Post-treatment efficacy of discontinuous treatment with 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in adults with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

The KAAACI Guidelines for Sublingual Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy is regarded as the only disease-modifying treatment option for various allergic conditions, including allergic rhinitis and asthma. Among the routes of administration of allergens, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has gained clinical interest recently, and the prescription of SLIT is increasing among patients with allergies. After 30 years of SLIT use, numerous pieces of evidence supporting its efficacy, safety, and mechanism allows SLIT to be considered as an alternative option to subcutaneous immunotherapy. Based on the progressive development of SLIT, the current guideline from the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Clinical Immunology aims to provide an expert opinion by allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology specialists with an extensive literature review. This guideline addresses the use of SLIT, including 1) mechanisms of action, 2) appropriate patient selection for SLIT, 3) the currently available SLIT products in Korea, and 4) updated information on its efficacy and safety. This guideline will facilitate a better understanding of practical considerations for SLIT.

Molecular Aspects of Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Patients with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of publications was undertaken to analyze the role of component-resolved diagnosis technology in identifying polysensitization for the provision of allergen-specific immunotherapy to patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. A search of publications was carried out in electronic databases in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search helped to identify 568 publications, 12 of which were included in this review. Overall, 3302 patients were enrolled. The major finding was that component-resolved diagnostics change the choice of relevant allergens for allergen-specific immunotherapy in at least 50% of cases. Sensitization to allergen components differs with age, type of disease, and overall disease duration. Patients who had both bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis were sensitized to a larger number of allergens than patients who had bronchial asthma alone.

Pharmacological Management of Allergic Rhinitis: A Consensus Statement from the Malaysian Society of Allergy and Immunology

The goal of allergic rhinitis (AR) management is to achieve satisfactory symptom control to ensure good quality of life. Most patients with AR are currently treated with pharmacotherapy. However, knowledge gaps on the use of pharmacotherapy still exist among physicians, particularly in the primary care setting, despite the availability of guideline recommendations. Furthermore, it is common for physicians in the secondary care setting to express uncertainty regarding the use of new combination therapies like intranasal corticosteroid plus antihistamine combinations. Inadequate treatment leads to significant reduction of quality of life that affects daily activities at home, work, and school. With these concerns in mind, a practical consensus statement was developed to complement existing guidelines on the rational use of pharmacotherapy in both the primary and secondary care settings.

Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3–5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.

Alternatives to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an important public health issue worldwide due to its increasing prevalence and impact on quality of life, school performance, and work productivity. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is used to treat AR and involves repeated injections of allergen extracts. SCIT is used for cases of severe AR with symptoms that are not adequately controlled by medication, when the side effects of medication limit treatment options, or where the aim is to cure rather than symptomatically treat. Although SCIT is effective, it is not necessarily curative. Furthermore, there is also a low but present risk of systemic allergic reactions, with systemic side effects occurring in less than 0–1% of treated patients. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as an effective and safe alternative to SCIT. SCIT and SLIT are the only immunotherapies currently available for AR. In addition to sublingual administration as an alternative to SCIT, other routes of antigen administration have been attempted with the goal of increasing safety while maintaining efficacy. This review discusses the efficacies of SCIT and SLIT, their mechanisms, the utility of intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) as an alternative route of antigen administration, and the potential for immunotherapy using other routes of antigen administration.

Allergic Rhinitis: What Do We Know About Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy?

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated disease that is characterized by Th2 joint inflammation. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is indicated for AR when symptoms remain uncontrolled despite medication and allergen avoidance. AIT is considered to have been effective if it alleviated allergic symptoms, decreased medication use, improved the quality of life even after treatment cessation, and prevented the progression of AR to asthma and the onset of new sensitization. AIT can be administered subcutaneously or sublingually, and novel routes are still being developed, such as intra-lymphatically and epicutaneously. AIT aims at inducing allergen tolerance through modification of innate and adaptive immunologic responses. The main mechanism of AIT is control of type 2 inflammatory cells through induction of various functional regulatory cells such as regulatory T cells (Tregs), follicular T cells (Tfr), B cells (Bregs), dendritic cells (DCregs), innate lymphoid cells (IL-10⁺ ILCs), and natural killer cells (NKregs). However, AIT has a number of disadvantages: the long treatment period required to achieve greater efficacy, high cost, systemic allergic reactions, and the absence of a biomarker for predicting treatment responders. Currently, adjunctive therapies, vaccine adjuvants, and novel vaccine technologies are being studied to overcome the problems associated with AIT. This review presents an updated overview of AIT, with a special focus on AR.

Subcutaneous Versus Sublingual Immunotherapy for Adults with Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) better improves patient outcomes and quality of life for adults with allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis (AR/C) with or without mild to moderate asthma.

METHODS

Systematic review methodology was based on the Cochrane Collaboration handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) were queried from inception to July 30, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened potentially relevant studies and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes of interest were symptom score (SS), medication score (MS), combined symptom medication score (CSMS), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Meta-analyses with an adjusted indirect comparison were conducted in RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Seven SCIT versus SLIT randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated no significant differences for any outcomes, but insufficient data precluded direct meta-analysis. For the adjusted indirect comparison, 46 RCTs over 39 studies were included for SCIT versus placebo (n = 13) and SLIT versus placebo (n = 33). Statistically significant results favoring SCIT were found for SS (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.49), MS (SMD = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.14-0.39), CSMS (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.17-0.67), and RQLQ (MD = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.04-0.44). Statistically significant results favoring SLIT were found for SS (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.32-0.53), MS (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.28-0.53), CSMS (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.29-0.45), and RQLQ (MD = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.20-0.43). No significant differences were found between SCIT and SLIT for SS (SMD = -0.02; 95% CI = -0.15 to 0.11), MS (SMD = -0.14; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.03), CSMS (SMD = 0.05; 95% CI = -0.21 to 0.31), or RQLQ (MD = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.15).

CONCLUSION

SCIT and SLIT are comparably effective treatments for adults with AR/C. More RCTs analyzing SCIT versus SLIT are needed to directly compare the two. Laryngoscope, 2021.

Presentation, diagnosis, and the role of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in the management of ocular allergy

Allergic eye disease or ocular allergy is a debilitating condition with a significant impact on quality of life and productivity. As atopy continues to be on the rise, primary care providers are likely to encounter increasing numbers of patients with allergic eye disease. This review outlines the classification and pathophysiology of allergic eye disease and its clinical presentation. This paper does not detail traditional first-line therapies of allergic eye disease but describes the interdisciplinary management between the eye-care provider and allergist. It is recommended that patients with ongoing signs and symptoms of ocular allergy despite first-line therapies be referred for allergen immunotherapy, as it is highly effective for treatment of allergic eye disease. Through induction of immune tolerance, allergen immunotherapy is a disease-modifying therapy that can result in long-term improvement of ocular allergy. A thorough literature review was conducted on the efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy, including subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy, and its role in allergic eye disease.

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) was introduced in clinical practice on an empirical basis more than 100 years ago. Since the first attempts, AIT was administered subcutaneously. Indeed, other routes of administration were proposed and studied, in particular to improve the safety, but only the sublingual route (SLIT) achieved a credibility based on evidence and was then accepted as a viable "alternative" option to the subcutaneous route. SLIT was largely used in clinical trials and clinical practice in this last 30 years. Thus, a large amount of data is available, coming from either controlled trials and postmarketing surveillance studies. It is clear that SLIT is overall effective, but it is also clear that the efficacy is not "class-related," as derived from meta-analyses, but restricted to each specific product. The 30-year lasting use of SLIT allowed to clarify many clinical aspects, such as efficacy, safety, use in asthma, regimens of administration, and optimal doses. In parallel, the mechanisms of action of AIT were elucidated, and new indications were proposed (eg food allergy, atopic dermatitis). In addition, the introduction of molecular-based diagnosis, allowed to better refine the prescription of SLIT, based on specific sensitization profiles. The present article will describe the origin and evolution of SLIT for respiratory allergy, taking into account the clinical context that suggested this form of treatment, the recently developed aspects, the future perspectives and unmet needs, This is not, therefore, a systematic review, rather a narrative historical description of the past history, and a look forward to the future opportunities.

The impact of perennial allergic rhinitis with/without allergic asthma on sleep, work and activity level

Background

Allergic respiratory diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) are common conditions that can influence sleep and daytime functioning. However, the significance of this impact is unclear—particularly in perennial allergy sufferers. This study investigates the impact of perennial allergy on sleep, daily activities and productivity.

Methods

Adults with self-reported or physician-diagnosed perennial AR aged ≥ 18 years were recruited in Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden. Allergy sufferers were identified using online panels closely matching national population characteristics for each country. Impact on sleep, work, productivity and activity (by the Work, Productivity and Activity Index) were analysed. Descriptive analyses were conducted.

Results

In total, 511 subjects with perennial AR (47.4% also with seasonal allergy) completed the survey. Most subjects (77.5%) had a physician-diagnosis of AR; 46.4% were diagnosed with both AA and AR. Most subjects (65.2%) reported sensitisation to house dust mites. Of all subjects, 66.0% reported sleep problems. Subjects with sleep problems woke, on average, 3.8 times per night, with 92.0% taking 15+ min to fall asleep (22.2% took 60+ min). Upon waking at night, 40.8% struggled to get back to sleep, and 69.2% had difficulties waking in the morning due to tiredness. Disturbances in daily functioning due to sleep issues were reported in 85.5–95.0% of subjects with sleep problems across all aspects investigated. Overall work and activity impairment were 53.3% and 47.1%, respectively. Sleep issues were more frequent (78.1% vs 54.7%) in those diagnosed with both AR and AA compared to AR alone, and more burdensome, with a greater impact on daily functioning (47.0% vs 33.3%) and impairment in work and activity (62.0% and 54.9% vs 39.3% and 35.2%, respectively). Of all subjects, 20.5% were receiving AIT at the time of the survey; of these, 36.4% reported moderate or great improvement in sleep due to allergy treatment.

Conclusions

In perennial AR sufferers, sleep problems are common and impact on daily functioning, with results indicating a greater burden in those with both AR and AA compared to AR alone.

Perspectives in allergen immunotherapy: 2019 and beyond

The seventh "Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT)" workshop held in 2019 provided a platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review current developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Key domains of the meeting included the following: (a) Biomarkers for AIT and allergic asthma; (b) visions for the future of AIT; (c) progress and data for AIT in asthma and the updates of GINA and EAACI Asthma Guidelines (separated for house dust mite SCIT, SLIT tablets and SLIT drops; patient populations) including a review of clinically relevant endpoints in AIT studies in asthma; (d) regulatory prerequisites such as the "Therapy Allergen Ordinance" in Germany; (e) optimization of trial design in AIT clinical research; (f) challenges planning and conducting phase III (field) studies and the future role of Allergen Exposure Chambers (AEC) in AIT product development from the regulatory point of view. We report a summary of panel discussions of all six domains and highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for the future.

Persistence of the clinical effect of grass allergen peptide immunotherapy after the second and third grass pollen seasons

BACKGROUND

Grass allergen peptides are in development for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. A previous randomized, placebo-controlled study demonstrated that grass allergen peptides significantly improved total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores (TRSSs) after posttreatment challenge (PTC) to rye grass in an environmental exposure unit after 1 intervening grass pollen season (GPS1).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the efficacy/safety of 4 dosing regimens of grass allergen peptides after a second (GPS2) and third (GPS3) intervening GPS in the environmental exposure unit.

METHODS

Eligible subjects who were randomized in the parent study (GPS1) during the first year of recruitment were invited to participate in GPS2 and GPS3, which took place 1 and 2 years after treatment cessation, respectively. Participants were not treated further, and both participants and study personnel remained blinded. The primary efficacy end point was the change in mean TRSS (reported every 30 minutes) from GPS1 baseline to the follow-up PTC calculated across all time points over days 2 to 4 for GPS2 and across hours 1 to 3 over days 2 to 4 for GPS3. Secondary efficacy end points and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two and 85 participants were enrolled in GPS2 and GPS3, respectively. A numerically greater, but not statistically significant improvement from baseline in mean TRSS at PTC was observed in the group receiving one 6-nmol intradermal injection every 2 weeks for 14 weeks group compared with the placebo at GPS2 (-6.0 vs -3.6, P = .0535) and GPS3 (-6.2 vs -3.6, P = .1128). Similar findings were observed for the group receiving one 6-nmol intradermal injection every 2 weeks for 14 weeks at GPS3 (-6.4 vs -3.6, P = .0759). No adverse safety signals were detected.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with grass allergen peptides led to an improvement in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms after 3 intervening GPSs, corresponding to up to 2 years off treatment.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis (Revised Edition 2017; First edition 2007)

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, first published in 2007. It was produced by the Standards of Care Committee of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, using accredited methods. Allergic rhinitis is common and affects 10-15% of children and 26% of adults in the UK, it affects quality of life, school and work attendance, and is a risk factor for development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is diagnosed by history and examination, supported by specific allergy tests. Topical nasal corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine is more effective than either alone and provides second line treatment for those with rhinitis poorly controlled on monotherapy. Immunotherapy is highly effective when the specific allergen is the responsible driver for the symptoms. Treatment of rhinitis is associated with benefits for asthma. Non-allergic rhinitis also is a risk factor for the development of asthma and may be eosinophilic and steroid-responsive or neurogenic and non- inflammatory. Non-allergic rhinitis may be a presenting complaint for systemic disorders such as granulomatous or eosinophilic polyangiitis, and sarcoidoisis. Infective rhinitis can be caused by viruses, and less commonly by bacteria, fungi and protozoa.

Efficacy and safety of SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy-tablet in Japanese children

BACKGROUND

The SQ house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet (TO-203, Torii, Japan/ALK, Denmark) treatment has been effective against respiratory allergic diseases in patients aged ≥12 years during European, Japanese, and North American trials. This trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of this treatment in Japanese children (5-17 years) with moderate-to-severe HDM allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 458 Japanese children were randomly assigned to a daily SQ HDM SLIT-tablet [10 000 Japanese Allergy Unit (JAU), equivalent to 6 SQ-HDM in Europe and the US] or placebo (1:1) treatment for 1 year. Inclusion required an AR symptom score of ≥7 on at least 7 days during a 14-day run-in period while symptomatic treatment was withdrawn. The primary endpoint was the total combined rhinitis score (TCRS) comprising AR symptom and medication scores during the last 8 weeks of the treatment period.

RESULTS

The analysis of primary endpoint demonstrated statistically significant absolute reduction in TCRS of 1.22 with a relative difference of 23% (95% confidence interval, 14% to 31%) in the 10 000 JAU compared with placebo. Predefined stratified analyses revealed the same degree of efficacy of 1.11 (P = 0.002), 21% (8% to 32%) and 1.36 (P = 0.001), 26% (11% to 38%), respectively, in pediatric (5-11 years) and adolescent subjects (12-17 years). The treatment was well tolerated by both pediatric and adolescent subjects.

CONCLUSION

This trial, for the first time, demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the HDM SLIT-tablet in pediatric patients with moderate-to-severe HDM AR (JapicCTI-152953).

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: a systematic review

The objective of the systematic review is to provide complete and updated information on efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) formulations for the treatment of allergic respiratory diseases (ARDs). The literature search was conducted on PubMed database, involving double-blind, randomized clinical trials published between January 1992 and 2018, written in English, and performed in humans. The number of articles finally selected for review was 112. Data from the majority of properly controlled clinical trials demonstrate that SLIT is effective not only with short-term use (first year) but also with long-term use (up to the third year of active therapy), for treating ARDs in children and adults. Both continuous and discontinuous schemes of administration showed significant reductions in symptom and medication scores. Moreover, a SLIT-induced disease-modifying effect has been documented mainly with grass pollen extracts, since improvement is maintained during at least 2 years of follow-up after a 3-year treatment period. Additionally, allergen immunotherapy should also be considered a preventive strategy, especially for decreasing bronchial asthma incidence in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis treated with SLIT. This therapy is also safe, producing only a few mainly local and mild-to-moderate adverse events, and usually self-limited in time. The registration and authorization of allergen SLIT preparations (grasses and house-dust mite tablets) as drugs by regulatory agencies, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), has represented a landmark in allergy immunotherapy research. Further long-term studies, specially designed with allergens other than grass pollen or house-dust mites, not only in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis but also on asthmatic subjects, as well as studies comparing different administration schedules and/or routes, are required in order to continue the progress in the modern development of this particularly promising therapy.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is a potentially disease-modifying therapy that is effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis, allergic asthma and stinging insect hypersensitivity. However, despite its proven efficacy in these conditions, it is frequently underutilized in Canada. The decision to proceed with allergen-specific immunotherapy should be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account individual patient factors, such as the degree to which symptoms can be reduced by avoidance measures and pharmacological therapy, the amount and type of medication required to control symptoms, the adverse effects of pharmacological treatment, and patient preferences. Since this form of therapy carries a risk of anaphylactic reactions, it should only be prescribed by physicians who are adequately trained in the treatment of allergic conditions. Furthermore, for subcutaneous therapy, injections must be given under medical supervision in clinics that are equipped to manage anaphylaxis. In this article, the authors review the indications and contraindications, patient selection criteria, and details regarding the administration, safety and efficacy of allergen-specific immunotherapy.

Duration of Allergen Immunotherapy for Long-Term Efficacy in Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis

RATIONALE

Subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy are effective for allergic rhinitis. An important question is whether allergen immunotherapy provides a sustained clinical effect after treatment cessation. In view of potential side effects, cost and the necessary patient commitment, long-term benefit is an important consideration for the recommendation of immunotherapy over standard pharmacotherapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we analyse the existing evidence for long-term effects of both routes of administration in the context of double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials that included a follow-up phase of at least 1 year after treatment cessation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall, evidence suggests that 3 years of either subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy result in clinical benefit and immunological changes consistent with allergen-specific tolerance sustained for at least 2-3 years after treatment cessation.

SUMMARY

The data presented here support recommendations in international guidelines that both routes of administration should be continued for a minimum of 3 years. Gaps in the evidence remain regarding the long-term efficacy of immunotherapy for perennial rhinitis and studies performed in children.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

Tablet-based sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy

Allergic respiratory disease represents a significant and expanding health problem worldwide. The gold standard of therapeutic intervention is still grucocorticosteroids, although they are not effective in all patients and may cause side effects. Allergen Immunotherapy has been administrated as subcutaneous injections for treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma and has been practiced for the past century. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets are now available for grass- or ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and will be available in Spain for house dust mite (HDM)-induced rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma in the next months. In this review, new developments in the field of tablet-based SLIT for respiratory allergy are summarized, with special emphasis on HDM-induced allergic rhinitis and asthma. SLIT tablets are the best-documented immunotherapy products on the market and represent a more patient-friendly concept because they can be self-administrated at home.

Satisfaction and quality of life of allergic patients following sublingual five-grass pollen tablet immunotherapy in Spain

BACKGROUND

Five-grass pollen tablet is an effective and well-tolerated therapy for patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). This trial sought to determine the satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients undergoing this treatment.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational, naturalistic study, following a discontinuous pre- and co-seasonal five-grass pollen regimen over two seasons in Spain (2012, 2013). The HRQoL of the patients was measured with the specific Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) for adults, adolescent (AdolRQLQ), or paediatric (PRQLQ) patients. Treatment satisfaction was assessed by the Satisfaction Scale for Patients Receiving Allergen Immunotherapy (ESPIA) questionnaire. Patients/investigators were surveyed on beliefs and attitudes towards the five-grass pollen tablet. ARC evolution according to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) criteria and treatment adherence were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the 591 ARC patients included, the mean (SD) HRQoL scores were 1.40 (1.1) in adults, 1.33 (1.1) in adolescents, and 1.15 (1.1) in children, indicating low levels of impairment (scale 0-6). ESPIA answers showed high levels of satisfaction, with an average score of 69.2 (scale 0-100). According to ARIA criteria, 88.2% of patients reported improvement of ARC. Moreover, this was accompanied by a reduced use of symptomatic medication. Adherence to treatment was estimated at 96.8%. In general, both patients and specialists exhibited a positive attitude towards five-grass pollen tablet treatment.

CONCLUSION

ARC patients treated with five-grass pollen tablet showed favourable levels of HRQoL and treatment satisfaction, with concomitant improvements in ARC and symptomatic medication use, which translated into high levels of treatment adherence and a positive attitude towards five-grass pollen tablet.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Safety Review of 5-Grass Pollen Tablet from Pooled Data of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet has been approved for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in subjects with or without intermittent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the safety profile of the 5-grass tablet on the basis of pooled data from 8 clinical trials.

METHODS

Subjects (5-65 years old) with medically confirmed grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were included in the double-blind studies. Those with intermittent asthma not requiring treatment other than inhaled beta-2 agonists could participate. Randomized subjects received a 5-grass or placebo tablet daily 2 or 4 months preseasonally and coseasonally (5 single-season studies, over 3 years in a long-term study) or outside the season (phase I studies). Adverse events were pooled and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Among 2,512 subjects enrolled, 1,514 received the 5-grass tablet. A total of 1,038 adults and 154 pediatric (5-17 years old) subjects were treated with the 300 Index of Reactivity dose (vs 840 and 158 placebo recipients, respectively); 17% had intermittent asthma, and 62% were polysensitized. Adverse reactions (ADRs) reported in more than 10% of actively treated subjects were mild or moderate application-site reactions, for example, oral pruritus 25% (placebo 4%) and throat irritation 21% (placebo 3%). These generally occurred during the first week of treatment and decreased over time. They led to discontinuation in less than 2.5% of subjects. None of the 3 serious ADRs were reports of anaphylaxis. No notable differences were detected in terms of incidence, nature, and severity of ADRs between adult and pediatric populations, nor between subjects with or without asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled analysis in 1,514 subjects from 8 clinical studies demonstrates that the 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet has a similar good safety profile in adult and pediatric patients with or without mild, intermittent asthma.

Allergen Immunotherapy

Allergies affect a large proportion of the population. Allergies can adversely affect productivity, sleep, and quality of life and can lead to life-threatening reactions. Allergies can spread to affect multiple organ systems. Allergen immunotherapy is the only therapy that can change the natural history of allergic disease.

Distinct modulation of allergic T cell responses by subcutaneous vs. sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only curative treatment for type I allergy. It can be administered subcutaneously (SCIT) or sublingually (SLIT). The clinical efficacy of these two treatment modalities appears to be similar, but potential differences in the immunological mechanisms involved have not been fully explored.

OBJECTIVE

To compare changes in the allergen-specific T cell response induced by subcutaneous vs. sublingual administration of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT).

METHODS

Grass pollen-allergic patients were randomized into groups receiving either SCIT injections or SLIT tablets or neither. PBMCs were tested for Timothy grass (TG)-specific cytokine production by ELISPOT after in vitro expansion with TG-peptide pools. Phenotypic characterization of cytokine-producing cells was performed by FACS.

RESULTS

In the SCIT group, decreased IL-5 production was observed starting 10 months after treatment commenced. At 24 months, T cell responses showed IL-5 levels significantly below the before-treatment baseline. No significant reduction of IL-5 was observed in the SLIT or untreated group. However, a significant transient increase in IL-10 production after 10 months of treatment compared to baseline was detected in both treatment groups. FACS analysis revealed that IL-10 production was associated with CD4(+) T cells that also produced IFNγ and therefore may be associated with an IL-10-secreting type 1 cell phenotype.

CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The most dominant immunological changes on a cellular level were a decrease in IL-5 in the SCIT group and a significant, transient increase of IL-10 observed after 10 months of treatment in both treated groups. The distinct routes of AIT administration may induce different immunomodulatory mechanisms at the cellular level.

Comparison of scores associating symptoms and rescue medication use for evaluating the efficacy of allergy immunotherapy in seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: results from five trials

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, regulatory bodies and scientific societies recommended, as primary efficacy outcome, a score that reflects both symptom severity and use of rescue medication for clinical trials in allergy immunotherapy (AIT).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the results obtained with two subject-specific scores, the Combined Score (CS) and the Adjusted Symptom Score (AdSS), for assessment of AIT in seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis due to birch and grass pollen allergens.

METHODS

CS and AdSS were evaluated in subjects receiving a 300IR dose of allergen extract daily, by sublingual route, in four clinical trials with the 5-grass pollen tablet (NCT00367640, NCT00409409, NCT00955825 and NCT00418379) and one with the birch pollen solution (NCT01731249). The CS is derived from the Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score (RTSS) and the Rescue Medication Score (RMS) giving equal weight to symptoms and medication use. The AdSS is a symptom score adjusting for rescue medication use. Efficacy end-points were analysed using an analysis of covariance linear model.

RESULTS

In all trials, despite the different constructs of the two scores, Combined Score or Adjusted Symptom Score were similarly reduced in the 300IR group compared to the placebo group. Treatment effect was consistently demonstrated with both scores, CS and AdSS, used as either daily scores or average of the daily scores over the pollen season. Minor differences with the same statistical conclusions were observed between the results, leading to the same interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The two scores, combined and adjusted scores, for evaluation of clinical efficacy of AIT have led to similar results, with similar statistical conclusions and similar interpretation.

Similar biological activity in skin prick test for Oralair® (8200 BAU) and Grazax® (6200 BAU) reinforces effective SLIT dosing level

In Europe, allergen extracts are standardized based on skin prick wheal size in 20-30 allergic subjects. To understand the biological activity of clinically effective Sublingual immunotherapy, we used this method to determine the biological activity of solution and tablet Timothy grass pollen (TIM) extracts, compared to an FDA-approved extract (Reference) of 10 000 BAU/ml. Blinded, quadruplicate skin prick tests with concentrate and three serial half-log dilutions allowed the construction of a semilogarithmic regression line per extract. Bioequivalent allergy units (BAU) values were obtained from the comparison with reference. Extracts and dilutions showed a neat linear dose response (all: R² > 0.98) in 33 rhinitis patients. Relative potencies: Staloral^® 12 000 BAU/ml, Soluprick^® 10 300 BAU/ml, Oralair^® 8200 BAU, and Grazax^® 6200 BAU. Even though all extract concentrates differed in wheal size (P = 0.01-0.001), Grazax^® producing a 25% smaller wheal size than Oralair^® , and the biological activity of these clinically effective TIM tablets led in the same range (6200-8200 BAU; 0.92-1.23 cm² ). SLIT dose-finding studies for other pollens might start with allergen extracts producing 1.1 cm² wheal surface.

Current Evidence on Safety and Practical Considerations for Administration of Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy (SLIT) in the United States

Liquid sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used off-label for decades, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved grass and ragweed SLIT tablets have been available in the United States since 2014. Potentially life-threatening events from SLIT do occur, although they appear to be very rare, especially for FDA-approved products. Practice guidelines that incorporate safety precautions regarding the use of SLIT in the United States are needed. This clinical commentary attempts to address unresolved issues including controversy regarding the FDA mandate for the prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors for patients on SLIT; how to approach polysensitized patients; optimal timing and duration of SLIT administration; how to address gaps in therapy; whether antihistamines can prevent local reactions, if certain patient populations (such as persistent asthmatics) should not receive SLIT; and when to instruct patients to self-administer epinephrine. Key points are that physicians should focus on educating patients regarding: (1) when not to administer SLIT; (2) how to recognize a potentially serious allergic reaction to SLIT; and (3) when to administer epinephrine and seek emergency care.

Evidence in immunotherapy for paediatric respiratory allergy: Advances and recommendations

Allergic respiratory diseases are major health problems in paediatric population due their high level of prevalence and chronicity, and to their relevance in the costs and quality of life. One of the most important risk factors for the development of airway diseases in children and adolescents is atopy. The mainstays for the treatment of these diseases are avoiding allergens, controlling symptoms, and preventing them through sustained desensitization by allergen immunotherapy (AIT). AIT is a treatment option that consists in the administration of increasing amounts of allergens to modify the biological response to them, inducing long-term tolerance even after treatment has ended. This treatment approach has shown to decrease symptoms and improve quality of life, becoming cost effective for a large number of patients. In addition, it is considered the only treatment that can influence the natural course of the disease by targeting the cause of the allergic inflammatory response. The aim of this publication is to reflect the advances of AIT in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic respiratory diseases in children and adolescents reviewing articles published since 2000, establishing evidence categories to support the strength of the recommendations based on evidence. The first part of the article covers the prerequisite issues to understand how AIT is effective, such as the correct etiologic and clinical diagnosis of allergic respiratory diseases. Following this, the article outlines the advancements in understanding the mechanisms by which AIT achieve immune tolerance to allergens. Administration routes, treatment regimens, dose and duration, efficacy, safety, and factors associated with adherence are also reviewed. Finally, the article reviews future advances in the research of AIT.

House Dust Mite-Specific Sublingual Immunotherapy Prevents the Development of Allergic Inflammation in a Mouse Model of Experimental Asthma

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) efficacy and its good safety profile has been demonstrated with pollen and house dust mite (HDM) allergens in the treatment of airway allergies. In addition, the use of grass pollen presents a SLIT disease-modifying treatment for respiratory allergies.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of HDM-based SLIT in mouse models of allergic airway inflammation and to gain insights into the involved local immunological mechanisms.

METHODS

Balb/c mice were sensitized/challenged with Dermatophagoides farinae (Der f) extract and underwent Der f-SLIT in prophylactic and therapeutic settings. The SLIT efficacy was assessed using lung function measurements, analysis of local inflammatory responses by bronchoalveolar lavage cell differentiation and lung histology. Humoral and cellular responses were monitored by ELISA, cytokine bead array and flow cytometry analyses.

RESULTS

In a prophylactic setting, Der f-SLIT with 12 development units per dose reduced the eosinophil-dominated inflammatory response in the lung paralleled by a marked reduction in airway hyperresponsiveness. Local Th2 responses were prevented as demonstrated by significantly lower levels of IL-5 and IL-13. Additionally, SLIT-treated mice revealed a lower proportion of CD4-CD8- x03B3;δ cells and a higher frequency of CD8+CD25+IFNx03B3;+ T cells in the lungs compared to sham-treated mice. In a therapeutic setting, Der f-SLIT also resulted in reduced inflammatory responses in the lung.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of Der f-SLIT was demonstrated in prophylactic and therapeutic conditions using experimental mouse models of HDM-induced airway inflammation. A potential role of a so far underestimated lymphocyte subpopulation was also indicated.

How does the efficacy and safety of Oralair(®) compare to other products on the market?

Due to differences between allergen immunotherapy (AIT) trials in patient populations, trial design (including primary efficacy variables), the definition of a pollen season, data analysis, and comparisons between AIT products with existing data, is not possible nor valid. The efficacy of two grass pollen AIT tablets, Oralair^® and Grazax^®/Grastek^®, should not be compared by looking at the percentage of score improvement in their respective trials. However, the evidence available concerning the efficacy and safety in trials can be compared by paying close attention to the scientific quality of the trials, details in the administration schedules, and safety issues. It can be concluded due to the high level of evidence available, that Oralair^® is effective in a pre (2-months)-coseasonal schedule to reduce symptoms and medication use, and improve a patients’ quality of life during the treatment season. For the long-term, where the quality of efficacy evidence is moderate at 2-year posttreatment due to a high dropout rate, the pre (4-months)-coseasonal schedule should be used. No clinical efficacy data exists for starting treatment in-season, but the clinical onset of action of Oralair^® is detectable after only 1 month of treatment. In the pivotal trials in Europe and the USA, no tablet-related epinephrine was needed, though some rare severe local reactions have been reported. Research for Grazax^®/Grastek^® showed that the long-term efficacy needs a continuous 3-year administration (moderate-low quality evidence available), and in two patients, tablet-related epinephrine was given. Further details on the comparative efficacy of both tablets would only be possible if both were evaluated in the same, adequately powered trial.

Clinical considerations in the use of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been in practice for more than 100 years. However, research in novel routes and delivery methods of immunotherapy to treat allergic rhinitis (AR) and conjunctivitis has only recently occurred in the United States, where the predominant form of AIT provided is largely via a subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) route. AIT may prevent new sensitizations, improve symptoms, decrease medication usage, and prevent allergic asthma. Although AIT is the only potentially curative treatment for AR, access and adherence continue to be problematic. Only a fraction of eligible patients actually undergo treatment, and attrition rates are high. An obvious limitation of SCIT includes the requirement of regular injections to be provided in the physician's office due to the potential for anaphylaxis. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for home administration has been investigated as a potential alternative to address this limitation of SCIT.

METHODS

A literature review was performed including the current findings from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses with a discussion of the most recent evidence for the efficacy, safety, and dosing of allergen SLIT.

RESULTS

The current data suggest that SLIT is effective for treatment of seasonal allergies, can potentially prevent asthma, and has a favorable safety profile. Head-to-head studies, however, are few, and comparative effectiveness still remains to be answered. Optimal treatment algorithms for SLIT have not yet been established, with wide variation in dosage selection and schedules. Similarly to SCIT, only a few allergens such as ragweed and grass pollen have been found to be effective in large clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Recent data indicate that SLIT is an effective treatment modality for seasonal AR, improve quality of life, and can potentially prevent asthma but head-to head studies comparing SLIT to SCIT are needed.

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: where are we now?

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced in the 1980s as a safer option to subcutaneous immunotherapy and in the latest decade achieved significant advances. Its efficacy in allergic rhinitis is supported by a number of meta-analyses. The development of SLIT preparations in tablets to fulfill the requirements of regulatory agencies for quality of allergen extracts made available optimal products for grass-pollen-induced allergic rhinitis. Preparations of other allergens based on the same production methods are currently in progress. A notable outcome of SLIT, that is shared with subcutaneous immunotherapy, is the evident cost–effectiveness, showing significant cost savings as early as 3 months from starting the treatment, that become as high as 80% compared with drug treatment in the ensuing years.

New developments in allergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinitis, conjunctivitis, and asthma impact quality of life and cost billions of dollars in lost wages, productivity, and medical expenditures. Allergen immunotherapy is the only therapy that alters the allergen immune response, resulting in fewer symptoms upon natural exposure. This review summarizes recent immunotherapy developments.

RECENT FINDINGS

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) remains a disease modifying treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma with rare complications of therapy. Recent evidence suggests that SCIT may be effective in select cases of atopic dermatitis, particularly for patients with dust mite sensitivity. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets are now commercially available for grass and ragweed allergy and appear to have a superior safety profile to SCIT with similar long-term effectiveness, because as with SCIT, symptom improvement persists after the SLIT course is completed. SLIT tablets are administered daily at home (after initial supervised dosing) and may be used shortly before and during the target pollen seasons in a precoseasonal fashion (instead of perennial dosing). Research continues into experimental approaches using oral food allergen immunotherapy (OIT) to modify the natural history of food allergies. Although a proportion of patients in OIT trials experience sustained unresponsiveness, many do not and current recommendations limit the use of OIT to research protocols.

SUMMARY

Patients have new well tolerated and effective options for more convenient treatment of asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis associated with grass and ragweed allergy. SCIT remains effective for polysensitized patients and may be an option for some patients with atopic dermatitis. Research continues into novel food allergy treatments.

Is clinical tolerance possible after allergen immunotherapy?

There is a growing evidence that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) can provide significant and long-lasting clinical benefit for a number of allergic individuals. However, it is less clear if AIT results in clinical tolerance, which is characterized by a persistent state of clinical non-reactivity to allergens after therapy is finished. Addressing this knowledge gap is particularly relevant for patients undergoing AIT for food allergies, as anything less than complete tolerance could have potentially devastating consequences. An increasing number of studies, in particular those involving oral immunotherapy, are attempting to assess tolerance induction following AIT. Clinical tolerance does appear to be achievable in a subset of patients undergoing AIT, but whether this is equivalent to the type of tolerance observed in nonallergic individuals remains unknown. Developing established criteria for assessing tolerance induction, as well as the use of consistent terminology when describing clinical tolerance, will be important for determining the disease-modifying potential of AIT.

Allergy immunotherapy: the future of allergy treatment

Allergic respiratory disease represents a significant and expanding health problem worldwide. Allergic symptoms, such as asthma and hay fever, cause sleep impairment and reduce school and work performance. The cost to society is substantial. Allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy cannot control the disease. Only allergy immunotherapy has disease-modifying potential and should be included in optimal treatment strategies. Allergy immunotherapy was first administered as subcutaneous injections and has been practiced for the past 100 years or so. Recently, tablet-based sublingual allergy immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced with comprehensive clinical documentation. SLIT tablets represent a more patient-friendly concept because they can be used for self-treatment at home.

Developments in the field of allergy in 2013 through the eyes of Clinical and Experimental Allergy

2013 was another exciting year for allergy in general and Clinical and Experimental Allergy in particular. In the field of asthma and rhinitis, there continued to be a focus on heterogeneity and phenotypes with increasing use of biostatistical techniques to determine clusters of similar populations. Obesity- and aspirin-associated disease are intriguing associations with asthma which were explored in a number of papers. We published a number of excellent papers on mechanisms of airway inflammation and how this relates to physiology, pathology, genetics and biomarkers in both human and experimental model systems. In terms of mechanisms, there is less on individual cell types in allergic disease at the moment, but the immunology of allergic disease continued to fascinate our authors. Another area that was popular both in the mechanisms and in the epidemiology sections was early life events and how these lead to allergic disease, with an increasing focus on the role of the microbiome and how this influences immune tolerance. In the clinical allergy section, oral immunotherapy for food allergy is clearly a major topic of interest at the moment as was in vitro testing to distinguish between sensitization and allergic disease. There was less on inhalant allergy this year, but a good representation from the drug allergy community including some interesting work on non-IgE-mediated mechanisms. In the allergen section, important new allergens continue to be discovered, but the major focus as in the last couple of years was on working out how component-resolved approaches can improve diagnosis and management of food and venom allergy.

Selection of patients for sublingual versus subcutaneous immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy is the sole treatment for IgE-mediated allergic diseases directed at the underlying mechanism. The two widely accepted administration routes are sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT). We reviewed how patients should best be selected for immunotherapy and how the optimal administration route can be defined. Before deciding SCIT or SLIT, appropriate selection of patients for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is mandatory. To be eligible for AIT, subjects must have a clear medical history of allergic disease, with exacerbation of symptoms on exposure to one or more allergens and a corresponding positive skin or in vitro test. Then the route of administration should be based on: published evidence of clinical and immunologic efficacy (which varies per allergic disease and per allergen); mono- or multi-allergen immunotherapy, for SLIT multi-allergen immunotherapy was not effective; safety: adverse events with SLIT are more frequent, but less severe; and, costs and patient preferences, closely related to adherence issues. All these are discussed in the article.