Sublingual immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: indications, efficacy and safety

On the role of allergen-specific IgG subclasses for blocking human basophil activation

Successful treatment of IgE mediated allergies by allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) usually correlates with the induction of allergen-specific IgG4. However, it is not clear whether IgG4 prevents the allergic reaction more efficiently than other IgG subclasses. Here we aimed to compare allergen-specific monoclonal IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies in their capacity to inhibit type I allergic reactions by engaging FcγRIIb. We found that IgG1, which is the dominant subclass induced by viruses, binds with a similar affinity to the FcγRIIb as IgG4 and is comparable at blocking human basophil activation from allergic patients; both by neutralizing the allergen as well as engaging the inhibitory receptor FcγRIIb. Hence, the IgG subclass plays a limited role for the protective efficacy of AIT even if IgG4 is considered the best correlate of protection, most likely simply because it is the dominant subclass induced by classical AITs.

Delivery options for sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: clinical considerations for North America

Background: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) can be delivered via tablets (SLIT-T) or aqueous drops (SLIT-D). SLIT-D dosing recommendations using North American extracts were published in 2015. We review the 2015 recommendations in the context of recent research, and compare and contrast dosing, efficacy, safety, adherence, and cost of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) in North America. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of SLIT-D and SLIT-T trials were identified by a systematic PubMed search through March 1, 2022. Results: Dose-finding studies have been conducted for all approved SLIT-T; efficacy in North American populations was demonstrated in 11 RCTs. Approved SLIT-T are uniform internationally. Few dose-finding studies for SLIT-D have been conducted using North American extracts; efficacy was demonstrated in 2 RCTs. Extrapolation of dosing from SLIT-D studies conducted with extracts from other geographic regions is unreliable. Since the 2015 SLIT-D dosing recommendations, no new RCTs of SLIT-D have been conducted with North American extracts, whereas 6 SLIT-T RCTs have since been conducted in North America. Local allergic reactions are the most common adverse events with SLIT-T and SLIT-D, but both can induce systemic allergic reactions. Adherence to SLIT-D and SLIT-T remains a challenge. Patients must pay for SLIT-D directly, whereas SLIT-T is usually covered by insurance. Conclusion: As part of shared decision-making, patients should be informed about the scientific evidence supporting the use of SLIT-T and SLIT-D for ARC.

Management of rhinosinusitis during pregnancy: systematic review and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Management of rhinosinusitis during pregnancy requires special considerations.

OBJECTIVES

1. Conduct a systematic literature review for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) management during pregnancy. 2. Make evidence-based recommendations.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and relevant search terms. Title, abstract and full manuscript review were conducted by two authors independently. A multispecialty panel with expertise in management of Rhinological disorders, Allergy-Immunology, and Obstetrics-Gynecology was invited to review the systematic review. Recommendations were sought on use of following for CRS management during pregnancy: oral corticosteroids; antibiotics; leukotrienes; topical corticosteroid spray/irrigations/drops; aspirin desensitization; elective surgery for CRS with polyps prior to planned pregnancy; vaginal birth versus planned Caesarian for skull base erosions/ prior CSF rhinorrhea.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight manuscripts underwent full review after screening 3052 abstracts. No relevant level 1, 2, or 3 studies were found. Expert panel recommendations for rhinosinusitis management during pregnancy included continuing nasal corticosteroid sprays for CRS maintenance, using pregnancy-safe antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis and CRS exacerbations, and discontinuing aspirin desensitization for aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease. The manuscript presents detailed recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of evidence pertinent to managing rhinosinusitis during pregnancy warrants future trials. Expert recommendations constitute the current best available evidence.

Management of rhinosinusitis during pregnancy: systematic review and expert panel recommendations

BACKGROUND

Management of rhinosinusitis during pregnancy requires special considerations.

OBJECTIVES

1. Conduct a systematic literature review for acute and chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) management during pregnancy. 2. Make evidence-based recommendations.

METHODS

The systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and relevant search terms. Title, abstract and full manuscript review were conducted by two authors independently. A multispecialty panel with expertise in management of Rhinological disorders, Allergy-Immunology, and Obstetrics-Gynecology was invited to review the systematic review. Recommendations were sought on use of following for CRS management during pregnancy: oral corticosteroids; antibiotics; leukotrienes; topical corticosteroid spray/irrigations/drops; aspirin desensitization; elective surgery for CRS with polyps prior to planned pregnancy; vaginal birth versus planned Caesarian for skull base erosions/ prior CSF rhinorrhea.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight manuscripts underwent full review after screening 3052 abstracts. No relevant level 1, 2, or 3 studies were found. Expert panel recommendations for rhinosinusitis management during pregnancy included continuing nasal corticosteroid sprays for CRS maintenance, using pregnancy-safe antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis and CRS exacerbations, and discontinuing aspirin desensitization for aspirin exacerbated respiratory disease. The manuscript presents detailed recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of evidence pertinent to managing rhinosinusitis during pregnancy warrants future trials. Expert recommendations constitute the current best available evidence.

Is The Allergen Really Needed in Allergy Immunotherapy?

Immunotherapy for type I allergies is well established and is regarded to be the most efficient treatment option besides allergen avoidance. As of today, different forms of allergen preparations are used in this regard, as well as different routes of application. Virus-like particles (VLPs) represent a potent vaccine platform with proven immunogenicity and clinical efficacy. The addition of toll-like receptor ligands and/or depot-forming adjuvants further enhances activation of innate as well as adaptive immune responses. CpG motifs represent intensively investigated and potent direct stimulators of plasmacytoid dendritic cells and B cells, while T cell responses are enhanced indirectly through increased antigen presentation and cytokine release. This article will focus on the function of VLPs loaded with DNA rich in nonmethylated CG motifs (CpGs) and the clinical experience gained in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, demonstrating clinical efficacy also if administered without allergens. Several published studies have demonstrated a beneficial impact on allergic symptoms by treatment with CpG-loaded VLPs. Subcutaneous injection of VLPs loaded with CpGs was tested with or without the adjuvant alum in the presence or absence of an allergen. The results encourage further investigation of VLPs and CpG motifs in immunotherapy, either as a stand-alone product or as adjuvants for allergen-specific immunotherapy.