The Effective Allergenic Reactivity of House Dust Mite Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets Is Determined by Tablet Formulation

Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America

Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.

Clinical aspects of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and drops

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is administered via tablets (SLIT-T) or liquid drops (SLIT-D). In North America, currently 4 SLIT-T formulations are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for allergy immunotherapy, and SLIT-D is an off-label use of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) extracts.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast aspects of SLIT-T and SLIT-D, including physical characteristics, mechanism of action, dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed literature review (no limits), product prescribing information, and manufacturer websites.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Publications related to physical characteristics, mechanism of action, dosing, efficacy, safety, and adherence.

RESULTS

Published evidence indicates that tablet and drop formulations differ in regard to physical characteristics, dosing, and strength of evidence for efficacy. Whether there are any differences in absorption and mechanism of action between the 2 formulations is currently unknown. Optimal dosing, efficacy, and safety have been established for SLIT-T. In contrast, in North America there is little support for efficacy of SLIT-D from randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, and dose ranges have not been appropriately evaluated. SLIT-T treats a single allergen, whereas in the United States SLIT-D often contains multiple allergens to treat polysensitization. The safety profiles of SLIT-T and SLIT-D appear similar, and both formulations are considered safer than SCIT.

CONCLUSION

Professional guidelines should make a clear distinction between SLIT-T and SLIT-D in their recommendations to minimize confusion with the umbrella term SLIT.

Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy tablets for allergic rhinitis is unlikely to be derived from in vitro allergen-release data

Introduction: Allergen bioavailability underpins the efficacy and safety of SLIT tablets. Three product-related factors are likely to influence this: tablet potency, formulation and sublingual holding time. Areas covered: Tablet formulation determines the rate and extent of solubilized allergen release. Using validated in vitro dissolution assays, the two licensed grass pollen SLIT tablets are shown to release ≥85% of their total allergenic activity within several minutes. Sublingual holding time affects the contact duration between solubilized allergens and sublingual tissue. Maximal uptake of allergens by sublingual tissue requires ~5 minutes, with little uptake occurring within the first minute. A higher potency tablet with longer sublingual holding time would provide higher bioavailability, while faster rates of allergen release in vitro are unlikely to translate to a greater increase in bioavailability. Differences in dissolution times cannot serve as a surrogate of in vivo bioavailability, and are not related to differences in efficacy at the marketed tablet dosages. Rapid in vitro dissolution is likely not a key requirement for inducing a potent immune response. Expert opinion: In vitro dissolution cannot predict the clinical efficacy of SLIT tablets but could be important in immune tolerance and safety. In addition, a discontinuous administration regimen may have benefits for adherence and cost without compromising efficacy.