Efficacy of sublingual swallow immunotherapy in children with severe grass pollen allergic symptoms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

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.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

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.

Allergen immunotherapy: what is the added value of real-world evidence from retrospective claims database studies?

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has proven long-term efficacy in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). However, RCTs have limited generalizability and there is growing recognition that real-world evidence (RWE) is necessary to provide complementary data to those of RCTs, and corroborate their findings. Until recently, data from the real-world setting investigating the benefits of AIT for the treatment of patients with grass and birch pollen-associated AR were sparse, but new retrospective claims database studies from France and Germany have confirmed the sustained benefits of grass and birch pollen AIT in terms of significantly reduced progression of AR and asthma, and a significantly decreased risk of new-onset asthma.Areas covered: Here, we review the value of RWE used alongside data from traditional RCTs, and its potential strengths and limitations, and summarize the findings of the recent RWE studies investigating the benefits of AIT for the management of patients with grass and birch pollen-associated AR.Expert opinion: There is growing recognition of the necessity and value of RWE as a complement to data acquired in RCTs, to better understand the effects of AIT treatments in a broader, more representative patient population, and to help guide clinical decision-making.

Options of immunotherapeutic treatments for children with asthma

Introduction: Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Avoiding triggers, and pharmacologic treatment with short acting beta-agonist, inhaler corticosteroids and anti-leukotriene are often enough to obtain symptoms control. Nevertheless, there is a subset of children with severe asthma and poor symptom control despite maximal therapy. In these patients, anti-IgE and anti-IL5 monoclonal antibodies are suggested as the fifth step of Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Area covered: Immunotherapeutic treatments are now suggested for asthma management. This article will discuss the available evidence on allergen immunotherapy and biologic drugs in pediatric asthma treatment. Expert opinion: Previously published studies demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile of Allergen Immunotherapy in patients with mild-moderate asthma and sensitization to one main allergen. New understanding of mechanisms underlying severe asthma inflammation has allowed the identifications of specific biomarkers guiding the clinician in the choice of patient specific drug. Among the suggested immunotherapeutic options, omalizumab (blocking IgE) remains the first choice for atopic 'early onset' asthma in patients aged over 6 years. Instead, mepolizumab (blocking the IL5 ligand) should be considered for 'eosinophilic' asthma. Other biologic drugs are under consideration but data on the pediatric population are still lacking.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: a systematic review

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

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of specific allergen immunotherapy on biological markers and clinical parameters in asthmatic children: a controlled-real life study

BACKGROUND

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only treatment able to change the natural course of allergic diseases. We aimed at investigating the clinical efficacy of SLITOR (Serbian registered vaccine for sublingual allergen specific immunotherapy).

METHODS

7-18 years old children with allergic asthma and rhinitis were enrolled and addressed to the active (AIT plus pharmacological treatment) or control (standard pharmacological treatment only) group. Clinical and medications scores, lung function and exhaled FeNO were measured at baseline and at every follow-up.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement in both nasal and asthma symptom scores as well as in medication score in SLIT group. SLIT showed an important influence on lung function and airway inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed that SLITOR was effective not only in terms of patient reported outcomes but an improvement of pulmonary function and decrease of lower airway inflammation were also observed.

Efficacy and Safety of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis in Pediatric Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Allergic rhinitis (AR) has become a global health problem that constantly affects a large part of the general population, especially children.

Objective

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used extensively for pediatric AR, although its efficacy and safety are often questioned. In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT), we evaluated the use of SLIT for pediatric AR.

Methods

A number of medical literature data bases were searched through January 2016 to identify RCTs that examined the use of SLIT for pediatric AR and that assessed clinical outcomes related to efficacy. Descriptive and quantitative information was abstracted. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by using fixed- and random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the I2 metric. A network meta-analysis was used to estimate SMDs between two SLIT protocols for pediatric seasonal AR. All data were extracted from publications or received from the authors.

Results

Twenty-six studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis of rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores, and 19 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis of medication scores. Descriptive and quantitative data were extracted. SLIT differed significantly from placebo in terms of symptom scores (SMD -0.55 [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.86 to -0.25]; p = 0.0003, I2 = 90%) and medication scores (SMD -0.67 [95% CI, -0.96 to -0.38J; p < 0.00001, I2 = 83%). Oral pruritus was the adverse effect, which occurred most commonly in children who were receiving SLIT. Network meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between the pre-coseasonal and continuous SLIT protocols for seasonal AR in symptom scores (SMD -6.55 [95% CI, -25.38 to 12.29]; p = 0.496) and medication scores (SMD -8.83 [95% CI, -22.10 to 4.43]; p = 0.192).

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis results indicated that SLIT provided significant symptom relief and reduced the need for medication in pediatric patients Moreover, the safety of SLIT needs to be confirmed in RCTs with larger samples.

Sialylated Fetuin-A as a candidate predictive biomarker for successful grass pollen allergen immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Eligibility to immunotherapy is based on the determination of IgE reactivity to a specific allergen by means of skin prick or in vitro testing. Biomarkers predicting the likelihood of clinical improvement during immunotherapy would significantly improve patient selection.

METHODS

Proteins were differentially assessed by using 2-dimensional differential gel electrophoresis and label-free mass spectrometry in pretreatment sera obtained from clinical responders and nonresponders within a cohort of 82 patients with grass pollen allergy receiving sublingual immunotherapy or placebo. Functional studies of Fetuin-A (FetA) were conducted by using gene silencing in a mouse asthma model, human dendritic cell in vitro stimulation assays, and surface plasmon resonance.

RESULTS

Analysis by using quantitative proteomics of pretreatment sera from patients with grass pollen allergy reveals that high levels of O-glycosylated sialylated FetA isoforms are found in patients exhibiting a strong decrease in rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms after sublingual immunotherapy. Although FetA is involved in numerous inflammatory conditions, its potential role in allergy is unknown. In vivo silencing of the FETUA gene in BALB/c mice results in a dramatic upregulation of airway hyperresponsiveness, lung resistance, and T_H2 responses after allergic sensitization to ovalbumin. Both sialylated and nonsialytated FetA bind to LPS, but only the former synergizes with LPS and grass pollen or mite allergens to enhance the Toll-like receptor 4-mediated proallergic properties of human dendritic cells.

CONCLUSIONS

As a reflection of the patient's inflammatory status, pretreatment levels of sialylated FetA in the blood are indicative of the likelihood of clinical responses during grass pollen immunotherapy.

Allergen specific sublingual immunotherapy in children with asthma and allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) is significantly increased, especially in younger children. Current treatment for children with asthma and allergic rhinitis include allergen avoidance, standard pharmacotherapy, and immunotherapy. Since standard pharmacotherapy is prescribed for symptoms, immunotherapy at present plays an important role in the treatment of allergic diseases. This article presents insights into the up-to-date understanding of immunotherapy in the treatment of children with allergic rhinitis and asthma.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed articles published from 1990 to 2014 were reviewed using the MeSH terms "asthma", "allergic rhinitis", "children", and "immune therapy". Additional articles were identified by hand searching of the references in the initial search.

RESULTS

Numerous studies have shown that sublingual application of allergen specific immunotherapy (SLIT) is an adequate, safe and efficient substitution to subcutaneous route of allergens administration (SCIT) in the treatment of IgE-mediated respiratory tract allergies in children. According to the literature, better clinical efficacy is connected with the duration of treatment and mono sensitized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

At least 3 years of treatment and stable asthma before the immunotherapy are positive predictors of good clinical efficacy and tolerability of SLIT. SLIT reduces the symptoms of allergic diseases and the use of medicaments, and improves the quality of life of children with the diseases.

Grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy and paediatric allergic rhinitis: A patient-oriented decision

Guidelines and systematic review report that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is, in general, effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, experts suggest not generalising the results of different clinical studies: for example, it would not be advisable to translate the results found in an adult population to a paediatric population or the results on the efficacy of AIT against a specific allergen to the AIT against a different allergen. Moreover, according to Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), clinical decisions are individualised and should derive from the "integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values". Taking into account the high specificity of the AIT and EBM principles, we tried to answer the question on how advisable it is to prescribe the AIT for the management of grass allergic rhinitis in children. To do this, we revised the scientific literature in order to solve a specific case scenario.

Safety profile of sublingual immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was proposed for clinical practice about 20 years ago with the main aim of improving the safety and avoiding the adverse effects of traditional treatment for allergic airways disease. To date, 32 randomized controlled trials and 6 postmarketing surveys have been published that provide a robust documentation of the safety profile of the treatment.Looking at the randomized trials it emerges that the more frequent adverse event of SLIT is oral itching or swelling, followed by gastrointestinal complaints. These adverse events are invariably described as mild and easily managed by adjusting the dose. Relevant systemic adverse events (asthma, urticaria, angioedema) occur sporadically and, with the exception of oral/gastrointestinal adverse events, the incidence of adverse events seems not to differ between the placebo and active groups. The safety profile of SLIT does not differ between adults and children.The postmarketing surveys consistently show that the incidence of adverse events associated with SLIT is less than 10%, corresponding to less than 1 adverse event per 1000 doses, and is thus quite superior to the safety profile of subcutaneous immunotherapy. Of note, the most recent data show that the rate of adverse events with SLIT is not increased in children below the age of 5 years.

Sublingual immunotherapy for pediatric allergic rhinitis: The clinical evidence

Allergic rhinitis is estimated to affect 10%-20% of pediatric population and it is caused by the IgE-sensitization to environmental allergens, most importantly grass pollens and house dust mites. Allergic rhinitis can influence patient’s daily activity severely and may precede the development of asthma, especially if it is not diagnosed and treated correctly. In addition to subcutaneous immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) represents the only treatment being potentially able to cure allergic respiratory diseases, by modulating the immune system activity. This review clearly summarizes and analyzes the available randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials, which aimed at evaluating the effectiveness and the safety of grass pollen and house dust mite SLIT for the specific treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis. Our analysis demonstrates the good evidence supporting the efficacy of SLIT for allergic rhinitis to grass pollens in children, whereas trials regarding pediatric allergic rhinitis to house dust mites present lower quality, although several studies supported its usefulness.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. However, it is not clear whether the sublingual delivery route is safe and effective in asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. The search is up to date as of 25 March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and presented results in the 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 5077 participants to comparisons of interest. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, but studies varied in duration from one day to three years. Most participants had mild or intermittent asthma, often with co-morbid allergic rhinitis. Eighteen studies recruited only adults, 25 recruited only children and several recruited both or did not specify (n = 9).With the exception of adverse events, reporting of outcomes of interest to this review was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence. Allocation procedures generally were not well described, about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of bias for performance or detection bias or both and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies.One short study reported exacerbations requiring a hospital visit and observed no adverse events. Five studies reported quality of life, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. Serious adverse events were infrequent, and analysis using risk differences suggests that no more than 1 in 100 are likely to suffer a serious adverse event as a result of treatment with SLIT (RD 0.0012, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0077 to 0.0102; participants = 2560; studies = 22; moderate-quality evidence).Within secondary outcomes, wide but varied reporting of largely unvalidated asthma symptom and medication scores precluded meaningful meta-analysis; a general trend suggested SLIT benefit over placebo, but variation in scales meant that results were difficult to interpret.Changes in inhaled corticosteroid use in micrograms per day (MD 35.10 mcg/d, 95% CI -50.21 to 120.42; low-quality evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events) and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.69, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence) were not often reported. This led to many imprecise estimates with wide confidence intervals that included the possibility of both benefit and harm from SLIT.More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.38; low-quality evidence; participants = 1755; studies = 19), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild.Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lack of data for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life and use of different unvalidated symptom and medication scores have limited our ability to draw a clinically useful conclusion. Further research using validated scales and important outcomes for patients and decision makers is needed so that SLIT can be properly assessed as clinical treatment for asthma. Very few serious adverse events have been reported, but most studies have included patients with intermittent or mild asthma, so we cannot comment on the safety of SLIT for those with moderate or severe asthma. SLIT is associated with increased risk of all adverse events.

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.

"The value of pre- and co-seasonal sublingual immunotherapy in pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis"

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a guidelines-approved, disease-modifying treatment option for respiratory allergies, including allergic rhinitis (AR) induced by pollen. The various AIT regimens employed to date in pollen-induced AR can be classified as continuous (i.e. year-round) or discontinuous (i.e. pre-seasonal alone, co-seasonal alone or pre- and co-seasonal). Pre-and co-seasonal regimens are typically used for sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) and have economic and compliance advantages over perennial (year-round) regimens. However, these advantages must not come at the expensive of poor efficacy or safety. The results of recent double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials show that pre- and co-seasonal SLIT is safe and effective in patients with AR induced by grass pollen (treated with a tablet formulation) or by birch pollen (treated with a liquid formulation). Progress in SLIT has been made in defining the optimal dose of major allergen, the administration frequency (daily), the duration of pre-seasonal treatment (four months) and the number of treatment seasons (at least three). Post-marketing, "real-life" trials of pre- and co-seasonal birch or grass pollen SLIT regimens have confirmed the efficacy and safety observed in the clinical trials. In the treatment of pollen-induced AR, pre- and co-seasonal SLIT regimens appear to be at least as effective and safe as perennial SLIT regimens, and are associated with lower costs and good compliance. Good compliance may mean that pre- and co-seasonal SLIT regimens are inherently more effective and safer than perennial SLIT regimens. When considering the pre- and co-seasonal discontinuous regimen in particular, a 300 IR five-grass-pollen formulation is the only SLIT tablet with a clinical development programme having provided evidence of short-term, sustained and post-treatment efficacy.

Oral transmucosal drug delivery for pediatric use

The formulation of medicines for children remains a challenge. An ideal pediatric formulation must allow accurate dose administration and be in a dosage form that can be handled by the target age group. It is also important to consider the choices and the amount of excipients used in the formulation for this vulnerable age group. Although oral formulations are generally acceptable to most pediatric patients, they are not suitable for drugs with poor oral bioavailability or when a rapid clinical effect is required. In recent years, oral transmucosal delivery has emerged as an attractive route of administration for pediatric patients. With this route of administration, a drug is absorbed through the oral mucosa, therefore bypassing hepatic first pass metabolism and thus avoiding drug degradation or metabolism in the gastrointestinal tract. The high blood flow and relatively high permeability of the oral mucosa allow a quick onset of action to be achieved. It is a simple and non-invasive route of drug administration. However, there are several barriers that need to be overcome in the development of oral transmucosal products. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the current development of oral transmucosal delivery specifically for the pediatric population in order to achieve systemic drug delivery. The anatomical and physiological properties of the oral mucosa of infants and young children are carefully examined. The different dosage forms and formulation strategies that are suitable for young patients are discussed.

Dropouts in sublingual allergen immunotherapy trials - a systematic review

Participant dropouts can reduce the power of allergen immunotherapy clinical trials. Evaluation of the dropout rate and reasons for dropout are important not only in the planning of clinical studies but are also relevant for adherence to immunotherapy in daily clinical practice. A systematic review was carried out in order to establish the overall dropout rate among published double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergic diseases. Dropouts were analysed in regards to allergen, formulation, treatment schedule, participant age, study size, number of centres and type of allergic disease. Relative dropout rates in placebo and active groups as well as reasons for dropout were also assessed. A total of 81 studies, comprising 9998 patients, were included. Dropout rates in sublingual immunotherapy controlled studies do not appear to be a major problem with a composite dropout percentage of 14% (95% CI:11.9-16). Furthermore, they are not different for active compared to placebo-treated participants. This lends support to the positive clinical outcomes seen in meta-analyses of these trials.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis in the elderly: is it never too late?

Evaluation of: Bozek A, Ignasiak B, Filipowska B, Jarzab J. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in elderly patients with allergic rhinitis. Clin. Exp. Allergy 43(2), 242-248 (2013). There is a well-accepted tenet in allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT), especially for respiratory allergies such as rhinitis and asthma: this approach should be, in general, reserved for the pediatric population and young adults. This belief is based on the fact that SIT is considered the only therapy able to modify the course of allergic diseases. In the case of allergic rhinitis, for example, SIT could reduce the risk of asthma developing. Therefore, SIT is evaluated with 'the sooner the better' conviction. In elderly people with respiratory allergies, the 'course' of the disease is considered too advanced and therefore the room and therapeutic value of SIT is considered very limited. Bozek et al. evaluated the clinical efficacy of sublingual SIT (SLIT) with house dust mite (HDM) extracts in elderly (age >60 years) patients with a long history of allergic rhinitis due to HDM allergen exposure. In a 3-year double-blind placebo-controlled study, SLIT was able to significantly reduce the nose-related symptoms and the medication score. The conclusions of the authors were that SLIT with HDM allergens resulted in a significant clinical improvement in the active group compared with the placebo group, particularly during the period of the year in which the heating would be on. This therapy was well tolerated. These observations may lead to the more frequent use of SLIT immunotherapy in the elderly.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy in asthmatic children: from the basis to clinical applications

Atopic asthma in childhood with the tendency to persist into adult life is an important issue in pediatrics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only curative treatment option for these children, being directed to the causes of the disease. The Th2 phenotype is a predominant immunological pattern in atopic asthma and SIT leads to apoptosis/anergy of T cells and induces immune-regulatory responses and immune deviation towards Th1. Many factors can affect the safety and efficacy of SIT, such as pattern of sensitization, allergy vaccine (allergen extracts, adjuvants and conjugated molecules), route of administration (subcutaneous or sublingual) and different treatment schedules. Overall, asthma symptoms and medication scores usually decrease following a SIT course and the most common observed side effects are restricted to local swelling, erythema and pruritus. Compared with conventional pharmacotherapy, SIT may be more cost effective, providing a benefit after discontinuation and a steroid-sparing effect. In addition, it can prevent new sensitizations in monosensitized asthmatic children. Microbial supplements such as probiotics, immunomodulatory substances like anti-IgE/leukotrienes, antibodies and newer allergen preparations such as recombinant forms have been tested to improve the efficacy and safety of SIT with inconclusive results. In conclusion, SIT provides an appropriate solution for childhood asthma that should be employed more often in clinical practice. Further studies are awaited to improve current knowledge regarding the mechanisms behind SIT and determine the most appropriate materials and schedule of immunotherapy for children with asthma.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an evidence based review of the recent literature with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis is a common allergic disease with increasing prevalence in Western Societies. Medical therapy is first line treatment, and is aimed at reducing symptoms of immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated inflammation of the nasal passages. In patients with disease refractory to medical therapy, subcutaneous immunotherapy is an option. The aim of this study is to update a recent Cochrane review with available level 1 evidence for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed from 2006 to 2011 and compared with data from a 2007 Cochrane review on immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis. We included all studies of level 1 evidence. All forms of single extract immunotherapy were considered. Studies with primary asthma related end-points were excluded. Primary end-points were instruments of clinical efficacy (ie, symptom-medication scores) and adverse events.

RESULTS

We retrieved 12 level 1 studies for review. In total, 1512 patients were randomized into treatment groups, alternative study groups (alternative duration of therapy or sublingual immunotherapy [SLIT]), or placebo. Efficacy was evaluated based on reported symptom and/or medication score, validated quality of life instruments, immunological assays, challenge testing, and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous immunotherapy improves symptom and/or medication scores and validated quality of life measures. In addition, associated changes in surrogate markers of immunologic protection are observed. Subcutaneous immunotherapy is safe when administered to carefully selected patients and in settings capable of responding to systemic reactions. Subcutaneous immunotherapy is recommended for patients with seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis not responsive to conservative medical therapy, and whose symptoms significantly affect quality of life.

Efficacy of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis-based comparison

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy are the 2 most prescribed routes for administering allergen-specific immunotherapy. They were shown to be effective in control of symptoms and in reducing rescue medication use in patients with allergic diseases, but their effectiveness has to be balanced against side effects. In recent years, SLIT has been increasingly prescribed, instead of SCIT, because of improved safety and easy administration.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed which route is the most effective in the treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis to grass pollen.

METHODS

An indirect meta-analysis-based comparison between SCIT and SLIT was performed. Treatment efficacy was determined as the standardized mean difference (SMD) in symptom and medication scores obtained with active treatment, SCIT or SLIT, compared with placebo. Studies were included if they were double-blind randomized controlled trials comparing SCIT or SLIT with placebo. Thirty-six randomized controlled trials (3014 patients; 2768 controls) were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall effect size of SCIT for symptom score (SMD, -0.92; 95%CI, -1.26 to -0.58) was significantly higher than SLIT, both administered via drops (SMD, -0.25; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.05) and tablets (SMD, -0.40; 95%CI, -0.54 to -0.27). Similar results were reported for medication score (SCIT: SMD, -0.58; 95% CI, -0.86 to -0.30. SLIT drops: SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.74 to -0.00. SLIT tablets SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide indirect but solid evidence that SCIT is more effective than SLIT in controlling symptoms and in reducing the use of antiallergic medications in seasonal allergic rhinoconjuntivitis to grass pollen.

Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy in pediatric patients with allergic rhinitis sensitized to house dust mites: comparison to adult patients

CONCLUSION

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with house dust mite (HDM) extracts in school-age children and adolescents seems to be as effective as in adults. SLIT could be recommended as a therapeutic modality in pediatric allergic rhinitis (AR) patients sensitized to HDMs.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy of HDM SLIT in pediatric patients with AR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-six patients treated with HDM SLIT for at least 1 year between November 2007 and February 2010 were enrolled in this study. A young age group (n = 54) between 6 and 18 years old was compared with an adult group (n = 22). Standardized extract of HDM (Pangramin® SLIT) was used. Total symptom scores (TSS) and anti-allergic medication scores (AMS) were evaluated before and 1 year after SLIT.

RESULTS

TSS improved in both groups, and the change was comparable in the 2 groups (ΔTSS, 5.1 vs 5.3; p = 0.538). Also among the young age group, ΔTSS did not significantly differ between school-age children and adolescents (5.2 vs 4.9, p = 0.429). Thirty-five out of 54 youngsters (64.8%) and 11 out of 22 adults (50.0%) showed improvement in TSS over 30%. AMS were significantly decreased in both groups. ΔAMS tended to be higher in the young age group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (57.2 vs 35.7, p = 0.060).

[Sublingual immunotherapy. Where are we now?]

Allergic diseases represent a global health problem. They affect 20% to 30% of the German population, but more than 40% of the group between 20 and 40 years of age. The symptoms have a considerable influence on social life and cause an impairment of sleep and performance at work/school, leading to a high but avoidable economic impact. For over 100 years specific immunotherapy (SIT) has been used to treat IgE-mediated allergic diseases. Numerous well-controlled studies have provided evidence of its efficacy, safety and tolerability. Today SIT represents a well-established treatment of allergic rhinitis, rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma with a positive health economic impact. Initially, SIT was administered subcutaneously (SCIT), but other routes of application have been developed. In particular the sublingual-swallow method (SLIT) has been proven to be effective and well-tolerated in large studies on grass pollen allergies and represents an additional effective route of administration in adults and children.

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.

Sublingual immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been shown to be safe and efficacious in treating allergic rhinitis. It has been used in Europe for more than 20 years, and interest in the United States is increasing. SLIT has been shown to elicit immunologic changes similar to subcutaneous injection immunotherapy. SLIT may prevent new sensitizations, improve asthma control, and decrease asthma development in allergic individuals. Although differences in antigen quantification and standardization make European dosing schemes difficult to translate in the United States, several new studies suggest the range for effective dosing. Further studies will help clarify optimal dosing.

Sublingual immunotherapy for treating allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Systematic reviews of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)

Allergic rhinitis is common worldwide, with significant morbidity and impact on quality of life. In patients who don't respond adequately to anti-allergic drugs. Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy is effective although requires specialist administration. Sublingual immunotherapy may represent an effective and safer alternative. This Cochrane systematic review is an update of one published in 2003. We searched Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register, Central, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Biosis Previews, Cambridge Scientific Abstarcts, mRCT and additional sources. We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- controlled trials of sublingual immunotherapy in adults and children. Two authors selected studies and assessed them for quality. Data were put into RevMan 5.0 for a statistical analysis. We used standardised mean difference (SMD), with a random effect model to combine data. Sixty studies were included, with 49 suitable for meta-analysis. We found significant reductions in symptoms (SMD -0.49; 95%CI (-0.64 to -0.34, P < 0.00001)) and medication requirements (SMD -0.32; 95%CI (-0.43 to -0.21, P < 0.00001)) compared with placebo. None of the trials reported severe systemic reactions, anaphylaxis or use of Adrenaline. This updated review reinforces the conclusion of the original 2003 Cochrane Review that sublingual immunotherapy is effective for allergic rhinitis and appears a safe route of administration.

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.

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 2, 2003.Allergic rhinitis is a common condition which can significantly impair quality of life. Immunotherapy by injection can significantly reduce symptoms and medication use but its use is limited by the possibility of severe systemic adverse reactions. Immunotherapy by the sublingual route is therefore of considerable interest.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis in adults and children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register; CENTRAL (2010, Issue 3); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; mRCT and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 14 August 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of sublingual immunotherapy in adults or children. Primary outcome measures were symptom and medication scores. We also collected adverse event data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors selected studies and assessed risk of bias. One author extracted data which was rechecked by two other authors. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with a random-effects model to combine data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 60 randomised controlled trials in the review. Forty-nine were suitable for pooling in meta-analyses (2333 SLIT, 2256 placebo participants). Overall, we found a significant reduction in symptoms (SMD -0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.34, P < 0.00001) and medication requirements (SMD -0.32; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.21, P < 0.00001) in participants receiving sublingual immunotherapy compared to placebo. None of the trials included in this review reported severe systemic reactions or anaphylaxis, and none of the systemic reactions reported required the use of adrenaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review reinforces the conclusion of the original 2003 Cochrane Review that sublingual immunotherapy is effective for allergic rhinitis and has been proven to be a safe route of administration.

Five-grass pollen 300IR SLIT tablets: efficacy and safety in children and adolescents

The efficacy and safety of five-grass pollen 300IR sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets (Stallergènes SA, France) have previously been demonstrated in paediatric patients. This report presents additional data concerning efficacy at pollen peak, efficacy and safety according to age, nasal and ocular symptoms, use of rescue medication, satisfaction with treatment and compliance. Children (5-11 yr) and adolescents (12-17 yr) with grass pollen-allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were included in a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and received either a 300IR five-grass pollen tablet or placebo daily in a pre- (4 months) and co-seasonal protocol. The severity of six symptoms (sneezing, rhinorrhoea, nasal congestion, nasal and ocular pruritis, and tearing) was scored, and rescue medication use was recorded daily during the pollen season. Patient satisfaction was recorded at the season end. A total of 161 children and 117 adolescents were evaluated (n = 267). 300IR SLIT was effective over the whole season (p = 0.0010) and at the pollen peak (p = 0.0009). The adjusted mean difference between 300IR and placebo groups was significant for both nasal (p = 0.0183) and ocular (p < 0.0001) symptoms. Rescue medication use was statistically lower in the SLIT group during the pollen season and at the pollen peak (both p < 0.05). More patients in the SLIT group were satisfied with their treatment compared to placebo (83.2% vs. 68.1%, p = 0.0030), and compliance was high (SLIT 93.9% of patients were compliant, placebo 94.8% of patients were compliant). SLIT was well tolerated by children and adolescents. 300IR five-grass pollen tablets are effective and safe during the pollen season and at the pollen peak in children and adolescents with grass pollen rhinoconjunctivitis.

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.

Towards evidence-based medicine in specific grass pollen immunotherapy

When initiating grass pollen immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, specialist physicians in many European countries must choose between modalities of differing pharmaceutical and regulatory status. We applied an evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach to commercially available subcutaneous and sublingual Gramineae grass pollen immunotherapies (SCIT and SLIT) by evaluating study design, populations, pollen seasons, treatment doses and durations, efficacy, quality of life, safety and compliance. After searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library up until January 2009, we identified 33 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (including seven paediatric trials) with a total of 440 specific immunotherapy (SIT)-treated subjects in seven trials (0 paediatric) for SCIT with natural pollen extracts, 168 in three trials (0 paediatric) for SCIT with allergoids, 906 in 16 trials (five paediatric) for natural extract SLIT drops, 41 in two trials (one paediatric) for allergoid SLIT tablets and 1605 in five trials (two paediatric) for natural extract SLIT tablets. Trial design and quality varied significantly within and between SIT modalities. The multinational, rigorous trials of natural extract SLIT tablets correspond to a high level of evidence in adult and paediatric populations. The limited amount of published data on allergoids prevented us from judging the level of evidence for this modality.