Safety and tolerability of ultra-rush (20 minutes) sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma

Safety of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy with allergoids in children: a real-life pharmacovigilance study

Aims: Allergen-specific immunotherapy uses a sublingual (sublingual immunotherapy [SLIT]) or subcutaneous (subcutaneous immunotherapy [SCIT]) route. This pharmacovigilance study aimed to determine the number and type of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for SLIT and SCIT using carbamylated monomeric allergoids (CMAs) in children. Materials & methods: This pharmacovigilance study analyzed real-world post-marketing reports collected from a safety database of Lais sublingual tablets and injective Lais-in, containing CMAs for over 10 years. Results & conclusion: From January 2009 to September 2022, 26,107 doses of Lais-in were administered in children; only two nonserious related ADRs (incidence: 0.000077%) were reported. Regarding SLIT, the results showed only 12 spontaneous nonserious ADR reports (incidence: 0.000004%). These data showed the excellent safety profile of both SLIT and SCIT CMAs.

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.

A critical appraisal on AIT in childhood asthma

ABSTRACT

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment approved for allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma and represents a suitable therapeutic option, especially in childhood, to modify the progression of respiratory allergic diseases. Starting from the previous "generic class effect" evaluation, as testified by the numerous meta analyses, AIT is now considered a product-specific pathogenic-oriented treatment.

BACKGROUND

AIT was empirically proposed more than one century ago in the subcutaneous form (SCIT), but the IgE-mediated mechanism of allergy was elucidated only after 50 years of clinical use of the treatment. The sublingual administration (SLIT) was developed during the 1980 ties, to achieve an improvement in safety and convenience. While SCIT is approved in the United States for the treatment of asthmatic patients with more than 12 years, so far few trials evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of SLIT in children with allergic asthma, although the indications and some aspects remain unclear. Certainly, due to compliance problems, the age below 3 years may be reasonably considered a practical contraindication.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that some specific AIT products are effective and approved as drugs (AIFA, EMA, FDA), the use in children is still debated. Some aspects still need robust confirm: (a) the safety of AIT in asthma; (b) the optimal regimen of administration; (c) the role of AIT as preventative treatment for asthma development.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and efficacy of tree pollen specific immunotherapy on the ultrarush administration schedule method using purethal trees

Background. Specific immunotherapy (SIT) with an ultrarush administration schedule with Purethal for tree pollen allergens has been evaluated to assess its efficacy and safety. Methods. The study group consisted of 22 patients with symptoms of allergic rhinitis and confirmed allergy to tree pollens. Patients were randomized and given an administration schedule of either ultrarush therapy or conventional preseasonal SIT. Treatment was performed during three consecutive years. Results. After three years of treatment, a similar reduction in nasal symptoms was observed; according to the visual analog scale, there was a decrease from 3.991 ± 0.804 points to 1.634 ± 0.540 in the ultrarush group and from 3.845 ± 0.265 to 1.501 ± 0.418 in the group desensitized using the conventional method (P > 0.05). There was also a comparable reduction in the use of relief drugs during pollen season and an increase in the serum concentration of IgG4 to tree pollens. No significant differences in the safety profile were observed. Conclusion. An administration schedule of ultrarush SIT with Purethal Trees is a safe treatment in preliminary observations. This therapy is comparable with conventional administration of SIT in the field of efficacy and safety.

Dose-dependent clinical and immunological efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy with mite monomeric allergoid

Sublingual immunotherapy with monomeric carbamylated allergoid (LAIS) is an effective and well tolerated treatment of respiratory allergy. The aim of the present study was to correlate the efficacy of two maintenance doses (1000 AU vs 3000 AU) of LAIS with the immunological modulation of allergen-driven Th1, Th2 and T regulatory cytokines produced in vitro by PBMCs, in patients suffering from mite allergic rhinitis. Forty-eight consecutive patients with mite allergic rhinitis were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to group A (n=24) or group B (n=24), respectively receiving 1000 AU or 3000 AU weekly during one-year maintenance phase. Each patient was evaluated for rhinitis severity (ARIA protocol), and for drug consumption at the time of the inclusion and after 6 and 12 months of treatment. Patients were also asked to report the perceived severity of the disease and the tolerability of the treatment in a visual analogical scale (VAS). Before and at the end of the treatment allergen-driven release of cytokines by PBMCs in vitro was measured. After 1-year treatment, a statistically significant reduction of all clinical parameters was observed in all patients, associated with reduction of IL-4 and increase of INF-γ secreted in vitro by mite-challenged PBMCs. Notably, the group treated with the higher dose showed significantly better clinical and immunological results. The efficacy of LAIS is correlated to the immune modulation in a clear dose-dependent effect.

Strategies of mucosal immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Incidences of allergic disease have recently increased worldwide. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) has long been a controversial treatment for allergic diseases. Although beneficial effects on clinically relevant outcomes have been demonstrated in clinical trials by subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), there remains a risk of severe and sometimes fatal anaphylaxis. Mucosal immunotherapy is one advantageous choice because of its non-injection routes of administration and lower side-effect profile. This study reviews recent progress in mucosal immunotherapy for allergic diseases. Administration routes, antigen quality and quantity, and adjuvants used are major considerations in this field. Also, direct uses of unique probiotics, or specific cytokines, have been discussed. Furthermore, some researchers have reported new therapeutic ideas that combine two or more strategies. The most important strategy for development of mucosal therapies for allergic diseases is the improvement of antigen formulation, which includes continuous searching for efficient adjuvants, collecting more information about dominant T-cell epitopes of allergens, and having the proper combination of each. In clinics, when compared to other mucosal routes, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a preferred choice for therapeutic administration, although local and systemic side effects have been reported. Additionally, not every allergen has the same beneficial effect. Further studies are needed to determine the benefits of mucosal immunotherapy for different allergic diseases after comparison of the different administration routes in children and adults. Data collected from large, well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and randomized trials, with post-treatment follow-up, can provide robust substantiation of current evidence.

Safety of ultra-rush titration of sublingual immunotherapy in asthmatic children with tree-pollen allergy

The recommendation to use sublingual-swallow immunotherapy (SLIT) in children and adults with allergic rhinitis has been established over the past decade. Recently, ultra-rush titration of SLIT has become more and more common, raising concerns about its safety in children with asthma. Fifty-four children with asthma and adolescents aged 6–14 with documented allergic disease because of tree pollen (birch and possibly alder and/or hazel) from 14 study centers in Germany participated in a randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study. Twenty-seven were randomized to receive SLIT with standardized birch pollen allergen extract and the other 27 to receive placebo. An ultra-rush high-dose SLIT titration regimen reaching the maintenance dose of 300 index of reactivity (IR) within 90 min (30–90–150–300 IR) was used. The difference in mean PFR changes during ultra-rush titration between SLIT and placebo was not significant (p = 0.056). A 95% probability that SLIT does not decrease PFR during ultra-rush titration was demonstrated. Neither anaphylactic shock nor else serious systemic reactions to the study drug occurred. No serious adverse event assessed by the investigator as related to study drug treatment was reported.

Safety of sublingual immunotherapy started during the pollen season

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is safer than subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and this has lead to the reconsideration of the use of ultra-rush schedules for SLIT. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of ultra-rush SLIT in pollen-allergic children according to different timing of administration in relation to the pollen season.

METHODS

In total, 34 children with pollen-induced rhinitis and 36 with pollen-induced asthma and rhinitis, were enrolled and assigned to three study groups: group 1 (n = 17 patients): conventional pre-seasonal-SLIT treatment; group 2 (n = 23 patients), seasonal SLIT ended before the pollen seasonal peak; group 3 (n = 30 patients), SLIT began after the pollen seasonal peak and ended after the pollen season. SLIT was performed using extracts from Stallergenes (Antony, France) and following an ultra-rush schedule, consisting in four doses at a 30-min intervals, and maintenance treatment by administering the top dose three times a week.

RESULTS

In all, 54 adverse events (AEs) were reported: 12 in nine patients in group 1 (9/17, 52.9%), 22 in 14 patients in group 2 (14/23, 60.9%), and 20 in 13 patients in group 3 (13/30, 43.3%). No statistically significant differences were found between the three groups. Local AEs (oral itching and burning) were short lasting and self-resolving. Systemic AEs were also mild, except for a case of asthma, which lasted 5 days, in a patient from group 1. There were no severe reactions, and none of the patients dropped out.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that SLIT with pollen extracts may be safely started at the beginning and also during the pollen season, with a tolerability profile comparable to the conventional pre-seasonal SLIT.