Accelerated/rush allergen immunotherapy

Immunotherapy and new treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review comes at a time where new techniques in immunotherapy administration are being developed, new innovations are being incorporated to standard techniques, and new regulations are being adopted regarding the creation and storage of allergen extracts. Prior to the release of updated practice parameters regarding allergic rhinitis and immunotherapies, this review article provides a synopsis of current recommendations, a comparison of the practices in the United States and those of Europe, and an examination of experimental methods that are being studied.

RECENT FINDINGS

This article seeks to review and discuss the various methods of administration, build up schedules, efficacy, effect on other atopic symptoms, and safety associated with allergen immunotherapy.

SUMMARY

Innovations in standard techniques, such as new allergoids for SCIT, appear to be effective in improving symptoms and increasing IgG levels for grass allergens. Data for newer techniques is less clear. There appears to be increased treatment-related adverse events for ILIT, worse symptom scores compared with placebo for IDIT, and insufficient studies regarding the effectiveness of EPIT for aeroallergens. New regulations seek to standardize the documentation, storage, and creation of allergen extracts.

Allergic Rhinitis: A Review

Importance

Allergic rhinitis affects an estimated 15% of the US population (approximately 50 million individuals) and is associated with the presence of asthma, eczema, chronic or recurrent sinusitis, cough, and both tension and migraine headaches.

Observations

Allergic rhinitis occurs when disruption of the epithelial barrier allows allergens to penetrate the mucosal epithelium of nasal passages, inducing a T-helper type 2 inflammatory response and production of allergen-specific IgE. Allergic rhinitis typically presents with symptoms of nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, postnasal drainage, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. In an international study, the most common symptoms of allergic rhinitis were rhinorrhea (90.38%) and nasal congestion (94.23%). Patients with nonallergic rhinitis present primarily with nasal congestion and postnasal drainage frequently associated with sinus pressure, ear plugging, muffled sounds and pain, and eustachian tube dysfunction that is less responsive to nasal corticosteroids. Patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis typically have physical examination findings of edematous and pale turbinates. Patients with perennial allergic rhinitis typically have erythematous and inflamed turbinates with serous secretions that appear similar to other forms of chronic rhinitis at physical examination. Patients with nonallergic rhinitis have negative test results for specific IgE aeroallergens. Intermittent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring less than 4 consecutive days/week or less than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Persistent allergic rhinitis is defined as symptoms occurring more often than 4 consecutive days/week and for more than 4 consecutive weeks/year. Patients with allergic rhinitis should avoid inciting allergens. In addition, first-line treatment for mild intermittent or mild persistent allergic rhinitis may include a second-generation H1 antihistamine (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine) or an intranasal antihistamine (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), whereas patients with persistent moderate to severe allergic rhinitis should be treated initially with an intranasal corticosteroid (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) either alone or in combination with an intranasal antihistamine. In contrast, first-line therapy for patients with nonallergic rhinitis consists of an intranasal antihistamine as monotherapy or in combination with an intranasal corticosteroid.

Conclusions and Relevance

Allergic rhinitis is associated with symptoms of nasal congestion, sneezing, and itching of the eyes, nose, and throat. Patients with allergic rhinitis should be instructed to avoid inciting allergens. Therapies include second-generation H1 antihistamines (eg, cetirizine, fexofenadine, desloratadine, loratadine), intranasal antihistamines (eg, azelastine, olopatadine), and intranasal corticosteroids (eg, fluticasone, triamcinolone, budesonide, mometasone) and should be selected based on the severity and frequency of symptoms and patient preference.

A novel dose-adjustment protocol for interrupted subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

Background: This study aimed to develop a novel dose strategy for subcutaneous immunotherapy to reduce medical waste and financial burdens for patients who are required to restart subcutaneous immunotherapy. Patients & methods: A prospective, nonrandomized concurrent controlled trial was performed to assess the safety and advantages of the novel dose-adjustment protocol compared with the conventional one. 76 subjects were grouped to receive novel or conventional dose-adjustment protocols. Results: The injections, visits and time needed to reach the pre-established dose with the novel regimen were decreased. Furthermore, there were no differences in side reactions between the two groups. Conclusion: The novel protocol seemed safe and well tolerated, offering the advantages of time efficiency and reduced healthcare costs.

Comparison of Standard, Cluster, and Rush Allergy Immunotherapy Buildup Protocols

BACKGROUND

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) involves a dose-escalation phase following 1 of 3 protocols: standard, cluster, or rush. Although the cluster and rush protocols have been shown to decrease the time to reach maintenance dosing, there is a lack of direct comparison between the protocols.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in time to maintenance dosing and occurrence of adverse reactions among the dose-escalation protocols.

METHODS

A retrospective observation study of patients on AIT was conducted. Patients were categorized as participating in the standard, cluster, or rush buildup protocols. Patients on the rush protocol, unlike the standard and cluster protocols, were required to receive prednisone, montelukast, cetirizine, and famotidine on the rush day and first 2 weekly injections thereafter. Variables analyzed include patient demographics, time until maintenance dosing, rate of adverse reactions, treatments required for reactions, and AIT formulation.

RESULTS

Data were reviewed on 237 patients on the standard (n = 41), cluster (n = 122), and rush (n = 74) protocols. The maintenance dose was achieved faster with the rush (16.50 weeks) and cluster (19.33 weeks) buildup protocols than the standard (31.09 weeks) protocol (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference between time to maintenance dosing when comparing the cluster and rush protocols (P = .322). Despite pretreatment with the rush protocol, the rate of systemic reactions was the same for the standard (9.76%), cluster (9.84%), or rush (14.86%) buildup protocols (P = .526).

CONCLUSION

Patients on the cluster buildup protocol for AIT achieved maintenance dosing in a comparable time frame as the rush protocol with a similar rate of systemic reactions and without the need for the pretreatment required with rush immunotherapy.

Topical cyclosporine versus allergen specific immunotherapy in perennial allergic conjunctivitis

PURPOSE

Symptom control in the long-term with less side effects is important in perennial allergic conjunctivitis, since would improve quality of life. This study aimed to assess the clinical efficacies of topical cyclosporin A and subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) in terms of sign control in perennial allergic conjunctivitis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 20 adult patients with perennial allergic conjunctivitis and confirmed sensitization to house dust mites with skin prick test. Patients were assigned to either topical cyclosporine A treatment or SCIT. The participants were followed for 6 months, and signs scores were recorded at 1, 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Overall, both cyclosporine and immunotherapy groups showed significant improvements in papillary reaction (p = 0.011 and 0.003, respectively), limbal involvement (p = 0.031 and 0.001), and conjunctival hyperemia (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001) scores during the 6-month follow-up. However, only cyclosporine group showed a significant improvement in corneal involvement scores (p = 0.015) during the study period. When scores at different time points were compared, significant improvement in conjunctival hyperemia was evident at 6 months in both groups when compared to baseline (cyclosporine group, 0.7 ± 0.68 vs. 2.4 ± 0.84, 70.8% decrease, p = 0.01; immunotherapy group, 0.3 ± 0.48 vs. 2.3 ± 0.95, 87.0% decrease, p = 0.004), whereas for limbal involvement such an improvement was only evident in the immunotherapy group (0.1 ± 0.32 vs. 1.3 ± 0.95, 92.3% decrease, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Allergen immunotherapy and cyclosporin A treatment may provide effective sign relief in perennial allergic conjunctivitis. It may represent an encouraging treatment option particularly for cases with perennial allergic conjunctivitis refractive to other treatments and positive skin prick test to a specific allergen (house dust in the present study). Long-term relief by SCIT would reduce the side effects of polypharmacotherapy. Larger studies with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm our findings.

A real-world retrospective study of safety, efficacy, compliance and cost of combination treatment with rush immunotherapy plus one dose of pretreatment anti-IgE in Chinese children with respiratory allergies

Background

The efficacy of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in treating pediatric allergy has been clearly demonstrated, however, many patients hesitate to initiate AIT due to weekly hospital visits during the 3-4 months up-dosing phase. Meanwhile, rush immunotherapy (RIT) shortens the duration of the up-dosing phase to 7 days. However, considering that patients receiving RIT are exposed to the allergens during a much shorter period of time and thus may be at a greater risk of systemic reactions, RIT is currently underused, especially in children. This study investigated the utility of combination treatment with RIT plus 1 dose of pretreatment anti-IgE in children with respiratory allergies.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we reviewed records of children with allergic rhinitis (AR) and/or allergic asthma (AA) sensitized to dust mite allergens receiving RIT+1 dose of pretreatment anti-IgE (the RIT group) or conventional immunotherapy (the CIT group) at our hospital from January 2020 to March 2021. Data such as visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, comprehensive symptom and medication score (CSMS), allergy blood test results, adverse reactions, compliance and cost were collected and analyzed.

Results

40 patients in the RIT group and 81 patients in the CIT group were included in this study. Both treatments were well tolerated and patients in the 2 treatment groups had comparable local and systemic reactions. Compared to CIT, RIT + anti-IgE combination led to significantly faster symptomatic improvement as demonstrated by significantly decreased VAS and CSMS starting as early as 1 month after AIT initiation (P&lt;0.05). Nobody dropped out in the RIT group during the 1 year follow-up, while 11 out of 81 patients in the CIT group dropped out (loss rate 13.5%). Thus, the RIT group had a significantly higher compliance rate than the CIT group (P&lt;0.05). Finally, the 2 treatment regimens had comparable cost per patient per injection (P&gt; 0.05).

Conclusions

RIT + 1 dose of pretreatment anti-IgE combination has practical advantages over CIT, including comparable safety, better compliance, and probably a faster onset of clinical efficacy at no additional cost, so it can be an useful regimen for the treatment of Chinese children with respiratory allergies.

Essentials of allergen immunotherapy: A primer for the practitioner

It has been more than a decade since the most recent allergen immunotherapy (AIT) practice parameter was published and 5 years since a focused practice parameter on sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was issued. There is an unmet need, therefore, for a more up-to-date, concise summary of AIT to be published to provide allergy/immunology practitioners, allergy/immunology fellows-in-training, medical students, residents, and other health-care practitioners with the most current information available on AIT. The Allergen Immunotherapy Primer (AITP) is not intended to define a standard of care or to be inclusive of all proper methods of care, nor is it intended to replace or supplant established AIT practice parameters; rather, the goal of this AITP is to supplement the established practice parameters and to serve primarily as an updated tool for the practicing allergist/immunologist, allergy/immunology trainees, and health-care professionals seeking practical and concise information with regard to AIT. Primer topics include the history of AIT; descriptions of the mechanisms and biomarkers of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and SLIT; the efficacy and safety of SCIT; the efficacy and safety of SLIT, pediatric SLIT, and SCIT; the long-term efficacy of SLIT and SCIT; long-term adherence strategies for AIT; the implications of real-world data for AIT; the role of AIT for asthma; patterns of cross-allergenicity among pollens; a practical implementation guide for optimized construction of AIT vaccines; standardization of allergen extracts; updated information on federal regulations about the United States Pharmacopeia and the compounding of allergenic extracts; an update on AIT venom immunotherapy; the advantages and disadvantages of accelerated immunotherapy regimens; the important role of shared decision-making in AIT and how it can be incorporated into the informed consent process; and a forecast of future directions in allergen immunotherapy.