Intralymphatic Immunotherapy Alleviates Allergic Symptoms During Allergen Exposure in Daily Life

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.

Efficacy and safety of intratonsillar immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A lower adherence rate existed in patients receiving allergen-specific immunotherapy due to its lengthy period and adverse effects even though it is the only curative treatment for IgE-mediated allergies. Therefore, exploring innovative allergen-specific immunotherapy routes is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the efficacy and safety of the intratonsillar injection of house dust mite (HDM) extract in patients with HDM-induced allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted. A total of 80 patients with HDM-induced AR were randomized to receive 6 intratonsillar injections with HDM extract or placebo in 3 months. The total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analogue scale of nasal symptoms, combined symptom and medication score, mini rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire, and serum allergen-specific IgG4 to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus were all monitored at baseline and 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after the treatment was finished. The intent-to-treat and per-protocol set (PPS) are both analyzed.

RESULTS

The primary end points TNSS and ΔTNSS were improved significantly at 3 months after the patients with AR finished a 3-month 6-injection intratonsillar immunotherapy compared with those in the placebo treatment in both intent-to-treat and PPS. Results of visual analogue scale, combined symptom and medication score, and mini rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire were also improved significantly at 3 months after the treatment in PPS. However, the improvement effect of intratonsillar immunotherapy at 6 and 12 months was limited and uncertain based on the data. The increase of serum Der p IgG4 in the active group was significantly higher than that in the placebo group at 3, 6, and 12 months after the treatment was finished. Adverse events were monitored, and no systemic adverse reactions were observed.

CONCLUSION

The clinical trial revealed that intratonsillar injection with HDM extract was safe and effective in patients with AR. Optimizing the protocol and allergen formulations is expected to increase and maintain the efficacy of this novel approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html, identifier: ChiCTR-TRC-13003600.

Intra-cervical lymphatic immunotherapy for dust mite-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in children: a 3-year prospective randomized controlled trial

Background

Pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis has become a public concern with an increasing incidence year by year. Conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has long treatment time, high cost and poor compliance. The novel immunotherapy significantly shortens the course of treatment by directly injecting allergens into cervical lymph nodes, which can perform faster clinical benefits to children.

Objective

By comparing with SCIT, this study aimed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of intra-cervical lymphatic immunotherapy (ICLIT).

Methods

This is a prospective randomized controlled study. A total of 50 allergic rhinoconjunctivitis children with dust mite allergy was randomly divided into ICLIT group and SCIT group, receiving three cervical intralymphatic injections of dust mite allergen or three years of subcutaneous injection, separately. Primary outcomes included total nasal symptom scores (TNSS), total ocular symptom scores (TOSS), total symptom scores (TSS), total medication scores (TMS), and total quality of life score. Secondary outcomes included pain perception and adverse reactions during treatment. Other secondary outcome was change in Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Derp) and Dermatophagoides farina (Derf) -specific IgE level.

Results

Both groups had significantly decreased TNSS, TOSS, TSS, TMS, and total quality of life score after 36 months of treatment (p<0.0001). Compared with SCIT, ICLIT could rapidly improve allergic symptoms (p<0.0001). The short-term efficacy was consistent between the two groups (p=0.07), while the long-term efficacy was better in SCIT group (p<0.0001). The pain perception in ICLIT group was lower than that in SCIT group (p<0.0001). ICLIT group was safer. Specifically, the children had only 3 mild local adverse reactions without systemic adverse reactions. The SCIT group had 14 systemic adverse reactions. At last, the serum Derp and Derf-specific IgE levels in ICLIT and SCIT groups decreased 3 years later (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

ICLIT could ameliorate significantly the allergic symptoms in pediatric patients with an advantage in effectiveness and safety, besides an improved life quality including shortened period of treatment, frequency of drug use and pain perception.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR1800017130.

Potential Cost Savings by Switching from Subcutaneous to Intralymphatic Insect Venom Immunotherapy

INTRODUCTION

IgE-mediated bee venom allergy can be treated with allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is time and cost intensive due to the repeated consultations, but the costs are justified by the high risk of potentially life-threatening allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. However, intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) offers potential to reduce treatment costs due to a significant reduction in injections and a shorter duration of therapy. Therefore, we calculated the cost savings that arise when switching from SCIT to ILIT.

METHODS

Treatment protocols for ILIT were based on previous ILIT studies. Treatment protocols for SCIT were based on routine treatment at the University Hospital Zurich (USZ). The treatment costs were calculated based on the internal hospital information system (KISIM).

RESULTS

The calculations revealed a potential two-fold reduction in treatment costs if ILIT is used instead of SCIT in patients with bee venom allergy. The costs could be reduced from EUR 11,612.59 with SCIT to EUR 5,942.15 with ILIT over 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that bee venom ILIT has a cost-benefit potential for health insurances and patients, which should encourage further ILIT studies and which should be taken into account when considering future implementation of ILIT in the standard care of venom allergy.

Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy, and Compliance of Intralymphatic Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is an emerging type of allergen immunotherapy with fewer injections and shorter course for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). The efficacy and safety have not been confirmed by informative and powerful evidence yet.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted through electronic searching with PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The safety (incidence of adverse events [AEs]), compliance (percent of patients completing treatment), and clinical efficacy of ILIT were evaluated. Clinical efficacy could be assessed by improvement of subjective symptom and rescue medication use or the nasal tolerance to specific allergen. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022353562).

RESULTS

12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ILIT with placebo and 3 trials (2 RCTs and one case-control study) comparing ILIT and SCIT were included in this review. Totally, 582 patients diagnosed as AR or ARC were enrolled. Almost all the AEs were mild-to-moderate reactions except 2 patients developed anaphylactic reactions at the intralymphatic injection dose 5,000 SQ-U in one study. ILIT got higher incidence of local AEs than placebo, but their incidence of systemic AEs was similar. ILIT was safer than SCIT (p < 0.05). Almost all the patients could complete ILIT treatment, and the most common reason for discontinuation of ILIT was AEs. The compliance of patients receiving ILIT seemed higher than patients receiving SCIT. ILIT could significantly ameliorate subjective allergic symptoms, especially for seasonal ARC, and increase nasal tolerance, similar to SCIT.

CONCLUSION

ILIT was a safe and effective treatment for ARC and could achieve comparable clinical improvement with SCIT with shorter duration and higher compliance. Moreover, ILIT was safer than SCIT.

Quality of life in allergic rhinitis patients treated with intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT): A 19-year follow-up

Background

In 2002-2005, we conducted a phase I/II clinical trial where a new allergy immunotherapy (AIT) route was introduced: intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT). Ultrasound guidance allowed injection of allergen directly into inguinal lymph nodes. Grass pollen-allergic patients received 3 injections with 1-month intervals. The short ILIT was more patient-friendly, required lower dosing, and was comparable with SCIT regarding short-term efficacy, which was used as a reference.

Objective

Nineteen years after ILIT, the same patients were followed up to assess the long-term effect on quality of life and efficacy of the treatment.

Methods

Patients who received ILIT and SCIT in 2002-2005 and an additional group of patients, who completed SCIT in 2015-2018, were recruited. All participants received a trial-specific in-house questionnaire and a standardized Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. Data were recorded off- (February 2021) and on- (May-June 2021) season. Descriptive statistics were applied.

Results

Of 58 and 54 patients who originally received ILIT or SCIT, 25 (43%) and 29 (54%) patients, respectively, returned the questionnaires for analysis. Four (16%) and 3 (11%) of the ILIT and SCIT patients, respectively, developed complete protection against grass pollen-mediated rhinitis, whereas another 15 (60%) and 20 (69%) expressed satisfaction with the received AIT. In both groups, any persistent symptoms were reported as mild. Medication usage in the ILIT and SCIT groups was comparable. Nineteen (76%) and 23 (79%) patients, respectively, expressed satisfaction with their AIT.

Conclusions

Grass pollen ILIT leads to long-term significant improvement in rhinitis-associated quality of life 19 years after treatment, and the ILIT quality-of-life effect was not inferior to that of SCIT.

High-dose pollen intralymphatic immunotherapy: Two RDBPC trials question the benefit of dose increase

BACKGROUND

The same dosing schedule, 1000 SQ-U times three, with one-month intervals, have been evaluated in most trials of intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). The present studies evaluated if a dose escalation in ILIT can enhance the clinical and immunological effects, without compromising safety.

METHODS

Two randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials of ILIT for grass pollen-induced AR were performed. The first included 29 patients that had recently ended 3 years of SCIT and the second contained 39 not previously vaccinated patients. An up-dosage of 1000-3000-10,000 (5000 + 5000 with 30 minutes apart) SQ-U with 1 month in between was evaluated.

RESULTS

Doses up to 10,000 SQ-U were safe after recent SCIT. The combined symptom-medication scores (CSMS) were reduced by 31% and the grass-specific IgG4 levels in blood were doubled. In ILIT de novo, the two first patients that received active treatment developed serious adverse reactions at 5000 SQ-U. A modified up-dosing schedule; 1000-3000-3000 SQ-U appeared to be safe but failed to improve the CSMS. Flow cytometry analyses showed increased activation of lymph node-derived dendritic but not T cells. Quality of life and nasal provocation response did not improve in any study.

CONCLUSION

Intralymphatic immunotherapy in high doses after SCIT appears to further reduce grass pollen-induced seasonal symptoms and may be considered as an add-on treatment for patients that do not reach full symptom control after SCIT. Up-dosing schedules de novo with three monthly injections that exceeds 3000 SQ-U should be avoided.

Recent Advances in Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy in Humans: A Systematic Review

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is presumed to modulate the natural course of allergic disease by inducing immune tolerance. However, conventional AITs, such as subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy, require long treatment durations and often provoke local or systemic hypersensitivity reactions. Therefore, only <5% of allergy patients receive AIT as second-line therapy. Novel administration routes, such as intralymphatic, intradermal and epicutaneous immunotherapies, and synthetic recombinant allergen preparations have been evaluated to overcome these limitations. We will review the updated views of diverse AIT methods, and discuss the limitations and opportunities of the AITs for the treatment of allergic diseases in humans.

Intralymphatic immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Only a fraction of patients with allergic rhinitis receive allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). AIT is most commonly delivered subcutaneously in a series of injections over 3-5 years. Common obstacles to completing this therapy include cost and inconvenience. Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) has been proposed as a faster alternative, which requires as few as three injections spaced 4 weeks apart. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the current evidence that supports the use of ILIT for allergic rhinitis. Methods: Clinical trials were identified in the published literature by using an electronic search strategy and were evaluated by using a risk of bias tool. Treatment outcome (symptom scores, medication scores, and combined symptom and medication scores) and provocation testing results (nasal provocation and skin-prick testing) were included in a meta-analysis of standardized mean difference with subgrouping by using a random-effects model. Overall adverse event rates were tabulated, and overall risk ratios were calculated by using a random-effects model. Results: We identified 17 clinical trials that met eligibility criteria. The standardized mean difference of ILIT on the symptom and medication score was -0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98 to -0.46; p < 0.0001) (n = 10). The standardized mean difference of ILIT on nasal provocation and skin-prick testing was -1.00 (95% CI, -1.38 to -0.61; p < 0.0001) (n = 7) and -0.73 (95% CI, -0.99 to -0.47; p < 0.0001) (n = 7), respectively. No statistically significant heterogeneity was detected. The overall adverse event rate was 39.5% for ILIT and 23.5% for placebo. Also, 98.4% of adverse events were mild. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that ILIT was safe, conferred desensitization to seasonal and nonseasonal allergens, alleviated allergic rhinitis symptoms, and reduced medication use. A larger randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial will be necessary for wider adaptation of this form of AIT.

Intralymphatic immunotherapy with tyrosine-adsorbed allergens: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Most previous studies used aluminum hydroxide-absorbed allergen extracts in evaluating the potential therapeutic roles of intralymphatic allergen-specific immunotherapy (ILAIT). In this study, we evaluated the therapeutic efficacy and safety of ILAIT with L-tyrosine-adsorbed allergen extracts of Dermatophagoides farinae, D. pteronyssinus, cat, dog, or mixtures thereof, in patients with allergic rhinitis induced by these allergens.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, study subjects received three intralymphatic injections of L-tyrosine-adsorbed allergen extracts (active group) or saline (placebo group) at 4-week intervals.

Results

Although ILAIT reduced daily medication use and skin reactivity to HDM and cat allergens at 4 months after treatment, overall symptom score on a visual analog scale (VAS), sinonasal outcome test-20 (SNOT-20), rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ), daily symptom score (dSS), daily medication score (dMS), daily symptom medication score (dSMS), nasal reactivity to HDM allergen, and basophil activity to HDM, cat, and dog allergens at 4 months and 1 year after treatment were similar between the treatment and control groups. Intralymphatic injection was more painful than a venous puncture, and pain at the injection site was the most frequent local adverse event (12.8%); dyspnea and wheezing were the most common systemic adverse events (5.3%).

Conclusions

ILAIT with L-tyrosine-adsorbed allergen extracts does not exhibit profound therapeutic efficacy in allergic rhinitis and can provoke moderate-to-severe systemic reactions and cause pain at the injection site.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02665754; date of registration: 28 January 2016

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12931-021-01766-0.

Ocular allergy: update on clinical trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to provide an update on the advances made through recent clinical trials regarding the treatment of the signs and symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis and its associated conditions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have demonstrated significant advancement in the various forms of immunotherapy treatments. Nutritional interventions such as probiotics have surfaced as a viable complementary treatment option. Novel delivery methods such as contact lenses have been further studied along with a new tacrolimus formulation to improve ocular levels of the drug.

SUMMARY

Currently, the primary advances in treatment for allergic conjunctivitis has shifted from new ophthalmic agents to immunotherapy and improvement of drug delivery. This includes the classic subcutaneous and sublingual and the novel epicutaneous and intralymphatic immunotherapy delivery systems as well as an edible rice vaccine. New targets for treatment have spurred research into new antagonist drugs such as (OC000459), a prostaglandin D2 antagonist. The Marinosolv formulation using tacrolimus shows promise and may be considered for other ophthalmic agents in the future. Other nonpharmacological treatments such as stenting and mechanical barrier gel have demonstrated their usefulness in treating ocular symptoms.

A preseason booster prolongs the increase of allergen specific IgG4 levels, after basic allergen intralymphatic immunotherapy, against grass pollen seasonal allergy

BACKGROUND

Allergen specific IgG4 levels have been monitored as a surrogate marker for the tolerance inducing effect of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in many studies. Its accuracy at group level has been well established, but IgG4 has not yet found its place in the daily care of immunotherapy patients.

METHODS

Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) is a novel route for allergy vaccination against pollen allergy, where an ultrasound-guided injection of 1000 SQ-U Alutard is given directly into a groin lymph node. The suggested standard dosing so far has been one injection with 4 weeks in-between. In total 3000 SQ-U with the treatment completed in 2 months. IgG4 was measured with Immulite technique and rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms were estimated with daily online questionnaires. Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon Signed Rank test were applied for comparisons between groups and within groups, respectively.

RESULTS

The present study demonstrates that a single, preseason ILIT booster of 1000 SQ-U Alutard 5-grasses®, re-increases the allergen specific timothy-IgG4 levels, in patients already treated with ILIT before the previous pollen season. It also shows the feasibility of the ILIT-route for allergy vaccination of rhinitis patients, with or without concomitant asthma, with low degree of side effects and reconfirms high and sustained patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

It is tempting to suggest that the allergen specific IgG4 levels can be used to build an intuitive algorithm for future clinical guidance of ILIT patients.Trial registration Is Intralymphatic Allergen Immunotherapy Effective and Safe?, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04210193. Registered 24 December 2019-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04210193?term=NCT04210193&draw=2&rank=1.

Novel strategies in immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Conventional immunotherapy (IT) for optimal control of respiratory and food allergies has been fraught with concerns of efficacy, safety, and tolerability. The development of adjuvants to conventional IT has potentially increased the effectiveness and safety of allergen IT, which may translate into improved clinical outcomes and sustained unresponsiveness even after cessation of therapy. Novel strategies incorporating the successful use of adjuvants such as allergoids, immunostimulatory DNA sequences, monoclonal antibodies, carriers, recombinant proteins, and probiotics have now been described in clinical and murine studies. Future approaches may include fungal compounds, parasitic molecules, vitamin D, and traditional Chinese herbs. More robust comparative clinical trials are needed to evaluate the safety, clinical efficacy, and cost effectiveness of various adjuvants in order to determine ideal candidates in disease-specific and allergen-specific models. Other suggested approaches to further optimize outcomes of IT include early introduction of IT during an optimal window period. Alternative routes of administration of IT to optimize delivery and yet minimize potential side effects require further evaluation for safety and efficacy before they can be recommended.