Simplified AIT for allergy to several tree pollens-Arguments from the immune outcome analyses following treatment with SQ tree SLIT-tablet

Recent developments in immunotherapy approaches for allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) poses a significant global health burden, with the potential to progress to asthma, thereby impacting patients' quality of life. Immunotherapy has demonstrated effectiveness in mitigating clinical symptoms by altering the underlying disease mechanisms of AR. This article provides a thorough review of the current state of immunotherapy for AR, encompassing various facets of immunotherapeutic strategies, elucidating their mechanisms and clinical implications. By presenting a nuanced understanding of the present landscape of immunotherapy for AR, this review aims to serve as a valuable reference for informing clinical treatment strategies. The subsequent analysis of diverse immunotherapeutic pathways offers a comprehensive understanding of their mechanisms and clinical implications. A meticulous examination is conducted on subcutaneous immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy, oral immunotherapy, intralymphatic immunotherapy, and innovative intravenous gold-induced autologous serum injection therapy. Each pathway is systematically elucidated, with its distinctive features and potential contributions to managing AR emphasized. In conclusion, synthesizing epidemiological insights, immunotherapeutic nuances, and pathway-specific analyses encapsulates a profound understanding of immunotherapy for AR.

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.

[Study on allergen components of birch pollen in Beijing area]

Objective:To explore the allergen components of birch pollen in the Beijing area and interpret its clinical significance. Methods:A total of 58 patients with birch pollen allergy were included in the cross-sectional study and divided into allergic rhinitis（AR） and allergic asthma（AA） groups according to clinical manifestations. Concentration of birch pollen allergen sIgE, as well as Bet v 1, Bet v 2, Bet v 4 and Bet v 6 sIgE were detected by ImmunoCAP immunolinked immunoassay. Differences of sIgE concentration of birch pollen allergen component in AR and AA were analyzed. Results:There were 44（75.9%） cases of AR and 14（24.1%） cases of AA were enrolled. All the 18 patients with spring pollen allergy were AR patients without AA. There were 40 cases with both spring and autumn pollen allergy, of which 26 cases（65%） were AR and 14 cases（35%） were AA. The sIgE of birch pollen allergen was level 2 or above in all subjects. 94.8% were positive for any four allergen components. 77.6% were mono-sensitized to any allergen component while 17.2% were dual-sensitized. The positive rate of Bet v 1 and/or Bet v 2 was 93.1%. The positive rates of four protein components were: Bet v 1（82.8%）, Bet v 2（29.3%）, Bet v 6（1.7%）, Bet v 4（0%）. sIgE of birch pollen was positively correlated with sIgE level of Betv 1（r=0.898, P<0.001）. The sIgE concentration of Bet v2 in AA group was significantly higher than that in AR group（[4.34±14.35] kUA/L vs [1.56±3.26] kUA/L, P<0.05）. There was no significant difference in other components. Conclusion:Bet v 1 is the main allergen component of birch pollen in the Beijing area, and Bet v 1 plus Bet v 2 can diagnose more than 90% of birch pollen allergy.

T cells specific to multiple Bet v 1 peptides are highly cross-reactive toward the corresponding peptides from the homologous group of tree pollens

Background

Allergens from Fagales trees frequently cause spring allergy in Europe, North America, and some parts of Asia. The definition of the birch homologous group, which includes birch (Bet v), oak (Que a), alder (Aln g), hazel (Cor a), hornbeam (Car b), beech (Fag s), and chestnut (Cas s), is based on high allergen sequence identity and extensive IgE cross-reactivity. Clinical effect was seen during the alder/hazel, birch, and oak pollen seasons after treatment with tree SLIT-tablets containing only birch allergen extract. Here, we characterize T-cell reactivity with respect to epitope specificities and cross-reactivity toward various Bet v 1 family members, (PR-10/group 1 major allergens). This cross-reactivity may be part of the immunological basis of clinical effect or cross-protection when exposed to birch homologous tree species.

Method

T-cell lines were generated from 29 birch-allergic individuals through stimulation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) with birch/Bet v or oak/Que a allergen extracts. T-cell responses to allergen extracts, purified group 1 allergens, and overlapping 20-mer peptides (Bet v 1, Aln g 1, Cor a 1, and Que a 1) were investigated by T-cell proliferation and cytokine production. Cross-reactivity was evaluated based on Pearson's correlations of response strength and further investigated by flow cytometry using tetramer staining for homologous peptide pairs.

Results

T-cell reactivity toward extracts and group 1 allergens from across the birch homologous group was observed for birch/Bet v as well as oak/Que a T-cell lines. T-cell lines responded to multiple Bet v 1 homologous peptides from Aln g 1 and Cor a 1 and a subset of Que a 1 peptides. Significant Pearson's correlations between frequently recognized peptides derived from Bet v 1 and the corresponding peptides derived from alder, hazel, and oak strongly supported the T-cell cross-reactivity toward these allergens. Cross-reactivity between birch and birch homologous peptides was confirmed by pMHCII tetramer staining.

Conclusion

T cells from birch tree pollen allergic individuals respond to multiple trees within the birch homologous group in accordance with the level of sequence homology between Bet v 1 family members, (PR-10 allergens) from these allergen sources, confirming the basis for clinical cross-protection.

Efficacy of Japanese cedar pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablets for Japanese cypress pollinosis

Background

We previously demonstrated the efficacy of Japanese cedar (JC) pollen sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets for treating seasonal allergic rhinitis in a clinical trial (trial no. 206-2-1) that covered 5 pollen dispersal seasons from 2015 to 2019.

Objective

Our aim was to perform post hoc analysis of the 206-2-1 trial data to evaluate the efficacy of JC pollen SLIT tablets for patients with rhinitis induced by pollen from Japanese cypress (JCY), a related Cupressaceae species that has a pollen dispersal season overlapping with that of JC.

Methods

Data were analyzed for 240 patients who received placebo during the first pollen dispersal season in 2015, were then rerandomized to receive JC SLIT tablets (the PA group) or placebo (the PP group) for 18 months (the 2016 and 2017 dispersal seasons), and were observed untreated for 2 years (the 2018 and 2019 dispersal seasons). The PA and PP groups were assigned to "high" and "low" subgroups if their rhinitis symptoms were exacerbated/did not change or decreased, respectively, during the peak JCY pollen dispersal period in 2015. The mean total nasal symptom and medication scores and other outcomes were compared for the high-PP, high-PA, low-PP, and low-PA groups during the 2016 to 2019 peak JCY pollen dispersal periods.

Results

The mean total nasal symptom and medication scores were significantly lower for the high-PA and low-PA groups than for the corresponding PP groups over the 4 years of treatment and observation. JCY pollen-specific IgE levels increased in both PA groups.

Conclusion

JC pollen SLIT tablets effectively suppressed JCY pollinosis symptoms, supporting the clinical relevance of immunologic cross-reactivity between JC and JCY allergens.

Japanese Cedar Pollen Allergens in Japan

Pollen from members of the Cupressaceae tree family is one of the most important causes of allergic disease in the world. Cryptomeria japonica (Japanese cedar) and Chamaecyparis obtusa (Japanese cypress) are Japan's most common tree species. The pollen dispersal season is mainly from February to May. The major allergens of Japanese cedar and Japanese cypress exhibit high amino acid sequence similarity due to the phylogenetic relationship between the two species. An epidemiological study has shown that the prevalence of Japanese cedar pollinosis is approximately 40%. Younger children (5 to 9 years old) showed a high prevalence of Japanese cedar pollinosis as 30% in 2019, indicating that season pollinosis is getting worse. Pharmacotherapy is the most common treatment for pollinosis induced by Japanese cedar and Japanese cypress. Patients' satisfaction with pharmacotherapy is low due to insufficient experienced effect and daytime somnolence. Unlike pharmacotherapy, allergy immunotherapy (AIT) addresses the basic immunological mechanisms of allergic disease and activates protective allergen-reactive pathways of the immune system. AIT is now recognized as the only treatment option with the potential to provide long-term post-treatment benefits and alter the natural course of the allergic disease, including Japanese cedar pollinosis.

Precision medicine in the allergy clinic: the application of component resolved diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

A precise diagnosis is key for the optimal management of allergic diseases and asthma. In vivo or in vitro diagnostic methods that use allergen extracts often fail to identify the molecules eliciting the allergic reactions.

AREAS COVERED

Component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) has solved most of the limitations of extract-based diagnostic procedures and is currently valuable tool for the precision diagnosis in the allergy clinic, for venom and food allergy, asthma, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. Its implementation in daily practice facilitates: a) the distinction between genuine multiple sensitizations and cross-reactive sensitization in polysensitized patients; b) the prediction of a severe, systemic reaction in food or insect venom allergy; c) the optimal selection of allergen immunotherapy based on the patient sensitization profile. This paper describes its main advantages and disadvantages, cost-effectiveness and future perspectives.

EXPERT OPINION

The diagnostic strategy based on CRD is part of the new concept of precision immunology, which aims to improve the management of allergic diseases.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Molecular allergology and its impact in specific allergy diagnosis and therapy

Progressive knowledge of allergenic structures resulted in a broad availability of allergenic molecules for diagnosis. Component-resolved diagnosis allowed a better understanding of patient sensitization patterns, facilitating allergen immunotherapy decisions. In parallel to the discovery of allergenic molecules, there was a progressive development of a regulation framework that affected both in vitro diagnostics and Allergen Immunotherapy products. With a progressive understanding of underlying mechanisms associated to Allergen immunotherapy and an increasing experience of application of molecular diagnosis in daily life, we focus in analyzing the evidences of the value provided by molecular allergology in daily clinical practice, with a focus on Allergen Immunotherapy decisions.

Simplified AIT for allergy to several tree pollens-Arguments from the immune outcome analyses following treatment with SQ tree SLIT-tablet

BACKGROUND

The SQ tree SLIT-tablet (containing birch extract) proved clinically significant effects during the pollen season for birch as well as alder/hazel. Immune outcomes of this treatment for allergens from multiple birch homologous trees need further investigation. We hypothesize that birch pollen extract AIT modulates a highly cross-reactive immune response and that this may be the basis for the observed clinical cross-protection.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected from 397 birch allergic patients during SQ tree SLIT-tablet or placebo treatment (1:1) for up to 40 weeks. Serum IgE and IgG₄ specific to birch, and birch homologous tree pollens from alder, hazel, hornbeam, beech and chestnut were measured by ImmunoCAP. IgE-Blocking Factor (IgE-BF) for alder, birch and hazel during treatment was measured by Advia Centaur and blocking effects for birch and all these birch homologous tree pollens were further investigated by basophil activation (BAT). Antibody readouts were investigated in patient subsets. T-cell responses (proliferation) to allergen extracts and peptide pools (group 1 allergens) were investigated in T-cell lines from 29 untreated birch pollen-allergic individuals.

RESULTS

Significant Pearson correlations between serum IgE towards birch, alder, hazel, hornbeam and beech were observed (r-values > .86). T-cell reactivity was observed throughout the birch homologous group. Almost identical kinetics for changes in IgE towards birch, alder and hazel were observed during treatment and similar species-specific changes were seen for serum-IgG₄ . IgG₄ reactivity towards birch and alder, hazel, hornbeam and beech correlated significantly at end-of-treatment (r-values > .72). Treatment resulted in similar IgE-BF kinetics for alder, birch, and hazel and blocking of BAT for multiple trees in most actively treated patients investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic analyses of T-cell and antibody cross-reactivities before and during birch pollen extract AIT provide the immunological basis for the observed clinical effect of SQ tree SLIT-tablet treatment of tree pollen allergy induced by multiple trees in the birch homologous group.