A double-blind, multicenter immunotherapy trial in children, using a purified and standardized Cladosporium herbarum preparation. I. Clinical results

Immunotherapy against environmental fungi causing respiratory allergy

Allergic respiratory diseases (ARDs) have been one of the major global health problems of the 21st century with an increasing prevalence. A significant proportion of aerobiological particles in the environment is constituted by fungal structures, including those from Alternaria, Cladosporium, Penicillium, and Aspergillus species which are regarded as the four most common fungal genera associated with allergic fungal airway diseases (AFADs). Allergen specific immunotherapy (AIT) has capacity to promote protection as well as long-term tolerance to the allergen, however there have not been adequate number of studies evaluating the efficacy of against AFADs, up till today. Our review would like to draw more attention to the field by summarizing the current literature regarding the clinical use of the immunotherapy, with special focus on Alternaria, and Cladosporium AITs. The area is considered to be vital to public health due to the potential increase in global AFAD cases because of ongoing air pollution and climate impacts. The review also aims to sum up immunological findings associated with mould-AIT which would help further studies to be performed in order to develop an objective method to identify non-responders early in the course of therapy.

[Medical clinical diagnostics for indoor mould exposure - Update 2023 (AWMF Register No. 161/001)]

This article is an abridged version of the updated AWMF mould guideline "Medical clinical diagnostics in case of indoor mould exposure - Update 2023", presented in July 2023 by the German Society of Hygiene, Environmental Medicine and Preventive Medicine (Gesellschaft für Hygiene, Umweltmedizin und Präventivmedizin, GHUP), in collaboration with German and Austrian scientific medical societies, and experts. Indoor mould growth is a potential health risk, even if a quantitative and/or causal relationship between the occurrence of individual mould species and health problems has yet to be established. There is no evidence for a causal relationship between moisture/mould damage and human diseases, mainly because of the ubiquitous presence of fungi and hitherto inadequate diagnostic methods. Sufficient evidence for an association between moisture/mould damage and the following health effects has been established for: allergic respiratory diseases, allergic rhinitis, allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA), other allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis (ABPM), aspergilloma, Aspergillus bronchitis, asthma (manifestation, progression, exacerbation), bronchitis (acute, chronic), community-acquired Aspergillus pneumonia, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP; extrinsic allergic alveolitis (EEA)), invasive Aspergillosis, mycoses, organic dust toxic syndrome (ODTS) [workplace exposure], promotion of respiratory infections, pulmonary aspergillosis (subacute, chronic), and rhinosinusitis (acute, chronically invasive, or granulomatous, allergic). In this context the sensitizing potential of moulds is obviously low compared to other environmental allergens. Recent studies show a comparatively low sensitization prevalence of 3-22,5 % in the general population across Europe. Limited or suspected evidence for an association exist with respect to atopic eczema (atopic dermatitis, neurodermatitis; manifestation), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), mood disorders, mucous membrane irritation (MMI), odor effects, and sarcoidosis. (iv) Inadequate or insufficient evidence for an association exist for acute idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage in infants, airborne transmitted mycotoxicosis, arthritis, autoimmune diseases, cancer, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), endocrinopathies, gastrointestinal effects, multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), multiple sclerosis, neuropsychological effects, neurotoxic effects, renal effects, reproductive disorders, rheumatism, sick building syndrome (SBS), sudden infant death syndrome, teratogenicity, thyroid diseases, and urticaria.The risk of infection posed by moulds regularly occurring indoors is low for healthy persons; most species are in risk group 1 and a few in risk group 2 (Aspergillus fumigatus, A. flavus) of the German Biological Agents Act (Biostoffverordnung). Only moulds that are potentially able to form toxins can be triggers of toxic reactions. Whether or not toxin formation occurs in individual cases is determined by environmental and growth conditions, water activity, temperature and above all the growth substrates.In case of indoor moisture/mould damage, everyone can be affected by odor effects and/or mood disorders.However, this is not an acute health hazard. Predisposing factors for odor effects can include genetic and hormonal influences, imprinting, context and adaptation effects. Predisposing factors for mood disorders may include environmental concerns, anxiety, condition, and attribution, as well as various diseases. Risk groups to be protected particularly regarding infection risk are immunocompromised persons according to the classification of the German Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention, KRINKO) at the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), persons suffering from severe influenza, persons suffering from severe COVID-19, and persons with cystic fibrosis (mucoviscidosis); with regard to allergic risk, persons with cystic fibrosis (mucoviscidosis) and patients with bronchial asthma must be protected. The rational diagnostics include the medical history, physical examination, and conventional allergy diagnostics including provocation tests if necessary; sometimes cellular test systems are indicated. In the case of mould infections, the reader is referred to the specific guidelines. Regarding mycotoxins, there are currently no useful and validated test procedures for clinical diagnostics. From a preventive medical point of view, it is important that indoor mould infestation in relevant magnitudes cannot be tolerated for precautionary reasons.For evaluation of mould damage in the indoor environment and appropriate remedial procedures, the reader is referred to the mould guideline issued by the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA).

[Allergen immunotherapy for rare allergens]

Among allergies to aeroallergens, approximately 20% are allotted to the so-called rare allergens. These include ash pollen, weed pollen, storage mites, molds, and animal allergens. The prevalences of allergies to these allergens are lower, but affected patients also suffer considerably from their "rare" allergy. Hence, these allergies should neither be overseen nor completely forgotten in daily practice. Especially mold, mite, and animal allergens often induce asthma, so that the significance of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) should not be neglected in causal therapy. This work summarizes the current state of knowledge on the groups of rare aeroallergens in terms of characteristics, prevalences, and data on AIT. It is based on a systematic literature search performed in the MEDLINE (PubMed®) and Google Scholar databases. AIT preparations for rare allergens are classified as individual formulations and are not subject to the German Therapy Allergen Ordinance. Due to the low case numbers, the levels of evidence for these formulations are not as high as those for dust mites, grass, or birch pollen, but exhibit good efficacy in practical experience.

Allergy immunotherapy for allergic fungal respiratory diseases

Background: Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) with fungal extracts is not as straight forward as that with other inhalants. The complexities relate to the number of airborne fungal spores, the limited data on the exposure to the spores of individual species of fungi and their clinical importance, the poor quality of the fungal allergen extracts that are available for the diagnosis and treatment, and the lack of controlled studies establishing dosing and efficacy of AIT with fungal extracts except for Alternaria. Objective: The objective was to review what is known with regard to the role of fungi in causing allergic respiratory diseases as well as the evidence that exists for the role of AIT as a treatment for these conditions. Methods: A search was conducted of PubMed, textbooks, known articles on immunotherapy with fungal extracts, and references derived from these primary sources. Results: Nine immunotherapy studies that used Alternaria or its major allergen Alt a 1 and two studies that used Cladosporium herbarum were identified. When a good quality extract was administered in adequate doses, immunotherapy with Alternaria was as effective as that with other inhalant allergens. There was a suggestion of efficacy with a specially prepared Cladosporium extract, but systemic reactions were common and limited the tolerated dose. The use of immunotherapy as an adjunct treatment for allergic fungal sinusitis is briefly reviewed, but controlled trials are lacking. Conclusion: Fungal immunotherapy should largely be limited to Alternaria alternata and perhaps C. herbarum. Under conditions of demonstrated exposure to a particular species of fungus and with symptoms that correlate with that exposure as well as availability of an apparently potent extract of that fungus to which the patient is sensitive that fungus may be considered for immunotherapy. Fungal (mold) mixes should not be used for diagnosis or therapy.

Going over Fungal Allergy: Alternaria alternata and Its Allergens

Fungal allergy is the third most frequent cause of respiratory pathologies and the most related to a poor prognosis of asthma. The genera Alternaria and Cladosporium are the most frequently associated with allergic respiratory diseases, with Alternaria being the one with the highest prevalence of sensitization. Alternaria alternata is an outdoor fungus whose spores disseminate in warm and dry air, reaching peak levels in temperate summers. Alternaria can also be found in damp and insufficiently ventilated houses, causing what is known as sick building syndrome. Thus, exposure to fungal allergens can occur outdoors and indoors. However, not only spores but also fungal fragments contain detectable amounts of allergens and may function as aeroallergenic sources. Allergenic extracts of Alternaria hyphae and spores are still in use for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases but are variable and insufficiently standardised, as they are often a random mixture of allergenic ingredients and casual impurities. Thus, diagnosis of fungal allergy has been difficult, and knowledge about new fungal allergens is stuck. The number of allergens described in Fungi remains almost constant while new allergens are being found in the Plantae and Animalia kingdoms. Given Alt a 1 is not the unique Alternaria allergen eliciting allergy symptoms, component-resolved diagnosis strategies should be applied to diagnose fungal allergy. To date, twelve A. alternata allergens are accepted in the WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Subcommittee, many of them are enzymes: Alt a 4 (disulfide isomerase), Alt a 6 (enolase), Alt a 8 (mannitol de-hydrogenase), Alt a 10 (aldehyde dehydrogenase), Alt a 13 (glutathione-S-transferase) and Alt a MnSOD (Mn superoxide dismutase), and others have structural and regulatory functions such as Alt a 5 and Alt a 12, Alt a 3, Alt a 7. The function of Alt a 1 and Alt a 9 remains unknown. Other four allergens are included in other medical databases (e.g., Allergome): Alt a NTF2, Alt a TCTP, and Alt a 70 kDa. Despite Alt a 1 being the A. alternata major allergen, other allergens, such as enolase, Alt a 6 or MnSOD, Alt a 14 have been suggested to be included in the diagnosis panel of fungal allergy.

Bacterial Mucosal Immunotherapy with MV130 Prevents Recurrent Wheezing in Children: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial

Rationale: Recurrent wheezing in children represents a severe public health concern. Wheezing attacks (WA), mainly associated with viral infections, lack effective preventive therapies. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of mucosal sublingual immunotherapy based on whole inactivated bacteria (MV130) in preventing WA in children. Methods: A Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial including a cohort of 120 children <3 years old with ⩾3 WA during the previous year was conducted. Children with a positive skin test to common aeroallergens in the area where the clinical trial was performed were excluded from the trial. Subjects received MV130 or placebo daily for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the number of WA within 1 year after the first dose comparing MV130 and placebo. Measurements and Main Results: There was a significant lower number of WA in MV130 versus the placebo group, 3.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-4.0) versus 5.0 (IQR, 3.0-7.0) (P < 0.001). As secondary outcomes, a decrease in the duration of WA and a reduction in symptoms and medication scores in the MV130 versus placebo group were found. No adverse events were reported related to the active treatment. Conclusions: Mucosal bacterial immunotherapy with MV130 shows safety and clinical efficacy against recurrent WA in children.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01734811).

2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group

The 2020 Focused Updates to the Asthma Management Guidelines: A Report from the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Coordinating Committee Expert Panel Working Group was coordinated and supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health. It is designed to improve patient care and support informed decision making about asthma management in the clinical setting. This update addresses six priority topic areas as determined by the state of the science at the time of a needs assessment, and input from multiple stakeholders:A rigorous process was undertaken to develop these evidence-based guidelines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Evidence-Based Practice Centers conducted systematic reviews on these topics, which were used by the Expert Panel Working Group as a basis for developing recommendations and guidance. The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation), an internationally accepted framework, in consultation with an experienced methodology team for determining the certainty of evidence and the direction and strength of recommendations based on the evidence. Practical implementation guidance for each recommendation incorporates findings from NHLBI-led patient, caregiver, and clinician focus groups. To assist clincians in implementing these recommendations into patient care, the new recommendations have been integrated into the existing Expert Panel Report-3 (EPR-3) asthma management step diagram format.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient's profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient's adherence to the treatment. This user's guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.

ICON: Diagnosis and management of allergic conjunctivitis

Ocular allergy (OA), interchangeably known as allergic conjunctivitis, is a common immunological hypersensitivity disorder affecting up to 40% of the population. Ocular allergy has been increasing in frequency, with symptoms of itching, redness, and swelling that significantly impacts an individual's quality of life (QOL). Ocular allergy is an often underdiagnosed and undertreated health problem, because only 10% of patients with OA symptoms seek medical attention, whereas most patients manage with over-the-counter medications and complementary nonpharmacological remedies. The clinical course, duration, severity, and co-morbidities are varied and depend, in part, on the specific ocular tissues that are affected and on immunologic mechanism(s) involved, both local and systemic. It is frequently associated with allergic rhinitis (commonly recognized as allergic rhino conjunctivitis), and with other allergic comorbidities. The predominance of self-management increases the risk of suboptimal therapy that leads to recurrent exacerbations and the potential for development of more chronic conditions that can lead to corneal complications and interference with the visual axis. Multiple, often co-existing causes are seen, and a broad differential diagnosis for OA, increasing the difficulty of arriving at the correct diagnosis(es). Ocular allergy commonly overlaps with other anterior ocular disease disorders, including infectious disorders and dry eye syndromes. Therefore, successful management includes overcoming the challenges of underdiagnosis and even misdiagnosis by a better understanding of the subtleties of an in-depth patient history, ophthalmologic examination techniques, and diagnostic procedures, which are of paramount importance in making an accurate diagnosis of OA. Appropriate cross-referral between specialists (allergists and eyecare specialists) would maximize patient care and outcomes. This would significantly improve OA management and overcome the unmet needs in global health.

Human IgE mAbs define variability in commercial Aspergillus extract allergen composition

Sensitization to Aspergillus species is associated with allergic respiratory diseases. Allergen immunotherapy with nonstandardized Aspergillus extracts is commonly used as therapy in these patients. Unfortunately, no method exists to measure the relevant allergen protein content in diagnostic and therapeutic extracts. Thus, there is a critical need for Aspergillus extract standardization. We hypothesized that development of Aspergillus-specific human IgE mAbs would allow for the characterization of the relevant human allergenic epitopes among currently available commercial Aspergillus fumigatus extracts. Patients with allergic bronchopulmonary mycosis were recruited from Vanderbilt University Medical Center. IgE antibody-secreting B cells were grown and immortalized using human hybridoma techniques first described here. Twenty-six human Aspergillus-reactive IgE mAbs were used as capture and detection reagents to characterize the Aspergillus allergen content of commercial extracts. We found extreme variability in the specificity and quantity of their protein targets. Just 4 mAbs reacted with all available extracts, and only 1 of 4 extracts contained the major allergen Asp f 1. This degree of variability will almost certainly affect the efficacy of these reagents when used in diagnosis and treatment. Human IgE mAbs represent an innovative tool for the evaluation of relevant human allergenic epitopes, which may assist in future development and long-term standardization of mold extracts.

Efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy in patients with allergy to molds: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) with mould extracts has been performed for many years but the final demonstration of its clinical efficacy is still missing, due to the small number of studies and their inconsistent results.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review efficacy and safety of AIT for the treatment of respiratory allergies to moulds.

DESIGN

The primary outcomes were safety and reduction of symptoms (Symptom Score, SS) and medication use (Medication Score, MS) in patients treated with AIT compared to controls. The strength of the evidence was graded based on the risk of bias, consistency and magnitude of effect, according to the GRADE Working Group's guide.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (through September 2017) supplemented with manual searches of reference lists.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized studies of intervention comparing AIT to placebo/pharmacotherapy. Studies not reporting on our outcome of interest or without a control population were excluded.

RESULTS

Nine studies (168 children, 99 adults; median sample size, 27) met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was moderate-to-high in all but one study. Low strength evidence supports the assumption that AIT is effective in reducing symptoms and medication use, with only four of nine studies reporting higher benefit of AIT vs. comparators. The highest benefit of AIT compared to pharmacotherapy/placebo was reported in studies with a longer follow-up (SMD for MS from -3.96 to -3.97 in favour of AIT) and low risk of bias (VAS for SS: 66.3 ± 13 in AIT group; 186.6 ± 39 in comparators; P < 0.05). No difference was reported with respect to study sample size, route of administration, age of participants. Generalised adverse reactions were reported in 12.5% of participants treated with sublingual immunotherapy, and 37.2% of participants treated with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Low strength evidence suggests that mould AIT is efficacious for the treatment of respiratory allergies. High-quality studies with an adequate sample size are needed.

Applicability of evidence from previous systematic reviews on immunotherapy in current practice of childhood asthma treatment: a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Because most children with asthma now use inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), the added benefit of immunotherapy in asthmatic children needs to be examined. We re-assessed the effectiveness of subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in childhood asthma treatment focusing on studies with patient-relevant outcome measures and children using ICS.

METHODS

We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to systematically search and appraise the evidence using predefined critical patient-relevant outcomes (asthma symptoms, asthma control and exacerbations). We searched to retrieve systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on immunotherapy for asthma in children (1960-2017). We assessed the quality of the body of evidence with GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

The quality of the evidence for SCIT was very low due to a large risk of bias and indirectness (dated studies in children not using ICS). No effect of SCIT was found for asthma symptoms; no studies reported on asthma control. For asthma exacerbations, studies favoured SCIT. We have little confidence in this effect estimate, due to the very low quality of evidence. For SLIT, quality of the evidence was very low due to a large risk of bias, indirectness and imprecision. The outcome 'asthma symptoms' could not be calculated due to lack of standardisation and large clinical heterogeneity. Other predefined outcomes were not reported.

CONCLUSION

The beneficial effects of immunotherapy in childhood asthma found in earlier reviews are no longer considered applicable, because of indirectness (studies performed in children not being treated according to current asthma guidelines with ICS). There was absence of evidence to properly determine the effectiveness or lack thereof of immunotherapy in asthma treatment in children with ICS.

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

BACKGROUND

To inform the development of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic asthma, we assessed the evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review, which involved searching nine databases. Studies were screened against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

98 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Short-term symptom scores were reduced with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.11 (95% CI -1.66, -0.56). This was robust to a prespecified sensitivity analyses, but there was evidence suggestive of publication bias. Short-term medication scores were reduced SMD -1.21 (95% CI -1.87, -0.54), again with evidence of potential publication bias. There was no reduction in short-term combined medication and symptom scores SMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.23, 0.58), but one study showed a beneficial long-term effect. For secondary outcomes, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) improved quality of life and decreased allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity (AHR), but this was not the case for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). There were no consistent effects on asthma control, exacerbations, lung function, and nonspecific AHR. AIT resulted in a modest increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Although relatively uncommon, systemic AEs were more frequent with SCIT; however no fatalities were reported. The limited evidence on cost-effectiveness was mainly available for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and this suggested that SLIT is likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT can achieve substantial reductions in short-term symptom and medication scores in allergic asthma. It was however associated with a modest increased risk of systemic and local AEs. More data are needed in relation to secondary outcomes, longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Immunotherapy of mold allergy: A review

Mold allergies are common, mainly target the respiratory tract and present as allergic rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma. Molds include a large group of different allergens that induce all types of allergic reactions. Allergen specific immunotherapies (AITs) to molds are common; however, at the present time, they are limited to Alternaria. This review presents not only the benefits but also the problems with such types of AIT based on the literature and our experience.

Orphan immunotherapies for allergic diseases

OBJECTIVE

As confirmed by systematic reviews and meta-analyses, allergen immunotherapy is clinically effective in the treatment of allergic diseases. In particular, subcutaneous immunotherapy is a pivotal treatment in patients with severe reactions to Hymenoptera venom, whereas subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy are indicated in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma by inhalant allergens. Other allergies related to animal dander (other than cat, which is the most studied), such as dog, molds, occupational allergens, and insects, have also been recognized. For these allergens, immunotherapy is poorly studied and often unavailable. Thus, use of the term orphan immunotherapies is appropriate.

DATA SOURCES

We used MEDLINE to search the medical literature for English-language articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled, masked studies for orphan immunotherapies were selected. In the remaining cases, the available reports were described.

RESULTS

The literature on food desensitization is abundant, but for other orphan allergens, such as mosquito, Argas reflexus, dog, or occupational allergens, there are only a few studies, and most are small studies or case reports.

CONCLUSION

Orphan immunotherapy is associated with insufficient evidence of efficacy from controlled trials, an erroneous belief of the limited importance of some allergen sources, and the unlikelihood for producers to have a profit in making commercially available extracts (with an expensive process for registration) to be used in few patients. It should be taken into consideration that adequate preparations should be available also for orphan allergens.

Clinical Evaluation and Management of Patients with Suspected Fungus Sensitivity

Fungus-sensitized patients usually present with symptoms that are similar to symptoms presented by those who are sensitized to other aeroallergens. Therefore, diagnosis and management should follow the same pathways used for patients with allergic conditions in general. The physician should consider that a relationship between fungal exposure and symptoms is not necessarily caused by an IgE-mediated mechanism, even when specific fungal IgE is detected. Until recently, IgE-mediated allergy has been documented only for a limited number of fungi. We propose a series of questions to be used to identify symptoms that occur in situations with high fungal exposure and a limited skin-prick-test panel (Alternaria, Cladosporium, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Candida) that can be amplified only in cases of high suspicion of other fungal exposure (eg, postfloods). We also review in vitro testing for fungi-specific IgE. Treatment includes environmental control, medical management, and, when appropriate, specific immunotherapy. Low-quality evidence exists supporting the use of subcutaneous immunotherapy for Alternaria to treat allergic rhinitis and asthma, and very low quality evidence supports the use of subcutaneous immunotherapy for Cladosporium and sublingual immunotherapy for Alternaria. As is the case for many allergens, evidence for immunotherapy with other fungal extracts is lacking. The so-called toxic mold syndrome is also briefly discussed.

Immunotherapy for mold allergy

The objective of this article is to review the available studies regarding mold immunotherapy. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE to identify peer-reviewed articles related to mold immunotherapy using the following keywords: mold, allergy, asthma, and immunotherapy. In addition, references cited within these articles were also reviewed. Articles were selected based on their relevance to the topic. Allergic responses to inhaled mold antigens are a recognized factor in allergic rhinitis and asthma. There are significant problems with respect to the production of relevant allergen material for the diagnosis and treatment of mold allergy with immunotherapy. Mold allergens contain proteases and should not be mixed with other allergens for immunotherapy. Most of the immunotherapy studies focus on two molds, Alternaria and Cladosporium. There is a lack of randomized placebo-controlled trials when evaluating the efficacy of mold immunotherapy with trials only focusing on immunotherapy to Alternaria and Cladosporium. Additional studies are needed regarding mold allergy and immunotherapy focusing on which molds are important for causing allergic disease.

Specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinitis is a highly prevalent inflammatory disease affecting 20-40% of the children worldwide. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis. This article reviews the recent advances in SIT for children.

RECENT FINDINGS

In current clinical practice, immunotherapy is delivered as either subcutaneous immunotherapy or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Most meta-analyses and reviews concluded a trend that subcutaneous immunotherapy was better than SLIT in reducing symptoms of allergic rhinitis and rescue medication use, however, SLIT has a better safety profile than subcutaneous immunotherapy. Additionally, the absence of pain on administration of therapy is a character of SLIT, which is well suited for children. T regulatory cells, especially Tr1 cells that secrete interleukin-10 and induce production of immunoglobulin G4, play a role during SIT.

SUMMARY

Although there is substantial evidence for effectiveness of both subcutaneous immunotherapy and SLIT, safer and more effective SIT approaches are needed. New approaches to improve SIT include omalizumab pretreatment, use of recombinant allergens, and alternate routes of administration.

Mold allergens in respiratory allergy: from structure to therapy

Allergic reactions to fungi were described 300 years ago, but the importance of allergy to fungi has been underestimated for a long time. Allergens from fungi mainly cause respiratory and skin symptoms in sensitized patients. In this review, we will focus on fungi and fungal allergens involved in respiratory forms of allergy, such as allergic rhinitis and asthma. Fungi can act as indoor and outdoor respiratory allergen sources, and depending on climate conditions, the rates of sensitization in individuals attending allergy clinics range from 5% to 20%. Due to the poor quality of natural fungal allergen extracts, diagnosis of fungal allergy is hampered, and allergen-specific immunotherapy is rarely given. Several factors are responsible for the poor quality of natural fungal extracts, among which the influence of culture conditions on allergen contents. However, molecular cloning techniques have allowed us to isolate DNAs coding for fungal allergens and to produce a continuously growing panel of recombinant allergens for the diagnosis of fungal allergy. Moreover, technologies are now available for the preparation of recombinant and synthetic fungal allergen derivatives which can be used to develop safe vaccines for the treatment of fungal allergy.

Mite-Allergic Rhinitis: How to Evaluate Clinical Efficacy in Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy Trials?

House dust mite (HDM) allergen exposure is the most important cause of perennial allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. Although allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) with HDM is well established, published studies have been characterized by substantial heterogeneity in clinical endpoints. Standardization in measuring clinical efficacy is required. Moreover, when designing an AIT trial with HDM allergens, several considerations have to be taken into account. The history of HDM allergy is less clear cut than the typical history of pollen allergy. In addition, clinical features of HDM allergy may differ from those of pollen allergy. Moreover, although not easily measurable, fluctuation in allergen exposure may cause variation in symptom severity and determine the timing of assessment of clinical effects of HDM AIT. Key points 1. A combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) is recommended as standard for the primary endpoint in future house dust mite (HDM) allergen-specific immunotherapy trials. 2. The diagnosis of HDM allergy is based on a carefully taken history in combination with sensitization to HDM allergens. 3. Eye symptoms are less prominent in patients with HDM-induced allergic rhinitis. Nasal symptoms, but not eye symptoms, should be included in the CSMS and in symptom scores as well. 4. As methods to determine allergen exposure vary and the efficacy of environmental control is a matter of debate, a practical approach consists of restraining patients from implementing HDM-reducing measures, such as removing carpets and introducing anti-mite covers, after the start of the study. 5. Efficacy evaluation in the period with the highest exposure to mites is recommended.

Inmunoterapia con alérgenos, ¿cuándo y por qué?

La inmunoterapia específica con alérgenos es el único tratamiento que modifica el curso natural de algunas enfermedades alérgicas como asma, rinitis, conjuntivitis, dermatitis atópica y alergia al veneno de himenópteros. Sin embargo, aún existe cierta controversia respecto a su seguridad y su utilidad clínica. En el presente artículo se presenta una revisión de los mecanismos moleculares, las indicaciones y contraindicaciones de dicha inmunoterapia, y se evalúan su seguridad y eficacia en cada una de estas enfermedades mediante casos ilustrativos y una breve revisión del tema.

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto- Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD)

The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already being investigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy for pediatric asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is approved in the United States for the treatment of pediatric asthma and rhinitis; sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) does not have regulatory approval but is used in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of pediatric asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded the strength of evidence for each clinical outcome. All studies were randomized controlled trials of children with allergic asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis treated with SCIT or an aqueous formulation of SLIT. Data sources were Medline, Embase, LILACS, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2012.

RESULTS

In 13 trials, 920 children received SCIT or usual care; in 18 studies, 1583 children received SLIT or usual care. Three studies compared SCIT with SLIT head-to-head in 135 children. The strength of evidence is moderate that SCIT improves asthma and rhinitis symptoms and low that SCIT improves conjunctivitis symptoms and asthma medication scores. Strength of evidence is high that SLIT improves asthma symptoms and moderate that SLIT improves rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms and decreases medication usage. The evidence is low to support SCIT over SLIT for improving asthma or rhinitis symptoms or medication usage. Local reactions were frequent with SCIT and SLIT. There was 1 report of anaphylaxis with SCIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports the efficacy of both SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis in children.

Respiratory allergy to fungi in Barcelona, Spain: clinical aspects, diagnosis and specific treatment in a general allergy unit

BACKGROUND

The importance of hypersensitivity to fungal allergens is a relatively unknown and somewhat controversial subject.

METHODS

An open prospective study was carried out in just one centre to determine the clinical and epidemiological characteristics as well as the diagnostic usefulness of skin prick and conjunctiva provocation tests, associated with total and specific IgE determination in two groups of patients, one of which was monosensitised to fungi and the other of which had multiple sensitisations, including fungi.

RESULTS

Rhinitis, exclusive or associated with asthma, was the main consultation cause (88% in monosensitised patients). Severe asthma was rarely found. In the polysensitised group, 64% were simultaneously allergic to moulds and mites. Alternaria alternata was the most common sensitising fungus, although a considerable number of cases were associated with other species such as Cladosporium, Penicillium and/or Aspergillus. The skin prick test gave the highest sensitivity and specificity. In 67% of the cases, the specific IgE was found between classes 3 and 4. The conjunctival provocation test was an innocuous and highly useful method for verifying the diagnosis and determining the degree of clinical sensitisation. A large number of patients exclusively allergic to fungi received specific immunotherapy, and it was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocolised study shows the importance of Alternaria and other fungi sensitisations in rhinitis alone or associated with asthma. Combined diagnosis of prick test, specific IgE and conjunctiva provocation test is very useful for deciding specific immunotherapy.

Perspectives on allergen-specific immunotherapy in childhood: an EAACI position statement

This article is the result of consensus reached by a working group of clinical experts in paediatric allergology as well as representatives from an ethical committee and the European Medicine Agency (EMA). The manuscript covers clinical, scientific, regulatory and ethical perspectives on allergen-specific immunotherapy in childhood. Unmet needs are identified. To fill the gaps and to bridge the different points of view, recommendations are made to researchers, to scientific and patient organizations and to regulators and ethical committees. Working together for the benefit of the community is essential. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) serves as the platform of such cooperation.

Oralair®: sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Oralair(®) is a sublingual grass pollen immunotherapy tablet that was authorized for use in Europe on 26 November 2009 and is currently in Phase III clinical trials in the USA. It is indicated for the management of grass pollen allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis in adults, adolescents and children (above the age of 5) with clinically relevant symptoms, confirmed by a positive cutaneous test and/or a positive titer of the specific IgE to the grass pollen. Treatment is composed of an initiation phase (3-day dose escalation: 100 IR [index of reactivity] on day 1, 200 IR on day 2 and 300 IR on day 3) and a continuation phase at a dosage of 300 IR/day. Treatment is scheduled to start approximately 4 months before the actual start of the pollen season and should be continued throughout the season. The treatment should be prescribed and initiated by an experienced allergy specialist.

Subcutaneous injection immunotherapy for optimal effectiveness

Immunotherapy by the subcutaneous injection of increasing doses and then maintenance doses of extracts of inhalant allergens has been practiced for 100 years. Controlled clinical trials have established its efficacy in treating allergic rhinitis, asthma, and stinging insect sensitivity, and there are preliminary data to suggest a favorable response in some patients with atopic dermatitis. The response to subcutaneous injection immunotherapy is dose dependent. Disease-modifying actions include blocking development of new sensitivities in monosensitized patients, blocking progression to asthma in patients with allergic rhinitis, and persistence of treatment effects for up to 7 to 10 years after an initial course.

Clinico-immunological changes post-immunotherapy with Periplaneta americana

BACKGROUND

Cockroach proteins induce allergies including asthma in predisposed individuals. Well-designed controlled studies are required to show the effect of cockroach immunotherapy (IT). This study is aimed to assess changes in clinical and immunological parameters post-IT with Periplaneta americana extract.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cockroach IT was performed for 1year in 50 patients of asthma, rhinitis or both. The efficacy of IT was assessed by change in skin reactivity and clinical parameters such as symptom/drug score, airway reactivity and immunological parameters namely IgE, IgG1 and IgG4, IL-4 and IFN-γ by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and western blotting using patients' sera at baseline and after 1year of treatment.

RESULTS

Immunotherapy with cockroach extract demonstrated significant improvement in clinical parameters of active group patients compared with baseline values and placebo group. Specific IgE levels showed a modest reduction, while IgG4 levels increased significantly in active IT group after 1year. IgE immunoblotting demonstrated reduction in intensity and number of specific bands, whereas IgG4 binding showed more number and distinct bands following IT. Active group patients showed correlation between increase in IgG4/IgG1 ratio and reduction in symptom score post-IT.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunotherapy with cockroach extract improved clinical and immunological status of asthma and rhinitis patients. Clinical improvement in patients after IT is associated with immunological changes.

Specific immunotherapy in children

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with allergen extracts in children with allergic rhinitis, with or without co-seasonal asthma, has developed into a routine treatment although the scientific evidence for its efficacy is not as strong as for adults. In the hands of experienced allergists, this treatment has been proven to be safe. The development of allergen tablets for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) may open a new age of more convenient, safer SIT. In children, in particular, the evidence for the long-term efficacy of SLIT, its ability to prevent the development of asthma and polysensitization and its comparability to SCIT will be required before it will replace the traditional subcutaneous route. Issues of compliance represent an important drawback of SLIT. We need ways of improving this. Treatment of asthma by immunotherapy is still restricted to clearly defined patients with mild to moderate asthma with symptoms that are related to the specific allergen sensitization. In these patients, symptoms and use of anti-inflammatory therapy can be reduced by SIT.

Clinical practice: Allergen-specific immunotherapy in children: facts and FAQs

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) in its various application forms represents the main treatment approach of IgE-mediated allergic diseases in adults and children. Despite this clear recommendation, many particularities of products, patient characteristics, and product availability in different countries hamper the use of allergen-specific immunotherapy in particular in children. The frequently asked questions by parents, patients, and physicians are the backbone of this review. Thus, the potentials and limitations of allergen-specific immunotherapy in children and adolescents will be highlighted. IgE-mediated allergic diseases are affecting about 20% of the population. They manifest commonly early in life, and hence, the use of SIT should be considered also early in the course of the disease.

Injection allergen immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Allergen specific immunotherapy has long been a controversial treatment for asthma. Although beneficial effects upon clinically relevant outcomes have been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials, there remains a risk of severe and sometimes fatal anaphylaxis. The recommendations of professional bodies have ranged from cautious acceptance to outright dismissal. With increasing interest in new allergen preparations and methods of delivery, we updated the systematic review of allergen specific immunotherapy for asthma.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of allergen specific immunotherapy for asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register up to 2005, Dissertation Abstracts and Current Contents.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials using various forms of allergen specific immunotherapy to treat asthma and reporting at least one clinical outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion. Two authors independently performed quality assessment of studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-eight trials were included (13 new trials). There were 42 trials of immunotherapy for house mite allergy; 27 pollen allergy trials; 10 animal dander allergy trials; two Cladosporium mould allergy, two latex and six trials looking at multiple allergens. Concealment of allocation was assessed as clearly adequate in only 16 of these trials. Significant heterogeneity was present in a number of comparisons. Overall, there was a significant reduction in asthma symptoms and medication, and improvement in bronchial hyper-reactivity following immunotherapy. There was a significant improvement in asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.59, 95% confidence interval -0.83 to -0.35) and it would have been necessary to treat three patients (95% CI 3 to 5) with immunotherapy to avoid one deterioration in asthma symptoms. Overall it would have been necessary to treat four patients (95% CI 3 to 6) with immunotherapy to avoid one requiring increased medication. Allergen immunotherapy significantly reduced allergen specific bronchial hyper-reactivity, with some reduction in non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity as well. There was no consistent effect on lung function. If 16 patients were treated with immunotherapy, one would be expected to develop a local adverse reaction. If nine patients were treated with immunotherapy, one would be expected to develop a systemic reaction (of any severity).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Immunotherapy reduces asthma symptoms and use of asthma medications and improves bronchial hyper-reactivity. One trial found that the size of the benefit is possibly comparable to inhaled steroids. The possibility of local or systemic adverse effects (such as anaphylaxis) must be considered.

[Allergen-specific Immunotherapy for children and adolescents - a review on available products in Austria]

A pediatric consensus report on allergen-specific immunotherapy for children and adolescents is presented for Austria. Products on the market in Austria are presented and categorised according to studies performed on the target population of children and adolescents, their effectiveness and indication. In general, more clinical studies on children and adolescents are mandatory for most of the available allergen-specific immunotherapeutics. In addition, the use of allergen-specific immunotherapy in general should be promoted as the exclusive treatment with long-lasting effects in type I allergies in particular in children.

Subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in children: complete update on controversies, dosing, and efficacy

For this review, articles on immunotherapy dosing in pediatric respiratory allergy were identified via PubMed, through congressional abstracts for 2008, in reference lists of recent review articles, and via personal communication with experts. In pediatric subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), doses shown to be effective, mostly in aluminium-adsorbed preparations administered every 6 weeks, contain 20 microg of group 5 major allergen, 12 microg Bet v 1, 15 microg Fel d 1, and 5 to 20 microg Der p 1. Evidence indicates that SCIT prevents new sensitizations and asthma onset 7 years after discontinuation and reduces symptoms 12 years after a 5-year SCIT course, even though skin reactivity returns. Consistent evidence of effect exists for sublingual immunotherapy in pediatric respiratory allergy with daily 15- to 25-microg grass group 5 major allergen and 6 microg Bet v 1. Der p/f doses of 0.8/0.4 microg three times weekly (up to 27/57 microg daily) demonstrate inconsistent findings. Evidence of effect exists for SCIT in pediatric allergic rhinitis and asthma as treatment and preventive management. Evidence of effect exists for sublingual immunotherapy in pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and seasonal asthma. Similar results are doubtful for perennial asthma.

Immunotherapy in children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is one of the cornerstones of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis treatment. Since the development of non-invasive administration forms with better safety profiles, there is an increasing tendency to prescribe immunotherapy in youngsters. However, no overview is available on the efficacy of immunotherapy in all its different administration forms in youngsters. Therefore, we systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of immunotherapy with inhalant allergens on symptoms and medication use in children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register and reference lists of recent reviews and published trials were searched. RCTs including youngsters aged 0-18 yr with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and comparing immunotherapy with placebo, symptomatic treatment or a different administration form of immunotherapy were included. Primary outcome measures were rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and/or medication scores. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated Delphi list. A method of best evidence synthesis, a rating system with levels of evidence based on the overall quality and the outcome of the trials, was used to assess efficacy. Six subcutaneous (SCIT), four nasal (LNIT), seven oral (OIT) and 11 sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy trials, comprising 1619 youngsters, were included. Only 39% of the trials were of high methodological quality. For the SCIT and OIT subgroups the level of evidence for efficacy was conflicting. Moderate evidence of effect was found for LNIT. Analysis of the SLIT subgroup showed no evidence of effect. The evidence for the perennial and seasonal allergen trials within the subgroups varied from moderate evidence of effect to no evidence of effect. In conclusion, there is at present insufficient evidence that immunotherapy in any administration form has a positive effect on symptoms and/or medication use in children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled Alternaria alternata immunotherapy: in vivo and in vitro parameters

Few studies have been published on the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy with fungal extracts, possibly because of difficulties arising from antigenic variability among different strains of fungus. The aim of the study was to analyze changes in the in vivo and in vitro parameters in response to immunotherapy with an Alternaria alternata extract. We studied 28 patients with rhinitis, bronchial asthma, or both caused by Alternaria. The patients were randomized to the active immunotherapy or placebo group, and a conventional schedule of immunotherapy was used. We recorded changes for a year in skin reactivity (skin prick test), conjunctival reactivity (conjunctival provocation test), and in vitro parameters (serum-specific IgE, IgG, IgG1 and IgG4 for A. alternata complete extract and for natural and recombinant Alt a 1). Twenty-three patients completed the study and all attained the maintenance dose. There were no changes in skin reactivity in the active treatment group, and reactivity increased at the end of the study period in the placebo group. Conjunctival sensitivity decreased only in the active treatment group when the maintenance dose was reached. Allergen-specific IgE decreased, and IgG, IgG1 and IgG4 increased in all periods of study in the active treatment group, with no changes in the placebo group. Allergen-specific immunotherapy with the A. alternata extract tested here led to a decrease in conjunctival reactivity and induced a significant immunologic response.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of Alternaria alternata immunotherapy: clinical efficacy and safety

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (ASIT) with fungal extracts has been beset by safety and efficacy problems, which result mainly from qualitative and quantitative variations. Little has been published on the safety and efficacy of these extracts. The objective was to analyze the safety and efficacy of ASIT with an Alternaria alternata extract. A total of 28 patients were selected with rhinitis and/or bronchial asthma because of Alternaria allergy and monosensitization to molds. The patients were randomized to an active ASIT or placebo group, both groups on a conventional immunotherapy schedule (increasing weekly doses until maintenance dose and then monthly doses). Adverse reactions were classified with the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology system. Clinical efficacy was analyzed for a year with symptom/medication diary cards, peak expiratory flow (PEF) measures, clinical severity score, severity of symptoms (visual analog scale), subjective evaluation of treatment by the patient and the physician, and a quality of life questionnaire. Twenty-three patients completed the study; all reached the established maintenance dose with only two mild adverse reactions in the whole sample. Significant improvements were found after 6 months in respiratory symptoms in the active treatment group, and in all symptoms in both groups. PEF increased significantly in the active treatment group but not in the placebo group. The severity of asthma decreased in the active treatment group, and the severity of rhinitis decreased in both groups. Visual analog scale scores for severity of symptoms improved in all phases in the active treatment group, but only after 12 months in the placebo group. Physicians judged the disease course as significantly better in the active treatment group. ASIT with the A. alternata extract was safe, with clinical improvements after one year of treatment.

Immunotherapy with Alternaria alternata: present and future

The prevalence of fungal allergies is greater than previously believed; consequently, such processes have been underestimated as potential causes of respiratory tract disease. Most patients sensitized to fungi exhibit perennial symptoms, though their intensity increases in the summer and autumn months. Skin reactions to the antigens of Alternaria alternata are associated with a high risk of allergic respiratory conditions in the presence of spores of this fungus -fundamentally in children and young adults- with a special form of presentation as life-threatening asthma. Very few controlled studies have examined the efficacy and safety of fungal extract immunotherapy -the main problem being the lack of standardized extracts for the diagnosis and treatment of such patients. In the year 2005 a tolerance study was made in children in relation to a depot extract containing the predominant antigen of Alternaria, with two different regimens (short and cluster). Tolerance was found to be good, with a 0.95 % incidence of local reactions and a 0.95 % incidence of grade 2 systemic reactions. Few studies involving sublingual immunotherapy have been conducted to date.