Allergen immunotherapy in asthma: current evidence

Questionnaire for Clinical Diagnosis of House Dust Mite's Allergy Approved by Delphi Consensus

Despite house dust mite (HDM)-allergy is the most frequent in the world, no standard questionnaire exists to help physicians in their clinical practice for screening patients with this possible diagnosis. The objective of this survey was to develop a questionnaire that could be used to identify patients with suspicion of HDM-allergy. The survey was conducted using the Delphi methodology. Nineteen international experts in allergology constituted the scientific board who established the items included in the first version of the questionnaire, defined the criteria of the selection for the next steps, and validated the final questionnaire and its interpretation. The initial version of the questionnaire included 15 items. For each item, five answers were suggested graduated by scores from "no importance" to "very high importance." The predefined conditions for the item selection after each round were a median score ≥ 7 and > 50% of responses according "high importance" and "very high importance." The electronic survey circulated within the Interasma Scientific Network platform. Eight questions based on the occurrence/worsening of symptoms induced by HDM-allergen exposure meet the survey criteria after the second and the third rounds and were included in the final questionnaire. Binomial answers for each question with 1 point accorded for "Yes" and none for "No" were suggested for the final version with a score ≥ 5 points associated with a high probability for HDM-allergy. By applying the Delphi process, we generated a brief questionnaire with binomial answers, easy to use in clinical practice for screening patients with HDM-allergy.

Mechanisms of Mt.b Ag85B-Fc fusion protein against allergic asthma in mice by intranasal immunization

Ag85B, the primary component of the Ag85 complex and an early secreted protein by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, has shown potential for the treatment of allergic asthma (AA) when used as a Fc-fusion protein. Administered via nasal immunization, Ag85B-Fc fusion protein significantly alleviated airway inflammation and reduced the proportions of some anaphylaxis related cells in lungs, with no significant histopathological injury to major organs in ovalbumin (OVA)-induced AA model mice. To investigate the underlying immune regulatory mechanisms of Ag85B protein, integrated proteomics and transcriptomics analyses were conducted, identifying the complement and coagulation cascades, and phagosomes as the two significantly enriched pathways at both gene and protein levels. Moreover, C3ar1 (C3aR1), Itgam (CD11b), Itgb2 (CD18), fgg (FGG), Cybb (CYBB), and Ncf4 (NCF4) were identified as core target factors that play a central role in allergic and asthmatic responses. Among them, C3aR1 and CR3 consisting of CD11b and CD18, are main complement receptors, indicating that Ag85B alleviated AA by regulating C3aR1- and CR3-mediated signal transduction. The validation results were consistent with the aforementioned findings. Overall, these results provide valuable insight into the application of mucosal immunotherapy in treatment of AA, positioning Ag85B-Fc fusion protein as a safe mucosal immunotherapeutic agent for AA.

A meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of allergen-specific immunotherapy in the management of respiratory allergies

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of specific immunotherapy (SIT) in the management of respiratory allergens, including allergic asthma, rhinitis, and related disorders, based on a review of current literature up to November 8, 2022.

METHODS

We conducted a search of databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing respiratory allergy-specific immunotherapy. We employed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement to select RCTs that adhered to rigorous reporting standards. Specifically, we focused on double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) trials and open studies involving both adults and children, considering factors such as dosage, inclusion criteria, allergens, and primary outcome measurements.

RESULTS

A total of 25 meta-analyses were included in this study. Among them, 14 evaluated sublingual-specific allergen immunotherapy (SLIT), 4 assessed subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT), 4 explored both sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy, and 3 investigated intralymphatic immunotherapy. The outcomes of these meta-analyses indicated a reduction in medication scores in 20 cases and a decrease in symptom scores in 23 cases. Additionally, six studies reported on changes in IgE levels, seven studies focused on IgG4, four studies examined FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 s), and eight studies reported on symptom and medication scores. Furthermore, 11 studies reported on differences in adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that specific immunotherapy, while associated with some adverse effects, effectively reduces the symptoms of asthma and rhinitis. Therefore, we recommend its use in the treatment of respiratory allergies.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Real-world study: drug reduction in children with allergic rhinitis and asthma receiving immunotherapy

Background: The reduction of pharmacological treatment after allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for house dust mites (HDMs) has been little studied in children. Objective: To evaluate the reduction of pharmacological treatment comparing children that receive HDM immunotherapy (AIT group) versus only pharmacotherapy. Methods: A historic cohort of children with rhinitis or asthma was assessed. The main outcome was the frequency of complete drug discontinuation. Results: 100% drug reduction was higher for rhinitis (4-year cumulative incidence: 30 vs 10.7%) and asthma (24.1 vs 10.5%) in the AIT group (n = 987) than in the pharmacotherapy group (n = 2012). Conclusion: Immunotherapy is associated with a significant reduction of pharmacotherapy in children. This is a marker of clinical control and could be associated with positive economic impact.

Is immunotherapy safe for treatment of severe asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The benefits of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), including subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT), for IgE-mediated asthma are well established, especially for dust mite. This review will explore whether the benefits of AIT outweigh the risks in severe asthmatic patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have mostly included mild and moderate asthmatic patients, but at least a few studies do show improvements in asthma symptoms and medication use in severe asthmatic patients. Asthma, and especially uncontrolled asthma, is a major risk factor for severe and fatal systemic reactions from SCIT. Uncontrolled asthma is an absolute contraindication for SCIT. It is less clear whether the benefits of SCIT and SLIT may outweigh the risks in well controlled, severe asthmatic patients, and further study is needed in this area. Asthma biologics, especially Omalizumab, may improve outcomes in severe, controlled asthmatic patients on SCIT, but further data are needed regarding timing of initiation and duration of treatment.

SUMMARY

Although severe asthmatic patients may benefit from AIT, significant risks exist, especially in those with uncontrolled asthma. Further study is needed regarding optimal strategies to minimize risks.

Study on Allopathic and Alternative Treatments of Asthma and Factors Influencing Treatment Choices

Materials and Methods

The cross-sectional survey was conducted; primary data were collected from asthmatic patients in different hospitals and clinics of allopathic, homeopathic, and herbal practitioners in Karachi, Pakistan. The study duration was from January 2020 to December 2020. Asthmatic patients aged over 13 years were selected for the study. A written informed consent was taken from the patients before the interview. Collected data were analyzed by the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS) 22.

Result

Among 255 asthmatic patients; 51.4% (n = 131) were male and 48.6% (n = 124) were female. For control of acute attacks of asthma 88.2% (p = 0.0001) of patients significantly preferred allopathic treatment while 6.3% (p = 0.008) used homeopathic treatment and 5.5% chose herbal treatment. For maintenance of asthma, 78.8% (p = 0.0001) patients used allopathic treatment while 12.4% (p = 0.0001) homeopathic and 8.8% (p = 0.0001) patients used herbal treatment. About 63.4% (p = 0.0001) of the asthmatic patients used short-acting β-2 agonists for managing acute asthmatic episodes while long-acting β-2 agonists (p = 0.0001) and inhaled corticosteroids (p = 0.0001) were found to be the preferred medicines for maintenance therapy. Effectiveness of treatment (p = 0.004) and cost effectiveness (p = 0.0001) significantly act as contributing factors for the selection of the treatment. The majority of the patients were satisfied with their chosen treatments for control of asthmatic symptoms.

Conclusion

Most asthmatic patients preferred allopathic treatment for the management of acute episodes and control of asthmatic symptoms. It was found that the major factors for selecting a specific treatment include effectiveness, cost, and minimal side effects.

Management of adult asthma and chronic rhinitis as one airway disease

Introduction: Chronic rhinitis is defined as nasal inflammation with the presence of minimum two symptoms such as nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing and/or itching one hour daily for a minimum of 12 weeks/year. According their etiology, four groups of rhinitis are described: allergic, infectious, non-allergic non-infectious and mixed.Chronic rhinitis is frequently associated with asthma, shares similar mechanisms of the pathogenesis and has a negative impact of its outcomes sustaining the concept of unified airways disease.Areas covered: The present review summarizes the complex relationship between chronic rhinitis and asthma on the basis of recent epidemiological data, clinical characteristics, diagnosis and therapeutic management. All four groups are discussed with the impact of their specific treatment on asthma outcomes. Some medications are common for chronic rhinitis and asthma while others are more specific but able to treat the associated comorbidity.Expert opinion: The systematic assessment of chronic rhinitis in patients with asthma and its specific treatment improves both disease outcomes. Conversely, several therapies of asthma demonstrated beneficial effects on chronic rhinitis. Treating both diseases at the same time by only one medication is an interesting option to explore in the future in order to limit drugs administration, related costs and side effects.

Effectiveness and safety of a glutaraldehyde-modified, L-tyrosine-adsorbed and monophosphoryl lipid A-Adjuvanted allergen immunotherapy in patients with allergic asthma sensitized to olive pollen: A retrospective, controlled real-world study

Background

Allergy to olive pollen is one of the primary causes of allergic asthma in Spain. Even though allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has shown clinical benefits in patients sensitized to different allergens, studies in asthmatic patients sensitized to olive pollen are insufficient.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness and safety of an ultra-short course of AIT with an L-tyrosine-adsorbed and monophosphoryl lipid A-adjuvanted olive pollen and olive/grass pollen extract (Pollinex Quattro®) in patients with allergic asthma in the real-world setting.

Methods

Retrospective, controlled study including patients with asthma, with and without allergic rhinitis, caused by sensitization to olive pollen from 11 centers in Spain. Patients received out-of-season (October–March) treatment with AIT in addition to their pharmacological treatment (active group) or pharmacological treatment (control group). Effectiveness variables, including unscheduled visits to the healthcare center, emergency room admissions, symptoms of asthma and rhinitis (following GEMA and ARIA classifications, respectively), and use of medication to treat asthma and rhinitis during the subsequent pollen season were compared between treatment groups.

Results

Of 131 study patients, 42 were treated with their usual asthma medication (control group) and 89 were treated with AIT (active group), either Pollinex Quattro® 100% olive pollen (n = 43, 48.3%) or 50% olive pollen/50% grass pollen (n = 46, 51.7%). Patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. The mean (SD) number of unscheduled visits to a healthcare center and emergency room admissions due to allergy symptoms was 2.19 (1.40) and 0.43 (0.63) in the control group, and 1.09 (1.25) and 0.11 (0.51) in the active group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively). Severity and control of asthma symptoms remained unchanged (P = 0.347 and P = 0.179, respectively), rhinitis type improved (P = 0.025), and severity remained unchanged in the active compared to the control group. The use of short-acting beta-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids to treat asthma symptoms decreased in the active vs. the control group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.031, respectively). Twelve (13.5%) and two (2.2%) patients in the active group experienced local adverse reactions (edema, swelling, erythema, hives, pruritus, and heat), and systemic adverse reactions (hypertensive crisis and low-grade fever) to AIT, respectively; none was serious.

Conclusion

AIT with Pollinex Quattro® specific for olive pollen and olive/grass pollens resulted in reduced visits to the healthcare center and emergency room and the use of asthma medication during the pollen season, indicating that this treatment was safe and effective in treating asthma in patients sensitized to these pollens.

Sensitization to major Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus allergens in house dust mite allergic patients from North Eastern Poland developing rhinitis or asthma

PURPOSE

Recognition of individual allergens by IgE is crucial for triggering symptoms in allergic rhinitis (AR) or asthmatic (AA) patients. House dust mite (HDM) allergy is frequent around the world, the sensitization profile to individual HDM allergens varies in individual HDM-allergic patients (APs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the pattern of IgE sensitization to three major Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (Dp) allergens among patients from North Eastern Poland suffering from HDM-AR and/or AA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was performed on 323 HDM-AR and/or AA patients and 106 controls (CG) including 30 healthy non-atopic subjects, 32 AR patients not sensitized to Dp and 44 non-atopic asthmatics. IgE levels to natural (n)Der p 1, nDer p 2, recombinant (r)Der p 2.0101 and rDer p 23 allergens were measured by ELISA.

RESULTS

The majority of HDM-APs were sensitized to nDer p 1 (72.1%), nDer p 2 (81.7%), rDer p 2.0101 (78.3%) and rDer p 23 (70.9%). The frequency of positive results to individual allergens depended on clinical manifestations and the level of IgE to the whole Dp extract. In HDM-AA patients, reactivity to nDer p 1 and rDer p 23 was detected more frequently than in HDM-AR patients. The whole Dp extract completely inhibited IgE binding to nDer p 1 and nDer p 2 but only partially to rDer p 23.

CONCLUSIONS

HDM-APs from North-Eastern Poland display sensitization profile to major allergens which is similarly observed in western Europe. HDM-based diagnostic and therapeutic products should include all major allergens.