Randomized controlled open study of sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy in real-life: clinical efficacy and more

The pharmacotherapeutic management of allergic rhinitis in people with asthma

INTRODUCTION

Up to 90% of asthmatic patients have comorbid allergic rhinitis (AR). Although appropriate therapy of AR can improve asthma symptoms and management, AR is often underdiagnosed and under-treated in asthmatics.A non-systematic literature research was conducted on AR as a comorbidity and risk factor of asthma. Latest international publications in medical databases, international guidelines, and the Internet were reviewed.

AREAS COVERED

Based on the conducted literature research there is proved evidence of the necessity of diagnosis and treatment of AR in patients with asthma because it affects health care utilization. Therefore, it is recommended in national and global guidelines.

EXPERT OPINION

AR increases the risk of asthma development and contributes to the severity of an existing asthma. Early treatment of AR with drugs as intranasal steroids, antihistamines, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and especially allergen-specific immunotherapy can reduce the risk of asthma development and the concomitant medication use in addition to severity of symptoms in AR and asthma.

Prevention Is Better than Cure: Impact of Allergen Immunotherapy on the Progression of Airway Disease

Allergen immunotherapy is highly effective for seasonal pollinosis. Three years of treatment results in long-term efficacy. This disease modification is accompanied by downregulation of allergen-specific Th2 responses and the induction of persistent specific IgG- and IgA-associated IgE-blocking activity. In children with seasonal rhinitis, both subcutaneous and sublingual pollen immunotherapy have been shown to reduce the development of asthma symptoms and asthma medication requirements. House dust mite tablet allergen immunotherapy has been shown to be effective for perennial mite-driven rhinitis in adults and children and may suppress asthma exacerbations, whereas its long-term efficacy has yet to be explored. The success of primary prevention of peanut allergy in childhood by introduction of peanut into the diet during infancy provides a strong rationale to explore whether primary prevention of inhalant allergies and asthma may also be possible. House dust mite allergy is a major risk factor for developing asthma. Preliminary data in at-risk children suggest that sublingual house dust mite immunotherapy initiated during infancy could reduce the onset of multiple allergen sensitizations and prevent the development of asthma at age 6 years. This possibility should now be explored in an adequately powered, prospectively randomized controlled trial.

Shared Decision-Making in Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) Options Using a Questionnaire for Respiratory Allergic Patients: A Delphi Consensus Study

Purpose

The objective of this study was to develop and validate a questionnaire, through a Delphi consensus, to be used by allergists in their routine clinical practice to assess the preferences of patients starting allergen immunotherapy (AIT) treatment using an objective approach.

Patients and Methods

A Delphi consensus-driven process was used. The scientific committee, composed of 15 allergists, led the study and participated in the preparation of the questionnaire. Two-hundred panelists from different Spanish regions were invited to complete a 16-item questionnaire on a nine-point Likert scale covering six topic blocks. Consensus was achieved if ≥66.6% of panelists reached agreement or disagreement.

Results

Of the 200 experts invited to participate in the Delphi process, a total of 195 (97.5%) answered the questionnaire. The panel experts reached a consensus on "agreement" on a total of 12 of the 16 (75.0%) items, covering a total of six categories: (a) patient knowledge (2 questions), (b) barriers to patient adherence (3 questions), (c) patient behavior (4 questions), (d) future actions (3 questions), (e) treatment costs (2 questions), and (f) final patient preferences (2 questions).

Conclusion

This Delphi consensus study validated a set of twelve recommended questions for patients objectively assessing their preferences and suitability for the most common AIT options available. The questionnaire intends to assist allergists in making an objective, unconditioned decision regarding the best AIT option for each patient, after informing them about the different routes.

Ragweed pollen concentration predicts seasonal rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma severity in patients allergic to ragweed

In this work, we investigate the correlation between ragweed pollen concentration and conjunctival, nasal, and asthma symptom severity in patients allergic to ragweed pollen using ambient pollen exposure in the Milan area during the 2014 ragweed season We calculate the pollen/symptom thresholds and we assess the effectiveness of ragweed allergen immunotherapy (AIT). A total of 66 participants allergic to ragweed (Amb a 1) were enrolled in the study and divided into two groups: AIT treated (24) and no AIT treated (42). Pollen counts and daily symptom/medication patient diaries were kept. Autoregressive distributed lag models were used to develop predictive models of daily symptoms and evaluate the short-term effects of temporal variations in pollen concentration on the onset of symptoms. We found significant correlations between ragweed pollen load and the intensity of symptoms for all three symptom categories, both in no AIT treated (τ = 0.341, 0.352, and 0.721; and ρ = 0.48, 0.432, and 0.881; p-value < 0.001) and in AIT treated patients (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\tau$$\end{document}τ= 0.46, 0.610, and 0.66; and ρ = 0.692, 0.805, and 0.824; p-value < 0.001). In both groups, we observed a positive correlation between the number of symptoms reported and drug use. Mean symptom levels were significantly higher in no AIT treated than in AIT treated patients (p-value < 0.001) for all symptom categories. Pollen concentration thresholds for the four symptom severity levels (low, medium–low, medium–high and high) were calculated. Ragweed pollen concentration is predictive of symptom severity in patients with a ragweed (Amb a 1) allergy. Patients treated with AIT had significantly reduced mean symptom levels compared to those without AIT.

Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America

Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.

Does allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis prevent asthma?

Asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR) have overlapping clinical and pathologic features, sustained by an underlying T helper 2 bias, resulting in airway inflammation that extends from the nose to the lung. Children who are monosensitized often develop polysensitization over time, and they are at high risk of developing asthma. The effect of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is allergen specific, resulting in symptom improvement and reduction in medication requirement. It is the only known treatment that alters the natural history of allergic disease and induces long-term remission. A bystander or allergen-nonspecific effect of AIT has also been proposed-that AIT to 1 allergen might reduce the risk of development of sensitization to other allergens. Furthermore, several observational studies and clinical trials, in seasonal (pollen) and perennial (house dust mite) AR, have investigated a protective effect of AIT to prevent asthma. The overall evidence favors an asthma preventive effect of AIT in AR to grass and birch tree pollen. Fewer studies have investigated the use of AIT in children with perennial AR due to house dust mite allergy to prevent asthma, and the results are less convincing. The use of AIT to reduce the risk of progression to asthma, in children with AR, potentially has high impact, and it will make AIT more attractive and cost-effective. However, most studies have been of small sample size or of poor design, using different allergens and AIT methodology, making it challenging to draw firm conclusions. There is a need to do adequately powered studies with optimal design and assess cost-effectiveness of this strategy.

Effectiveness of Sublingual Immunotherapy in the Treatment of HDM-Induced Nasobronchial Allergies: A 3-Year Randomized Case-Control Study From Kashmir

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment for allergic disorders that induces immunological tolerance through administration of specific allergens. Studies on AIT for subcutaneous route are in abundance; however, the efficacy of AIT in tablet form through sublingual route has not been well elucidated. The present prospective, parallel-group, controlled study sought to compare the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets with pharmacotherapy (PT) in 332 house dust mite (HDM)-specific allergic asthma and/or rhinitis patients over a period of 3 years. Patients were followed up for a 6-month run-in period and then randomly stratified as those who would receive SLIT, SLIT in addition to PT (SLIT+PT), and PT alone. AIT was administered in the form of sublingual tablets. Symptom and medication scores were measured every 3 months. In vitro evaluation of serum total and HDM specific immunoglobulin E (HDM sIgE) levels was carried out every 3 months, whereas in vivo skin prick test was performed annually for 3 years. Our study demonstrated sustained clinical improvement, reduction in inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dose and duration as well as prevention from development of neosensitization to other aero allergens in HDM-allergic asthmatics and/or rhinitis patients treated with 3 years SLIT. Despite a remarkable clinical improvement with AIT, we observed that SLIT did not significantly change the skin reactivity to HDM at 3 years and there was no significant change in the ratio of serum total and HDM sIgE. Given the immune and disease modifying effects of AIT in allergic diseases, the present study supports the notion of its sublingual mode being an effective long-term immunomodulator in HDM-sensitized nasobronchial allergies.

Allergic Rhinitis in Children and Adolescents

Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder that regularly occurs in children and adolescents. The disease is associated with other allergic diseases, such as asthma, and it carries a heavy burden, with effects on sleep, school performance, and quality of life. Classic symptoms include sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal itching. When the eyes are involved, the term allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is used. Triggers may include airborne pollens, molds, dust mites, and animals. Skin or blood allergy testing can be a useful diagnostic modality that may guide therapy. Immunotherapy can prevent the development of further allergic sensitizations as well as subsequent asthma.

Allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: Quality appraisal of observational comparative effectiveness studies using the REal Life Evidence AssessmeNt Tool. An EAACI methodology committee analysis

Background

Observational comparative effectiveness studies in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represent an important evidence source answering research questions that can be challenging to obtain from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), such as long-term benefits of AIT, the effects on asthma prevention and the onset of new allergen sensitizations. However, observational studies are prone to several sources of bias, which limit their reliability.The REal Life Evidence AssessmeNt Tool (RELEVANT) was recently developed to assist in quality appraisal of observational comparative research to enable identification of useful nonrandomized studies to be considered within guideline development.

Objective

To systematically appraise the quality of published observational comparative AIT studies using RELEVANT.

Methods

Observational studies comparing AIT to pharmacotherapy for respiratory allergies, assessing as outcome measures reduction of symptoms and/or medication use reduction, were retrieved by computerized bibliographic searches. According to RELEVANT, a failure to meet any one of primary items (background, design, measures, analysis, results, discussion/interpretation, and conflict of interest) represents a critical flaw, significantly undermining the validity of the study results.

Results

The 14 studies identified supported the benefit of AIT in real-life, which persists after treatment discontinuation. However, none of them met all the 7 primary RELEVANT criteria. The main defects were reported in the design (28.6% of studies), measures and analysis (64.3% of studies), and results (78.6% of studies) items, due to selection bias and lack of methods for adjusting controls. Half of the studies did not report on conflict of interest.

Conclusion

There is a need for more robust observational research in AIT. RELEVANT appears as an easy-to-use and sensitive tool for quality appraisal in AIT studies.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient's profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient's adherence to the treatment. This user's guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.

De novo sensitization during subcutaneous allergen specific immunotherapy - an analysis of 51 cases of SCIT and 33 symptomatically treated controls

Since the beneficial implementation of allergen specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), there are only a few studies on the risk of SCIT-induced neosensitizations. In 51 patients, we retrospectively analyzed sIgE and sIgG patterns by a multiplex ELISA as well as demographic and clinical features before and after SCIT. 33 allergic patients, who only received symptomatic treatment, served as controls. In 12 of 51 SCIT-treated patients (24%), we found new sIgE against allergen components of the allergen source treated by SCIT; eight of them were adults. Among controls, no adult patient showed neosensitization to components of the primarily affected allergen source. Only two children of the control group were affected by neosensitization, which was limited to major allergen components and rarely accompanied by sIgG. In the SCIT-treated group, neosensitization affected major and minor allergen components, and was accompanied by a strong induction of sIgG against major components. A clear clinical predictor of neosensitization during SCIT was not found. Comparing symptom scores, patients seem to profit more from SCIT, if neosensitization remained absent. Patients undergoing SCIT might carry an enhanced risk of neosensitization towards formerly unrecognized allergen components. According to anamnestic data, these neosensitizations might be of clinical relevance - supporting attempts towards personalized recombinant vaccines.

Allergic Rhinitis in Children and Adolescents

Allergic rhinitis is a common disorder that regularly occurs in children and adolescents. The disease is associated with other allergic diseases, such as asthma, and it carries a heavy burden, with effects on sleep, school performance, and quality of life. Classic symptoms include sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, and nasal itching. When the eyes are involved, the term allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is used. Triggers may include airborne pollens, molds, dust mites, and animals. Skin or blood allergy testing can be a useful diagnostic modality that may guide therapy. Immunotherapy can prevent the development of further allergic sensitizations as well as subsequent asthma.

Options of immunotherapeutic treatments for children with asthma

Introduction: Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children. Avoiding triggers, and pharmacologic treatment with short acting beta-agonist, inhaler corticosteroids and anti-leukotriene are often enough to obtain symptoms control. Nevertheless, there is a subset of children with severe asthma and poor symptom control despite maximal therapy. In these patients, anti-IgE and anti-IL5 monoclonal antibodies are suggested as the fifth step of Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Area covered: Immunotherapeutic treatments are now suggested for asthma management. This article will discuss the available evidence on allergen immunotherapy and biologic drugs in pediatric asthma treatment. Expert opinion: Previously published studies demonstrated a good efficacy and safety profile of Allergen Immunotherapy in patients with mild-moderate asthma and sensitization to one main allergen. New understanding of mechanisms underlying severe asthma inflammation has allowed the identifications of specific biomarkers guiding the clinician in the choice of patient specific drug. Among the suggested immunotherapeutic options, omalizumab (blocking IgE) remains the first choice for atopic 'early onset' asthma in patients aged over 6 years. Instead, mepolizumab (blocking the IL5 ligand) should be considered for 'eosinophilic' asthma. Other biologic drugs are under consideration but data on the pediatric population are still lacking.

Ways to increase adherence to allergen immunotherapy

Adherence to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is crucial for its efficacy. Subcutaneous AIT requires monthly visits (or more extended in the case of venom immunotherapy), while sublingual AIT is performed with a daily intake of allergen drops. Non-adherence to an AIT schedule and premature discontinuation are common problems. Various studies have shown controversial results on the rate of AIT adherence. The aim of this review is to describe the problem of non-adherence and to offer some evidence-based advice to allergologists on how to increase it. Better patient education at the beginning of treatment, sharing with patients the decision on which type of immunotherapy to select and showing sincere interest in their treatment concerns are some tips that can help to increase adherence. A well organized allergologist time schedule not only increases safety but also offers the possibility of close follow-up and an increase in patient loyalty.

Efficacy of add-on sublingual immunotherapy for adults with asthma: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces symptom scores and the use of rescue medication in children with allergic asthma, but the effect of SLIT therapy in adult patients has not been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy and adverse effects of SLIT add-on vs conventional medication in adult patients with mild to moderate asthma.

METHODS

We systematically searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Central databases. Eligible studies included adult patients with allergic asthma who received either SLIT or standard care. Standard mean differences were used as measures of efficacy in a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty trials that included 2,288 patients in the SLIT add-on group and 1,268 patients in the traditional therapy group were identified as eligible for final analysis. Compared with traditional therapy, SLIT add-on therapy was associated with significant improvements in lower and upper airway scores, a higher forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and maximal expiratory flow at 25% of forced vital capacity, and improved bronchial reactivity. Drug consumptions were significantly decreased as well. Airway inflammatory parameters, such as nasal eosinophil infiltration, were markedly improved.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggested that long-term SLIT add-on therapy is a complementary treatment for adults with asthma in addition to conventional medicine. It not only reduces symptom scores but also improves lung function and airway inflammation.

Quality-of-life outcomes in patients who underwent subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy in a real-world clinical setting

OBJECTIVE

To compare changes in quality of life (QOL) that resulted from sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in a real-world clinical setting.

BACKGROUND

SLIT is established as a viable alternative to SCIT for the treatment of allergic rhinitis. Although comparative trials are increasingly available, few studies have examined QOL outcomes between these two treatments.

METHODS

One hundred and five participants who underwent immunotherapy for airborne allergies were enrolled in this prospective, single-center study. Forty participants completed the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) at initiation of therapy, after 6 months, and after 1 year of therapy. Only patients with complete time points were included in the ultimate analysis. Twenty-nine of these participants underwent SCIT and 11 underwent SLIT. The effects of age, sex, and asthma history were also examined.

RESULTS

The participants in both groups demonstrated improvements in QOL regarding allergic rhinoconjunctivitis over the study period. However, the change in the RQLQ score from both baseline to 6 months and baseline to 1 year was only statistically significant in the SCIT group (p = 0.002, 6 months and 1 year). The participants in the SCIT group also demonstrated statistically significant improvement from baseline to 1 year in the specific domains of practical and emotional functioning, nasal symptoms, non-nasal/eye symptoms, and sleep. After 1 year, both SCIT and SLIT demonstrated a minimally important difference from baseline in the overall RQLQ score. Age <35 years in the SCIT group had a significant positive impact on QOL improvement (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

Although improvements in QOL were noted in both groups, changes in overall scores and the majority of domains only achieved statistical significance in the SCIT group. A small study population and difficulties adhering to immunotherapy dosing schedules in the SLIT group may be contributing factors.

SLIT's Prevention of the Allergic March

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The progression of atopic disorders from atopic dermatitis in infants to allergic rhinitis and asthma in children, adolescents, and adults defines the allergy march. Allergen immunotherapy is the only causal treatment altering the immunological mechanism underlying the allergic diseases. The sublingual administration route is more acceptable than the subcutaneous one in pediatric age.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies show the efficacy and safety profile of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for the treatment of respiratory allergy diseases, but few data are available on its effect of primary and secondary prevention of allergic disease. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the latest studies addressing the effect of SLIT on the development of new sensitizations in not sensitized or already sensitized patients and progression of the allergy march.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of sublingual immunotherapy with house-dust mite extract for allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with house-dust mite (HDM) extract in Chinese patients with HDM-induced allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial was conducted with the outpatients of the Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat Hospital, Fudan University. Forty-eight patients were eligible for randomization to SLIT with a mixture of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Dermatophagoides farinae extract or placebo for 1 year. The primary outcome measures for efficacy were the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and the individual nasal symptom score. Secondary end points were allergic conjunctivitis scores (ACS) and medication scores (MS). Adverse events (AE) also were monitored.

RESULTS

Intragroup analysis demonstrated a significant improvement in the active treatment group for individual nasal symptom score and TNSS (p < 0.05), although no improvement was observed in the placebo group of congestion, sneezing, and itching (p > 0.05). Furthermore, the ACS and MS in the active treatment group also statistically decreased (p < 0.05). In addition, the active treatment had significant effects on relieving nasal symptoms both in adults and children (p < 0.05), and no statistical difference was observed between these two subgroups (p > 0.05). AEs that occurred ranged from mild to moderate, and no severe systematic reactions were observed.

CONCLUSION

SLIT with a mixture of HDM extract significantly relieved allergy symptoms and reduced the need for antiallergic drugs, which indicated the superiority of active treatment over placebo for patients with HDM-induced AR. However, due to the limited sample size, the findings need to be further confirmed.

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Prevention of allergy

Allergic diseases are common and frequently coexist. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a disease-modifying treatment for IgE-mediated allergic disease with effects beyond cessation of AIT that may include important preventive effects. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has developed a clinical practice guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for AIT for the prevention of (i) development of allergic comorbidities in those with established allergic diseases, (ii) development of first allergic condition, and (iii) allergic sensitization. This guideline has been developed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) framework, which involved a multidisciplinary expert working group, a systematic review of the underpinning evidence, and external peer-review of draft recommendations. Our key recommendation is that a 3-year course of subcutaneous or sublingual AIT can be recommended for children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic rhinitis (AR) triggered by grass/birch pollen allergy to prevent asthma for up to 2 years post-AIT in addition to its sustained effect on AR symptoms and medication. Some trial data even suggest a preventive effect on asthma symptoms and medication more than 2 years post-AIT. We need more evidence concerning AIT for prevention in individuals with AR triggered by house dust mites or other allergens and for the prevention of allergic sensitization, the first allergic disease, or for the prevention of allergic comorbidities in those with other allergic conditions. Evidence for the preventive potential of AIT as disease-modifying treatment exists but there is an urgent need for more high-quality clinical trials.

Efficacy of allergen immunotherapy in reducing the likelihood of developing new allergen sensitizations: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Guidelines and position papers indicate that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment, including prevention of the onset of new allergen sensitizations. However, this preventive effect was shown by only a few observational studies. Our aim was to systematically review the efficacy of AIT in preventing the onset of new allergen sensitizations.

METHODS

Computerized bibliographic searches of Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (through June 2015) were supplemented with manual searches of reference lists. Observational studies or randomized controlled trials with a long-term observation period were included. Paired reviewers extracted data about study characteristics and assessed biases. The end point was the risk difference in the onset of new allergen sensitizations between patients treated with AIT and pharmacotherapy. The strength of the evidence was graded based on the risk of bias, consistency, and magnitude of effect, according to the GRADE Working Group's guide.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (1049 children, 10 057 adults) met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was high in all but one study. Low evidence supports the position that AIT prevents the onset of new allergen sensitizations, with 10 of 18 studies reporting a reduction in the onset of new sensitizations in patients treated with AIT vs placebo. Small studies and studies with a shorter follow-up showed the highest benefit of AIT.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall evidence provides a low-grade level of the evidence supporting the efficacy of AIT in preventing the onset of new allergen sensitizations, but high-quality studies could change this estimate.

Compliance with allergen immunotherapy and factors affecting compliance among patients with respiratory allergies

BACKGROUND

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is safe and effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. However, patient non-compliance is a major barrier to achieving optimal outcomes Objective: To determine the level of compliance among patients using AIT and to identify factors associated with non-compliance Methods: A retrospective analysis using questionnaires was conducted to study compliance among 236 patients with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma who began AIT in 2009 or 2010 Results: The compliance rates at 3 y were 58.7% among patients on subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and 11.6% among those on sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). The mean durations of treatment with SCIT and SLIT were 31 (+/-18.3) and 15.9 (+/-14.7) months, respectively. The most common causes of non-compliance among patients on SCIT were the frequency of injections (82.2%), the duration of treatment (70.9%), and commuting to the Allergy Center (67.7%). Reasons for non-compliance among patients on SLIT were related to inconvenience (43.4%), improvement without treatment (30.2%) and perception of poor efficacy (25.0%) Conclusion: Compliance with AIT is low, but at 3 years, it was higher among patients on SCIT than among patients on SLIT. Reasons for non-compliance include difficulty adjusting to treatment protocols and a perception that the efficacy is low. Patient education regarding the treatment course and the slow effect, as well as the need for close follow up to effectively prevent and treat adverse reactions, are important factors for improving compliance and treatment outcomes.

Allergen immunotherapy for the prevention of allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is a need to establish the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the prevention of allergic disease.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently screened nine international biomedical databases. Studies were quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Overall, meta-analysis found no conclusive evidence that AIT reduced the risk of developing a first allergic disease over the short term (RR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.04-2.09) and no randomized controlled evidence was found in relation to its longer-term effects for this outcome. There was, however, a reduction in the short-term risk of those with allergic rhinitis developing asthma (RR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.54), with this finding being robust to a pre-specified sensitivity analysis. We found inconclusive evidence that this benefit was maintained over the longer term: RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23. There was evidence that the risk of new sensitization was reduced over the short term, but this was not confirmed in the sensitivity analysis: RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.24-2.18. There was no clear evidence of any longer-term reduction in the risk of sensitization: RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.08-2.77. AIT appeared to have an acceptable side effect profile.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT did not result in a statistically significant reduction in the risk of developing a first allergic disease. There was, however, evidence of a reduced short-term risk of developing asthma in those with allergic rhinitis, but it is unclear whether this benefit was maintained over the longer term. We are unable to comment on the cost-effectiveness of AIT.

The European Survey on Adverse Systemic Reactions in Allergen Immunotherapy (EASSI): A paediatric assessment

BACKGROUND

Safety data on 'real-life' allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in children and adolescents is usually extrapolated from studies in adults.

METHODS

Patients aged 18 or under initiating aeroallergen AIT were evaluated in a prospective European survey. Patient profiles and systemic reactions (SRs) were recorded. Descriptive, univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors for SRs.

RESULTS

A total of 1563 patients (mean ± SD age: 11.7 ± 3.9 years; rhinitis: 93.7%; asthma: 61.5%; polysensitization: 62.5%) and 1578 courses of AIT were assessed. Single-allergen AIT was administered in 89.5% of cases (n = 1412; mites: 49%; grass pollen: 25.8%; tree pollen: 8.7%; Alternaria: 4.6%; dander: 0.8%; weed pollen: 0.6%). Subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) was used in 71.4% (n = 1127) of the treatments, including 574 (50.9%) with natural extracts. Sublingual AIT (SLIT) was used for the remaining 451 treatments (drops: 73.8%; tablets: 26.2%). The mean ± SD follow-up period was 12.9 ± 3.3 months. The estimated total number of doses was 19,669 for SCIT and 131,550 for SLIT. Twenty-four patients (1.53%) experienced 29 SRs. Respiratory (55.7%) and skin symptoms (37.9%) were most frequent. Anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 3 SRs (10.3%), and adrenaline was administered in 2 of these cases. In a univariate analysis, the risk of SRs was lower in mite-sensitized patients and higher in cases of pollen polysensitization (>3), grass pollen extracts and the use of natural extracts (vs. allergoids).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-life paediatric setting, AIT is safe. SRs are infrequent and generally not severe. Pollen polysensitization, grass pollen extracts and natural extracts (vs. allergoids) were risk factors for AIT-associated SRs.

Food-specific sublingual immunotherapy is well tolerated and safe in healthy dogs: a blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Food allergies are increasing in prevalence but no treatment strategies are currently available to cure dogs with food allergy. Over the past decade, experimental food allergen-specific sublingual immunotherapy (FA-SLIT) has emerged as a potential treatment for food allergies in human medicine. However, FA-SLIT has not been investigated in dogs. Therefore, the objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety, tolerability and dispenser sterility of FA-SLIT in healthy dogs before testing it in food allergic dogs. Eight experimental healthy beagle dogs, never orally exposed to peanut, were randomized in two groups to receive SLIT with peanut or placebo for 4 months. Subjects were monitored daily for local and systemic adverse effects. Blood samples for complete blood count and serum biochemistry, and urine for urinalysis were collected and the dogs' body weight was recorded at day 0, 35 and 119 of the SLIT treatment. Sera for the determination of peanut-specific IgG and IgE were collected at day 0, 35, 49, 70, 91, 105 and 119. Intradermal tests were performed before (day 0) and after (day 119) the experiment. The content of each dispenser used to administer treatment or placebo was tested for sterility after usage. In order to assess the presence or absence of sensitization, dogs were challenged 6 months after the end of the study with 2000 μg of peanut extract daily for 7 to 14 days.

RESULTS

All dogs completed the study. The treatment did not provoke either local or systemic side-effects. Peanut-specific IgG significantly increased in treatment group. Even though a significant increase in peanut-specific IgE was also seen, intradermal tests were negative in all dogs before and after the experiment, and the challenge test did not trigger any adverse reactions in the treated dogs, which shows the protocol did not cause sensitization to peanut, but nevertheless primed the immune system as indicated by the humoral immune response. All dispenser solutions were sterile.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that the used peanut-SLIT protocol is well tolerated and safe in healthy dogs. Further studies should evaluate tolerability, safety and efficacy in dogs with food allergy.

Immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis and lower airway outcomes

Allergic rhinitis and asthma constitute two clinical expressions of a single-condition, respiratory allergy. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a form of treatment specifically aimed at modifying the response to sensitizing allergens. The inherent potential benefit of AIT is the simultaneous treatment of all clinical expressions of respiratory allergy. Current data support the effectiveness of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in rhinitis. Studies also provide proof for a beneficial effect in allergic asthma. Even more, substantial evidence points to the preventive effect on the progression from rhinitis to asthma. Despite the current knowledge on the basic mechanisms underlying the immunological effect of AIT is vast, the specific mechanisms for the preventive effect of primary sensitization or new sensitizations are poorly understood. This review aimed to provide a critical overview of the current knowledge on the effectiveness of AIT and its potential role in secondary prevention of respiratory allergy progression.

Critical appraisal of the clinical utility of sublingual immunotherapy in allergy

Since it was introduced by Noon in 1911, allergen-specific immunotherapy or desensitization has been widely prescribed in the management of allergic diseases. Aimed at the etiology, it represents the only effective treatment for allergy. The basic mechanisms of immunotherapy are becoming better understood and allow us to improve this technique in the future. The sublingual immunotherapy as an alternative to subcutaneous route has been widely studied. Several clinical trials confirmed that sublingual immunotherapy is efficient in reducing allergic respiratory symptoms. The sublingual immunotherapy reduces the risk of developing serious side effects due to desensitization. We performed a literature review in order to remind the mechanisms of action and to demonstrate efficacy and tolerability of the sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma and its impact on the quality of life.

Evidence in immunotherapy for paediatric respiratory allergy: Advances and recommendations

Allergic respiratory diseases are major health problems in paediatric population due their high level of prevalence and chronicity, and to their relevance in the costs and quality of life. One of the most important risk factors for the development of airway diseases in children and adolescents is atopy. The mainstays for the treatment of these diseases are avoiding allergens, controlling symptoms, and preventing them through sustained desensitization by allergen immunotherapy (AIT). AIT is a treatment option that consists in the administration of increasing amounts of allergens to modify the biological response to them, inducing long-term tolerance even after treatment has ended. This treatment approach has shown to decrease symptoms and improve quality of life, becoming cost effective for a large number of patients. In addition, it is considered the only treatment that can influence the natural course of the disease by targeting the cause of the allergic inflammatory response. The aim of this publication is to reflect the advances of AIT in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic respiratory diseases in children and adolescents reviewing articles published since 2000, establishing evidence categories to support the strength of the recommendations based on evidence. The first part of the article covers the prerequisite issues to understand how AIT is effective, such as the correct etiologic and clinical diagnosis of allergic respiratory diseases. Following this, the article outlines the advancements in understanding the mechanisms by which AIT achieve immune tolerance to allergens. Administration routes, treatment regimens, dose and duration, efficacy, safety, and factors associated with adherence are also reviewed. Finally, the article reviews future advances in the research of AIT.

Comprehensive Study of Patients' Compliance with Sublingual Immunotherapy in House Dust Mite Perennial Allergic Rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergen immunotherapy is a long-term treatment that has been associated with patient adherence issues. The aim of the study was to increase the knowledge on compliance of patients allergic to house dust mites, receiving sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was performed in 53 Spanish allergy units. We enrolled patients undergoing the SLIT treatment for house dust mites including a scheduled control visit 12 months after initiating the therapy. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of compliance using three methods. In the first step, an allergist evaluated the patients according to the results of an interview and the existing medical records. The subjects taking more than 80% of the overall prescription were defined as compliant. The remaining noncompliant patients were divided into groups taking less than 25%, 25-50%, and 50-80% of the prescribed SLIT. In the second stage, we conducted the Morisky-Green test. Finally, the noncompliant patients were asked to fill a self-report assessment form. Data were stratified into age groups. The potential factors affecting compliance were also investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, 380 subjects participated in the study. The compliance rate was 79.7%, and the treatment discontinuation rate was 22.5%, while 66.8% of patients were adherent (both compliant and continuing with the treatment). The results showed that children were the most compliant and adolescents the least compliant (86.6% and 60.9%, respectively). The main reason for noncompliance was "forgetting some doses" in 31.0% of the children, 48.0% of the adolescents, and 53.2% of the adults. Compliance was associated with the following factors: age, number of annual control visits, and reduction in symptomatic medication.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that two out of three patients with house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis adhered to the SLIT treatment. Multidisciplinary and integral solutions are needed to improve the compliance, with special attention paid to adolescents.

FUNDING

Stallergenes Greer Spain.

Safety profile of sublingual immunotherapy

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was proposed for clinical practice about 20 years ago with the main aim of improving the safety and avoiding the adverse effects of traditional treatment for allergic airways disease. To date, 32 randomized controlled trials and 6 postmarketing surveys have been published that provide a robust documentation of the safety profile of the treatment.Looking at the randomized trials it emerges that the more frequent adverse event of SLIT is oral itching or swelling, followed by gastrointestinal complaints. These adverse events are invariably described as mild and easily managed by adjusting the dose. Relevant systemic adverse events (asthma, urticaria, angioedema) occur sporadically and, with the exception of oral/gastrointestinal adverse events, the incidence of adverse events seems not to differ between the placebo and active groups. The safety profile of SLIT does not differ between adults and children.The postmarketing surveys consistently show that the incidence of adverse events associated with SLIT is less than 10%, corresponding to less than 1 adverse event per 1000 doses, and is thus quite superior to the safety profile of subcutaneous immunotherapy. Of note, the most recent data show that the rate of adverse events with SLIT is not increased in children below the age of 5 years.

Immunotherapy compliance: comparison of subcutaneous versus sublingual immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Patient compliance is critical for successful allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Previous studies suggest that AIT compliance is worse outside of controlled clinical trials, with reported subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) noncompliance at 11% to 50% and 3% to 25%, respectively.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 384 AIT patients at a single, tertiary care otolaryngic allergy practice evaluated SCIT and SLIT compliance, based on treatment stage. SCIT compliance was defined as the number of 2-week breaks per year or in compliance with their defined schedule: excellent = 2 or fewer; good = 3 to 4; fair = 5 to 6; and poor = 7 or more. Compliance with SLIT was defined as the number of days vials were refilled within the defined expiration date: excellent = 10 days or fewer; good = 11 to 15 days, fair = 16 to 20 days; and poor = 25 or more days. Fisher exact and chi square tests were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Seventy-four SCIT and 200 SLIT patients had data appropriate for analysis. Compliance rates were excellent (62%) or good (22%) in 62 SCIT patients and excellent (31%) or good (35%) in 131 SLIT patients. Comparing excellent compliance rates, SCIT patients had a higher rate of excellent compliance at all stages of treatment compared to SLIT patients (p < 0.05). For SCIT patients there was no significant difference in excellent compliance rates between escalation, first year of maintenance, and greater than 1 year of maintenance (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed higher rates of patient adherence to treatment protocols among SCIT patients. There was no decrease in SCIT compliance rates across treatment stages.

Allergic rhinitis: the "Ghost Diagnosis" in patients with asthma

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common comorbidity of asthma that contributes to asthma severity. Although over 80 % of asthmatics have AR, the condition is frequently underdiagnosed in subjects with asthma. AR itself is also a highly prevalent condition, affecting 10-30 % of adults and up to 40 % of children. AR has been associated with both increased risk of asthma development and asthma severity. The exact mechanisms underlying these relationships have yet to be fully elucidated, but evidence supports a role for allergen sensitization. Compared to those with asthma alone, patients with comorbid AR and asthma have greater use of health care resources, including visits to the general practitioner, emergency department and hospitalizations. Pharmacological treatment of AR reduces this health care burden. Immunotherapy for AR improves both asthma and rhinitis symptoms in addition to preventing future allergen sensitizations and asthma development. Appropriate recognition, diagnosis and treatment of AR can significantly reduce asthma morbidity and improve quality of life.

Allergic rhinitis: the "Ghost Diagnosis" in patients with asthma

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common comorbidity of asthma that contributes to asthma severity. Although over 80 % of asthmatics have AR, the condition is frequently underdiagnosed in subjects with asthma. AR itself is also a highly prevalent condition, affecting 10-30 % of adults and up to 40 % of children. AR has been associated with both increased risk of asthma development and asthma severity. The exact mechanisms underlying these relationships have yet to be fully elucidated, but evidence supports a role for allergen sensitization. Compared to those with asthma alone, patients with comorbid AR and asthma have greater use of health care resources, including visits to the general practitioner, emergency department and hospitalizations. Pharmacological treatment of AR reduces this health care burden. Immunotherapy for AR improves both asthma and rhinitis symptoms in addition to preventing future allergen sensitizations and asthma development. Appropriate recognition, diagnosis and treatment of AR can significantly reduce asthma morbidity and improve quality of life.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. However, it is not clear whether the sublingual delivery route is safe and effective in asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and presented results in the 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Long-term adherence to sublingual therapy: literature review and suggestions for management strategies based on patients' needs and preferences

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is an at-home, self-administered, long-term therapy. As with other chronic diseases, patient adherence is a prerequisite for the success of SLIT. Its ease of intake and convenience should ensure adequate patient compliance; however, a recent post-marketing manufacturers' survey has shown a very high rate of discontinuation. The available literature on patient adherence to SLIT is reviewed in the present article. Great differences exist between controlled studies, which show a satisfactory adherence rate, and long-term real-life studies, which show poor compliance with SLIT. Remarkable divergence in the weight placed on different reasons for SLIT discontinuation is reported in the various studies. The main reasons for withdrawal are analysed and discussed. Data from placebo-controlled studies demonstrate that adherence depends less on the patient's perception of the inefficacy of therapy or other causes than on the patient's motivation, that is the patient's decision to participate in the trial and to meet the researcher's expectations. The enrolment of patients who agree to enter a blind, placebo-controlled trial is conceptually similar to a concordance process. Concordance is a consultation process that aims to establish a therapeutic alliance between the physician and patient and to bring about agreement on a therapeutic programme. Concordance is based on the patient's beliefs and needs and implies actions that support the patient's adherence. Suggestions are given for a SLIT management strategy based on the concordance process and designed to integrate the patient's viewpoints into treatment-related decisions and to meet patients' preferences and their health-system-related needs.

Specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis in children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Allergic rhinitis is a highly prevalent inflammatory disease affecting 20-40% of the children worldwide. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis. This article reviews the recent advances in SIT for children.

RECENT FINDINGS

In current clinical practice, immunotherapy is delivered as either subcutaneous immunotherapy or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Most meta-analyses and reviews concluded a trend that subcutaneous immunotherapy was better than SLIT in reducing symptoms of allergic rhinitis and rescue medication use, however, SLIT has a better safety profile than subcutaneous immunotherapy. Additionally, the absence of pain on administration of therapy is a character of SLIT, which is well suited for children. T regulatory cells, especially Tr1 cells that secrete interleukin-10 and induce production of immunoglobulin G4, play a role during SIT.

SUMMARY

Although there is substantial evidence for effectiveness of both subcutaneous immunotherapy and SLIT, safer and more effective SIT approaches are needed. New approaches to improve SIT include omalizumab pretreatment, use of recombinant allergens, and alternate routes of administration.

Prospective adherence to specific immunotherapy in Europe (PASTE) survey protocol

BACKGROUND

Adherence to allergen immunotherapy is important for its effectiveness. There is currently limited data available on allergen immunotherapy adherence outside of clinical trials i.e. in real-life clinical practice. As part of a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Immunotherapy Interest group initiative, we endeavoured to design a survey in order to prospectively evaluate adherence to subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy across different European countries.

METHOD/DESIGN

The inclusion criteria for this prospective, multi-country survey were set as: adults, starting clinically indicated allergen immunotherapy for respiratory allergic disorders or Hymenoptera venom allergy. An online survey was designed in order to enrol participants and assess adherence to immunotherapy. Eight countries (Czech Republic, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain) were selected to reflect different parts of Europe and differences in allergens and routes of immunotherapy administration. Each country has an allocated National co-ordinator that has identified local Allergy departments willing to enrol participants in this survey. Each participant will be followed up for a total of three years. In order to assess adherence, a 4-monthly follow-up form detailing any missed doses and reasons will be completed online. In case of a participant discontinuing treatment, reasons for this will be recorded.

DISCUSSION

The use of online survey software has enabled us to make this survey a reality and reach clinicians in different countries. Forty-five centres have enrolled a total of over 1,350 participants. It is hoped that this prospective real life survey will enable us to gain a better understanding of reasons that affect adherence to subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy and assist in developing ways to improve this.

Allergen immunotherapy, routes of administration and cytokine networks: an update

Allergen immunotherapy is a disease-modifying therapy, effective for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, conjunctivitis or stinging insect allergy. Allergen immunotherapy involves the administration of increasing doses of allergens with the aim of ameliorating the allergic response. Although precise underlying mechanisms of the induction of immune tolerance remain unclear, immunotherapy has been associated with the induction of distinct subsets of Tregs that eventually lead to peripheral tolerance by inducing a deviation from Th2 to Th1 immune responses. This review focuses on the current knowledge of the mechanisms of immunotherapy in relationship to different routes of administration and also provides a unifying view.

Sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: efficacy, safety, adherence and guidelines

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a globally increasing health problem affecting the quality of life. Specific immunotherapy is an available causal treatment changing the basic allergic mechanisms of the disease. Over one hundred years, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) was developed and proved its efficacy but many adverse effects were recorded including anaphylaxis. In 1986, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced as an alternative solution to solve this problem. Our study aims to discuss SLIT from the points of efficacy, safety, adherence and guidelines developed. A literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed and the Cochrane Library in January 2013 using the keywords "allergic rhinitis, sublingual immunotherapy, efficacy, safety, compliance, adherence, guidelines." All types of publications were included. We augmented our study by searching the reference lists of identified reviews. SLIT has been established in many guidelines as an evidence-based effective treatment in AR with safer profile than SCIT. The meta-analyses confirmed its efficacy and showed a significant reduction in both symptoms and medication scores. The most common recorded adverse effects were minor local effects in the mouth, gastrointestinal reactions with few cases of anaphylaxis and no fatality. Adherence is more favorable for SLIT mainly because it is safe, noninvasive and easily taken at home. We support the call to conduct large multi-centric studies to gain more statistical power and overcome the problem of heterogeneity observed in the meta-analyses.

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.

Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases: S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto- Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD)

The present guideline (S2k) on allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) was established by the German, Austrian and Swiss professional associations for allergy in consensus with the scientific specialist societies and professional associations in the fields of otolaryngology, dermatology and venereology, pediatric and adolescent medicine, pneumology as well as a German patient organization (German Allergy and Asthma Association; Deutscher Allergie- und Asthmabund, DAAB) according to the criteria of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, AWMF). AIT is a therapy with disease-modifying effects. By administering allergen extracts, specific blocking antibodies, toler-ance-inducing cells and mediators are activated. These prevent further exacerbation of the allergen-triggered immune response, block the specific immune response and attenuate the inflammatory response in tissue. Products for SCIT or SLIT cannot be compared at present due to their heterogeneous composition, nor can allergen concentrations given by different manufacturers be compared meaningfully due to the varying methods used to measure their active ingredients. Non-modified allergens are used for SCIT in the form of aqueous or physically adsorbed (depot) extracts, as well as chemically modified allergens (allergoids) as depot extracts. Allergen extracts for SLIT are used in the form of aqueous solutions or tablets. The clinical efficacy of AIT is measured using various scores as primary and secondary study endpoints. The EMA stipulates combined symptom and medication scores as primary endpoint. A harmonization of clinical endpoints, e. g., by using the combined symptom and medication scores (CSMS) recommended by the EAACI, is desirable in the future in order to permit the comparison of results from different studies. The current CONSORT recommendations from the ARIA/GA2LEN group specify standards for the evaluation, presentation and publication of study results. According to the Therapy allergen ordinance (TAV), preparations containing common allergen sources (pollen from grasses, birch, alder, hazel, house dust mites, as well as bee and wasp venom) need a marketing authorization in Germany. During the marketing authorization process, these preparations are examined regarding quality, safety and efficacy. In the opinion of the authors, authorized allergen preparations with documented efficacy and safety, or preparations tradeable under the TAV for which efficacy and safety have already been documented in clinical trials meeting WAO or EMA standards, should be preferentially used. Individual formulations (NPP) enable the prescription of rare allergen sources (e.g., pollen from ash, mugwort or ambrosia, mold Alternaria, animal allergens) for specific immunotherapy. Mixing these allergens with TAV allergens is not permitted. Allergic rhinitis and its associated co-morbidities (e. g., bronchial asthma) generate substantial direct and indirect costs. Treatment options, in particular AIT, are therefore evaluated using cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. From a long-term perspective, AIT is considered to be significantly more cost effective in allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma than pharmacotherapy, but is heavily dependent on patient compliance. Meta-analyses provide unequivocal evidence of the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for certain allergen sources and age groups. Data from controlled studies differ in terms of scope, quality and dosing regimens and require product-specific evaluation. Therefore, evaluating individual preparations according to clearly defined criteria is recommended. A broad transfer of the efficacy of certain preparations to all preparations administered in the same way is not endorsed. The website of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (www.dgaki.de/leitlinien/s2k-leitlinie-sit; DGAKI: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allergologie und klinische Immunologie) provides tables with specific information on available products for AIT in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. The tables contain the number of clinical studies per product in adults and children, the year of market authorization, underlying scoring systems, number of randomized and analyzed subjects and the method of evaluation (ITT, FAS, PP), separately given for grass pollen, birch pollen and house dust mite allergens, and the status of approval for the conduct of clinical studies with these products. Strong evidence of the efficacy of SCIT in pollen allergy-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in adulthood is well-documented in numerous trials and, in childhood and adolescence, in a few trials. Efficacy in house dust mite allergy is documented by a number of controlled trials in adults and few controlled trials in children. Only a few controlled trials, independent of age, are available for mold allergy (in particular Alternaria). With regard to animal dander allergies (primarily to cat allergens), only small studies, some with methodological deficiencies are available. Only a moderate and inconsistent therapeutic effect in atopic dermatitis has been observed in the quite heterogeneous studies conducted to date. SCIT has been well investigated for individual preparations in controlled bronchial asthma as defined by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 2007 and intermittent and mild persistent asthma (GINA 2005) and it is recommended as a treatment option, in addition to allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy, provided there is a clear causal link between respiratory symptoms and the relevant allergen. The efficacy of SLIT in grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is extensively documented in adults and children, whilst its efficacy in tree pollen allergy has only been shown in adults. New controlled trials (some with high patient numbers) on house dust mite allergy provide evidence of efficacy of SLIT in adults. Compared with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, there are only few studies on the efficacy of SLIT in allergic asthma. In this context, newer studies show an efficacy for SLIT on asthma symptoms in the subgroup of grass pollen allergic children, adolescents and adults with asthma and efficacy in primary house dust mite allergy-induced asthma in adolescents aged from 14 years and in adults. Aspects of secondary prevention, in particular the reduction of new sensitizations and reduced asthma risk, are important rationales for choosing to initiate treatment early in childhood and adolescence. In this context, those products for which the appropriate effects have been demonstrated should be considered. SCIT or SLIT with pollen or mite allergens can be performed in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis using allergen extracts that have been proven to be effective in at least one double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC) study. At present, clinical trials are underway for the indication in asthma due to house dust mite allergy, some of the results of which have already been published, whilst others are still awaited (see the DGAKI table "Approved/potentially completed studies" via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit (according to www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu)). When establishing the indication for AIT, factors that favour clinical efficacy should be taken into consideration. Differences between SCIT and SLIT are to be considered primarily in terms of contraindications. In individual cases, AIT may be justifiably indicated despite the presence of contraindications. SCIT injections and the initiation of SLIT are performed by a physician experienced in this type of treatment and who is able to administer emergency treatment in the case of an allergic reaction. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure and risks of possible adverse events, and the details of this process must be documented (see "Treatment information sheet"; available as a handout via www.dgaki.de/Leitlinien/s2k-Leitlinie-sit). Treatment should be performed according to the manufacturer's product information leaflet. In cases where AIT is to be performed or continued by a different physician to the one who established the indication, close cooperation is required in order to ensure that treatment is implemented consistently and at low risk. In general, it is recommended that SCIT and SLIT should only be performed using preparations for which adequate proof of efficacy is available from clinical trials. Treatment adherence among AIT patients is lower than assumed by physicians, irrespective of the form of administration. Clearly, adherence is of vital importance for treatment success. Improving AIT adherence is one of the most important future goals, in order to ensure efficacy of the therapy. Severe, potentially life-threatening systemic reactions during SCIT are possible, but - providing all safety measures are adhered to - these events are very rare. Most adverse events are mild to moderate and can be treated well. Dose-dependent adverse local reactions occur frequently in the mouth and throat in SLIT. Systemic reactions have been described in SLIT, but are seen far less often than with SCIT. In terms of anaphylaxis and other severe systemic reactions, SLIT has a better safety profile than SCIT. The risk and effects of adverse systemic reactions in the setting of AIT can be effectively reduced by training of personnel, adhering to safety standards and prompt use of emergency measures, including early administration of i. m. epinephrine. Details on the acute management of anaphylactic reactions can be found in the current S2 guideline on anaphylaxis issued by the AWMF (S2-AWMF-LL Registry Number 061-025). AIT is undergoing some innovative developments in many areas (e. g., allergen characterization, new administration routes, adjuvants, faster and safer dose escalation protocols), some of which are already being investigated in clinical trials. Cite this as Pfaar O, Bachert C, Bufe A, Buhl R, Ebner C, Eng P, Friedrichs F, Fuchs T, Hamelmann E, Hartwig-Bade D, Hering T, Huttegger I, Jung K, Klimek L, Kopp MV, Merk H, Rabe U, Saloga J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Schuster A, Schwerk N, Sitter H, Umpfenbach U, Wedi B, Wöhrl S, Worm M, Kleine-Tebbe J. Guideline on allergen-specific immunotherapy in IgE-mediated allergic diseases - S2k Guideline of the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology (DGAKI), the Society for Pediatric Allergy and Environmental Medicine (GPA), the Medical Association of German Allergologists (AeDA), the Austrian Society for Allergy and Immunology (ÖGAI), the Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology (SGAI), the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German Society of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (DGHNO-KHC), the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Society for Pediatric Pneumology (GPP), the German Respiratory Society (DGP), the German Association of ENT Surgeons (BV-HNO), the Professional Federation of Paediatricians and Youth Doctors (BVKJ), the Federal Association of Pulmonologists (BDP) and the German Dermatologists Association (BVDD). Allergo J Int 2014;23:282-319.

Patient adherence to allergy immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the literature on patient adherence to two different approaches to allergen-specific immunotherapy for allergic disease. Factors related to adherence in general, as well as the various methods used to measure adherence, will be discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although a complex interaction of factors related to both the physician and the patient influence the adherence to a particular therapeutic regimen, effective communication between these two parties and the simplicity of the regimen are frequently noted to be of primary importance. Variability with respect to the definition of adherence, the method of measuring adherence, and the length of the measuring period has resulted in a wide range of adherence rates to allergy immunotherapy reported in the literature. Patients most often site inconvenience, side-effects, and poor efficacy as reasons for discontinuing allergy immunotherapy.

SUMMARY

Adherence to therapy not only improves individual patient outcomes, but also helps determine the best treatment modalities and reduces the burden of disease on society. As new methods of delivering immunotherapy are being developed, such as allergy immunotherapy tablets and oral mucosal immunotherapy, the factors associated with patient adherence should be carefully considered.