Hyposensitization with Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus in house dust allergy: a controlled study of clinical and immunological effects

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.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.

House dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for treating eczema

BACKGROUND

Eczema is an inflammatory skin disease that tends to involve skin creases, such as the folds of the elbows or knees; it is an intensely itchy skin condition, which can relapse and remit over time. As many as a third of people with eczema who have a positive test for allergy to house dust mite have reported worsening of eczema or respiratory symptoms when exposed to dust.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of all house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 14 August 2014: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), and the GREAT database. We also searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant studies. We handsearched abstracts from international eczema and allergy meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any of the house dust mite reduction and avoidance measures for the treatment of eczema, which included participants of any age diagnosed by a clinician with eczema as defined by the World Allergy Organization. We included all non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that sought to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite and their allergenic faeces. The comparators were any active treatment, no treatment, placebo, or standard care only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently checked the titles and abstracts identified, and there were no disagreements. We contacted authors of included studies for additional information. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies of 324 adults and children with eczema. Overall, the included studies had a high risk of bias. Four of the seven trials tested interventions with multiple components, and three tested a single intervention. Two of the seven trials included only children, four included children and adults, and one included only adults. Interventions to reduce or avoid exposure to house dust mite included covers for mattresses and bedding, increased or high-quality vacuuming of carpets and mattresses, and sprays that kill house dust mites.Four studies assessed our first primary outcome of 'Clinician-assessed eczema severity using a named scale'. Of these, one study (n = 20) did not show any significant short-term benefit from allergen impermeable polyurethane mattress encasings and acaricide spray versus allergen permeable cotton mattress encasings and placebo acaricide spray. One study (n = 60) found a modest statistically significant benefit in the Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD) scale over six months (mean difference of 4.2 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.7), P = 0.008) in favour of a mite impermeable bedding system combined with benzyltannate spray and high-filtration vacuuming versus mite permeable cotton encasings, water with a trace of alcohol spray, and a low-filtration vacuum cleaner. The third study (n = 41) did not compare the change in severity of eczema between the two treatment groups. The fourth study (n = 86) reported no evidence of a difference between the treatment groups.With regard to the secondary outcomes 'Participant- or caregiver-assessed global eczema severity score' and the 'Amount and frequency of topical treatment required', one study (n = 20) assessed these outcomes with similar results being reported for these outcomes in both groups. Four studies (n = 159) assessed 'Sensitivity to house dust mite allergen using a marker'; there was no clear evidence of a difference in sensitivity levels reported between treatments in any of the four trials.None of the seven included studies assessed our second primary outcome 'Participant- or caregiver-assessed eczema-related quality of life using a named instrument' or the secondary outcome of 'Adverse effects'.We were unable to combine any of our results because of variability in the interventions and paucity of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to determine clear implications to inform clinical practice from the very low-quality evidence currently available. The modest treatment responses reported were in people with atopic eczema, specifically with sensitivity to one or more aeroallergens. Thus, their use in the eczema population as a whole is unknown. High-quality long-term trials of single, easy-to-administer house dust mite reduction or avoidance measures are worth pursuing.

An evidence-based analysis of house dust mite allergen immunotherapy: a call for more rigorous clinical studies

BACKGROUND

According to meta-analyses and reviews, subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) are beneficial in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) induced by house dust mites (HDMs). However, the reported effect sizes have varied greatly from one study to another.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to perform an evidence-based medicine assessment of commercially available SCIT and SLIT formulations in patients with HDM-induced AA and HDM-induced AR.

METHODS

We searched for double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and analyzed study designs, doses, regimens, patient-reported outcomes, safety reporting, and compliance.

RESULTS

Forty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. Some studies tested both SLIT and SCIT or scored both AA and AR outcomes; therefore we reviewed 35 treatment arms in patients with AA (20 for SCIT and 15 for SLIT) and 23 treatment arms in patients with AR (7 for SCIT and 16 for SLIT). The treatment duration ranged from 6 weeks to 3 years. For SCIT, the dose of Der p 1 major allergen (when reported) ranged from 7 to 30 μg for maintenance doses and 60 to 420 μg for cumulative doses. For SLIT, the doses of Der p 1 (when reported) were 0.8 to 70 μg for maintenance doses and 60 to 23,695 μg for cumulative doses. Safety data were often absent or poorly reported. A statistically significant active versus placebo symptom score was observed more frequently for SCIT than for SLIT.

CONCLUSION

There is no consensus on basic treatment parameters (eg, dose and duration) in HDM SCIT and SLIT. There is an urgent need for rigorous, long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an efficacy criterion that reflects the particular features of HDM-induced allergic disease.

Sublingual immunotherapy with house dust extract for house dust-mite allergic rhinitis in children

BACKGROUND

House dust extract is used in conventional immunotherapy for house dust-mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis in Japan. However, an alternative administration route is desired. The aims of the present double blind, placebo-controlled trial were to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with house dust extract in pediatric patients with HDM allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

The study population comprised 31 subjects (21 males and 10 females) aged from 7 to 15 years old. Twenty patients (the active group) received house dust extract and 11 received placebo via sublingual administration. Extract or placebo (1 ml) was administered at 10-fold dilution once weekly for 40 weeks. During the study period, the subjects recorded their daily nasal symptoms and use (dose and frequency) of other medications in a nasal allergy diary.

RESULTS

The symptom scores in the active group began to decrease about 24 weeks after initiation of treatment and significant differences between the active and placebo groups were observed after 30 weeks. The average scores for the last four weeks of the study were significantly lower than those for the first four weeks in the active group but not in the placebo group. The only local adverse effect was a bitter taste reported by one patient. There were no other local or systemic adverse effects associated with SLIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that SLIT with house dust extract for more than 30 weeks is safe and effective treatment for HDM allergic rhinitis in children.

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.

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.

Immunotherapy for allergic asthma

Specific allergen immunotherapy is an effective treatment of allergic asthma. Double-blind studies provide proof of benefit, although seasonal or intermittent asthma consistently responds better than perennial asthma. Advantages of immunotherapy compared with most pharmacotherapies include modification of the natural history of allergic disease, reduction of need for chronic medication, and treatment of both upper and lower airway disease simultaneously. Improvements in immunotherapy occurred in the later portion of the twentieth century because of enhanced understanding of immunotherapy's mechanism of action, recognition of the dose effect, and improved quality and consistency of allergen vaccines. Purified inhibitors of specific mediators of the allergic response, products of biotechnology, will probably lead to improvements of immunotherapy of asthma in the twenty-first century. The future of immunotherapy and other immunomodulation of allergic asthma is promising.

The consideration of immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic asthma

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy (IT) has undergone rigorous trials to evaluate its therapeutic benefit in the treatment of allergic respiratory disease. The tools of molecular biology have provided a framework with which to begin to understand the mechanistic effects of IT on the underlying inflammatory component of allergic respiratory disease.

RESULTS

The clinical relevance of these observations belies our understanding of allergic inflammation as the subsoil for the development of abnormal airway physiology, heightened bronchial reactivity, and the development of chronic asthmatic symptomatology.

CONCLUSIONS

IT provides the potential to downregulate this inflammatory cascade, reduce IgE antibody production, and attenuate symptoms. Conceptually, early intervention of allergic disease holds the most promise as a therapeutic intervention capable of arresting the progression of the disease, altering the severity of the disease, and/or preventing the development of the respiratory disease process.

Analyzing meta-analyses of specific immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

To review the differences and similarities of the meta-analyses dealing with asthma immunotherapy (IT).

DATA SOURCES

Published papers by Abramson et al (Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995;151:969-974) and Ross et al (Clin Ther 2000;22:329-341).

RESULTS

Based on the review of published data concerning meta-analyses of published clinical studies using IT to treat asthma, it is an effective treatment. IT can significantly reduce asthma symptoms and medication requirements. Both specific and nonspecific bronchial hyperresponsiveness were decreased, but improvement as measured by lung function tests was inconsistent.

CONCLUSIONS

IT needs to be considered in the treatment of allergic asthmatic patients.

Immunotherapy for asthma: unfavorable studies

INTRODUCTION

Many studies have demonstrated efficacy of immunotherapy (IT) for asthma. Two meta-analyses reached the same conclusion. Because some studies failed to demonstrate efficacy, it is instructive to review reasons why that may have been the case.

METHODS

Two meta-analyses were used to identify studies that did and did not demonstrate efficacy. These were reviewed to identify the sources of variability.

RESULTS

Most studies are able to demonstrate a treatment effect of IT although they have wide confidence intervals. The studies were heterogeneous with respect to selection of subjects, underlying populations, the main treatment protocol, concomitant treatments, the duration of treatment and followup, and the effect of the protocol on concurrent treatment. There were also problems with the blinding. In most cases, it was difficult to determine how the doses of extract given compared between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies that fail to demonstrate a treatment effect of IT may do so for many reasons. Given the heterogeneity of IT clinical trials as a group, it is not surprising that variable results occur. The use of multiple studies in a meta-analysis with its underlying assumption of homogeneity is problematic.

Effectiveness of specific immunotherapy in the treatment of asthma: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Despite decades of positive experience with specific immunotherapy (SIT) in the treatment of asthma, outcomes associated with SIT have not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of SIT plus medical treatment with those of SIT without medical treatment in patients with asthma.

METHODS

All studies of SIT in patients with asthma published in English between the years 1966 and 1998 were identified through a MEDLINE search. All prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of SIT identified by the search were included in the meta-analysis. One author (R.N.R.) extracted data from these studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 24 identified studies of the clinical effectiveness of SIT in the treatment of asthma, involving 962 asthmatic patients with documented allergy. Immunotherapy was judged effective in 17 (71%) of the 24 studies, ineffective in 4 (17%), and equivocal in 3 (12%) (chi2 = 15.25, df = 2, P = 0.0005). Symptoms of asthma were more likely to improve in patients who received SIT than in patients who received placebo (OR 2.76, 95% CI 2.22 to 3.42). Results also favored the immunotherapy group for improvement in pulmonary function (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.82 to 4.52), protection against bronchial challenge (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.49), and reduced need for medications (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.72).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analysis support the conclusion that SIT is effective in a population of patients with allergen-triggered asthma.

The consideration of immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic asthma

Immunotherapy has undergone rigorous trials to assess its therapeutic benefit in the treatment of allergic respiratory disease. The tools of molecular biology have provided a framework with which to begin to understand the mechanistic effects of immunotherapy on the underlying inflammatory component of allergic respiratory disease. The clinical relevance of these observations belies our understanding of allergic inflammation as the subsoil for the development of abnormal airway physiology, heightened bronchial reactivity, and the development of chronic asthmatic symptoms. Immunotherapy provides the potential to downregulate this inflammatory cascade, reduce IgE antibody production, and attenuate symptoms. Conceptually, early intervention of allergic disease holds the most promise as a therapeutic intervention capable of arresting the progression of the disease, altering the severity of the disease, and/or preventing the development of the respiratory disease process.

Immunotherapy with standardized extract of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus in bronchial asthma: a dose-titration study

According to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) achieved, we assessed the changes in clinical and laboratory parameters, induced by specific immunotherapy (SIT), in a group of 43 asthmatic patients sensitized to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, over a period of 18 months. A standardized extract (100 Bu/ml; 40 micrograms/ml of Der p 1; 20 micrograms/ml of Der p 2) was used. The patients were divided into two groups: the high-dose immunotherapy (HDI) group (MTD > or = 4 micrograms Der p I) and the conventional immunotherapy (CI) group (MTD < 4 micrograms Der p 1). Changes in clinical severity index, medication, and symptom scores; in cutaneous and conjunctival reactivity; and in the levels of specific IgE, IgG, IgG1, and IgG4 to D. pteronyssinus (Der p 1 and Der p 2) were measured (ELISA monoclonal antibodies). Safety was monitored according to the EAACI guidelines. The range of the MTD was 0.8-16 micrograms of Der p 1. Ninety percent of the patients tolerated a dose of 3.2 micrograms, but only 18% of the patients reached a maintenance dose of 16 micrograms. The medians of the accumulated dose were 197 micrograms of Der p 1 for the HDI group, and 50 micrograms for the CI group. Conjunctival and cutaneous reactivity was significantly lowered (P < 0.001) after SIT, as were the clinical severity score and medication score in both groups, without significant differences between the groups, except for cutaneous reactivity. Levels of specific IgE decreased significantly (P < 0.01) in both groups, again without significant differences between the groups. The range of the increase in medians of specific IgG, IgG1, and IgG4 was 4.4-120-fold for the HDI group and 3-24-fold for the CI group (P < 0.01). The increase in the levels of Der p 1 and Der p 2 IgG4 were correlated to the changes in cutaneous and conjunctival reactivity (P < 0.01). These results show that a maintenance dose of 3.2 micrograms Der p 1 (8 BU) can induce pronounced clinical and immunologic changes with an excellent safety profile.

A controlled trial of immunotherapy for asthma in allergic children

BACKGROUND

Injections of allergens are widely prescribed for patients with asthma, but little is known about the effectiveness of immunotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of multiple-allergen immunotherapy in 121 allergic children with moderate-to-severe, perennial asthma. The children, who required daily medication for their asthma, were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of either a mixture of up to seven aeroallergen extracts or a placebo. Maintenance injections were continued for 18 months or longer. Medications were adjusted every two to three weeks on the basis of peak flow rates and symptoms. The principal outcome was the daily medication score. Bronchial sensitivity to methacholine (the concentration provoking a 20 percent decrease in the forced expiratory volume in one second [PC20]) was measured twice yearly.

RESULTS

The median medication score declined from 5.4 to 4.9 in the immunotherapy group (P<0.001) and from 5.2 to 5.0 in the placebo group (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference between the groups (P>0.6). The number of days on which oral corticosteroids were used was similar in the two groups. Partial or complete remission of asthma occurred in 31 percent of the immunotherapy group and in 28 percent of the placebo group (P>0.5). There was no difference between the groups in the use of medical care, symptoms, or peak flow rates. The median PC20 increased significantly in both groups, but again with no difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunotherapy with injections of allergens for over two years was of no discernible benefit in allergic children with perennial asthma who were receiving appropriate medical treatment.

Safety considerations in assessing the role of immunotherapy in allergic disorders

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is accepted as an effective treatment of allergic diseases when high quality extracts are used. However, this form of treatment can cause untoward reactions among which systemic reactions are the most severe. Although life-threatening reactions are rare and deaths exceptionally reported, SIT should be prescribed by allergists to patients with well defined characteristics, and administered with care by (or under the close supervision of) physicians trained to deal rapidly with the reactions. Reactions with standardised extracts occur mostly during the dose increase phase but they can be prevented using adapted schedules and premedication. During maintenance injections or when vial batches are changed, standardised extracts of known shelf-life usually result in a low rate of systemic reactions. Patients with asthma are more prone to develop systemic reactions, and allergens should not be administered to patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) under 70% of predicted or in those who have unstable or symptomatic asthma. Systemic reactions may be observed with all allergens and allergenic preparations although it appears that high molecular weight extracts may be safer.

Lymphocyte transformation test with house dust mite (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) in normal children, asthmatic children and asthmatic children receiving hyposensitization

In the first part of this study the proliferative response of lymphocytes (lymphocyte transformation test) to house dust mite (HDM) stimulation in cultures was studied in normal children (n = 16), asthmatic children who never received hyposensitization (HS) (n = 50) and asthmatic children receiving HS with HDM for at least 6 months (n = 20). The results are expressed as disintegrations per minute (d.p.m.) and as stimulation index (SI = d.p.m. in the presence of the allergen/d.p.m. in the control culture). A positive SI (> 2) was found in 54% of the asthmatic children who never received HS, in 30% of the asthmatics receiving HS and in none of the normal children. Furthermore, between asthmatics with and without HS, the SI was not statistically different, although asthmatics without HS tended to have a higher SI (median value: 2.13 vs 1.38) (P = 0.10). In a second series of experiments the effect of adding interleukin-2 (IL-2) to the lymphocyte cell culture was studied in asthmatic children with and without HS. Interleukin-2 induced an additional stimulatory effect on the lymphoproliferative response to HDM and to phytohaemagglutinin in patients who never received HS, but had no effect in patients receiving HS. We conclude that HS treatment seems to have an inhibiting effect upon this proliferative response, not only inhibiting the degree of the allergen-induced lymphocyte proliferation, but also inhibiting the sensitivity of proliferating lymphocytes for IL-2. These inhibiting effects upon lymphocytic activation could be responsible for the anti-inflammatory effects (i.e. suppression of the late asthmatic reaction) of HS.

Subjective results of laser surgery for allergic rhinitis

Inferior turbinates of 389 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis were vaporized by a defocused carbon dioxide (CO2) laser beam, using specially designed handpieces. This laser surgery can be done under local anesthesia as an outpatient procedure, with no pain or bleeding. One month after laser surgery, 78% of 389 patients had excellent or good results, while 21 had no improvement, subjectively. Seventy-two of 389 patients were followed for over 2 years, and 61 of the 72 had excellent or good results. Twenty-seven of the 72 cases need revaporization because of recurrence. Patients with relapse less than one year after surgery had little improvement in subjective symptoms, even after revaporization; while patients with relapse more than one year after surgery responded well, and long-term results were favorable. All things considered, laser surgery is an effective treatment for perennial allergic rhinitis.

Allergen immunotherapy. Review of efficacy and current practice

The modern use of allergen immunotherapy is described. Evidence for efficacy in inhalant allergy and insect sting allergy is reviewed. Current indications for allergen immunotherapy are discussed.

A clinical index: a new method to assess efficacy of allergen immunotherapy

Assessment of efficacy in immunotherapy trials is difficult: a number of parameters can be measured; these may give conflicting results and it is not clear which best represents the clinical state. We therefore derived a Clinical Index (CI), by combining five individual parameters-diary card symptom score, visual analogue symptom score, drug score, nasal challenge and skin prick test-by rank analysis. The CI has been used to express the results in a trial of house dust mite (D. pteronyssinus) immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis, comparing two active treatments, Pharmalgen and Allpyral, with placebo. The derived index correlated well with all parameters measured. Correlations between the five individual parameters were variable: with the exception of the skin test, good correlations were seen, each parameter correlating with two or three of the others, but the visual analogue showed the closest association with other parameters. Results from a single parameter taken alone could be misleading, e.g. in the Allpyral group, nasal challenge improved significantly, but symptoms assessed either by visual analogue or diary card score did not. The CI showed significant improvement in the Pharmalgen group but not in the Allpyral group. The CI gave a more reliable measure of outcome than individual parameters.

Monitoring of mite Dermatophagoides farinae allergen-specific IgG and IgG subclass distribution in patients on immunotherapy

House dust mite D. farinae and Der f II-specific IgG and IgG subclass responses were evaluated in 32 adults with perennial rhinitis undergoing immunotherapy for 1 year by means of IgG-RAST and ELISA. The ELISA method, which is based on subclass-specific monoclonal antibodies, could detect 0.5-1.5 ng/ml of specific antibodies. D. farinae and Der f II-specific IgG4 antibodies increased continuously as immunotherapy proceeded, while total IgG and IgG1 antibodies reached a plateau value 6 months after the start of immunotherapy, followed by a slow decrease during maintenance therapy. During the early phase of treatment the concentration of IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies rose, even though the increase of IgG4 antibodies dominated. The positive clinical outcome as measured by the decrease in conjunctival sensitivity was associated with an increased ratio of specific IgG4/IgG1 antibodies as well as the magnitude of the IgG4 subclass response. Quantitation of IgG subclass antibodies in patients undergoing immunotherapy may be of some clinical value, but the clinical usefulness needs to be demonstrated for each type of allergen and possibly also for each assay system.

Immunotherapy in allergic respiratory diseases

Much more work is needed to specify the correct indications for immunotherapy in respiratory allergic diseases. Immunotherapy with pollen and mite extracts has shown some clinical efficacy versus placebo in controlled studies in allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. However, controlled studies comparing the cost, the risk factors and the efficacy of immunotherapy versus treatment with antihistaminic drugs, bronchodilators and topical steroids are needed. Additional studies are needed to established the place of immunotherapy in animal danders and mould allergy. In any case, before initiating immunotherapy in respiratory allergy the following questions must be answered: is there sufficient evidence of a close relationship between symptoms and allergen exposure? is it possible to achieve efficient allergen avoidance? is simple drug treatment no sufficient? is there evidence in the literature of effectiveness of IT for this allergen? is the patient able to comply with a long and constraining treatment?

Effects of one-year hyposensitization in allergic rhinitis. Comparison of two house dust mite extracts

In an open study, 21 patients suffering from chronic non-seasonal rhinitis and allergic to house mites (HDM) have been treated for 1 year with either a new extract (Pharmalagen; n = 10) or an allergoid, pyridine denatured, extract (Alavac; n = 11), both precipitated with AlOH3 (depot). The following investigations were performed before and after therapy: clinical scoring (for 4 weeks), quantified skin prick tests (SPT) and nasal provocation tests (NPT) with HDM, and determination in serum of HDM-specific IgE and IgG. Both groups were compared with six patients who remained untreated and underwent the same investigations. Hyposensitization with either extract induced an improvement in clinical scores (P less than 0.05), a decrease in SPT reactivity (Pharmalgen: P less than 0.001; Alavac: P less than 0.01), a marked increase in the nasal tolerance to HDM (P less than 0.001) and in HDM-specific IgG (P less than 0.001). In the group of untreated patients, all these parameters remained unchanged. Compared with the Alavac extract, the Pharmalgen extract was more active in decreasing SPT reactions (P less than 0.05) and inducing a HDM-specific IgG rise (P less than 0.05). Although both extracts induced some untoward allergic reactions, no adrenaline was used at any time during the study. These data suggest that hyposensitization with depot extracts of HDM can be considered a safe and active adjunct to the treatment of allergic rhinitis.