Specific immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis to grass and tree pollens in daily medical practice-symptom load with sublingual immunotherapy compared to subcutaneous immunotherapy

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy

OBJECTIVE

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients.

ACTION STATEMENTS

The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Allergen Immunotherapy: Current and Future Trends

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the sole disease-modifying treatment for allergic rhinitis; it prevents rhinitis from progressing to asthma and lowers medication use. AIT against mites, insect venom, and certain kinds of pollen is effective. The mechanism of action of AIT is based on inducing immunological tolerance characterized by increased IL-10, TGF-β, and IgG4 levels and Treg cell counts. However, AIT requires prolonged schemes of administration and is sometimes associated with adverse reactions. Over the last decade, novel forms of AIT have been developed, focused on better allergen identification, structural modifications to preserve epitopes for B or T cells, post-traductional alteration through chemical processes, and the addition of adjuvants. These modified allergens induce clinical-immunological effects similar to those mentioned above, increasing the tolerance to other related allergens but with fewer side effects. Clinical studies have shown that molecular AIT is efficient in treating grass and birch allergies. This article reviews the possibility of a new AIT to improve the treatment of allergic illness.

Shortened up-dosing with sublingual immunotherapy drops containing tree allergens is well tolerated and elicits dose-dependent clinical effects during the first pollen season

Background

This study compared a rapid home-based up-dosing schedule for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) drops containing tree pollen allergens with two previously established schedules. Furthermore, the clinical effect of the SLIT was investigated with respect to patients’ first pollen season under treatment.

Methods

In this open-label, prospective, patient-preference, non-interventional study, local and systemic reactions were compared between three up-dosing groups using a SLIT formulation containing birch, alder, and hazel pollen extracts (ORALVAC^® Compact Bäume). Clinical improvement after patients’ first season under treatment was analysed using symptom scores, ARIA classification, symptom control, and the use of symptomatic medication and was compared with data from the previous, pre-treatment pollen season. As the real-life study design allowed no placebo group, the late-treated patients (co-seasonal) served as a control, and crowd-sourced symptom data from persons with hay fever were used from a free web-based online diary.

Results

In 33 study centres in Germany and Austria, 164 patients were included. The treatment was well tolerated, without difference between the groups during the up-dosing phase. At the end of the assessment, 96.1% rated the tolerability of the treatment as good or very good. Local reactions were mostly mild in severity and no serious adverse events occurred. Symptom scores decreased from the 2016 pollen season to the 2017 pollen season. As for the ARIA classification, 79.0% of patients had persistent, moderate-to-severe rhinitis before treatment, but only 18.6% had the same classification after treatment. In all, 62.4% of patients achieved symptom control, and 34.3% of patients required no symptomatic medication after treatment. The rhinoconjunctivitis score was 34.4% lower for pre-seasonal treatment initiation than for the control group. Crowd-sourced symptom load indices showed that the 2016 season caused slightly more symptoms; however, it is assumed that this difference of 0.3–0.5 (score range 0–10) was of less clinical relevance.

Conclusion

The treatment administered using the rapid home-based up-dosing schedule was safe and well tolerated. Symptom relief and reduction in medication use were observed during the first pollen season with SLIT.

Trial registration number

NCT03097432 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Ultra-short-course booster is effective in recurrent grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

A relevant proportion of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) patients experience recurrent symptoms after successfully completing allergen immunotherapy (AIT). This prospective, controlled, noninterventional study used internationally standardized instruments to determine the clinical effects of a preseasonal, ultra-short-course booster AIT on clinical outcome parameters.

METHODS

This two-arm study included patients aged ≥12 years with recurrent grass pollen-induced seasonal AR who had completed a successful course of any grass pollen AIT at least 5 years before enrolment. Overall, 56 patients received one preseasonal short-course booster AIT using tyrosine-absorbed grass pollen allergoids containing the adjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL® ); 51 control patients received symptomatic medication. The combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) was recorded in the (peak) grass pollen season. Furthermore, concomitant (antiallergic) medication use, the patients' state of health, Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniRQLQ) results and safety/tolerability of the treatment were assessed.

RESULTS

The CSMS in the peak grass pollen season was significantly lower in the booster AIT group (Δ=38.4%, P<.01). Moreover, significantly more patients in this group used no concomitant antiallergic medication throughout the peak grass pollen season. Twice as many patients in the booster AIT group as in the control group reported having a better state of health than in the preceding season. MiniRQLQ results showed significant differences favouring the booster AIT. The booster AIT was generally well tolerated, with only two patients reporting mild, grade 1 systemic adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Booster AIT using tyrosine-absorbed allergoids containing the adjuvant MPL® effectively prevents re-occurrence of symptoms in patients with grass pollen-induced ARC.

Management of Grass Pollen Allergy with 5-Grass Pollen Tablet: Results of a 2-Year Real-Life Study

INTRODUCTION

Allergen immunotherapy is the only treatment option for allergic rhinitis with disease-altering potential. It was the objective of this study to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of a 5-grass pollen tablet in a large population of non-selected grass pollen allergic patients, i.e. patients with different clinical profiles in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

In a 2-year, prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-controlled, observational study patients were included from 327 centers across Germany. Rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms, symptomatic medication intake and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1482 patients aged 4-75 years were included. During the 2-year period of 5-grass pollen tablet therapy, mean rhinoconjunctivitis score decreased significantly in the overall study population by 65.5% (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients taking symptomatic medication decreased from 83.8% to 42.7%. Mean 2-year improvements in rhinoconjunctivitis scores and decreases in the percentage of patients taking symptomatic medication were broadly similar in adults, adolescents and children, in patients with polyallergy versus monoallergy, and in patients with/without asthma. Among polyallergic patients, concomitant application of another specific immunotherapy did not impair treatment outcomes. Adverse drug reactions, predominantly affecting the local application area, occurred in 15.4% of the overall patient population (n = 229). No cases of anaphylaxis or epinephrine use were documented.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that sublingual immunotherapy with the 5-grass pollen tablet is well tolerated and provides sustained effectiveness over 2 years in patients with different clinical profiles, producing a significant decrease in allergic symptoms and a reduction in the use of symptomatic medication.

FUNDING

Stallergenes GmbH.

Optimum treatment strategies for polyallergic patients - analysis of a large observational trial

OBJECTIVES

To document the effectiveness and safety of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) with a five-grass pollen tablet (Oralair ) and compare different treatment options in a broad, non-selected population of patients in a real-world clinical setting.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 2 year, open, prospective, multicenter, single-arm, non-interventional study. Patients with a history of clinically relevant allergic symptoms caused by grass pollen, confirmed by skin prick testing, received treatment with the five-grass pollen tablet. Concomitant treatment with symptomatic medication and/or additional SLIT or subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) was permitted. Twelve-month data are presented here. Effectiveness was assessed comparing a combined rhinoconjunctivitis (RC) score derived from the severity of rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms under treatment with retrospective data of the previous year.

RESULTS

A total of 1408 patients participated in the study, of whom 434 were children/adolescents and 962 polyallergic. Compared with the grass pollen season preceding five-grass pollen tablet treatment, a statistically significant reduction of 49.9% was achieved in RC score for the total population (p < 0.001), and an improvement in overall health was perceived by 90.9% of patients. The overall population of polyallergic patients derived similar benefits from treatment with the five-grass pollen tablet as monoallergic patients. The percentage reduction in RC score was larger in polyallergic patients taking no additional therapy (60.2%) than in those taking concomitant symptomatic medication (38.1%) or allergen immunotherapy (AIT) (50.8%). Within the last of these groups, RC score improved by 47.6% among patients receiving additional SCIT, versus 54.8% with additional SLIT. Adverse drug reactions, reported in 15.3% of study participants, were mostly local in nature and mild or moderate in intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year of treatment, polyallergic patients responded similarly to the five-grass pollen tablet as monoallergic patients. For polyallergic patients in whom additional treatment was needed, a second SLIT may be more beneficial than a SCIT or symptomatic co-medication.

Guiding principles of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis in Japanese patients

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Is faster safer? Cluster versus short conventional subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy

AIM

Few studies have compared cluster immunotherapy and conventional administration regimens. The aim of this study was to establish the safety profile of these different regimens in patients with allergic respiratory diseases who received index-of-reactivity (IR)-standardized allergen extracts by the subcutaneous route.

MATERIALS & METHODS

The safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), administered by means of a 4-week cluster titration schedule (cluster-SCIT) or by an 8-week short conventional titration schedule (SC-SCIT), both with a target dose of 8 IR, was assessed in a retrospective, observational, multicenter study.

RESULTS

A total of 658 patients (339 cluster-SCIT and 319 SC-SCIT) were recruited from 92 sites in Spain. Injection site reactions occurred in 25.1 and 27.3% of patients treated with cluster-SCIT and SC-SCIT, respectively. Systemic reactions (European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology criteria) were reported for 0.2% of doses and 1.5% of patients with cluster-SCIT, and 0.7% of doses and 4.4% of patients with SC-SCIT. Most reactions were mild and there were no grade 3 or 4 systemic reactions. No life-threatening systemic reactions, anaphylactic shock, or adverse events leading to therapy discontinuation were reported.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of the cluster regimen supports the use of accelerated SCIT schedules with IR-standardized allergen extracts compared with short conventional schedules, particularly if similar extracts and application methods are used.