Management of the polyallergic patient with allergy immunotherapy: a practice-based approach

Factors associated with sensitisation to selected aero-allergens in children and adolescents with asthma followed up at Laquintinie Hospital Douala, Cameroon

INTRODUCTION

In spite of the substantial impact of pediatric asthma on healthcare resources, there is a notable dearth of research focusing on allergen sensitization specifically in children and adolescents with asthma in Cameroon, with existing studies primarily concentrating on adult populations. We, therefore, set out to determine factors associated with sensitization to selected aero-allergens in children and adolescents with asthma followed up at Laquintinie Hospital Douala, Cameroon.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a cross-sectional analytical study on patients aged 2-17 years followed up for pediatric asthma at Laquintinie Hospital Douala for 8 months (January to August 2023). Skin prick tests were performed using selected standardized aeroallergens extracts. Factors associated with sensitization were determined using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The threshold for significance was set at p < .05.

RESULTS

In total, 126 children and adolescents with asthma were recruited, 50.79% of whom were male with an average age of 8.00 ± 3.99 years. Eight out of 10 patients (83.52%) were sensitized to common aero-allergens (20.59% monosensitized and 79.41% polysensitized). The most common aero-allergens found were the dust mites Dermatophagoïdes pteronyssinus (81.37%), Blomia tropicalis (67.64%) and Dermatophagoïdes farinae (52.94%) followed by Blatella species (25.49%). The factors independently associated with sensitization in our population were the personal history of allergic rhinitis in the patient [adjusted odds ratio, aOR: 4.07 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.41-11.76), b = 0.54, p = .009], chest tightness at rest [aOR: 5.92 (95% CI: 1.08-32.38), b = 0.87, p = .040), and age above 5 years [aOR: 4.65 (95% CI: 1.47-14.69), b = 0.59, p = .009).

CONCLUSION

Sensitization to multiple aeroallergens is common in children and adolescents with asthma, especially for dust mites and cockroaches. Factors associated with sensitization are patients aged >5 years, chest tightness at rest, and a personal history of allergic rhinitis.

Polysensitisation is associated with more severe symptoms: The reality of patients with allergy

BACKGROUND

Studying the sensitisation profiles of patients with allergies allows for a deeper understanding of the disease which may facilitate the selection of the best-personalised allergen immunotherapy. This observational, cross-sectional, multicentre study aimed to demonstrate the heterogeneity of the German population with allergies by analysing specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) patterns towards aeroallergens and exploring the relationship between sensitisation and clinical symptoms.

METHODS

In total, 500 patients with allergies from different regions of Germany were recruited based on their case histories, clinical allergic symptoms and skin prick test data for aeroallergens. Serum samples were analysed using ImmunoCAP assays to determine sIgE levels for 33 allergenic sources and 43 molecular allergens.

RESULTS

Most patients (81%) were polysensitised. Betula verrucosa pollen was the most common cause of sensitisation (59%), followed by Phleum pratense (58%) and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (44%). The highest prevalence rates of molecular allergens were observed for Bet v 1 (84%) from birch pollen, Phl p 1 from grass pollen (82%), Der p 2 (69%) from mites and Fel d 1 (69%) from cat. Polysensitisation was significantly associated with the presence of asthma and the severity of rhinitis symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show a high rate of polysensitisation and emphasise the importance of molecular diagnosis for more precise and comprehensive insights into sensitisation patterns and their association with clinical symptoms. These data may help improve personalised diagnosis and immunotherapy adapted to the needs of individual patients in the region.

The Art of Immunotherapy

Selection of a patient with rhinitis/conjunctivitis or asthma for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) requires several decisions. First, does the patient's sensitization, pattern of exposure to an allergen, and degree of exposure to that allergen reasonably suggest a causal relationship? Does the level and duration of symptoms warrant the cost and inconvenience of immunotherapy, or is the patient motivated by the disease-modifying potential of AIT? If AIT is selected, is the choice to be greater safety and convenience with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets, but with treatment probably limited to 2 or 3 allergens, or for subcutaneous immunotherapy where multiple allergen therapy is the rule and efficacy may be somewhat greater, at least initially, or does the physician go off-label into the unknowns of liquid SLIT? Are there extracts of sufficient potency to achieve likely effective doses? How does the physician deal with large local or systemic reactions, with gaps in treatment, with pollen seasons, and the use of premedication or cautionary prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors? How can adherence to AIT be improved? These and other questions are addressed in this paper.

Advocacy of Precision Allergy Molecular Diagnosis in Decision Making for the Eligibility of Customized Allergen Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) with aeroallergens is the only disease-modifying treatment for patients with different allergic conditions. Despite the effectiveness of AIT having been proven in both randomized controlled trials and real-world studies, it remains underused in less than 10% of subjects with allergic rhinitis (AR) and/or asthma (A). We aimed to determine the current eligibility for house dust mite (HDM) AIT by means of a precision allergy molecular diagnosis (PAMD@) model in a selected cohort of youngsters with different allergic phenotypes according to the available evidence. A complex response to both HDM and storage mite allergens was depicted regardless of the subjects' basal atopic condition. No solely specific IgE-binding responses to Der p 1, Der p 2, and/or Der p 23 were found in the studied cohort. Despite the patients with A and atopic dermatitis showing significantly higher serum titers to six mite allergens than subjects with AR, no specific molecular profile was regarded as disease specific. Given the increasing complexity of specific IgE responses to the local prevailing aeroallergens, the identification and presence of such molecules are needed in commercially available AIT in the era of precision medicine.

KAAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment for various allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, allergic asthma, and bee venom allergy that induces tolerance to offending allergens. The need for uniform practice guidelines in AIT is continuously growing because of the increasing discovery of potential candidates for AIT and evolving interest in new therapeutic approaches. This guideline is an updated version of the Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommendations for AIT published in 2010. This updated guideline proposes an expert opinion by allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology specialists with an extensive literature review. The guideline deals with basic knowledge and methodological aspects of AIT, including mechanisms, clinical efficacy, patient selection, allergens extract selection, schedule and doses, management of adverse reactions, efficacy measurements, and special consideration in pediatrics. The guidelines for sublingual immunotherapy will be covered in detail in a separate article.

Inconsistent Skin Prick Tests for Allergy to Birch Homologous Trees May Result from Cross-Reacting Allergens or Technical Errors

INTRODUCTION

Skin prick tests (SPTs) are the gold standard for diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR). A decrease in the number of allergens included in standard SPT panels has recently been debated - particularly regarding the cross-reacting homologous pollen from birch, alder, and hazel trees - but has not yet been implemented in clinical guidelines.

METHODS

A subgroup of patients with AR (n = 69) who showed inconsistent SPT results among birch, alder, and hazel was investigated in detail. Beyond SPT, patient workup included assessment of clinical relevance and various serological parameters (total IgE, and specific IgE to birch, alder, and hazel and to Bet v 1, Bet v 2, and Bet v 4).

RESULTS

More than half the study group had negative SPT results for birch but positive results for alder and/or hazel, and 87% of the study group was polysensitized, showing at least one more positive SPT result for other plants. Whereas 30.4% of patients showed serological sensitization to birch pollen extract, only 18.8% displayed positive specific IgE to Bet v 1. Clinical assessment revealed that most patients with AR were polysensitized and had perennial symptoms or symptoms also occurring during times other than tree flowering times. If the SPT panel is limited to testing birch only, 52.2% of patients in this subgroup would have been overlooked.

CONCLUSION

Inconsistent SPT results in the birch homologous group may result from cross-reacting allergens or technical errors. If patients report convincing clinical symptoms despite negative results from a reduced SPT panel or inconsistent results for homologous allergens, SPT should be repeated, and molecular markers should be added to achieve a correct diagnosis.

Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3–5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.

Immunotherapies in the treatment of immunoglobulin E‑mediated allergy: Challenges and scope for innovation (Review)

Immunoglobulin E (IgE)‑mediated allergy or hypersensitivity reactions are generally defined as an unwanted severe symptomatic immunological reaction that occurs due to shattered or untrained peripheral tolerance of the immune system. Allergen‑specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only therapeutic strategy that can provide a longer‑lasting symptomatic and clinical break from medications in IgE‑mediated allergy. Immunotherapies against allergic diseases comprise a successive increasing dose of allergen, which helps in developing the immune tolerance against the allergen. AITs exerttheirspecial effectiveness directly or indirectly by modulating the regulator and effector components of the immune system. The number of success stories of AIT is still limited and it canoccasionallyhave a severe treatment‑associated adverse effect on patients. Therefore, the formulation used for AIT should be appropriate and effective. The present review describes the chronological evolution of AIT, and provides a comparative account of the merits and demerits of different AITs by keeping in focus the critical guiding factors, such as sustained allergen tolerance, duration of AIT, probability of mild to severe allergic reactions and dose of allergen required to effectuate an effective AIT. The mechanisms by which regulatory T cells suppress allergen‑specific effector T cells and how loss of natural tolerance against innocuous proteins induces allergy are reviewed. The present review highlights the major AIT bottlenecks and the importantregulatory requirements for standardized AIT formulations. Furthermore, the present reviewcalls attention to the problem of 'polyallergy', which is still a major challenge for AIT and the emerging concept of 'component‑resolved diagnosis' (CRD) to address the issue. Finally, a prospective strategy for upgrading CRD to the next dimension is provided, and a potential technology for delivering thoroughly standardized AIT with minimal risk is discussed.

Preference for sublingual immunotherapy with tablets in a Spanish population with allergic rhinitis

Background

This study investigated patients' preference for allergy immunotherapy (AIT) administered as either sublingual immunotherapy‐tablets versus monthly or weekly subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) from a Spanish patient perspective.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of two blocks with eight choice sets in each was constructed to elicit the preferences for AIT. Three attributes were included in the DCE for the mode of administration, including the frequency of administration, the risk of systemic reactions and the co‐payment. Adults and caregivers of children with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis (AR) were included if they were not currently receiving or had not previously received AIT.

Results

In total, 587 adults and 613 caregivers started the survey. Of those, 579 adults and 611 caregivers completed the survey and were included in the study. Both adults and caregivers had a significant preference for tablets compared with both monthly and weekly injections (p ≤ 0.0001). Furthermore, the respondents showed a significant preference for reducing the risk of systemic reactions. Subgroup analyses showed that caregivers of polyallergic children and female caregivers were significantly less price sensitive when choosing their preferred treatment.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that both adults with AR and caregivers of children with AR prefer daily SLIT‐tablets to SCIT with either a weekly or monthly dose schedule.

To mix or not to mix in allergy immunotherapy vaccines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

European and US allergists generally do not agree on the approach to subcutaneous allergy immunotherapy in patients with multiple allergies. The North American approach is to treat with a mixture that contains all the allergen extracts to which the patient has evident clinical sensitivity, whereas the European approach is to select for treatment the one or at the most two allergens that are clinically most important for the patient.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent society guidelines continue to recommend these differing practices of treating the polyallergic patient and reviews of prescribing practices indicate these divergent recommendations are followed in Europe and the USA.

SUMMARY

The objections by European allergists to the practice by US allergists are that multiallergen immunotherapy leads to dilution of allergens to less than effective doses, that proteases in some extracts can degrade allergens in other extracts, that there is a problem of safety and inability to determine which component extract caused a systemic reaction, and finally that there is alack of convincing studies demonstrating efficacy of multiallergen mixtures. Each of these contentions is addressed.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy takes more than the time in the clinic

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the time use and both direct and indirect costs associated with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for adults with allergic rhinitis (AR) and caregivers of children with AR in the US.

METHODS

We conducted a survey to assess the retrospective time use and direct costs of SCIT. The populations surveyed included adults and caregivers of children (aged 5-17) with symptomatic AR of moderate or higher severity who are currently receiving or have previously started allergy immunotherapy (AIT). The retrospectively collected, self-reported time consumption and direct costs per clinic visit when receiving SCIT were assessed as well as the productivity loss associated with SCIT. Data were analyzed using univariate descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The study included 106 adults with AR and 191 caregivers of children with AR. We found that the median time spent per visit to the clinic was 50 min for both groups, including travel time and time at the clinic. The direct costs related to each visit included parking fees, road tolls and other costs. Adults spent $10 on parking, $9 on tolls and $10 on other costs. Finally, a median of 4 h of work was missed for both the adult patients and the adults accompanying a child.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that SCIT is associated with substantial direct patient costs and productivity loss for both adults with AR and caregivers of children with AR.

Pollen forecasting and its relevance in pollen allergen avoidance

Pollinosis and allergic asthma are respiratory diseases of global relevance, heavily affecting the quality of life of allergic subjects. Since there is not a decisive cure yet, pollen allergic subjects need to avoid exposure to high pollen allergens concentrations. For this purpose, pollen forecasting is an essential tool that needs to be reliable and easily accessible. While forecasting methods are rapidly evolving towards more complex statistical and physical models, the use of simple and traditional methods is still preferred in routine predictions. In this review, we summarise and explain the main parameters considered when forecasting pollen, and classify the different forecasting methods in two groups: observation-based and process-based. Finally, we compare these approaches based on their usefulness to allergic patients, and discuss possible future developments of the field.

Clinical effectiveness of house dust mite immunotherapy in mono- versus poly-sensitised patients with allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Selecting an appropriate allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) regimen for polysensitised allergic rhinitis (AR) patients is challenging for clinicians. Although previous studies showed comparable effectiveness of single-allergen AIT with house dust mite (HDM) extract between monosensitised and polysensitised AR patients, there is no systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the comparable effectiveness of HDM AIT. In this meta-analysis, we analysed nine studies to compare the clinical effectiveness of HDM AIT. The primary outcome was nasal symptom score and secondary outcomes were medication and quality of life scores. The changes in nasal symptom score after HDM AIT did not significantly differ between monosensitised and polysensitised patients. The clinical effectiveness of HDM AIT regarding medication and quality of life score was not significantly different between monosensitised and polysensitised patients). In conclusion, single-allergen AIT with HDM extract showed comparable clinical effectiveness between polysensitised and monosensitised patients with AR.

Patient needs and benefits of sublingual immunotherapy for grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis: an observational study

Aim: Clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) needs to translate into patient benefit. Patients & methods: Patients received Oralair (Stallergenes, Antony, France) in real-life medical practice. Patient-relevant treatment benefits were measured with the AR-specific Patient Benefit Index. Subgroups were analyzed regarding distinct patient characteristics. Results: Data of 883 patients (children, adolescents, and adults) were analyzed. The highest-ranked patient needs referred to having less AR-symptoms, being able to go outdoors, and being free in the choice of leisure activities. Most patients (89.2-94.6%) attained at least minimally relevant benefit. All subgroups reported relevant benefits, with significantly higher scores in some subgroups. Conclusion: Treatment with Oralair was associated with considerable patient-relevant benefit in all age groups.

Exploring novel systemic biomarker approaches in grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy using omics

Background

Sublingual allergen‐specific immunotherapy (SLIT) intervention improves the control of grass pollen allergy by maintaining allergen tolerance after cessation. Despite its widespread use, little is known about systemic effects and kinetics associated to SLIT, as well as the influence of the patient sensitization phenotype (Mono‐ or Poly‐sensitized). In this quest, omics sciences could help to gain new insights to understand SLIT effects.

Methods

47 grass‐pollen‐allergic patients were enrolled in a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, multicenter trial using GRAZAX® during 2 years. Immunological assays (sIgE, sIgG4, and ISAC) were carried out to 31 patients who finished the trial. Additionally, serum and PBMCs samples were analyzed by metabolomics and transcriptomics, respectively. Based on their sensitization level, 22 patients were allocated in Mono‐ or Poly‐sensitized groups, excluding patients allergic to epithelia. Individuals were compared based on their treatment (Active/Placebo) and sensitization level (Mono/Poly).

Results

Kinetics of serological changes agreed with those previously described. At two years of SLIT, there are scarce systemic changes that could be associated to improvement in systemic inflammation. Poly‐sensitized patients presented a higher inflammation at inclusion, while Mono‐sensitized patients presented a reduced activity of mast cells and phagocytes as an effect of the treatment.

Conclusions

The most relevant systemic change detected after two years of SLIT was the desensitization of effector cells, which was only detected in Mono‐sensitized patients. This change may be related to the clinical improvement, as previously reported, and, together with the other results, may explain why clinical effect is lost if SLIT is discontinued at this point.

Recent Advances in Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy as Treatment for Allergic Asthma: A Practical Overview

The Global Initiative for Asthma Report updated in 2019 stated that potential benefits of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), compared to pharmacological and avoidance options, must be weighed against the risk of adverse effects and the inconvenience and cost of the prolonged course of therapy in asthma. Thus, with the aim of clarifying some aspects with regard to the possible use of AIT in allergic asthma treatment armamentarium, a group of expert allergists from the Spanish Allergy and Clinical Immunology Scientific Society (SEAIC), particularly from the Immunotherapy and Asthma Interest Groups developed a frequently asked questions in clinical practice. This document updates relevant topics on the use of AIT in asthma and could facilitate physician clinical decisions and improve health outcomes for individual patients.

Induction of IL-10-producing type 2 innate lymphoid cells by allergen immunotherapy is associated with clinical response

The role of innate immune cells in allergen immunotherapy that confers immune tolerance to the sensitizing allergen is unclear. Here, we report a role of interleukin-10-producing type 2 innate lymphoid cells (IL-10⁺ ILC2s) in modulating grass-pollen allergy. We demonstrate that KLRG1⁺ but not KLRG1^- ILC2 produced IL-10 upon activation with IL-33 and retinoic acid. These cells attenuated Th responses and maintained epithelial cell integrity. IL-10⁺ KLRG1⁺ ILC2s were lower in patients with grass-pollen allergy when compared to healthy subjects. In a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we demonstrated that the competence of ILC2 to produce IL-10 was restored in patients who received grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy. The underpinning mechanisms were associated with the modification of retinol metabolic pathway, cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, and JAK-STAT signaling pathways in the ILCs. Altogether, our findings underscore the contribution of IL-10⁺ ILC2s in the disease-modifying effect by allergen immunotherapy.

Cross-reactivity in Skin Prick Test Results of Members Within Pooideae Subfamily

Objective

Molecular similarities of grass pollen antigens have led to the view that cross-reactivity exists within members of the Pooideae subfamily of grasses. This has resulted in testing for only the most antigenically representative member of Pooideae, Timothy grass (Phleum pratense), despite little literature to support the claim that Phleum is the most representative member or that in vitro cross-reactivity correlates with in vivo cross-reactivity. The aim of the study was to determine if patients with allergic rhinitis symptoms and positive skin prick test results to meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis) also have positive results to Timothy grass.

Study Design

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

Setting

Tertiary care center in middle Missouri.

Methods

A retrospective chart review identified patients ≥12 years old with a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis who underwent skin prick testing between March 2016 and July 2018, by using a search with CPT code 95004 (Current Procedural Terminology). Positive skin prick test results were based on wheal produced ≥3 mm than the negative control.

Results

After review of 2182 charts, 1587 patients met criteria to test for Phleum and Festuca. In total, 1239 patients had a positive result for Phleum or Festuca. Of these, 479 (38.6%) tested positive for Festuca alone, while 342 (27.6%) and 418 (33.7%) tested positive for Phleum alone and Phleum+Festuca, respectively.

Conclusion

Clinical cross-reactivity among Pooideae members may not be as complete as traditionally thought. P pratense may not be the most antigenically representative subfamily member, and other grasses may need to be included in skin prick testing.

Sex- and Age-Dependent Changes in Polysensitization to Common Aeroallergens Over 20 Years

Introduction

The prevalence of airway allergies in Europe has increased from 23% to 31% in recent years. Polysensitization is associated with the development and severity of relevant allergies, particularly allergic asthma.

Objective

We investigated age- and sex-dependent monosensitization and polysensitization profiles as well as patterns of sensitization using skin prick test (SPT) reactivity to the most common aeroallergens.

Patients and Methods

From 1998 to 2017, SPTs were retrospectively analyzed in 2886 symptomatic patients, referred to the University Medical Center Göttingen, located in central Germany. The major aeroallergen groups early flowering tree pollen, grass pollen, and house dust mites were evaluated in this study. Wheal diameters ≥2 mm were considered positive during the entire study period.

Results

Polysensitization to the most common aeroallergen groups increased significantly over 20 years. Boys and young men displayed the most remarkable rise in total sensitization rates in our study group over time.

Discussion

Our patient-based study demonstrates a continuing increase in polysensitization rates over the last 20 years, with boys and young men being most frequently affected. Our data—without being a population-based study—suggest a scenario with climbing rates of allergic rhinitis and asthma.

Planning and approach to allergen-specific immunotherapy in polyallergic patients

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is currently the only disease-modifying treatment for allergic-respiratory diseases. Polysensitization may increase the severity of current disease resulting in subsequent asthma development in patients with allergic rhinitis. Due to the absence of general recommendations for the practical approach to polysensitized patients, clinical management is not standardized. The correlation between sensitizations and clinical symptoms, elimination of possible pollen cross-reactivities and principles of homologous allergen groups will guide the allergists to deduce the most relevant allergens for AIT. In the highlight of the previously proposed approach strategies to polyallergic patients, hereby we propose a revised practical stepwise approach based on the current European Medicine Agency (EMA) guidelines. However, more supporting data from well-designed, controlled, future studies are needed to improve clinical management recommendations for AIT in polyallergic patients.

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.

Safety profile and immunological response of dual sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite tablet and Japanese cedar pollen tablet

BACKGROUND

There have been no studies of dual administration of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets for perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis. This trial (JapicCTI-184014) was conducted to investigate the safety profile and immunological response during dual therapy with SQ house dust mite (HDM) and Japanese cedar pollen (JCP) SLIT tablets.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial of 109 Japanese patients with coexisting HDM and JCP allergic rhinitis who had positive tests for HDM- and JCP specific IgE (≥0.7 kU/L). Patients were allocated to receive HDM (N = 54) or JCP (N = 55) SLIT tablets alone for 4 weeks followed by 8 weeks of dual therapy with both SLIT tablets administered within 5 min of each other. Adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and serum IgE and IgG4 specific for HDM (Dermatophagoides farinae, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) and JCP were recorded.

RESULTS

The percentage of subjects with AEs and ADRs was similar between the two groups and between the two periods of monotherapy and dual therapy. Most AEs and ADRs were mild in severity, and no serious events were observed. The most common ADRs were local events in the oral cavity. Levels of IgE and IgG4 specific for HDM (D. farinae, D. pteronyssinus) and JCP were increased after treatment with HDM and JCP SLIT tablets, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual therapy with both SLIT tablets administered within 5 min after 4 weeks of monotherapy with HDM or JCP tablet was well tolerated and induced the expected immunological responses.

Coadministration of Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets and Management of Potential Adverse Effects: Austrian, German, and Swiss Expert Recommendations

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is currently available as liquid drops and tablets for treatment of allergic patients. Because several allergens are available and many patients are polyallergic, it is possible to treat patients with multiple clinically relevant allergies by >1 SLIT product. Austrian, German, and Swiss medical experts discussed the available data on allergen uptake at the oral mucosa and recently published data on coadministration of a grass and a ragweed tablet. The experts agreed on a schedule considering data from a North American trial on sequential administration of 2 SLIT-tablets with different allergens and their own experiences made during initiation of treatment with >1 SLIT-tablet in their clinics and subsequent self-administration by the patient and discussed the handling and management of potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). According to the medical experts' opinion, tolerability at each phase of administration and patient preference should be taken into consideration to ensure a high level of adherence to treatment. Local ADRs that are uncomfortable for the patient may be alleviated by a 2- to 4-week course of antihistamine pretreatment. ADRs with severe swelling and/or systemic ADRs need the physician's particular attention and a decision together with the patient on continuation of treatment with SLIT or possible alternative routes of administration.

Tolerability and surrogate efficacy parameters of a polymerized depot mixture pollen extracts without dilutional effect

Aim: To evaluate tolerability of subcutaneous immunotherapy, in a polymerized mixture (Olea europaea/Phleum pratense) depot presentation. Patients & methods: A total of 47 poly-allergic patients received: an abbreviated schedule with three injections at weekly intervals or a cluster schedule with two administrations in 1 day. Both treatments continued with 3 monthly maintenance administrations. Results: Two systemic reactions, (4.3%). One grade 0 and one grade I. No local reactions. Immunoglobulin levels, increased significantly at final visit versus baseline in sIgG and sIgG4; in both schedules and allergens, no significant changes in specific immunoglobulin E levels were detected. Cutaneous reactivity at final visit decreased significantly. Conclusion: Both administration schedules with polymerized mixture of O. europaea/P. pratense, presented an excellent tolerability profile and induced preliminary efficacy changes.

SCIT Versus SLIT: Which One Do You Recommend, Doc?

Allergic rhinitis is a prevalent condition that has a significant impact on the quality of life of many patients. When initial therapy fails to control the symptoms, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been suggested as an option by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters. The 2 main forms of AIT are via subcutaneous and sublingual routes, called subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy, respectively. There is debate about which is the better option for patients with each method offering its own pros and cons. We present 2 patients with allergic rhinitisAR that were deemed good candidates for AIT and explore current evidence for both subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy. The advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed with the goal of providing a framework for the physician when deciding on AIT for their patients. In addition, we explore the use of AIT in patients with asthma and atopic dermatitis as potential patient populations that may benefit from the treatment. We use the discussion to provide recommendations regarding which method of AIT is best suited for both our patients.

Recent developments and highlights in allergen immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment option for patients with IgE-mediated inhalant allergies. Though used in clinical practice for more than 100 years, most innovations in AIT efficacy and safety have been developed in the last two decades. This expert review aimed to highlight the recent progress in AIT for both application routes, the sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT) forms. As such, it covers recent aspects regarding efficacy and safety in clinical trials and real-life data and outlines new concepts in consensus and position papers as well as in guidelines for AIT. Potential clinical and nonclinical biomarkers are discussed. This review also focuses on potential future perspectives in AIT, such as alternative application routes, immune-modulating adjuvants, and recombinant vaccines. In conclusion, this state of the art review provides a comprehensive overview of AIT and highlights unmet needs for the future.

Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.

Ragweed allergy immunotherapy tablet MK-3641 (Ragwitek®) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

INTRODUCTION

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is among the most common chronic conditions affecting both children and adults. It is the cause of significant morbidity from the symptoms and interference with sleep. It results in major impairment of performance both at school and at work. In the U.S. and certain parts of Europe, ragweed pollen is a major cause of seasonal AR. In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a sublingual ragweed tablet (MK-3641) for use in adults with ragweed-induced AR. Areas covered: This paper will review the impact of ragweed-induced AR and available treatments including subcutaneous immunotherapy and studies with MK-3641. The principal search method was PubMed. Expert commentary: One dosing finding, two 28-day safety and two 52-week safety and efficacy studies have been conducted with MK-3641. The 12-U (12μg Amb a 1) tablet was the most effective. Local application site reactions were common but usually not serious. Only one, non-serious systemic reaction was reported in four safety studies. MK-3641 is a safe and effective treatment for ragweed-pollen-induced AR when treatment is initiated ≥ 12 weeks prior to the onset of the ragweed pollen season.

Ragweed sublingual tablet immunotherapy: part II - practical considerations and pertinent issues

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been demonstrated to be both efficacious and safe for the treatment of respiratory allergies such as allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or allergic asthma. Based on the clinical documentation of SLIT ragweed tablets, they have gained marketing authorization in the USA by the US FDA in 2014 for adult patients. Following clinical data from (pivotal) multicenter Phase II and III trials as performed in the USA and Canada and real life experience after registration in 2014, SLIT ragweed tablets can be recommended as efficacious and safe treatment option with disease modifying potential when adequately indicated and performed. Therefore, several practical issues should be considered for treating ragweed allergic patients with these tablets. This second part of a thorough review on ragweed SLIT tablets addresses important clinical questions which should be taken into account by the subscribing practitioner before initiation and during the treatment.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).

METHODS

Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.

RESULTS

The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.

CONCLUSION

This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

Immunotherapy: Treating with Fewer Allergens?

Polysensitization, sensitization to more than one allergen, is a common feature of patients with allergic rhinitis, and may be a risk factor for subsequent development of allergic diseases, especially allergic asthma. However, a polysensitized patient does not necessarily have polyallergy, a documented, causal relationship between exposure to 2 or more specific, sensitizing allergens and the subsequent occurrence of relevant clinical symptoms of allergy. Allergen immunotherapy treatment strategy for the polysensitized patient in Europe is to treat the single or 2 most clinically relevant allergen(s), whereas patients in the United States are usually treated for all potential clinically relevant allergens.

Debates in Allergy Medicine: Allergy skin testing cannot be replaced by molecular diagnosis in the near future

Percutaneous skin prick tests (SPT) have been considered the preferred method for confirming IgE-mediated sensitization. This reliable and minimally invasive technique correlates with in vivo challenges, has good reproducibility, is easily quantified, and allows analyzing multiple allergens simultaneously. Potent extracts and a proficient tester improve its accuracy.

Molecular-based allergy diagnostics (MA-Dx) quantifies allergenic components obtained either from purification of natural sources or recombinant technology to identify the patient’s reactivity to those specific allergenic protein components. For a correct allergy diagnosis, the patient selection is crucial. MA-Dx has been shown to have a high specificity, however, as MA-Dx testing can be ordered by any physician, the pre-selection of patients might not always be optimal, reducing test specificity. Also, MA-Dx is less sensitive than in vitro testing with the whole allergen or SPT. Secondly, no allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) trial has yet shown efficacy with patients selected on the basis of their MA-Dx results. Thirdly, why would we need molecular diagnosis, as no molecular treatment can yet be offered? Then there are the practical arguments of costs (SPT highly cost-efficient), test availability for MA-Dx still lacking in wide areas of the world and scarce in others. As such, it is hard physicians can build confidence in the test and their interpretation of the MA-Dx results. In conclusion: as of now these techniques should be reserved for situations of complex allergies and polysensitization; in the future MA-Dx might help to reduce the number of allergens for AIT, but trials are needed to prove this concept.

Molecular diagnosis and immunotherapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To describe recent insights into how molecular diagnosis can improve indication and selection of suitable allergens for specific immunotherapy and increase the safety of this therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

As specific allergen immunotherapy targets specific allergens, identification of the disease-eliciting allergen is a prerequisite for accurate prescription of treatment. In areas of complex sensitization to aeroallergens or in cases of hymenoptera venom allergy, the use of molecular diagnosis has demonstrated that it may lead to a change in indication and selection of allergens for immunotherapy in a large proportion of patients when compared with diagnosis based on skin prick testing and/or specific IgE determination with commercial extracts. These changes in immunotherapy prescription aided by molecular diagnosis have been demonstrated to be cost-effective in some scenarios. Certain patterns of sensitization to grass or olive pollen and bee allergens may identify patients with higher risk of adverse reaction during immunotherapy.

SUMMARY

Molecular diagnosis, when used with other tools and patients' clinical records, can help clinicians better to select the most appropriate patients and allergens for specific immunotherapy and, in some cases, predict the risk of adverse reactions. The pattern of sensitization to allergens could potentially predict the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy provided that these immunotherapy products contain a sufficient amount of these allergens. Nevertheless, multiplex assay remains a third-level approach, not to be used as screening method in current practice.

Benefit of SLIT and SCIT for Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been in use since more than one century, when Leonard Noon experimentally proved its efficacy in hayfever (Noon, in Lancet 1:1572-3, 1911). Since then, AIT was administered only as subcutaneous injections (SCIT) until the sublingual route (SLIT) was proposed in 1986. The use of SLIT was proposed following several surveys from the USA and UK that repeatedly reported fatalities due to SCIT (Lockey et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol 75(1): 166, 1985; Lockey et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol 660-77, 1985; Committee on the safety of medicines. CSM update. Desensitizing vaccines. Br Med J, 293: 948, 1986). These reports raised serious concerns about the safety and the risk/benefit ratio of AIT. Many cases of life-threatening events with SCIT were due to avoidable human errors in administration, but a relevant fraction of them remained unexplained and unpredictable (Aaronson and Gandhi in J Allergy Clin Immunol 113: 1117-21, 2014). Subsequently, in a few years, SLIT gained credibility and was included in the official documents and guidelines (Table 1) (Bousquet et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol 108(5 Supp):S146-S150, 2001; Canonica et al. in Allergy 64 (Supp 91):1-59, 2009) as a viable alternative to traditional SCIT. Of note, the local bronchial (aerosol) and the intranasal route of administration were attempted after the 1970s as alternatives to SCIT: the bronchial route was soon abandoned due to the poor efficacy and/or side effects, and the local nasal route, although effective and safe, was judged substantially impractical (Canonica and Passalacqua in J Allergy Clin Immunol 111: 437-48, 2003). In contrast to SCIT, SLIT was tested in very large clinical trials (need references), including hundreds of patients and with dose-ranging experimental designs, so that some products (tablets) for grass, mite, and ragweed were officially approved as commercial drugs by regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency and the optimal content for the maintenance dose was identified for selected allergens. In parallel, the knowledge on the mechanisms of action of AIT was rapidly refined, leading to further improvements, such as the chemically modified extracts and the use of adjuvants to enhance efficacy and safety. In addition, in the last 10 years, there has been an increasing scientific and clinical interest in AIT applied to food allergies, in particular in children, with the use of orally administered extracts (Albin and Nowak-Węgrzyn in Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 35: 77-100, 2015). The results are so far encouraging, at least for cow's milk, egg, and peanut, although the use of treatment is still restricted to clinical trials or within specialized centers. Finally, the introduction of molecular- or component-resolved diagnosis has allowed detailing the prescription of AIT, by better delineating true sensitization versus cross-reactivity (Canonica et al. in World Allergy Organ J 6(1):17, 2013). This latter point is also in strict relation to the use of recombinant, engineered or highly purified molecules, instead of raw extracts, for the desensitization process.

European Survey on Adverse Systemic Reactions in Allergen Immunotherapy (EASSI): a real-life clinical assessment

BACKGROUND

Outside clinical trials, data on systemic reactions (SRs) due to allergen immunotherapy (AIT) are scarce.

METHODS

A prospective, longitudinal, web-based survey of 'real-life' respiratory allergen immunotherapy (AIT) clinical practice was conducted in France, Germany and Spain. SRs were recorded and coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and risk factors associated with SRs were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 4316 patients (corresponding to 4363 ongoing courses of AIT) were included. A total of 109 SRs were recorded, and 90 patients (2.1%) presented at least one SR. Most of the SRs occurred in subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) (89%, n = 97). The most frequently reported symptoms were urticaria, rhinitis, dyspnoea and cough. Respiratory symptoms appeared before skin symptoms. Most SRs occurred during the up-dosing phase (75.8%) and were mild in severity (71.6%). Intramuscular adrenaline was administered in 17 SRs, but only 65% of these were subsequently classified as anaphylaxis. Independent risk factors for SRs during SCIT were as follows: the use of natural extracts (odds ratio, OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 2.74 [1.61-4.87], P = 0.001), the absence of symptomatic allergy medications (1.707 [1.008-2.892], P = 0.047), asthma diagnosis (1.74 [1.05-2.88], P = 0.03), sensitization to animal dander (1.93 [1.21-3.09], P = 0.006) or pollen (1.16 [1.03-1.30], P = 0.012) and cluster regimens (vs rush) (4.18 [1.21-14.37], P = 0.023). A previous episode of anaphylaxis increased the risk for anaphylaxis in SCIT (OR [95% CI] = 17.35 [1.91-157.28], P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

AIT for respiratory allergy is safe, with a low number of SRs observed in real-life clinical practice. A personalized analysis of risk factors could be used to minimize SRs.