Modulation of mucosal/systemic antibody response after sublingual immunotherapy in mite-allergic children

Short-term administration of Qipian®, a mixed bacterial lysate, inhibits airway inflammation in ovalbumin-induced mouse asthma by modulating cellular, humoral and neurogenic immune responses

AIMS

Qipian® is a commercialized agent composed of extracts of three genera of commensal bacteria, and its mechanism of action on asthma is unclear. This study aimed to examine the impact of Qipian® on airway inflammation and investigate the underlying mechanisms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qipian® or dexamethasone (DEX) was administered before OVA challenge in an ovalbumin-induced asthma mouse model, and then asthmatic symptoms were observed and scored. Samples of lung tissues, blood, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) were collected, and eosinophils (Eos), immunoglobins (Igs), and type 1 T helper (Th1)/Th2 cell cytokines were measured. Mucus production in the lung was assessed by periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining. The effects of Qipian® on dendritic and T regulatory (Treg) cells were investigated using flow cytometry.

KEY FINDINGS

The short-term administration of Qipian® significantly inhibited the cardinal features of allergic asthma, including an elevated asthmatic behaviour score, airway inflammation and immune response. Histological analysis of the lungs showed that Qipian® attenuated airway inflammatory cell infiltration and mucus hyperproduction. Qipian® restored Th1/Th2 imbalance by decreasing interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-13 while increasing interferon (IFN)-γ and IL-10. Further investigation revealed that Qipian® treatment induced the upregulation of CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ Treg cells and CD103+ DCs and downregulation of tachykinins neurokinin A (NKA) and NKB in the lung.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings suggested that short-term treatment with Qipian® could alleviate inflammation in allergic asthma through restoring the Th1/Th2 balance by recruiting Treg cells to airways and inducing the proliferation of CD103+ DCs, which actually provides a new treatment option for asthma.

Immune mechanisms induced by sublingual immunotherapy in allergic respiratory diseases

Allergic respiratory diseases (ARDs) are still a major burden on global public health. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a mode of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) which involves administration of the allergen under the tongue, and benefits from tolerogenic properties of the oral mucosa. Studies revealed reduced levels of eosinophilia and eosinophil-dominated inflammation in airways of both animals and humans after SLIT. SLIT was also suggested to lower basophil responsiveness and innate lymphoid cell-2 function in blood samples collected from patients with ARD. Moreover, apart from shifting pathogenic type 2 (TH2) to a type 1 (TH1) and protective regulatory (Treg) polarization of helper T-cell immune response, antibody isotype switch from IgE to IgG1, IgG2, IgG4 and IgA was also reported in patients with ARD receiving SLIT. Today, the literature on SLIT-mediated activities is still scarce and more studies are required to further enlighten the mechanisms utilized by SLIT for the induction of tolerance. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge about the immune-regulatory mechanisms induced by SLIT against ARDs.

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.

Prophylaxis of Upper Airway Infections in a Patient with Partial IgA Deficiency: Concurrent Use of Sublingual Immunotherapy with Inactivated Whole-Cell Bacterial Extract and Der p1

Selective IgA deficiency is the most common type of primary immunodeficiency, but there is not yet a specific effective treatment. The most prevalent clinical manifestations are infectious diseases of the respiratory system. We report herein the case of an 11-year-old female with selective IgA deficiency and recurring episodes of respiratory infections associated with rhinitis and asthma. We evaluated the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy combined with inactivated whole-cell bacterial extract and Der p1-specific immunotherapy. After 18 months of clinical follow-up, we observed a significant reduction in the number of episodes of respiratory infections associated with control of atopic diseases. We also observed a 3-fold increase in serum IgA levels compared to treatment initiation. This case demonstrates the potential utility of the concurrent use of sublingual immunotherapy with inactivated whole-cell bacterial extract and Der p1 for successful control of allergy and infection in partial selective IgA deficiency.

Enhancing Allergen-Presentation Platforms for Sublingual Immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) relies on high doses of allergens to treat patients with type I allergies. Although SLIT is commonly performed without any adjuvant or delivery system, allergen(s) could be further formulated with allergen-presentation platforms to better target oral dendritic cells eliciting regulatory immune responses. Improving the availability of allergens to the immune system should enhance SLIT efficacy, while allowing to decrease allergen dosing. Herein, we present an overview of adjuvants and vector systems that have been, or could be, considered as candidate allergen-presentation platforms for the sublingual route. Such platforms encompass adjuvants capable of stimulating allergen-specific T_H1 and/or regulatory CD4⁺ T-cell responses, including 1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D₃, glucocorticoids, Toll-like receptor ligands as well as selected bacterial probiotic strains. A limiting factor for SLIT efficacy is the number of dendritic cells capturing the allergens in the upper layers of oral tissues. Thus, adsorption or encapsulation of the allergen(s) within mucoadhesive particulate vector (or delivery) systems also has the potential to significantly enhance SLIT efficacy due to a facilitated allergen uptake by tolerogenic oral dendritic cells.

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.

Clinical and immunological responses of dust mite sensitive, atopic dogs to treatment with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been reported to be beneficial in people with atopic dermatitis (AD) and dust mite sensitivity. Evaluation of this therapy has not been reported in spontaneous canine AD.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to preliminarily evaluate the effectiveness of an established SLIT protocol, as used in human patients, in dogs with AD.

ANIMALS

Ten dust mite sensitive dogs with spontaneous AD.

METHODS

Dogs underwent a 6 month open trial of SLIT concurrently with decreasing dose oral methylprednisolone. Clinical evaluations and quantitative serum anti-mite IgE and IgG levels were performed every 2 months.

RESULTS

Mean methylprednisolone use from the first 2 months of the study to the final 2 months declined from 10.2 to 4.3 mg/kg/2 months (P < 0.001, Student's paired t-test); at 6 months, four dogs required no oral corticosteroid administration. Over the course of the study, median Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI)-03 scores declined from 76.5 to 59; median pruritus scores declined from 65 to 37 (P < 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively; Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Pre- and post-SLIT intradermal test scores for mite allergen were not significantly different over time. Median Dermatophagoides farinae (DF)-specific IgE levels declined significantly from 150.2 × 10(3) AU/mL to 3.6 × 10(3) AU/mL (P < 0.05). Concurrently, median DF-specific IgG levels increased from 18.5 × 10(6) AU/mL to 3923.4 × 10(6) AU/mL (P < 0.05; Wilcoxon signed-rank tests).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE

SLIT treatment produced clinical improvement in dogs with dust mite-associated AD and was associated with serological changes supporting this improvement. Further studies in larger numbers of dogs and those with polysensitization are warranted.

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.

Update on house dust mite immunotherapy: are more studies needed?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although systematic reviews have confirmed the effectiveness of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, a review of studies employing extracts of house dust mites (HDMs) for immunotherapy found no consensus on basic treatment parameters.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last 2 years nine additional reports on immunotherapy with HDM extract preparations have been published. Six studies were with SLIT, five for allergic rhinitis and one for allergic asthma. The other three studies were all with SCIT in children with allergic asthma.

SUMMARY

The publication of these nine studies supports the efficacy of HDM-SLIT for allergic rhinitis and asthma and for HDM-SCIT for asthma in children. The reported safety data are also reassuring, especially for SLIT.HDM-SLIT tablets under development will have optimal doses established in large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. The HDM-SCIT trial in children with allergic asthma confirms the efficacy of a commercialized HDM preparation for injection immunotherapy. However, the information that is presented on dosing in the articles on SLIT-liquid is unsatisfactory, as doses are not presented in a form that the clinician can use to guide their practice.

Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for house dust mite allergic rhinitis

In the present study, we investigated the outcomes of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis (HDM-AR) patients. In this prospective, multicentric study, 186 patients with AR who had positive skin prick test results for HDMs were included. The patients were administered SLIT using Staloral 300 for 1 year. Evaluation of the patients regarding symptom scores, clinical findings and Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores was performed at baseline, and then at 6 and 12 months of therapy. Our results showed that, for all of the evaluated items (symptom scores, clinical findings and RQLQ scores), 12-month values were significantly lower than those at 6 months and baseline. Similarly, 6-month values were significantly lower than those at baseline. There were no complications in any of our patients. SLIT for HDM-AR is a treatment modality that can be used safely. We obtained better results than expected, and the treatment showed a positive psychological effect; the patients believed that SLIT was the final step of treatment and, which made them feel better.

Immunotherapy for house dust mite sensitivity: where are the knowledge gaps?

House dust mites (HDMs) are found in the environments where human habitation exists. Their density is dependent on environmental relative humidity; therefore, higher populations are present in areas of the world with higher humidity levels, e.g., coastal areas and tropics. To date, 24 HDM allergens have been identified. Many of these represent digestive enzymes since HDM feces are the major source of allergen exposure. IgE- medicated sensitization to HDM allergens is an important factor in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases since it is the most common aeroallergen detected by skin testing or in vitro IgE assays. Sensitization to HDM allergens often occurs early in life and appears to play an important role in the progression from allergic rhinitis to asthma (the so-called Allergic March) in children. HDM sensitization is also associated with asthma across all age groups. Efforts to control environmental exposure to HDM allergens have often proven to be unsuccessful. While medications can improve symptoms, only immunotherapy currently provides disease-modifying effects in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Several systemic reviews and meta-analysis indicate that both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are effective in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma for HDM sensitivity. In this report, we review recent studies and the evidence for the use of HDM SCIT and SLIT. Fundamental gaps in knowledge are identified which could lead to improved approaches to HDM allergy.

A milestone in house dust-mite-allergen immunotherapy: the new sublingual tablet S-524101 (actair)

Subcutaneous allergen-specific immunotherapy has long been used in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma and its efficacy has been confirmed. However, due to the discomfort of injections and the risk of severe adverse reactions, alternative routes of allergen administration have emerged. Delivery of allergens through the mucosal route had been proposed and investigated thoroughly, confirming the sublingual route to be the most efficacious. Later, the efficacy and safety of this route have been documented by numerous controlled trials both for house dust mite (HDM) and pollens. Recently, sublingual orodispersable grass pollen allergen tablets were in use followed by the newly developed HDM allergen tablets with satisfactory clinical results: Moreover, very recently 1 year of HDM tablet treatment was demonstrated to exert its clinical efficacy 1 year after discontinuation of tablet IT. The persistence of efficacy after only 1 year of treatment is a new and promising era. Currently, Sublingual Immunotherapy is the most easily administered and safe treatment option until more immunogenic, less allergenic and more efficient allergen extracts are developed.

Immune mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-established allergen-specific immunotherapy and a safe and effective strategy to reorient inappropriate immune responses in allergic patients. SLIT takes advantage of the tolerogenic environment of the oral mucosa to promote tolerance to the allergen. Several clinical studies have investigated the complex interplay of innate and adaptive immune responses that SLIT exploits. The oral immune system is composed of tolerogenic dendritic cells that, following uptake of allergen during SLIT, support the differentiation of T helper cell type 1 (Th1) and the induction of IL-10-producing regulatory T cells. Following SLIT, allergic disease-promoting T helper cell type 2 (Th2) responses shift to a Th1 inflammatory response, and IL-10 and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β production by regulatory T cells and tolerogenic dendritic cells suppress allergen-specific T cell responses. These immune changes occur both in the sublingual mucosa and in the periphery of a patient following SLIT. SLIT also promotes the synthesis of allergen-specific IgG and IgA antibodies that block allergen-IgE complex formation and binding to inflammatory cells, thus encouraging an anti-inflammatory environment. Several of these revealing findings have also paved the way for the identification of biomarkers of the clinical efficacy of SLIT. This review presents the emerging elucidation of the immune mechanisms mediated by SLIT.

Immunotherapy in allergy and cellular tests: state of art

The basophil activation test (BAT) is an in vitro assay where the activation of basophils upon exposure to various IgE-challenging molecules is measured by flow cytometry. It is a cellular test able to investigate basophil behavior during allergy and allergy immunotherapy. A panoply of critical issues and suggestive advances have rendered this assay a promising yet puzzling tool to endeavor a full comprehension of innate immunity of allergy desensitization and manage allergen or monoclonal anti-IgE therapy. In this review a brief state of art of BAT in immunotherapy is described focusing onto the analytical issue pertaining BAT performance in allergy specific therapy.