Olea sublingual allergoid immunotherapy administered with two different treatment regimens

Nasal Nitric Oxide and Nasal Cytology as Predictive Markers of Short-Term Sublingual Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy Efficacy in Children with Allergic Rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been conducted on the short-term response to sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our experimental trial was to evaluate if two markers such as nasal nitric oxide (nNO) and nasal cytology could be useful to identify a precocious clinical efficacy of SLIT treatment.

METHODS

We enrolled 34 children aged 6 to 14 years old with diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR) and documented sensitization towards house dust mites. We started allergoid-monomeric tablets immunotherapy along with any conventional therapy for AR and we evaluated at baseline (T0), after one (T1), two (T2), three (T3), and six months (T6) the effects of the treatment through the study of: i) a visual analogue scale (VAS 1-10); ii) measurement of nNO; iii) measurement of FeNO; iv) nasal cytology; v) spirometry; and vi) evaluation of any conventional therapy.

RESULTS

We observed an improvement in symptoms evaluated by global VAS (T0 vs. T6: 47.13 vs. 17.57; p < .05) and a statistically significant reduction of nNO (1035.2 ± 956.08 vs. 139.2 ± 59.01; p < .05). In this case, significance was reached when the patients completed the 6 months of treatment. Cytological evaluation revealed significant reduction in nasal eosinophils (T0 vs. T6: 87% vs. 16%; p < .01). Moreover, at T0, 56% of patients had also neutrophils that were reduced up to the 8% at T6 (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data confirm the effectiveness of SLIT treatment from a clinical perspective and identifies two biomarkers, such as nNO and nasal cytology, as predictive of treatment efficacy in the short term.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evaluation of a sublingual immunotherapy solution in olive-induced respiratory allergy in Jordan: a retrospective observational study

Background

Olive pollen is an important cause of respiratory allergy in the Middle East. In this study, the clinical characteristics of adults and children with confirmed allergic rhinitis (AR; with or without asthma) in Jordan were described, and the use of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in a real-life clinical setting was assessed.

Methods

This retrospective observational study evaluated the clinical features of olive-induced allergy and the use of an SLIT solution of standardized extracts toward Ole e 1 given in a pre- and coseasonal scheme with a daily dose of 300 index of reactivity for two consecutive seasons. Inclusion criteria were as follows: ≥5 years of age, AR, proven olive sensitization, and at least 2 years follow-up after SLIT initiation. The following data were recorded at SLIT initiation: clinical characteristics, rhinitis and asthma symptom scores, and concomitant symptomatic medications. During follow-up and at the end of each season, the following data were recorded: symptom progression/scores, any changes to symptomatic medications, and treatment compliance. The secondary objective was to determine any effect on quality of life, use of concomitant AR medications, and treatment compliance.

Results

Eighty-six patients with seasonal AR were included in this analysis (52.3% with coexisting asthma). Between the initiation of treatment and the end of second pollen season, symptoms of AR and asthma were decreased by 79.5% and 41.7%, respectively, with an improvement in quality of life score in 71.5% of the patients (P<0.0001 for all). Physicians reported that after 2 years of SLIT, there was an improvement in the symptoms of both AR (95.2%) and asthma (93.3%), with 98.8% of the patients showing good treatment compliance. A reduction in symptomatic medications was also found. SLIT was well tolerated with no systemic reactions being reported.

Conclusion

In children and adults with olive-associated respiratory allergy in Jordan, the use of a pre- and coseasonal SLIT with a 300 index of reactivity daily dose is effective in reducing the clinical burden of AR and asthma with no tolerability issues.

A review of allergoid immunotherapy: is cat allergy a suitable target?

To modify the course of allergy, different types of specific allergen immunotherapy have been developed such as sublingual immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy with native allergens or subcutaneous immunotherapy with polymerized allergoids. However, the optimal specific immunotherapy, especially for cat allergy, remains undetermined. Few studies investigating immunotherapy in cat allergy have been published, and the risk of serious adverse reactions and systemic reactions has often been an important issue. Monomeric allergoids have lower allergenic potential while their immunogenicity remains constant, resulting in excellent safety with notable efficacy. Specific immunotherapy with monomeric allergoids could, therefore, be of high value, especially in cat allergy as well as other types of allergy, and bring relief to a great community of patients.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Dropouts in sublingual allergen immunotherapy trials - a systematic review

Participant dropouts can reduce the power of allergen immunotherapy clinical trials. Evaluation of the dropout rate and reasons for dropout are important not only in the planning of clinical studies but are also relevant for adherence to immunotherapy in daily clinical practice. A systematic review was carried out in order to establish the overall dropout rate among published double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials of sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergic diseases. Dropouts were analysed in regards to allergen, formulation, treatment schedule, participant age, study size, number of centres and type of allergic disease. Relative dropout rates in placebo and active groups as well as reasons for dropout were also assessed. A total of 81 studies, comprising 9998 patients, were included. Dropout rates in sublingual immunotherapy controlled studies do not appear to be a major problem with a composite dropout percentage of 14% (95% CI:11.9-16). Furthermore, they are not different for active compared to placebo-treated participants. This lends support to the positive clinical outcomes seen in meta-analyses of these trials.

Asthma in children and adolescents: a comprehensive approach to diagnosis and management

Asthma is a chronic disease that has a significant impact on quality of life and is particularly important in children and adolescents, in part due to the higher incidence of allergies in children. The incidence of asthma has increased dramatically during this time period, with the highest increases in the urban areas of developed countries. It seems that the incidence in developing countries may follow this trend as well. While our knowledge of the pathophysiology of asthma and the available of newer, safer medication have both improved, the mortality of the disease has undergone an overall increase in the past 30 years. Asthma treatment goals in children include decreasing mortality and improving quality of life. Specific treatment goals include but are not limited to decreasing inflammation, improving lung function, decreasing clinical symptoms, reducing hospital stays and emergency department visits, reducing work or school absences, and reducing the need for rescue medications. Non-pharmacological management strategies include allergen avoidance, environmental evaluation for allergens and irritants, patient education, allergy testing, regular monitoring of lung function, and the use of asthma management plans, asthma control tests, peak flow meters, and asthma diaries. Achieving asthma treatment goals reduces direct and indirect costs of asthma and is economically cost-effective. Treatment in children presents unique challenges in diagnosis and management. Challenges in diagnosis include consideration of other diseases such as viral respiratory illnesses or vocal cord dysfunction. Challenges in management include evaluation of the child’s ability to use inhalers and peak flow meters and the management of exercise-induced asthma.