The CONSORT statement checklist in allergen-specific immunotherapy: a GA2LEN paper

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

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

PURPOSE

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

ACTION STATEMENTS

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

Placebo effects in allergen immunotherapy-An EAACI Task Force Position Paper

The placebo (Latin "I will please") effect commonly occurs in clinical trials. The psychological and physiological factors associated with patients' expectations about a treatment's positive and negative effects have yet to be well characterized, although a functional prefrontal cortex and intense bidirectional communication between the central nervous system and the immune system appear to be prerequisites for a placebo effect. The use of placebo raises certain ethical issues, especially if patients in a placebo group are denied an effective treatment for a long period of time. The placebo effect appears to be relatively large (up to 77%, relative to pretreatment scores) in controlled clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), such as the pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) randomized clinical trials currently required by regulatory authorities worldwide. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) therefore initiated a Task Force, in order to better understand the placebo effect in AIT and its specific role in comorbidities, blinding issues, adherence, measurement time points, variability and the natural course of the disease. In this Position Paper, the EAACI Task Force highlights several important topics regarding the placebo effect in AIT such as a) regulatory aspects, b) neuroimmunological and psychological mechanisms, c) placebo effect sizes in AIT trials, d) methodological limitations in AIT trial design and e) potential solutions in future AIT trial design. In conclusion, this Position Paper aims to examine the methodological problem of placebo in AIT from different aspects and also to highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for future trials.

Allergen Immunotherapy: Biomarkers and Clinical Outcome Measures

Clinical trials for allergen immunotherapy products’ development and approval are conducted, aiming to monitor safety and efficacy of them. Symptom scores and the use of rescue medication are the primary clinical endpoints used in the conducted clinical trials, while Quality of Life scores and symptom-free days are measurements also used as secondary endpoints. Although the use of in vitro biomarkers might have been more practical and objective, there are yet no broadly used reliable ones accurately reflecting the clinical effects of allergen immunotherapy. On the contrary, in vivo biomarkers, such as the nasal allergy provocation test, are reliable and successfully used. The aim of this review is to describe how to adapt and use biomarkers and clinical outcomes in the everyday practice of Allergists who perform allergen immunotherapy.

Clinical trials in allergen immunotherapy: current concepts and future needs

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a safe, effective treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma. However, AIT's clinical effect is still contested—primarily due to heterogeneity in clinical trial designs, study populations, therapeutic formulations, and efficacy criteria. After discussing current concepts and unmet needs, an international panel of experts made several recommendations: (i) explore and validate definitions for (clinical) responders in AIT trials; (ii) use of well‐documented, standardized provocation tests prior to inclusion of subjects with relevant diseases in AIT trials; (iii) monitoring neo‐sensitizations and occurrence of new allergy in extended AIT trials, and exclusion of polyallergic participants; (iv) validation of allergen exposure chambers with regard to natural exposure; (v) in studies of seasonal allergies, focus on peak exposure but also consider organizing two parallel, geographically distinct but otherwise identical trials; (vi) discuss adaptive trial designs with the regulatory authorities; (vii) use e‐health and m‐health technologies to capture more information on individual exposure to allergens; (viii) initiate research on potential psychological, biochemical, immune, neural, and even genomic markers of the placebo response; (ix) identify trial designs and primary endpoints that will give children with allergies easier, faster access to AIT formulations; and (x) promote and apply standardized methods for reporting systemic and local adverse events. The latest technologies and trial designs may provide novel, ethical ways of reducing bias and heterogeneity in AIT clinical trials. There is scope for physicians, patient organizations, companies, and regulators to improve clinical trials in AIT and, ultimately, to provide patients with better treatments.

A review of clinical efficacy, safety, new developments and adherence to allergen-specific immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis caused by allergy to ragweed pollen (Ambrosia artemisiifolia)

Allergic rhinitis is a common health problem in both children and adults. The number of patients allergic to ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) is on the rise throughout Europe, having a significant negative impact on the patients' and their family's quality of life. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) has disease-modifying effects and can induce immune tolerance to allergens. Both subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy with ragweed extracts/preparations have clear positive clinical efficacy, especially over pharmacological treatment, even years after the treatment has ended. AIT also has very good safety profiles with extremely rare side effects, and the extracts/preparations used in AIT are commonly well tolerated by patients. However, patient adherence to treatment with AIT seems to be quite low, mostly due to the fact that treatment with AIT is relatively time-demanding and, moreover, due to patients not receiving adequate information and education about the treatment before it starts. AIT is undergoing innovations and improvements in clinical efficacy, safety and patient adherence, especially with new approaches using new adjuvants, recombinant or modified allergens, synthetic peptides, novel routes of administration (epidermal or intralymphatic), and new protocols, which might make AIT more acceptable for a wider range of patients and novel indications. Patient education and support (eg, recall systems) is one of the most important goals for AIT in the future, to further enhance treatment success.

Allergy immunotherapy across the life cycle to promote active and healthy ageing: from research to policies: An AIRWAYS Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) programme item (Action Plan B3 of the European Innovation Partnership on active and healthy ageing) and the Global Alliance against Chronic Respiratory Diseases (GARD), a World Health Organization GARD research demonstration project

Allergic diseases often occur early in life and persist throughout life. This life-course perspective should be considered in allergen immunotherapy. In particular it is essential to understand whether this al treatment may be used in old age adults. The current paper was developed by a working group of AIRWAYS integrated care pathways for airways diseases, the model of chronic respiratory diseases of the European Innovation Partnership on active and healthy ageing (DG CONNECT and DG Santé). It considered (1) the political background, (2) the rationale for allergen immunotherapy across the life cycle, (3) the unmet needs for the treatment, in particular in preschool children and old age adults, (4) the strategic framework and the practical approach to synergize current initiatives in allergen immunotherapy, its mechanisms and the concept of active and healthy ageing.

Revisiting Desensitization and Allergen Immunotherapy Concepts for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11

Allergy and hypersensitivity intervention management procedures, such as desensitization and/or tolerance induction and immunotherapy, have not been pondered up to now in the content of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) context because the focus has been on prioritizing the condition implementations. Tremendous efforts have been devoted to implementing allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the forthcoming ICD-11. However, we consider that it is crucial now to have nomenclature and classification universally accepted for these procedures to be able to provide scientifically consistent proposals into the new ICD-11 platform for the best practice parameters of our specialty. With the aim of promoting a harmonized comprehension and aligning it with the ICD-11 revision, we have reviewed the definitions and concepts currently used for desensitization and/or tolerance induction and immunotherapy. We strongly believe that this review is a key instrument to support the allergy specialty identity into the ICD-11 framework and serves as a platform to perform positive quality improvement in clinical practice.

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.

STUDY SELECTION

English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).

DATA EXTRACTION

Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.

RESULTS

101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Sublingual immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization position paper 2013 update

We have prepared this document, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2013 Update", according to the evidence-based criteria, revising and updating chapters of the originally published paper, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009", available at http://www.waojournal.org. Namely, these comprise: "Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy;" "Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy" - reporting all the data of all controlled trials published after 2009; "Safety of sublingual immunotherapy" - with the recently published Grading System for adverse reactions; "Impact of sublingual immunotherapy on the natural history of respiratory allergy" - with the relevant evidences published since 2009; "Efficacy of SLIT in children" - with detailed analysis of all the studies; "Definition of SLIT patient selection" - reporting the criteria for eligibility to sublingual immunotherapy; "The future of immunotherapy in the community care setting"; "Methodology of clinical trials according to the current scientific and regulatory standards"; and "Guideline development: from evidence-based medicine to patients' views" - including the evolution of the methods to make clinical recommendations.Additionally, we have added new chapters to cover a few emerging crucial topics: "Practical aspects of schedules and dosages and counseling for adherence" - which is crucial in clinical practice for all treatments; "Perspectives and new approaches" - including recombinant allergens, adjuvants, modified allergens, and the concept of validity of the single products. Furthermore, "Raising public awareness about sublingual immunotherapy", as a need for our patients, and strategies to increase awareness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among patients, the medical community, all healthcare stakeholders, and public opinion, are also reported in detail.

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.

Specific immunotherapy in asthma: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

The prescription of allergen immunotherapy (SIT) in asthma remains a matter of debate and official guidelines often do not provide clear recommendations in this regard.

METHODS

An extensive review of the literature was untaken.

RESULTS

There are many robust studies with SCIT and SLIT showing positive results related to improving asthma symptoms, in particular when asthma was associated with rhinitis. In addition, there are several favourable meta-analyses, although their validity is limited by the heterogeneity of the trials included. The disease modifying effect of SIT (prevention of asthma onset and long-lasting effects) should be considered when prescribing this treatment. Regarding safety, fatalities seem to be rare: in Europe no fatality has been reported over the last two decades, and the same has been observed in USA in the last 4 years. Uncontrolled asthma is universally recognized as the most important risk factor for severe adverse events, but there is no clear demonstration that SIT can worsen or induce asthma. In contrast, of the few studies specifically designed to evaluate asthma, none had a formal sample size calculation, and pulmonary function was assessed as primary outcome only sporadically.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the presently available evidence, SLIT and SCIT can be used in asthma associated with rhinitis (the most common condition), provided that asthma is adequately controlled by pharmacotherapy. In such cases, a measurable clinical benefit on asthma symptoms can be expected. SIT cannot be presently recommended as single therapy when asthma is the unique manifestation of respiratory allergy.

An evidence-based analysis of house dust mite allergen immunotherapy: a call for more rigorous clinical studies

BACKGROUND

According to meta-analyses and reviews, subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) are beneficial in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) induced by house dust mites (HDMs). However, the reported effect sizes have varied greatly from one study to another.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to perform an evidence-based medicine assessment of commercially available SCIT and SLIT formulations in patients with HDM-induced AA and HDM-induced AR.

METHODS

We searched for double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and analyzed study designs, doses, regimens, patient-reported outcomes, safety reporting, and compliance.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. Some studies tested both SLIT and SCIT or scored both AA and AR outcomes; therefore we reviewed 35 treatment arms in patients with AA (20 for SCIT and 15 for SLIT) and 23 treatment arms in patients with AR (7 for SCIT and 16 for SLIT). The treatment duration ranged from 6 weeks to 3 years. For SCIT, the dose of Der p 1 major allergen (when reported) ranged from 7 to 30 μg for maintenance doses and 60 to 420 μg for cumulative doses. For SLIT, the doses of Der p 1 (when reported) were 0.8 to 70 μg for maintenance doses and 60 to 23,695 μg for cumulative doses. Safety data were often absent or poorly reported. A statistically significant active versus placebo symptom score was observed more frequently for SCIT than for SLIT.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus on basic treatment parameters (eg, dose and duration) in HDM SCIT and SLIT. There is an urgent need for rigorous, long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an efficacy criterion that reflects the particular features of HDM-induced allergic disease.

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

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic respiratory diseases was first described in 1986 and immediately appeared as a viable alternative to the traditional subcutaneous route. Since then, more than 60 randomized controlled trials have been published, almost all with very favorable results. The average improvement over placebo in symptom score and medication use was always greater than 20%. The results of the clinical trials were pooled in several meta-analyses, which consistently confirmed the efficacy of the treatment. SLIT is characterized by a satisfactory safety profile, its side effects being mainly limited to oral discomfort. Only six anaphylaxes and no fatalities have been so far reported. Due to the good risk:benefit ratio, SLIT is currently being investigated in diseases other than respiratory allergy, such as food allergy and atopic dermatitis.

The relevance of patient-reported outcomes in a grass pollen immunotherapy trial in children and adolescents with rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the only instruments available to assess the efficacy of an intervention in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. As allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is a systemic disease, it is now recommended to use not only PROs focusing at classical symptoms, but also health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments in immunotherapy trials.

METHODS

A previously published immunotherapy trial in children and adolescents (6-18 yr) with hay fever provided us with data to assess the relevance of two of these additional outcome measures, the disease-specific rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) and the generic COOP/WONCA-charts (CWC). A PRO was considered relevant if it was responsive to pollen exposure and at least had a moderate correlation with the classical symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Furthermore, we evaluated a post-season PRO, that is, a global assessment of symptoms (GAS). This assessment is used in clinical trials as a tool for selecting participants with sufficient symptoms and in daily practice to evaluate the patient's complaints during the preceding season. We assessed the correlation of this retrospective score with the actual symptoms during the previous pollen season.

RESULTS

Data from 36 children and 63 adolescents were analysed. On the basis of the total scores of the paediatric and adolescent version of the RQLQ, both questionnaires were considered relevant as they were responsive to exposure and showed a moderate to strong correlation with the rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms. However, in both children and adolescents, 40% of the RQLQ items were not relevant according to our definition. The CWC as a whole and the separate charts appear less relevant because of the weak correlations with the daily symptom score from the diary. The correlation between our post-season GAS and the in season daily symptom score was weak.

CONCLUSION

The paediatric and adolescent RQLQ are relevant, but could be shortened as they contain a substantial number of irrelevant items. The CWC are not relevant in the monitoring of children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused by grass pollen. The retrospective GAS does not sufficiently reflect the actual symptoms during the preceding season.

Allergen immunotherapy: how to balance the different views from pulmonologists and allergists?

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the treatment characterizing the allergological approach to respiratory allergy. Unfortunately, most available data from the literature and current practice indicate that pulmonologists do no consider AIT when choosing the treatment strategy in patients with asthma. Indeed AIT, from its introduction in 1911 to nowadays, was unceasingly improved and has accumulated clear evidence on its effectiveness. Moreover, AIT has a characteristic not shared by drugs in the capacity to modify the natural history of asthma, due to its immunologic mechanisms of actions, and thus also works after the treatment withdrawal. This also makes AIT a clearly cost-effective treatment over time. It is surprising that pulmonologists, for whom asthma is a major disease to manage, do not consider AIT when choosing the optimal treatment in single patients. The insufficient information on AIT and the availability of allergen extracts with less than good quality are likely to be the most important factors influencing such an attitude. The current development of standardized, pharmaceutical-grade products for AIT seems capable of making allergen extracts comparable to drugs and to stimulate a rethinking of AIT's role in the treatment of asthma in pulmonologists. A reappraisal of the significance of the allergen-specific bronchial challenge could represent a further factor suggesting AIT as a reliable option.

High-dose sublingual immunotherapy with single-dose aqueous grass pollen extract in children is effective and safe: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy is a viable alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy particularly attractive for use in children.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated efficacy and safety of high-dose sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children allergic to grass pollen in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

METHODS

After a baseline seasonal observation, 207 children aged 4 to 12 years with grass pollen-allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis with/without bronchial asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma I/II) received either high-dose grass pollen SLIT or placebo daily for 1 pre-/co-seasonal period. The primary end point was the change of the area under the curve of the symptom-medication score (SMS) from the baseline season to the first season after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes were well days, responders, immunologic changes, and safety.

RESULTS

Mean changes in the area under the curve of the SMS from the baseline to the first grass pollen season after the start of treatment were -212.5 for the active group and -97.8 for the placebo group (P = .0040). Rhinoconjunctivitis SMS (P = .0020) and separated symptom and medication scores were also statistically different between the 2 groups (P = .0121 and P = .0226, respectively). The number of well days and the percentage of responders were greater in the active group. Changes in allergen-specific IgE and IgG levels indicated a significant immunologic effect. The treatment was well tolerated, and no serious treatment-related events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirmed that this SLIT preparation significantly reduced symptoms and medication use in children with grass pollen-allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. The preparation showed significant effects on allergen-specific antibodies, was well tolerated, and appeared to be a valid therapeutic option in children allergic to grass pollen. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00841256.

One century of allergen-specific immunotherapy for respiratory allergy

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

Sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic rhinitis: quality of systematic reviews

Systematic reviews have gained popularity as a way to combine the increasing amount of research information. This study assessed the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic rhinitis in children, published since 2000. Eligible reviews were identified by searching Medline/Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, from 2000 through 2008. Methodological quality was assessed using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews instrument. Ten systematic reviews were included, one of which was published in the Cochrane Library. Eight reviews gave some details about the search strategy. None of the reviews included measures to avoid selection bias. In 60% of the reviews, the methodological quality of the included studies was (partly) assessed. Four reviews pooled the results of individual studies, neglecting clinical heterogeneity. Three of the 10 reviews provided information about sources of funding or grants from industry. Of the 10 reviews, the six reviews with the highest overall score scored 5-8 points, indicating moderate quality. Systematic reviews are useful to evaluate the efficacy of SLIT in children. Although more reviews have become available, the methodological quality could be improved. SLIT for children could be promising, but methodological flaws in the reviews and individual studies are too serious to draw definite conclusions.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy: which outcome measures are useful in monitoring clinical trials?

Various clinical outcome measures are commonly applied in clinical trials on specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma to provide evidence of its clinical efficacy. These "primary endpoints" measure clinical symptoms as well as the use for concomitant medication. "Secondary outcome endpoints" are represented by health-related quality of life (HRQoL), "well-days," provocation-tests, in vitro tests and others. This article reviews different methods assessing the clinical outcome of trials on both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy, and highlights potential advantages and drawbacks of each method.

How to design and evaluate randomized controlled trials in immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an ARIA-GA(2) LEN statement

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is one of the treatments for allergic rhinitis. However, for allergists, nonspecialists, regulators, payers, and patients, there remain gaps in understanding the evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although treating the same diseases, RCTs in SIT and pharmacotherapy should be considered separately for several reasons, as developed in this study. These include the severity and persistence of allergic rhinitis in the patients enrolled in the study, the problem of the placebo, allergen exposure (in particular pollen and mite), the analysis and reporting of the study, the level of symptoms of placebo-treated patients, the clinical relevance of the efficacy of SIT, the need for a validated combined symptom-medication score, the differences between children and adults and pharmacoeconomic analyses. This statement reviews issues raised by the interpretation of RCTs in sublingual immunotherapy. It is not possible to directly extrapolate the rules or parameters used in medication RCTs to SIT. It also provides some suggestions for the research that will be needed. Interestingly, some of the research questions can be approached with the available data obtained from large RCTs.

GA² LEN/EAACI pocket guide for allergen-specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma

This pocket guide is the result of a consensus reached during several GA(2) LEN and EAACI meetings. The aim of the current pocket guide is to offer a comprehensive set of recommendations on the use of immunotherapy in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma in daily practice. This pocket guide is meant to give simple answers to the most frequent questions of practitioners in Europe, including 'practising allergists', general practitioners and any other physicians with special interest in allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT). It is not a long or detailed scientific review of the topic. However, the recommendations in this pocket guide were compiled following an in-depth review of existing guidelines and publications, including the 1998 EAACI position paper, the 1998 WHO Position Paper on SIT and the 2001 Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA). It is also based on the ARIA update 2008 (prepared in collaboration with GA(2) LEN), the 'Sub-lingual Immunotherapy: WAO Position Paper 2009' (from the World Allergy Organisation) and the Methodology paper of ARIA. The recommendations cover patient selection, allergen extract to be used, route of administration of SIT (in particular, sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy), and necessary precautions to be followed in using SIT.

Emerging sublingual immunotherapy drugs

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

There is epidemiological evidence that respiratory allergy has reached epidemic proportions; owing to the related socio-economic impact, this topic deserves particular attention. An integrated approach involving pharmacotherapy and the immunomodulatory effect of immunotherapy is expected to optimize the management of respiratory allergy, reducing its clinical and economic burdens. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has gained increasing interest for its efficacy comparable to traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy and its good safety profile.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

A review of the up-to-date state of the art concerning the key aspects of SLIT is provided; the critical issues are discussed in the light of the comprehensive revision of the recent World Allergy Organization position paper and the subsequent literature, paying particular attention to efficacy, safety, additional effects, adherence and clinical developments.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The overview of current certainties and concerns, related to the use of SLIT, allows the reader's insight into the future directions of research and clinical applications of SLIT, aimed at covering current unmet needs.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

A large amount of experimental evidence sustains the use of SLIT, though some aspects still need to be clarified to provide clear, evidence-based recommendations. Unmet needs represent the basis for future research, while clinical hypotheses would open the search for new indications and modalities.