How to hit the allergy target: A critical appraisal of intralymphatic immunotherapy with practical recommendations on ultrasound-guided injections

BACKGROUND

Intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) represents a promising novel approach treating allergic diseases. However, no standardized procedures or recommendations have been established or reported, despite the recognized fact that treatment efficacy relies on the ability to inject the allergen intranodally.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to provide a critical appraisal of ILIT as a method of allergen immunotherapy and to deliver practical recommendations for accurate ILIT.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-three ILIT injections were performed in 28 (47%) women and 32 (53%) men with median age of 29 years (21-59). The injections were ultrasound-guided and recorded for retrospective analysis with respect to injection location, needle visibility, medication release, and patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The results show that the correct positioning of the needle within the lymph node (LN) was most critical. If the whole length of the needle bevel was not inserted into the LN, substance backflush into the interstitium was observed. Selecting a more superficial LN and inserting the needle at a smaller angle towards the LN significantly improved needle visibility in the ultrasound. Longitudinal results showed that continuous practice significantly correlated with improved needle visibility and more accurate ILIT injections.

CONCLUSION

Based on our results and practical experience, we propose several recommendations for LN selection and the correct handling of ultrasound probe and needle. We are confident that ILIT standardization and training will be important as to meet the goals of good safety and efficacy of ILIT.

Allergen immunotherapy: progress and future outlook

INTRODUCTION

Allergy, the immunological hypersensitivity to innocuous environmental compounds, is a global health problem. The disease triggers, allergens, are mostly proteins contained in various natural sources such as plant pollen, animal dander, dust mites, foods, fungi and insect venoms. Allergies can manifest with a wide range of symptoms in various organs, and be anything from just tedious to life-threatening. A majority of all allergy patients are self-treated with symptom-relieving medicines, while allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causative treatment option.

AREAS COVERED

This review will aim to give an overview of the state-of-the-art allergy management, including the use of new biologics and the application of biomarkers, and a special emphasis and discussion on current research trends in the field of AIT.

EXPERT OPINION

Conventional AIT has proven effective, but the years-long treatment compromises patient compliance. Moreover, AIT is typically not offered in food allergy. Hence, there is a need for new, effective and safe AIT methods. Novel routes of administration (e.g. oral and intralymphatic), hypoallergenic AIT products and more effective adjuvants holds great promise. Most recently, the development of allergen-specific monoclonal antibodies for passive immunotherapy may also allow treatment of patients currently not treated or treatable.

Quality of life in allergic rhinitis patients treated with intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT): A 19-year follow-up

Background

In 2002-2005, we conducted a phase I/II clinical trial where a new allergy immunotherapy (AIT) route was introduced: intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT). Ultrasound guidance allowed injection of allergen directly into inguinal lymph nodes. Grass pollen-allergic patients received 3 injections with 1-month intervals. The short ILIT was more patient-friendly, required lower dosing, and was comparable with SCIT regarding short-term efficacy, which was used as a reference.

Objective

Nineteen years after ILIT, the same patients were followed up to assess the long-term effect on quality of life and efficacy of the treatment.

Methods

Patients who received ILIT and SCIT in 2002-2005 and an additional group of patients, who completed SCIT in 2015-2018, were recruited. All participants received a trial-specific in-house questionnaire and a standardized Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. Data were recorded off- (February 2021) and on- (May-June 2021) season. Descriptive statistics were applied.

Results

Of 58 and 54 patients who originally received ILIT or SCIT, 25 (43%) and 29 (54%) patients, respectively, returned the questionnaires for analysis. Four (16%) and 3 (11%) of the ILIT and SCIT patients, respectively, developed complete protection against grass pollen-mediated rhinitis, whereas another 15 (60%) and 20 (69%) expressed satisfaction with the received AIT. In both groups, any persistent symptoms were reported as mild. Medication usage in the ILIT and SCIT groups was comparable. Nineteen (76%) and 23 (79%) patients, respectively, expressed satisfaction with their AIT.

Conclusions

Grass pollen ILIT leads to long-term significant improvement in rhinitis-associated quality of life 19 years after treatment, and the ILIT quality-of-life effect was not inferior to that of SCIT.

Intralymphatic Immunotherapy (ILIT) With Bee Venom Allergens: A Clinical Proof-of-Concept Study and the Very First ILIT in Humans

Background

Subcutaneous venom immunotherapy (VIT) represents an effective treatment against bee venom allergy. However, it involves long treatment times, high costs, and the risk of adverse events (AEs). Shorter, safer, and cheaper treatment options are therefore pursued.

Objective

To determine the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of bee venom intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT).

Methods

In an open pilot study, 12 patients received bee venom ILIT in three sessions with 14-day intervals: 0.1–5 μg/dose. Ultrasound imaging was applied to guide an injection and to document the lymph node structure. In a second study, 67 patients from 15 centers in Europe and Australia were randomized to receive four doses of either 10- or 20-μg bee venom ILIT with 28-day intervals. Clinical endpoints included specific IgE and IgG and protection after a bee sting challenge. These studies were performed in the years 2000–2003.

Results

In a proof-of-concept study, no serious AEs were observed. An increase in allergen-specific IgG1 but no IgG4 and IgE was observed. ILIT induced the protection against a bee sting challenge in 7 out of 8 challenged patients. In a multicenter study, an increase in allergen-specific IgG and IgE was observed, with the highest increase in patients receiving a higher ILIT dose. The study was terminated due to several serious AEs upon the sting challenge provocation after the completion of treatment. However, out of 45 patients challenged, 15 (65%) and 18 (82%) patients in the 10- and 20-μg group, respectively, showed an improvement of two grades or more. No correlation was observed between antibody levels and sting protection.

Conclusions

While a pilot study suggested the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT, a high number of AEs seen after the sting challenge following a randomized study indicate that the immunology protection offered by bee venom ILIT is insufficient. Of note, the bee venom allergen extract used in the two studies were from the two different providers. While the first study used a formulation approved for use in subcutaneous VIT, the second study used a nonapproved formulation never tested in humans. Further studies on approved formulations should be performed to generate conclusive results regarding the safety and efficacy of bee venom ILIT.

Kinetics and persistence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation and antibodies after BNT162b2 vaccination in a Swiss cohort

Introduction

Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), substantial effort has been made to gain knowledge about the immunity elicited by infection or vaccination.

Methods

We studied the kinetics of antibodies and virus neutralisation induced by vaccination with BNT162b2 in a Swiss cohort of SARS‐CoV‐2 naïve (n = 40) and convalescent (n = 9) persons. Blood sera were analysed in a live virus neutralisation assay and specific IgG and IgA levels were measured by enzyme‐linked immunoassay and analysed by descriptive statistics.

Results

Virus neutralisation was detected in all individuals 2–4 weeks after the second vaccine. Both neutralisation and antibodies remained positive for >4 months. Neutralisation and antibodies showed positive correlation, but immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin A (IgA) seroconversion took place 2–4 weeks faster than neutralisation. Spike‐protein specific IgG levels rose significantly faster and were more stable over time than virus neutralisation titres or IgA responses. For naïve but not convalescent persons, a clear boosting effect was observed. Convalescent individuals showed faster, more robust and longer‐lasting immune responses after vaccination compared to noninfected persons. No threshold could be determined for spike protein‐specific IgG or IgA that would confer protection in the neutralisation assay, implicating the need for a better correlate of protection then antibody titres alone.

Conclusions

This study clearly shows the complex translation of antibody data and virus neutralisation, while supporting the evidence of a single dose being sufficient for effective antibody response in convalescent individuals.