Safety and efficacy in children of an SQ-standardized grass allergen tablet for sublingual immunotherapy

TAPAS-A Prospective, Multicentre, Long-Term Cohort Study in Children, Adolescents and Adults with Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis-Design and Early Results

Background/Objectives: The guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommends subcutaneous allergen-specific immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in children and adults with moderate to severe symptoms. The five years cohort study described below was designed in 2020 to demonstrate non-inferiority in terms of safety, tolerability and efficacy in a paediatric population compared with adult patients treated with microcrystalline tyrosine-adsorbed allergoids for their tree and grass pollen allergy in a perennial setting. Here, we present the preliminary findings from the first year. Methods: The Combined Symptom and Medication Score was chosen as the primary endpoint of this therapy. Secondary endpoints include the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, the retrospective Rhinoconjunctivitis score, the Asthma Control Test and the Rhinitis Control Test, as well as an analysis of adverse drug reactions. Results: A total number of 320 patients were enrolled into this study, with 129 of these patients in the age group between 5 and 17 years and 191 patients in the adult age group. Mean Combined Symptom and Medication Score values did not differ significantly between minors and adults in the first pollen season after treatment induction. The retrospective score showed a strong and significant reduction in rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma symptoms. Treatment was well tolerated, with more than 80% of patients reporting no adverse drug reactions. Conclusions: The validity of this study approach of a cohort study has been confirmed by this first interim analysis for the initial course of therapy in the first year.

The SQ tree sublingual immunotherapy tablet is effective and well tolerated in children-A pivotal phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis and/or conjunctivitis (AR/C) induced by tree pollen is common and negatively impacts quality of life in children and adolescents. This phase III trial investigated the efficacy and safety of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet in a paediatric population (5-17 years) with moderate-to-severe AR/C induced by pollen from birch and trees in the birch homologous group.

METHODS

Nine hundred and fifty-two subjects were randomized (1:1) to daily treatment with SQ tree SLIT-tablet or placebo for up to 52 weeks and had free access to AR/C symptom-relieving medications. The primary endpoint was the average total combined score (TCS); sum of average daily symptom score (DSS) and average daily medication score (DMS) during the birch pollen season (BPS). Key secondary endpoints included average DSS and DMS during BPS and average TCS, DSS and DMS during tree pollen season (TPS).

RESULTS

SQ tree SLIT-tablet demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically relevant treatment effect compared with placebo for the TCS during BPS with an absolute treatment difference of 1.29 (95% CI: 0.58, 2.00; p = .0004) and a relative reduction of 21.9% (95% CI: 10.6, 31.9). Results were substantiated by reductions in both DSS and DMS versus placebo during the BPS and in DSS, DMS and TCS during the TPS. Treatment was generally well tolerated. Most treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate local administration site reactions.

CONCLUSION

This is the first paediatric trial to provide robust evidence of efficacy and safety of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet in tree pollen-induced AR/C in a paediatric population (5-17 years).

Efficacy and safety of SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy-tablet (12 SQ-HDM) in children with allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma (MT-12): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial

Background

Allergic rhinitis/rhinoconjunctivitis (AR/C) induced by house dust mites (HDM) often begins in childhood and negatively impacts a child's quality of life. The daily burden can be further compounded by comorbid asthma. Allergen immunotherapy is the only available treatment targeting the underlying cause of allergic disease. Efficacy and safety of the SQ HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet has been demonstrated in adults and adolescents with HDM AR/C with or without asthma, but data are lacking for younger children.

Methods

Phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in younger children (5-11 years) with HDM AR/C with or without asthma. Eligible subjects were randomised 1:1 to SQ HDM SLIT-tablet or placebo for ∼1 year and had free access to AR/C symptom-relieving medications. The primary outcome was the total combined rhinitis score (TCRS) during the final 8 weeks of the treatment period (∼1 year). Secondary outcomes included the rhinitis daily symptom score (DSS) and medication score (DMS), the rhinoconjunctivitis total combined score (TCS), and the Paediatric Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (PRQLQ) score. Efficacy analyses were conducted on the full analysis set (observed cases). Asthma-related outcomes were also explored. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04145219 and EudraCT: 2019-000560-22.

Findings

A total of 1460 subjects were randomised to SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (n = 729) or placebo (n = 731). The primary outcome, TCRS, was statistically significantly different for SQ HDM SLIT-tablet (n = 693) versus placebo (n = 706), with an absolute difference of 1.0 (95% CI: 0.5, 1.4; p < 0.0001) corresponding to a relative reduction of 22.0% (95% CI: 12.0, 31.1). Key secondary outcomes (DSS, DMS, TCS, PRQLQ) showed statistically significant reductions in symptoms and medication use, and improved disease-related quality of life for SQ HDM SLIT-tablet versus placebo. Improvements in asthma symptoms and reduced asthma medication use indicated an additional effect of SQ HDM-SLIT tablet versus placebo. The SQ HDM SLIT-tablet showed a higher event rate for treatment-related adverse events (AEs) than placebo. Most events were of mild or moderate severity and few subjects discontinued due to AEs (2.5%).

Interpretation

The trial confirmed the efficacy and safety of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet for treating HDM AR/C in younger children (5-11 years) with or without asthma. The safety profile supports daily self-administration of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet in children.

Funding

ALK-Abellό, Hørsholm, Denmark.

High burden of respiratory allergy in children warrants early identification and treatment with allergen immunotherapy

Respiratory allergy often begins in childhood and most commonly manifests as allergic rhinitis (upper airways) and/or asthma (lower airways). Children with upper respiratory allergy often suffer from coexisting asthma, and other comorbidities ranging from gastrointestinal disorders to emotional/mental health disorders. Consequently, the disease burden is considerable and profoundly impacts a child's daily life. Early identification and appropriate management are important to reduce disease burden, lower the risk of disease progression and additional comorbidities, and protect the child's future well-being. A window of opportunity for halting disease progression may open in the early stages of allergic disease and underlines the importance of early diagnosis and treatment of children at risk. This review offers advice on identifying children with a high disease burden who would benefit from early intervention. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) modifies the cause of respiratory allergy and prevents disease progression. In clinical practice, AIT could be considered as an early treatment for eligible children, to achieve long-term symptom control and disease modification.

Consistent efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy tablets across allergens and geographic regions

Background: The clinical development program of the SQ grass, ragweed, tree, and house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets for allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) included clinical trials conducted in North America, Europe, and Japan. Objective: Data from these trials were analyzed to assess efficacy, immunologic mechanisms, and safety outcomes across allergens and geographic regions. Methods: Thirteen phase III, double-blind, placebo controlled trials in the subjects with AR/C were conducted in North America, Europe (including Russia), and Japan (N = 7763 analyzed). Trials were generally similar with respect to medical practice, target population, eligibility criteria, and efficacy and safety monitoring. Data were analyzed for the approved doses in North America and Europe. Four statistical models were used to enhance comparison of the efficacy end points among the trials. Results: The SLIT-tablets demonstrated consistent efficacy across allergens and regions, regardless of the statistical analysis used. Relative improvement in the primary efficacy end point compared with placebo by using the predefined protocol analysis ranged from 17.9% to 32.8%, 17.5% to 19.3%, 20.6% to 38.3%, and 39.6% with the grass, HDM, ragweed, and tree SLIT-tablets, respectively. The kinetics of specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgG4 responses were similar among the allergens and regions. Local application-site reactions were the most common adverse events for all allergens and in all regions. Most treatment-related adverse events for all allergens and in all regions were mild in severity. The rate of systemic allergic reactions was similar across regions (0%-0.54%). Conclusion: Confirmatory phase III trials for SLIT-tablets in the treatment of AR/C showed consistent efficacy, immunologic, and safety outcomes across allergens and geographic regions.

SQ sublingual immunotherapy tablets for children with allergic rhinitis: A review of phase three trials

AIM

To provide paediatricians with a summary of efficacy and safety of SQ sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets from phase three, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis, with and without asthma.

METHODS

PubMed searches were conducted and unpublished data were included if necessary.

RESULTS

Of the 93 publications, 12 were identified reporting 10 trials. One trial was excluded as paediatric-specific efficacy data were unavailable. The nine eligible trials evaluated grass, house dust mite, ragweed and tree SLIT tablets. Consistent reductions in allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms and medication use were observed with SQ SLIT tablets versus placebo. In a five-year trial, sustained reduction of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, asthma symptoms and medication use were observed with SQ grass SLIT tablet versus placebo. The number-needed-to-treat to prevent asthma symptoms and medication use in one additional child during follow-up was lowest in younger children. SQ SLIT tablets were generally well tolerated across trials.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supports use of SQ SLIT tablets in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis, with and without asthma. Long-term data demonstrate disease-modifying effects of SQ grass SLIT tablet and suggest the clinical relevance of initiating allergy immunotherapy earlier in the disease course.

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.

Quantifying the benefits of early sublingual allergen immunotherapy tablet initiation in children

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the upper airway, which progresses into allergic asthma (AA) in up to 45% of children. This analysis aimed to investigate clinical and economic benefits of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT tablets) initiated early in childhood for the treatment of AR by quantifying the long-term reduction in new cases of AA.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the long-term effects of SLIT tablets on the risk of developing asthma. Key parameters were primarily based on data from the GRAZAX® Asthma Prevention trial and included the age- and treatment-dependent risk of developing AA as well as annual probabilities of progression/remission in AR severity. Healthcare costs were estimated using data from the REACT study.

RESULTS

In a modelled cohort of children with moderate-to-severe seasonal AR initiated on SLIT tablets at ages 7 and 12, 24% and 29%, respectively, develop AA during a 20-year period. In comparison, when initiated at age 5, 19% develop AA. Additionally, initiation of SLIT tablets at age 5 is associated with a total healthcare cost of EUR 20,429 per patient, whereas initiation at ages 7 and 12 is associated with, respectively, EUR 21,050 and EUR 22,379 per patient 20 years after AR diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Initiation of SLIT tablets in early childhood is associated with a clinically meaningful and permanent reduction in new cases of AA and lower healthcare costs among children with AR. This finding supports the clinical relevance of initiating SLIT tablets early for children with AR to obtain long-term clinical benefits.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual versus subcutaneous immunotherapy in children with allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To systematically compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children with allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2, 2023. Outcomes included symptom scores (SSs), medication scores (MSs), symptom and medication scores (SMSs), new sensitizations, development of asthma, improvement, and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The quality of the included studies was assessed by the modified Jadad scale and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Meta-regression was carried out to explore the source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was further conducted in terms of study design [randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies], allergen [house dust mites (HDMs), grass pollen], treatment duration (≥ 24, 12-23 or < 12 months), allergen immunotherapy (AIT) modality (drops or tablets), and AIT protocol [continuous, pre-seasonal, co-seasonal, or after the grass pollen season (GPS)]. Sensitivity analysis was conducted for all outcomes. A Bayesian framework and a Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) model were developed for indirect comparison.

Results

Totally 50 studies with 10813 AR children were included, with 4122 treated with SLIT, 1852 treated with SCIT, and 4839 treated with non-SLIT or non-SCIT therapy. For direct comparison, the SLIT group had a similar SS to the SCIT group [pooled standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.46, 1.28, P = 0.353]. Comparable MSs were observed in the SLIT and SCIT groups (pooled SMD: 0.82, 95%CI: -0.88, 2.53, P = 0.344). For indirect comparison, no significant differences were found in SSs (pooled SMD: 1.20, 95% credibility interval (CrI): -1.70, 4.10), MSs (pooled SMD: 0.57, 95%CrI: -1.20, 2.30), SMSs (pooled SMD: 1.80, 95%CrI: -0.005, 3.60), new sensitizations [pooled relative risk (RR): 0.34, 95%CrI: 0.03, 3.58], and development of asthma (pooled RR: 0.68, 95%CrI: 0.01, 26.33) between the SLIT and SCIT groups; the SLIT group illustrated a significantly lower incidence of TRAEs than the SCIT group (pooled RR: 0.17, 95%CrI: 0.11, 0.26).

Conclusion

Considering both efficacy and safety, SLIT might be a more favorable AIT than SCIT in the treatment of pediatric AR, which may serve as a decision-making reference for clinicians.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023460693).

KAAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment for various allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, and bee venom allergy that induces tolerance to offending allergens. The need for uniform practice guidelines in AIT is continuously growing because of the increasing discovery of potential candidates for AIT and evolving interest in new therapeutic approaches. This guideline is an updated version of the Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommendations for AIT published in 2010. This updated guideline proposes an expert opinion by allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology specialists with an extensive literature review. The guideline deals with basic knowledge and methodological aspects of AIT, including mechanisms, clinical efficacy, patient selection, allergens extract selection, schedule and doses, management of adverse reactions, efficacy measurements, and special consideration in pediatrics. The guidelines for sublingual immunotherapy will be covered in detail in a separate article.

A practical guide to prescribing sublingual immunotherapy tablets in North America for pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: an injection-free allergy immunotherapy option

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is a common disease that affects individuals of all ages. Pediatricians may be the first (and only) point of care for children with ARC. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a convenient at-home, injection-free allergy immunotherapy option that can be used for the treatment of ARC. This paper provides a practical guide for pediatricians to aid in prescribing SLIT-tablets to children with ARC in North America. Topics include a summary of the available SLIT-tablets and their efficacy and safety, guidance on when SLIT-tablets are an appropriate option, and how to diagnose ARC and identify culprit allergens. Practical guidance is also provided through a proposed decision tree, a prescribing checklist and prescribing procedures, and suggested follow-up assessments.

Adverse events in children and adolescents undergoing allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergies-Report from the Allergen Immunotherapy Adverse Events Registry (ADER), a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology taskforce

BACKGROUND

Although it has been shown that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is well-tolerated in children, systematic and prospective surveillance of AIT safety in real life settings is needed.

METHODS

The multinational Allergen Immunotherapy Adverse Events Registry (ADER) was designed to address AIT safety in real life clinical practice. Data on children ≤18 years old with respiratory allergies undergoing AIT were retrieved. Patient- and AIT-related features were collected and analyzed. The characteristics of adverse events (AE) and risk factors were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 851 patients, 11.3 ± 3.4 years old, with rhinitis only (47.6%); asthma and rhinitis (44.5%); asthma (7.9%), receiving 998 AIT courses were analyzed. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) accounted for 51% of the courses. In 84.5% of patients only one AIT treatment was prescribed. Pollen was the most frequent sensitizer (57.1%), followed by mites (53.4%), molds (18.2%) and epithelia (16.7%). Local and systemic AEs were reported in 85 patients (9.9%). Most AEs (83.1%) were mild and occurred in <30 min (87%). Respiratory and cutaneous symptoms were more frequent. Only 4 patients (0.47%) had severe AE (none after 6 weeks of maintenance). The risk of AE was higher in patients undergoing SCIT.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT is safe and well tolerated in children and adolescents with respiratory allergies in real-life clinical practice. Though SCIT is more prone to AE compared to SLIT, overall severe reactions are rare and occur during build-up and early maintenance.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A network meta-analysis

Background

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) and provide evidence for clinical treatment.

Methods

A literature search was performed on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sublingual immunotherapy for AR were screened and extracted from the establishment of those databases to November 2022. Subsequently, a network meta-analysis was performed using a statistical software R 4.2.

Results

Totally 22 RCTs that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and screened from 1,164 literature were included. A total of 4,941 AR patients were involved in the 22 trials, as well as five interventions including placebo, pharmacotherapy, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, and sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract. The results of network meta-analysis showed that, based on symptom scores after different interventions for AR, the most effective treatments for AR were in order as follows: sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract, placebo, and pharmacotherapy. Importantly, sublingual immunotherapy had fewer adverse reactions and higher safety.

Conclusion

Sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite for AR has the best efficacy, whereas traditional medicine has the worst. More high-quality studies with a large sample and multiple centers are needed to verify this conclusion in the future, so as to further provide more reliable evidence-based medical evidence for the clinical treatment options of AR patients.

High baseline prevalence of atopic comorbidities and medication use in children treated with allergy immunotherapy in the REAl-world effeCtiveness in allergy immunoTherapy (REACT) study

Background

Respiratory allergy, commonly manifesting as allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma, is a chronic progressive disease that frequently starts in childhood. Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causal treatment for respiratory allergy with the potential to modify the underlying cause of allergy and, ultimately, prevent disease progression. This analysis aimed to determine if AIT is received sufficiently early to halt the progression of allergic disease, by characterizing the burden and progression of disease in children prior to AIT initiation in real-life clinical practice.

Methods

The REAl-world effeCtiveness in allergy immunoTherapy (REACT) study was a large retrospective cohort study using German claims data between 2007 and 2017. Characteristics of two pre-defined AIT age cohorts from the REACT study - children (aged <18 years) and adults (aged ≥18 years) - were evaluated during the 1-year period before the first AIT prescription. For comparison, a control group of all subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of AR and without prescriptions for AIT was included. Burden of disease was assessed using diagnostic codes for atopic comorbidities [e.g., atopic dermatitis (AD), asthma, and acute allergic conjunctivitis] and non-atopic comorbidities (e.g., migraine, headache); medication use, recorded as prescriptions for symptom-relieving AR medication and reliever/controller medication for asthma, was also assessed. Data were analyzed descriptively, using summary statistics.

Results

Both children (n = 11,036) and adults (n = 30,037) showed a higher prevalence of atopic comorbidities and a greater drug burden prior to AIT initiation compared to AR patients not treated with AIT (n = 1,003,332). In the two age-specific AIT cohorts, children consistently showed the highest prevalence of atopic comorbidities compared to adults (AIT children, AIT adults - asthma: 41.4%, 34.5%; AD: 19.9%, 10.2%; acute allergic conjunctivitis: 13.6%, 10.2%). Generally, prescriptions per year for symptom-relieving AR and asthma treatments were also higher for children initiating AIT vs. adults (AIT children, AIT adults - AR prescriptions per subject: 1.72, 0.73; asthma prescriptions per subject: 1.42, 0.79).

Conclusions

Children with AR who are offered AIT in real-life show considerable disease burden prior to initiation. As AIT may alleviate the burden and halt the progression of allergic disease, considering AIT earlier in the disease course may be warranted.

Pharmacological Management of Allergic Rhinitis: A Consensus Statement from the Malaysian Society of Allergy and Immunology

The goal of allergic rhinitis (AR) management is to achieve satisfactory symptom control to ensure good quality of life. Most patients with AR are currently treated with pharmacotherapy. However, knowledge gaps on the use of pharmacotherapy still exist among physicians, particularly in the primary care setting, despite the availability of guideline recommendations. Furthermore, it is common for physicians in the secondary care setting to express uncertainty regarding the use of new combination therapies like intranasal corticosteroid plus antihistamine combinations. Inadequate treatment leads to significant reduction of quality of life that affects daily activities at home, work, and school. With these concerns in mind, a practical consensus statement was developed to complement existing guidelines on the rational use of pharmacotherapy in both the primary and secondary care settings.

Immunotherapy for Asthma

Asthma represents one of the biggest global health concerns with increasing prevalence and influence on global health. Several distinct asthma phenotypes have been identified with one of the most common, earliest recognized, and described being the allergic asthma phenotype, in which allergens trigger asthma through mechanisms involving allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE). Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), in the forms of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), has been used for many decades as a tool for reducing IgE-mediated sensitization and controlling symptoms of allergic disease, most commonly for allergic rhinitis, and it remains the only currently available disease modifying therapy in atopic patients. AIT has been studied for use in mild to moderate allergic asthma. While the data are often inconsistent, and utilize a multitude of different methods, antigens, and outcome measures, in general, AIT may have several beneficial effects on asthma disease control, quality of life, and requirement for medication. These benefits are notable when immunotherapy is used as an adjunct to pharmacologic treatment in carefully selected and monitored patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Patients with severe asthma are excluded from these trials. Importantly, patients with asthma, and in particular severe asthma, may have a higher rate of systemic adverse reactions to SCIT, including anaphylaxis, however, these events are overall rare. Future research in the area is needed to definitively assess the benefit of SCIT and SLIT for patients with asthma, comparing outcomes with different methods, addressing the role of AIT in severe asthma, significance of multiallergen AIT in allergic asthma, and safety concerns in asthma.

One hundred and ten years of Allergen Immunotherapy: A journey from empiric observation to evidence

One hundred and ten years after Noon's first clinical report of the subcutaneous application of allergen extracts, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has evolved as the most important pillar of the treatment of allergic patients. It is the only disease-modifying treatment option available and the evidence for its clinical efficacy and safety is broad and undisputed. Throughout recent decades, more insights into the underlying mechanisms, in particular the modulation of innate and adaptive immune responses, have been described. AIT is acknowledged by worldwide regulatory authorities, and following the regulatory guidelines for product development, AIT products are subject to a rigorous evaluation before obtaining market authorization. Knowledge and practice are anchored in international guidelines, such as the recently published series of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). Innovative approaches continue to be further developed with the focus on clinical improvement by, for example, the usage of adjuvants, peptides, recombinants, modification of allergens, new routes of administration, and the concomitant use of biologicals. In addition, real-life data provide complementary and valuable information on the effectiveness and tolerability of this treatment option in the clinical routine. New mobile health technologies and big-data approaches will improve daily treatment convenience, adherence, and efficacy of AIT. However, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has also had some implications for the feasibility and practicability of AIT. Taken together, AIT as the only disease-modifying therapy in allergic diseases has been broadly investigated over the past 110 years laying the path for innovations and further improvement.

Allergen Release Profiles of Fast-Dissolving Freeze-Dried Orodispersible Sublingual Allergy Immunotherapy Tablets

Background

Sublingual allergy immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-tablets) provide a well-tolerated and clinically efficacious treatment for allergic disease such as allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. In SLIT, uptake of allergen by immune-competent cells in the oral mucosa activates the immune system and leads to tolerance toward the sensitizing allergen. The ability to deliver the full allergen content into solution within the recommended sublingual holding time is therefore an essential quality of SLIT-tablets that must be supported by the tablet formulation for all relevant allergen sources. SLIT-tablets based on a fast-dissolving orodispersible freeze-dried formulation (Zydis) are currently available for 5 of the most prevalent allergens: tree (birch and related species from the birch-homologous group), grass, ragweed, Japanese cedar, and house dust mite.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to examine the allergen release properties of three freeze-dried SLIT-tablets containing tree, ragweed, and Japanese cedar extracts, respectively. The correlation between SLIT-tablet allergen release and the level of allergen-specific T-cell activation was examined for the tree SLIT-tablet.

Methods

Allergen release kinetics and tablet disintegration times for the 3 freeze-dried SLIT-tablets were examined. For all 3 tablets, the magnitude of solubilized major allergen relative to time in solution was compared to external controls to achieve a measure of the total allergen release. Additional assessments of allergen release occurring after the initial timepoint (15 or 30 seconds in solution) were done independently of external controls by linear regression analyses. For the tree SLIT-tablet, the immunological potency of the released major allergen was assessed at each experimental timepoint by a Bet v-specific T-cell activation assay.

Results

All 3 SLIT-tablets disintegrated within 1 second after contact with assay buffer without any detectible residue. Complete release of major allergens (Bet v 1, Amb a 1, and Cry j 1, respectively) was seen at the earliest experimental time points (15 or 30 seconds). For the tree SLIT-tablet, full T-cell activation was achieved at 30 seconds (earliest experimental time point).

Conclusions

The freeze-dried SLIT-tablet formulation consistently provides rapid and complete release of allergen from a wide range of species in a standardized in vitro assay. Full release of the SLIT-tablet allergen content within the sublingual holding time is a prerequisite for maximal exposure of allergens to the sublingual mucosa immune system. The freeze-dried SLIT-tablet formulation examined here supports short sublingual holding times and furthermore offers a convenient administration form of allergy immunotherapy.

Allergen immunotherapy for pediatric asthma: current evidence and knowledge gaps

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The introduction of high-quality and standardized extracts for immunotherapy has renewed the interest in the treatment of pediatric allergic asthma that represents a high-prevalence disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to clinical trials, several systematic reviews and metaanalyses were published, confirming overall the clinical efficacy of allergen immunotherapy in pediatric asthma. In addition, new data on the preventive effect of the treatment on asthma onset were published. Despite this, many intriguing questions emerged, in parallel to the development of knowledge.

SUMMARY

Allergen immunotherapy is overall effective for the treatment of asthma in children, but a class-effect should not be claimed, rather the efficacy of each single product. According to the recent findings, the challenge for the future research will be to clarify: when to start immunotherapy in children, which are (if they exist) the predictive biomarkers for efficacy in the single individual, the magnitude of the preventive effect and the optimal duration of the treatment.

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.

Use of Sublingual Immunotherapy for Aeroallergens in Children with Asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease that in children is often allergen-driven with a type 2 inflammation. Sublingual immunotherapy represents an important progress in the use of personalized medicine in children with allergic asthma. It is a viable option for house dust mite-driven asthma and in subjects with the asthma associated with allergic rhinitis. The use and indications for isolated asthma caused by other allergens are still controversial owing to heterogeneity of commercially available products and methodological limitations of studies in children. Nevertheless, most studies and meta-analyses found the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy. Sublingual immunotherapy is safe but cannot be recommended in children with uncontrolled asthma.

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.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

Rewiring of gene networks underlying mite allergen-induced CD4 + Th-cell responses during immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Multiple regulatory mechanisms have been identified employing conventional hypothesis-driven approaches as contributing to allergen-specific immunotherapy outcomes, but understanding of how these integrate to maintain immunological homeostasis is incomplete.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the potential for unbiased systems-level gene co-expression network analysis to advance understanding of immunotherapy mechanisms.

METHODS

We profiled genome-wide allergen-induced Th-cell responses prospectively during 24 months subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in 25 rhinitis, documenting changes in immunoinflammatory pathways and associated co-expression networks and their relationships to symptom scores out to 36 months.

RESULTS

Prior to immunotherapy, mite-induced Th-cell response networks involved multiple discrete co-expression modules including those related to Th2-, type1 IFN-, inflammation- and FOXP3/IL2-associated signalling. A signature comprising 109 genes correlated with symptom scores, and these mapped to cytokine signalling/T-cell activation-associated pathways, with upstream drivers including hallmark Th1/Th2- and inflammation-associated genes. Reanalysis after 3.5 months SCIT updosing detected minimal changes to pathway/upstream regulator profiles despite 32.5% symptom reduction; however, network analysis revealed underlying merging of FOXP3/IL2-with inflammation-and Th2-associated modules. By 12 months SCIT, symptoms had reduced by 41% without further significant changes to pathway/upstream regulator or network profiles. Continuing SCIT to 24 months stabilized symptoms at 47% of baseline, accompanied by upregulation of the type1 IFN-associated network module and its merging into the Th2/FOXP3/IL2/inflammation module.

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous immunotherapy stimulates progressive integration of mite-induced Th cell-associated Th2-, FOXP3/IL2-, inflammation- and finally type1 IFN-signalling subnetworks, forming a single highly integrated co-expression network module, maximizing potential for stable homeostatic control of allergen-induced Th2 responses via cross-regulation. Th2-antagonistic type1 IFN signalling may play a key role in stabilizing clinical effects of SCIT.

House Dust Mite Sublingual Immunotherapy in Children Versus Adults With Allergic Rhinitis

Background

There are only a few studies in which the clinical efficacy of SLIT has been compared between children and adults. In addition, there is a lack of research on other factors, associated with the treatment, including immunological parameters and quality of life (QOL).

Objective

To compare the effects of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in adults and children on various factors: clinical efficacy, quality of life (QOL), satisfaction, immunological parameters, and adverse events.

Methods

Subjects who were sensitized to house dust mites and treated with SLIT for at least 2 years were enrolled. Seventy patients who completed questionnaires measuring nasal symptoms and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores and underwent serologic tests for immunological parameters at initial, 1-year, and 2-year follow-up were selected and divided into two groups based on age: a child group (age 4–12 years, n = 44) and an adult group (age 19–59 years, n = 26).

Results

The Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) was significantly decreased after 2 years of SLIT in both the child and adult groups ( p < 0.001, both); however, changes in TNSS from baseline did not significantly differ between the two groups ( p = 0.365). More patients in adult group were satisfied with SLIT than those in child group ( p = 0.050), and changes in RQLQ score from baseline tended to be larger in adult group ( p = 0.089). The levels of immunological parameters at baseline were significantly higher in the child group than in the adult group; however, changes in the levels of these parameters were not significantly different.

Conclusion

Although more adult patients were satisfied with SLIT, the clinical effects of SLIT on nasal symptoms were comparable between child and adult groups. Despite different immunological values at baseline between the two groups, changing patterns of immunological parameters did not differ.

Clinical Practice of Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and Asthma: An Expert Panel Report

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) reduces symptoms and medication use associated with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis and allergic asthma. Although several AIT guidelines exist, there remain unanswered questions about AIT that are relevant to everyday practice. Our objective was to prepare an evidence-based overview addressing the practical aspects of AIT in clinical practice based on published evidence and the experience of international experts in the field. Topics covered include interpretation and translation of clinical trial data into everyday clinical practice (eg, allergen doses and treatment duration), assessment of risk and treatment of local and systemic allergic reactions, recommendations for improvement of AIT guidelines, and identification of appropriate data for seeking regulatory approval, to name a few. Many informational gaps in AIT practice need further evaluation as products and practices evolve.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient's profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient's adherence to the treatment. This user's guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.

Impact on quality of life and safety of sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy in children with severe house dust mite and pollen-associated allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Background

Pollen and house dust mite (HDM) subcutaneous immunotherapy (SLIT) and pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) are effective therapies for children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR). There are no previous direct comparative studies investigating quality of life (QoL) of all three immunotherapy regimes. The aim of this study was to compare QoL and safety in children receiving these immunotherapies for AR.

Methods

Demographic characteristics, Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Visual Analogue (VAS) scores were assessed in 249 children undergoing HDM and pollen immunotherapy at a UK specialist paediatric centre between 2007 and 2019.

Results

All three immunotherapy regimes led to a > 50% improvement in QoL and VAS after 3 years of therapy, with significant improvements by the end of the first year (p < 0.05) and further improvements between 1 and 3 years (p < 0.05). Age, gender, ethnicity and route of administration had no significant bearing on efficacy. Older, polysensitised children and those receiving HDM SLIT were all more likely to discontinue their treatment (all with p < 0.05). The only patient to suffer from anaphylaxis requiring intramuscular adrenaline, and 80% experiencing exacerbations of their asthma had received pollen SCIT.

Conclusions

Pollen SCIT and pollen and HDM SLIT all lead to significant improvements in QoL. The risk of anaphylaxis is low, but SCIT is associates with a 1 in 5 chance of asthma flares in the days after its administration. Discontinuation of therapy is more frequent in older, polysensitised children, and those undergoing HDM immunotherapy.

Safety of Timothy Grass Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablet in Children: Pooled Analyses of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Timothy grass sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets are indicated for children with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis.

OBJECTIVE

To use pooled analyses to assess the short- and long-term tolerability and safety of timothy grass SLIT-tablet in children.

METHODS

Data from 9 double-blinded, randomized European or North American trials that included children with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis treated up to 3 years with once-daily timothy grass SLIT-tablet or placebo were pooled.

RESULTS

In all, 1818 (timothy grass SLIT-tablet, n = 923; placebo, n = 895) subjects were included in the analysis. The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 86% in the SLIT-tablet group and 83% in the placebo group, and the frequency of treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) was 59% and 23%, respectively. Most (98%) TRAEs were mild to moderate in severity. The 2 most common TRAEs with SLIT-tablet were oral pruritus (33%) and throat irritation (19%), which had a median onset of 1 day and recurrence of 14.5 and 5 days, respectively. In all, 8% of subjects in the SLIT-tablet group and 2% in the placebo group discontinued because of AEs. There were 7 serious AEs assessed as related to SLIT-tablet, 1 systemic allergic reaction (severe with a drop in blood pressure), 3 epinephrine administrations, no eosinophilic esophagitis events, and no serious airway obstructions. The safety profile was similar in subjects across geographic regions and with and without asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled data indicate that short- and long-term timothy grass SLIT-tablet is well tolerated in children, regardless of geographic region. AEs were generally local, mild, and transient allergic reactions.

Comparison of Six Different Allergen Extracts for Subcutaneous Specific Immunotherapy in Children: An Open-Labelled, Prospective, Controlled Observational Trial

BACKGROUND

Numerous products are available for subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy, but there are no information about the direct comparability regarding efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the different extracts.

AIMS

The aim of this open-labelled, prospective, controlled observational trial was to test the feasibility of a comparison of different products for SCIT in children.

METHODS

Pediatrician practices recruited patients with a confirmed diagnosis of a seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) with or without asthma and an allergic sensitization against grass pollen allergen. Every patient was offered SCIT with one out of six allergen extracts: ALK SQ Depot, ALK Avanz, Allergovit, Depigoid, Purethal, Pollinex Quattro. Scores for symptoms and medications were calculated and the difference between treatment years and baseline were recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 284 were recruited and 255 children (89.8%; mean age 10.4, SD 3.54 years; 65% males) participated in this trial. Overall, 49,649 patient days were recorded in the electronic database (mean 183.2 days/patient). There was no significant difference in the AR and asthma symptom score or the medication score between the six different SCIT preparations. Similarly, no differences were observed in terms of safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSION

The comparison of different SCIT products using an online tool is feasible. Based on our preliminary data, all extracts indicated efficacy; however, larger groups would be necessary to demonstrate superiority or non-inferiority of one specific SCIT product.

SQ house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of adults with house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common chronic conditions affecting both children and adults. The house dust mites (HDM) account for a substantial part of the overall sources of allergens. In patients where allergen avoidance and symptom-relieving pharmacotherapy do not provide adequate disease control, specific allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is indicated. While subcutaneous injection (SCIT) is considered as a time-consuming and invasive treatment regimen, sublingual allergy immunotherapy (SLIT) appears as more convenient treatment strategy.Areas covered: This Drug Profile reviews the clinical data behind the development of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet, including both the early studies and the pivotal studies, which formed the basis for regulatory approval in Europe, Japan, and the U.S.Expert opinion: The clinical trials behind the development of the SQ HDM-SLIT have demonstrated that the tablet provides a safe, well-tolerated and robust efficacy in the treatment of HDM-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Further, studies show that the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet is a cost-effective treatment option compared with SCIT.

Options of immunotherapeutic treatments for children with asthma

Introduction: Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Avoiding triggers, and pharmacologic treatment with short acting beta-agonist, inhaler corticosteroids and anti-leukotriene are often enough to obtain symptoms control. Nevertheless, there is a subset of children with severe asthma and poor symptom control despite maximal therapy. In these patients, anti-IgE and anti-IL5 monoclonal antibodies are suggested as the fifth step of Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Area covered: Immunotherapeutic treatments are now suggested for asthma management. This article will discuss the available evidence on allergen immunotherapy and biologic drugs in pediatric asthma treatment. Expert opinion: Previously published studies demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile of Allergen Immunotherapy in patients with mild-moderate asthma and sensitization to one main allergen. New understanding of mechanisms underlying severe asthma inflammation has allowed the identifications of specific biomarkers guiding the clinician in the choice of patient specific drug. Among the suggested immunotherapeutic options, omalizumab (blocking IgE) remains the first choice for atopic 'early onset' asthma in patients aged over 6 years. Instead, mepolizumab (blocking the IL5 ligand) should be considered for 'eosinophilic' asthma. Other biologic drugs are under consideration but data on the pediatric population are still lacking.

GRAZAX®: a sublingual immunotherapy vaccine for Hay fever treatment: from concept to commercialization

Allergen immunotherapy has been used for more than 100 y, but only recently underlying immunological mechanisms have started to be understood. New Allergy vaccines are now considered to be full pharmaceutical products, that should comply with general as well as specific pharmaceutical legal framework. GRAZAX® is the first global allergy vaccine developed in compliance with the new legal environment and is thus a reference for developing new allergy vaccines. Here, we provide a rationale description of GRAZAX®, providing a sequential description of its pharmaceutical and clinical development. With more than 25 clinical trials, involving more than 8000 patients, including as well three 5-y prospective clinical trials, GRAZAX® is a key product to understand the unique position of allergen-specific immunotherapy as a disease-modifying intervention.

BSACI guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis (Revised Edition 2017; First edition 2007)

This is an updated guideline for the diagnosis and management of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis, first published in 2007. It was produced by the Standards of Care Committee of the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, using accredited methods. Allergic rhinitis is common and affects 10-15% of children and 26% of adults in the UK, it affects quality of life, school and work attendance, and is a risk factor for development of asthma. Allergic rhinitis is diagnosed by history and examination, supported by specific allergy tests. Topical nasal corticosteroids are the treatment of choice for moderate to severe disease. Combination therapy with intranasal corticosteroid plus intranasal antihistamine is more effective than either alone and provides second line treatment for those with rhinitis poorly controlled on monotherapy. Immunotherapy is highly effective when the specific allergen is the responsible driver for the symptoms. Treatment of rhinitis is associated with benefits for asthma. Non-allergic rhinitis also is a risk factor for the development of asthma and may be eosinophilic and steroid-responsive or neurogenic and non- inflammatory. Non-allergic rhinitis may be a presenting complaint for systemic disorders such as granulomatous or eosinophilic polyangiitis, and sarcoidoisis. Infective rhinitis can be caused by viruses, and less commonly by bacteria, fungi and protozoa.

Real-life safety of 5-grass pollen tablet in 5-to-9-year-old children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Although 5-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy has a good safety profile in controlled clinical trials, additional safety information among pediatric patients in a real-world setting would be useful.

OBJECTIVE

To further document the safety of 5-grass tablet among children aged 5 to 9 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC).

METHODS

This multicenter, observational study included allergy immunotherapy-naïve 5- to 9-year-old children with grass pollen-induced ARC prescribed with 5-grass tablet daily (3-day dose escalation to 300 index of reactivity [IR]). Patients were followed up daily for safety and tolerability over the first 30 treatment days. Adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Three hundred seven children (mean age, 7.1 years) were enrolled. Fifty-eight percent were confirmed as polysensitized, and 36% had mild-to-moderate asthma. Of 307 patients, 233 (76%) reported AEs, and 173/307 (56%) reported ADRs, most frequently mild application-site reactions (throat irritation, oral pruritus, oral paresthesia). Sixteen of 307 (5.2%) patients withdrew because of ADRs. In 143 of 173 (83%) patients, ADRs first occurred within 1 week of starting treatment. More than half of the ADRs lasted less than 2 days, and ADRs resolved spontaneously in 161 of 173 (93%) patients. Recurrences of ADRs were reported in 45 of 173 (26%) patients and were also mainly application-site reactions. No notable differences were found in ADRs related to whether patients had asthma at inclusion. Neither epinephrine use nor admission to intensive care unit was reported.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of 5-grass tablet in pediatric ARC patients aged 5 to 9 years was consistent with safety findings in older patients, most ADRs being at the application site and mild to moderate. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02295969; EUPAS registration number: 8104.

Immunologic modification in mono- and poly-sensitized patients after sublingual immunotherapy

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

To compare immunologic modification and treatment outcomes after 2 years of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with house dust mite extracts (HDM) between monosensitized and polysensitized patients with allergic rhinitis.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

Among the patients who were prospectively enrolled in the SLIT cohort study, patients with allergic rhinitis who were sensitized to HDM and treated with SLIT for at least 2 years were studied. All participants underwent serologic tests at baseline and after SLIT to evaluate changes in immunologic parameters. The total nasal symptom score (TNSS) was measured before and after SLIT, and effective and less effective responder groups were categorized depending on whether patients had a TNSS reduction of 50%, as compared with baseline.

RESULTS

The increase in Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farinae specific immunoglobulin G4 levels was significantly higher in monosensitized patients than in polysensitized patients (P = .020 and P = .005, respectively). The TNSS significantly improved after SLIT in both the monosensitized and polysensitized groups (P < .001 in both groups). However, the difference in the changes in TNSS from baseline was not significant between the two groups (P = .374).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated different immunologic modifications after SLIT between monosensitized and polysensitized patients. However, patients in the polysensitized group who were treated with single-allergen SLIT experienced clinical improvement in TNSS that was comparable with that in the monosensitized group despite demonstrating different immunologic changes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b Laryngoscope, 129:E170-E177, 2019.

The Use of Biomarkers to Predict Aero-Allergen and Food Immunotherapy Responses

The incidence of allergic conditions has continued to rise over the past several decades, with a growing body of research dedicated toward the treatment of such conditions. By driving a complex range of changes in the underlying immune response, immunotherapy is the only therapy that modulates the immune system with long-term effects and is presently utilized for the treatment of several atopic conditions. Recent efforts have focused on identifying biomarkers associated with these changes that may be of use in predicting patients with the highest likelihood of positive clinical outcomes during allergen immunotherapy (AIT), providing guidance regarding AIT discontinuation, and predicting symptomatic relapse and the need for booster AIT after therapy. The identification of such biomarkers in food allergy has the additional benefit of replacing oral food challenges, which are presently the gold standard for diagnosing food allergies. While several markers have shown early promise, research has yet to identify a marker that can invariably predict clinical response to AIT. Skin prick testing (SPT) and specific IgE have commonly been used as inclusion criteria for the initiation of AIT and prediction of reactions during subsequent allergen challenge; however, existing data suggests that changes in these markers are not always associated with clinical improvement and can be widely variable, reducing their utility in predicting clinical response. Similar findings have been described for the use of allergen-specific functional IgG4 antibodies, basophil activation and histamine release, and type 2 innate lymphoid cells. There appears to be a promising association between changes in the expression of dendritic cell-associated markers, as well as the use of DNA promoter region methylation patterns in the prediction of allergy status following therapy. The cellular and molecular changes brought about by immunotherapy are still under investigation, but major strides in our understanding are being made.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: a systematic review

The objective of the systematic review is to provide complete and updated information on efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) formulations for the treatment of allergic respiratory diseases (ARDs). The literature search was conducted on PubMed database, involving double-blind, randomized clinical trials published between January 1992 and 2018, written in English, and performed in humans. The number of articles finally selected for review was 112. Data from the majority of properly controlled clinical trials demonstrate that SLIT is effective not only with short-term use (first year) but also with long-term use (up to the third year of active therapy), for treating ARDs in children and adults. Both continuous and discontinuous schemes of administration showed significant reductions in symptom and medication scores. Moreover, a SLIT-induced disease-modifying effect has been documented mainly with grass pollen extracts, since improvement is maintained during at least 2 years of follow-up after a 3-year treatment period. Additionally, allergen immunotherapy should also be considered a preventive strategy, especially for decreasing bronchial asthma incidence in children and adolescents with allergic rhinitis treated with SLIT. This therapy is also safe, producing only a few mainly local and mild-to-moderate adverse events, and usually self-limited in time. The registration and authorization of allergen SLIT preparations (grasses and house-dust mite tablets) as drugs by regulatory agencies, such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), has represented a landmark in allergy immunotherapy research. Further long-term studies, specially designed with allergens other than grass pollen or house-dust mites, not only in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis but also on asthmatic subjects, as well as studies comparing different administration schedules and/or routes, are required in order to continue the progress in the modern development of this particularly promising therapy.

The global development and clinical efficacy of sublingual tablet immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is a treatment option for respiratory allergy that is complementary to pharmacotherapy, with a distinct mechanism of action. Alternative methods to subcutaneous administration of AIT that enable patients to safely self-administer AIT is considered an unmet clinical need. The sublingual immunotherapy tablet (SLIT-tablet) is an orally disintegrating pharmaceutical formulation (oral lyophilisate) containing standardized allergens. SLIT-tablets have been developed for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) of cedar-pollen, grass-pollen, ragweed-pollen, tree-pollen, and house dust mite allergies. It is a once-daily tablet treatment to be self-administered after the first dose has been provided under the supervision of a physician with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases. Once the first dose is adequately tolerated, subsequent doses may be self-administered. SLIT-tablets have proven efficacy for allergic rhinitis (AR) with and without conjunctivitis (C) and allergic asthma (AA) in adults, children, and poly-sensitized allergic patients. Meta-analyses indicate that SLIT-tablets have superior or similar efficacy compared with anti-allergic pharmacotherapies for seasonal AR and superior efficacy for perennial AR. SLIT-tablets have also demonstrated clinically relevant improvements of asthma, with significant reductions in the following: daily inhaled corticosteroid use, risk of asthma exacerbations, and asthma symptoms. SLIT-tablets are generally well tolerated, with a low risk of systemic allergic reactions. The most common treatment-related adverse events are mild-moderate oral reactions. Current evidence supports SLIT-tablets to be considered as an alternative or add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy for AR/C and asthma. Future SLIT developments may include early intervention to prevent the development or progression of allergic disease in children.

Dose-finding study of carbamylated monomeric allergoid tablets in grass-allergic rhinoconjunctivitis patients

AIM

To determine the optimal effective and safe dose of sublingual immunotherapy tablets containing carbamylated monomeric allergoids in patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, Phase II study, four different daily doses were applied preseasonally for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 158 randomized adults, 155 subjects (safety population) received 300 units of allergy (UA)/day (n = 36), 600 UA/day (n = 43), 1000 UA/day (n = 39), or 2000 UA/day (n = 37). After treatment, 54.3, 47.6, 59.0 and 51.4% of patients, respectively, ceased to react to the highest allergen concentration in a conjunctival provocation test. Furthermore, the response threshold improved in 70.4, 62.9, 76.7 and 66.7% of patients, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

This study found 1000 UA/day to be the optimal effective and safe dose.

Role of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma: An updated systematic review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of allergic asthma.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched, updating an earlier review (January 1, 2005 through May 8, 2017). Randomized, controlled studies (RCTs) were included, which reported one of the prespecified outcomes: asthma symptoms measured by control composite scores; quality of life; medication use; pulmonary physiology; and health-care utilization. For safety outcomes, RCTs and observational studies were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for each outcome.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (n = 2585) assessed the efficacy of SLIT for asthma. The RCTs utilized house dust mite (HDM), birch, or grass allergen. SLIT improved asthma symptoms (high SOE), decreased use of long-term control medication, and improved forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁ ) (moderate SOE). SLIT may decrease quick-relief medication use, and improve disease-specific quality of life (low SOE). For safety, 20 RCTs and 10 observational studies (n = 3621) were identified. Local (risk differences ranged from -0.03 to +0.765) and systemic allergic reactions (risk differences ranged from -0.03 to +0.06) were a common occurrence in SLIT and control groups. Life-threatening reactions were uncommon, with 3 cases of anaphylaxis and no deaths reported.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-to-high strength evidence that SLIT improves allergic asthma symptoms, reduces long-term control medication use, and improves FEV₁ based on studies of HDM, birch, and grass. SLIT rarely is associated with life-threatening adverse events.

Intra-Seasonal Initiation of the SQ-Standardised Grass Allergy Immunotherapy Tablet Routinely Applied by Allergy Specialists and General Practitioners with Experience in Treatment of Allergy: A Non-Interventional Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Intra-seasonal start of treatment with the SQ® grass sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet (GRAZAX®, ALK, Denmark) has been previously demonstrated to be well-tolerated. The objective of our study was to investigate the tolerability of intra-seasonal start of treatment comparing patients treated by allergists and general practitioners experienced in treatment of allergy (GPs).

METHODS

In a non-interventional, open-label, observational study, data on intra-seasonal start with the SQ® grass SLIT tablet were recorded in patients treated by allergists and GPs in Germany. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded by the physicians at first administration and during the 1-3-month observation period. The tablets taken and any AEs were recorded by the patients in diaries for the first 14 days.

RESULTS

Treatment with the SQ® grass SLIT tablet was started in 198 patients, and in 179 intra-seasonal (allergists: 140, GPs: 39) and 19 post-seasonal; average treatment period was 47 days. AEs related to intra-seasonal start were reported in 43.6% of patients; no relevant differences between allergists and GPs were observed. In the subgroup of GPs, patients were younger (p = 0.0191), had more frequently asthma (p = 0.0043), more patients used symptomatic medication in the previous pollen season (p = 0.0198) and were more frequently treated for other diseases (p = 0.0467). In the allergists subgroup, more diagnostic allergy tests were applied (p < 0.0001) with less anti-allergic premedication at first administration (p = 0.0026).

CONCLUSION

The intra-seasonal start of treatment with the SQ® grass SLIT tablet in patients routinely treated by allergists or GPs with experience in treatment of allergy was well-tolerated, although patient characteristics were different with respect to age, frequency of asthma and concomitant allergies, use of symptomatic medication in the previous grass pollen season and concomitant treatment of other diseases. The safety profile from a previous placebo-controlled clinical trial and data from a previous real-life study on intra-seasonal start performed by allergists were confirmed.

Sublingual immunotherapy for pediatric allergic conjunctivitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a common chronic condition, especially in children. Ocular symptoms are often overlooked during treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). Pediatric ARC can be effectively treated using sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), which is a guideline-recommended safe treatment approach. However, the therapeutic efficacy of SLIT in terms of ameliorating eye symptoms has not been effectively evaluated.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of SLIT for infants, children, and adolescents (aged from 3 to 18 years) with AC or ARC. We searched the Cochrane Library database, EMBASE, and Medline from November 1990 to 2017 to find papers dealing with the effects of SLIT on pediatric AC or ARC. We used standardized mean differences (SMDs) to assess therapeutic effects, employing a random effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also conducted. The I² metric was used to evaluate heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 13 clinical RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. SLIT reduced ocular symptoms to a level below that of controls (SMD = -0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.41 to -0.01; p = 0.04; I² = 55%). Notably, on subgroup analysis, SLIT clearly reduced pollen-induced pediatric AC (SMD = -0.36; 95% CI, -0.53 to -0.19; p < 0.0001; I² = 25%) but not mite-induced AC (SMD = 0.20; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.60; p = 0.34; I² = 46%).

CONCLUSION

SLIT relieved ocular symptoms in children with ARC or AC. To confirm these results, future meta-analyses should evaluate high-quality, large-scale population-based trials.

Ragweed sublingual tablet immunotherapy: part II - practical considerations and pertinent issues

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been demonstrated to be both efficacious and safe for the treatment of respiratory allergies such as allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or allergic asthma. Based on the clinical documentation of SLIT ragweed tablets, they have gained marketing authorization in the USA by the US FDA in 2014 for adult patients. Following clinical data from (pivotal) multicenter Phase II and III trials as performed in the USA and Canada and real life experience after registration in 2014, SLIT ragweed tablets can be recommended as efficacious and safe treatment option with disease modifying potential when adequately indicated and performed. Therefore, several practical issues should be considered for treating ragweed allergic patients with these tablets. This second part of a thorough review on ragweed SLIT tablets addresses important clinical questions which should be taken into account by the subscribing practitioner before initiation and during the treatment.