Clinical aspects of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and drops

Immunomodulatory features of MSC-derived exosomes decorated with DC-specific aptamer for improving sublingual immunotherapy in allergic mouse model

INTRODUCTION

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is an effective and injection-free route for allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Mesenchymal stromal/stem cell (MSC)-derived exosomes (Exo) has been identified as a novel delivery platform with immunomodulatory capacities. In addition, targeting agents such as aptamers (Apt) have been extensively used for specific delivery approaches such as direct delivery of allergen formulations to dendritic cells (DC) to improve the efficacy of specific immunotherapy. In this study, we assessed the effects of MSC-derived Exos containing ovalbumin (Ova) which decorated with DC-specific aptamer in allergic rhinitis mice model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Exos were harvested from adipose tissue-derived MSCs, and Exo-Apt-Ova complex was formulated. Then, Ova-induced allergic asthma model was simulated and sensitized BALB/c mice were treated sublingually with Exo-Apt-Ova complex (5 µg Ova) twice weekly for 8 weeks. Ova-specific IgE levels in serum and concentrations of interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), interleukin (IL)-4, and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) in the supernatant of cultured splenocytes were evaluated using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). In addition, lung histologic analysis and nasopharyngeal lavage fluid (NALF) cell count were performed.

RESULTS

Administration of Ova-incorporated Apt-modified Exos dramatically increased IFN-γ and TGF-β levels, and decreased IL-4 and IgE levels. In addition, inflammatory responses in the lung tissue and the number of eosinophils in NALF decreased.

CONCLUSION

SLIT using Exo-Ova (5 µg) decorated with DC-specific aptamer induced immunomodulatory responses and remarkably attenuated allergic airway inflammation in mice.

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.

A critical review of novel antibiotic resistance prevention approaches with a focus on postbiotics

Antibiotic resistance is a significant public health issue, causing illnesses that were once easily treatable with antibiotics to develop into dangerous infections, leading to substantial disability and even death. To help fight this growing threat, scientists are developing new methods and techniques that play a crucial role in treating infections and preventing the inappropriate use of antibiotics. These effective therapeutic methods include phage therapies, quorum-sensing inhibitors, immunotherapeutics, predatory bacteria, antimicrobial adjuvants, haemofiltration, nanoantibiotics, microbiota transplantation, plant-derived antimicrobials, RNA therapy, vaccine development, and probiotics. As a result of the activity of probiotics in the intestine, compounds derived from the structure and metabolism of these bacteria are obtained, called postbiotics, which include multiple agents with various therapeutic applications, especially antimicrobial effects, by using different mechanisms. These compounds have been chosen in particular because they don't promote the spread of antibiotic resistance and don't include substances that can increase antibiotic resistance. This manuscript provides an overview of the novel approaches to preventing antibiotic resistance with emphasis on the various postbiotic metabolites derived from the gut beneficial microbes, their activities, recent related progressions in the food and medical fields, as well as concisely giving an insight into the new concept of postbiotics as "hyperpostbiotic".

Exploring Side Effects of Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as a potentially safe and convenient option for allergen immunotherapy for patients with inhalant allergy. Larger studies on the overall side effects and severe reactions anaphylaxis are still lacking. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Author's review was completed in the University of Texas Medical Branch. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective clinical trials focusing on SLIT safety published from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2021, was conducted. Results: Twenty-six studies were included with analysis of 7827 patients, representing over 2.7 million SLIT doses. All studies focused on single-antigen immunotherapy. The mean duration of treatment was 11.54 months. Local side effects were present in 40.83% of patients [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.78-57.96]. Systemic side effects were encountered in 1.09% of SLIT patients (95% CI 0.57-1.78). Anaphylaxis was reported in 0.13% of patients (95% CI 0.06-0.22). Discontinuation rates due to side effects were low, at 4.32% of patients (95% CI 3.28-5.49). Conclusion: This meta-analysis shows that single-antigen SLIT is well-tolerated, with overall low rates of systemic side effects including anaphylaxis. Although there is a high rate of minor local side effect, the treatment attrition during the first year is low. With growing allergy burden worldwide, SLIT is a convenient and economically feasible option for immunotherapy. Further work is needed to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy of single as well as multi-antigen SLIT, including quality of life assessments.

Tablet allergen immunotherapy: the anaphylaxis issue

For the first time 15 years ago, tablet allergen immunotherapy (T-AIT) formulations were approved by regulatory agencies for treating allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen in adults and children aged >5 years. Extensive evidences existed about effectiveness and safety of AIT. However, the safety profile is particularly compelling in children. Generally, T-AIT causes local reactions, mostly in the oral cavity, that are usually mild-to-moderate and often self-resolving. However, systemic allergic reactions are also observed with T-AIT, anaphylaxis representing the most fearsome adverse event, considering that it occurs in subjects treated for allergic rhinitis. Therefore, we conducted a literature search of patients reporting anaphylaxis because of T-AIT. Nine cases of anaphylactic reactions were reported in literature. Notably, no death was reported using T-AIT. This outcome was very important as it underscored the substantial safety of T-AIT. However, T-AIT deserves careful attention, mainly in the pediatric population. In this regard, after the first report of anaphylactic reaction at the first administration of T-AIT, manufacturers recommended that the first dose should be administered in a medical facility in the presence of staff with experience in managing anaphylaxis and the patient should be observed for at least 30 min. Interestingly, reported anaphylactic reactions were due to grass pollen extracts, with no report concerning other allergen extracts. However, it is relevant to note that anaphylactic reactions because of T-AIT are not reported in recent years.

Tolerability of sublingual versus vestibular allergy immunotherapy tablet administration: A randomized pilot study

BACKGROUND

Local application site reactions are common with sublingual allergy immunotherapy (AIT)-tablets for the treatment of allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) and occasionally lead to treatment discontinuation. Because of the lower mast cell density in the vestibular mucosa than the sublingual area, vestibular AIT-tablet administration may result in fewer adverse events (AEs). This pilot study evaluated the tolerability of the vestibular administration route of AIT-tablets compared with the sublingual route in adult subjects with AR/C.

METHODS

Adults (n = 164) aged 18-65 years with AR/C treated with daily birch pollen, grass pollen, ragweed pollen or house dust mite AIT in tablet form were randomized 1:1 to vestibular or sublingual administration for 28 days, followed by 28 days of sublingual administration only. The primary endpoint was the severity (mild, moderate, severe) of local treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) during the first 28 days of treatment.

RESULTS

During the first 28 days, the percentage of subjects in the vestibular and sublingual groups reporting mild TRAEs were 55.6% versus 50.6%, respectively; moderate TRAEs were 27.2% versus 30.1%; and severe TRAEs were 12.3% versus 6.0% (p = .16). In the vestibular group, 95.1% of the subjects experienced at least one TRAE during the first period versus 81.9% in the sublingual group (p = .01) and discontinuation rates due to AEs were higher (12.3% vs. 3.6%).

CONCLUSION

The frequencies of subjects experiencing severe TRAEs, at least one TRAE, and discontinuations due to AEs at the initiation of AIT-tablets were numerically higher with vestibular administration than sublingual administration. Sublingual administration should remain the standard of care for subjects treated with AIT-tablets for AR/C.

Clinical and experimental treatment of allergic asthma with an emphasis on allergen immunotherapy and its mechanisms

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is currently the only form of treatment that modifies allergic asthma. Pharmacotherapy alone seeks to control the symptoms of allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis, and other atopic conditions. In contrast, AIT can induce long-term physiological modifications through the immune system. AIT enables individuals to live improved lives many years after treatment ends, where they are desensitized to the allergen(s) used or no longer have significant allergic reactions upon allergen provocation. The leading forms of treatment with AIT involve injections of allergen extracts with increasing doses via the subcutaneous route or drops/tablets via the sublingual route for several years. Since the initial attempts at this treatment as early as 1911 by Leonard Noon, the mechanisms by which AIT operates remain unclear. This literature-based review provides the primary care practitioner with a current understanding of the mechanisms of AIT, including its treatment safety, protocols, and long-term efficacy. The primary mechanisms underlying AIT include changes in immunoglobulin classes (IgA, IgE, and IgG), immunosuppressive regulatory T-cell induction, helper T cell type 2 to helper T cell type 1 cell/cytokine profile shifts, decreased early-phase reaction activity and mediators, and increased production of IL-10, IL-35, TGF-β, and IFN-γ. Using the databases PubMed and Embase, a selective literature search was conducted searching for English, full-text, reviews published between 2015 and 2022 using the keywords (with wildcards) "allerg*," "immunotherap*," "mechanis*," and "asthma." Among the cited references, additional references were identified using a manual search.

Recent Updates of Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis in Children

Purpose of Review

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a novel treatment approach with disease-modifying and preventative benefits that are not shared with other strategies for treating allergic illnesses. It has been demonstrated to be safe and effective in children. This review provides the most recent information on AIT in children as well as any pertinent updates.

Recent Findings

Although there is not a standard way to begin AIT, there are clear indications for AIT. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own by weighing the pros and downsides. AIT has been proven to significantly improve symptoms and quality of life in children with allergic illness, reduce medication use, stop the development of new allergen sensitizations, and stop the progression of allergic rhinitis to asthma. Novel approaches are under investigation to overcome some known AIT disadvantages.

Summary

This review provides a thorough summary of the most recent research and updates on AIT in children.

Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America

Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.

Allergen Immunotherapy in Young Children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been shown to be safe and effective in children and is a unique treatment strategy that has disease-modifying and preventative effects that are not shared with other treatment options for allergic diseases. This article reviews the present knowledge and relevant updates on AIT in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although there is no definite lower age limit for starting AIT, clear indications for AIT are established and each case should be considered individually by weighing risks and benefits. Documented short- and long-term benefits of AIT in children with allergic disease include significant improvement of symptoms and quality of life, and decreased use of medications as well as preventing the development of new allergen sensitizations and the progression of allergic rhinitis to asthma. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the present knowledge and key updates on AIT in the pediatric population.

Preference for sublingual immunotherapy with tablets in a Spanish population with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

This study investigated patients' preference for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) administered as either sublingual immunotherapy-tablets versus monthly or weekly subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) from a Spanish patient perspective.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of two blocks with eight choice sets in each was constructed to elicit the preferences for AIT. Three attributes were included in the DCE for the mode of administration, including the frequency of administration, the risk of systemic reactions and the co-payment. Adults and caregivers of children with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) were included if they were not currently receiving or had not previously received AIT.

RESULTS

In total, 587 adults and 613 caregivers started the survey. Of those, 579 adults and 611 caregivers completed the survey and were included in the study. Both adults and caregivers had a significant preference for tablets compared with both monthly and weekly injections (p ≤ 0.0001). Furthermore, the respondents showed a significant preference for reducing the risk of systemic reactions. Subgroup analyses showed that caregivers of polyallergic children and female caregivers were significantly less price sensitive when choosing their preferred treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that both adults with AR and caregivers of children with AR prefer daily SLIT-tablets to SCIT with either a weekly or monthly dose schedule.

Efficacy of House Dust Mite Sublingual Immunotherapy in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Sensitization to house dust mites (HDMs) is frequent in patients with atopic dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus extract in patients with atopic dermatitis sensitized to HDM.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled 91 patients 3 years or older, with SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score greater than or equal to 15 and positive skin test result and/or IgE to D pteronyssinus. Patients were stratified according to age (<12 and ≥12 years) to receive HDM SLIT or placebo for 18 months. Primary outcome was a greater than or equal to 15-point decrease in SCORAD score. Secondary outcomes were decreases in SCORAD and objective SCORAD, Eczema Area and Severity Index, visual analog scale for symptoms, and pruritus scale scores; Investigator's Global Assessment 0/1; and decrease greater than or equal to 4 points in Dermatology Life Quality Index. Background therapy was maintained.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients completed the study (35 HDM SLIT, 31 placebo). After 18 months, 74.2% and 58% of patients in the HDM SLIT group and the placebo group, respectively, showed greater than or equal to 15-point decrease in SCORAD score (relative risk, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.89-1.83). Significant SCORAD score decreases from baseline of 55.6% and 34.5% in HDM SLIT and placebo groups (mean difference, 20.4; 95% CI, 3.89-37.3), significant objective SCORAD score decreases of 56.8% and 34.9% in HDM SLIT and placebo groups (mean difference, 21.3; 95% CI, 0.66-41.81), and more patients with Investigator's Global Assessment 0/1 in the HDM SLIT group as compared with the placebo group (14 of 35 vs 5 of 31; relative risk, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.09-6.39) were observed at 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that HDM SLIT may be effective in HDM-sensitized patients as an add-on treatment for atopic dermatitis.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy takes more than the time in the clinic

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the time use and both direct and indirect costs associated with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for adults with allergic rhinitis (AR) and caregivers of children with AR in the US.

METHODS

We conducted a survey to assess the retrospective time use and direct costs of SCIT. The populations surveyed included adults and caregivers of children (aged 5-17) with symptomatic AR of moderate or higher severity who are currently receiving or have previously started allergy immunotherapy (AIT). The retrospectively collected, self-reported time consumption and direct costs per clinic visit when receiving SCIT were assessed as well as the productivity loss associated with SCIT. Data were analyzed using univariate descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The study included 106 adults with AR and 191 caregivers of children with AR. We found that the median time spent per visit to the clinic was 50 min for both groups, including travel time and time at the clinic. The direct costs related to each visit included parking fees, road tolls and other costs. Adults spent $10 on parking, $9 on tolls and $10 on other costs. Finally, a median of 4 h of work was missed for both the adult patients and the adults accompanying a child.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that SCIT is associated with substantial direct patient costs and productivity loss for both adults with AR and caregivers of children with AR.

Allergic Rhinitis: What Do We Know About Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy?

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated disease that is characterized by Th2 joint inflammation. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is indicated for AR when symptoms remain uncontrolled despite medication and allergen avoidance. AIT is considered to have been effective if it alleviated allergic symptoms, decreased medication use, improved the quality of life even after treatment cessation, and prevented the progression of AR to asthma and the onset of new sensitization. AIT can be administered subcutaneously or sublingually, and novel routes are still being developed, such as intra-lymphatically and epicutaneously. AIT aims at inducing allergen tolerance through modification of innate and adaptive immunologic responses. The main mechanism of AIT is control of type 2 inflammatory cells through induction of various functional regulatory cells such as regulatory T cells (Tregs), follicular T cells (Tfr), B cells (Bregs), dendritic cells (DCregs), innate lymphoid cells (IL-10⁺ ILCs), and natural killer cells (NKregs). However, AIT has a number of disadvantages: the long treatment period required to achieve greater efficacy, high cost, systemic allergic reactions, and the absence of a biomarker for predicting treatment responders. Currently, adjunctive therapies, vaccine adjuvants, and novel vaccine technologies are being studied to overcome the problems associated with AIT. This review presents an updated overview of AIT, with a special focus on AR.

Recent development on the use of sublingual immunotherapy tablets for allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated inflammatory condition that causes sneezing, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and nasal itch. Although subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of AR has been in use and well established as a treatment modality, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly considered to be the safer and more convenient alternative. Thus, the objective of this review is to describe recent findings pertaining to the use of SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) for AR.

DATA SOURCES

A database search (PubMed.gov) for articles published between January 1, 2017, and February 9, 2021, was conducted using the following key words: "allergic rhinitis," AND-ed "sublingual immunotherapy." Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials. Other experimental design studies were excluded.

STUDY SELECTIONS

A total of 11 randomized placebo-controlled trials were selected for full-text review and included in the analysis. All studies investigated the use of SLIT on patients with seasonal AR (4 tree pollen, 1 grass pollen, and 1 Japanese cedar) or perennial AR (3 house dust mite).

RESULTS

Our review of 7 recently published randomized placebo-controlled trials with 2348 subjects receiving SLIT reported increased efficacy, safety, supportive immunologic parameters (IgE and IgG4 pre- and posttreatment levels), and improved quality of life. All studies excluded subjects with overlapping seasonal or perennial allergens, a history of moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma, or reduced lung function.

CONCLUSION

Our review highlights that SLIT is a safe and effective treatment that considerably reduces symptoms and medication requirements in AR and improves quality of life.

Allergens and Adjuvants in Allergen Immunotherapy for Immune Activation, Tolerance, and Resilience

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only setting in which a vaccine is applied in patients allergic exactly to the active principle in the vaccine. Therefore, AIT products need to be not only effective but also safe. In Europe, for subcutaneous AIT, this has been achieved by the allergoid strategy in which IgE epitopes are destroyed or masked. In addition, adjuvants physically precipitate the allergen at the injection site to prevent too rapid systemic distribution. The choice of adjuvant critically shapes the efficacy and type of immune response to the injected allergen. In contrast to T_H2-promoting adjuvants, others clearly counteract allergy. Marketed products in Europe are formulated with aluminum hydroxide (alum) (66.7%), microcrystalline tyrosine (16.7%), calcium phosphate (11.1%), or the T_H1 adjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A (5.6%). In contrast to the European practice, in the United States mostly nonadjuvanted extracts and no allergoids are used for subcutaneous AIT, highlighting not only a regulatory but maybe a "historic preference." Sublingual AIT in the form of drops or tablets is currently applied worldwide without adjuvants, usually with higher safety but lower patient adherence than subcutaneous AIT. This article will discuss how AIT and adjuvants modulate the immune response in the treated patient toward immune activation, modulation, or-with new developments in the pipeline-immune resilience.

Controversies in Allergy: A Pro/Con Review of Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy and Allergic Asthma

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) is a therapeutic intervention used in the treatment of respiratory allergies, including asthma. Multiple randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and safety of SLIT for asthma. These data provide a good platform to appraise the evidence critically to evaluate the effect of SLIT in the management of asthma for the administration of SLIT by both SLIT drops and SLIT tablets, from a clinical perspective. In this clinical review, presented in a pro and con format, we examined (1) evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses; (2) clinical efficacy on asthma symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and quality of life; (3) clinical efficacy on reduction of asthma controller medication; (4) asthma severity; (5) safety profile; (6) long-term effect and prevention; (7) international guidelines, and (8) real-world evidence. Identified inconsistency in the data results from wide variations and differences in outcome measures, specific allergens, delivery approaches, schedules, and age groups. The house dust mite SLIT tablet demonstrated efficacy when it was used in the add-on management of house dust mite-associated allergic asthma in adults. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy for asthma may represent an important advance in incorporating a personalized medicine approach for patients with allergic asthma.

The safety of sublingual immunotherapy, can the rare systemic reactions be prevented?

Introduction: The safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), and particularly the dramatic issue of fatal reactions, has been an obstacle that limited the implementation of a therapy with unique characteristics of action on the causes of allergy. The introduction of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was aimed at solving safety problems while maintaining clinical efficacy.Areas covered: For more than 20 years, SLIT has been based on allergen extracts in drops at low average doses. As evidenced by meta-analyses, the typical adverse events (AE) have consisted of local reactions in the mouth and throat. Unlike the injection route, no correlation was observed between the administered dose and AEs. The development of SLIT products in tablets, based on higher doses than drops, has somewhat changed the concept of SLIT safety. Although large trials, performed to obtain regulatory agency approval, have shown overall high safety, rare anaphylactic reactions have been described.Expert opinion: SLIT is globally safe, and no fatal reactions have ever been reported, but with currently available high biological potency products it is necessary to follow prudential rules, such as the administration of the first dose under medical supervision and the thorough education of patients to avoid taking of higher doses than recommended.

Preference for Immunotherapy with Tablets by People with Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

People with allergic rhinitis (AR) who are not controlled on conventional therapy can be treated using allergy immunotherapy (AIT) administered as tablets, injections or drops. In the US, the use of sublingual immunotherapy as tablets (SLIT-tablets) is limited in comparison to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT).

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated patients' preference for SLIT-tablets vs monthly or weekly SCIT from a US patient perspective.

METHODS

We carried out a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of two blocks with eight choice sets. Adults and caregivers of children with moderate-to-severe AR were included if they had not previously or were not currently receiving AIT. Three attributes were included in the design: the mode and frequency of administration, the risk of systemic reactions and the co-payment.

RESULTS

A total of 724 adults with AR and 665 caregivers of children with AR were included in the study. Both adults and caregivers had a significant preference for SLIT-tablets compared with both weekly and monthly injections and for less risk of anaphylactic shock. Caregivers were more risk-averse than adults when choosing their treatment, and the younger the child, the more risk-averse the caregiver. The preference for SLIT-tablets was found for both monoallergic and polyallergic adults and caregivers of monoallergic and polyallergic children. Respondents not wanting AIT for free were more risk-averse than those indicating that they wanted AIT for free.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SLIT-tablets is the preferred route of administration for AIT among adults and caregivers of children with AR.

Sublingual Versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: What Are the Important Therapeutic and Real-World Considerations?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergen immunotherapy has been used for over 100 years in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. With two major options for administering this disease-modifying therapy, SCIT, and SLIT, what is our current understanding of the efficacy and safety of each one? How do we determine who is the appropriate candidate for each one in the real world?

RECENT FINDINGS

SCIT and SLIT show significant improvement in clinical symptoms and need for medication in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. In recent meta-analyses, there is no significant difference in the efficacy between the two treatments, but SLIT has more local side effects though less systemic ones. Shared decision-making should be instituted to determine which treatment should be started in a patient with allergic rhinitis. This review provides up-to-date information on the efficacy and safety of SCIT vs SLIT in the care of children and adults with allergic rhinitis in the real world and the role of shared decision-making in the use of these modalities.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04145219 and NCT02478398.