The efficacy of oromucosal immunotherapy in respiratory allergy

Sublingual immunotherapy for treating allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic ocular symptoms, although frequently trivialised, are common and represent an important comorbidity of allergic rhinitis. Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis, but its effects on symptoms of ocular allergy have not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of SLIT compared with placebo for reductions in ocular symptoms, topical ocular medication requirements and conjunctival immediate allergen sensitivity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2011), Web of Science (January 1970 to January 2011), Biosis Previews, (January 1979 to January 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (January 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (January 2011), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (www.actr.org.au) (July 2010), SCOPUS (November 2008) and the UK Clinical Trials Gateway (January 2010). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. All electronic databases except for SCOPUS, the UK Clinical Trials Gateway and ANZCTR were last searched on 19 January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), double-masked and placebo controlled, which evaluated the efficacy of SLIT in patients with symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) or allergic conjunctivitis (AC).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the total ocular symptom scores. Secondary endpoints included individual ocular symptom scores (such as itchy eyes, red eyes, watery eyes, swollen eyes), ocular medication scores (eye drops) and conjunctival immediate allergen sensitivity (CIAS). Data were analysed and reported as standardised mean differences (SMDs) using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two trials (n = 3958 total participants; n= 2011 SLIT and n = 1947 placebo) had available data to evaluate the efficacy of SLIT on AC and were included in the meta-analyses. Heterogeneity among studies (I(2) statistic) was around 50% or below for all endpoints. Sublingual immunotherapy induced a significant reduction in both total ocular symptom scores (SMD -0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.28; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 59%) and individual ocular symptom scores for red eyes (SMD -0.33; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.22; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 27%), itchy eyes (SMD -0.31; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.20; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 46%) and watery eyes (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.34 to -0.11; P < 0.0001; I(2) = 42%) compared to placebo. Those participants having active treatment showed an increase in the threshold dose for the conjunctival allergen provocation test (SMD 0.35; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.69; P = 0.05; I(2) = 43%). No significant reduction was observed in ocular eye drops use (SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.03; P = 0.13; I(2) = 34%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, SLIT is moderately effective in reducing total and individual ocular symptom scores in participants with ARC and AC. There were however some concerns about the overall quality of the evidence-base, this relating to inadequate descriptions of allocation concealment in some studies, statistical heterogeneity and the possibility of publication bias. There is a need for further large rigorously designed studies that study long-term effectiveness after discontinuation of treatment and establish the cost-effectiveness of SLIT.

Sublingual immunotherapy: a novel, albeit not so new, immunotherapy treatment modality

BACKGROUND

Specific allergy immunotherapy traditionally has been thought of as subcutaneous injection immunotherapy (SCIT). There also are noninjection routes for the administration of immunotherapy. The best-known and studied of these noninjection routes is the sublingual route, usually known as sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). SLIT has been in use for many decades; however, to this date, it is not well known to the majority of allergy practitioners in this country. The purpose of this study is to help change this perception so that SLIT eventually can be considered one more tool in the allergist's armamentarium.

METHODS

A literature review was performed. It included articles from the early American clinicians and present publications that are mostly of European origin.

RESULTS

It will become clear to the reader that the key features of SLIT are its efficacy, great safety, and simplicity of administration.

CONCLUSION

SLIT is a safe treatment modality that should be considered as a useful additional tool in the therapeutic armamentarium.

Sublingual and oral immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a viable alternative to the subcutaneous route for the treatment of respiratory allergy, whereas the pure oral route has been abandoned because of its lack of efficacy. The main distinctive feature of SLIT is its optimal safety profile, which has been demonstrated in adults and children. The indications for SLIT are similar to those for the subcutaneous route. A long-lasting effect has been demonstrated for the sublingual route, but data are needed to determine the optimal dose and the preventive effect in asthma.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To review the available published data concerning the use of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in respiratory allergy to primarily evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the treatment and to secondarily consider the mechanisms of action and any unresolved questions.

DATA SOURCES

Articles in the medical literature (starting from 1986 up to November 2003) derived from searching the MEDLINE database with the keywords sublingual immunotherapy, respiratory allergy, asthma, and rhinitis. Sources included review articles, randomized controlled clinical trials, postmarketing surveillance studies, and relevant reports from meeting proceedings.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles concerning safety, efficacy, and mechanisms of SLIT published in English-language, peer-reviewed journals.

RESULTS

SLIT proved effective and safe in adults and children. As with traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy, SLIT has long-lasting efficacy and a preventive effect on new sensitizations.

CONCLUSION

SLIT is a viable alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy. Its use in pediatric patients seems to be particularly promising.

Safety of sublingual immunotherapy in children with asthma

INTRODUCTION

Two previously published studies on sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) did not report any serious adverse event associated with the local therapy; however, adverse events were observed in greatly variable percentages. The aim of the study was to evaluate the tolerability profile of sublingual swallow and spit immunotherapy in a large number of children treated for allergic asthma.

METHODS

Adverse effects related to sublingual administration of allergen vaccines were evaluated in 354 children with allergic asthma. Each patient was followed for at least 37 months and received a monthly dose of major allergens (extract) in the range of 1.5-14.8mug, equivalent to 3-20 times the amount contained in the usual monthly maintenance injections via the subcutaneous routes.

RESULTS

No adverse event was observed in 90.4% of the children. We observed 0.155 mild to moderate reactions per 1000 administrations. Dosage adjustment was required in 15 patients. In five children, immunotherapy was stopped as a precaution - one patient developed rhino-conjunctivitis, two patients developed urticaria, and two children developed wheezing. None of the reactions were due to dosage errors. No anaphylactic reaction or multiple-organ life-threatening events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study showed an incidence of mild to moderate unwanted effects of 9.6%, lower than that previously reported, and no life-threatening adverse effects. Nevertheless, asthma, urticaria, and rhinoconjunctivitis can occur. SLIT is quite a safe therapy for the treatment of allergic children with asthma; however, careful evaluation of the single patient is necessary since SLIT is self-administered and a cumulative monthly dose higher than that normally administered as an injection is usually attainable.

Oral and sublingual immunotherapy in paediatric patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sublingual immunotherapy is becoming a routine treatment for respiratory allergy in several countries and it has been validated in international documents. This article will review the available literature on oral and sublingual immunotherapy, discussing the possible use of sublingual immunotherapy in paediatric patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

As oral immunotherapy was found to be poorly effective in clinical trials, its use has been discontinued. In contrast, several controlled studies have shown the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic asthma and rhinitis, and a postmarketing survey has confirmed its safety. Moreover, new data on the long-lasting efficacy of this treatment and on the absence of local immunological effects have recently been published.

SUMMARY

The clinical efficacy and the optimal safety profile of sublingual immunotherapy make it a good candidate for treating respiratory allergy in children. Some aspects, such as the dose-response relationship and preventive effect, will be a research challenge for future developments and better definition of indications in children.

Noninjection routes for immunotherapy

Allergen specific immunotherapy, together with drugs and allergen avoidance, is a cornerstone in the management of respiratory allergy. The traditional subcutaneous route is burdened with the risk of severe adverse events; therefore, safer routes of administration (noninjection or local routes) have been investigated and developed. Controlled trials failed to demonstrate the clinical efficacy and the safety of oral and bronchial administration, and these routes have been abandoned. Local nasal immunotherapy proved effective and safe in 17 of 18 controlled trials; thus it is considered a viable route of immunotherapy. Nevertheless, nasal immunotherapy is effective in rhinitis only and requires a particular administration technique; therefore its use is slowly declining. The sublingual route is supported by numerous controlled trials showing its efficacy in asthma and rhinitis in adults and children. The safety profile, assessed in clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance studies, is satisfactory; the most frequent side effects are gastrointestinal complaints, which can be easily managed by proper dose adjusting. Sublingual immunotherapy is now accepted by the World Health Organization as a valid alternative to the subcutaneous route also in children. Although the long-lasting efficacy has been recently documented for the sublingual route, several points still need to be elucidated, including mechanisms of action, optimal dosage, cost-effectiveness, and adherence.