How does the efficacy and safety of Oralair(®) compare to other products on the market?

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

The MaDo real-life study of dose adjustment of allergen immunotherapy liquid formulations in an indication of respiratory allergic disease: Reasons, practices, and outcomes

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) is a safe, effective, disease-modifying treatment for moderate-to-severe respiratory allergies. The function and responsiveness of the immune system components underlying the effects of allergen immunotherapy may vary from one patient to another. Furthermore, the severity of the symptoms of allergic disease can fluctuate over time, due to changes in environmental allergen exposure, effector cell responsiveness, and cell signaling. Hence, the allergen dose provided through SLIT can be fine-tuned to establish an optimal balance between effectiveness and tolerability. The objective of the MaDo study was to describe and understand dose adjustments of SLIT liquid formulations in France. We performed a retrospective, observational, cross-sectional, real-life study of allergists and other specialist physicians. Physicians described their patients via an anonymous case report form (CRF). The main patient inclusion criteria were age 5 years or over, at least one physician-confirmed IgE-driven respiratory allergy, and treatment for at least 2 years with one or more SLIT liquid preparations. A nationally representative sample of 33 specialist physicians participated in the study. The physicians' main stated reasons for dose adjustment were adverse events (according to 90.9% of the physicians), treatment effectiveness (60.6%), sensitivity to the allergen (42.4%) and other characteristics (30.3%: mainly symptom severity, type of allergen, and asthma). 392 CRFs (mean ± standard deviation patient age: 27.8 ± 17.5; under-18s: 42.1%; polyallergy: 30.9%) were analyzed. Respectively 53.6%, 25.8%, 15.3%, and 8.7% of the patients received house dust mite, grass pollen, birch pollen and cypress pollen SLIT. Dose adjustments were noted in 258 (65.8%) patients (at the start of the maintenance phase for 101 patients (39.2%) and later for 247 (95.7%)). Dose adjustment was not linked to sex, age, or the number of allergens administered. All measures of disease severity (including symptom severity noted on a 0-to-10 visual analogue scale by the physician) decreased significantly during SLIT. Notably, the mean AR symptom severity score decreased to a clinically relevant extent from 7.6 at SLIT initiation to 2.4 at last follow-up, and the mean asthma symptom severity score decreased from 5.0 to 1.3. The few differences in effectiveness between patients with vs. without dose adjustment were not major. For about one patient in five, a specialist physician decided to reduce or increase the SLIT liquid dose at the start of maintenance treatment and/or during maintenance treatment. This decision was influenced by a broad range of patient and treatment factors, mainly to improve tolerability to treatment and/or enhance effectiveness. In France, dose adjustment of SLIT liquid preparations as a function of the patient profile and/or treatment response is anchored in clinical practice. Precision dosing might optimize the overall benefit-risk profile of AIT for individual patients throughout their entire treatment course, enabling them to achieve both short- and long-term treatment goals, whilst maximizing the safety and tolerability.

Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3–5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.

Allergen immunotherapy: The growing role of observational and randomized trial "Real-World Evidence"

BACKGROUND

Although there is a considerable body of knowledge about allergen immunotherapy (AIT), there is a lack of data on the reliability of real-world evidence (RWE) in AIT, and consequently, a lack of information on how AIT effectively works in real life.

METHODS

To address the current unmet need for an appraisal of the quality of RWE in AIT, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Methodology Committee recently initiated a systematic review of observational studies of AIT, which will use the RELEVANT tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE) to rate the quality of the evidence base as a whole. The next step will be to develop a broadly applicable, pragmatic "real-world" database using systematic data collection. Based on the current RWE base, and perspectives and recommendations of authorities and scientific societies, a hierarchy of RWE in AIT is proposed, which places pragmatic trials and registry data at the positions of highest level of evidence.

KEY RESULTS

There is a need to establish more AIT registries that collect data in a cohesive way, using standardized protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

This will provide an essential source of real-world data that can be easily shared, promoting evidence-based research and quality improvement in study design and clinical decision-making.

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.

Coadministration of Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets and Management of Potential Adverse Effects: Austrian, German, and Swiss Expert Recommendations

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is currently available as liquid drops and tablets for treatment of allergic patients. Because several allergens are available and many patients are polyallergic, it is possible to treat patients with multiple clinically relevant allergies by >1 SLIT product. Austrian, German, and Swiss medical experts discussed the available data on allergen uptake at the oral mucosa and recently published data on coadministration of a grass and a ragweed tablet. The experts agreed on a schedule considering data from a North American trial on sequential administration of 2 SLIT-tablets with different allergens and their own experiences made during initiation of treatment with >1 SLIT-tablet in their clinics and subsequent self-administration by the patient and discussed the handling and management of potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). According to the medical experts' opinion, tolerability at each phase of administration and patient preference should be taken into consideration to ensure a high level of adherence to treatment. Local ADRs that are uncomfortable for the patient may be alleviated by a 2- to 4-week course of antihistamine pretreatment. ADRs with severe swelling and/or systemic ADRs need the physician's particular attention and a decision together with the patient on continuation of treatment with SLIT or possible alternative routes of administration.

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.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

A practical guide to the sublingual immunotherapy tablet adverse event profile: implications for clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Treatment with allergy immunotherapy improves allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, but can also improve comorbidities associated with allergic rhinitis such as asthma. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a convenient and efficacious method of allergy immunotherapy. They are self-administered after the first tablet has been provided under medical supervision. Therapy may elicit local reactions or, rarely, systemic allergic reactions. The objective of this report is to inform healthcare practitioners about the safety and tolerability profile of SLIT-tablets and use this information to provide practical guidance that may inform patients regarding potential adverse reactions and how to manage them.

METHODS

Pooled analyses of safety data from completed randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 and phase 3 US and EU trials of timothy grass, short ragweed, and SQ house dust mite SLIT-tablets were conducted to characterize safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

SLIT-tablets are generally well tolerated. No life-threatening events, serious systemic allergic reactions, or events that compromised the airway have been reported. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) are oral site reactions, most of which begin on day 1 of treatment, recur for less than 2 weeks, and resolve after approximately 30-60 minutes. Systemic allergic reactions have been managed with conventional pharmacotherapy. Reactions treated with epinephrine are uncommon, but have been reported. Treatment of AEs, treatment discontinuation considerations, and patient FAQs regarding SLIT-tablet safety/tolerability are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

This report gives healthcare providers valuable information to educate patients regarding what to expect in terms of SLIT-tablet safety and tolerability. Practical guidance is also provided to ensure proper treatment of any adverse reactions.