Anaphylaxis to multiple pollen allergen sublingual immunotherapy

Systemic Allergic Reactions and Anaphylaxis Associated with Allergen Immunotherapy

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) is a proven treatment of allergic rhinitis, asthma, atopic dermatitis, and prevention of Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis. The known benefit of SCIT, however, must be considered in each patient relative to the potential risks of systemic allergic reactions (SRs). A mean of 1 SR per 1000 injection visits (0.1%) was estimated to occur between 2008 and 2018. Life-threatening anaphylactic events are estimated to occur in 1/160,000 injection visits. The factors that contribute to SRs and fatal reactions (FRs) are reviewed. Risk management strategies are proposed to prevent and decrease future SCIT associated with SRs, anaphylaxis, and FR.

Evaluation of basophil activation caused by transgenic rice seeds expressing whole T cell epitopes of the major Japanese cedar pollen allergens

Background

Japanese cedar (JC) pollinosis is a serious type I allergic disease in Japan. Although subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy have been applied to treat JC pollinosis, high doses of allergens may cause IgE-mediated allergic reactions. The transgenic rice seeds that contain genetically modified Cry j 1 and Cry j 2, the two major allergens of JC pollen, have been developed as candidates for oral immunotherapy. Although the antigens in the transgenic rice seeds (Tg-rice seeds) were engineered such that they decrease binding ability with IgE and they are of insufficient length to cross-link IgE on the surface of mast cells or basophils, the safety of Tg-rice seeds for patients with JC pollinosis was unclear.

Methods

To verify the safety of Tg-rice seeds in terms of allergies, we investigated the percentage of activated basophils induced by Tg-rice seed extract in the basophil activation test. Blood samples from 29 patients with JC pollinosis were collected. Tg-rice seed extract, non-transgenic wild-type rice seed extract, and Cry j 1 and Cry j 2 were mixed with the blood with reagents. The percentage of activated basophils was assessed by CD203c expression, a basophil activation marker.

Results

The percentage of activated basophils after the stimulation with Tg-rice seed extract was 4.5 ± 1.6% (mean ± SD) compared with 62.9 ± 20.2% after Cry j 1- and Cry j 2-stimulation (difference 58.4%, P < 0.001, 95% confidence interval 51.0–65.9%).

Conclusions

The results will contribute to the safety of Tg-rice seeds in terms of allergies.

Clinical efficacy of immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Aeroallergen immunotherapy (AIT) should be considered for patients who exhibit symptoms of allergic rhinitis (AR), rhinoconjunctivitis, and/or asthma after natural exposure to allergens and who also demonstrate specific immunoglobulin E antibodies against relevant allergens.

METHODS

In this paper, clinical efficacy of immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis is reviewed.

RESULT

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) is effective for seasonal and perennial AR. Sustained effectiveness requires several years of treatment. SCIT may prevent the development of allergic asthma in children with AR. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) is currently considered an alternative treatment to the subcutaneous route. The use of SLIT has been included in international guidelines for the treatment of AR with or without conjunctivitis.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with SCIT are at risk of both local and systemic adverse reactions; however, in most cases, symptoms are readily reversible if they are recognized early and treated promptly. The safety profile of SLIT is good; therefore, SLIT can be self-administered by patients in their homes. In this article, we reviewed the efficacy and safety of allergen immunotherapy.

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.

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

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

Sublingual Immunotherapy: A Useful Tool for the Allergist in Private Practice

This is a review of the author's experience with Sublingual Immunotherapy in a private office setting. Sublingual Immunotherapy should be considered by any allergy practitioner as a useful tool. Sublingual Immunotherapy is safe while at the same time it is effective. It enables the practitioner to treat asthmatics and young children without the concerns implicit with allergy injections.

Guiding principles of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis in Japanese patients

OBJECTIVE

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) appears to offer practical advantages for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Based on a review of the scientific literature, we present recommendations as guiding principles to administer SLIT safely.

METHODS

Clinical questions concerning SLIT were prepared. Literature published between January 2003 and December 2012 was searched from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina. Qualified studies were analyzed and the results were evaluated, consolidated, and codified. We answered 17 clinical questions and, based on this, presented evidence-based recommendations.

RESULTS

Sublingual immunotherapy improved symptoms (e.g., quality of life [QOL]) and reduced medication scores in seasonal AR and perennial AR. Most SLIT-induced adverse effects were local oral reactions, although systemic adverse effects such as gastrointestinal symptoms, urticaria, and asthma are occasionally reported. There have been no reports of lethal anaphylactic reactions by SLIT. When SLIT is continued for 3-4 years, its effect persists long after discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

A correct diagnosis of AR and sufficient informed consent from patients are required before initiating SLIT. Sublingual immunotherapy should be continued for 3 years or longer. The initial administration of SLIT during the uptitration of an allergen vaccine and the general condition of patients are critical for the safe performance of SLIT.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy in children

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is currently the only available disease-modifying and aetiological treatment of IgE-mediated diseases. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) constitutes the preferred route of administration of AIT for respiratory allergies in Europe. Recently it has also been approved in the US. Further applications are currently under evaluation, such as IgE-mediated food allergy and IgE-mediated atopic dermatitis. The SLIT safety profile is overall favourable, although local adverse events, usually mild, are described. Most of the meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy of SLIT in reducing symptoms and medication intake in children with allergic diseases. AIT, as an immune-modulating treatment, can modify the natural history of the allergic diseases: reduction of the risk of development of asthma and bronchial hyperreactivity in patients with allergic rhinitis, and reduction of the onset of new sensitizations. A great interest is now devoted to the preventive effects of AIT and, consequently, to the optimal time of initiation.

Rare adverse events due to house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy in pediatric practice: two case reports

Sublingual route, a noninjective way of allergen administration appears to be associated with a lower incidence of severe systemic reactions compared with the subcutaneous route. Local adverse reactions are reported which resolve spontaneously within a few days without need for discontinuation of treatment. Hereby, we report two pediatric cases, one with persistent asthma and the other one with persistent allergic rhinitis. Both were treated by house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy, one of whom developed severe wheezing (grade 2 systemic reaction based on World Allergy Organization subcutaneous systemic reaction grading system) and the other intractable vomiting (grade 3 local reaction based on World Allergy Organization sublingual immunotherapy local adverse events grading system) at the end of the build-up phase which repeated on re-administration of the same dose. Both of those two cases completed their 3-year immunotherapy successfully by patient-based adjustment of the highest tolerated dose of the maintenance.

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.

Immunotherapy in all aspects

Allergen immunotherapy is a form of long-term treatment that decreases symptoms for many people with allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, conjunctivitis (eye allergy) or stinging insect allergy. In this review, we presented the important topics in immunotherapy. The important aspects of immunotherapy are considered to be "Immunologıcal responses to immunotherapy"; "The principal types of immunotherapy"; "Effectiveness"; "Indications"; "Contraindications"; "Allergen immunotherapy in children"; "Safety"; and "Anaphylactic reactions after immunotherapy". The principal types of immunotherapy are subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy. Both of them can be used in indicated cases. When using SCIT, physicians must be more careful because of reported rare fatal cases. The risks and benefits of continuing allergen immunotherapy in patients who have experienced severe systemic reactions should be carefully considered.

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.

Safety and tolerability of sublingual immunotherapy in clinical trials and real life

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is effective in allergic rhinitis and asthma. Apart from its efficacy, safety is crucial as this treatment is usually self-administered at home. Tolerability also plays a pivotal role, as mild local reactions, although not life-threatening, may represent a risk for treatment withdrawal and can therefore negatively affect clinical outcomes. The present study addresses this issue by reviewing double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials and real-life studies.

RECENT FINDINGS

The number of life-threatening SLIT-related reactions is negligible. SLIT-related adverse events are not always consistently reported nor uniformly classified in published studies. However, systemic reactions are rare and side effects mostly consist of mild, self-limiting local reactions. No treatment-related risk factors for adverse events have been clearly defined, as far as type of allergen, dose or schedule.

SUMMARY

SLIT provides an optimal safety profile both in children and in adults. Apart from life-threatening reactions, the lack of standardization of adverse events reporting may account for the wide variability of the prevalence of side effects in clinical trials and in real-life setting. It can lead to a possible underestimation of adverse events, concerning, in particular, local reactions. Since poor tolerability may affect adherence and cause treatment discontinuation, adopting shared strategies in order to recognize, grade and manage adverse events is mandatory.

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.

Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic asthma: retrospective meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only available curative choice with a disease-modifying effect against respiratory allergies. The efficacy of SIT via the sublingual route was demonstrated by a number of clinical trials. This meta-analysis was performed to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual-specific immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic asthma.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled (DBPC) trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of SLIT on allergic asthma. Subgroup analyses were performed according to age, type of allergen and duration of SLIT treatment.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized DBPC trials comprising 794 patients in total met the inclusion criteria. The results suggest that SLIT significantly reduces both symptom [standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.74; P=0.006] and medication scores (SMD, -0.78; P=0.02) compared with placebo. SLIT offers a better clinical response in mite sensitive asthmatics but without confirmed proof from subgroup analyses. Prolonged duration of treatment for more than 12 months brings no additive effects. Improvement in the skin prick test was also observed following immunotherapy. There was no consistent effect on forced expiratory volume in 1 s, serum levels of antigen-specific immunoglobulin G4 and immunoglobulin E in the treated group. The risk of adverse effects was relative risk 2.23 (P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

SLIT is safe and clinically effective in reducing symptoms and medication use for allergic asthma. Our subgroup analyses failed to identify a disproportionate benefit of SLIT in any specific group of asthmatics, but some possible trends did emerge.

Trends in Specific Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: A Survey of Chinese ENT Specialists

Purpose

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is a suitable but uncommon treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR) in China. The current understanding and attitude of Chinese ENT (ear, nose, and throat) specialists in regards to SIT is unclear. This study investigates current trends in the awareness and application status of SIT among Chinese ENT specialists.

Methods

We performed a nationwide, cross-sectional survey with a specially designed questionnaire given to 800 ENT specialists in China. A member of the trained research group conducted face-to-face interviews with each respondent.

Results

Most of the respondents considered AR (96.0%) and allergic asthma (96.0%) the most suitable indications for SIT. Of all respondents, 77.0% recommended the application of SIT as early as possible; in addition, SIT was considered 'relatively controllable and safe' by most respondents (80.6%). The highest allergen-positive rate in AR was associated with house dust mite (47.7%) and obvious differences existed among geographical regions. Conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy was the most highly recommended treatment option (96.2%). 'The high cost of SIT' (86.6%) and 'lack of patient knowledge of SIT' (85.2%) were probably the main reasons for the lower clinical use of SIT in China.

Conclusions

Most cases showed that the opinions of Chinese ENT specialists appeared to be in agreement with recent SIT progress and international guidelines; however, many areas still need to enhance the standardization and use of SIT in China. Clinical guidelines for SIT require improvement; in addition, Chinese ENT specialists need continuing medical education on SIT.

Sublingual immunotherapy and quality of life

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been shown to be a new and promising treatment for people with various allergic syndromes. Several studies have examined its efficacy. However, significantly fewer investigations have explored its specific impact on the patient's quality of life (QOL).

RECENT FINDINGS

SLIT has an excellent safety profile, superior in many ways to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Additionally, SLIT significantly decreases the use of allergy medications, as well as decreasing the money spent on allergy symptom control. Finally, SLIT has been shown to improve the patient's QOL when compared to placebo or even second-generation antihistamines.

SUMMARY

Increasing data support the use of SLIT as a well tolerated, cost-effective, and time-efficient modality for the treatment of multiple allergic syndromes. However, additional studies are needed, particularly QOL studies which compare SLIT to the FDA-approved SCIT.

Balancing efficacy against safety in sublingual immunotherapy with inhalant allergens: what is the best approach?

Over the last 20 years, studies and clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for respiratory allergic diseases. Nevertheless, it seems to be mostly used as a second-line therapeutic option, and adherence to treatment is not always optimal. Selective literature research was done in Medline and PubMed, including guidelines, position papers and Cochrane meta-analyses concerning SLIT in adult patients. The most recent reviews confirm SLIT as viable and efficacious treatment especially for allergic rhinitis, even if the optimal dosage, duration, schedule are not clearly established for most of the products. Despite an optimal safety profile, tolerability and patient-reported outcomes concerning SLIT have received poor attention until now. Recently, new tools have been specifically developed in order to investigate these aspects. Regular assessment of tolerability profile and SLIT-related patient-reported outcomes will allow balancing efficacy with tolerability and all the other patient-related variables that may affect treatment effectiveness beyond its efficacy.

Allergen immunotherapy: routes, safety, efficacy, and mode of action

Allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and allergic asthma have been steadily increasing in prevalence in recent years. These allergic diseases have a major impact on quality of life and are a major economic burden in the US. Although allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy are currently the mainstays of therapy, they are not always successful in treating patients' symptoms effectively. If a patient fails allergen avoidance and medical therapy, immunotherapy may be indicated. Furthermore, immunotherapy is the only therapy that may change the course of the disease and induce long-term remission. Though subcutaneous administration has been the standard route for immunotherapy for many decades, there are several other routes of administration that have been and are currently being studied. The goal of utilizing alternative routes of immunotherapy is to improve safety without decreasing the efficacy of treatment. This paper will review the novel routes of immunotherapy, including sublingual, oral, local nasal, epicutaneous, and intralymphatic.

Oralair(®): a causal treatment for grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is a common disease, comprising more than just the classic symptoms of nasal obstruction, sneezing, rhinorrhea and itchy, watery eyes. Sufferers deal with severe impairments in daily life. Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis is also considered an important risk factor in the development of asthma. Allergen avoidance, medication for symptomatic treatment and allergen-specific immunotherapy are cornerstones in therapeutic management, but immunotherapy is the only available treatment that is able to affect the natural course of allergy. In recent decades, clinical trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy. To date, efforts have been made to develop more convenient routes of administration. Substantial improvement may be achieved through the application of sublingual tablets. This article discusses the development process of immunotherapy and the clinical background of the Oralair(®) (Stallergènes, Hauts-de-Seine, France) five-grass pollen tablet. Furthermore, it outlines this tablet's efficacy and safety properties.

Grading local side effects of sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: speaking the same language

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly used worldwide. Despite its safety being well ascertained, there is no universally accepted system to grade and classify its adverse events (AEs). According to the literature, it seems reasonable to classify and grade systemic side effects by using the previously published World Allergy Organization recommendations. On the other hand, local side effects are the most frequent with SLIT, sometimes leading to its discontinuation. Therefore grading of the severity of local side effects was perceived as necessary for the purpose of uniform reporting, classification, and quantification of this aspect. A World Allergy Organization Taskforce, after examining the available literature and the postmarketing surveillance data, proposed a clinically based grading of the severity of local AEs caused by SLIT. The use of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities nomenclature for AEs was also included in this context. The proposed grading system for SLIT-induced local reactions is expected to improve and harmonize surveillance and reporting of the safety of SLIT.

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergic respiratory diseases was first described in 1986 and immediately appeared as a viable alternative to the traditional subcutaneous route. Since then, more than 60 randomized controlled trials have been published, almost all with very favorable results. The average improvement over placebo in symptom score and medication use was always greater than 20%. The results of the clinical trials were pooled in several meta-analyses, which consistently confirmed the efficacy of the treatment. SLIT is characterized by a satisfactory safety profile, its side effects being mainly limited to oral discomfort. Only six anaphylaxes and no fatalities have been so far reported. Due to the good risk:benefit ratio, SLIT is currently being investigated in diseases other than respiratory allergy, such as food allergy and atopic dermatitis.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic respiratory diseases

Allergen specific immunotherapy involves the repeated administration of allergen products in order to induce clinical and immunologic tolerance to the offending allergen. Immunotherapy is the only etiology-based treatment that has the potential for disease modification, as reflected by longterm remission following its discontinuation and possibly prevention of disease progression and onset of new allergic sensitizations. Whereas subcutaneous immunotherapy is of proven value in allergic rhinitis and asthma there is a risk of untoward side effects including rarely anaphylaxis. Recently the sublingual route has emerged as an effective and safer alternative. Whereas the efficacy of SLIT in seasonal allergy is now well-documented in adults and children, the available data for perennial allergies and asthma is less reliable and particularly lacking in children. This review evaluates the efficacy, safety and longterm benefits of SCIT and SLIT and highlights new findings regarding mechanisms, potential biomarkers and recent novel approaches for allergen immunotherapy.

Comment on "therapeutic effects and biomarkers in sublingual immunotherapy: a review"

Numerous sublingual immunotherapy studies have shown efficacy using a wide variety of dosing regimens. Despite a few grade III and one anaphylactic reaction due to a patient over-dose, there have been no fatal reactions resulting from sublingual immunotherapy treatment. Although safer than SCIT, SLIT is still immunotherapy. Special consideration should be given to what will ensure the highest level of safety for the patient given his or her history, exam and allergy test results. Dosing levels for sublingual immunotherapy should be based on what is therapeutically effective for each individual patient and adjusted accordingly throughout the treatment course.

[Sublingual immunotherapy. Where are we now?]

Allergic diseases represent a global health problem. They affect 20% to 30% of the German population, but more than 40% of the group between 20 and 40 years of age. The symptoms have a considerable influence on social life and cause an impairment of sleep and performance at work/school, leading to a high but avoidable economic impact. For over 100 years specific immunotherapy (SIT) has been used to treat IgE-mediated allergic diseases. Numerous well-controlled studies have provided evidence of its efficacy, safety and tolerability. Today SIT represents a well-established treatment of allergic rhinitis, rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma with a positive health economic impact. Initially, SIT was administered subcutaneously (SCIT), but other routes of application have been developed. In particular the sublingual-swallow method (SLIT) has been proven to be effective and well-tolerated in large studies on grass pollen allergies and represents an additional effective route of administration in adults and children.

Therapeutic effects and biomarkers in sublingual immunotherapy: a review

Immunotherapy is considered to be the only curative treatment for allergic diseases such as pollinosis, perennial rhinitis, asthma, and food allergy. The sublingual route is widely applied for immunotherapy for allergy, instead of the conventional administration by subcutaneous route. A recent meta-analysis of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has shown that this approach is safe, has positive clinical effects, and provides prolonged therapeutic effects after discontinuation of treatment. However, the mechanism of SLIT and associated biomarkers are not fully understood. Biomarkers that change after or during SLIT have been reported and may be useful for response monitoring or as prognostic indicators for SLIT. In this review, we focus on the safety, therapeutic effects, including prolonged effects after treatment, and new methods of SLIT. We also discuss response monitoring and prognostic biomarkers for SLIT. Finally, we discuss immunological mechanisms of SLIT with a focus on oral dendritic cells and facilitated antigen presentation.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy: mode of action and its relationship with the safety profile

Allergen immunotherapy reorients inappropriate immune responses in allergic patients. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been approved, notably in the European Union, as an effective alternative to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) for allergic rhinitis patients. Compared with SCIT, SLIT has a better safety profile. This is possibly because oral antigen-presenting cells (mostly Langerhans and myeloid dendritic cells) exhibit a tolerogenic phenotype, despite constant exposure to danger signals from food and microbes. This reduces the induction of pro-inflammatory immune responses leading to systemic allergic reactions. Oral tissues contain relatively few mast cells and eosinophils (mostly located in submucosal areas) and, in comparison with subcutaneous tissue, are less likely to give rise to anaphylactic reactions. SLIT-associated immune responses include the induction of circulating, allergen-specific Th1 and regulatory CD4+ T cells, leading to clinical tolerance. Although 40-75% of patients receiving SLIT experience mild, transient local reactions in the oral mucosa, these primary reactions rarely necessitate dose reduction or treatment interruption. We discuss 11 published case reports of anaphylaxis (all nonfatal) diagnosed according to the World Allergy Organization criteria and relate this figure to the approximately 1 billion SLIT doses administered worldwide since 2000. Anaphylaxis risk factors associated with SCIT and/or SLIT should be characterized further.

Subcutaneous versus sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and/or asthma

Subcutaneous allergen-specific immunotherapy has long been used in allergic rhinitis and/or asthma and has been recognized to be efficacious. However, owing to the inconvenience of injection and the risk of serious side effects, alternative concepts inspiring the search for effective noninjective routes, namely sublingual administration of allergens, have emerged. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) appears to be associated with a lower incidence of systemic reactions. The clinical efficacy of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is well established for both rhinitis and asthma. Meta-analyses relating to its efficacy on asthma and rhinitis are available. SLIT has also been validated in this respect. Comparative clinical studies of SLIT versus SCIT are scarce demonstrating both routes to be clinically efficient. Knowledge of the exact mechanism of action of SLIT has been increasing in the last decade. In addition, recent studies have proved similarities of the immunological changes with the treatment of both routes. Further comparative clinical and immunological studies of SLIT versus SCIT are needed to confirm the long-term efficacy and to complete the knowledge of immunological mechanisms of both routes. Moreover, better understanding of the interaction of allergen and oral mucosal dendritic cells during SLIT may allow improved targeting of SLIT vaccines.

Subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: what is the evidence?

BACKGROUND

Increasing interest in sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) among practitioners and patients has resulted in numerous publications and clinical trials in recent years. With the clinical growth of SLIT, discussions of its efficacy, safety, and immunologic effects have intensified, as have comparisons to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). In the United States, SCIT has been the traditional form of immunotherapy for inhalant allergy and is the only immunotherapy method approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration at this time. The similarities and differences between SLIT and SCIT are often discussed, yet clinical studies directly comparing these immunotherapy methods are scarce.

METHODS

A literature review of specific issues and controversies between SLIT and SCIT for allergic rhinitis was conducted.

RESULTS

Safety, efficacy, and immunologic effects of these two immunotherapy techniques are reviewed.

CONCLUSION

Unanswered questions relating to SLIT are examined.

Sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis

Current treatment options for allergic rhinitis (AR) include allergen avoidance and environmental control, pharmacotherapy, nasal surgery and immunotherapy. Among these, immunotherapy is the only therapeutic option that modifies fundamental immunologic mechanism by inducing desensitization. Specific allergen immunotherapy has been used for 1 century since 1911 and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been demonstrated to be effective in asthma and AR. However, SCIT has several disadvantages such as inconvenience, invasiveness and potentially severe systemic reactions. Thus, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has recently received much attention around the world as a treatment for AR and is now widely used to replace the subcutaneous route. SLIT has recently been introduced in Korea and is now available for AR treatment in the Asia-Pacific region. This review offers better understanding of SLIT for AR by summarizing published articles and our previous works regarding proposed mechanisms, indication and efficacy, safety and adverse events, and compliance.

Sublingual immunotherapy

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic respiratory diseases: efficacy and safety

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is effective and safe when properly prescribed and administered. However, a certain risk of severe side effects exists, even when the reaction is managed correctly. These potential adverse effects stimulated the search for new administration routes (nasal, bronchial, oral, sublingual), which were expected to be safer. Not all of these alternative routes provided an improved benefit-safety profile compared with SCIT. The sublingual route (SLIT) seemed to be a good candidate for the clinical practice because of its satisfactory safety profile and is now considered an acceptable alternative to SCIT in adults and children.

Systematic reviews of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)

Allergic rhinitis is common worldwide, with significant morbidity and impact on quality of life. In patients who don't respond adequately to anti-allergic drugs. Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy is effective although requires specialist administration. Sublingual immunotherapy may represent an effective and safer alternative. This Cochrane systematic review is an update of one published in 2003. We searched Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register, Central, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Biosis Previews, Cambridge Scientific Abstarcts, mRCT and additional sources. We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- controlled trials of sublingual immunotherapy in adults and children. Two authors selected studies and assessed them for quality. Data were put into RevMan 5.0 for a statistical analysis. We used standardised mean difference (SMD), with a random effect model to combine data. Sixty studies were included, with 49 suitable for meta-analysis. We found significant reductions in symptoms (SMD -0.49; 95%CI (-0.64 to -0.34, P < 0.00001)) and medication requirements (SMD -0.32; 95%CI (-0.43 to -0.21, P < 0.00001)) compared with placebo. None of the trials reported severe systemic reactions, anaphylaxis or use of Adrenaline. This updated review reinforces the conclusion of the original 2003 Cochrane Review that sublingual immunotherapy is effective for allergic rhinitis and appears a safe route of administration.

Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite extract in polyallergen sensitized patients with allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

It is suggested that polysensitized patients might not benefit from specific allergic rhinitis immunotherapy as much as monosensitized patients, although further research on this subject is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with standardized house dust mite extract in monosensitized and polysensitized patients with allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

Patients who were sensitized to house dust mites and treated with SLIT for house dust mites for at least 1 year between November 2007 and March 2010 were studied. The monoallergen sensitized group was defined as patients who were sensitized to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and/or Dermatophagoides farinae (n = 70). The polyallergen sensitized group was defined as patients who were simultaneously sensitized to house dust mites and other allergens (n = 64). A standardized extract of house dust mites was used for immunotherapy. Antiallergic medication and the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), including rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal obstruction, and itchy nose, were evaluated before and 1 year after SLIT.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 134 patients. The TNSS improved significantly after SLIT in both groups, whereas the change in the TNSS did not differ significantly between the groups. The antiallergic medication scores also decreased significantly in both groups, but there was no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In polysensitized allergic rhinitis patients, SLIT for D pteronyssinus and/or D farinae produced improvements in both nasal symptoms and rescue medication scores comparable to those in monosensitized patients, regardless of other positive allergens. SLIT for D pteronyssinus and/or D farinae should be considered in polysensitized allergic rhinitis patients.