Oralair®: sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Satisfaction and quality of life of allergic patients following sublingual five-grass pollen tablet immunotherapy in Spain

BACKGROUND

Five-grass pollen tablet is an effective and well-tolerated therapy for patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). This trial sought to determine the satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients undergoing this treatment.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, multicentre, observational, naturalistic study, following a discontinuous pre- and co-seasonal five-grass pollen regimen over two seasons in Spain (2012, 2013). The HRQoL of the patients was measured with the specific Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) for adults, adolescent (AdolRQLQ), or paediatric (PRQLQ) patients. Treatment satisfaction was assessed by the Satisfaction Scale for Patients Receiving Allergen Immunotherapy (ESPIA) questionnaire. Patients/investigators were surveyed on beliefs and attitudes towards the five-grass pollen tablet. ARC evolution according to allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) criteria and treatment adherence were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the 591 ARC patients included, the mean (SD) HRQoL scores were 1.40 (1.1) in adults, 1.33 (1.1) in adolescents, and 1.15 (1.1) in children, indicating low levels of impairment (scale 0-6). ESPIA answers showed high levels of satisfaction, with an average score of 69.2 (scale 0-100). According to ARIA criteria, 88.2% of patients reported improvement of ARC. Moreover, this was accompanied by a reduced use of symptomatic medication. Adherence to treatment was estimated at 96.8%. In general, both patients and specialists exhibited a positive attitude towards five-grass pollen tablet treatment.

CONCLUSION

ARC patients treated with five-grass pollen tablet showed favourable levels of HRQoL and treatment satisfaction, with concomitant improvements in ARC and symptomatic medication use, which translated into high levels of treatment adherence and a positive attitude towards five-grass pollen tablet.

Critical appraisal of the clinical utility of sublingual immunotherapy in allergy

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

Allergen extracts for immunotherapy: to mix or not to mix?

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is established as a curative treatment for allergic rhinitis, asthma, as well as insect venom allergy. AIT is based on the administration of natural allergen extracts via the subcutaneous or sublingual routes to reorient the immune system towards tolerogenic mechanisms. In this regard, since many patients are poly-allergic, mixtures of allergen extracts are often used with a potential risk to cause allergen degradation, thereby affecting treatment efficacy. Herein, we discuss the advantages and drawbacks of mixing homologous (i.e., related) or heterogeneous (i.e., unrelated) allergen extracts. We provide evidence for incompatibilities between mixes of grass pollen and house dust mite extracts containing bodies and feces, and summarize critical points to consider when mixing allergen extracts for AIT.

Allergy immunotherapy: the future of allergy treatment

Allergic respiratory disease represents a significant and expanding health problem worldwide. Allergic symptoms, such as asthma and hay fever, cause sleep impairment and reduce school and work performance. The cost to society is substantial. Allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy cannot control the disease. Only allergy immunotherapy has disease-modifying potential and should be included in optimal treatment strategies. Allergy immunotherapy was first administered as subcutaneous injections and has been practiced for the past 100 years or so. Recently, tablet-based sublingual allergy immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced with comprehensive clinical documentation. SLIT tablets represent a more patient-friendly concept because they can be used for self-treatment at home.

Five-grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet for the treatment of grass-pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: 5 years of experience

Oralair(®) (OA) (Stallergenes, Antony, France) is a unique pre- and co-seasonal 5-grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet launched in 2008, and now approved in 31 countries worldwide for the treatment of grass-pollen allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis. OA is the first oral treatment with a consistent, well-balanced allergen extract that mimics natural exposure and sensitization. A wealth of data exists from over 5 years of clinical and real-world experience demonstrating the efficacy and safety of OA for grass-pollen-allergy treatment. OA is highly effective from the first pollen season in all patient subgroups, including children and those with comorbid mild asthma, irrespective of sensitization status and symptom severity. OA also has sustained long-term benefits for symptom control and quality of life. This article provides an overview of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacology of OA; its efficacy, safety, tolerability and cost-effectiveness for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and rhinoconjunctivitis and its role in clinical practice.

Oral transmucosal drug delivery for pediatric use

The formulation of medicines for children remains a challenge. An ideal pediatric formulation must allow accurate dose administration and be in a dosage form that can be handled by the target age group. It is also important to consider the choices and the amount of excipients used in the formulation for this vulnerable age group. Although oral formulations are generally acceptable to most pediatric patients, they are not suitable for drugs with poor oral bioavailability or when a rapid clinical effect is required. In recent years, oral transmucosal delivery has emerged as an attractive route of administration for pediatric patients. With this route of administration, a drug is absorbed through the oral mucosa, therefore bypassing hepatic first pass metabolism and thus avoiding drug degradation or metabolism in the gastrointestinal tract. The high blood flow and relatively high permeability of the oral mucosa allow a quick onset of action to be achieved. It is a simple and non-invasive route of drug administration. However, there are several barriers that need to be overcome in the development of oral transmucosal products. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the current development of oral transmucosal delivery specifically for the pediatric population in order to achieve systemic drug delivery. The anatomical and physiological properties of the oral mucosa of infants and young children are carefully examined. The different dosage forms and formulation strategies that are suitable for young patients are discussed.

Allergen immunotherapy: how to balance the different views from pulmonologists and allergists?

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the treatment characterizing the allergological approach to respiratory allergy. Unfortunately, most available data from the literature and current practice indicate that pulmonologists do no consider AIT when choosing the treatment strategy in patients with asthma. Indeed AIT, from its introduction in 1911 to nowadays, was unceasingly improved and has accumulated clear evidence on its effectiveness. Moreover, AIT has a characteristic not shared by drugs in the capacity to modify the natural history of asthma, due to its immunologic mechanisms of actions, and thus also works after the treatment withdrawal. This also makes AIT a clearly cost-effective treatment over time. It is surprising that pulmonologists, for whom asthma is a major disease to manage, do not consider AIT when choosing the optimal treatment in single patients. The insufficient information on AIT and the availability of allergen extracts with less than good quality are likely to be the most important factors influencing such an attitude. The current development of standardized, pharmaceutical-grade products for AIT seems capable of making allergen extracts comparable to drugs and to stimulate a rethinking of AIT's role in the treatment of asthma in pulmonologists. A reappraisal of the significance of the allergen-specific bronchial challenge could represent a further factor suggesting AIT as a reliable option.