Long-term immunologic effects of broad-spectrum aeroallergen immunotherapy

Preventive allergen immunotherapy with inhalant allergens in children

The efficacy and safety of preventive allergen immunotherapy (pAIT) in children are currently under investigation. Here, we provide an overview of pAIT with respiratory allergens concerning the prevention of new sensitizations, allergic disease onset and progression as well as further immunomodulatory effects. Three databases were searched for clinical pAIT studies in children. Selected publications were reviewed for preventive outcomes according to prevention level (primary, secondary, and tertiary), allergen type, administration route, dose, and treatment duration. The primary prevention approach appears safe but showed no allergen-specific effect on new sensitizations. Secondary prevention seems feasible and may induce regulatory T cell-mediated immunotolerance. The number of studies at these prevention levels is limited. Tertiary prevention with grass and/or tree pollen-based pAIT has shown efficacy in preventing disease progression from allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis to asthma. Data on tertiary pAIT with house dust mites and other allergen types are inconclusive. Subcutaneous and sublingual routes appear similarly effective, but head-to-head comparative paediatric studies are scarce. Additionally, there are fewer placebo-controlled studies. Nevertheless, immunomodulatory outcomes of pAIT are encouraging. Currently, limited but favourably suggestive evidence is available for preventing respiratory allergic diseases in children by pAIT. Primary and secondary prevention have potential and warrant further investigation through well-designed studies.

Prevention Is Better than Cure: Impact of Allergen Immunotherapy on the Progression of Airway Disease

Allergen immunotherapy is highly effective for seasonal pollinosis. Three years of treatment results in long-term efficacy. This disease modification is accompanied by downregulation of allergen-specific Th2 responses and the induction of persistent specific IgG- and IgA-associated IgE-blocking activity. In children with seasonal rhinitis, both subcutaneous and sublingual pollen immunotherapy have been shown to reduce the development of asthma symptoms and asthma medication requirements. House dust mite tablet allergen immunotherapy has been shown to be effective for perennial mite-driven rhinitis in adults and children and may suppress asthma exacerbations, whereas its long-term efficacy has yet to be explored. The success of primary prevention of peanut allergy in childhood by introduction of peanut into the diet during infancy provides a strong rationale to explore whether primary prevention of inhalant allergies and asthma may also be possible. House dust mite allergy is a major risk factor for developing asthma. Preliminary data in at-risk children suggest that sublingual house dust mite immunotherapy initiated during infancy could reduce the onset of multiple allergen sensitizations and prevent the development of asthma at age 6 years. This possibility should now be explored in an adequately powered, prospectively randomized controlled trial.

Does allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis prevent asthma?

Asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) have overlapping clinical and pathologic features, sustained by an underlying T helper 2 bias, resulting in airway inflammation that extends from the nose to the lung. Children who are monosensitized often develop polysensitization over time, and they are at high risk of developing asthma. The effect of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is allergen specific, resulting in symptom improvement and reduction in medication requirement. It is the only known treatment that alters the natural history of allergic disease and induces long-term remission. A bystander or allergen-nonspecific effect of AIT has also been proposed-that AIT to 1 allergen might reduce the risk of development of sensitization to other allergens. Furthermore, several observational studies and clinical trials, in seasonal (pollen) and perennial (house dust mite) AR, have investigated a protective effect of AIT to prevent asthma. The overall evidence favors an asthma preventive effect of AIT in AR to grass and birch tree pollen. Fewer studies have investigated the use of AIT in children with perennial AR due to house dust mite allergy to prevent asthma, and the results are less convincing. The use of AIT to reduce the risk of progression to asthma, in children with AR, potentially has high impact, and it will make AIT more attractive and cost-effective. However, most studies have been of small sample size or of poor design, using different allergens and AIT methodology, making it challenging to draw firm conclusions. There is a need to do adequately powered studies with optimal design and assess cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide

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

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Prevention of allergy

Allergic diseases are common and frequently coexist. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated allergic disease with effects beyond cessation of AIT that may include important preventive effects. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has developed a clinical practice guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for AIT for the prevention of (i) development of allergic comorbidities in those with established allergic diseases, (ii) development of first allergic condition, and (iii) allergic sensitization. This guideline has been developed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) framework, which involved a multidisciplinary expert working group, a systematic review of the underpinning evidence, and external peer-review of draft recommendations. Our key recommendation is that a 3-year course of subcutaneous or sublingual AIT can be recommended for children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR) triggered by grass/birch pollen allergy to prevent asthma for up to 2 years post-AIT in addition to its sustained effect on AR symptoms and medication. Some trial data even suggest a preventive effect on asthma symptoms and medication more than 2 years post-AIT. We need more evidence concerning AIT for prevention in individuals with AR triggered by house dust mites or other allergens and for the prevention of allergic sensitization, the first allergic disease, or for the prevention of allergic comorbidities in those with other allergic conditions. Evidence for the preventive potential of AIT as disease-modifying treatment exists but there is an urgent need for more high-quality clinical trials.

Allergen immunotherapy for the prevention of allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a need to establish the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the prevention of allergic disease.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened nine international biomedical databases. Studies were quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Overall, meta-analysis found no conclusive evidence that AIT reduced the risk of developing a first allergic disease over the short term (RR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.04-2.09) and no randomized controlled evidence was found in relation to its longer-term effects for this outcome. There was, however, a reduction in the short-term risk of those with allergic rhinitis developing asthma (RR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.54), with this finding being robust to a pre-specified sensitivity analysis. We found inconclusive evidence that this benefit was maintained over the longer term: RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23. There was evidence that the risk of new sensitization was reduced over the short term, but this was not confirmed in the sensitivity analysis: RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.24-2.18. There was no clear evidence of any longer-term reduction in the risk of sensitization: RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.08-2.77. AIT appeared to have an acceptable side effect profile.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT did not result in a statistically significant reduction in the risk of developing a first allergic disease. There was, however, evidence of a reduced short-term risk of developing asthma in those with allergic rhinitis, but it is unclear whether this benefit was maintained over the longer term. We are unable to comment on the cost-effectiveness of AIT.

Critical appraisal of the clinical utility of sublingual immunotherapy in allergy

Since it was introduced by Noon in 1911, allergen-specific immunotherapy or desensitization has been widely prescribed in the management of allergic diseases. Aimed at the etiology, it represents the only effective treatment for allergy. The basic mechanisms of immunotherapy are becoming better understood and allow us to improve this technique in the future. The sublingual immunotherapy as an alternative to subcutaneous route has been widely studied. Several clinical trials confirmed that sublingual immunotherapy is efficient in reducing allergic respiratory symptoms. The sublingual immunotherapy reduces the risk of developing serious side effects due to desensitization. We performed a literature review in order to remind the mechanisms of action and to demonstrate efficacy and tolerability of the sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma and its impact on the quality of life.

Multiallergen-specific immunotherapy in polysensitized patients: where are we?

Allergen-specific immunotherapy administered by the subcutaneous route was introduced a century ago and has been shown to be effective in the management of allergic rhinitis and asthma. More recently, the sublingual administration of allergen extracts has become popular, especially in European countries, and has also demonstrated efficacy in respiratory allergic diseases. Both modes of allergen administration during immunotherapy have been shown not only to reduce symptoms and the need for medication, but also to prevent the development of additional sensitivities in monosensitized patients, as well as asthma development in patients with allergic rhinitis, with a long-lasting effect after the completion of several years of treatment. Almost all of the well-designed and double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies evaluated treatment with single-allergen extracts. Therefore, most meta-analyses published to date evaluated immunotherapy with single allergen or extracts containing several cross-reactive allergens. As a result, in general, multiallergen immunotherapy in polysensitized patients (mixture of noncross-reactive allergens) is not recommended owing to lack of evidence. Although some guidelines have recommended against the use of multiallergen mixtures, allergists commonly use mixtures to which the patient is sensitive with the rationale that effective immunotherapy should include all major sensitivities. Literature on this subject is scarce in spite of the widespread use worldwide. Here, this issue will be extensively discussed based on currently available literature and future perspectives will also be explored.

Multiple-allergen and single-allergen immunotherapy strategies in polysensitized patients: looking at the published evidence

In allergen immunotherapy there is debate as to whether polysensitized patients are best treated with many allergens simultaneously (chosen according to the sensitization profile, a predominantly North American approach) or a single allergen (chosen according to the most clinically problematic allergy, a predominantly European approach). In patients seeking treatment for moderate-to-severe respiratory allergies, polysensitization is more prevalent (range, 50% to 80%) than monosensitization in both the United States and Europe. Safe, effective, single-allergen preparations will most likely have been tested in polysensitized patients. In robust, large-scale clinical trials of grass pollen sublingual tablets, polysensitized patients benefited at least as much from allergen immunotherapy as monosensitized patients. A recent review of multiallergen immunotherapy concluded that simultaneous delivery of multiple unrelated allergens can be clinically effective but that there was a need for additional investigation of therapy with more than 2 allergen extracts (particularly in sublingual allergen immunotherapy). More work is also required to determine whether single-allergen and multiallergen immunotherapy protocols elicit distinct immune responses in monosensitized and polysensitized patients. Sublingual and subcutaneous multiallergen immunotherapy in polysensitized patients requires more supporting data to validate its efficacy in practice.

Specific immunotherapy: beyond the clinical scores

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of specific immunotherapy always has been evaluated by clinical scores (symptoms or medication intake). Nonetheless, specific immunotherapy possesses some special or "additional" effects, including the carryover effect and the preventive actions, which are unique. Those effects are the consequence of the complex mechanism of action, which induces profound and persistent modifications in the immune response to allergens. The literature is reviewed to evaluate the available experimental data on this.

DATA SOURCES

The main databases (EmBase, Medline, Scopus) were searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical trials of immunotherapy, either randomized or not, including placebo-controlled trials, were selected.

RESULTS

Currently, the carryover effect (persistence of the benefit after stopping the treatment) is well ascertained for injection immunotherapy, whereas fewer data are available for the sublingual route. On the contrary, the demonstration of the prevention of asthma onset relies on 2 randomized studies for sublingual immunotherapy, and 1 single study for subcutaneous immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Although additional confirmatory data are needed, possibly obtained with a rigorous methodology, the long-lasting and preventive effects of specific immunotherapy always should be taken into account when the efficacy is evaluated. The additional effects also may have relevant socioeconomic implications.

Anti-IgE antibodies for the treatment of IgE-mediated allergic diseases

The pharmacological purposes of the anti-IgE therapy are to neutralize IgE and to inhibit its production to attenuate type I hypersensitivity reactions. The therapy is based on humanized IgG1 antibodies that bind to free IgE and to membrane-bound IgE on B cells, but not to IgE bound by the high-affinity IgE.Fc receptors on basophils and mast cells or by the low-affinity IgE.Fc receptors on B cells. After nearly 20 years since inception, therapeutic anti-IgE antibodies (anti-IgE) have been studied in about 30 Phase II and III clinical trials in many allergy indications, and a lead antibody, omalizumab, has been approved for treating patients (12 years and older) with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Anti-IgE has confirmed the roles of IgE in the pathogenesis of asthma and helped define the concept "allergic asthma" in clinical practice. It has been shown to be safe and efficacious in treating pediatric allergic asthma and treating allergic rhinitis and is being investigated for treating peanut allergy, atopic dermatitis, latex allergy, and others. It has potential for use to combine with specific and rush immunotherapy for increased safety and efficacy. Anti-IgE thus appears to provide a prophylactic and therapeutic option for moderate to severe cases of many allergic diseases and conditions in which IgE plays a significant role. This chapter reviews the evolution of the anti-IgE concept and the clinical studies of anti-IgE on various disease indications, and presents a comprehensive analysis on the multiple intricate immunoregulatory pharmacological effects of anti-IgE. Finally, it reviews other approaches that target IgE or IgE-expressing B cells.

Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma update: allergen immunotherapy

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma document was first published in 2001. Since then, new data on specific immunotherapy have appeared. This review is intended as an update to the original document. MedLine (2001 to June 2006) was searched with appropriate key words, and panelists were asked to identify further relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials were considered for the evaluation of efficacy. For the evaluation of safety and additional effects, studies with lower grades of evidence were included. The clinical efficacy of injection immunotherapy in rhinitis and asthma was confirmed, as well as the safety, provided that recommendations are followed. Studies have demonstrated the long-term efficacy and the preventive effect of immunotherapy in reducing the onset of new sensitizations. One randomized open trial demonstrated that in children with allergic rhinitis, injection immunotherapy may reduce the risk of developing asthma. There is strong evidence that sublingual immunotherapy is effective in allergic rhinitis in adults. Recent meta-analyses demonstrated its efficacy in allergic rhinitis in children and in asthma, although more definitive trials are required. Current data indicate that sublingual immunotherapy is safe and the rate of adverse reactions is not greater below 5 years of age. One randomized open trial showed that in children with allergic rhinitis, sublingual immunotherapy reduced the onset of asthma. Further studies are needed to identify the optimal maintenance dose and to elucidate the mechanism of action. Novel approaches for immunotherapy are currently under evaluation, including the use of adjuvants, peptides, and DNA-conjugated and recombinant allergens.