Epicutaneous immunotherapy in rhino-conjunctivitis and food allergies: a review of the literature

Clinical and experimental treatment of allergic asthma with an emphasis on allergen immunotherapy and its mechanisms

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is currently the only form of treatment that modifies allergic asthma. Pharmacotherapy alone seeks to control the symptoms of allergic asthma, allergic rhinitis, and other atopic conditions. In contrast, AIT can induce long-term physiological modifications through the immune system. AIT enables individuals to live improved lives many years after treatment ends, where they are desensitized to the allergen(s) used or no longer have significant allergic reactions upon allergen provocation. The leading forms of treatment with AIT involve injections of allergen extracts with increasing doses via the subcutaneous route or drops/tablets via the sublingual route for several years. Since the initial attempts at this treatment as early as 1911 by Leonard Noon, the mechanisms by which AIT operates remain unclear. This literature-based review provides the primary care practitioner with a current understanding of the mechanisms of AIT, including its treatment safety, protocols, and long-term efficacy. The primary mechanisms underlying AIT include changes in immunoglobulin classes (IgA, IgE, and IgG), immunosuppressive regulatory T-cell induction, helper T cell type 2 to helper T cell type 1 cell/cytokine profile shifts, decreased early-phase reaction activity and mediators, and increased production of IL-10, IL-35, TGF-β, and IFN-γ. Using the databases PubMed and Embase, a selective literature search was conducted searching for English, full-text, reviews published between 2015 and 2022 using the keywords (with wildcards) "allerg*," "immunotherap*," "mechanis*," and "asthma." Among the cited references, additional references were identified using a manual search.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: The future seems bright

Allergen specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causal therapeutic option for allergic airway diseases including asthma and allergic rhinitis. AIT has been shown to restore the allergen immune tolerance, can modify both the early and late-onset allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity, helps to achieve disease control/remission and prevents new sensitisations. Recent real life data on long-term effectiveness of house dust mite (HDM) AIT in a large group of patients with HDM-driven asthma further underscored its unique therapeutic potential as well as confirmed previous data with pollen AIT. More widespread use of this causal treatment in select patient populations should further move this promising therapeutic field. In this mini-review, we discuss updates on new insights based on real world patient data.

Chinese Guideline on Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: The 2022 Update

In the last few decades, there has been a progressive increase in the prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) in China, where it now affects approximately 250 million people. AR prevention and treatment include allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, allergen immunotherapy (AIT), and patient education, among which AIT is the only curative intervention. AIT targets the disease etiology and may potentially modify the immune system as well as induce allergen-specific immune tolerance in patients with AR. In 2017, a team of experts from the Chinese Society of Allergy (CSA) and the Chinese Allergic Rhinitis Collaborative Research Group (C2AR2G) produced the first English version of Chinese AIT guidelines for AR. Since then, there has been considerable progress in basic research of and clinical practice for AIT, especially regarding the role of follicular regulatory T (TFR) cells in the pathogenesis of AR and the use of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) in nasal secretions for the diagnosis of AR. Additionally, potential biomarkers, including TFR cells, sIgG4, and sIgE, have been used to monitor the incidence and progression of AR. Moreover, there has been a novel understanding of AIT during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Hence, there was an urgent need to update the AIT guideline for AR by a team of experts from CSA and C2AR2G. This document aims to serve as professional reference material on AIT for AR treatment in China, thus improving the development of AIT across the world.

Effects of a Cloth Panel Containing a Specific Ore Powder on Patients with Chamaecyparis obtusa (Cypress) Pollen Allergy

Pollen allergy to Japanese cedar and cypress is a serious illness that impairs daily life and sleep, especially during pollen season. We have reported that placing a cloth panel containing a specific natural ore powder (CCSNOP) in a room may alleviate the symptoms of hay fever and may also benefit the immune system. This ore is from the Aso mountain range, a volcano on Kyushu Island in the southwestern part of Japan. The purpose of this study was to verify the effect of CCSNOP on cypress pollen. Thirty-one double-blind tests, which investigated cedar pollen allergies, were conducted from February to March 2018 and have already been reported. After this, in early April, 10 of these cases were recruited and all had CCSNOP installed in their bedrooms. Before that, various symptoms and changes in medication were recorded in a “Symptom Diary” and included a mood survey by a questionnaire, stress test using saliva amylase, changes in cypress-specific immunoglobulins IgE and IgG4 by blood sampling, and eosinophil changes. In addition, changes in 29 types of cytokines were investigated. Exposure to CCSNOP relieved symptoms and subjects decreased their intake of medication. There was no change in mood or stress, but eosinophil levels tended to decrease. Although there were no statistical changes in cypress-specific IgE or IgG4, an increase in the former and a decrease in the latter were observed in some individuals during the period of pollen dispersal. Furthermore, levels of GM-CSF and IL8 decreased significantly after use of CCSNOP. The CCSNOP was shown to be effective against cypress pollen allergy, and future investigations will be necessary to observe the long-term effects of CCSNOP.

Role of the gut-skin axis in IgE-mediated food allergy and atopic diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent years, landmark clinical trials investigating the role of early oral exposure to food antigens for food allergy (FA) prevention have highlighted the importance of immunoregulatory pathways in the 'gut-skin axis'. This review highlights recent literature on the mechanisms of the immune system and microbiome involved in the gut-skin axis, contributing to the development of atopic dermatitis (AD), FA, allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma. Therapeutic interventions harnessing the gut-skin axis are also discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Epicutaneous sensitization in the presence of AD is capable of inducing Th2 allergic inflammation in the intestinal tract and lower respiratory airways, predisposing one to the development of AR and asthma. Probiotics have demonstrated positive effects in preventing and treating AD, though there is no evident relationship of its beneficial effects on other allergic diseases. Prophylactic skin emollients use has not shown consistent protection against AD, whereas there is some evidence for the role of dietary changes in alleviating AD and airway inflammation. More randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the potential of epicutaneous immunotherapy as a therapeutic strategy for patients with FA.

SUMMARY

The growing understanding of the gut-skin interactions on allergic disease pathogenesis presents novel avenues for therapeutic interventions which target modulation of the gut and/or skin.

Allergic Rhinitis: What Do We Know About Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy?

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an IgE-mediated disease that is characterized by Th2 joint inflammation. Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is indicated for AR when symptoms remain uncontrolled despite medication and allergen avoidance. AIT is considered to have been effective if it alleviated allergic symptoms, decreased medication use, improved the quality of life even after treatment cessation, and prevented the progression of AR to asthma and the onset of new sensitization. AIT can be administered subcutaneously or sublingually, and novel routes are still being developed, such as intra-lymphatically and epicutaneously. AIT aims at inducing allergen tolerance through modification of innate and adaptive immunologic responses. The main mechanism of AIT is control of type 2 inflammatory cells through induction of various functional regulatory cells such as regulatory T cells (Tregs), follicular T cells (Tfr), B cells (Bregs), dendritic cells (DCregs), innate lymphoid cells (IL-10⁺ ILCs), and natural killer cells (NKregs). However, AIT has a number of disadvantages: the long treatment period required to achieve greater efficacy, high cost, systemic allergic reactions, and the absence of a biomarker for predicting treatment responders. Currently, adjunctive therapies, vaccine adjuvants, and novel vaccine technologies are being studied to overcome the problems associated with AIT. This review presents an updated overview of AIT, with a special focus on AR.

[The route is the destination-novel forms of application of allergen immunotherapy]

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causal therapy of IgE-mediated allergies if allergen avoidance is not feasible. Already well established are subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) allergen application, and recently the first oral immunotherapy (OIT) for treating peanut allergy was approved. Interesting and promising new forms of allergen administration are intralymphatic (ILIT) and epicutaneous (EPIT) immunotherapy. Immunologic and clinical efficiency in terms of tolerance induction have been investigated in animal and clinical studies, including the first phase 3 studies. The findings as well as advantages and disadvantages, potential risks and challenges that still have to be addressed before routine clinical application can be envisioned will be comprehensively presented and discussed.

AIT: New Avenues in Allergen Immunotherapy

During the last decades a substantial increase of allergic diseases has been noticed including allergic asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis as well as food allergies. Since efficient avoidance of airborne - and often hidden - food allergens is not possible, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causative treatment with the goal of inducing allergen tolerance in affected individuals. Efficacy as well as safety of AIT significantly depends on how the allergen is presented to the immune system, meaning both the route and the form of its application. Here, new ways of allergen administration have lately been explored, some of which are auspicious candidates for successful implementation in the therapeutic management of immediate-type allergies. While the first oral AIT has been approved recently by the FDA for the treatment of peanut allergy, further interesting routes of allergen application include either epicutaneous, intradermal, intranasal, or intralymphatic delivery. Besides, rather the immunologically relevant peptides instead of whole allergen may be administered to develop tolerance. In this chapter, we will describe these new and promising avenues of allergen application in the field of AIT. In addition, we will discuss their potential for future treatment of IgE-mediated allergic diseases enhancing therapeutic efficiency while further minimizing the risks of adverse events.

Epicutaneous Allergen Administration with Microneedles as a Novel Method of Immunotherapy for House Dust Mite (HDM) Allergic Rhinitis

PURPOSE

Epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) is being studied as a method for treating allergic rhinitis because of skin immunology, user convenience and enhanced patient compliance. However, the use of EPIT is limited because of the very low skin permeability of the allergen. In this study, the limitations of EPIT were overcome by using sophisticated delivery with microneedles. The immunological efficacy of this method was studied in a murine model of house dust mite (HDM) allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

The length of the microneedles was 400 μm, and the coating formulation containing HDM was locally distributed near the end of the microneedle tips. The change of distribution of FITC-dextran in porcine skin in vitro was observed over time using a confocal microscope. The effect of immunotherapy in the allergic rhinitis model, sensitized by HDM-coated microneedles (HDM MNs), was observed according to the amount of HDM applied.

RESULTS

The microneedles delivered the coating formulation with precision into the porcine skin layer, and the coated formulation on the microneedles was all dissolved in the porcine skin in vitro within 20 min of administration and then gradually diffused into the skin layer. When HDM MNs were administered to mice, a 0.1-μg dose of HDM provided the most effective immunization, and improved efficacy was shown between 0.1- and 0.5- μg doses of HDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Effective immunotherapy can be achieved by precision delivery of the allergen into the skin layer, and microneedles can provide effective immunological therapy by delivering the appropriate amount of allergen.

Mechanisms Underlying the Skin-Gut Cross Talk in the Development of IgE-Mediated Food Allergy

Immune-globulin E (IgE)-mediated food allergy is characterized by a variety of clinical entities within the gastrointestinal tract, skin and lungs, and systemically as anaphylaxis. The default response to food antigens, which is antigen specific immune tolerance, requires exposure to the antigen and is already initiated during pregnancy. After birth, tolerance is mostly acquired in the gut after oral ingestion of dietary proteins, whilst exposure to these same proteins via the skin, especially when it is inflamed and has a disrupted barrier, can lead to allergic sensitization. The crosstalk between the skin and the gut, which is involved in the induction of food allergy, is still incompletely understood. In this review, we will focus on mechanisms underlying allergic sensitization (to food antigens) via the skin, leading to gastrointestinal inflammation, and the development of IgE-mediated food allergy. Better understanding of these processes will eventually help to develop new preventive and therapeutic strategies in children.

Current and emerging pharmacotherapy for pediatric allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem in adults as well as the younger population, continuously increasing and posing a significant problem for patients, health care systems and economies. For the younger population, some aspects differ from treatment of adults, namely, prevention, compliance and adherence.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review summarizes all the pharmacotherapeutic options with special focus on the pediatric population. Moreover, it elucidates prevention strategies as well as future developments of AR treatment. Currently, symptomatic therapy in the form of steroids and antihistamines is applied topically and systemically where steroids need to be administered with caution and for a very short term. The only disease-modifying and causal treatment is allergen immunotherapy administered sublingually and subcutaneously. Future and current novel therapeutic options are human monoclonal antibodies.

EXPERT OPINION

The greatest potential for future developments currently lie in allergen immunotherapy and here in different routes of administration and modification of (recombinant) allergens as well as immune-modulating adjuvants and nanoparticles. Secondly, monoclonal antibodies are promising molecules blocking and/or interfering with up- and downstream immune mechanisms. Another important aspect lies in prevention of allergic sensitization and disease progression through both AIT and biologics which is particularly true for the pediatric population.

Therapeutic perspectives in food allergy

BACKGROUND

In the last twenty years, several studies have been conducted in the search for new therapeutic strategies in patients with food allergy; in particular, after the failure of injection immunotherapy, three different routes of administration, oral immunotherapy (OIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), have been tested. The aim of this manuscript is to review OIT, SLIT, and EPIT clinical trials on food allergies and to suggest advantages and limits of the different routes of immunotherapy administration.

MAIN BODY

Of the three different routes of immunotherapy used in the treatment of food allergy, OIT is, at present, the only one actually able to induce an increase in tolerance in the majority of patients. However, its use is affected by serious secondary effects, such as major abdominal symptoms and anaphylaxis. The combination with omalizumab reduces the percentage of serious side effects. There are not many studies with SLIT for food allergy, but they have nevertheless shown that it is possible to obtain an increase in tolerance; however, this increase is modest in comparison with that obtained by OIT. EPIT, performed through the diffusion of allergens on intact skin, is the most recent form of immunotherapy. Although there are many works on EPIT carried out in laboratory animals, only few clinical studies have been published in humans. EPIT, unlike OIT and SLIT, is not responsible for systemic secondary effects such as anaphylaxis and eosinophilic oesophagitis but only for local and mild effects in areas where the devices are applied. Moreover, EPIT is characterized by high patient adherence.

CONCLUSION

OIT seems to have a prevalent application in patients who do not report previous symptoms of systemic or gastroenteric anaphylaxis, while SLIT and EPIT, in particular, could be more preferentially used in patients with a risk of anaphylaxis.

Can food allergy be cured? What are the future prospects?

Food allergies have become a significant heath burden as prevalence continues to rise, affecting 6%-13% of the global population. In the absence of drugs approved by regulatory agencies, the current standard of care remains avoidance of allergenic foods and management of acute allergic reactions with antihistamines and epinephrine autoinjectors. Allergen immunotherapy has been shown to increase the threshold of reactivity in the majority of food-allergic individuals. However, challenges include long treatment periods, high rates of adverse reactions, and lack of permanence of desensitization and established protocols. To address these limitations, adjunctive allergen-specific immunotherapy, vaccines, and non-allergen-specific therapies (eg, monoclonal antibodies) are being explored. The future of food allergy treatment is promising with a number of clinical trials in progress. Currently, although desensitization can be achieved for the majority of individuals with food allergy through immunotherapy, continued ingestion of allergen is needed for most individuals to maintain desensitization. Further understanding of the mechanisms of food allergy and identification of biomarkers to distinguish between temporary and permanent resolution of allergies is needed before a cure, where reactivity to the allergen is permanently lost enabling the individual to consume the allergen in any amount at any time, can be envisioned.

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.

30 years of sublingual immunotherapy

Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) was introduced in clinical practice on an empirical basis more than 100 years ago. Since the first attempts, AIT was administered subcutaneously. Indeed, other routes of administration were proposed and studied, in particular to improve the safety, but only the sublingual route (SLIT) achieved a credibility based on evidence and was then accepted as a viable "alternative" option to the subcutaneous route. SLIT was largely used in clinical trials and clinical practice in this last 30 years. Thus, a large amount of data is available, coming from either controlled trials and postmarketing surveillance studies. It is clear that SLIT is overall effective, but it is also clear that the efficacy is not "class-related," as derived from meta-analyses, but restricted to each specific product. The 30-year lasting use of SLIT allowed to clarify many clinical aspects, such as efficacy, safety, use in asthma, regimens of administration, and optimal doses. In parallel, the mechanisms of action of AIT were elucidated, and new indications were proposed (eg food allergy, atopic dermatitis). In addition, the introduction of molecular-based diagnosis, allowed to better refine the prescription of SLIT, based on specific sensitization profiles. The present article will describe the origin and evolution of SLIT for respiratory allergy, taking into account the clinical context that suggested this form of treatment, the recently developed aspects, the future perspectives and unmet needs, This is not, therefore, a systematic review, rather a narrative historical description of the past history, and a look forward to the future opportunities.

Immunotherapy in allergic diseases - improved understanding and innovation for enhanced effectiveness

Allergen immunotherapy leads to tolerance through multiple mechanisms that include tolerogenic dendritic cells and T and B regulatory cells. These induced cellular populations produce mediators to skew the immune response to a tolerogenic milieu that, among others, results in IgG4 blocking antibodies formation and lowered FcE receptors. All lead in decreased effector responses from mast cells, eosinophils, and basophils thus limiting the allergic inflammation. Clinically, this results in better allergic rhinitis control and, of importance, asthma prevention. Newer approaches include modified allergens, second generation adjuvants/carriers and routes of administration, all aiming to increased efficacy with parallel no compromise of safety.

Molecular approaches to allergen-specific immunotherapy: Are we so far from clinical implementation?

Conventional allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT), based on administrations of allergen extracts, represents up to now the unique protocol for the desensitization of allergic patients. Whereas the effectiveness of AIT was evidenced for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, such strategy remains experimental for food allergies up to now. However, important issues are commonly associated with AIT as the quality of natural allergen extracts, the long duration and adverse side-effects which negatively affect successful desensitization together with the patient compliance. The rapid progression of molecular allergology made possible the quest of safer, shorter and more effective immunotherapeutic approaches. The aim of this review was to provide an update on these different innovative recombinant derivatives including their efficacy but also their limitations. Despite promising preclinical and early clinical studies, the absence of convincing data in large phase III trials precludes so far the translation of these immunotherapeutic candidates into the clinic.

The Efficacy and Safety of Epicutaneous Immunotherapy for Allergic Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effect and safety of epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT) for allergic diseases.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, CQ VIP Database, Wanfang Data, and international trial register from their inception to July 29, 2019, without language restrictions, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared EPIT versus no EPIT for allergen-triggered allergic reactions. We assessed certainty of evidence by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs with 1,085 participants (aged from 10 months to 65 years) comparing EPIT with placebo for peanut, cow milk, or grass-pollen allergy met the eligibility criteria. A substantial benefit in terms of desensitization in EPIT group was more likely for peanut or cow milk protein allergy (risk ratio [RR] 2.34, 95% CI 1.69-3.23; I2 = 0%; high certainty evidence). EPIT increased local-treatment-related adverse events (L-TRAE; RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.36; I2 = 82%; moderate certainty evidence). But there were no significantly increased risk of any TRAEs (low certainty evidence) or systemic-TRAEs (S-TRAEs; very low certainty evidence) in EPIT group. The incidence rate of serious AEs, the use of rescue medications, and anaphylactic reactions stratified by organ systems including skin and mucosa, eyes and upper respiratory, lower respiratory, and gastrointestinal system in EPIT group were similar to placebo group. In subgroup analysis, desensitization of EPIT was significantly effective in peanut allergy (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.64-3.21; I2 = 0%) and children <12 years (RR 2.85, 95% CI 1.92-4.24; I2 = 0%) with high certainty evidence. Only epicutaneous grass-pollen immunotherapy significantly increased the risk of S-TRAE (RR 4.65, 95% CI 1.10-19.64; I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The systematic review suggests that EPIT might induce desensitization in peanut allergy and an increased risk of local AEs. These findings should be interpreted with caution owing to the limited study and heterogeneity. More data in the older (children ≥12 years and adults) and other allergic diseases are needed.

Scratching Beneath the Surface: Linking Skin Pathology with Food Allergy

A link between atopic dermatitis and food allergy has long been suspected but remains elusive. In this issue, Leyva-Castillo et al. (2019) show how mechanical injury of the skin initiates a cascade of events that stimulate the expansion of mucosal mast cells and promote food anaphylaxis.