Sublingual-oral administration of standardized allergenic extracts: phase 1 safety and dosing results

Mind the gaps: Clinical trial concepts to address unanswered questions in aeroallergen immunotherapy-An NIAID/AHRQ Workshop

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases organized a workshop to develop trial concepts that could improve the use and effectiveness of aeroallergen immunotherapy (AAIT). Expert groups were formed to accomplish the following tasks: (1) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous versus sublingual AAIT; (2) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of AAIT by using 1 or a few allergens versus all or most allergens to which a patient is sensitized; (3) propose a study design to determine whether AAIT can alter the progression of childhood allergic airways disease; and (4) propose a study design to determine the optimal dose and duration of AAIT to achieve maximal effectiveness with acceptable safety. Study designs were presented by the workgroups, extensively discussed at the workshop, and revised for this report. The proposed trials would be of long duration and require large highly characterized patient populations. Scientific caveats and feasibility matters are discussed. These concepts are intended to help the development of clinical trials that can address some of the major questions related to the practice of AAIT for the management and prevention of allergic airways disease.

Sublingual Immunotherapy Dosing Regimens: What Is Ideal?

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a treatment for allergic respiratory diseases that has demonstrated efficacy and safety. Several formulations of SLIT are now available worldwide for treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Grass tablets containing 15 to 25 μg of group 5 major allergen reduced combined AR symptoms and medication use by 23% to 41% in 3 treatment years and 2 follow-up years. Ragweed pollen tablets (12 μg of Ambrosia artemisiifolia 1) and liquid extracts (50 μg of Ambrosia artemisiifolia 1) reduced combined AR symptoms and medication use by 26% and 43%, respectively. House dust mite tablets containing 300 index of reactivity (16 μg of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus 1 and 68 μg of Dermatophagoides farinae 1) reduced AR symptoms by 17.9% and 17.0% in 1 treatment year and 1 follow-up year, respectively. A different house dust mite tablet (12 standardized quality house dust mite) was able to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbation compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.96). Most adverse events were local and mild to moderate in severity. For SLIT products reviewed herein, effective doses range from 1.12 to 84 μg of major allergen(s). However, allergen content is not uniformly standardized, can be expressed in arbitrary or proprietary units (depending on the manufacturer), and assays for determination of allergen content are highly variable. Thus, results from one study of a given product cannot be extrapolated to other products. Despite these limitations, this Clinical Management Review aims to provide practitioners with relevant information on the dosing of selected SLIT formulations in the treatment of allergic respiratory disease.

Sublingual immunotherapy tablets as a disease-modifying add-on treatment option to pharmacotherapy for allergic rhinitis and asthma

Allergic rhinitis (AR) with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) is associated with a significant health and economic burden, and is often accompanied by asthma. Pharmacotherapies are the mainstay treatment options for AR and asthma, but guidelines also recommend allergy immunotherapy (AIT). Unlike pharmacotherapies, AIT has the ability to modify the underlying immunologic mechanisms of AR and asthma with the potential for long-term benefits after treatment is discontinued. Immunotherapy may also prevent progression of AR/C to asthma. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets are a self-administered alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy that provide the benefits of AIT without the cost and inconvenience of frequent office visits or the discomfort of injections. SLIT-tablets are also an option that can be utilized by primary care clinicians. Pharmacotherapies are generally effective in mild disease although a number of patients remain uncontrolled. SLIT-tablets have proven efficacy for AR in adults, children, and poly-sensitized allergic patients. Indirect comparisons indicate that SLIT-tablets have superior or comparable efficacy compared with traditional pharmacotherapies for seasonal AR, and superior efficacy for perennial AR. House dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablets have also demonstrated clinically relevant benefits for asthma, with significant observed reductions in daily inhaled corticosteroid use, risk of asthma exacerbations, and asthma symptoms. SLIT-tablets are well tolerated, with minimal risk of systemic allergic reactions. The most common treatment-related adverse events are oral site reactions such as oral pruritus and throat irritation. Based on the favorable efficacy and safety profile, as well as the convenience of at-home oral administration and disease-modifying effects, SLIT-tablets should be considered as an alternative or add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy for AR/C, and as an add-on treatment for HDM allergic asthma.

Current Evidence on Safety and Practical Considerations for Administration of Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy (SLIT) in the United States

Liquid sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used off-label for decades, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved grass and ragweed SLIT tablets have been available in the United States since 2014. Potentially life-threatening events from SLIT do occur, although they appear to be very rare, especially for FDA-approved products. Practice guidelines that incorporate safety precautions regarding the use of SLIT in the United States are needed. This clinical commentary attempts to address unresolved issues including controversy regarding the FDA mandate for the prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors for patients on SLIT; how to approach polysensitized patients; optimal timing and duration of SLIT administration; how to address gaps in therapy; whether antihistamines can prevent local reactions, if certain patient populations (such as persistent asthmatics) should not receive SLIT; and when to instruct patients to self-administer epinephrine. Key points are that physicians should focus on educating patients regarding: (1) when not to administer SLIT; (2) how to recognize a potentially serious allergic reaction to SLIT; and (3) when to administer epinephrine and seek emergency care.

A review of allergoid immunotherapy: is cat allergy a suitable target?

To modify the course of allergy, different types of specific allergen immunotherapy have been developed such as sublingual immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy with native allergens or subcutaneous immunotherapy with polymerized allergoids. However, the optimal specific immunotherapy, especially for cat allergy, remains undetermined. Few studies investigating immunotherapy in cat allergy have been published, and the risk of serious adverse reactions and systemic reactions has often been an important issue. Monomeric allergoids have lower allergenic potential while their immunogenicity remains constant, resulting in excellent safety with notable efficacy. Specific immunotherapy with monomeric allergoids could, therefore, be of high value, especially in cat allergy as well as other types of allergy, and bring relief to a great community of patients.

Safety of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy standardized quality tablet in children allergic to house dust mites

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets could be an important alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for house dust mite (HDM) allergy in children.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the safety, tolerability, and duration of local adverse events (AEs) of an HDM SLIT tablet (MK-8237; Merck, ALK Abellò, and Torii) in North American children 12 to 17 years old with HDM allergic rhinitis with and without conjunctivitis and with or without asthma.

METHODS

In this phase 1, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized trial (NCT01678807), children received placebo, HDM SLIT tablet 6 standardized quality (SQ) HDM, or 12 SQ-HDM once daily for 28 days. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects with treatment-emergent AEs receiving active treatment vs placebo. The secondary end point was the proportion of subjects who discontinued owing to AEs.

RESULTS

In total 195 subjects were randomized. The 2 HDM SLIT tablet doses were well tolerated. No anaphylactic reactions, systemic allergic reactions, AEs requiring epinephrine, serious AEs, or local swellings in the mouth or throat assessed as severe were reported. The proportion of subjects with treatment-emergent AEs was 54% with 6 SQ-HDM and 57% with 12 SQ-HDM (nonsignificant vs 43% with placebo). Local AEs were the most commonly reported treatment-emergent AEs. On day 1, the median duration of individual local AEs ranged from 1 to 43 minutes. The proportion of subjects who discontinued owing to AEs was 0%, 6.2%, and 6.2%, and who experienced treatment-related AEs was 25%, 45%, and 52% for the placebo, 6 SQ-HDM, and 12 SQ-HDM groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The 6 and 12 SQ-HDM doses of the HDM SLIT tablet MK-8237 were well tolerated, and local AEs were of short duration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01678807.

A Phase I clinical trial with subcutaneous immunotherapy vaccine of Timothy grass pollen extract according to EMA guidelines

Aim: A double-blind placebo-controlled study was conducted according to EMA guidelines, to evaluate safety, tolerability and short-term treatment effects of three up-dosing regimens of Phleum pratense subcutaneous immunotherapy. Materials & methods: Forty-two patients were randomized to groups: A (6 weekly doses), B (8 weekly doses) or C (eight doses, two clustered increasing doses over 3 weeks). Results: The most frequent adverse events were local reactions. No serious adverse events were found. Higher number and more severe systemic reactions were reported in group C. A decrease in cutaneous responses and an increase of specific antibodies was shown in all active groups even at very short-term. Conclusion: Phleum pratense subcutaneous immunotherapy in depot presentation exhibited good safety and tolerability. Group A seemed to show the best profile.

Sublingual immunotherapy: the U.S. experience

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is likely that approval of allergen preparations for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) will soon occur in the United States. This article reviews experience with SLIT in this country, concentrating on the large, multicenter trials that will provide the evidence of safety and efficacy necessary to obtain that approval.

RECENT FINDINGS

Large multicenter trials have been conducted with both grass and short ragweed. In five single-season studies with sublingual grass tablets, usually starting 4 months prior to and continuing through the pollen season, the combined symptom medication score was improved 20-28% relative to placebo-treated individuals. Short ragweed tablets, initiated 4 months prior to and continued through the pollen season, reduced symptom/medication scores by 24-26%. Similar results have been reported with short ragweed aqueous extract administered sublingually. To date, there has been only one small study each with house dust mite and cat allergen extracts. All of these studies were conducted with a single allergen. One small study, comparing timothy alone to the same dose of timothy combined with nine other pollen extracts, raised still unanswered questions regarding the efficacy of SLIT with multiple allergen mixes.

SUMMARY

SLIT is coming to the United States. There will be approved allergen preparations for which the appropriate dosing for efficacy and safety has been established. It would be inappropriate to use the evidence generated by these large studies to justify off-label use of allergen extracts approved for injection or the administration of multiple allergen preparations sublingually.

Investigational drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis is characterized by paroxysms of sneezing, rhinorrhea and nasal obstruction. Its prevalence is increasing in industrialized countries worldwide and imposes a significant economic burden as a result of reduced school performance, work productivity and medical expenses. Allergic rhinitis impairs the quality of life of those affected, and current treatment regimens are inadequate for those whose symptoms are severe or refractory to standard drug therapies. They mainly include symptom control with intranasal glucocorticoids, oral and intranasal antihistamines.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of the most current literature on research that has focused on improving the efficacy of current treatment regimens and developing new drugs. It also provides the reader with an improved understanding of the pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis, including the inflammatory mediators and cell types involved, which has led to novel treatment options that are under investigation. These new drugs aim to alter the immunologic response to allergens in order to achieve greater clinical efficacy.

EXPERT OPINION

It is our opinion that despite developments in new therapies, a multidrug approach is vital for successful treatment of allergic rhinitis. Furthermore, immunotherapy in the form of sublingual immunotherapy is a promising additional therapeutic approach that will potentially make immunotherapy available to a wider selection of eligible patients with allergic rhinitis.

Sublingual immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization position paper 2013 update

We have prepared this document, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2013 Update", according to the evidence-based criteria, revising and updating chapters of the originally published paper, "Sublingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009", available at http://www.waojournal.org. Namely, these comprise: "Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy;" "Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy" - reporting all the data of all controlled trials published after 2009; "Safety of sublingual immunotherapy" - with the recently published Grading System for adverse reactions; "Impact of sublingual immunotherapy on the natural history of respiratory allergy" - with the relevant evidences published since 2009; "Efficacy of SLIT in children" - with detailed analysis of all the studies; "Definition of SLIT patient selection" - reporting the criteria for eligibility to sublingual immunotherapy; "The future of immunotherapy in the community care setting"; "Methodology of clinical trials according to the current scientific and regulatory standards"; and "Guideline development: from evidence-based medicine to patients' views" - including the evolution of the methods to make clinical recommendations.Additionally, we have added new chapters to cover a few emerging crucial topics: "Practical aspects of schedules and dosages and counseling for adherence" - which is crucial in clinical practice for all treatments; "Perspectives and new approaches" - including recombinant allergens, adjuvants, modified allergens, and the concept of validity of the single products. Furthermore, "Raising public awareness about sublingual immunotherapy", as a need for our patients, and strategies to increase awareness of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) among patients, the medical community, all healthcare stakeholders, and public opinion, are also reported in detail.

Development of cockroach immunotherapy by the Inner-City Asthma Consortium

BACKGROUND

Cockroach allergy is a key contributor to asthma morbidity in children living in urban environments.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to document immune responses to cockroach allergen and provide direction for the development of immunotherapy for cockroach allergy.

METHODS

Four pilot studies were conducted: (1) an open-label study to assess the safety of cockroach sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in adults and children; (2) a randomized, double-blind biomarker study of cockroach SLIT versus placebo in adults; (3) a randomized, double-blind biomarker study of 2 doses of cockroach SLIT versus placebo in children; and (4) an open-label safety and biomarker study of cockroach subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in adults.

RESULTS

The adult SLIT trial (n = 54; age, 18-54 years) found a significantly greater increase in cockroach-specific IgE levels between the active and placebo groups (geometric mean ratio, 1.92; P < .0001) and a trend toward increased cockroach-specific IgG4 levels in actively treated subjects (P = .09) but no evidence of functional blocking antibody response. The pediatric SLIT trial (n = 99; age, 5-17 years) found significant differences in IgE, IgG, and IgG4 responses between both active groups and the placebo group but no consistent differences between the high- and low-dose groups. In the SCIT study the treatment resulted in significant changes from baseline in cockroach IgE, IgG4, and blocking antibody levels. The safety profile of cockroach immunotherapy was reassuring in all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of cockroach allergen by means of SCIT is immunologically more active than SLIT, especially with regard to IgG4 levels and blocking antibody responses. No safety concerns were raised in any age group. These pilot studies suggest that immunotherapy with cockroach allergen is more likely to be effective with SCIT.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of standardized ragweed sublingual-liquid immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy with liquid extracts provides an appealing alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC), but a lack of robust evidence has deterred its use in North America.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and tolerability of standardized glycerinated short ragweed sublingual allergen immunotherapy liquid (RW-SAIL) extract in subjects with ragweed-related ARC.

METHODS

This phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in North America. Subjects (age range, 18-55 years) with or without asthma were selected based on ARC symptom severity and erythema skin prick reaction to short ragweed. Subjects self-administered the maximum tolerated dose of RW-SAIL (n = 218) or placebo (n = 211) daily beginning approximately 8 to 16 weeks before and through the end of the ragweed pollen season. The primary end point was subject-assessed total combined daily rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication scores (TCS).

RESULTS

During the entire season, there was a 43% decrease in TCS in subjects treated with RW-SAIL compared with placebo. Similar decreases were observed in TCS between the 2 groups during peak season (42%) and in daily symptom scores during the entire (42%) and peak (41%) seasons. The occurrence of adverse events was similar between the treatment groups; most were mild in severity. Treatment-related oromucosal local application site reactions occurred early and were transient and self-limited. No anaphylaxis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first successful North American confirmatory phase 3 clinical trial to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a sublingual standardized ragweed allergen immunotherapy liquid extract for the treatment of ARC.

Randomized controlled trial of a ragweed allergy immunotherapy tablet in North American and European adults

BACKGROUND

In North America and Europe, millions of patients experience symptoms of allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C) on exposure to ragweed pollen. The disease burden can be significant, with most patients relying on symptomatic medications without disease-modifying potential. However, novel sublingual immunomodulatory treatment options may potentially play an important role if efficacy and side effect profiles allow the convenience of self-administration.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated an allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT; SCH 39641/MK-3641) for treatment of ragweed-induced AR/C in the first large randomized, double-blind multinational trial of this therapeutic modality for ragweed allergy.

METHODS

Adults (n = 784) with short ragweed-induced AR/C were randomly assigned to approximately 52 weeks of daily self-administered ragweed AIT of 1.5, 6, or 12 units of Ambrosia artemisiifolia major allergen 1 (Amb a 1-U) or placebo. Subjects could use as-needed allergy rescue medication. Symptoms and medications were recorded daily. The primary efficacy end point was total combined daily symptom/medication score (TCS) during peak ragweed season. Safety was monitored through adverse event diaries maintained through study duration.

RESULTS

During peak ragweed season, ragweed AIT of 1.5, 6, and 12 Amb a 1-U reduced TCS by 9% (-0.76; P = .22), 19% (-1.58; P = .01), and 24% (-2.04; P = .002) compared with placebo. During the entire season, ragweed AIT of 1.5, 6, and 12 Amb a 1-U reduced TCS by 12% (-0.88; P = .09), 18% (-1.28; P = .01), and 27% (-1.92; P < .001) compared with placebo. Treatment was well tolerated; no systemic allergic reactions occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial, ragweed AIT of 12 Amb a 1-U was effective and tolerable with a safety profile that permitted daily self-administration of ragweed allergen immunotherapy.

New directions in immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is effective in reducing the clinical symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis, asthma and venom-induced anaphylaxis. Subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with unmodified allergen extracts are the most widely prescribed AIT regimens. The efficacy of these 2 routes appears comparable, but the safety profile with SLIT is more favorable allowing for home administration and requiring less patient time. However, both require that the treatment is taken regularly over several years, e.g., monthly in a supervised medical setting with SCIT and daily at home with SLIT. Despite the difference in treatment settings, poor adherence has been reported with both routes. Emerging evidence suggests that AIT may be effective in other allergic conditions such as atopic dermatitis, venom sting-induced large local reactions, and food allergy. Research with oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies suggest that many patients can be desensitized during treatment, but questions remain about whether this can produce long term tolerance. Further studies are needed to identify appropriate patients and treatment regimens with these conditions. Efforts to develop safer and more effective AIT for inhalant allergies have led to investigations with modified allergens and alternate routes. Intralymphatic (ILIT) has been shown to produce long-lasting clinical benefits after three injections comparable to a 3-year course of SCIT. Epicutaneous (EPIT) has demonstrated promising results for food and inhalant allergies. Vaccine modifications, such as T cell epitopes or the use of viral-like particles as an adjuvant, have been shown to provide sustained clinical benefits after a relatively short course of treatment compared to the currently available AIT treatments, SLIT and SCIT. These newer approaches may increase the utilization and adherence to AIT because the multi-year treatment requirement of currently available AIT is a likely deterrent for initiating and adhering to treatment.

[Allergen-specific immunotherapy in pet allergy - an update]

Animal dander is a common cause of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma in patients. In this regard, cats and dogs represent major causes of allergy to animal dander. In first line, the therapeutic options include the elimination of the pet from the patient's home as a (secondary) preventive step. However, avoidance of temporary contacts or indirect exposure to cat dander is often difficult, since cat-allergens are widely distributed even in non-cat-keeping households. In general, conventional pharmacologic therapy does not thoroughly prevent allergic symptoms. Therefore, allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) represents an important therapeutic option. This article highlights the current standards and further developments of SIT for cat-allergic patients.

Allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis is a costly disease associated with significant morbidity. It impacts the quality of life of millions of individuals, particularly in industrialized nations, and it is on the rise. Lost productivity and total healthcare expenditure exceeds several billion dollars annually in the United States, with an estimate of >$6 billion spent on prescription medications alone. It is also associated with asthma and other atopic conditions, sinusitis, otitis media, and sleep apnea. Primary care physicians should be well adept at recognizing and initiating empiric first-line therapy for chronic rhinitis. Allergen avoidance, topical nasal steroids, and antihistamines may be sufficient for some patients. In most cases, referral to a board-certified allergy specialist for skin testing and targeted management is indicated. It is essential to make sure that patients abstain from using antihistamines at least 1 week prior to reporting to the allergist for skin testing in order to avoid false-negative results. Traditional subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy, when performed by an experienced allergist, affords relief in >75% of cases. The growing armament of treatment options for refractory allergic rhinitis includes oral and sublingual immunotherapy, recombinant allergens, conjugated DNA vaccines, and anti-immunoglobulin E monoclonal antibody.

Sublingual immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been shown to be safe and efficacious in treating allergic rhinitis. It has been used in Europe for more than 20 years, and interest in the United States is increasing. SLIT has been shown to elicit immunologic changes similar to subcutaneous injection immunotherapy. SLIT may prevent new sensitizations, improve asthma control, and decrease asthma development in allergic individuals. Although differences in antigen quantification and standardization make European dosing schemes difficult to translate in the United States, several new studies suggest the range for effective dosing. Further studies will help clarify optimal dosing.

Maintenance dosing for sublingual immunotherapy by prominent European allergen manufacturers expressed in bioequivalent allergy units

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has become established in Europe, and its efficacy is being evaluated in the United States. The doses used for SLIT in Europe today are difficult to evaluate, because each manufacturer expresses the potency of its extracts differently.

OBJECTIVES

To compare in vitro European SLIT maintenance solutions against US licensed standardized allergenic extract concentrates and to determine the monthly SLIT doses delivered expressed in bioequivalent allergy units ([B]AU).

METHODS

We studied Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, timothy grass pollen, cat (hair) and short ragweed pollen allergen extracts. The SLIT maintenance solutions of 4 leading European manufacturers and standardized concentrate extracts of 3 US manufacturers were analyzed with the following assays: protein content, relative potency (immunoglobulin E [IgE]-binding enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] inhibition) and major allergen content. The relative monthly allergen dose in (B)AU was calculated for each recommended SLIT schedule.

RESULTS

Relative potency was approximately 10 times higher for US concentrate standardized extracts-which are meant to be diluted-than for European SLIT maintenance solutions of D pteronyssinus and timothy grass pollen. For cat (hair) and short ragweed pollen, the difference was less. Measurements of relative potency and major allergen content correlated well. In our assays, European mite extracts contain a very low quantity of Der p 2 compared with US mites.

CONCLUSION

Recommended SLIT doses in Europe vary widely among the manufacturers, but are consistently lower (Eur1) or higher (Eur4) over all four allergens tested. SLIT efficacy probably depends on additional factors apart from the exact dose. SLIT dose finding studies should be done for each product.

Effect of allergen immunotherapy practice parameters on cat extract prescribing patterns, 1993-2009

BACKGROUND

Cat extract allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for cat allergy. The prescribed dose for cat AIT varies among prescribers, despite published data supporting an effective dose range. The original practice parameter published in December 1996 did not recommend a dose of cat allergen, but updates in January 2003 and September 2007 recommend cat extract dose ranges of 2,000 to 3,000 BAU and 1,000 to 4,000 BAU, respectively.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the prescribing patterns for cat AIT among practicing allergists in a large health care system and the effect of practice parameters on these patterns.

METHODS

A total of 27,788 prescriptions were analyzed to determine the date and amount of maintenance dose cat allergen prescribed. The data were subdivided into periods before and after the 3 published AIT practice parameters.

RESULTS

From January 2003 to September 2007, 1,810 prescriptions (18.0%) were written in the recommended range. From September 2007 to May 2009, 3,143 prescriptions (82.6%) were written in the recommended range. Cat AIT maintenance doses were 1,000 to 4,000 BAU 22.1% of the time before January 2003, 61.8% from January 2003 to September 2007, and 82.6% from September 2007 to May 2009.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large systemic evaluation of cat AIT prescribing patterns, maintenance dose recommendations in the AIT practice parameters were associated with changes in the prescribing patterns for cat AIT. Most prescriptions for cat AIT were inconsistent with recommended doses in the AIT practice parameters between 2003 and 2007. Dosing within recommended ranges improved after 2007, in part due to a widening of the recommended dose range.

Sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-established treatment option for allergic rhinitis in several European countries, but it is considered investigational in the United States. Studies conducted in Europe provided a large body of evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of SLIT, but those studies used allergen products that are different from those that are likely to be approved in the United States, and many of them were not controlled, randomized, double-blinded trials. This review summarize research conducted on the efficacy, safety, and mechanisms of SLIT published during the past year, with a focus on ragweed and grass antigens. Results of recent US studies document the safety and efficacy of SLIT and have started to yield insight into the mechanisms of SLIT.

Strategies of mucosal immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Incidences of allergic disease have recently increased worldwide. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) has long been a controversial treatment for allergic diseases. Although beneficial effects on clinically relevant outcomes have been demonstrated in clinical trials by subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), there remains a risk of severe and sometimes fatal anaphylaxis. Mucosal immunotherapy is one advantageous choice because of its non-injection routes of administration and lower side-effect profile. This study reviews recent progress in mucosal immunotherapy for allergic diseases. Administration routes, antigen quality and quantity, and adjuvants used are major considerations in this field. Also, direct uses of unique probiotics, or specific cytokines, have been discussed. Furthermore, some researchers have reported new therapeutic ideas that combine two or more strategies. The most important strategy for development of mucosal therapies for allergic diseases is the improvement of antigen formulation, which includes continuous searching for efficient adjuvants, collecting more information about dominant T-cell epitopes of allergens, and having the proper combination of each. In clinics, when compared to other mucosal routes, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a preferred choice for therapeutic administration, although local and systemic side effects have been reported. Additionally, not every allergen has the same beneficial effect. Further studies are needed to determine the benefits of mucosal immunotherapy for different allergic diseases after comparison of the different administration routes in children and adults. Data collected from large, well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and randomized trials, with post-treatment follow-up, can provide robust substantiation of current evidence.

Assessment of palatability of two sublingual diluents in allergic patients: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Taste of diluents could have an effect on the ultimate patient compliance and acceptability of allergenic extract formulations used in sublingual allergy immunotherapy. This study assessed the palatability and compared the flavor and taste preferences of two sublingual diluents in allergic adult patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded pilot study. Diluents A (50% glycerin and water) and B (0.4% phenol and water) were tested. Three drops were placed in the sublingual area beneath the tongue for 2 minutes before swallowing. A 5-point analog scale was used to allow ranking of the degree of taste acceptance. Patients were then given a 10-minute break where unsalted crackers and bottled water were provided to cleanse the palate between tasting periods. After tasting both samples, patients were asked to answer a final question regarding taste preference.

RESULTS

Of the 30 patients, there were 15 men and 15 women with a mean age of 38 years (range, 18 to 61 years). For diluent A, 18 (60.0%) patients graded the diluent as having a “pleasant” taste, 8 (26.7%) patients gave a grade of “very pleasant,” and 4 (13.3%) patients said that they were “not sure.” For diluent B, 16 (53.3%) patients gave a grade of “unpleasant” and only 6 (20.0%) patients gave a grade of “pleasant.” Finally, 28 (93.3%) of the 30 patients chose diluent A over diluent B as the preferred diluent of choice (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Fifty percent glycerin had better taste attributes and phenolated saline induced unpleasant oral sensation on sublingual dosing.

House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy: results of a US trial

BACKGROUND

Few trials of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the United States have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, placebo-controlled feasibility SLIT study compared the safety and physiologic effects of high- versus low-dose Dermatophagoides farinae vaccine.

METHODS

Thirty-one D farinae-sensitive adults with allergic rhinitis with or without mild intermittent asthma were eligible for randomization to high-dose maintenance vaccine (n = 10, 4200 allergen units [approximately 70 μg of Der f 1/d]), low-dose maintenance vaccine (n = 10; 60 allergen units [approximately 1 μg of Der f 1/d]), or placebo (n = 11) over 12 to 18 months. Medication-symptom scores and adverse events were monitored, serum D farinae-specific IgE and IgG4 levels were measured, and bronchial reactivity to D farinae was determined at baseline and 6-month intervals.

RESULTS

Of the 31 randomized subjects, 6 withdrew because of non-treatment-ascribed events. Four withdrew because of treatment-ascribed effects: high-dose group, 1 of 10 (gastrointestinal symptoms); low-dose group, 1 of 10 (gastrointestinal symptoms); and placebo group, 2 of 11 (headache and increased nasal symptoms). Thus 21 subjects completed the study: high-dose group, 9; low-dose group, 7; and placebo group, 5. Eleven of the 21 subjects experienced mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal symptoms, throat irritation, or both (high-dose group, 5/9; low-dose group, 4/7; and placebo group, 2/5). No severe systemic reactions were noted. No differences in symptom-medication scores were found. High-dose SLIT increased the bronchial threshold to allergen challenge and increased serum D farinae-specific IgG4 levels, whereas low-dose SLIT and placebo had no significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose D farinae SLIT was generally tolerable, increased serum D farinae-specific IgG4 levels, and improved the bronchial threshold to allergen challenge. Larger US trials are warranted.

Recommendations for appropriate sublingual immunotherapy clinical trials

Sublingual immunotherapy is gaining widespread attention as a viable alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. In addition, sublingual immunotherapy has been studied in other allergic disorders including asthma. However, a review of published studies indicates that there are deficiencies and considerable heterogeneity in both design and data interpretation of sublingual immunotherapy studies. These deficiencies have made it somewhat difficult to assess the appropriate place of sublingual immunotherapy in guidelines for the therapy of allergic diseases. Moreover, several unpublished oral and sublingual immunotherapy studies in the United States failed to meet primary endpoints. This article reviews data from sublingual immunotherapy trials and makes recommendations about appropriate designs of future sublingual immunotherapy studies. It is hoped that these recommendations will result in more adequately designed sublingual immunotherapy trials to facilitate the appropriate placement of this therapy to treat patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and other allergic diseases.