The safety of sublingual-swallow immunotherapy: an analysis of published studies

Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America

Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.

Local nasal immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT), an alternative noninjection immunotherapy method, is theoretically an efficient method for inducing immunotolerance directly in the affected organ. LNIT is more convenient and less invasive than injection immunotherapy, with fewer systemic reactions. The development of adjuvants to overcome LNIT's limitations raises the possibility of it being an alternative allergen immunotherapy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical and immunological efficacy and safety of LNIT for patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A systematic search for randomized controlled trials comparing LNIT and placebo was performed using OVID Medline and Embase. Outcomes were total nasal symptom score (TNSS), symptom-medication score (SMS), medication score, immunological assessment, and nasal provocation threshold. Data were pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies with 698 participants were included. The LNIT group had greater posttreatment improvement in TNSS, SMS, and medication score than control (TNSS: standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.37 [95% confidence interval [CI], -2.04 to -0.69]; SMS: SMD, -1.55 [95% CI, -2.83 to -0.28]; and medication score: SMD, -1.09 [95% CI, -1.35 to -0.83]). Immunological assessments showed no significant differences in serum-specific IgE (mean difference [MD], 6.35; 95% CI, -4.62 to 17.31), nasal IgE (MD, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.99 to 0.81), or nasal eosinophil cationic protein (MD, 7.63; 95% CI, -18.65 to 33.91). Only serum IgG significantly increased with LNIT (MD, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20, 0.70). Posttreatment, nasal provocation threshold was higher with LNIT (MD, 27.30; 95% CI, 10.13-44.46). No significant adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

LNIT is a safe alternative allergen immunotherapy route without significant adverse events. It improves clinical symptoms, reduces medication usage, and increases the nasal provocation threshold.

Computationally grafting an IgE epitope onto a scaffold: Implications for a pan anti-allergy vaccine design

Allergy is becoming an intensifying disease among the world population, particularly in the developed world. Once allergy develops, sufferers are permanently trapped in a hyper-immune response that makes them sensitive to innocuous substances. The immune pathway concerned with developing allergy is the Th2 immune pathway where the IgE antibody binds to its Fc ∊ RI receptor on Mast and Basophil cells. This paper discusses a protocol that could disrupt the binding between the antibody and its receptor for a potential permanent treatment. Ten proteins were computationally designed to display a human IgE motif very close in proximity to the IgE antibody's Fc ∊ RI receptor's binding site in an effort for these proteins to be used as a vaccine against our own IgE antibody. The motif of interest was the FG loop motif and it was excised and grafted onto a Staphylococcus aureus protein (PDB ID 1YN3), then the motif + scaffold structure had its sequence re-designed around the motif to find an amino acid sequence that would fold to the designed structure correctly. These ten computationally designed proteins showed successful folding when simulated using Rosetta's AbinitioRelax folding simulation and the IgE epitope was clearly displayed in its native three-dimensional structure in all of them. These designed proteins have the potential to be used as a pan anti-allergy vaccine. This work employedin silicobased methods for designing the proteins and did not include any experimental verifications.

Worldwide surveys on anaphylaxis to sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite tablets are urgently needed

In the 1980s, a global number of 72 fatalities were reported in the UK and the USA following the application of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). This resulted in a significant limitation of SCIT use and in the search of other routes of administration, among which sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) showed the best balance between efficacy and safety. Data from controlled studies suggest that tablets‐related anaphylaxis is an uncommon event. However, in the Eudravigilance (European database of suspected adverse drug reactions from Europe) we found reports of life‐threatening events or severe local reactions under SLIT increasing over the last few years. Therefore, all efforts to minimize the related risk have to be strongly encouraged.

The safety of sublingual immunotherapy, can the rare systemic reactions be prevented?

Introduction: The safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), and particularly the dramatic issue of fatal reactions, has been an obstacle that limited the implementation of a therapy with unique characteristics of action on the causes of allergy. The introduction of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was aimed at solving safety problems while maintaining clinical efficacy.Areas covered: For more than 20 years, SLIT has been based on allergen extracts in drops at low average doses. As evidenced by meta-analyses, the typical adverse events (AE) have consisted of local reactions in the mouth and throat. Unlike the injection route, no correlation was observed between the administered dose and AEs. The development of SLIT products in tablets, based on higher doses than drops, has somewhat changed the concept of SLIT safety. Although large trials, performed to obtain regulatory agency approval, have shown overall high safety, rare anaphylactic reactions have been described.Expert opinion: SLIT is globally safe, and no fatal reactions have ever been reported, but with currently available high biological potency products it is necessary to follow prudential rules, such as the administration of the first dose under medical supervision and the thorough education of patients to avoid taking of higher doses than recommended.

Eosinophilic lingual tonsillitis induced by sublingual immunotherapy: A case series

The new observation of eosinophilic lingual tonsillitis as a possible adverse reaction to sublingual immunotherapy is likely to stimulate new investigations aimed at improving the understanding of the mechanisms of biodistribution of extracts placed at the sublingual level.

Allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: to what extent can the risk of systemic reactions be reduced?

INTRODUCTION

Allergen immunotherapy is an effective treatment for respiratory allergy, but the administration to patients of extracts of the causative allergen may elicit systemic reactions, which include, particularly with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), anaphylaxis. In the past, the occurrence (tough rare) of fatal reactions has represented a serious problem that has limited the prescription of SCIT.

AREAS COVERED

The authors analyzed in this review the safety data of SCIT, especially concerning the years following the identification of uncontrolled asthma at the moment of allergen injection as the major risk of life-threatening reactions and fatalities. The safety of SLIT, which is far better than SCIT, was analyzed and its specific risk factors for systemic reactions were highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

Presently, the safety profile of SCIT and SLIT is satisfactory, provided the treatment is administered by physicians experienced in this treatment, who are aware of the known risk factors for severe reactions and who implement all measures to avoid them. For SLIT, which is self-administered by the patient, receiving the first dose under medical control is recommended.

Advances in allergen immunotherapy as a treatment of asthma

Introduction: Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment acting on causes and not only on symptoms of respiratory allergy. It was first introduced as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with the aim to induce immunological tolerance to the administered allergen(s). In the 1980s, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was developed, mainly to improve the safety, which was a critical issue at that time.Areas covered: This article reviews the available literature, including a large number of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and real-life studies as well, on the outcomes of SCIT and SLIT concerning the treatment critical issues of the two routes, that are efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and compliance to treatment.Expert opinion: SCIT and SLIT are similarly effective in treating patients with respiratory allergy, providing, based on the induction of typical changes in the immunologic response, an early control of symptoms that steadily increases during the treatment and, once reached the recommended duration of 3 years, continues to work after stopping. This outcome is the major factor influencing the economic advantage of SCIT and SLIT over drug treatment.

Immunosuppressive property of submandibular lymph nodes in patients with head and neck tumors: differential distribution of regulatory T cells

Objective

Different sensitizations and immune responses are thought to be induced in response to antigens at different mucosal sites between the oral floor and nose. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in the distributions of lymphocyte subsets in the submandibular (SM) and upper jugular (UJ) lymph nodes (LNs), which are supposed to be regional LNs of the oral floor and nasal mucosa, respectively. SMLNs and UJLNs were collected from patients with head and neck tumors who underwent surgical resection. The populations of T cells, Natural Killer (NK) cells, Natural Killer T (NKT) cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) and dendritic cells (DCs) in LNs without metastasis were analyzed by flow cytometry. The high-affinity IgE receptor (FcεRI) expression of LN cells were also evaluated.

Results

The proportions of CD4⁺CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ Tregs, CD4⁺CD45RA⁻Foxp3^high effector Tregs and FcεRIα⁺CD33⁺CD11c⁺ DCs were significantly larger in SMLNs compared with UJLNs, while those of CD3⁺ T cells, CD3⁻CD56⁺ NK cells, CD3⁺Vα24⁺Vβ11⁺ NKT cells, and CD123⁺CD303⁺ DCs did not show any significant differences between SMLNs and UJLNs. The differential distributions of CD4⁺CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ Tregs were observed regardless of tumor region, LN metastasis and clinical staging. These data indicate that SMLNs may have immunosuppressive properties compared with UJLNs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3587-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical efficacy of immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Aeroallergen immunotherapy (AIT) should be considered for patients who exhibit symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR), rhinoconjunctivitis, and/or asthma after natural exposure to allergens and who also demonstrate specific immunoglobulin E antibodies against relevant allergens.

METHODS

In this paper, clinical efficacy of immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis is reviewed.

RESULT

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) is effective for seasonal and perennial AR. Sustained effectiveness requires several years of treatment. SCIT may prevent the development of allergic asthma in children with AR. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) is currently considered an alternative treatment to the subcutaneous route. The use of SLIT has been included in international guidelines for the treatment of AR with or without conjunctivitis.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with SCIT are at risk of both local and systemic adverse reactions; however, in most cases, symptoms are readily reversible if they are recognized early and treated promptly. The safety profile of SLIT is good; therefore, SLIT can be self-administered by patients in their homes. In this article, we reviewed the efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy.

Chinese Guideline on allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

The present document is based on a consensus reached by a panel of experts from Chinese Society of Allergy (CSA) and Chinese Allergic Rhinitis Collaborative Research Group (C2AR2G). Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), has increasingly been used as a treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) globally, as it has been shown to provide a long-term effect in improving nasal and ocular symptoms, reducing medication need, and improving quality of life. AIT is currently the only curative intervention that can potentially modify the immune system in individuals suffering from AR and prevent the development of new sensitization and the progression of disease from AR to asthma. Although the use of AIT is becoming more acceptable in China, to date no AR immunotherapy guideline from China is available for use by the international community. This document has thus been produced and covers the main aspects of AIT undertaken in China; including selection of patients for AIT, the allergen extracts available on the Chinese market, schedules and doses of allergen employed in different routes of AIT, assessment of effect and safety, patients' administration and follow-up, and management of adverse reactions. The Chinese guideline for AR immunotherapy will thus serve as a reference point by doctors, healthcare professionals and organizations involved in the AIT of AR in China. Moreover, this guideline will serve as a source of information for the international community on AIT treatment strategies employed in China.

Differences and similarities between sublingual immunotherapy of allergy and oral tolerance

Allergen immunotherapy is the only treatment altering the natural course of IgE-mediated allergies. Whereas the subcutaneous route for immunotherapy (SCIT) has been historically considered as a reference, we discuss herein the relative advantages of the sublingual and oral routes as alternatives to SCIT in order to elicit allergen-specific tolerance. The buccal and gut immune systems are similarly organized to favor immune tolerance to antigens/allergens, due to the presence of tolerogenic dendritic cells and macrophages promoting the differentiation of CD4⁺ regulatory T cells. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is now established as a valid treatment option, with clinical efficacy demonstrated in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (to either grass, tree, weed pollens or mite allergens) and encouraging results obtained in the management of mild/moderate allergic asthma. While still exploratory, oral immunotherapy (OIT) has shown promising results in the desensitization of patients with food allergies. We review at both biological and clinical levels the perspectives currently pursued for those two mucosal routes.

A practical guide to the sublingual immunotherapy tablet adverse event profile: implications for clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Treatment with allergy immunotherapy improves allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, but can also improve comorbidities associated with allergic rhinitis such as asthma. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a convenient and efficacious method of allergy immunotherapy. They are self-administered after the first tablet has been provided under medical supervision. Therapy may elicit local reactions or, rarely, systemic allergic reactions. The objective of this report is to inform healthcare practitioners about the safety and tolerability profile of SLIT-tablets and use this information to provide practical guidance that may inform patients regarding potential adverse reactions and how to manage them.

METHODS

Pooled analyses of safety data from completed randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 and phase 3 US and EU trials of timothy grass, short ragweed, and SQ house dust mite SLIT-tablets were conducted to characterize safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

SLIT-tablets are generally well tolerated. No life-threatening events, serious systemic allergic reactions, or events that compromised the airway have been reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) are oral site reactions, most of which begin on day 1 of treatment, recur for less than 2 weeks, and resolve after approximately 30-60 minutes. Systemic allergic reactions have been managed with conventional pharmacotherapy. Reactions treated with epinephrine are uncommon, but have been reported. Treatment of AEs, treatment discontinuation considerations, and patient FAQs regarding SLIT-tablet safety/tolerability are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

This report gives healthcare providers valuable information to educate patients regarding what to expect in terms of SLIT-tablet safety and tolerability. Practical guidance is also provided to ensure proper treatment of any adverse reactions.

Comprehensive Study of Patients' Compliance with Sublingual Immunotherapy in House Dust Mite Perennial Allergic Rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergen immunotherapy is a long-term treatment that has been associated with patient adherence issues. The aim of the study was to increase the knowledge on compliance of patients allergic to house dust mites, receiving sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was performed in 53 Spanish allergy units. We enrolled patients undergoing the SLIT treatment for house dust mites including a scheduled control visit 12 months after initiating the therapy. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of compliance using three methods. In the first step, an allergist evaluated the patients according to the results of an interview and the existing medical records. The subjects taking more than 80% of the overall prescription were defined as compliant. The remaining noncompliant patients were divided into groups taking less than 25%, 25-50%, and 50-80% of the prescribed SLIT. In the second stage, we conducted the Morisky-Green test. Finally, the noncompliant patients were asked to fill a self-report assessment form. Data were stratified into age groups. The potential factors affecting compliance were also investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, 380 subjects participated in the study. The compliance rate was 79.7%, and the treatment discontinuation rate was 22.5%, while 66.8% of patients were adherent (both compliant and continuing with the treatment). The results showed that children were the most compliant and adolescents the least compliant (86.6% and 60.9%, respectively). The main reason for noncompliance was "forgetting some doses" in 31.0% of the children, 48.0% of the adolescents, and 53.2% of the adults. Compliance was associated with the following factors: age, number of annual control visits, and reduction in symptomatic medication.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that two out of three patients with house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis adhered to the SLIT treatment. Multidisciplinary and integral solutions are needed to improve the compliance, with special attention paid to adolescents.

FUNDING

Stallergenes Greer Spain.

Adverse reactions and tolerability of high-dose sublingual allergen immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy is an effective treatment against allergic respiratory disease. Many studies have shown the safety of this type of therapy, although the factors that might affect the tolerability of high-dose sublingual immunotherapy have not been well established. The aim of this study was to determine the factors that affect the tolerability of sublingual allergen immunotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 183 subjects aged ≥5 years, diagnosed with allergic rhinitis with/without mild to moderate asthma due to sensitization to grass, olive pollen, or mites, were included in this open, retrospective, multicentric, noninterventional study. Sublingual immunotherapy was administered for at least 3 months.

RESULTS

The most frequent adverse reaction was oral pruritus (13.7% of the patients). Most of the reactions were local (84.7%) and immediate (93.5%) and occurred during the initiation phase (60.6%). All reactions were mild to moderate in severity. No serious adverse reactions were registered. When comparing factors with potential influence on the occurrence of adverse reactions, the results between the groups of subjects with and without adverse reactions showed no statistically significant differences in sex (P=0.6417), age (P=0.1801), years since the disease was first diagnosed (P=0.3800), treatment composition (P=0.6946), polysensitization (P=0.1730), or clinical diagnosis (P=0.3354). However, it was found that treatment duration had a statistically significant influence (3 months, >3 months: P=0.0442) and the presence of asthma was close to statistical significance (P=0.0847).

CONCLUSION

In our study, treatment duration is significantly associated with the occurrence of adverse reactions after the administration of high doses of sublingual allergen immunotherapy.

Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Useful Tool for the Allergist in Private Practice

This is a review of the author's experience with Sublingual Immunotherapy in a private office setting. Sublingual Immunotherapy should be considered by any allergy practitioner as a useful tool. Sublingual Immunotherapy is safe while at the same time it is effective. It enables the practitioner to treat asthmatics and young children without the concerns implicit with allergy injections.

Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic evaluation of house dust mite sublingually administered immunotherapy tablet in the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for house dust mite (HDM) allergy has an evidence of efficacy demonstrated by meta-analyses, but marked differences are reported between the various SLIT products. The standardized quality (SQ) HDM sublingual tablet containing Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farinae in a 1:1 ratio (MK-8237) is a qualitative advance for SLIT products.

AREAS COVERED

The rationale for developing the HDM tablets is discussed against the other available SLIT products, analyzing the clinical data on efficacy and safety obtained by controlled trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Following preliminary Phase I and II studies, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on 604 patients with mite-induced asthma, aged more than 14 years and treated by inhaled budesonide, was performed using one of three active doses (1, 3 or 6 SQ) or placebo. The results showed a significant mean difference between 6 SQ-HDM and placebo in the reduction in daily budesonide dose of 81 µg (p = 0.004), with relative mean and median reductions of 42 and 50% for 6 SQ-HDM and 15 and 25% for placebo, respectively. Safety was very good, with no report of anaphylactic reaction. These findings suggest a role to the HDM SLIT tablets in the treatment of patients with mite-induced asthma.

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.

Focusing the mechanism of action to dissect the different treatments of respiratory allergy

The treatment of respiratory allergy is based on several drugs with different mechanisms of action, which encompass an effect only on symptoms, limited factors of inflammation or the whole process of inflammation. Dissecting the different treatments by their mechanism of action is relevant for the management of allergic patients. Corticosteroids, administered as nasal sprays in rhinitis or by inhalation devices in asthma, and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) are the most effective treatments for respiratory allergy, achieving the control on inflammation by a number of cellular and molecular mechanisms. What distinguishes corticosteroids from AIT is the duration of clinical outcomes that ends with treatment withdrawal for the former but persists after stopping for AIT, due to its disease-modifying effect.

Development and evaluation of a sublingual tablet based on recombinant Bet v 1 in birch pollen-allergic patients

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) applied to type I respiratory allergies is commonly performed with natural allergen extracts. Herein, we developed a sublingual tablet made of pharmaceutical-grade recombinant Bet v 1.0101 (rBet v 1) and investigated its clinical safety and efficacy in birch pollen (BP)-allergic patients.

METHODS

Following expression in Escherichia coli and purification, rBet v 1 was characterized using chromatography, capillary electrophoresis, circular dichroism, mass spectrometry and crystallography. Safety and efficacy of rBet v 1 formulated as a sublingual tablet were assessed in a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted in 483 patients with BP-induced rhinoconjunctivitis.

RESULTS

In-depth characterization confirmed the intact product structure and high purity of GMP-grade rBet v 1. The crystal structure resolved at 1.2 Å documented the natural conformation of the molecule. Native or oxidized forms of rBet v 1 did not induce the production of any proinflammatory cytokine by blood dendritic cells or mononuclear cells. Bet v 1 tablets were well tolerated by patients, consistent with the known safety profile of SLIT. The average adjusted symptom scores were significantly decreased relative to placebo in patients receiving once daily for 5 months rBet v 1 tablets, with a mean difference of 17.0-17.7% relative to the group treated with placebo (P < 0.025), without any influence of the dose in the range (12.5-50 μg) tested.

CONCLUSION

Recombinant Bet v 1 has been produced as a well-characterized pharmaceutical-grade biological drug. Sublingual administration of rBet v 1 tablets is safe and efficacious in patients with BP allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in elderly patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of specific sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) against grass pollen allergens in patients >60 years of age with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and/or asthma. This study sought to assess nasal symptoms during the grass pollen season, reduce medication use, and monitor adverse reactions during immunotherapy.

METHODS

Seventy-eight 60- to 70-year-old patients with SAR and a confirmed grass pollen allergy according to skin-prick tests, nasal provocation, and measurement of serum IgE were included in the study. The patients were individually randomized to the active or placebo groups using a double-blind method. A total of 41 subjects in the SLIT group (5 grass pollen mixture) and 37 subjects in the placebo group were monitored for 3 years. The patients were required to record each use of an antiallergy medication on a diary card.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients completed 3 years (preseasonal) of SLIT, and 34 subjects finished the placebo treatment in the same time period. The total nasal symptom score decreased by 64% in the active group and 7% in the placebo group after SLIT. This difference was only significant in the active group (p < 0.05). At the end of therapy, the total medication score of the active group decreased significantly by a maximum of 51% (p < 0.05), whereas the total medication score of the placebo group had an insignificant decrease. None of the study participants had systemic adverse reactions during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

SLIT in elderly patients with a grass pollen allergy generated a significant clinical improvement in the active group compared with the placebo group for grass pollen season. This therapy was well tolerated.

Immunotherapy in all aspects

Allergen immunotherapy is a form of long-term treatment that decreases symptoms for many people with allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, conjunctivitis (eye allergy) or stinging insect allergy. In this review, we presented the important topics in immunotherapy. The important aspects of immunotherapy are considered to be "Immunologıcal responses to immunotherapy"; "The principal types of immunotherapy"; "Effectiveness"; "Indications"; "Contraindications"; "Allergen immunotherapy in children"; "Safety"; and "Anaphylactic reactions after immunotherapy". The principal types of immunotherapy are subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy. Both of them can be used in indicated cases. When using SCIT, physicians must be more careful because of reported rare fatal cases. The risks and benefits of continuing allergen immunotherapy in patients who have experienced severe systemic reactions should be carefully considered.

Safety and tolerability of sublingual immunotherapy in clinical trials and real life

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is effective in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Apart from its efficacy, safety is crucial as this treatment is usually self-administered at home. Tolerability also plays a pivotal role, as mild local reactions, although not life-threatening, may represent a risk for treatment withdrawal and can therefore negatively affect clinical outcomes. The present study addresses this issue by reviewing double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials and real-life studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of life-threatening SLIT-related reactions is negligible. SLIT-related adverse events are not always consistently reported nor uniformly classified in published studies. However, systemic reactions are rare and side effects mostly consist of mild, self-limiting local reactions. No treatment-related risk factors for adverse events have been clearly defined, as far as type of allergen, dose or schedule.

SUMMARY

SLIT provides an optimal safety profile both in children and in adults. Apart from life-threatening reactions, the lack of standardization of adverse events reporting may account for the wide variability of the prevalence of side effects in clinical trials and in real-life setting. It can lead to a possible underestimation of adverse events, concerning, in particular, local reactions. Since poor tolerability may affect adherence and cause treatment discontinuation, adopting shared strategies in order to recognize, grade and manage adverse events is mandatory.

Safety, tolerability and clinical efficacy of ultra-rush sublingual immunotherapy among patients suffering from allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Conventional immunotherapy for allergy with 3-5 years of treatment period has poor compliance. Ultra-rush sublingual immunotherapy with a shorter period of treatment can have better compliance. There are very few studies on ultra-rush sublingual immunotherapy all over the world.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To determine allergen sensitivity among allergic rhinitis patients. (2) To assess safety, tolerability and clinical efficacy of ultra-rush sublingual immunotherapy.

METHODS

The present study was conducted in Allergy clinic, KIMS Hospital & Research Centre, Bangalore, India from January 2010 to June 2011. After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval, 40 allergic rhinitis patients (according to ARIA guidelines) in the 18-60 years age group who were positive for aeroallergens in skin prick test were recruited for ultra-rush sublingual immunotherapy (20min initial phase and 4-month maintenance phase) and followed for 8 months with symptom and treatment diary.

RESULTS

Out of 40 patients, the majority, 36 (90.00%) patients were sensitive to house dust mites. Six patients had seven immediate adverse reactions and seven patients had eight delayed adverse reactions. All subsided without medication or with symptomatic oral medications. All patients tolerated ultra-rush SLIT and there was significant decrease in both symptom-score and treatment received in these patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-rush SLIT regimen has excellent safety, tolerability and clinical efficacy among allergic rhinitis patients.

5-grass pollen tablets achieve disease control in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis unresponsive to drugs: a real-life study

Background

An important subpopulation in allergic rhinitis is represented by patients with severe form of disease that is not responsive to drug treatment. It has been reported that grass pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy is effective in drug-resistant patients. In a real-life study, we evaluated the efficacy of 5-grass pollen tablets in patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis not responsive to drug therapy.

Methods

We carried out this multicenter observational study in adults and adolescents with grass-induced allergic rhinitis not responsive to drug therapy who were treated for a year with 5-grass pollen tablets. Clinical data collected before and after sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) included Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) classification of allergic rhinitis, response to therapy, and patient satisfaction.

Results

Forty-seven patients entered the study. By ARIA classification, three patients had moderate to severe intermittent allergic rhinitis, ten had mild persistent allergic rhinitis, and 34 had moderate to severe persistent allergic rhinitis. There were no cases of mild intermittent allergic rhinitis before SLIT. After SLIT, 33 patients had mild intermittent allergic rhinitis, none had moderate to severe intermittent allergic rhinitis, seven had mild persistent allergic rhinitis, and seven had moderate to severe persistent allergic rhinitis. The mean medication score decreased from 4.2±1.3 before to 2.4±2.0 after SLIT (P<0.01), representing a reduction of 42%. The response to treatment before SLIT was judged as poor by 70% of patients and very poor by 30%. Patient satisfaction was significantly increased after SLIT (P<0.01).

Conclusion

In real life, most patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis not responsive to drug treatment can achieve control of the condition with one season of treatment using 5-grass pollen tablets.

Balancing efficacy against safety in sublingual immunotherapy with inhalant allergens: what is the best approach?

Over the last 20 years, studies and clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for respiratory allergic diseases. Nevertheless, it seems to be mostly used as a second-line therapeutic option, and adherence to treatment is not always optimal. Selective literature research was done in Medline and PubMed, including guidelines, position papers and Cochrane meta-analyses concerning SLIT in adult patients. The most recent reviews confirm SLIT as viable and efficacious treatment especially for allergic rhinitis, even if the optimal dosage, duration, schedule are not clearly established for most of the products. Despite an optimal safety profile, tolerability and patient-reported outcomes concerning SLIT have received poor attention until now. Recently, new tools have been specifically developed in order to investigate these aspects. Regular assessment of tolerability profile and SLIT-related patient-reported outcomes will allow balancing efficacy with tolerability and all the other patient-related variables that may affect treatment effectiveness beyond its efficacy.

Mechanisms of tolerance induction in allergic disease: integrating current and emerging concepts

The prevalence of atopy and allergic disease continues to escalate worldwide. Defining immune mechanisms that suppress the underlying Th2-driven inflammatory process is critical for the rational design of new treatments to prevent or attenuate disease. Allergen immunotherapy has provided a useful framework for evaluating changes in the immune response that occur during the development of tolerance. Despite this, elucidating the phenotypic and functional properties of regulatory cells, has proven challenging in humans with allergic disease. This article provides an overview of our current understanding of the immune pathways that orchestrate allergen tolerance, with an emphasis on emerging concepts related to human disease. A variety of regulatory cell types, including IL-10-secreting T and B cells, play a pivotal role in suppressing allergic responses to inhaled, ingested and injected allergens. These cells may inhibit Th2 effectors directly, or else indirectly, through other cell types and mediators. Protective antibodies, including IgG4, Fc sialylated IgG, and IgA, have the capacity to modulate the response by preventing allergen binding to surface-bound IgE, or inhibiting dendritic cell maturation. Immune cell plasticity may augment suppression of Th2 cells by T regulatory cells, through mechanisms that involve T cell conversion, or else unconventional roles of classical effector cells. These actions depend upon external cues provided by the in vivo milieu. As such, specific anatomical sites may preferentially favour tolerance induction. Recent scientific advances now allow a global analysis of immune parameters that capture novel markers of tolerance induction in allergic patients. Such markers could provide new molecular targets for assessing tolerance, and for designing treatments that confer long-lasting protection in a safe and efficacious fashion.

Grading local side effects of sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: speaking the same language

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly used worldwide. Despite its safety being well ascertained, there is no universally accepted system to grade and classify its adverse events (AEs). According to the literature, it seems reasonable to classify and grade systemic side effects by using the previously published World Allergy Organization recommendations. On the other hand, local side effects are the most frequent with SLIT, sometimes leading to its discontinuation. Therefore grading of the severity of local side effects was perceived as necessary for the purpose of uniform reporting, classification, and quantification of this aspect. A World Allergy Organization Taskforce, after examining the available literature and the postmarketing surveillance data, proposed a clinically based grading of the severity of local AEs caused by SLIT. The use of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities nomenclature for AEs was also included in this context. The proposed grading system for SLIT-induced local reactions is expected to improve and harmonize surveillance and reporting of the safety of SLIT.

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

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

[Allergen-specific immunotherapy in the treatment of pollen allergy]

Since its description by Noon in 1911, desensitization or allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) has been largely given by sub cutaneous injection in the treatment of allergic diseases. It remains the only treatment for allergic diseases aimed at the etiology. The development of sublingual route as an alternative to sub cutaneous injection, and of new forms of medication, has led to large-scale clinical trials, many of them performed with allergen tablets, particularly in the field of pollen allergy. These studies have confirmed that SIT is efficient in reducing allergic respiratory symptoms. Data on long term benefits and sustained efficacy after stopping treatment have also been published. These show an impact on the natural history of allergic disease and, in particular, a reduction in the risk of asthma in desensitized rhinitic subjects and in the acquisition of new sensitivities. The basic mechanisms of immunotherapy are becoming better understood and allow us to envisage improvements in this technique in the future. The sublingual route improves the risk/benefit ratio of desensitization and reduces the risk of serious side effects. These data suggest that the indications for SIT may be extended in a large number of patients with allergic respiratory diseases.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic respiratory diseases

Allergen specific immunotherapy involves the repeated administration of allergen products in order to induce clinical and immunologic tolerance to the offending allergen. Immunotherapy is the only etiology-based treatment that has the potential for disease modification, as reflected by longterm remission following its discontinuation and possibly prevention of disease progression and onset of new allergic sensitizations. Whereas subcutaneous immunotherapy is of proven value in allergic rhinitis and asthma there is a risk of untoward side effects including rarely anaphylaxis. Recently the sublingual route has emerged as an effective and safer alternative. Whereas the efficacy of SLIT in seasonal allergy is now well-documented in adults and children, the available data for perennial allergies and asthma is less reliable and particularly lacking in children. This review evaluates the efficacy, safety and longterm benefits of SCIT and SLIT and highlights new findings regarding mechanisms, potential biomarkers and recent novel approaches for allergen immunotherapy.

Diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis due to house-dust mites in Spain

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis due to house-dust mites (HDMs) is high and increasing. Treatment guidelines and consensus statements are available, but few data exist on how these are followed in clinical practice in Spain. This study was designed to collect data on diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis due to HDMs and adherence to guidelines in Spanish specialized clinical practice.

METHODS

In this observational study, patients referred to specialists for a first consultation were collected. Diagnosis of allergic rhinitis due to HDMs was confirmed by skin-prick tests and measurement of specific immunoglobulin E levels. Variables included patient demographics, diagnosis, and treatment. Moreover, investigators answered a questionnaire on their attitudes to allergic rhinitis treatment.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-seven clinicians collected evaluable data from 519 patients (mean age, 24.8 years; SD, 11.9 years; 54% women) with confirmed allergic rhinitis (86.2% with moderate or severe disease and 70.5% with persistent disease; 40% with concomitant asthma) caused by Dermatophagoides. In 85.6% of patients, symptoms had not improved since diagnosis and good disease control was only being achieved in 43.4%. At the study visit, pharmacologic treatment was prescribed in 98.3% and allergen immunotherapy was prescribed in 52.2% of patients.

CONCLUSION

When patients with HDM-induced allergic rhinitis are referred to an allergy specialist in Spain, they have moderate-to-severe persistent disease and are generally not achieving good control with symptomatic treatment. Allergen immunotherapy is prescribed in approximately one-half of patients. In this representative sample of Spanish allergy specialists, the level of adherence to clinical guidelines in these patients is encouraging.

Requirements for acquiring a high-quality house dust mite extract for allergen immunotherapy

The house dust mite is a major cause of respiratory allergy worldwide. The management of mite allergy is based on avoidance measures, drug treatment, and allergen immunotherapy, but only allergen immunotherapy is able to modify the natural history of the disease. Injectable subcutaneous immunotherapy was introduced a century ago, while sublingual immunotherapy was proposed in the 1980s and emerged in the ensuing years as an effective and safe option to subcutaneous immunotherapy. However, the quality of the extracts to be used in allergen immunotherapy is crucial for the success of treatment. The mite extract for sublingual immunotherapy known as Staloral 300 was developed to offer optimal characteristics concerning the mite culture medium, standardization, and allergen dose. Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with Staloral 300 have provided a substantial part of the clinical evidence analyzed in a meta-analysis of the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy in mite-induced rhinitis and asthma. Safety and tolerability are very good, mild local reactions in the mouth being the most common side effect. This makes it feasible to carry out sublingual immunotherapy for the 3–5-year duration needed to achieve long-lasting tolerance to the specific allergen. The performance of Staloral 300 may provide optimal conditions for an effective and safe sublingual immunotherapy in patients with mite-induced respiratory allergy.

Specific immunotherapy in children: the evidence

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only treatment able to not only act on the symptoms of allergy but also act on the causes. At present, SIT may be administered in two forms: subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). SCIT represents the standard modality of treatment while SLIT has recently been introduced into clinical practice and today represents an accepted alternative to SCIT. The main advantages of SIT that are lacking with drug treatment are long-lasting clinical effects and alteration of the natural course of the disease. This prevents the new onset of asthma in patients with allergic rhinitis and the onset of new sensitizations. The mechanism of action of both routes is similar; they modify peripheral and mucosal Th2-responses into a prevalent Th1-polarization with subsequent reduction of the allergic inflammatory reaction. Both have long-term effects for years after they have been discontinued, although for SLIT these evidences are insufficient. To date several guidelines have defined indications, controindications, side-effects, and clinical aspect for SCIT and SLIT. New forms of immunotherapy, allergen products and approaches to food allergy and atopic eczema represents the future of SIT.

Sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis

Current treatment options for allergic rhinitis (AR) include allergen avoidance and environmental control, pharmacotherapy, nasal surgery and immunotherapy. Among these, immunotherapy is the only therapeutic option that modifies fundamental immunologic mechanism by inducing desensitization. Specific allergen immunotherapy has been used for 1 century since 1911 and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been demonstrated to be effective in asthma and AR. However, SCIT has several disadvantages such as inconvenience, invasiveness and potentially severe systemic reactions. Thus, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has recently received much attention around the world as a treatment for AR and is now widely used to replace the subcutaneous route. SLIT has recently been introduced in Korea and is now available for AR treatment in the Asia-Pacific region. This review offers better understanding of SLIT for AR by summarizing published articles and our previous works regarding proposed mechanisms, indication and efficacy, safety and adverse events, and compliance.

Increasing long-term safety of seasonal grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy: the ECRIT study

OBJECTIVE

The usual build-up phase of days or weeks in allergen-specific immunotherapy entails inconveniences for individuals with symptoms only during the pollen season. Additionally, affected individuals often appear for treatment shortly before the expected start of the season without enough time for titration. This double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the safety of ultra-rush grass pollen immunotherapy with sublingual drops (Staloral)® in co-seasonal treatment over three consecutive seasons.

METHODS

209 patients with grass pollen allergic rhinitis received ultra-rush titration (30, 90, 150 and 300 index of reactivity (IR)) of a five grass pollen mixture or placebo every 20 min at the start of the season, followed by 300 IR daily or placebo until the end of the respective season for three consecutive years. Adverse events were documented.

RESULTS

Mean treatment duration varied between seasons (81.8 - 92.7 days). No systemic or anaphylactic reactions were reported and no unexpected adverse events were observed. Adverse events included application site irritation, oedema, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Fourteen patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events (placebo: four (6%) patients, verum: ten (7%) patients). Adverse events decreased in frequency over each consecutive year of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Seasonal sublingual immunotherapy with ultra-rush titration is well tolerated even when administered as co-seasonal treatment. It may be a valuable option for patients who present late.

Evaluation of therapeutic sublingual vaccines in a murine model of chronic house dust mite allergic airway inflammation

BACKGROUND

Second generation therapeutic vaccines based upon recombinant allergens or natural extracts, potentially formulated in vector systems or adjuvants, are being developed. To this aim, preclinical studies in relevant animal models are needed to select proper allergens, formulations and administration schemes.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a chronic house dust mite (HDM) allergy model to evaluate sublingual therapeutic vaccine candidates.

METHODS

The BABL/c mice that were used were sensitized with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Dpte) and Dermatophagoides farinae (Dfar) mite extracts by intraperitoneal injections followed by aerosol exposures. Animals subsequently underwent sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with either Dpte, Dfar or Dpte/Dfar extracts, twice a week for 8 weeks. SLIT efficacy was assessed by whole body plethysmography, lung histology and broncho-alveolar lavages cell counts. Specific T cell and antibody responses to major and minor HDM allergens were monitored in tissues and serum/saliva, respectively.

RESULTS

Mice sensitized to Dpte and Dfar allergens exhibited strong airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) and lung inflammatory infiltrates including eosinophils. Sensitized animals mounted Th2-biased cellular and humoral responses specific for group 1 and 2 major allergens, as well as group 5, 7 and 10 minor allergens. This phenotype was sustained for at least 2 months, allowing the evaluation of immunotherapeutic protocols with HDM extracts-based vaccines. In this model, SLIT decreased AHR and Th2 responses and induced HDM-specific IgAs in saliva. The Dpte/Dfar mix proved the most efficacious when compared to Dpte or Dfar extracts alone.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The efficacy of a sublingual vaccine based on a Dpte/Dfar allergen extract mix was demonstrated in a well standardized murine model of chronic allergic airway inflammation based on clinically relevant mite allergens. The latter will be used as a benchmark for evaluation of future vaccines, including recombinant allergens. This HDM allergic airway inflammation animal model is a useful tool to design and select candidate vaccines to be tested in humans.

One century of allergen-specific immunotherapy for respiratory allergy

Among the treatments available for respiratory allergy, which include allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only treatment able to not only act on the symptoms of allergy but also act on the causes. SIT is the practice of administering gradually increasing doses of the specific causative allergen to reduce the clinical reactivity of allergic subjects and was introduced one century ago. SIT remained an empirical treatment for more than 40 years, but the first controlled trial in 1954 paved the way for the scientific era. At present, SIT may be administered in two forms: subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). A large number of trials, globally analyzed in several meta-analyses, evaluated the efficacy and safety of SCIT and SLIT in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Current available data give solid evidence to the clinical efficacy of both SCIT and SLIT in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Providing the recommended doses and administration schedules are adhered to, the safety and tolerability are very good; however, adverse systemic reactions remain a drawback for SCIT. After one century of use, accumulating evidence surrounds SIT and the central role in the management of respiratory allergy.

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic respiratory diseases: efficacy and safety

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is effective and safe when properly prescribed and administered. However, a certain risk of severe side effects exists, even when the reaction is managed correctly. These potential adverse effects stimulated the search for new administration routes (nasal, bronchial, oral, sublingual), which were expected to be safer. Not all of these alternative routes provided an improved benefit-safety profile compared with SCIT. The sublingual route (SLIT) seemed to be a good candidate for the clinical practice because of its satisfactory safety profile and is now considered an acceptable alternative to SCIT in adults and children.

Sublingual immunotherapy in allergic asthma: Current evidence and needs to meet

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is aimed at modifying the natural history of allergy by inducing tolerance to the causative allergen. In its traditional, subcutaneous form, immunotherapy has complete evidence of efficacy in allergic asthma. However, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has a major flaw in side effects, and especially in possible anaphylactic reactions, and this prompted the search for safer ways of administration of allergen extracts. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has met such need while maintaining a clinical efficacy comparable to SCIT. In fact, the safety profile, as outlined by a systematic revision of the available literature, was substantially free from serious systemic reactions. A number of meta-analyses clearly showed that SLIT is effective in allergic rhinitis by significantly reducing the clinical symptoms and the use of anti-allergic drugs, while the efficacy in allergic asthma is still debated, with some meta-analyses showing clear effectiveness but other giving contrasting results. Besides the efficacy on symptoms, the preventive activity and the cost-effectiveness are important outcomes of SLIT in asthma. The needs to meet include more data on efficacy in house dust mite asthma, optimal techniques of administration and, as previously done with SCIT, introduction of adjuvants able to enhance the immunologic response and use of recombinant allergens.

Polysensitization as a challenge for the allergist: the suggestions provided by the Polysensitization Impact on Allergen Immunotherapy studies

INTRODUCTION

Polysensitization, that is, sensitization to more than one allergen family, is a common feature of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and significantly impairs their quality of life (QoL). Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment for AR. However, the polysensitization phenomenon may represent a crucial obstacle as far as it concerns the choice of the allergen extract to be used for immunotherapy.

AREAS COVERED

A series of real-life based multi-center studies, named POLISMAIL (Polysensitization Impact on Allergen Immunotherapy), have been designed with the aim of evaluating the behavior of allergists in managing polysensitized AR patients. The effect of immunotherapy treatment in these patients was also evaluated. A single allergen extract was used in two-thirds of patients, whereas a mix of two allergens was chosen in the remaining. The severity grade of AR and the QoL were significantly improved by immunotherapy. Both outcomes confirmed that immunotherapy with one or two allergen extracts achieves a significant improvement in polysensitized patients.

EXPERT OPINION

In conclusion, POLISMAIL studies demonstrate that polysensitization should not represent a counter-indication for prescribing immunotherapy. The choice of limiting sublingual immunotherapy to one to two allergen extracts, preferably separated and at high dosages, is sufficient and effective in improving symptoms and QoL.

The current role of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children

Allergic rhinitis is a very common disease affecting about 20% of people. It may be treated by allergen avoidance when possible, by antiallergic drugs such as antihistamines and topical corticosteroids, and by allergen-specific immunotherapy. The latter is the only treatment able to act on the causes and not only on the symptoms of respiratory allergy and is able to maintain its efficacy even after stopping, provided an adequate duration of treatment of 3-5 years is ensured. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced in the 1990s as a possible solution to the problem of adverse systemic reactions to subcutaneous immunotherapy and has been demonstrated by more than 50 trials and globally evaluated thus far by five meta-analyses as an effective and safe treatment for allergic rhinitis. Life-threatening reactions are extremely rare. However, it is important to note that clinical efficacy occurs only if SLIT meets its needs, ie, sufficiently high doses are regularly administered for at least 3 consecutive years. This is often overlooked in the current practice and may prevent the same success reported by trials from being achieved.

House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy: results of a US trial

BACKGROUND

Few trials of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the United States have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, placebo-controlled feasibility SLIT study compared the safety and physiologic effects of high- versus low-dose Dermatophagoides farinae vaccine.

METHODS

Thirty-one D farinae-sensitive adults with allergic rhinitis with or without mild intermittent asthma were eligible for randomization to high-dose maintenance vaccine (n = 10, 4200 allergen units [approximately 70 μg of Der f 1/d]), low-dose maintenance vaccine (n = 10; 60 allergen units [approximately 1 μg of Der f 1/d]), or placebo (n = 11) over 12 to 18 months. Medication-symptom scores and adverse events were monitored, serum D farinae-specific IgE and IgG4 levels were measured, and bronchial reactivity to D farinae was determined at baseline and 6-month intervals.

RESULTS

Of the 31 randomized subjects, 6 withdrew because of non-treatment-ascribed events. Four withdrew because of treatment-ascribed effects: high-dose group, 1 of 10 (gastrointestinal symptoms); low-dose group, 1 of 10 (gastrointestinal symptoms); and placebo group, 2 of 11 (headache and increased nasal symptoms). Thus 21 subjects completed the study: high-dose group, 9; low-dose group, 7; and placebo group, 5. Eleven of the 21 subjects experienced mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal symptoms, throat irritation, or both (high-dose group, 5/9; low-dose group, 4/7; and placebo group, 2/5). No severe systemic reactions were noted. No differences in symptom-medication scores were found. High-dose SLIT increased the bronchial threshold to allergen challenge and increased serum D farinae-specific IgG4 levels, whereas low-dose SLIT and placebo had no significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose D farinae SLIT was generally tolerable, increased serum D farinae-specific IgG4 levels, and improved the bronchial threshold to allergen challenge. Larger US trials are warranted.

Update in the mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotheraphy

Allergic diseases represent a complex innate and adoptive immune response to natural environmental allergens with Th2-type T cells and allergen-specific IgE predominance. Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the most effective therapeutic approach for disregulated immune response towards allergens by enhancing immune tolerance mechanisms. The main aim of immunotherapy is the generation of allergen nonresponsive or tolerant T cells in sensitized patients and downregulation of predominant T cell- and IgE-mediated immune responses. During allergen-specific immunotherapy, T regulatory cells are generated, which secrete IL-10 and induce allergen-specific B cells for the production of IgG4 antibodies. These mechanisms induce tolerance to antigens that reduces allergic symptoms. Although current knowledge highlights the role of T regulatory cell-mediated immunetolerance, definite mechanisms that lead to a successful clinical outcomes of allergen-specific immunotherapy still remains an open area of research.