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.

Sublingual Immunotherapy Dosing Regimens: What Is Ideal?

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a treatment for allergic respiratory diseases that has demonstrated efficacy and safety. Several formulations of SLIT are now available worldwide for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Grass tablets containing 15 to 25 μg of group 5 major allergen reduced combined AR symptoms and medication use by 23% to 41% in 3 treatment years and 2 follow-up years. Ragweed pollen tablets (12 μg of Ambrosia artemisiifolia 1) and liquid extracts (50 μg of Ambrosia artemisiifolia 1) reduced combined AR symptoms and medication use by 26% and 43%, respectively. House dust mite tablets containing 300 index of reactivity (16 μg of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus 1 and 68 μg of Dermatophagoides farinae 1) reduced AR symptoms by 17.9% and 17.0% in 1 treatment year and 1 follow-up year, respectively. A different house dust mite tablet (12 standardized quality house dust mite) was able to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbation compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.96). Most adverse events were local and mild to moderate in severity. For SLIT products reviewed herein, effective doses range from 1.12 to 84 μg of major allergen(s). However, allergen content is not uniformly standardized, can be expressed in arbitrary or proprietary units (depending on the manufacturer), and assays for determination of allergen content are highly variable. Thus, results from one study of a given product cannot be extrapolated to other products. Despite these limitations, this Clinical Management Review aims to provide practitioners with relevant information on the dosing of selected SLIT formulations in the treatment of allergic respiratory disease.

Safety Review of 5-Grass Pollen Tablet from Pooled Data of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet has been approved for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in subjects with or without intermittent asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive analysis of the safety profile of the 5-grass tablet on the basis of pooled data from 8 clinical trials.

METHODS

Subjects (5-65 years old) with medically confirmed grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were included in the double-blind studies. Those with intermittent asthma not requiring treatment other than inhaled beta-2 agonists could participate. Randomized subjects received a 5-grass or placebo tablet daily 2 or 4 months preseasonally and coseasonally (5 single-season studies, over 3 years in a long-term study) or outside the season (phase I studies). Adverse events were pooled and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Among 2,512 subjects enrolled, 1,514 received the 5-grass tablet. A total of 1,038 adults and 154 pediatric (5-17 years old) subjects were treated with the 300 Index of Reactivity dose (vs 840 and 158 placebo recipients, respectively); 17% had intermittent asthma, and 62% were polysensitized. Adverse reactions (ADRs) reported in more than 10% of actively treated subjects were mild or moderate application-site reactions, for example, oral pruritus 25% (placebo 4%) and throat irritation 21% (placebo 3%). These generally occurred during the first week of treatment and decreased over time. They led to discontinuation in less than 2.5% of subjects. None of the 3 serious ADRs were reports of anaphylaxis. No notable differences were detected in terms of incidence, nature, and severity of ADRs between adult and pediatric populations, nor between subjects with or without asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled analysis in 1,514 subjects from 8 clinical studies demonstrates that the 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet has a similar good safety profile in adult and pediatric patients with or without mild, intermittent asthma.

Effectiveness of allergic rhinitis treatments in real-life with a focus on MP-AzeFlu

For any allergic rhinitis (AR) treatment, it is crucial to provide evidence not only of efficacy (assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs)) but also of effectiveness in real-life. Observational studies provide valuable data on the use and results associated with interventions prescribed in real-life. However, real-life evidence supporting available AR treatment options is sparse with effectiveness only established for oral antihistamines (desloratadine, ebastine), intranasal corticosteroids (mometasone furoate, fluticasone propionate (FP)), allergen immunotherapy and omalizumab. A novel intranasal formulation of azelastine hydrochloride and FP in a single spray (MP-AzeFlu) shows great promise, with the effectiveness observed in real-life exceeding that noted in RCTs. This review summarises real-life data on MP-AzeFlu, which provides rapid and sustained symptom control irrespective of patient age, AR phenotype or disease severity. We call for high quality real-life research in addition to RCTs to inform future AR treatment guidelines.

Clinical considerations in the use of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been in practice for more than 100 years. However, research in novel routes and delivery methods of immunotherapy to treat allergic rhinitis (AR) and conjunctivitis has only recently occurred in the United States, where the predominant form of AIT provided is largely via a subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) route. AIT may prevent new sensitizations, improve symptoms, decrease medication usage, and prevent allergic asthma. Although AIT is the only potentially curative treatment for AR, access and adherence continue to be problematic. Only a fraction of eligible patients actually undergo treatment, and attrition rates are high. An obvious limitation of SCIT includes the requirement of regular injections to be provided in the physician's office due to the potential for anaphylaxis. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for home administration has been investigated as a potential alternative to address this limitation of SCIT.

METHODS

A literature review was performed including the current findings from randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses with a discussion of the most recent evidence for the efficacy, safety, and dosing of allergen SLIT.

RESULTS

The current data suggest that SLIT is effective for treatment of seasonal allergies, can potentially prevent asthma, and has a favorable safety profile. Head-to-head studies, however, are few, and comparative effectiveness still remains to be answered. Optimal treatment algorithms for SLIT have not yet been established, with wide variation in dosage selection and schedules. Similarly to SCIT, only a few allergens such as ragweed and grass pollen have been found to be effective in large clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Recent data indicate that SLIT is an effective treatment modality for seasonal AR, improve quality of life, and can potentially prevent asthma but head-to head studies comparing SLIT to SCIT are needed.

From IgE to clinical trials of allergic rhinitis

The current scientific research is continuously aiming at identifying new therapeutic targets with the purpose of modifying the immune response to allergens. The evolution in immunological methods has led to the identification of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as both a diagnostic biomarker and potential therapeutic target in allergic diseases, such as allergic rhinitis. Allergen immunotherapy has been used for more than 100 years to treat allergic diseases and it is today considered the only disease-modifying treatment capable of inducing a long-lasting immunological and clinical tolerance toward the causal allergen. During the past 20 years, major advances have been made in understanding the molecular and cellular mechanisms of allergen tolerance in humans. Moreover, there has been considerable progress in allergen extract modifications and additions to standard extracts. The recognition that IgE plays a pivotal role in basic regulatory mechanisms of allergic inflammation has recently stimulated research into the therapeutic potential of directly targeting this antibody. Omalizumab, the most advanced humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, is currently approved for the treatment of uncontrolled allergic asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria. Interesting results also arise from studies in which omalizumab was administered in patients with allergic rhinitis. The aim of this review is to provide an update on current findings on immunological and clinical effects of allergen immunotherapy and anti-IgE therapy, which have been shown to have synergistic modes of action for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

Oral/sublingual Phleum pretense grass tablet (Grazax/Grastek) to treat allergic rhinitis in the USA

With the approval of two grass tablets and one ragweed tablet for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) by the US FDA in April 2014, the practice of allergy immunotherapy (AIT) in the USA has dramatically changed. Until this time, there were no approved allergen extracts for sublingual administration and physicians who prescribed SLIT for their patients did so without full knowledge of proper dosing or assurance of its safety. Now sublingual allergen tablets are available that have proven safe and effective doses. This article describes, in detail, the studies that have been conducted with a timothy grass SLIT tablet and draws some comparisons to the alternative 5-grass SLIT tablet. It also attempts to predict what will be the impact of the introduction of these tablets on the practice of AIT in the USA over the next few years.

"The value of pre- and co-seasonal sublingual immunotherapy in pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis"

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a guidelines-approved, disease-modifying treatment option for respiratory allergies, including allergic rhinitis (AR) induced by pollen. The various AIT regimens employed to date in pollen-induced AR can be classified as continuous (i.e. year-round) or discontinuous (i.e. pre-seasonal alone, co-seasonal alone or pre- and co-seasonal). Pre-and co-seasonal regimens are typically used for sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) and have economic and compliance advantages over perennial (year-round) regimens. However, these advantages must not come at the expensive of poor efficacy or safety. The results of recent double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials show that pre- and co-seasonal SLIT is safe and effective in patients with AR induced by grass pollen (treated with a tablet formulation) or by birch pollen (treated with a liquid formulation). Progress in SLIT has been made in defining the optimal dose of major allergen, the administration frequency (daily), the duration of pre-seasonal treatment (four months) and the number of treatment seasons (at least three). Post-marketing, "real-life" trials of pre- and co-seasonal birch or grass pollen SLIT regimens have confirmed the efficacy and safety observed in the clinical trials. In the treatment of pollen-induced AR, pre- and co-seasonal SLIT regimens appear to be at least as effective and safe as perennial SLIT regimens, and are associated with lower costs and good compliance. Good compliance may mean that pre- and co-seasonal SLIT regimens are inherently more effective and safer than perennial SLIT regimens. When considering the pre- and co-seasonal discontinuous regimen in particular, a 300 IR five-grass-pollen formulation is the only SLIT tablet with a clinical development programme having provided evidence of short-term, sustained and post-treatment efficacy.

Emerging therapies for food allergy

Food allergy is a common condition for which there are currently no approved treatments except avoidance of the allergenic food and treatment of accidental reactions. There are several potential treatments that are under active investigation in animal and human studies, but it is not yet clear what the best approach may be. Here, we review approaches that are currently in clinical trials, including oral, sublingual, and epicutaneous immunotherapy, immunotherapy combined with anti-IgE, and Chinese herbal medicine as well as approaches that are in preclinical or early clinical investigation, including modified protein immunotherapy, adjuvants, DNA vaccines, and helminth administration. We discuss the importance of fully exploring the risks and benefits of any treatment before it is taken to general clinical practice and the need for clarity about the goals of treatment.

Sublingual immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization position paper 2013 update

We have prepared this document, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2013 Update", according to the evidence-based criteria, revising and updating chapters of the originally published paper, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009", available at http://www.waojournal.org. Namely, these comprise: "Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy;" "Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy" - reporting all the data of all controlled trials published after 2009; "Safety of sublingual immunotherapy" - with the recently published Grading System for adverse reactions; "Impact of sublingual immunotherapy on the natural history of respiratory allergy" - with the relevant evidences published since 2009; "Efficacy of SLIT in children" - with detailed analysis of all the studies; "Definition of SLIT patient selection" - reporting the criteria for eligibility to sublingual immunotherapy; "The future of immunotherapy in the community care setting"; "Methodology of clinical trials according to the current scientific and regulatory standards"; and "Guideline development: from evidence-based medicine to patients' views" - including the evolution of the methods to make clinical recommendations.Additionally, we have added new chapters to cover a few emerging crucial topics: "Practical aspects of schedules and dosages and counseling for adherence" - which is crucial in clinical practice for all treatments; "Perspectives and new approaches" - including recombinant allergens, adjuvants, modified allergens, and the concept of validity of the single products. Furthermore, "Raising public awareness about sublingual immunotherapy", as a need for our patients, and strategies to increase awareness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among patients, the medical community, all healthcare stakeholders, and public opinion, are also reported in detail.

Steroids vs immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis - out with the old, in with the new

Treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis induced by airborne allergens can be divided into two major groups: symptom-dampening drugs, such as antihistamines and corticosteroids, and disease-modifying drugs in the form of immunotherapy. It has been speculated that depot-injection corticosteroids given once or twice a year are a safe and patient-friendly alternative to the time-consuming immunotherapy. Our data indicate otherwise.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy in asthmatic children: from the basis to clinical applications

Atopic asthma in childhood with the tendency to persist into adult life is an important issue in pediatrics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only curative treatment option for these children, being directed to the causes of the disease. The Th2 phenotype is a predominant immunological pattern in atopic asthma and SIT leads to apoptosis/anergy of T cells and induces immune-regulatory responses and immune deviation towards Th1. Many factors can affect the safety and efficacy of SIT, such as pattern of sensitization, allergy vaccine (allergen extracts, adjuvants and conjugated molecules), route of administration (subcutaneous or sublingual) and different treatment schedules. Overall, asthma symptoms and medication scores usually decrease following a SIT course and the most common observed side effects are restricted to local swelling, erythema and pruritus. Compared with conventional pharmacotherapy, SIT may be more cost effective, providing a benefit after discontinuation and a steroid-sparing effect. In addition, it can prevent new sensitizations in monosensitized asthmatic children. Microbial supplements such as probiotics, immunomodulatory substances like anti-IgE/leukotrienes, antibodies and newer allergen preparations such as recombinant forms have been tested to improve the efficacy and safety of SIT with inconclusive results. In conclusion, SIT provides an appropriate solution for childhood asthma that should be employed more often in clinical practice. Further studies are awaited to improve current knowledge regarding the mechanisms behind SIT and determine the most appropriate materials and schedule of immunotherapy for children with asthma.