10 secretion increased in all three groups. IgG4 levels to birch and timothy and skin prick test reactivity remained mainly unchanged. Conjunctival challenge tests with timothy extract showed a higher threshold for allergen. In all three groups, regulatory T cell frequencies were increased 3 years after treatment.

Conclusions

Intralymphatic immunotherapy with one or two allergens in patients with grass and birch pollen allergy was safe, effective and may be associated with bystander immune modulatory responses.

Clinical Trial Registration: EudraCT (2013‐004726‐28).

High-dose pollen intralymphatic immunotherapy: Two RDBPC trials question the benefit of dose increase

BACKGROUND

The same dosing schedule, 1000 SQ-U times three, with one-month intervals, have been evaluated in most trials of intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The present studies evaluated if a dose escalation in ILIT can enhance the clinical and immunological effects, without compromising safety.

METHODS

Two randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials of ILIT for grass pollen-induced AR were performed. The first included 29 patients that had recently ended 3 years of SCIT and the second contained 39 not previously vaccinated patients. An up-dosage of 1000-3000-10,000 (5000 + 5000 with 30 minutes apart) SQ-U with 1 month in between was evaluated.

RESULTS

Doses up to 10,000 SQ-U were safe after recent SCIT. The combined symptom-medication scores (CSMS) were reduced by 31% and the grass-specific IgG4 levels in blood were doubled. In ILIT de novo, the two first patients that received active treatment developed serious adverse reactions at 5000 SQ-U. A modified up-dosing schedule; 1000-3000-3000 SQ-U appeared to be safe but failed to improve the CSMS. Flow cytometry analyses showed increased activation of lymph node-derived dendritic but not T cells. Quality of life and nasal provocation response did not improve in any study.

CONCLUSION

Intralymphatic immunotherapy in high doses after SCIT appears to further reduce grass pollen-induced seasonal symptoms and may be considered as an add-on treatment for patients that do not reach full symptom control after SCIT. Up-dosing schedules de novo with three monthly injections that exceeds 3000 SQ-U should be avoided.

Allergen-specific Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergens in Children

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) for aeroallergens consists of the administration of standardized allergen extracts to patients with respiratory IgE-mediated diseases to the same allergen in order to achieve immune tolerance to the allergen and prevent the onset of symptoms. AIT is usually delivered by sublingual (SLIT), subcutaneous (SCIT) route. AIT with one or multiple allergens currently represents the only causal treatment able to change the natural history of allergic airway diseases. Significant progresses have been made in terms of AIT efficacy and safety. In this paper, mechanisms of action, indication and side effects of allergen immunotherapy are reviewed. SLIT and SCIT have been found to be effective in the treatment of asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis due to inhalant allergens. The route of AIT administration should be selected on availability, cost (dependent from the local health system), tolerability (better for SLIT), patient's preference (injections are less accepted in young children), and adherence (higher for SCIT beyond pediatric age). However, it should be taken into account that metanalyses on AIT do not consider that effectiveness and safety depend upon the product chosen for treatment. Each product should be separately assessed to avoid generalization on administration routes or age group that may affect the decision.

SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of adults with house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common chronic conditions affecting both children and adults. The house dust mites (HDM) account for a substantial part of the overall sources of allergens. In patients where allergen avoidance and symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy do not provide adequate disease control, specific allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is indicated. While subcutaneous injection (SCIT) is considered as a time-consuming and invasive treatment regimen, sublingual allergy immunotherapy (SLIT) appears as more convenient treatment strategy.Areas covered: This Drug Profile reviews the clinical data behind the development of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet, including both the early studies and the pivotal studies, which formed the basis for regulatory approval in Europe, Japan, and the U.S.Expert opinion: The clinical trials behind the development of the SQ HDM-SLIT have demonstrated that the tablet provides a safe, well-tolerated and robust efficacy in the treatment of HDM-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Further, studies show that the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet is a cost-effective treatment option compared with SCIT.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy suppresses Th2 inflammation and induces neutralizing antibodies, but sublingual immunotherapy suppresses airway hyperresponsiveness in grass pollen mouse models for allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Both subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SCIT and SLIT) have been shown to effectively suppress allergic manifestations upon allergen exposure, providing long-term relief from symptoms in allergic disorders including allergic asthma. Clinical studies directly comparing SCIT and SLIT report a different kinetics and magnitude of immunological changes induced during treatment. Comparative studies into the mechanisms underlying immune suppression in SCIT and SLIT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to establish an experimental model for grass pollen (GP) SCIT and SLIT that would allow a head-to-head comparison of the two treatments.

METHODS

BALB/c mice were sensitized with GP extract, followed by SCIT and SLIT treatments with various GP dosages. Subsequently, we challenged mice with GP and measured airway responsiveness (AHR), GP-specific immunoglobulins, ear swelling tests (EST), eosinophilic inflammation in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and T cell cytokine release after restimulation of lung cells (IL-5, IL-10, and IL-13).

RESULTS

We find that SLIT treatment was able to suppress allergen-induced AHR, while allergic inflammation was not effectively suppressed even at the highest GP dose in this model. In contrast, SCIT treatment induced higher levels of GP-specific IgG1, while SLIT was superior in inducing a GP-specific IgG2a response, which was associated with increased Th1 activity in lung tissue after SLIT, but not SCIT treatment. Interestingly, SCIT was able to suppress Th2-type cytokine production in lung cell suspensions, while SLIT failed to do so.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In conclusion, GP-SCIT suppresses Th2 inflammation and induced neutralizing antibodies, while GP-SLIT suppresses the clinically relevant lung function parameters in an asthma mouse model, indicating that the two application routes depend on partially divergent mechanisms of tolerance induction. Interestingly, these data mirror observations in clinical studies, underscoring the translational value of these mouse models.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

A Cost-Minimisation Analysis Comparing Sublingual Immunotherapy to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for the Treatment of House Dust Mite Allergy in a Swedish Setting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In Sweden, approximately 6% of children and 10% of adults suffer from house dust mite (HDM) allergy with symptoms of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. Treatment is aimed at reducing HDM exposure and to control the symptoms of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma by symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy. This pharmacotherapy is often effective, but some patients remain inadequately controlled. For these patients, allergy immunotherapy (AIT, subcutaneous or sublingual) with repeated administration of HDM allergen should be considered. The objective of this study was to compare the costs for sublingual AIT (SLIT; SQ^® SLIT-tablet) to the costs for subcutaneous AIT (SCIT; SQ^® SCIT) for the treatment of HDM allergy in a cost-minimisation analysis (CMA).

METHODS

The CMA included resources (and costs) for treatment, healthcare visits, travelling and lost productivity. Resource use based on Swedish clinical treatment practice and costs were obtained from medical price lists. Analyses were conducted from the societal, as well as healthcare perspective, by use of a time horizon of 3 years.

RESULTS

The results show that SQ^® SLIT-tablet is a cost-saving treatment as compared to SQ^® SCIT for the treatment of HDM allergy (€6800 over 3 years). The results are mainly driven by the cost of healthcare visits and the frequency of SCIT administrations.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, cost-savings of €6800 over 3 years are expected from treating HDM allergy with SQ^® SLIT-tablet as compared to SQ^® SCIT, including costs for treatment, healthcare visits, travelling and lost productivity. The reduced number of healthcare visits compensates for higher medication costs.

European Survey on Adverse Systemic Reactions in Allergen Immunotherapy (EASSI): a real-life clinical assessment

BACKGROUND

Outside clinical trials, data on systemic reactions (SRs) due to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) are scarce.

METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal, web-based survey of 'real-life' respiratory allergen immunotherapy (AIT) clinical practice was conducted in France, Germany and Spain. SRs were recorded and coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and risk factors associated with SRs were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 4316 patients (corresponding to 4363 ongoing courses of AIT) were included. A total of 109 SRs were recorded, and 90 patients (2.1%) presented at least one SR. Most of the SRs occurred in subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) (89%, n = 97). The most frequently reported symptoms were urticaria, rhinitis, dyspnoea and cough. Respiratory symptoms appeared before skin symptoms. Most SRs occurred during the up-dosing phase (75.8%) and were mild in severity (71.6%). Intramuscular adrenaline was administered in 17 SRs, but only 65% of these were subsequently classified as anaphylaxis. Independent risk factors for SRs during SCIT were as follows: the use of natural extracts (odds ratio, OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 2.74 [1.61-4.87], P = 0.001), the absence of symptomatic allergy medications (1.707 [1.008-2.892], P = 0.047), asthma diagnosis (1.74 [1.05-2.88], P = 0.03), sensitization to animal dander (1.93 [1.21-3.09], P = 0.006) or pollen (1.16 [1.03-1.30], P = 0.012) and cluster regimens (vs rush) (4.18 [1.21-14.37], P = 0.023). A previous episode of anaphylaxis increased the risk for anaphylaxis in SCIT (OR [95% CI] = 17.35 [1.91-157.28], P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

AIT for respiratory allergy is safe, with a low number of SRs observed in real-life clinical practice. A personalized analysis of risk factors could be used to minimize SRs.