Does clinical outcome of birch pollen immunotherapy relate to induction of blocking antibodies preventing IgE from allergen binding? A pilot study monitoring responses during first year of AIT

Reducing the solubility of the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 by particle-loading mitigates Th2 responses

BACKGROUND

Solubility is a common feature of allergens. However, the causative relationship between this protein-intrinsic feature and sensitization capacity of allergens is not fully understood. This study aimed to proof the concept of solubility as a protein intrinsic feature of allergens.

METHODS

The soluble birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 was covalently coupled to 1 μm silica particles. IgE-binding and -cross-linking capacity was assessed by inhibition ELISA and mediator release assay, respectively. Alterations in adjuvanticity by particle-loading were investigated by activation of dendritic cells, mast cells and the Toll-like receptor 4 pathway as well as by Th2 polarization in an IL-4 reporter mouse model. In BALB/c mice, particle-loaded and soluble Bet v 1 were compared in a model of allergic sensitization. Antigen uptake and presentation was analysed by restimulating human Bet v 1-specific T cell lines.

RESULTS

Covalent coupling of Bet v 1 to silica particles resulted in an insoluble antigen with retained IgE-binding and -cross-linking capacity and no increase in adjuvanticity. In vivo, particle-loaded Bet v 1 induced significantly lower Bet v 1-specific (s)IgE, whereas sIgG1 and sIgG2a levels remained unaffected. The ratio of Th2 to Th1 cells was significantly lower in mice sensitized with particle-loaded Bet v 1. Particle-loading of Bet v 1 resulted in a 24-fold higher T cell activation capacity in Bet v 1-specific T cell lines, indicating more efficient uptake and presentation than of soluble Bet v 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that solubility is a decisive factor contributing to the sensitization capacity of allergens. The reduction in sensitization capacity of insoluble, particle-loaded antigens results from enhanced antigen uptake and presentation compared to soluble allergens.

Development of a graphene field effect transistor-based immersible biosensor for immunodetection of the birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 in air samples

Pollen traps, the current gold standard to determine pollen load and thereby the allergy season, are not sufficient to determine the allergenic risk. Therefore, the establishment of highly sensitive assays for allergen measurement is of highest interest. Herein, a graphene field-effect transistor (GFET) was constructed on an interdigitated electrodes chip to develop an immersible biosensor, which was used to detect the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1. Graphene was wet-transferred on interdigitated electrodes that contain a reference electrode used as a liquid gate in the GFET. Using a standard ELISA protocol, two different anti-Bet v 1 antibodies were chosen and immobilized on graphene for the specific capture of the target allergen. The sensitivity of the GFET biosensor was evaluated using a standard Ag/AgCl liquid gate electrode and a reference electrode when the chip was immersed in Bet v 1-containing solutions. The results showed a higher performance and sensitivity for Bet v 1 detection compared to a mediator release method, one of the most sensitive assays for allergen detection. Compared with conventional methods of allergen detection, these immersible biosensors significantly improved the speed and level of detection providing the foundation of a point-of-need platform for in-field application. Furthermore, the proposed technique provides both a new biosensor for allergen detection and a strategy for designing low-cost integrated biosensors.

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.

The role of IgG1 and IgG4 as dominant IgE-blocking antibodies shifts during allergen immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

The induction of allergen-specific IgE-blocking antibodies is a hallmark of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The inhibitory bioactivity has largely been attributed to IgG4; however, our recent studies indicated the dominance of IgG1 early in AIT.

OBJECTIVES

Here, the IgE-blocking activity and avidity of allergen-specific IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies were monitored throughout 3 years of treatment.

METHODS

Serum samples from 24 patients were collected before and regularly during AIT with birch pollen. Bet v 1-specific IgG1 and IgG4 levels were determined by ELISA and ImmunoCAP, respectively. Unmodified and IgG1- or IgG4-depleted samples were compared for their inhibition of Bet v 1-induced basophil activation. The stability of Bet v 1-antibody complexes was compared by ELISA and by surface plasmon resonance.

RESULTS

Bet v 1-specific IgG1 and IgG4 levels peaked at 12 and 24 months of AIT, respectively. Serological IgE-blocking peaked at 6 months and remained high thereafter. In the first year of therapy, depletion of IgG1 clearly diminished the inhibition of basophil activation while the absence of IgG4 hardly reduced IgE-blocking. Then, IgG4 became the main inhibitory isotype in most individuals. Both isotypes displayed high avidity to Bet v 1 ab initio of AIT, which did not increase during treatment. Bet v 1-IgG1 complexes were enduringly more stable than Bet v 1-IgG4 complexes were.

CONCLUSIONS

In spite of the constant avidity of AIT-induced allergen-specific IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies, their dominance in IgE-blocking shifted in the course of treatment. The blocking activity of allergen-specific IgG1 should not be underestimated, particularly early in AIT.

IgE and IgG4 Epitopes of Dermatophagoides and Blomia Allergens before and after Sublingual Immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is used worldwide to treat house dust mites (HDM) allergy. Epitope specific immunotherapy with peptide vaccines is used far less, but it is of great interest in the treatment of allergic reactions, as it precludes the drawbacks of allergen extracts. The ideal peptide candidates would bind to IgG, blocking IgE-binding. To better elucidate IgE and IgG4 epitope profiles during SLIT, sequences of main allergens, Der p 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 23 and Blo t 5, 6, 12, 13, were included in a 15-mer peptide microarray and tested against pooled sera from 10 patients pre- and post-1-year SLIT. All allergens were recognized to some extent by at least one antibody isotype and peptide diversity was higher post-1-year SLIT for both antibodies. IgE recognition diversity varied among allergens and timepoints without a clear tendency. Der p 10, a minor allergen in temperate regions, was the molecule with more IgE-peptides and might be a major allergen in populations highly exposed to helminths and cockroaches, such as Brazil. SLIT-induced IgG4 epitopes were directed against several, but not all, IgE-binding regions. We selected a set of peptides that recognized only IgG4 or were able to induce increased ratios of IgG4:IgE after one year of treatment and might be potential targets for vaccines.

Intralymphatic Immunotherapy (ILIT) With Bee Venom Allergens: A Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study and the Very First ILIT in Humans

Background

Subcutaneous venom immunotherapy (VIT) represents an effective treatment against bee venom allergy. However, it involves long treatment times, high costs, and the risk of adverse events (AEs). Shorter, safer, and cheaper treatment options are therefore pursued.

Objective

To determine the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of bee venom intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT).

Methods

In an open pilot study, 12 patients received bee venom ILIT in three sessions with 14-day intervals: 0.1–5 μg/dose. Ultrasound imaging was applied to guide an injection and to document the lymph node structure. In a second study, 67 patients from 15 centers in Europe and Australia were randomized to receive four doses of either 10- or 20-μg bee venom ILIT with 28-day intervals. Clinical endpoints included specific IgE and IgG and protection after a bee sting challenge. These studies were performed in the years 2000–2003.

Results

In a proof-of-concept study, no serious AEs were observed. An increase in allergen-specific IgG1 but no IgG4 and IgE was observed. ILIT induced the protection against a bee sting challenge in 7 out of 8 challenged patients. In a multicenter study, an increase in allergen-specific IgG and IgE was observed, with the highest increase in patients receiving a higher ILIT dose. The study was terminated due to several serious AEs upon the sting challenge provocation after the completion of treatment. However, out of 45 patients challenged, 15 (65%) and 18 (82%) patients in the 10- and 20-μg group, respectively, showed an improvement of two grades or more. No correlation was observed between antibody levels and sting protection.

Conclusions

While a pilot study suggested the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT, a high number of AEs seen after the sting challenge following a randomized study indicate that the immunology protection offered by bee venom ILIT is insufficient. Of note, the bee venom allergen extract used in the two studies were from the two different providers. While the first study used a formulation approved for use in subcutaneous VIT, the second study used a nonapproved formulation never tested in humans. Further studies on approved formulations should be performed to generate conclusive results regarding the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT.

B Cell Functions in the Development of Type I Allergy and Induction of Immune Tolerance

B cells are key players in the mechanisms underlying allergic sensitization, allergic reactions, and tolerance to allergens. Allergen-specific immune responses are initiated when peptide:MHCII complexes on dendritic cells are recognized by antigen-specific receptors on T cells followed by interactions between costimulatory molecules on the surfaces of B and T cells. In the presence of IL-4, such T-B cell interactions result in clonal expansion and isotype class-switching to IgE in B cells, which will further differentiate into either memory B cells or PCs. Allergic reactions are then triggered upon cross-linking of IgE-FcɛRI complexes on basophils and mast cells, leading to cell degranulation and the release of pro-inflammatory mediators.Mechanisms underlying effective allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) involve the induction of Tregs and the secretion of blocking IgG4 antibodies, which together mediate the onset and maintenance of immune tolerance towards non-hazardous environmental antigens. However, the importance of regulatory B cells (Breg) for tolerance induction during AIT has gained more attention lately. Studies in grass pollen- and house dust mite-allergic patients undergoing SCIT reported increased frequencies of IL-10+ Breg cells and a positive correlation between their number and the improvement of clinical symptoms. Thus, Breg are emerging as biomarkers for monitoring tolerance to allergens under natural exposure conditions and during AIT. Further research on the role of other anti-inflammatory cytokines secreted by Breg will help to understand their role in disease development and tolerance induction.

Autologous enzyme-linked immunosorbent facilitated antigen binding detects IgE-blocking activity based on direct competition between allergen-specific IgE and non-IgE

Aim: To measure IgE-blocking activity induced by allergen immunotherapy (AIT) by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent facilitated antigen binding (ELIFAB) assay based on autologous immunoglobulin competition. Methods: The developed ELIFAB assay was used to investigate the kinetics of IgE-blocking activity in 87 patients at multiple AIT treatment time points, in comparison to the changes in IgG4. Results: High ELIFAB response was observed until 2.5 months of AIT, then significantly decreased after 4 months and remained suppressed during the 3-year AIT period. After treatment cessation, the ELIFAB response was maintained at the level seen at the 4-6 month treatment time point, similar to IgG4, indicating sustained IgE-blocking activity related to IgG4. Conclusion: This ELIFAB assay measures the IgE-blocking activity for autologous allergen-specific IgE and non-IgE during and after immunotherapy. It is suited for measuring the sustained IgE-blocking activity induced by AIT.

Filling the Antibody Pipeline in Allergy: PIPE Cloning of IgE, IgG1 and IgG4 against the Major Birch Pollen Allergen Bet v 1

Birch pollen allergy is among the most prevalent pollen allergies in Northern and Central Europe. This IgE-mediated disease can be treated with allergen immunotherapy (AIT), which typically gives rise to IgG antibodies inducing tolerance. Although the main mechanisms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) are known, questions regarding possible Fc-mediated effects of IgG antibodies remain unanswered. This can mainly be attributed to the unavailability of appropriate tools, i.e., well-characterised recombinant antibodies (rAbs). We hereby aimed at providing human rAbs of several classes for mechanistic studies and as possible candidates for passive immunotherapy. We engineered IgE, IgG1, and IgG4 sharing the same variable region against the major birch pollen allergen Bet v 1 using Polymerase Incomplete Primer Extension (PIPE) cloning. We tested IgE functionality and IgG blocking capabilities using appropriate model cell lines. In vitro studies showed IgE engagement with FcεRI and CD23 and Bet v 1-dependent degranulation. Overall, we hereby present fully functional, human IgE, IgG1, and IgG4 sharing the same variable region against Bet v 1 and showcase possible applications in first mechanistic studies. Furthermore, our IgG antibodies might be useful candidates for passive immunotherapy of birch pollen allergy.

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.

Immunotherapy in allergic diseases - improved understanding and innovation for enhanced effectiveness

Allergen immunotherapy leads to tolerance through multiple mechanisms that include tolerogenic dendritic cells and T and B regulatory cells. These induced cellular populations produce mediators to skew the immune response to a tolerogenic milieu that, among others, results in IgG4 blocking antibodies formation and lowered FcE receptors. All lead in decreased effector responses from mast cells, eosinophils, and basophils thus limiting the allergic inflammation. Clinically, this results in better allergic rhinitis control and, of importance, asthma prevention. Newer approaches include modified allergens, second generation adjuvants/carriers and routes of administration, all aiming to increased efficacy with parallel no compromise of safety.

Recent developments and highlights in immune monitoring of allergen immunotherapy

Allergic diseases are the most common chronic immune-mediated disorders and can manifest with an enormous diversity in clinical severity and symptoms. Underlying mechanisms for the adverse immune response to allergens and its downregulation by treatment are still being revealed. As a result, there have been, and still are, major challenges in diagnosis, prediction of disease progression/evolution and treatment. Currently, the only corrective treatment available is allergen immunotherapy (AIT). AIT modifies the immune response through long-term repeated exposure to defined doses of allergen. However, as the treatment usually needs to be continued for several years to be effective, and can be accompanied by adverse reactions, many patients face difficulties completing their schedule. Long-term therapy also potentially incurs high costs. Therefore, there is a great need for objective markers to predict or to monitor individual patient's beneficial changes in immune response during therapy so that efficacy can be identified as early as possible. In this review, we specifically address recent technical developments that have generated new insights into allergic disease pathogenesis, and how these could potentially be translated into routine laboratory assays for disease monitoring during AIT that are relatively inexpensive, robust and scalable.

Highlights and recent developments in airway diseases in EAACI journals (2018)

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) supports three journals: Allergy, Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, and Clinical and Translational Allergy. EAACI's major goals include supporting the promotion of health, in which the prevention of allergy and asthma plays a critical role, and disseminating the knowledge of allergic disease to all stakeholders. In 2018, the remarkable progress in the identification of basic mechanisms of allergic and respiratory diseases as well as the translation of these findings into clinical practice were observed. Last year's highlights include publication of EAACI guidelines for allergen immunotherapy, many EAACI Position Papers covering important aspects for the specialty, better understanding of molecular and cellular mechanisms, identification of biomarkers for disease prediction and progress monitoring, novel prevention and intervention studies, elucidation of mechanisms of multimorbidities, introduction of new drugs to the clinics, recently completed phase three clinical studies, and publication of a large number of allergen immunotherapy studies and meta-analyses.