Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Safety: Incidence per Surveys and Risk Factors

Immunotherapy: Current indications and recommendations in the management of ocular allergy

Allergic diseases, including allergic conjunctivitis (AC), pose a significant health burden, affecting both developed and developing nations. Despite its importance, AC is often underreported, leading to underestimated incidence and prevalence. The coexistence of AC with allergic rhinitis and its comorbidity with asthma underscore its clinical relevance. The prevalence of nasal symptoms with eye symptoms related to eye allergy varies among different age groups and regions worldwide. Climatic factors, aeroallergens, and environmental exposure play significant roles in the prevalence of ocular allergies. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated allergic diseases. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the history, mechanisms, and evidence of AIT for ocular allergies, with a focus on AC. The primary routes of AIT, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are discussed in detail. The evidence for AIT in treating AC is extensive and demonstrates its effectiveness in alleviating ocular symptoms, reducing medication usage, and improving the quality of life in patients. Both SCIT and SLIT have shown positive results, with SLIT having a more favorable safety profile. Considerations for initiating and maintaining AIT, including adherence, financial burden, and treatment duration, are highlighted. In summary, AIT is a valuable treatment option for AC, offering long-term symptom relief and potential cost-effectiveness. By understanding the history, mechanisms, and evidence of AIT, healthcare providers can better manage ocular allergies and improve patient outcomes.

Modelling the Costs of Sublingual Immunotherapy versus Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Based on Clinical Appointments and Impacts of Patient Travel in Sweden

Aim

In Sweden, allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is available as either subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) injections or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets and is used to treat moderate-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This study sought to determine direct and indirect annual costs stemming from treatment-related travel, appointments, waiting times and medication costs, before exploring likely CO2 emission-related cost-savings for 20,330 patients receiving SCIT or SLIT-tablets in Sweden.

Methods

A model was developed in Python to capture each category of costs in the target patient population. Absenteeism costs arising from treatment-related travel were determined by obtaining average hourly pay data from Swedish Government sources. Absenteeism costs were also calculated for 30-minute post-dose observation times, which occurred during one clinical appointment for SLIT patients, and all clinical appointments for SCIT patients. Clinical appointment costs were obtained from healthcare price lists for Sweden. Medication costs were retrieved from the Pharmaceutical Specialities in Sweden (Fass) website, and treatment doses required for SCIT and SLIT-tablets were determined based on product labels and previously-calculated dosage regimes. High-cost protection and reimbursement scheme payment caps were applied when determining patient appointment and medication costs, respectively, and when identifying financial burdens for individual payers.

Results

Mean total annual costs for SCIT were Swedish Krona (SEK) 604.1 million (m), with clinical appointments contributing the largest share of these costs (52.7%), followed by medication (34.4%), travel-related absenteeism (8.9%), waiting time-related absenteeism (2.7%) and private transportation (1.3%). Mean total annual costs for SLIT-tablets were SEK 336.2m. Medication contributed the most to these costs (72.3%), followed by clinical appointments (22.7%), travel-related absenteeism (3.8%), waiting time-related absenteeism (0.6%) and private transportation (0.6%).

Conclusion

For patients with moderate-severe AR receiving AIT in Sweden, SLIT-tablets displayed large potential cost savings to patients, the healthcare system, and the government, whilst possessing reduced societal costs of carbon emissions relative to SCIT.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in Monosensitized and Polysensitized Children With Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in monosensitized and polysensitized children with allergic rhinitis (AR).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

METHODS

One hundred thirty children were enrolled and categorized into 2 groups: monosensitized to only dust mites and polysensitized to at least 1 additional allergen beyond dust mites. All patients received SCIT targeting dust mites for 3 years, followed by a 5-year monitoring period. The Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Symptom and Medication Score (SMS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) were assessed before SCIT (T0); at 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) years of SCIT; immediately after SCIT (T3); and 2 years post-SCIT (T5). Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Fifty-one monosensitized and 50 polysensitized children completed the study. At T3, 47 monosensitized and 46 polysensitized children were effectively treated, with no significant between-group difference in efficacy (P > .05). The TNSS, SMS, VAS scores, and RQLQ score were significantly lower at T1, T2, T3, and T5 than at T0 in both groups (P < .05). The differences in the TNSS, SMS, VAS score, and RQLQ score between the 2 groups were nonsignificant at T0, T1, T2, and T3 (P > .05), but significant at T5 (P < .05). No serious AEs were reported.

CONCLUSION

Monosensitized and polysensitized children exhibited similar beneficial efficacy and safety after 3 years of dust mite SCIT. Monosensitized children derived more benefits 2 years after discontinuation.

Anaphylaxis: A 2023 practice parameter update

This practice parameter update focuses on 7 areas in which there are new evidence and new recommendations. Diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis have been revised, and patterns of anaphylaxis are defined. Measurement of serum tryptase is important for diagnosis of anaphylaxis and to identify underlying mast cell disorders. In infants and toddlers, age-specific symptoms may differ from older children and adults, patient age is not correlated with reaction severity, and anaphylaxis is unlikely to be the initial reaction to an allergen on first exposure. Different community settings for anaphylaxis require specific measures for prevention and treatment of anaphylaxis. Optimal prescribing and use of epinephrine autoinjector devices require specific counseling and training of patients and caregivers, including when and how to administer the epinephrine autoinjector and whether and when to call 911. If epinephrine is used promptly, immediate activation of emergency medical services may not be required if the patient experiences a prompt, complete, and durable response. For most medical indications, the risk of stopping or changing beta-blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication may exceed the risk of more severe anaphylaxis if the medication is continued, especially in patients with insect sting anaphylaxis. Evaluation for mastocytosis, including a bone marrow biopsy, should be considered for adult patients with severe insect sting anaphylaxis or recurrent idiopathic anaphylaxis. After perioperative anaphylaxis, repeat anesthesia may proceed in the context of shared decision-making and based on the history and results of diagnostic evaluation with skin tests or in vitro tests when available, and supervised challenge when necessary.

Modification of allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy safety precautions and systemic allergic reaction rate reduction

Background: Despite their life-threatening potential, medical team mistakes during subcutaneous immunotherapy are rarely discussed. Real data are missing, and a survey study estimated that dosing errors are responsible for 25% of systemic reactions during immunotherapy. To minimize errors, we modified our safety precautions and compared the rates of systemic allergic reactions before and after the change. Methods: Our retrospective comparative cohort study compared systemic allergic reaction rates during 2012-2015 and 2016-2019, after a second check of the injected allergen/s by another nurse/physician was added to the treatment protocol. Results: The rate of systemic allergic reaction per injection was reduced from 0.93 to 0.71%; p = 0.023. Conclusion: A second check prior to injection is beneficial and can reduce the allergic reaction rate during immunotherapy.

Safety Profile and Issues of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in the Treatment of Children with Allergic Rhinitis

This study aims to evaluate safety issues of house dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) among allergic rhinitis (AR) children. A retrospective cohort study was done between 2015 and 2020 to investigate the side effects of SCIT among AR children caused by a house dust mite allergy. Among 1098 patients who received house dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy injections, 284 patients (25.87%) had side effects (SE). SE were found to be 699 times higher or in 2.27% of the 30,744 subcutaneous immunotherapy injections. A total of 17.9% of the patients had local SE during SCIT administration. Systemic side effects occurred in 8.38% of children receiving SCIT and in 0.53% of the total population who received SCIT injections. Only 2/92 (2.18%) of patients suffered an allergic reaction within 30 minutes of injection and these patients responded well to antiallergic medication. Severe anaphylaxis occurred in 0.091% of the 1098 patients in the SCIT group and in 0.0033% of the 30,774 SCIT injections. Systemic SE after SCIT occurred in 8.38% of patients receiving SCIT or 0.53% of the total number of SCIT injections. Anaphylactic episodes occurred in 16 patients (1.46%) and 15 patients (1.37%) who had first and second episodes. One severe attack was found and it was resolved with adrenaline. This study demonstrates that in pediatric patients with AR who received HDM SCIT for 18 months with high adherence, some experienced significant local SE and systemic SE caused by SCIT, but this did not interfere with the course of AR treatment or the effectiveness of SCIT.

Short-Term Subcutaneous Allergy Immunotherapy and Dupilumab are Well Tolerated in Allergic Rhinitis: A Randomized Trial

Background

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been proven as an effective therapy against some allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) patients unresponsive to intranasal corticosteroids and/or antihistamines but carries risk of systemic allergic reactions. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor component for interleukin-4 and interleukin-13, key and central drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCIT+dupilumab vs SCIT alone.

Methods

This phase 2a, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group study conducted in 103 adults with grass pollen-induced SAR (NCT03558997) randomized patients 1:1:1:1 to SCIT, dupilumab (300 mg every 2 weeks), SCIT+dupilumab, or placebo. SCIT was administered using an 8-week cluster protocol followed by 8 weeks of maintenance injections. Primary endpoint was change from pre-treatment baseline in area under the curve (AUC) in total nasal symptom score (TNSS) 0-1 h following nasal allergen challenge (NAC) with timothy grass extract at Week 17.

Results

Although 16 weeks of treatment with SCIT+dupilumab did not significantly improve TNSS AUC (0-1 h) following NAC at Week 17 vs SCIT (least squares mean -56.76% vs -52.03%), a higher proportion of SCIT+dupilumab-treated patients (61.5%) achieved SCIT maintenance dose vs SCIT (46.2%). A lower proportion of SCIT+dupilumab-treated patients (7.7%) required epinephrine rescue treatment vs SCIT (19.2%). There were significantly fewer withdrawals in the SCIT+dupilumab group than in the SCIT group (n = 2 [7.7%] vs n = 8 [30.8%]; P = 0.0216); the majority of SCIT group withdrawals were due to SCIT-related intolerability, compared with no discontinuations from the SCIT+dupilumab group.

Conclusion

In SAR patients, 16 weeks of SCIT+dupilumab may improve SCIT tolerability but did not incrementally reduce post-allergen challenge nasal symptoms compared with SCIT alone.

Clinical Study Number

NCT03558997.

Adverse reactions to subcutaneous immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis, a real-world study

PURPOSE

The efficacy of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for allergic rhinitis (AR) have been proven but application is still limited by concerns about the safety. The aims of this study were to investigate the incidence of adverse reactions and to ascertain possible risk factors in patients treated with SCIT in central China.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed the application of SCIT from 2016 to 2018, in 236 patients with AR. After each injection, allergen dosage and details about local reactions (LRs)/systemic reactions (SRs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Totaling 236 patients received 5844 injections. The rates of LR were 3.0% per injection and 34.7% per patient, while the rates of SR were 0.48% per injection and 10.6% per patient. 86.9 percent LRs were small. Most SRs were grade 1 (16/57.1%), followed by grade 2 (8/28.6%), grade 3 (4/14.3%). No fatal SRs was recorded. Children, high sensitization and absence of premedication were identified as risk factors for LRs. Recurrent LRs increased the risk of SRs. Premedication could reduce the number and severity of LRs, but not SRs. Dual therapy with antihistamine and montelukast did not provide additional benefit when compared with antihistamine alone.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of SRs was low while LRs were common in SCIT. Children may be prone to develop LRs, while pretreatments could reduce the number and severity of LRs. Recurrent LRs was a risk factor for SRs.

Safety and tolerability of venom immunotherapy: Evaluation of 581 rush- and ultra-rush induction protocols (safety of rush and ultra-rush venom immunotherapy)

Background

Current literature is inconsistent regarding the risk of severe side effects using accelerated induction protocols in Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy (VIT). In addition, several data indicate the influence of purity grade of venom preparation on tolerability. We evaluated the safety and tolerability of ultra-rush and rush build-up protocols using purified and non-purified venom preparations.

Methods

Retrospective single-center study of 581 VIT inductions (325 ultra-rush and 256 rush protocols) from 2005 to 2018 in 559 patients with bee and vespid venom allergy using aqueous purified (ALK SQ®) for ultra-rush protocol and aqueous non-purified (ALK Reless®) venom preparations for rush protocol.

Results

Urticaria (8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0,013) and dose reductions (4.3% vs. 1.2%, p = 0,026) were significantly more frequent in the ultra-rush group. Overall rate of moderate-to-severe side effects (anaphylaxis ≥grade 2 according to Ring and Meβmer) was low and did not differ significantly between protocols (p = 0.105). Severe events (grade 4 anaphylaxis) were not reported. Discontinuation rate was very low in both cohorts (0.6% vs 1.2%). The higher purity grade of venom preparations in the ultra-rush cohort did not improve tolerability. The bee venom group showed a non-significant trend towards higher incidence of mild reactions (urticaria), resulting in more frequent dose reductions and antiallergic therapy.

Conclusion

Rush and ultra-rush protocols show an excellent safety profile with only infrequent and mild anaphylactic reactions in bee and vespid venom allergy. Ultra-rush immunotherapy reduces the duration of the inpatient build-up phase setting and thus is viewed by the authors as preferred treatment in Hymenoptera venom allergic patients.

Presentation, diagnosis, and the role of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in the management of ocular allergy

Allergic eye disease or ocular allergy is a debilitating condition with a significant impact on quality of life and productivity. As atopy continues to be on the rise, primary care providers are likely to encounter increasing numbers of patients with allergic eye disease. This review outlines the classification and pathophysiology of allergic eye disease and its clinical presentation. This paper does not detail traditional first-line therapies of allergic eye disease but describes the interdisciplinary management between the eye-care provider and allergist. It is recommended that patients with ongoing signs and symptoms of ocular allergy despite first-line therapies be referred for allergen immunotherapy, as it is highly effective for treatment of allergic eye disease. Through induction of immune tolerance, allergen immunotherapy is a disease-modifying therapy that can result in long-term improvement of ocular allergy. A thorough literature review was conducted on the efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy, including subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy, and its role in allergic eye disease.

Allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: to what extent can the risk of systemic reactions be reduced?

INTRODUCTION

Allergen immunotherapy is an effective treatment for respiratory allergy, but the administration to patients of extracts of the causative allergen may elicit systemic reactions, which include, particularly with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), anaphylaxis. In the past, the occurrence (tough rare) of fatal reactions has represented a serious problem that has limited the prescription of SCIT.

AREAS COVERED

The authors analyzed in this review the safety data of SCIT, especially concerning the years following the identification of uncontrolled asthma at the moment of allergen injection as the major risk of life-threatening reactions and fatalities. The safety of SLIT, which is far better than SCIT, was analyzed and its specific risk factors for systemic reactions were highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

Presently, the safety profile of SCIT and SLIT is satisfactory, provided the treatment is administered by physicians experienced in this treatment, who are aware of the known risk factors for severe reactions and who implement all measures to avoid them. For SLIT, which is self-administered by the patient, receiving the first dose under medical control is recommended.