Is the Benefit From Prescribing Epinephrine Autoinjectors for Sublingual Immunotherapy Worth the Cost? Lessons Learned From Clinical Trials

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of House Dust Mite Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablet in Allergic Asthma: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy (HDM SLIT) effectively treats allergic rhinitis (AR). However, the evidence of HDM SLIT for allergic asthma remained limited.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the efficacy and safety of HDM SLIT tablets in patients with allergic asthma.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search through PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Center of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that addressed the efficacy and safety of HDM SLIT tablets compared with placebo or no intervention in allergic asthma from their inception date until September 2021. The primary outcome was the reduction in inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) dose. Additional outcomes were asthma control, exacerbation, lung function, quality-of-life, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 7 RCTs, 5 studies in allergic asthma (4 in adults and 1 in children), and 2 in AR with or without asthma. The 6 standardized quality (SQ) HDM effectively reduced ICS dose in well- to partly controlled mild-to-moderate asthma in 1 RCT. Two RCTs evaluated the efficacy of 6 SQ and 12 SQ HDM in reducing asthma exacerbation in partly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma, and their results were inconsistent. One study in children with mild-to-moderate asthma found no benefit of HDM SLIT. Two RCTs in AR with or without mild-to-moderate asthma showed improvement of asthma symptoms. Adverse events were primarily local, and anaphylaxis treated with epinephrine was reported in 3 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The HDM SLIT tablets tend to effectively reduce ICS use in adults and adolescents with well- to partly controlled mild-to-moderate allergic asthma with a favorable safety profile.

Worldwide surveys on anaphylaxis to sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite tablets are urgently needed

In the 1980s, a global number of 72 fatalities were reported in the UK and the USA following the application of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). This resulted in a significant limitation of SCIT use and in the search of other routes of administration, among which sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) showed the best balance between efficacy and safety. Data from controlled studies suggest that tablets‐related anaphylaxis is an uncommon event. However, in the Eudravigilance (European database of suspected adverse drug reactions from Europe) we found reports of life‐threatening events or severe local reactions under SLIT increasing over the last few years. Therefore, all efforts to minimize the related risk have to be strongly encouraged.

A 300 IR sublingual tablet is an effective, safe treatment for house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis: An international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis induced by house dust mites (HDMs) is a highly prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated/untreated chronic disease. It often has a negative impact on sleep, work, leisure activities, and health-related quality of life. Allergen immunotherapy is a proven, safe treatment for respiratory allergies.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of a 300 index of reactivity (IR) sublingual tablet formulation of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus:Dermatophagoides farinae 1:1 extract in adolescents (aged ≥12) and adults with moderate to severe HDM-induced allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In a phase III, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, participants received approximately 12 months of treatment with placebo or the 300 IR tablet. The primary end point was the average total combined score during 4 weeks at the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

A total of 1607 participants were randomized, and 1476 (including 555 [37.6%] with concomitant mild controlled asthma at inclusion) comprised the full analysis set. Over the primary evaluation period, the least squares mean average total combined score in the 300 IR group (3.62) was significantly lower (P < .0001) than in the placebo group (4.35), with a relative least squares mean difference of -16.9% (95% CI, -24.0% to -9.2%). All prespecified secondary end points were consistently improved in the 300 IR group, relative to placebo. The 300 IR tablet was generally well tolerated. Treatment-related adverse events (mainly mild or moderate local reactions) were reported for 51.0% of the patients in the 300 IR group and 14.9% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

The 300 IR sublingual HDM tablet is an effective, safe treatment for HDM-induced allergic rhinitis.

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice 2017 Year in Review

An impressive number of clinically impactful studies and reviews were published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice in 2017. As a service to our readers, the editors provide this Year in Review article to highlight and contextualize the advances published over the past year. We include information from articles on asthma, allergic rhinitis, rhinosinusitis, immunotherapy, atopic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, food allergy, anaphylaxis, drug hypersensitivity, urticarial/angioedema, eosinophilic disorders, and immunodeficiency. Within each topic, epidemiologic findings are presented, relevant aspects of prevention are described, and diagnostic and therapeutic advances are enumerated. Treatments discussed include behavioral therapy, allergen avoidance therapy, positive and negative effects of pharmacologic therapy, and various forms of immunologic and desensitization management. We hope this review will help readers consolidate and use this extensive and practical knowledge for the benefit of patients.