Specific immunotherapy-indications and mode of action

[Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis]

Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis (SAC) is a frequent disease, which is often associated with allergic rhinitis and subsequently manifested as allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. In contrast to other types of chronic allergic conjunctivitis, the course of SAC is not sight-threatening. Pathogenetically, the underlying cause of SAC is an immunoglobulin E (IgE) mediated, Th2-driven type 1 hypersensitivity reaction. Clinically it presents with itching, light-red conjunctival injection as well as chemosis that exceeds the extent of conjunctival injection. The goals of treatment are relief of acute signs and symptoms, control of the underlying inflammatory process and utilization of preventive options. Dually effective local therapeutics combine the advantages of rapid action with a relatively long-lasting effect by a two-fold active approach. Specific immunotherapy is useful in selected patients.

Abridged version of the AWMF guideline for the medical clinical diagnostics of indoor mould exposure: S2K Guideline of the German Society of Hygiene, Environmental Medicine and Preventive Medicine (GHUP) in collaboration with the German Association of Allergists (AeDA), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the German Society for Occupational and Environmental Medicine (DGAUM), the German Society for Hospital Hygiene (DGKH), the German Society for Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine (DGP), the German Mycological Society (DMykG), the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the German Federal Association of Pediatric Pneumology (BAPP), and the Austrian Society for Medical Mycology (ÖGMM)

This article is an abridged version of the AWMF mould guideline "Medical clinical diagnostics of indoor mould exposure" presented in April 2016 by the German Society of Hygiene, Environmental Medicine and Preventive Medicine (Gesellschaft für Hygiene, Umweltmedizin und Präventivmedizin, GHUP), in collaboration with the above-mentioned scientific medical societies, German and Austrian societies, medical associations and experts. Indoor mould growth is a potential health risk, even if a quantitative and/or causal relationship between the occurrence of individual mould species and health problems has yet to be established. Apart from allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) and mould-caused mycoses, only sufficient evidence for an association between moisture/mould damage and the following health effects has been established: allergic respiratory disease, asthma (manifestation, progression and exacerbation), allergic rhinitis, hypersensitivity pneumonitis (extrinsic allergic alveolitis), and increased likelihood of respiratory infections/bronchitis. In this context the sensitizing potential of moulds is obviously low compared to other environmental allergens. Recent studies show a comparatively low sensitizing prevalence of 3-10% in the general population across Europe. Limited or suspected evidence for an association exist with respect to mucous membrane irritation and atopic eczema (manifestation, progression and exacerbation). Inadequate or insufficient evidence for an association exist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage in children, rheumatism/arthritis, sarcoidosis and cancer. The risk of infection posed by moulds regularly occurring indoors is low for healthy persons; most species are in risk group 1 and a few in risk group 2 (Aspergillus fumigatus, A. flavus) of the German Biological Agents Act (Biostoffverordnung). Only moulds that are potentially able to form toxins can be triggers of toxic reactions. Whether or not toxin formation occurs in individual cases is determined by environmental and growth conditions, above all the substrate. In the case of indoor moisture/mould damage, everyone can be affected by odour effects and/or mood disorders. However, this is not a health hazard. Predisposing factors for odour effects can include genetic and hormonal influences, imprinting, context and adaptation effects. Predisposing factors for mood disorders may include environmental concerns, anxiety, condition, and attribution, as well as various diseases. Risk groups to be protected particularly with regard to an infection risk are persons on immunosuppression according to the classification of the German Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (Kommission für Krankenhaushygiene und Infektionsprävention, KRINKO) at the Robert Koch- Institute (RKI) and persons with cystic fibrosis (mucoviscidosis); with regard to an allergic risk, persons with cystic fibrosis (mucoviscidosis) and patients with bronchial asthma should be protected. The rational diagnostics include the medical history, physical examination, and conventional allergy diagnostics including provocation tests if necessary; sometimes cellular test systems are indicated. In the case of mould infections the reader is referred to the AWMF guideline "Diagnosis and Therapy of Invasive Aspergillus Infections". With regard to mycotoxins, there are currently no useful and validated test procedures for clinical diagnostics. From a preventive medicine standpoint it is important that indoor mould infestation in relevant dimension cannot be tolerated for precautionary reasons. With regard to evaluating the extent of damage and selecting a remedial procedure, the reader is referred to the revised version of the mould guideline issued by the German Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA).

[Individualized, personalized and stratified medicine: a challenge for allergology in ENT?]

Individualized, personalized or stratified medicine approaches offer emerging opportunities in the field of allergy and ENT. Avoidance of side effects, targeted therapy approaches and stratified prevention promise better outcomes and optimal results for patients. Conceptual incongruencies remain with regard to definitions and perceptions of "personalized medicine". Serious ethical considerations have to be taken into account. The development of pharmacogenomics, molecular phenotyping, genomic sequencing and other -omics opens the door to unique mechanistic therapeutic advances. The molecular allergology and recombinant diagnostics available are tools that offer substantial improved diagnostics for the benefit of allergic patients, e. g. in anaphylaxis and food allergy. For stratified therapeutic approaches, however, regulatory affairs will have to keep pace with medical and scientific discovery.

The Future of Sublingual Immunotherapy in the United States

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a safe and effective treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has approved three SLIT tablets for the treatment of AR and ARC in relation to pollen. Specifically, Grastek® and Oralair® are two formulations approved to treat patients suffering with AR/ARC to grass pollen, and Ragwitek™ is a formulation approved to treat patients suffering with AR/ARC to ragweed pollen. Although these approvals provide support for physicians to prescribe SLIT, barriers to prescribing SLIT still remain such as FDA approval for additional formulations, a standard dose and dosing schedule, and cost/insurance coverage. In order to further support the use of SLIT, research is currently being conducted to expand the indication for SLIT to other common comorbidities to AR/ARC. For example, allergic asthma, food allergies, and atopic dermatitis are other diseases which are being explored. The future of SLIT in the USA is unknown; however, education will be necessary for both providers and patients.

Authorised allergen products for intracutaneous testing may no longer be available in Germany: Allergy textbooks have to be re-written

BACKGROUND

Beside the skin prick test, the intracutaneous test represents the most important skin test method for detecting type-1 allergies. With the incorporation of European directives into national law, test allergens used for allergy diagnosis are deemed medicinal products within the meaning of the German Medicinal Products Act (Arzneimittelgesetz) and therefore require marketing authorisation for distribution in Germany. The high costs of acquiring and maintaining these authorisations have lead to no new finished intracutaneous test products being authorized in Germany for more than 20 years. Instead, most manufacturers have voluntarily withdrawn their existing marketing authorisations for intracutaneous test extracts. The last manufacturer to offer approved finished allergen products for intracutaneous tests recently announced that it would now cease production and distribution of these solutions.

METHODS

Research on the current European and German legislation; selective literature search in Medline, including national and international guidelines and Cochrane meta-analyses; licensing information on the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute homepage (www.pei.de) as well as in the Bundesanzeiger (Federal Gazette).

RESULTS

According to information on www.pei.de, marketing authorisations still existed as of 31.01.2015 for intracutaneous test solutions of six grass/cereal/herbal pollens, seven tree pollens, ten food allergens, twelve moulds and yeasts as well as two fungal mixtures, five house dust and storage mites and five animal epithelia/danders, all held by only one company in Germany. These marketing authorisations were granted between 16th March 1987 and 17th January 1992; more recent marketing authorisations do not exist.

CONCLUSIONS

European legislation and the associated increase in production and licensing costs have already lead to numerous suppliers withdrawing their marketing authorisation for diagnostic test allergens - marketing authorisations for 443 diagnostic allergens were voluntarily withdrawn by manufacturers in 2013 alone. If the announced restrictions on the allergen portfolio go ahead, considerable problems in the management of allergy patients in Germany due to the discontinuation of the intracutaneous test are likely to be encountered. Moreover, the fact that a diagnostic procedure that has been established for decades seems set to disappear quite simply because all the requisite substances vanish from the market in one fell swoop may well be without parallel in modern medicine. The situation for skin prick test allergens is less dramatic, although, here again, the available range is becoming increasingly limited.

[Specific immunotherapy]

SCIT (subcutaneous immunotherapy) and SLIT (sublingual immunotherapy) are the only routinely available therapies, which modify allergic diseases sustainably. The ongoing reduction of symptoms and the lower need of symptomatic medication are able to improve the quality of life over a long period of time. However, allergic patients are underprovided due to low use of SIT (specific immunotherapy). After thorough diagnostic workup, the indication has to be checked carefully especially in patients with allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, to insure that SIT is standard therapy. Allergen extracts are manufacturer-specific preparations, therefore their effects cannot be compared directly, just as SCIT and SLIT efficacy cannot be compared directly. In general, preparations with proven efficacy and safety profile should be preferred. Allergens listed in the TAV (Therapeutic Allergen Regulation) fulfill these requirements. However, it is important to ensure adherence for 3 years of therapy, independent of the route of application. SIT has proven socioeconomic benefit already after a short time of therapy.

The safety of self-administered allergen immunotherapy during the buildup and maintenance phases

BACKGROUND

Self-administered allergen immunotherapy is considered controversial. We believe the implementation of a self-administration protocol characterized by patient preselection and a slow buildup phase is safe.

METHODS

We analyzed 23,614 patient records and associated immunotherapy injections for systemic reactions (SR) during a 1-year period (2011 to 2012). SRs were graded in accordance with the World Allergy Organization (WAO) criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven SRs were reported for 23,614 patients who self-administered 2,021,600 injections yielding an annual SR rate of 0.16% (per patient) or 0.002% (per injection). Only 9 of 4643 pediatric (0.19%) and 28 of 18,971 adult patients (0.15%) experienced 1 or more SRs. No deaths (grade V SR) occurred. From 2009 through early 2014, over 90,000 patients received more than 10 million injections in accordance with the United Allergy Services (UAS) protocol without fatalities.

CONCLUSION

We believe this safety profile is due to a preselection of patients to exclude those with a high risk for adverse reactions and a slow immunotherapy buildup phase. In contrast, previous studies documented office-based SRs ranging from approximately 3% to greater than 14%. Thus, the UAS home-immunotherapy SR rate is significantly lower than office-based immunotherapy SR rates (p < 0.0001). The enhanced safety of this protocol results in a decreased frequency and severity of SRs. This safety report, derived from analyses of one of the largest patient cohorts studied, corroborates and expands the observations of previous studies of self-administered subcutaneous immunotherapy in a low-risk patient population by assessing self-administered allergen immunotherapy during the buildup and maintenance phases.

Patients' compliance with different administration routes for allergen immunotherapy in Germany

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the practice of administering gradually increasing quantities of an allergen extract to an allergic subject to ameliorate the symptoms associated with the subsequent exposure to the causative allergen. It is the only treatment that may alter the natural course of allergic diseases. According to AIT guidelines and summary of product characteristics (SmPCs), the treatment should be carried out for at least 3 years. It is controversially discussed whether subcutaneous or sublingual administration routes cause higher patients' compliance.

METHODS

German sales data for different preparations of the allergen manufacturer Allergopharma GmbH & Co. KG were retrospectively evaluated for 5 consecutive years, based on prescriptions per patient: pollen sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and high-dose hypoallergenic (allergoid) or unmodified depot pollen and mite preparations for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). To identify patients' compliance, "completed treatment years" were determined. A completed treatment year was defined by the required number of prescribed allergen preparations according to the recommended dosage scheme given in the respective SmPCs.

RESULTS

Prescription data of 85,241 patients receiving pollen or mite SCIT and 706 patients receiving pollen SLIT were included in this analysis. Patients' compliance for at least 3 treatment years with high-dose hypoallergenic pollen SCIT was higher when administered perennially (60%) compared to preseasonally (27%). Prescriptions for at least 3 years were received from 42% of patients with pollen SCIT and from 45% of patients with mite SCIT. Compliance with SLIT was lowest with only 16% of patients receiving prescriptions for at least 3 treatment years. Children and adolescents were more compliant than adults, independent of whether they received SLIT or SCIT.

CONCLUSION

In general, patients' compliance with SCIT using high-dose hypoallergenic or unmodified depot preparations was higher than with pollen SLIT. Perennial application of SCIT seems to increase compliance in comparison to the preseasonal application. Children and adolescents were most compliant, independent of the preparation applied.

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto- Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD)

The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already being investigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.