Immunotherapy in children with allergic asthma: effect on bronchial hyperreactivity and pharmacotherapy

Standardization of clinical outcomes used in allergen immunotherapy in allergic asthma: An EAACI position paper

INTRODUCTION

In allergic asthma patients, one of the more common phenotypes might benefit from allergen immunotherapy (AIT) as add-on intervention to pharmacological treatment. AIT is a treatment with disease-modifying modalities, the evidence for efficacy is based on controlled clinical trials following standardized endpoint measures. However, so far there is a lack of a consensus for asthma endpoints in AIT trials. The aim of a task force (TF) of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is evaluating several outcome measures for AIT in allergic asthma.

METHODS

The following domains of outcome measures in asthmatic patients have been evaluated for this position paper (PP): (i) exacerbation rate, (ii) lung function, (iii) ICS withdrawal, (iv) symptoms and rescue medication use, (v) questionnaires (PROMS), (vi) bronchial/nasal provocation, (vii) allergen exposure chambers (AEC) and (viii) biomarkers.

RESULTS

Exacerbation rate can be used as a reliable objective primary outcome; however, there is limited evidence due to different definitions of exacerbation. The time after ICS withdrawal to first exacerbation is considered a primary outcome measure. Besides, the advantages and disadvantages and clinical implications of further domains of asthma endpoints in AIT trials are elaborated in this PP.

CONCLUSION

This EAACI-PP aims to highlight important aspects of current asthma measures by critically evaluating their applicability for controlled trials of AIT.

Placebo effects in allergen immunotherapy-An EAACI Task Force Position Paper

The placebo (Latin "I will please") effect commonly occurs in clinical trials. The psychological and physiological factors associated with patients' expectations about a treatment's positive and negative effects have yet to be well characterized, although a functional prefrontal cortex and intense bidirectional communication between the central nervous system and the immune system appear to be prerequisites for a placebo effect. The use of placebo raises certain ethical issues, especially if patients in a placebo group are denied an effective treatment for a long period of time. The placebo effect appears to be relatively large (up to 77%, relative to pretreatment scores) in controlled clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), such as the pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) randomized clinical trials currently required by regulatory authorities worldwide. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) therefore initiated a Task Force, in order to better understand the placebo effect in AIT and its specific role in comorbidities, blinding issues, adherence, measurement time points, variability and the natural course of the disease. In this Position Paper, the EAACI Task Force highlights several important topics regarding the placebo effect in AIT such as a) regulatory aspects, b) neuroimmunological and psychological mechanisms, c) placebo effect sizes in AIT trials, d) methodological limitations in AIT trial design and e) potential solutions in future AIT trial design. In conclusion, this Position Paper aims to examine the methodological problem of placebo in AIT from different aspects and also to highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for future trials.

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.

Allergen Immunotherapy in Pediatric Asthma: A Pragmatic Point of View

To date, the only disease-modifying treatment strategy for allergic rhinitis and asthma is allergen immunotherapy (AIT). There is evidence that AIT improves allergic rhinitis and asthma, such as reducing symptom severity and medication use and improving of quality of life, with a long-lasting effect after the end of the course. The recent clinical trials evidenced AIT effectiveness and safety in allergic asthma. Consequently, the current version of the GINA (Global Initiative for Asthma) guidelines recommend AIT as an add-on therapy for asthma. There is also evidence that AIT may exert preventive activity on the possible progression from allergic rhinitis to asthma in children and the onset of new sensitizations. The present review provides a pragmatic summary of the clinical indications of AIT in pediatric asthma, including the immunological mechanisms, the predictive biomarkers, and the safety issues in clinical practice.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in asthma

Bronchial asthma remains one of the most common chronic diseases with a high degree of morbidity and still a considerable mortality with an increasing prevalence in many countries. Although remarkable progress has been made in the past decades in the medical treatment for asthma, curative or disease modifying approaches are still limited to allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Despite a plethora of potential immunological actions observed during AIT, the precise mechamisms that might exert beneficial effects especially in asthma remain unclear. Clinical studies in the past have suggested clinical benefits in symptom control and medication use with a small reduction in allergen-specific and non-specific bronchial hyperresponsiveness but these results were mainly derived from small, frequently suboptimally designed studies which were poorly comparable. Only recently have larger, dose ranging studies with well standardized allergens with patient relevant endpoints such as corticosteroid requirements for asthma control or the onset of exacerbations following inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) withdrawal corroborated the potential clinical effects of AIT in asthma, suggesting that it might replace some of the controller effects of ICS. In addition, newer, up-do-date designed studies support previous data that in patient populations at risk to develop asthma AIT might have a role in secondary prevention. Further studies on the long term effects as well as comparative studies are needed to further corroborate the role of AIT in the prevention and the control of asthma are needed.

Induction of bystander tolerance and immune deviation after Fel d 1 peptide immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Treatment of patients with cat allergy with peptides derived from Fel d 1 (the major cat allergen) ameliorated symptoms of cat allergy in phase 2 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to demonstrate that the tolerance induced by Fel d 1 peptide immunotherapy can be exploited to reduce allergic responses to a second allergen, ovalbumin (OVA), in mice sensitized dually to OVA and Fel d 1.

METHODS

Induction of tolerance to OVA was achieved through simultaneous exposure to both allergens after peptide treatment. Functional tolerance to each allergen was assessed in a model of allergic airways disease in which treated mice were protected from eosinophilia, goblet cell hyperplasia, and T_H2 cell infiltration.

RESULTS

Suppression of allergic responses to cat allergen challenge was associated with significant increases in numbers of CD4⁺CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ T cells, IL-10⁺ cells, and CD19⁺IL-10⁺ B cells, whereas the response to OVA was associated with a marked reduction in numbers of T_H2 cytokine-secreting T cells and less prominent changes in outcomes associated with immune regulation.

CONCLUSIONS

These observations suggest that immune tolerance induced by peptide immunotherapy can be used experimentally to treat an allergic response to another allergen and that the molecular mechanisms underlying induction of tolerance to a treatment-specific allergen and a bystander allergen might be different.

Immunotherapy and Asthma in Children

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is still the only disease-modifying treatment strategy for IgE-mediated allergic diseases, with consolidated evidence both in adults and children. AIT is effective in determining clinical improvement of allergic rhinitis and asthma, such as reduced symptoms, medication use, and improvement of quality of life, with a long-lasting effect after cessation of treatment. Results from recent clinical studies have implemented the evidence of effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic asthma, so that the current asthma guidelines now recommend sublingual immunotherapy as an add-on therapy for asthma in adults and adolescents with house dust mite allergy, allergic rhinitis, and exacerbations despite low-to-moderate dose ICS, with forced expiratory volume in 1 second more than 70% predicted. AIT may also reduce the risk of progression from allergic rhinitis to asthma in children and prevent the onset of new sensitizations, thus representing a potentially preventive method of treatment. The aim of this review is to present an updated overview of the clinical indications of AIT, with particular reference to pediatric asthma, of the mechanisms of clinical and immunological tolerance to allergens, and of the potential biomarkers predicting clinical response.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To inform the development of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic asthma, we assessed the evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review, which involved searching nine databases. Studies were screened against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

98 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Short-term symptom scores were reduced with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.11 (95% CI -1.66, -0.56). This was robust to a prespecified sensitivity analyses, but there was evidence suggestive of publication bias. Short-term medication scores were reduced SMD -1.21 (95% CI -1.87, -0.54), again with evidence of potential publication bias. There was no reduction in short-term combined medication and symptom scores SMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.23, 0.58), but one study showed a beneficial long-term effect. For secondary outcomes, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) improved quality of life and decreased allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity (AHR), but this was not the case for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). There were no consistent effects on asthma control, exacerbations, lung function, and nonspecific AHR. AIT resulted in a modest increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Although relatively uncommon, systemic AEs were more frequent with SCIT; however no fatalities were reported. The limited evidence on cost-effectiveness was mainly available for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and this suggested that SLIT is likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT can achieve substantial reductions in short-term symptom and medication scores in allergic asthma. It was however associated with a modest increased risk of systemic and local AEs. More data are needed in relation to secondary outcomes, longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Effect of asthma therapies on the natural course of asthma

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-based review on the role of pharmacologic (inhaled corticosteroids, leukotriene receptor antagonists, biologic therapies, aeroallergen immunotherapy) and nonpharmacologic therapies (environmental modifications, microbiome) in secondary and tertiary asthma prevention.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search for English-language publications regarding asthma and secondary or tertiary prevention was performed. Some articles cited in selected studies were also considered for inclusion in this review.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Studies were included that were original research and specifically addressed the question of asthma prevention and use of pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic therapies. When possible, we selected the articles with the most robust level of evidence.

RESULTS

More than 100 articles were initially identified, 79 were reviewed in depth, and 60 were included in this review. Several studies suggest no disease-modifying effect for inhaled corticosteroids. Small studies suggest a tertiary preventive effect for leukotriene receptor antagonists. Biological therapies have somewhat conflicting evidence with a paucity of pediatric data, although some have tremendous promise. A role of allergen immunotherapy (specifically pollen) in secondary asthma prevention has been suggested, with no firm conclusions possible for tertiary prevention. One large trial suggests a role for environmental modifications in secondary asthma prevention, whereas the preponderance of evidence does not suggest a role in tertiary prevention. The microbiome is an active area of research that has promise for a disease-modifying effect.

CONCLUSION

Further work needs to be performed to allow physicians to intervene early and alter the natural course of asthma in children.

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. However, it is not clear whether the sublingual delivery route is safe and effective in 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

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. The search is up to date as of 25 March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 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.

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. We resolved disagreements 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 rated all outcomes using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and presented results in the 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 5077 participants to comparisons of interest. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, but studies varied in duration from one day to three years. Most participants had mild or intermittent asthma, often with co-morbid allergic rhinitis. Eighteen studies recruited only adults, 25 recruited only children and several recruited both or did not specify (n = 9).With the exception of adverse events, reporting of outcomes of interest to this review was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence. Allocation procedures generally were not well described, about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of bias for performance or detection bias or both and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies.One short study reported exacerbations requiring a hospital visit and observed no adverse events. Five studies reported quality of life, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. Serious adverse events were infrequent, and analysis using risk differences suggests that no more than 1 in 100 are likely to suffer a serious adverse event as a result of treatment with SLIT (RD 0.0012, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0077 to 0.0102; participants = 2560; studies = 22; moderate-quality evidence).Within secondary outcomes, wide but varied reporting of largely unvalidated asthma symptom and medication scores precluded meaningful meta-analysis; a general trend suggested SLIT benefit over placebo, but variation in scales meant that results were difficult to interpret.Changes in inhaled corticosteroid use in micrograms per day (MD 35.10 mcg/d, 95% CI -50.21 to 120.42; low-quality evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events) and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.69, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence) were not often reported. This led to many imprecise estimates with wide confidence intervals that included the possibility of both benefit and harm from SLIT.More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.38; low-quality evidence; participants = 1755; studies = 19), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild.Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lack of data for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life and use of different unvalidated symptom and medication scores have limited our ability to draw a clinically useful conclusion. Further research using validated scales and important outcomes for patients and decision makers is needed so that SLIT can be properly assessed as clinical treatment for asthma. Very few serious adverse events have been reported, but most studies have included patients with intermittent or mild asthma, so we cannot comment on the safety of SLIT for those with moderate or severe asthma. SLIT is associated with increased risk of all adverse events.

Allergen immunotherapy in asthma; what is new?

The use and role of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in asthma is still a matter of debate, and no definite recommendation about this is made in guidelines, both for the subcutaneous and sublingual routes. This is essentially due to the fact that most controlled randomised trials were not specifically designed for asthma, and that objective measures of pulmonary function were only occasionally considered. Nonetheless, in many trials, favourable results in asthma (symptoms, medication usage, bronchial reactivity) were consistently reported. There are also several meta analyses in favour of AIT, although their validity is limited by a relevant methodological heterogeneity. In addition to the crude clinical effect, a disease modifying action of AIT (prevention of asthma onset and long-lasting effects) have been reported. The safety is an important aspect to consider in asthma. Fatalities were rare: in Europe no fatality was reported in the last three decades, as in the United States in the last 4 years. Based on previous surveys, and common sense, uncontrolled asthma is still recognized as the most important risk factor for severe adverse events. On the contrary, there is no evidence that AIT can worsen or induce asthma. According to the available evidence, AIT can be safely used as add-on treatment when asthma is associated with rhinitis (a frequent condition), provided that asthma is adequately controlled by pharmacotherapy. AIT cannot be recommended or suggested as single therapy. When asthma is the unique manifestation of respiratory allergy, its use should be evaluated case by case.

An update on allergen immunotherapy and asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim is to review recent literature up to July 2013 concerning the effect of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) on asthma. AIT, effective in combined allergic rhinitis and asthma, was previously described as a convenient approach able to improve clinical outcomes and reduce bronchial hyperresponsiveness. In addition, long-term and preventive effects on the onset of new sensitizations and progression from allergic rhinitis to asthma have been shown.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent investigations, mainly based on observational or small open trials, confirmed previous findings, showing improvement in asthma control, symptoms and medication usage and steroid-sparing effects, sometimes inconsistent with changes in lung function. Some meta-analyses support the clinical benefit on adult and paediatric asthma. Only few trials, however, were specifically designed to explore asthma endpoints.

SUMMARY

Clinical studies primarily have focused on AIT, and research on asthma endpoints is scarce; however, the evidence of beneficial effect of AIT for the treatment of adults and children affected by allergic rhinitis with or without asthma suggests that this treatment can favourably affect asthma. In children, sublingual AIT has been more extensively investigated than injective. Confirmatory, adequately powered trials are needed to reinforce the evidence of efficacy for individual AIT products. The main drawback in using injective AIT for asthma is the risk of serious adverse reactions and uncontrolled asthma. The sublingual route is better tolerated and does not appear inferior. As standard controller pharmacotherapy seems unable to affect the natural course of asthma, the potentially disease-modifying effect of AIT represents an appealing perspective that requires further investigation.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy in asthmatic children: from the basis to clinical applications

Atopic asthma in childhood with the tendency to persist into adult life is an important issue in pediatrics. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only curative treatment option for these children, being directed to the causes of the disease. The Th2 phenotype is a predominant immunological pattern in atopic asthma and SIT leads to apoptosis/anergy of T cells and induces immune-regulatory responses and immune deviation towards Th1. Many factors can affect the safety and efficacy of SIT, such as pattern of sensitization, allergy vaccine (allergen extracts, adjuvants and conjugated molecules), route of administration (subcutaneous or sublingual) and different treatment schedules. Overall, asthma symptoms and medication scores usually decrease following a SIT course and the most common observed side effects are restricted to local swelling, erythema and pruritus. Compared with conventional pharmacotherapy, SIT may be more cost effective, providing a benefit after discontinuation and a steroid-sparing effect. In addition, it can prevent new sensitizations in monosensitized asthmatic children. Microbial supplements such as probiotics, immunomodulatory substances like anti-IgE/leukotrienes, antibodies and newer allergen preparations such as recombinant forms have been tested to improve the efficacy and safety of SIT with inconclusive results. In conclusion, SIT provides an appropriate solution for childhood asthma that should be employed more often in clinical practice. Further studies are awaited to improve current knowledge regarding the mechanisms behind SIT and determine the most appropriate materials and schedule of immunotherapy for children with asthma.

Multiallergen-specific immunotherapy in polysensitized patients: where are we?

Allergen-specific immunotherapy administered by the subcutaneous route was introduced a century ago and has been shown to be effective in the management of allergic rhinitis and asthma. More recently, the sublingual administration of allergen extracts has become popular, especially in European countries, and has also demonstrated efficacy in respiratory allergic diseases. Both modes of allergen administration during immunotherapy have been shown not only to reduce symptoms and the need for medication, but also to prevent the development of additional sensitivities in monosensitized patients, as well as asthma development in patients with allergic rhinitis, with a long-lasting effect after the completion of several years of treatment. Almost all of the well-designed and double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies evaluated treatment with single-allergen extracts. Therefore, most meta-analyses published to date evaluated immunotherapy with single allergen or extracts containing several cross-reactive allergens. As a result, in general, multiallergen immunotherapy in polysensitized patients (mixture of noncross-reactive allergens) is not recommended owing to lack of evidence. Although some guidelines have recommended against the use of multiallergen mixtures, allergists commonly use mixtures to which the patient is sensitive with the rationale that effective immunotherapy should include all major sensitivities. Literature on this subject is scarce in spite of the widespread use worldwide. Here, this issue will be extensively discussed based on currently available literature and future perspectives will also be explored.

The efficacy of allergen immunotherapy with cat dander in reducing symptoms in clinical practice

Background. Allergy to cat dander is a common form of allergic disease. Allergen immunotherapy has been demonstrated to be effective in decreasing allergic symptoms. Objectives. To examine outcomes in allergic asthmatic patients on cat immunotherapy (CIT) compared to allergic asthmatics on traditional immunotherapy (IT) without cat sensitivity. Methods. A retrospective review identified allergic asthmatics on CIT for at least three years. An equal number of allergic asthmatics on IT were identified for comparison. Outcomes investigated include measurements of risk of asthma exacerbation. Results. Thirty-five patients were identified in each group. There were no differences in the CIT group versus the comparison group regarding total number of prednisone tapers (18 tapers versus 14 tapers, resp.), number of patients requiring prednisone tapers (10 patients versus 10 patients, resp.), total number of acute visits (29 visits versus 38 visits, resp.), and number of patients requiring acute visits (15 patients versus 21 patients, resp.). When stratified by concomitant ICS use, patients on CIT were less likely to require an acute visit (46% versus 78%, resp.). Conclusions. Allergic asthmatics with cat sensitivity on CIT with close dander exposure have similar risk of asthma exacerbation compared to allergic asthmatics without cat sensitivity on immunotherapy.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy for pediatric asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is approved in the United States for the treatment of pediatric asthma and rhinitis; sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) does not have regulatory approval but is used in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of pediatric asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded the strength of evidence for each clinical outcome. All studies were randomized controlled trials of children with allergic asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis treated with SCIT or an aqueous formulation of SLIT. Data sources were Medline, Embase, LILACS, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2012.

RESULTS

In 13 trials, 920 children received SCIT or usual care; in 18 studies, 1583 children received SLIT or usual care. Three studies compared SCIT with SLIT head-to-head in 135 children. The strength of evidence is moderate that SCIT improves asthma and rhinitis symptoms and low that SCIT improves conjunctivitis symptoms and asthma medication scores. Strength of evidence is high that SLIT improves asthma symptoms and moderate that SLIT improves rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms and decreases medication usage. The evidence is low to support SCIT over SLIT for improving asthma or rhinitis symptoms or medication usage. Local reactions were frequent with SCIT and SLIT. There was 1 report of anaphylaxis with SCIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence supports the efficacy of both SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis in children.

The role of immunotherapy in the management of childhood asthma

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is still questioned as a safe and efficacious way of treating allergic asthma in children. In a Cochrane review published in 2010 it was, however, concluded that SCIT has significant and beneficial effects on symptoms and medication use in both children and adults with mostly mild asthma. Only a few studies have been performed to specifically study if SCIT in children with moderate asthma reduces the need for inhaled corticosteroids. There are conflicting results that illustrate the problem of the heterogeneity of the asthma disease and the fact that allergies may play different roles on the severity and symptoms of the disease. Furthermore, children with severe allergic asthma are often sensitized to multiple allergens, which makes SCIT both complicated and less safe to administer. On the other hand, if the child suffers from asthmatic symptoms despite adherence to pharmacotherapy, omalizumab or a combination of omalizumab and allergen immunotherapy might be useful. There is a need for more studies on this combination before it can be considered as an additional therapy in children with asthma and severe allergies. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has also been shown to improve asthma symptoms and medication use. SLIT is safe although its efficacy compared with SCIT has been studied very little. Another approach is to try to prevent asthma by treating children with SCIT for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis before asthma has developed. The most attractive prospect, however, is to find ways of preventing asthma by vaccination against the most common viruses, particularly rhinovirus. There is evidence that there are children at high risk of developing asthma in whom a viral infection can also enhance the risk of allergen sensitization. So far this vaccination has not been achievable although research is in progress.

Immunotherapy in asthma

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways in which many cells and cellular elements play a role. Chronic inflammation is associated with airway hyper-responsiveness that leads to recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness and coughing, as well as variable airflow obstruction within the lung. With time, such airflow obstruction may become permanent due to remodeling. It has been treated for more than 100 years by subcutaneous immunotherapy with allergen extracts but in recent years, other forms and types of immunotherapy have been introduced. Perhaps the most successful of these to date, is sublingual immunotherapy, which has attained significant usage in European countries but has yet to make inroads into clinical practice in North America. Other mechanisms to modify the inflammatory responses of asthma have included immunotherapy with recombinant allergens, the use of allergen peptides targeting antigen-specific T cells and the administration of Toll-like receptor agonists coupled to allergen proteins. As the inflammatory responses in asthma frequently involve IgE, a modified monoclonal antibody to IgE and interfering with its binding to the IgE receptor have gained acceptance for treating severe allergic asthma. Other monoclonal antibodies or recombinant receptor antagonists are being assessed for their ability to block other contributors to the inflammatory response. Finally, attempts have been made to generate autoantibody responses to cytokines implicated in asthma. Most of these therapies aim to modify or inhibit the so-called Th 2 immune response, which is implicated in many forms of asthma, or to inhibit cytokines involved in these responses. However, an added benefit of classical immunotherapy seems to be the ability to prevent the allergic progression to new sensitivities and new forms of allergic disease.

Injection allergen immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Allergen specific immunotherapy has long been a controversial treatment for asthma. Although beneficial effects upon clinically relevant outcomes have been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials, there remains a risk of severe and sometimes fatal anaphylaxis. The recommendations of professional bodies have ranged from cautious acceptance to outright dismissal. With increasing interest in new allergen preparations and methods of delivery, we updated the systematic review of allergen specific immunotherapy for asthma.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of allergen specific immunotherapy for asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register up to 2005, Dissertation Abstracts and Current Contents.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials using various forms of allergen specific immunotherapy to treat asthma and reporting at least one clinical outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion. Two authors independently performed quality assessment of studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-eight trials were included (13 new trials). There were 42 trials of immunotherapy for house mite allergy; 27 pollen allergy trials; 10 animal dander allergy trials; two Cladosporium mould allergy, two latex and six trials looking at multiple allergens. Concealment of allocation was assessed as clearly adequate in only 16 of these trials. Significant heterogeneity was present in a number of comparisons. Overall, there was a significant reduction in asthma symptoms and medication, and improvement in bronchial hyper-reactivity following immunotherapy. There was a significant improvement in asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.59, 95% confidence interval -0.83 to -0.35) and it would have been necessary to treat three patients (95% CI 3 to 5) with immunotherapy to avoid one deterioration in asthma symptoms. Overall it would have been necessary to treat four patients (95% CI 3 to 6) with immunotherapy to avoid one requiring increased medication. Allergen immunotherapy significantly reduced allergen specific bronchial hyper-reactivity, with some reduction in non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity as well. There was no consistent effect on lung function. If 16 patients were treated with immunotherapy, one would be expected to develop a local adverse reaction. If nine patients were treated with immunotherapy, one would be expected to develop a systemic reaction (of any severity).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Immunotherapy reduces asthma symptoms and use of asthma medications and improves bronchial hyper-reactivity. One trial found that the size of the benefit is possibly comparable to inhaled steroids. The possibility of local or systemic adverse effects (such as anaphylaxis) must be considered.

Multiallergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma

The English and non-English language literature on allergen immunotherapy was reviewed for studies simultaneously using 2 or more distinct allergen extracts in either subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy. Thirteen studies were identified, 11 using subcutaneous injections, 1 using sublingual administration, and 1 using both. In studies with adequate information, administration of 2 extracts by means of either subcutaneous immunotherapy or sublingual immunotherapy was effective. In studies using multiple allergens, 3 studies showed clear efficacy, whereas in the other 2 studies, lack of efficacy might have been due to inadequate doses of extract or omission of clinically relevant allergens in the treatment regimen. It is concluded that simultaneous administration of more than 1 allergen extract is clinically effective. However, more studies are needed, particularly with more than 2 allergen extracts and with sublingual administration.

Subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in children: complete update on controversies, dosing, and efficacy

For this review, articles on immunotherapy dosing in pediatric respiratory allergy were identified via PubMed, through congressional abstracts for 2008, in reference lists of recent review articles, and via personal communication with experts. In pediatric subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), doses shown to be effective, mostly in aluminium-adsorbed preparations administered every 6 weeks, contain 20 microg of group 5 major allergen, 12 microg Bet v 1, 15 microg Fel d 1, and 5 to 20 microg Der p 1. Evidence indicates that SCIT prevents new sensitizations and asthma onset 7 years after discontinuation and reduces symptoms 12 years after a 5-year SCIT course, even though skin reactivity returns. Consistent evidence of effect exists for sublingual immunotherapy in pediatric respiratory allergy with daily 15- to 25-microg grass group 5 major allergen and 6 microg Bet v 1. Der p/f doses of 0.8/0.4 microg three times weekly (up to 27/57 microg daily) demonstrate inconsistent findings. Evidence of effect exists for SCIT in pediatric allergic rhinitis and asthma as treatment and preventive management. Evidence of effect exists for sublingual immunotherapy in pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and seasonal asthma. Similar results are doubtful for perennial asthma.

New visions in specific immunotherapy in children: an iPAC summary and future trends

Specific immunotherapy is indicated for confirmed immunoglobulin E-mediated airway diseases using standardized allergen products with documented clinical efficacy and safety. For decades the subcutaneous route of administration (SCIT) has been the gold standard. Recently, the sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has also been investigated in children. SCIT, especially with grass and birch pollens but also house dust mites, is an effective treatment in children with allergic rhinitis and asthma when a significant part of their symptoms are caused by these allergens. A long-term effect up to 12 yr after discontinuation of SCIT with timothy allergen has been shown. Efficacy and safety of SLIT in pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis have been demonstrated in adults. The evidence in children is a little less convincing, and more data is needed. The clinical relevance, long-term results and the size of the effect, as well as the dose, the treatment regimen and duration has not been sufficiently elaborated. It is demonstrated that SCIT has the potential for preventing the development of asthma in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Also one randomized study indicates a preventive effect of SLIT in children on the development of asthma. At present, there are no studies who clearly demonstrates either a long-term effect or a preventive effect on the development of asthma of SLIT in children. The areas with lack of evidence should be addressed in well performed prospective, randomized long-term studies both with SCIT and SLIT. This review was initiated by iPAC (international Pediatric Allergy and Asthma Consortium) and aims to review current knowledge related to specific immunotherapy in childhood, and to identify needs for future research in this field.

Specific immunotherapy is effective in the prevention of new sensitivities

BACKGROUND

Allergen specific immunotherapy is the only specific and curative approach in the treatment of IgE-mediated allergic diseases such as bronchial asthma and allergic rhinitis. The safety and clinical efficacy of this treatment are well documented but data on the prevention of new sensitizations remain scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the efficacy of specific immunotherapy in allergic respiratory diseases in childhood and to determine whether this treatment prevents the development of new sensitizations in children sensitized to house dust mite or pollen species.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients received specific immunotherapy (43 sensitive to house dust mite and 13 sensitive to pollen). Fifty-one patients not receiving immunotherapy but treated with pharmacotherapy were enrolled in the control group. The patients were followed-up for at least 4 years and treatment efficacy and the development of new sensitizations were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The number of patients with symptoms was significantly decreased in both groups at the end of the treatment period. No new sensitizations were found in 35 of the 43 (81.39 %) patients in the house dust mite immunotherapy group and in 10 of 13 (76.92 %) patients in the pollen immunotherapy group. In contrast, 20 of 51 (39.21 %) patients in the control group showed new sensitizations. The difference between the house dust mite and pollen immunotherapy groups and the control group in this parameter was statistically significant (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that administration of specific immunotherapy in allergic patients significantly reduced symptoms and the development of new sensitivities.

Intensity of bronchial hyperresponsiveness and asthma relapse risk in the young adult

BACKGROUND

The evolution of asthma starting in childhood varies and depends on a series of factors (atopy, allergens, and environmental irritants, etc). Treatment may influence the evolution of the disease and even cause the symptoms to disappear. However, there remains a risk of relapse years later.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the role of bronchial hyperresponsiveness in asthma relapse in young adulthood in patients with symptoms that disappeared after treatment prescribed in childhood.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

To determine the evolution of asthma and patients' personal opinions, 78 patients were sent a questionnaire several years after having been discharged without symptoms in the previous 2 years, and without the need for medication. The methacholine test was used to evaluate bronchial hyperresponsiveness at discharge. The 40 patients who correctly completed the questionnaire were divided into three groups according to the methacholine dose required to obtain a 20 % decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (PD20): group 1 (15 patients), < 1000microg; group 2 (10 patients) between 1001 and 2000 microg; and group 3 (15 patients) > 2100 microg. The mean age at discharge was 16 years (range 13-25 years) versus 26 years at the time of response (range 18-33 years), with a similar distribution in all three groups. Age at disease onset, with estimation of severity, age at the first visit and at the start of treatment, and respiratory function were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty of the interviewed patients considered themselves to be cured. Seven of the patients (three in group 1, one in group 2, and three in group 3) did not consider themselves to be cured, although their symptoms were minimal and they rarely used medication. Health status was described as "regular" with sporadic symptoms by one patient in each group. No correlation with methacholine response was observed.

CONCLUSION

No relationship was found between the degree of bronchial hyperresponsiveness and the risk of relapse in young adults who suffered asthma in childhood.

Assessment of sublingual immunotherapy efficacy in children with house dust mite-induced allergic asthma optimally controlled by pharmacologic treatment and mite-avoidance measures

Although several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of subcutaneous immunotherapy in allergic asthma, few have shown the same benefit using sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in asthmatic patients. This study was conducted to assess the efficacy of house dust mite (HDM) SLIT in addition to allergen avoidance and standard pharmacologic treatment. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed in 111 children (aged 5-15 yr) with HDM-induced mild-to-moderate asthma. After a 4-week baseline phase, patients were randomly assigned to receive SLIT with tablets of HDM extract (n = 55) or placebo (n = 56) for 18 months. Pharmacologic treatment was adjusted every 3 months following a step-down approach. Asthma symptom scores, reduction in use of inhaled corticosteroids and inhaled beta(2)-agonists, rhinitis symptoms, lung function tests, skin sensitivity to HDM, dust mite-specific immunoglobulin (Ig) E and IgG(4), and quality of life (QoL) were assessed during the study. After 18 months of treatment, diurnal and nocturnal asthma symptoms scores did not show significant differences between SLIT and placebo groups. Inhaled corticosteroids and inhaled beta(2)-agonists use was reduced in both groups without significant differences between groups. There were no significant differences in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s and peak flow rate variations) between groups. Rhinitis symptom score decreased in both groups, with no difference between the two groups. The severity dimension of QoL was significantly improved in the SLIT group (age 6-12 yr). SLIT induced a significant reduction of skin sensitivity to HDM (p < 0.01) and a significant increase in HDM-specific IgE and IgG(4) antibodies (p < 0.001) in the SLIT group compared with the placebo group. SLIT was well tolerated with mild/moderate local adverse events. No severe systemic reactions were reported. This study indicates that, when mild-moderate asthmatic children are optimally controlled by pharmacologic treatment and HDM avoidance, SLIT does not provide additional benefit, despite a significant reduction in allergic response to HDM. Under such conditions, only a complete, but ethically unfeasible, discontinuation of inhaled corticosteroid would have demonstrated a possible benefit of SLIT.

Update on allergy immunotherapy

This article summarizes and provides commentary regarding guidelines on the administration of immunotherapy (IT) for allergic airway disease. Recent investigations have provided important insights into the immunologic mechanism of IT and the prominent role of interleukin-10-producing regulatory T lymphocytes. The most important aspect of successful IT is the administration of an appropriate dose of an extract containing a sufficient concentration of the relevant allergen. This is largely possible now only with standardized extracts. When the major allergen content of successful IT extracts was quantified, efficacy was demonstrated across a surprisingly narrow concentration range (approximately 5-24 μg per injection), irrespective of the extract. This presumably reflects the concentration of an antigen that drives an immune response toward tolerance. It may be predicted that as major allergen content is quantified in currently nonstandardized extracts, effective IT will also be achieved by administering a dose in this range, in contrast to current practices involving fairly arbitrary dosing decisions. With the availability of nonsedating antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and the leukotriene modifiers, inadequate pharmacologic response or intolerable side effects are less commonly the major indications for starting IT for allergic rhinitis (AR). However, with the recognition that a relatively short course (3-5 years) of IT can provide long-term immunomodulation and clinical benefit, a desire to avoid long-term pharmacotherapy and the associated high costs may be the primary indication for IT in AR cases. While evidence overwhelmingly supports the beneficial influences of IT in asthma cases, the positioning of IT for this disorder is not established. The observed prevention of asthma in children who have AR is intriguing, but further studies are required to assess the extent to which the prevalence and severity of chronic asthma will be reduced when these children reach adulthood. Similarly, safety issues overwhelmingly suggest that uncontrolled asthma is the greatest risk factor for mortality associated with IT and that IT therefore may be contraindicated for most patients who have inadequate pharmacologic responses or are unable to tolerate useful pharmacologic agents. Paradoxically, these are the patients for whom a response to IT may be most desirable.

High allergen exposure as a risk factor for asthma and allergic disease

The association between pet ownership in childhood and subsequent asthma and sensitization is very controversial. Intriguing, but contradictory, reports have caused considerable uncertainty in parents who wish to avoid asthma and allergic disease in their children. This article argues that high allergen exposure is a risk factor for asthma and allergic disease. It describes dispersal of pet allergens in society and critically assesses epidemiological studies regarding how early exposure to pet allergens affects subsequent immunoglobulin E-sensitization and allergic diseases. Additionally, this article evaluates the effects of allergen exposure in already sensitized subjects with asthma. Cat and dog allergens are ubiquitous in society and may induce sensitization and allergic symptoms in predisposed individuals, regardless of pet ownership. This, in combination with selection mechanisms for pet ownership in families with a history of allergic diseases, makes it difficult to study associations between early exposure to pets and subsequent allergic disease. Nevertheless, exposure to pet allergens worsens asthma in already sensitized children. Thus, it is clear that clinicians should advise sensitized asthmatics that avoidance of exposure to indoor allergens is an important element in the treatment of allergic disease.

Immunotherapy: first do no harm

Immunotherapy continues to be a treatment modality that is used most exclusively by allergists. The acceptance of immunotherapy for treating children with allergic rhinitis or asthma has been limited by the lack of adequate numbers of pediatric double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of specific allergen immunotherapy; use of venom immunotherapy is more clearly supported by current data. Children represent a unique group of patients where allergic disease may not only be treated using immunotherapy resulting in reduction of symptoms, signs, and complications of disease, but may also hold the best potential for the evasive goal of prevention of the development of future allergic disease.

Sublingual immunotherapy abrogates seasonal bronchial hyperresponsiveness in children with Parietaria-induced respiratory allergy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of immunotherapy in asthmatic children is still controversial. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) may represent an advance, due to the good safety profile, but little is known about its effects on lung function and nonspecific bronchial responsiveness.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of SLIT on these parameters, in children with Parietaria pollen-induced asthma.

METHODS

Thirty children with asthma solely due to Parietaria who participated in a previous randomized, placebo-controlled trial with SLIT were studied: pulmonary function test and methacholine challenge were carried out at baseline in winter 1999 (out season), during the 1999 season (before randomization), and during the 2001 season.

RESULTS

Before randomization, there was a significant fall in methacholine provocation concentration during the pollen season vs baseline in both groups (SLIT group 9.78 +/- 5.95 mg/ml vs 3.37 +/- 2.99 mg/ml; placebo 8.70 +/- 6.25 mg/ml vs 2.44 +/- 2.25 mg/ml; P =.005). In the second pollen season, the response to methacholine returned to baseline values in the active group (9.10 +/- 7.7 mg/ml; P = NS vs baseline), whereas in the placebo group a significant increase in reactivity was still present (2.46 +/- 2.26; P = 0.008 vs baseline). No significant difference in FEV(1) and FEF(25-75) between the two groups was observed at all times.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that SLIT abrogates the seasonal bronchial hyperreactivity in children with asthma due to Parietaria. This may be regarded as an indirect evidence of the effect on bronchial inflammation.

Immunotherapy in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Specific allergen immunotherapy although being performed for almost 100 years, is still being addressed in clinical trials. In children the sublingual allergen application has gained considerable interest.

RECENT FINDINGS

Controlled long-term trials suggest that specific allergen immunotherapy has the capacity to modify the natural history of allergic airway disease by reducing the incidence of new sensitivities non-specifically, reducing allergic symptoms years after discontinuation and preventing the incidence of asthma. The current evidence on sublingual immunotherapy is not sufficient to recommend this mode of treatment in clinical practice yet.

SUMMARY

Specific allergen immunotherapy should be considered in children in whom IgE-mediated allergic symptoms cannot be adequately controlled by symptomatic treatment.

Allergen immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Allergen specific immunotherapy has long been a controversial treatment for asthma. Although beneficial effects upon clinically relevant outcomes have been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials, there remains a risk of severe and sometimes fatal anaphylaxis. The recommendations of professional bodies have ranged from cautious acceptance to outright dismissal. With increasing interest in new allergen preparations and new methods of delivery, it was time to conduct another systematic review of allergen specific immunotherapy for asthma.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the effects of allergen specific immunotherapy for asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register up to June 2001, MEDLINE, Dissertation Abstracts, Current Contents and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials using various forms of allergen specific immunotherapy to treat asthma and reporting at least one clinical outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently assessed eligibility of studies for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed quality assessment of studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-five trials were included (52 of 54 previously included trials and 23 new trials). A total of 3,506 participants (3,188 with asthma) were involved. There were 36 trials of immunotherapy for house mite allergy; 20 pollen allergy trials; ten animal dander allergy trials; two Cladosporium mould allergy, one latex and six trials looking at multiple allergens. Concealment of allocation was assessed as clearly adequate in only 15 of these trials. Significant heterogeneity was present in a number of comparisons. Overall, there was a significant reduction in asthma symptoms and medication and improvement in bronchial hyper-reactivity following immunotherapy. There was a significant improvement in asthma symptom scores (standardised mean difference -0.72, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.33) and it would have been necessary to treat 4 (95%CI 3 to 5) patients with immunotherapy to avoid one deterioration in asthma symptoms. Overall it would have been necessary to treat 5 (95%CI 4 to 6) patients with immunotherapy to avoid one requiring increased medication. Allergen immunotherapy significantly reduced allergen specific bronchial hyper-reactivity, with some reduction in non-specific bronchial hyper-reactivity as well. There was no consistent effect on lung function.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Immunotherapy reduces asthma symptoms and use of asthma medications and improves bronchial hyper-reactivity. One trial found that the size of the benefit is possibly comparable to inhaled steroids. The possibility of adverse effects (such as anaphylaxis) must be considered.

The safety and efficacy of subcutaneous birch pollen immunotherapy - a one-year, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

There is only very limited documentation of the efficacy and safety of high-dose subcutaneous birch pollen immunotherapy (IT) in double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) studies. Birch pollen is a major cause of allergic morbidity in northern Europe and in eastern parts of North America.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients with severe rhinoconjunctivitis (hay fever) to birch pollen were allocated to double-blinded clustered IT with a depot birch pollen extract (Betula verrucosa) or placebo injections. Seven patients in each group had concomitant self-reported seasonal asthma. Treatment was conducted as a clustered regimen and was performed in a specialist unit. Symptom scores from nose, eyes, and lungs, and use of oral and topical antihistamines, beta-2-agonists, and oral corticosteroids were recorded daily during the season of 2000. Sensitivity to allergen provocation in skin, conjunctiva, and nasal mucosa was measured before and after 10 months of treatment. Post-seasonal assessment of symptom severity was performed using a simple questionnaire.

RESULTS

IT reduced the symptom score for both rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma (P-values < 0.05), total medication score (P < 0.02) and use of oral antihistamines (P < 0.01). IT reduced specific conjunctival sensitivity (P < 0.05), skin prick test, and especially cutaneous late-phase response diameters (P < 0.00001), and increased general well-being on post-seasonal evaluation (P < 0.01). IT was safe, with side-effects at the same level as placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose, subcutaneous IT is efficacious and safe in patients with severe birch pollen rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma.

Prevention of new sensitizations in asthmatic children monosensitized to house dust mite by specific immunotherapy. A six-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is a recognized way of treating IgE-mediated respiratory diseases. The clinical outcome is usually better in allergic children than in adults.

OBJECTIVE

To increase our knowledge of the ability of SIT to prevent the onset of new sensitizations in monosensitized subjects, so far poorly documented.

METHODS

134 children (age range 5-8 years), who had intermittent asthma with or without rhinitis, with single sensitization to mite allergen (skin prick test and serum-specific IgE), were enrolled. SIT was proposed to all the children's parents, but was accepted by only 75 of them (SIT Group). The remaining 63 children were treated with medication only, and were considered the Control Group. Injective SIT with mite mix was administered to the SIT Group during the first three years and all patients were followed for a total of 6 years. All patients were checked for allergic sensitization(s) by skin prick test and serum-specific IgE every year until the end of the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable in terms of age, sex and disease characteristics. 123 children completed the follow-up study. At the end of the study, 52 out of 69 children (75.4%) in the SIT Group showed no new sensitization, compared to 18 out of 54 children (33.3%) in the Control Group (P < 0.0002). Parietaria, Gramineae and Olea were the most common allergens responsible for the new sensitization(s).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data, SIT may prevent the onset of new sensitizations in children with respiratory symptoms monosensitized to house dust mite (HDM).

TH2 lymphocytes from atopic patients treated with immunotherapy undergo rapid apoptosis after culture with specific allergens

BACKGROUND

In atopic patients treatment with specific immunotherapy (SIT) induced a shift in the balance of T-cell immune response away from a T(H)2-type (producing mostly IL-4) in favor of a T(H)1-type T-lymphocyte response (with the preferential production of IFN-gamma). However, the mechanisms through which SIT acts are less clear. We have recently shown that allergens may induce an activation-induced cell death process in lymphocytes from SIT-treated atopic patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether allergen-induced apoptosis can occur in a specific subset of cells.

METHODS

The study was performed in lymphocytes from normal subjects and atopic patients, some of whom were treated with SIT. Cells were cultured in the presence of gramineous pollen (Lolium perenne) allergenic extracts. Cell phenotype and intracellular cytokine expression were measured by means of fluorescent mAbs. Apoptosis was measured by using terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end-labeling. Fluorescence was analyzed in a FACScan flow cytometer, and the data were evaluated with Consort 30 software.

RESULTS

Our results showed that allergens induce apoptosis of lymphocytes in SIT-treated atopic patients. Apoptosis occurs mainly in T(H)2 lymphocytes with the IL-4+/CD4+ phenotype and subsequently increases the percentage of IFN-gamma(+) cells in the culture.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the shift from T(H)2 to T(H)1 induced by SIT in atopic patients may be mediated, at least in part, by the induction of an activation-induced cell death process in allergen-responder T(H)2 cells.

Changes in cytokine production in vitro during the early phase of birch-pollen immunotherapy

The kinetics of the immunological mechanisms during allergen-specific immunotherapy (IT) has not been thoroughly evaluated. In this investigation we study the changes in T-cell responses during the early phase of IT. Ten patients (IT group) with birch-pollen allergy were treated with conventional IT. Blood samples were collected at regular intervals for specific immunoglobulin (Ig)E measurements and preparation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). Seven allergic control patients (AC group) were included during the subsequent birch-pollen season. The PBMC were stimulated with birch-pollen extract or tetanus toxoid (TT) and mitogens. After a short decrease, probably owing to seasonal variation, the birch-pollen-specific proliferation and the interleukin (IL)-4, IL-5, and IL-10 production significantly increased when reaching the maintenance dose and during the subsequent pollen season. The increase in IL-4 correlated with a temporary increased serum level of birch-pollen-specific IgE. Interestingly, also the TT-specific response was affected by IT, resulting in weaker, but in time similar, changes in proliferation and cytokine production as in the birch-pollen-specific response. We speculate that the early phase of IT might lead to systemic changes in the capacity of Th2-like cytokine production, and that the early increase in allergen-specific IgE is a consequence of enhanced IL-4 production.

Immunotherapy in bronchial asthma

The incidence and prevalence of allergic diseases are constantly increasing in our times. The only etiologic treatments currently available are allergen avoidance and immunotherapy. Many scientific data demonstrate that immunotherapy with allergens is an effective and safe treatment for allergic rhinitis and asthma in adequately selected patients and that it reduces treatment costs for the patients in the long run. Other promising aspects of immunotherapy are its capacity to produce prolonged clinical remissions over time, that it is the only treatment capable of stopping the natural development of the respiratory allergic disease, and the possibility that immunotherapy could avoid evolution to asthma in a significant percent of patients with rhinitis.