Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic overview of systematic reviews

Safety and Efficacy of VIT against Wasp Venom in Ultra-Rush Protocols in Patients Older Than 60 Years

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy remains a widely recognized and widely used method for the treatment of selected allergic diseases. Currently, according to the European Academy Of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidelines, venom immunotherapy (VIT) may be considered for patients over 60. Nevertheless, no separate studies have confirmed the efficacy and safety of this therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term effectiveness of VIT against wasp allergens in an ultra-rush protocol for older patients compared to young patients.

METHODS

Among the 113 patients included in this study, 51 were older than 60 years (Group A), and 62 formed the control "young group" (age range: 18-35 years). All patients were desensitized to wasp venom using the ultra-rush protocol according to Muller and aqueous solutions of vaccines containing wasp venom. A basophil activation test (Basotest, Orpegen Pharma, Germany) and intracutaneous tests with dilutions of wasp allergen and specific IgE to extract wasp venom were performed at the start and after six months of VIT. The safety of VIT was assessed on the basis of the international Mueller scale.

RESULTS

One hundred and eleven patients with confirmed wasp allergies completed six months of VIT: 51 participants over 60 years of age (Group A) and 60 young people (Group B). No systemic adverse reactions were observed during the VIT induction phase. However, large local reactions were noted in 17% of older patients and 20% of young patients at a similar level (p > 0.05). During maintenance VIT, two mild grade I systemic reactions were confirmed in young patients. These symptoms resolved spontaneously. There were no such reactions in older patients. The effectiveness of VIT was tested using BAT. There was a statistically significant reduction in CD63 reactivity in 86% of patients in Group A, and a comparable and substantial decrease in 84% of young patients in Group B. According to the BAT test, the mean reductions in the area under the curve (AUC) after six months of VIT were significant (p < 0.05) and comparable between Groups A and B: -6.52 vs. 7.21.

CONCLUSIONS

VIT against wasp venom is safe and effective in short-term observation, and is comparable to that used for young patients.

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.

Future Directions of Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: Experts' Perspective

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is broadly used all over the world as the only available disease-modifying treatment option. The aim of this experts' perspective is to address 7 important unmet needs for the further direction of AIT and to provide the readership with the authors' positions on these topics. An international group of experts in the field of AIT have formulated 7 important aspects for the future position of AIT, performed a current literature review, and proposed a consented position on these topics. The aspects discussed and consented by the authors include: (1) alternative routes of allergen application in AIT, (2) potential of recombinant vaccines, (3) the role of allergy diagnosis based on component-resolved diagnosis for AIT composition, (4) the impact of COVID-19 vaccination for further innovations in AIT, (5) potential of combining biologics to AIT, (6) future innovations in high-risk children/adolescents, and (7) the future regulatory position on AIT. Important unmet needs and topics for AIT have been addressed in this expert review. The authors' views and personal position on these 7 aspects have also been elaborated.

TFOS Lifestyle: Impact of contact lenses on the ocular surface

Several lifestyle choices made by contact lens wearers can have adverse consequences on ocular health. These include being non-adherent to contact lens care, sleeping in lenses, ill-advised purchasing options, not seeing an eyecare professional for regular aftercare visits, wearing lenses when feeling unwell, wearing lenses too soon after various forms of ophthalmic surgery, and wearing lenses when engaged in risky behaviors (e.g., when using tobacco, alcohol or recreational drugs). Those with a pre-existing compromised ocular surface may find that contact lens wear exacerbates ocular disease morbidity. Conversely, contact lenses may have various therapeutic benefits. The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impinged upon the lifestyle of contact lens wearers, introducing challenges such as mask-associated dry eye, contact lens discomfort with increased use of digital devices, inadvertent exposure to hand sanitizers, and reduced use of lenses. Wearing contact lenses in challenging environments, such as in the presence of dust and noxious chemicals, or where there is the possibility of ocular trauma (e.g., sport or working with tools) can be problematic, although in some instances lenses can be protective. Contact lenses can be worn for sport, theatre, at high altitude, driving at night, in the military and in space, and special considerations are required when prescribing in such situations to ensure successful outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis, incorporated within the review, identified that the influence of lifestyle factors on soft contact lens dropout remains poorly understood, and is an area in need of further research. Overall, this report investigated lifestyle-related choices made by clinicians and contact lens wearers and discovered that when appropriate lifestyle choices are made, contact lens wear can enhance the quality of life of wearers.

Comparison of allergen immunotherapy practice patterns in inhalant allergies in the United States of America and Europe: Similarities and differences 2023

IgE-mediated atopic diseases such as allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis are common chronic diseases in the western world. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) plays a fundamental role in the treatment of allergic patients by modulating the underlying immune mechanisms. Though this treatment is integrated in practice-patterns globally, many differences are found in the application of AIT on the national or international level due to heterogeneous methods, and clinical recommendations are given in different parts of the world. This review from authors in Europe and the United States highlights differences and similarities in important aspects of AIT application in the 2 global regions. First, the regulatory situation differs regarding marketing authorization and licensing. Secondly, differences are elaborated in manufacturing practices, marketing distribution and formulations of AIT products. Thirdly, clinical administration patterns in the current guidelines show similarities in indications and contraindications of AIT, but also are divergent in some practical aspects. Informing the readership on similarities, as well as differences of standards in AIT in the United States and Europe, the authors highlight the unmet need of thorough harmonization of standards of AIT, as it is the only disease modifying treatment option available for patients with allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis.

First-in-human phase 2 trial with mite allergoids coupled to mannan in subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Polymerized allergens conjugated to non-oxidized mannan (PM-allergoids) are novel vaccines targeting dendritic cells (DCs). Previous experimental data indicate that PM-allergoids are readily taken up by DCs and induce Treg cells. This first-in-human study was aimed to evaluate safety and to find the optimal dose of house dust mite PM-allergoid (PM-HDM) administered subcutaneously (SC) or sublingually (SL).

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial, 196 subjects received placebo or PM-HDM at 500, 1000, 3000, or 5000 mannan-conjugated therapeutic units (mTU)/mL in 9-arm groups for 4 months. All subjects received 5 SC doses (0.5 ml each) every 30 days plus 0.2 ml SL daily. The primary efficacy outcome was the improvement of titrated nasal provocation tests (NPT) with D. pteronyssinus at baseline and at the end of the study. All adverse events and reactions were recorded and assessed. Secondary outcomes were the combination of symptom and medication scores (CSMS) and serological markers.

RESULTS

No moderate or severe adverse reactions were reported. Subjects improving the NPT after treatment ranged from 45% to 62% in active SC, 44% to 61% in active SL and 16% in placebo groups. Statistical differences between placebo and active groups were all significant above 500 mTU, being the highest with 3000 mTU SL (p = 0.004) and 5000 mTU SC (p = 0.011). CSMS improvement over placebo reached 70% (p < 0.001) in active 3000 mTU SC and 40% (p = 0.015) in 5000 mTU SL groups.

CONCLUSIONS

PM-HDM immunotherapy was safe and successful in achieving primary and secondary clinical outcomes in SC and SL at either 3000 or 5000 mTU/ml.

Pediatric subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a widely used therapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma. It is a useful adjunct to standard medical management of these conditions that can lead to long-term benefits and possible resolution of symptoms. The benefits of SCIT, particularly for children, include avoiding prolonged use and side effects from medications, preventing new aeroallergen sensitizations, and reducing the risk of developing asthma. The primary risks of SCIT include local and systemic reactions. Standard schedules for SCIT include advancing through multiple doses usually in four vials (diluted to 1:1000) on a weekly basis; however, there are benefits of using accelerated schedules, especially for children who need to coordinate school and parent work schedules. Special considerations for pediatric patients include fear of needles, avoiding discomfort with injections, consent, optimal injection scheduling, and difficulty communicating about symptoms during reactions in very young children. Overall, SCIT can be a safe and beneficial therapy for children.

Ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Ragweed allergen causes Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and sublingual immunotherapy is one of the treatment modalities to desensitize allergic individuals. This systematic review assesses the effectiveness and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused due to Ragweed.

METHODS

The databases search was done through December 2020. English-language randomized controlled trials were included if they compared sublingual immunotherapy with placebo, pharmacotherapy, or other sublingual immunotherapy regimens, and reported clinical outcomes. The strength of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was graded based on the risk of bias, consistency, magnitude of effect, and the directness of the evidence.

RESULTS

The searches performed according to the protocol identified 134 abstracts of which 67 were duplicates. A total of 37 full papers were therefore reviewed of which 5 were included for the final study. Participants' ages ranged from 4 to 58 years. The risk of bias was low in most studies. The review suggests that sublingual immunotherapy improves rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, with 4 of 4 studies reporting efficacy showed improvement in the symptom score of SLIT groups compared to placebo. Local reactions were frequent, but anaphylaxis was not reported in any of the studies. Serious adverse events were very few in all the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall evidence showed the effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma, but high-quality studies are still needed to answer questions regarding optimal dosing strategies.

Workup and Clinical Assessment for Allergen Immunotherapy Candidates

Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) is a well-established, efficient, and safe way to treat respiratory and insect-venom allergies. After determining the diagnosis of the clinically relevant culprit allergen, AIT can be prescribed. However, not all patients are eligible for AIT, since some diseases/conditions represent contraindications to AIT use, as described in several guidelines. Allergists are often preoccupied on whether an extensive workup should be ordered in apparently healthy AIT candidates in order to detect contra-indicated diseases and conditions. These preoccupations often arise from clinical, ethical and legal issues. The aim of this article is to suggest an approach to the workup and assessment of the presence of any underlying diseases/conditions in patients with no case history before the start of AIT. Notably, there is a lack of published studies on the appropriate evaluation of AIT candidates, with no globally accepted guidelines. It appears that Allergists are mostly deciding based on their AIT training, as well as their clinical experience. Guidance is based mainly on experts’ opinions; the suggested preliminary workup can be divided into mandatory and optional testing. The evaluation for possible underlying neoplastic, autoimmune, and cardiovascular diseases, primary and acquired immunodeficiencies and pregnancy, might be helpful but only in subjects for whom the history and clinical examination raise suspicion of these conditions. A workup without any reasonable correlation with potential contraindications is useless. In conclusion, the evaluation of each individual candidate for possible medical conditions should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Safety of the standardized quality tree sublingual immunotherapy tablet: Pooled safety analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The standardized quality (SQ) tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet has recently been approved for treatment of tree pollen allergy. Healthcare workers should be provided with detailed safety data for clinical use.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the tolerability and safety of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet (12 SQ-Bet) in adults and adolescents.

METHODS

Safety data were pooled from three double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (2 phase-II/1 phase-III) including adults and adolescents 12-65 years with allergic rhinitis and/or conjunctivitis treated before and during one pollen season once-daily with 12 SQ-Bet (n = 471) or placebo (n = 458): EudraCT no: 2012-000031-59; NCT02481856; EudraCT 2015-004821-15.

RESULTS

The most frequently reported investigational medicinal product (IMP)-related AEs with 12 SQ-Bet were oral pruritis (39% of subjects) and throat irritation (29%). IMP-related AEs were mainly mild or moderate in severity, and the majority resolved without treatment and did not lead to treatment interruption/discontinuation. With 12 SQ-Bet, oral pruritus was more frequent among subjects with pollen food syndrome (PFS) (45%) than without PFS (29%). The 12 SQ-Bet did not seem to induce an increased risk of asthma: 7 events were reported in 7 subjects with 12 SQ-Bet and 11 in 10 subjects with placebo. No differences were seen in the risk of moderate-to-severe IMP-related AEs regardless of age, PFS status and asthma medical history.

CONCLUSIONS

The 12 SQ tree SLIT-tablet was well tolerated in tree pollen allergic subjects with no major safety concerns detected. This safety profile supports daily at-home sublingual administration once the first dose is tolerated when administered under medical supervision.

Allergic Rhinitis: What Do We Know About Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy?

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated disease that is characterized by Th2 joint inflammation. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is indicated for AR when symptoms remain uncontrolled despite medication and allergen avoidance. AIT is considered to have been effective if it alleviated allergic symptoms, decreased medication use, improved the quality of life even after treatment cessation, and prevented the progression of AR to asthma and the onset of new sensitization. AIT can be administered subcutaneously or sublingually, and novel routes are still being developed, such as intra-lymphatically and epicutaneously. AIT aims at inducing allergen tolerance through modification of innate and adaptive immunologic responses. The main mechanism of AIT is control of type 2 inflammatory cells through induction of various functional regulatory cells such as regulatory T cells (Tregs), follicular T cells (Tfr), B cells (Bregs), dendritic cells (DCregs), innate lymphoid cells (IL-10⁺ ILCs), and natural killer cells (NKregs). However, AIT has a number of disadvantages: the long treatment period required to achieve greater efficacy, high cost, systemic allergic reactions, and the absence of a biomarker for predicting treatment responders. Currently, adjunctive therapies, vaccine adjuvants, and novel vaccine technologies are being studied to overcome the problems associated with AIT. This review presents an updated overview of AIT, with a special focus on AR.

COVID-19 vaccination and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) - A position paper of the German Society for Applied Allergology (AeDA) and the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)

Background: Vaccinations against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are intended to induce an immune response to protect against infection/disease. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is thought to induce a (different) immune response, e.g., to induce tolerance to allergens. In this position paper we clarify how to use AIT in temporal relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Four SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are currently approved in the EU, and their possible immunological interactions with AIT are described together with practical recommendations for use. Materials and methods: Based on the internationally published literature, this position paper provides specific recommendations for the use of AIT in temporal relation to a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Results: AIT is used in 1) allergic rhinitis, 2) allergic bronchial asthma, 3) insect venom allergy, 4) food allergy (peanut). Conclusion: For the continuation of an ongoing AIT, we recommend an interval of 1 week before and after vaccination for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). For sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and oral immunotherapy (OIT), we recommend taking them up to the day before vaccination and a break of 2 – 7 days after vaccination. Initiation of a new SCIT, SLIT, or OIT should be delayed until 1 week after the day of the second vaccination. For SCIT, we generally recommend an interval of ~ 1 week to COVID-19 vaccination.

Subcutaneous Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy Is Safe in Pediatric Patients with Allergic Rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Subcutaneous allergen-specific immunotherapy (SCIT) is one of the main cornerstones in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in pediatric patients. It has demonstrated symptoms and quality of life improvement, but it is not exempt from adverse reactions (ADVrs). Nevertheless, there are a few reports that have evaluated their safety. Our objective was to evaluate the ADVr to SCIT in pediatric patients.

METHODS

We reviewed 786 clinical records with SCIT from 2005 to 2018, comparing the clinical characteristics of patients with ADVrs with SCIT versus a group of a similar number of patients who completed SCIT (control group, CG). The analysis of ADVrs was according to the World Allergy Organization (WAO) 2010 grading system by frequency analysis, survival curve, and log rank.

RESULTS

Of 786 patients, 106 (13.4%) presented ADVrs, and the patients with ADVr had sensitivity and immunotherapy with at least 2 allergens versus CG p < 0.001, containing a combination of standardized and nonstandardized allergens (p = 0.003). The ADVrs were in the buildup phase (p < 0.001). The survival curve showed that 50% had some reaction at 12 weeks of SCIT. The most frequent ADVr was grade 1 in 73/106 patients (68.8%) and grade 2 in 33/106 (31.1%). The log-rank analysis between the grades of the WAO grading system showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The SCIT is safe in pediatric patients. The ADVrs are infrequent, grade 1 being the most reported; however, at >12 weeks, the risk of ADVrs that involve 2 organs systems increases.

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.

The safety of sublingual immunotherapy, can the rare systemic reactions be prevented?

Introduction: The safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), and particularly the dramatic issue of fatal reactions, has been an obstacle that limited the implementation of a therapy with unique characteristics of action on the causes of allergy. The introduction of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was aimed at solving safety problems while maintaining clinical efficacy.Areas covered: For more than 20 years, SLIT has been based on allergen extracts in drops at low average doses. As evidenced by meta-analyses, the typical adverse events (AE) have consisted of local reactions in the mouth and throat. Unlike the injection route, no correlation was observed between the administered dose and AEs. The development of SLIT products in tablets, based on higher doses than drops, has somewhat changed the concept of SLIT safety. Although large trials, performed to obtain regulatory agency approval, have shown overall high safety, rare anaphylactic reactions have been described.Expert opinion: SLIT is globally safe, and no fatal reactions have ever been reported, but with currently available high biological potency products it is necessary to follow prudential rules, such as the administration of the first dose under medical supervision and the thorough education of patients to avoid taking of higher doses than recommended.

Artemisia Annua sublingual immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinitis: A multicenter, randomized trial

Background

Artemisia annua is the most common outdoor aeroallergen throughout Northern China; however, no multicenter study has investigated sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) as a treatment option for Artemisia annua-induced allergic rhinitis (AR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an innovative SLIT for Artemisia annua-related AR.

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trial conducted in China (NCT XXX). A total of 702 Artemisia annua-sensitized eligible patients were randomized in a ratio of 2:1 to receive Artemisia annua-SLIT or placebo. The treatment lasted 32 weeks; including 5-weeks up-dosing phase and 27-weeks maintenance phase. The primary endpoint was the daily combined score of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptom (CSMRS), and secondary endpoints were daily total nasal symptom score (dTNSS) and daily rescue medication score (dRMS) during peak pollen period. Safety of treatment was evaluated according to adverse events (AEs) experienced.

Results

Mean daily CSMRS was significantly improved during the peak pollen period in the SLIT group compared with the placebo group (1.46 ± 0.47 vs 1.88 ± 0.42, P < 0.0001 in full analysis set [FAS]; 1.49 ± 0.52 vs 1.95 ± 0.46, P < 0.0001 in per protocol set [PPS]); representing a 22.3% and 23.6% reduction, respectively, relative to placebo. In specifically Artemisia annua monosensitized patients, mean daily CSMRS reductions were demonstrated as 24.1% and 27.0% in the FAS and PPS populations, respectively, when comparing the active treatment to placebo treatment. Similarly, SLIT decreased dTNSS in peak pollen period by 19.0% in FAS and 22.3% in PPS, respectively, relative to placebo. In coincidence, dRMS in peak pollen period was reduced by 22.0% in FAS and 26.0% in PPS. 65.8% patients in SLIT group experienced treatment-related AEs, none of which was serious.

Conclusion

This study indicates that SLIT with Artemisia annua drops is an effective and safe treatment option in Chinese patients with Artemisia Annua-induced AR.

Compromising between European and US allergen immunotherapy schools: Discussions from GUIMIT, the Mexican immunotherapy guidelines

Background

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has a longstanding history and still remains the only disease-changing treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma. Over the years 2 different schools have developed their strategies: the United States (US) and the European. Allergen extracts available in these regions are adapted to local practice. In other parts of the world, extracts from both regions and local ones are commercialized, as in Mexico. Here, local experts developed a national AIT guideline (GUIMIT 2019) searching for compromises between both schools.

Methods

Using ADAPTE methodology for transculturizing guidelines and AGREE-II for evaluating guideline quality, GUIMIT selected 3 high-quality Main Reference Guidelines (MRGs): the European Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (EAACI) guideines, the S2k guideline of various German-speaking medical societies (2014), and the US Practice Parameters on Allergen Immunotherapy 2011. We formulated clinical questions and based responses on the fused evidence available in the MRGs, combined with local possibilities, patient's preference, and costs. We came across several issues on which the MRGs disagreed. These are presented here along with arguments of GUIMIT members to resolve them. GUIMIT (for a complete English version, Supplementary data) concluded the following.

Results

Related to the diagnosis of IgE-mediated respiratory allergy, apart from skin prick testing complementary tests (challenges, in vitro testing and molecular such as species-specific allergens) might be useful in selected cases to inform AIT composition. AIT is indicated in allergic rhinitis and suggested in allergic asthma (once controlled) and IgE-mediated atopic dermatitis. Concerning the correct subcutaneous AIT dose for compounding vials according to the US school: dosing tables and formula are given; up to 4 non-related allergens can be mixed, refraining from mixing high with low protease extracts. When using European extracts: the manufacturer's indications should be followed; in multi-allergic patients 2 simultaneous injections can be given (100% consensus); mixing is discouraged. In Mexico only allergoid tablets are available; based on doses used in all sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) publications referenced in MRGs, GUIMIT suggests a probable effective dose related to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) might be: 50-200% of the monthly SCIT dose given daily, maximum mixing 4 allergens. Also, a table with practical suggestions on non-evidence-existing issues, developed with a simplified Delphi method, is added. Finally, dissemination and implementation of guidelines is briefly discussed, explaining how we used online tools for this in Mexico.

Conclusions

Countries where European and American AIT extracts are available should adjust AIT according to which school is followed.

Allergen Immunotherapy in children with respiratory allergic diseases

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a well-established treatment for allergic respiratory diseases. It represents a cornerstone in the clinical management of allergic children since it is the only curative option to date able to modify the natural history of Ig-E mediated allergic diseases. Through a well-defined immunologic mechanism, AIT promotes regulatory T cells and cuts down the immune response induced by allergens. According to current guidelines based on up-to-date evidence, AIT should be offered to children with moderate-severe allergic rhinitis and/or controlled asthma starting from 5 years of age, further to an adequate risk-benefit assessment which includes patient's adherence to the treatment and a proper selection of the right product. Younger age and mild disease could be considered based on an individual evaluation. Both subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) routes of administration have a good efficacy and safety profile with safer outcomes for SLIT compared to SCIT. Only standardized products with documented evidence of clinical efficacy should be used. Although AIT is used worldwide, there are still gaps and limitations, including the lack of reliable biomarkers predictive of the clinical outcome. Novel adjuvants are currently under investigations to boost the strength and efficiency of the immune response, as well as new formulations with better efficacy and better patient's adherence to the treatment. Herein, we aim to provide an overview of current key evidence with major regard to clinical practice as well as knowledge gaps and future research needs in the context of AIT in children with respiratory allergic diseases.

Rhinitis 2020: A practice parameter update

This comprehensive practice parameter for allergic rhinitis (AR) and nonallergic rhinitis (NAR) provides updated guidance on diagnosis, assessment, selection of monotherapy and combination pharmacologic options, and allergen immunotherapy for AR. Newer information about local AR is reviewed. Cough is emphasized as a common symptom in both AR and NAR. Food allergy testing is not recommended in the routine evaluation of rhinitis. Intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) remain the preferred monotherapy for persistent AR, but additional studies support the additive benefit of combination treatment with INCS and intranasal antihistamines in both AR and NAR. Either intranasal antihistamines or INCS may be offered as first-line monotherapy for NAR. Montelukast should only be used for AR if there has been an inadequate response or intolerance to alternative therapies. Depot parenteral corticosteroids are not recommended for treatment of AR due to potential risks. While intranasal decongestants generally should be limited to short-term use to prevent rebound congestion, in limited circumstances, patients receiving regimens that include an INCS may be offered, in addition, an intranasal decongestant for up to 4 weeks. Neither acupuncture nor herbal products have adequate studies to support their use for AR. Oral decongestants should be avoided during the first trimester of pregnancy. Recommendations for use of subcutaneous and sublingual tablet allergen immunotherapy in AR are provided. Algorithms based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion are provided to guide in the selection of pharmacologic options for intermittent and persistent AR and NAR.

Allergen immunotherapy in the current COVID-19 pandemic: A position paper of AeDA, ARIA, EAACI, DGAKI and GPA: Position paper of the German ARIA GroupA in cooperation with the Austrian ARIA GroupB, the Swiss ARIA GroupC, German Society for Applied Allergology (AEDA)D, German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI)E, Society for Pediatric Allergology (GPA)F in cooperation with AG Clinical Immunology, Allergology and Environmental Medicine of the DGHNO-KHCG and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)H

No abstract available.

Chronic Rhinosinusitis and Allergy: Increased Allergen Sensitization Versus Real Allergic Rhinitis Multimorbidity: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objective of this article is to provide a recent update of the association between allergic inflammation and chronic rhinosinusitis. The systematic approach of this review article critically evaluates the literature published over the past few years and summarizes the specific pathophysiologic pathway of chronic sinonasal inflammation that has been postulated.

RECENT FINDINGS

From a systematic search of the Ovid Medline and Embase, 11 studies were included in a qualitative analysis of the association between systemic allergy and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). Of the 11 studies, four showed an association, three were inconclusive, and four did not show any association. From the systematic search, 50 studies suggested four possible pathophysiologic pathways that may explain the association of allergic inflammation and CRS, namely, (1) staphylococcal enterotoxin, (2) the innate immunity pathway, (3) mast cell-associated inflammation, and (4) dysbiosis of microbiota. The association of systematic allergy and CRS remains inconclusive. The recent advances in the study of the pathophysiologic pathway of CRS may lead to the possibility of a targeted treatment option for CRS.

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.

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) was introduced in clinical practice on an empirical basis more than 100 years ago. Since the first attempts, AIT was administered subcutaneously. Indeed, other routes of administration were proposed and studied, in particular to improve the safety, but only the sublingual route (SLIT) achieved a credibility based on evidence and was then accepted as a viable "alternative" option to the subcutaneous route. SLIT was largely used in clinical trials and clinical practice in this last 30 years. Thus, a large amount of data is available, coming from either controlled trials and postmarketing surveillance studies. It is clear that SLIT is overall effective, but it is also clear that the efficacy is not "class-related," as derived from meta-analyses, but restricted to each specific product. The 30-year lasting use of SLIT allowed to clarify many clinical aspects, such as efficacy, safety, use in asthma, regimens of administration, and optimal doses. In parallel, the mechanisms of action of AIT were elucidated, and new indications were proposed (eg food allergy, atopic dermatitis). In addition, the introduction of molecular-based diagnosis, allowed to better refine the prescription of SLIT, based on specific sensitization profiles. The present article will describe the origin and evolution of SLIT for respiratory allergy, taking into account the clinical context that suggested this form of treatment, the recently developed aspects, the future perspectives and unmet needs, This is not, therefore, a systematic review, rather a narrative historical description of the past history, and a look forward to the future opportunities.

Safety evaluation of a multiallergen immunotherapy treatment in polyallergic patients. APOLO observational study

Aim: Assessment of safety, tolerability and changes in global clinical impression with an multiallergen immunotherapy treatment without dilutional effect in polyallergic patients. Patients & methods: This observational prospective study included patients with allergic rhinitis-rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma between 5 and 60 years old receiving immunotherapy treatment with a mixture of two allergenic sources. All adverse events were recorded. Global clinical impression, tolerability subjective assessment and satisfaction were also assessed. Results: 130 patients were analyzed. Nine clinically relevant local adverse reactions were reported in six patients (4.6%). Six systemic reactions (grades 0-I) occurred in four patients (3.1%). Patients improved significantly in their global clinical impression. Good tolerability subjective assessment and satisfaction values were also observed. Conclusion: This multiallergen immunotherapy treatment without dilutional effect can be considered as a potential therapeutic alternative for polyallergic patients suffering from allergic rhinitis.

Advances in aeroallergen immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is the most common manifestation of allergic disease. This break in the normal natural function of the immune system to ignore harmless molecules such as pollen and pet dander to now aggressively react has lead to a substantial disease burden that is not always recognized and adequately treated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Individual molecular component testing may increase the predictive value of blood sIgE and clinical symptoms. Defining the most symptoms inducing allergenic protein has led to advances in peptide-based allergen immunotherapy. There have been steady consistent reports that allergy immunotherapy for children with symptomatic allergic rhinitis prevents the onset of asthma.

SUMMARY

Allergy immunotherapy is an effective disease-modulating treatment that alters the underlying immune dysfunction which is a currently underutilized therapy especially as it is likely effective in preventing the onset of asthma in children, at least in the short term.

Advances in allergen immunotherapy as a treatment of asthma

Introduction: Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment acting on causes and not only on symptoms of respiratory allergy. It was first introduced as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with the aim to induce immunological tolerance to the administered allergen(s). In the 1980s, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was developed, mainly to improve the safety, which was a critical issue at that time.Areas covered: This article reviews the available literature, including a large number of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and real-life studies as well, on the outcomes of SCIT and SLIT concerning the treatment critical issues of the two routes, that are efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and compliance to treatment.Expert opinion: SCIT and SLIT are similarly effective in treating patients with respiratory allergy, providing, based on the induction of typical changes in the immunologic response, an early control of symptoms that steadily increases during the treatment and, once reached the recommended duration of 3 years, continues to work after stopping. This outcome is the major factor influencing the economic advantage of SCIT and SLIT over drug treatment.

Allergen immunotherapy as add-on to biologic agents

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we sought to outline many of the recent evidences about the available clinical trials in which biologic agents [i.e. omalizumab (OMA)] were associated as add-on to allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT).

RECENT FINDINGS

The available literature shows that OMA may be a valuable option as add-on to AIT for respiratory allergy, or food desensitization, especially in the escalation or build-up phases, in which adverse events are more commonly expected. The encouraging data for hymenoptera venom allergy remain limited to case reports, and no structured clinical trial is available.

SUMMARY

Over the past decade, studies of OMA used with AIT have shown promising results. Today, big randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are needed to better select those patients who would benefit from the addition of OMA (or other biologic agents) to AIT, as well as optimal dosing schedules, optimal duration of treatments and, finally, adequate evaluation about pharmacoeconomic aspects.

Responders and nonresponders to pharmacotherapy and allergen immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a very useful therapy for allergic rhinitis. However, some patients do not achieve the expected results. The aim of the study was to investigate the potential factors that could affect the result, either good or poor, from AIT.Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1624 patients with allergic rhinitis who underwent AIT and 1519 matched patients who underwent only symptomatic therapy (without AIT) was performed. Symptoms, medications scores and quality of life related to allergic diseases before and after therapy were recorded. Cluster analysis on all of the patients was performed to find any associations between responsiveness to therapy and the analyzed parameters. Responsiveness to therapy was assessed by the Mailing criteria.Results: A total of 1266 (77.8%) patients from the AIT group met the criterion of 30% or greater improvement, and 1061 (65.2%) of these patients met the threshold of 60% or greater improvement according to the Mailing criteria. Patients who had a frequently better response to AIT were highly represented in the two clusters. There were subjects with a short history of allergic rhinitis and concomitant allergy to grass pollen or house dust mites. Patients with a prolonged duration of allergic rhinitis before therapy and with polysensitization were more frequently worse responders to AIT.Conclusion: Responsiveness to therapy, including that to AIT, is difficult to assess. However, there were associations suggesting that short-term allergic rhinitis and monovalent allergies to grass pollen or mites could correspond to a better response to AIT.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy with depigmented-polymerized allergen extracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (DBPCTs) have confirmed the efficacy of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) with depigmented-polymerized allergen extracts (DPAEs). This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of AIT using different allergens in different severity stages of rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma in the pollen studies and asthma and rhinitis in the house dust mite studies in comparison to placebo.

METHODS

We used MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and LILACS databases to review DBPCTs published until July 2016. The combined symptom and medication score (cSMS) served as primary endpoint. The total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (RCSS) and total score in Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) were secondary efficacy endpoints. Solicited local and systemic adverse events were secondary safety endpoints. We assumed a random effects model with standardized mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences as summary statistics. In a subgroup analysis, we classified the studies following the GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) and ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) guidelines for rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma severity.

RESULTS

Six DBPCTs in pollen and 2 trials in house dust mites (HDM) were selected. Patients (N = 915) with intermittent or mild persistent asthma were included in 3 (37.5%) and 5 (62.5%) trials, respectively. Two (25%) HDM studies included patients with moderate persistent asthma, 4 trials patients with moderate-to-severe rhinoconjunctivitis. Treatment periods ranged from 12 to 24 months. AIT with DPAEs yielded significantly lower cSMS (SMD: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.9-2.8) and RQLQ (SMD: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.5) values than did placebo. An exploratory analysis of cSMS and RCSS suggested that the efficacy of AIT treatment with DPAEs was higher in trials including patients with more severe rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. A publication bias was not detected. Heterogeneity between individual studies was explained by differences in severity. Patients receiving DPAEs did not experience a significantly higher risk of local (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 0.86-2.79) or systemic reactions (OR: 1.94, 95% CI: 0.98-3.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to placebo, AIT with DPAEs is effective in patients with pollen- or HDM-induced rhinoconjunctivitis with or without allergic asthma and improves health-related quality of life. It does not differ significantly in safety and tolerability.

What you should not miss from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses on allergen-specific immunotherapy in 2017

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a well recognized and extensively studied therapeutic intervention for some allergic diseases. Every year new systematic reviews and meta-analysis provide the most powerful source of evidence to orient decision making on prevention or efficacy of AIT. We here discuss systematic reviews and meta-analyses on AIT (published January 2017 to February 2018).

RECENT FINDINGS

We identified 4 systematic reviews and 10 meta-analyses. Subcutaneous and sublingual AIT (SCIT/SLIT) significantly reduced the development of asthma in children-adolescents with moderate/severe allergic rhinitis, but evidence for a short-term, preventive effect for new allergic sensitizations was nonconclusive. SCIT/SLIT proved to significantly improve symptom and medication scores versus placebo or active comparators in respiratory allergy, with various effect sizes. Oral immunotherapy for IgE-mediated food allergy resulted in substantial benefit in desensitization rates. Data on venom AIT and latex AIT, although limited in quantity and quality, respectively, suggest a large and discrete beneficial effect.

SUMMARY

Although current evidence extracted from meta-analyses and systematic reviews support AIT as an effective, relatively safe, and well tolerated alternative for some allergic diseases, heterogeneity and some methodological inconsistencies represent matters of concern as they may affect the validity and applicability of their results, especially in the context of individual, real-life settings.

Does evidence support the use of cat allergen immunotherapy?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cat allergy can manifest as allergic rhinitis, conjunctivitis and/or asthma. With widespread cat ownership and exposure, cat allergy has emerged as a major cause of morbidity. Cat allergen immunotherapy is a potential disease modifying treatment for patients with cat allergy. We examine evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of cat allergen immunotherapy and consider the clinical contexts in which it should be prescribed.

RECENT FINDINGS

The European Association of Allergy and Clinical Immunology systematic reviews on allergic rhinitis and asthma along with the accompanying guidelines on allergic rhinitis were used as primary sources of evidence. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are most common routes of administration for allergen immunotherapy (AIT). A limited number of high-quality studies related to cat dander have shown mixed results in improvements in ocular and nasal symptoms, asthma symptoms, peak expiratory flow rate and medication use scores with subcutaneous immunotherapy. Two studies examining cat dander and cat-related allergy response with sublingual immunotherapy have shown mixed results in terms of symptomatic response. One randomized trial examining intralymphatic immunotherapy has shown a positive symptom response and a favourable safety profile. Although studies have reported mixed results regarding safety of SCIT, adverse events have been reported more commonly with SCIT than SLIT.

SUMMARY

There is a limited body of high-quality evidence on the effectiveness and safety of cat AIT and no high-quality data on its cost-effectiveness. The available evidence on effectiveness is mixed based on studying a limited array of immunological, physiological and patient-reported outcome measures. Based on this evidence and extrapolating on the wider evidence base in AIT, it is likely that some patients may benefit from this modality of treatment, particularly those with moderate-to-severe disease who are inadequately controlled on allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy and those who are monosensitized to Felix Domesticus 1. Further evidence is, however, required from larger trials before more definitive advice can be offered.

Perception and practice of sublingual immunotherapy among practicing allergists in the United States: A follow-up survey

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available regarding the current perception and practice of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) use among US and international allergists. In light of 4 recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SLIT options, perceptions and practices may be changing.

OBJECTIVE

To provide updated information about current allergists' practice and perception of SLIT relative to 2007 and 2011.

METHODS

On behalf of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) Immunotherapy and Diagnostics Committee, an electronic survey was sent to all US and international allergists who were members of the ACAAI. Data were compared with previous surveys conducted and published in 2007 and 2011.

RESULTS

Of the 305 respondents, 268 (87.9%) practiced in the United States. A total of 197 of 268 respondents (73.5%) reported experience using SLIT compared with 45 of 766 US allergists (5.9%) in 2007 and 59 of 519 US allergists (11.4%) in 2011 (P < .001). Of the 188 respondents in the United States who used SLIT in their practice, 129 (68.6%) used FDA-approved SLIT tablets only, 44 (23.4%) used both FDA-approved SLIT tablets and SLIT drops using an extract that is FDA approved for subcutaneous immunotherapy, and 15 (8.0%) reported using only SLIT drops. Limitation of only treating one allergen was the primary barrier in using SLIT among 197 of 268 respondents (73.5%).

CONCLUSION

There has been a significant increase in SLIT use in the last 5 years, with 73.5% of respondents reporting experience with it. With 4 FDA-approved SLIT therapies, this likely contributes to its more widespread use. The greatest barrier to SLIT use is the limitation of only treating one allergen.

Retrospective analysis of aeroallergen's sensitization patterns in Edmonton, Canada

Background

Sensitization to common environmental aeroallergens plays a significant role in the pathogenesis and severity of respiratory allergic disorders, specifically asthma and allergic rhinitis. Understanding sensitization patterns helps clinicians tailor care more effectively. This study examines patterns of sensitization to aeroallergens in subjects suspected of having an allergic disease in Edmonton and catchment area.

Methods

Retrospective chart review of skin prick test (SPT) results to 11 environmental aeroallergens performed between January 1st and June 30th 2014 at a University-based clinic, where patients are referred for SPT by allergists, respirologists, otolaryngologists, internists and general practitioners. Potential differences in aeroallergen sensitization patterns were evaluated.

Results

A total of 623 patients (36.9% males; 63.1% females), aged 4–84 years (mean age 38.6 years) had SPT done, of which 438 (70.3%) had a positive test for at least one aeroallergen (atopy). There were no significant sex differences in the frequency of atopy (males: 71.3% versus females: 69.7%; p = 0.373). The frequency of sensitivity to particular allergens among atopic subjects was: cat (53.1%), house dust mites (50.3%), grass (39.2%), birch (23.7%), alternaria (23.7%), dog (17.3%), poplar (12.1%), cedar (9.6%), aspergillus (9.6%), hormodendrum (8%), and penicillium (6.2%). Of 438 atopic patients, 110 (25.1%) were mono sensitized, 199 (45.4%) oligosensitized (2–3 allergens), and 129 (29.5%) polysensitized (≥ 4 allergens). There were no significant differences between males and females in the odds of being oligo-sensitized (OR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.58, 1.57). Polysensitization was significantly more frequent in males 37.2% than in females 24.8%; (OR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.58, 1.57).

Conclusion

Cat is the most frequent perennial allergen and timothy grass pollen the most frequent seasonal allergen in Edmonton and catchment area. There was no significant difference in the frequency of atopy between males and females. However, males were more likely to be polysensitized compared to females.

Highlights and recent developments in airway diseases in EAACI journals (2017)

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) owns three journals: Allergy, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology and Clinical and Translational Allergy. One of the major goals of EAACI is to support health promotion in which prevention of allergy and asthma plays a critical role and to disseminate the knowledge of allergy to all stakeholders including the EAACI junior members. There was substantial progress in 2017 in the identification of basic mechanisms of allergic and respiratory disease and the translation of these mechanisms into clinics. Better understanding of molecular and cellular mechanisms, efforts for the development of biomarkers for disease prediction, novel prevention and intervention studies, elucidation of mechanisms of multimorbidies, entrance of new drugs in the clinics as well as recently completed phase three clinical studies and publication of a large number of allergen immunotherapy studies and metaanalyses have been the highlights of the last year.

Recent advances in allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis affects 20 to 30% of adults in both the United States and Europe and perhaps a somewhat higher percentage of children. In addition to nasal and ocular symptoms directly related to the allergic process, interference of these symptoms with sleep leads to daytime sleepiness and impaired quality of life. Patients miss work because of symptoms but an even greater problem is interference with work productivity, or presenteeism, which has been reported to be the biggest contributor to the total economic cost of allergic rhinitis. There has been increasing awareness that many patients with either seasonal or perennial symptoms but negative skin and in vitro tests for allergen sensitivity have local nasal allergy, diagnosable by the presence of allergen-specific IgE in their nasal secretions or a positive nasal allergen challenge or both. The pharmaceutical management of allergic rhinitis rests on symptomatic treatment with antihistamines that perhaps are more effectively administered intranasally than orally and intranasal corticosteroids. Allergen immunotherapy is very effective, even for local allergic rhinitis, and the shortcomings of subcutaneous immunotherapy of inconvenience and safety are reduced by the introduction of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Use of the latter is currently somewhat limited by the lack of appropriate dosing information for SLIT liquids and the limited number of allergens for which SLIT tablets are available.

Immunotherapy for pet allergies

Allergic diseases compose a serious challenge for modern societies. Their individual, medical and economical burden is large. As humans spend most of their time indoors, exposure to indoor allergens is a significant contributor to the development of allergic sensitization and respiratory allergies, such as allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. One important source of indoor allergens are pets, in particular cats and dogs. Allergens from these and other mammals spread effectively and they are encountered widely in public places. If patient education, allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy do not suffice for controlling the symptoms of pet allergy, allergen immunotherapy can be a treatment option. Current information on allergen immunotherapy in pet allergy suggests that it can be effective in reducing allergic symptoms. However, the low number of high-quality randomized controlled trials of allergen immunotherapy in pet allergy warrants for further investigations.

Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis as a Strategy for Preventing Asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the impact of allergic rhinitis (AR) on the development of asthma and to update readers on recent literature suggesting that early treatment of allergic subjects with immunotherapy may prevent asthma onset.

RECENT FINDINGS

AR is frequently associated with asthma, leading to the concept that these two conditions are different aspects of the same disease. There is increasing evidence that AR precedes the onset of asthmatic symptoms and current treatment strategies are beneficial in symptom control with no impact prevention. There is limited knowledge about the risk factors responsible for the progression of AR to asthma, though recent data supports the notion that it is possible to prevent asthma onset by allergen immunotherapy. Despite significant advances in specific immunotherapy (SIT) therapy strengthening its efficacy in AR and possible prevention of progression to asthma, the adoption of this therapeutic strategy is still restricted in comparison to therapies directed towards treatment of AR symptoms. Unlike corticosteroids and other symptomatic therapies, the benefit of SIT treatment in allergic individuals has been shown to prevent the development of allergic conditions. Hence, large well-conducted randomized clinical trials with long-term efficacy of SIT are required to confirm or refute the concept that SIT may abrogate the progression of AR to asthma in patients.

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.

In vitro induction of T regulatory cells by a methylated CpG DNA sequence in humans: Potential therapeutic applications in allergic and autoimmune diseases

BACKGROUND

Allergic and autoimmune diseases comprise a group of inflammatory disorders caused by aberrant immune responses in which CD25+ Forkhead box P3-positive (FOXP3+) T regulatory (Treg) cells that normally suppress inflammatory events are often poorly functioning. This has stimulated an intensive investigative effort to find ways of increasing Tregs as a method of therapy for these conditions. One such line of investigation includes the study of how ligation of Toll-like receptors (TLRs) by CpG oligonucleotides (ODN) results in an immunostimulatory cascade that leads to induction of T-helper (Th) type 1 and Treg-type immune responses.

OBJECTIVE

The present study investigated the mechanisms by which calf thymus mammalian double-stranded DNA (CT-DNA) and a synthetic methylated DNA CpG ODN sequence suppress in vitro lymphoproliferative responses to antigens, mitogens, and alloantigens when measured by [3H]-thymidine incorporation and promote FoxP3 expression in human CD4+ T cells in the presence of transforming growth factor (TGF) beta and interleukin-2 (IL-2).

METHODS

Lymphoproliferative responses of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from four healthy subjects or nine subjects with systemic lupus erythematosus to CT-DNA or phytohemagglutinin (PHA) was measured by tritiated thymidine ([3H]-TdR) incorporation expressed as a stimulation index. Mechanisms of immunosuppressive effects of CT-DNA were evaluated by measurement of the degree of inhibition to lymphoproliferative responses to streptokinase-streptodornase, phytohemagglutinin (PHA), concanavalin A (Con A), pokeweed mitogen (PWM), or alloantigens by a Con A suppressor assay. The effects of CpG methylation on induction of FoxP3 expression in human T cells were measured by comparing inhibitory responses of synthetic methylated and nonmethylated 8-mer CpG ODN sequences by using cell sorting, in vitro stimulation, and suppressor assay.

RESULTS

Here, we showed that CT-DNA and a synthetic methylated DNA 8-mer sequence could suppress antigen-, mitogen-, and alloantigen-induced lymphoproliferation in vitro when measured by [3H]-thymidine. The synthetic methylated DNA CpG ODN but not an unmethylated CpG ODN sequence was shown to promote FoxP3 expression in human CD4+ T cells in the presence of TGF beta and IL-2. The induction of FoxP3+ suppressor cells is dose dependent and offers a potential clinical therapeutic application in allergic and autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

CONCLUSION

The use of this methylated CpG ODN offers a broad clinical application as a novel therapeutic method for Treg induction and, because of its low cost and small size, should facilitate delivery via nasal, respiratory, gastrointestinal routes, and/or by injection, routes of administration important for vaccine delivery to target sites responsible for respiratory, gastrointestinal, and systemic forms of allergic and autoimmune disease.

Immunotherapy and Asthma in Children

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is still the only disease-modifying treatment strategy for IgE-mediated allergic diseases, with consolidated evidence both in adults and children. AIT is effective in determining clinical improvement of allergic rhinitis and asthma, such as reduced symptoms, medication use, and improvement of quality of life, with a long-lasting effect after cessation of treatment. Results from recent clinical studies have implemented the evidence of effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic asthma, so that the current asthma guidelines now recommend sublingual immunotherapy as an add-on therapy for asthma in adults and adolescents with house dust mite allergy, allergic rhinitis, and exacerbations despite low-to-moderate dose ICS, with forced expiratory volume in 1 second more than 70% predicted. AIT may also reduce the risk of progression from allergic rhinitis to asthma in children and prevent the onset of new sensitizations, thus representing a potentially preventive method of treatment. The aim of this review is to present an updated overview of the clinical indications of AIT, with particular reference to pediatric asthma, of the mechanisms of clinical and immunological tolerance to allergens, and of the potential biomarkers predicting clinical response.