Consistent efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy tablets across allergens and geographic regions

BACKGROUND

The clinical development program of the SQ grass, ragweed, tree, and house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets for allergicrhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) included clinical trials conducted in North America,Europe, and Japan.

OBJECTIVE

Data from these trials were analyzed to assess efficacy, immunologic mechanisms, and safety outcomes acrossallergens and geographic regions.

METHODS

Thirteen phase III, double-blind, placebo controlled trials in the subjects with AR/C were conducted in NorthAmerica, Europe (including Russia), and Japan (N = 7763 analyzed). Trials were generally similar with respect to medicalpractice, target population, eligibility criteria, and efficacy and safety monitoring. Data were analyzed for the approved dosesin North America and Europe. Four statistical models were used to enhance comparison of the efficacy end points among the trials.

RESULTS

The SLIT-tablets demonstrated consistent efficacy across allergens and regions, regardless of the statistical analysis used. Relative improvement in the primary efficacy end point compared with placebo by using the predefined protocol analysis ranged from 17.9% to 32.8%, 17.5% to 19.3%, 20.6% to 38.3%, and 39.6% with the grass, HDM, ragweed, and tree SLIT-tablets, respectively. The kinetics of specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) and IgG4 responses were similar among the allergensand regions. Local application-site reactions were the most common adverse events for all allergens and in all regions. Mosttreatment-related adverse events for all allergens and in all regions were mild in severity. The rate of systemic allergic reactions was similar across regions (0%-0.54%).

CONCLUSION

Confirmatory phase III trials for SLIT-tablets in the treatment of AR/C showed consistent efficacy, immunologic,and safety outcomes across allergens and geographic regions.

Updated grading system for systemic allergic reactions: Joint Statement of the World Allergy Organization Anaphylaxis Committee and Allergen Immunotherapy Committee

There is a lack of consensus over the description and severity assignment of allergic adverse reactions to immunotherapy, although there seems to be a consensus at least in terms of using the World Allergy Organization (WAO) grading systems to describe local adverse events for Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) and Systemic Allergic Reactions (SARs) to Subcutaneous Immunotherapy (SCIT) amongst the major national/regional allergy societies. In this manuscript, we propose a modification of the previous WAO Grading system for SARs, which aligns with the newly-proposed Consortium for Food Allergy Research (CoFAR) Grading Scale for Systemic Allergic Reactions in Food Allergy (version 3.0). We hope this can facilitate a unified grading system appropriate to SARs due to allergen immunotherapy, independent of allergen and route of administration, and across clinical and research practice.

Rhinitis associated with asthma is distinct from rhinitis alone: The ARIA-MeDALL hypothesis

Asthma, rhinitis and atopic dermatitis (AD) are interrelated clinical phenotypes that partly overlap in the human interactome. The concept of "one-airway-one-disease", coined over 20 years ago, is a simplistic approach of the links between upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases. With new data, it is time to reassess the concept. This article reviews (i) the clinical observations that led to Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA), (ii) new insights into polysensitisation and multimorbidity, (iii) advances in mHealth for novel phenotype definition, (iv) confirmation in canonical epidemiologic studies, (v) genomic findings, (vi) treatment approaches and (vii) novel concepts on the onset of rhinitis and multimorbidity. One recent concept, bringing together upper- and lower-airway allergic diseases with skin, gut and neuropsychiatric multimorbidities, is the "Epithelial Barrier Hypothesis". This review determined that the "one-airway-one-disease" concept does not always hold true and that several phenotypes of disease can be defined. These phenotypes include an extreme "allergic" (asthma) phenotype combining asthma, rhinitis and conjunctivitis. Rhinitis alone and rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity represent two distinct diseases with the following differences: (i) genomic and transcriptomic background (Toll-Like Receptors and IL-17 for rhinitis alone as a local disease; IL-33 and IL-5 for allergic and non-allergic multimorbidity as a systemic disease), (ii) allergen sensitisation patterns (mono- or pauci-sensitisation versus polysensitisation), (iii) severity of symptoms and (iv) treatment response. In conclusion, rhinitis alone (local disease) and rhinitis with asthma multimorbidity (systemic disease) should be considered as two distinct diseases, possibly modulated by the microbiome, and may be a model for understanding the epidemics of chronic and auto-immune diseases.

Axion Dark Matter Experiment: Detailed design and operations

Axion dark matter experiment ultra-low noise haloscope technology has enabled the successful completion of two science runs (1A and 1B) that looked for dark matter axions in the 2.66-3.1 μeV mass range with Dine-Fischler-Srednicki-Zhitnisky sensitivity [Du et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 151301 (2018) and Braine et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 101303 (2020)]. Therefore, it is the most sensitive axion search experiment to date in this mass range. We discuss the technological advances made in the last several years to achieve this sensitivity, which includes the implementation of components, such as the state-of-the-art quantum-noise-limited amplifiers and a dilution refrigerator. Furthermore, we demonstrate the use of a frequency tunable microstrip superconducting quantum interference device amplifier in run 1A, and a Josephson parametric amplifier in run 1B, along with novel analysis tools that characterize the system noise temperature.

Cabbage and fermented vegetables: From death rate heterogeneity in countries to candidates for mitigation strategies of severe COVID-19

Large differences in COVID‐19 death rates exist between countries and between regions of the same country. Some very low death rate countries such as Eastern Asia, Central Europe, or the Balkans have a common feature of eating large quantities of fermented foods. Although biases exist when examining ecological studies, fermented vegetables or cabbage have been associated with low death rates in European countries. SARS‐CoV‐2 binds to its receptor, the angiotensin‐converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). As a result of SARS‐CoV‐2 binding, ACE2 downregulation enhances the angiotensin II receptor type 1 (AT₁R) axis associated with oxidative stress. This leads to insulin resistance as well as lung and endothelial damage, two severe outcomes of COVID‐19. The nuclear factor (erythroid‐derived 2)‐like 2 (Nrf2) is the most potent antioxidant in humans and can block in particular the AT₁R axis. Cabbage contains precursors of sulforaphane, the most active natural activator of Nrf2. Fermented vegetables contain many lactobacilli, which are also potent Nrf2 activators. Three examples are: kimchi in Korea, westernized foods, and the slum paradox. It is proposed that fermented cabbage is a proof‐of‐concept of dietary manipulations that may enhance Nrf2‐associated antioxidant effects, helpful in mitigating COVID‐19 severity.

Clarithromycin and endoscopic sinus surgery for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with and without nasal polyps: study protocol for the MACRO randomised controlled trial

Background

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is a common source of ill health; 11% of UK adults reported CRS symptoms in a worldwide population study. Guidelines are conflicting regarding whether antibiotics should be included in primary medical management, reflecting the lack of evidence in systematic reviews. Insufficient evidence to inform the role of surgery contributes to a fivefold variation in UK intervention rates. The objective of this trial is to establish the comparative effectiveness of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) or a prolonged course of antibiotics (clarithromycin) in adult patients with CRS in terms of symptomatic improvement and costs to the National Health Service compared with standard medical care (intranasal medication) at 6 months.

Methods/design

A three-arm parallel-group trial will be conducted with patients who remain symptomatic after receiving appropriate medical therapy (either in primary or secondary care). They will be randomised to receive: (1) intranasal medication plus ESS, (2) intranasal medication plus clarithromycin (250 mg) or (3) intranasal medication plus a placebo. Intranasal medication (current standard medical care) is defined as a spray or drops of intranasal corticosteroids and saline irrigations. The primary outcome measure is the SNOT-22 questionnaire, which assesses disease-specific health-related quality of life. The study sample size is 600. Principal analyses will be according to the randomised groups irrespective of compliance. The trial will be conducted in at least 16 secondary or tertiary care centres with an internal pilot at six sites for 6 months.

Discussion

The potential cardiovascular side effects of macrolide antibiotics have been recently highlighted. The effectiveness of antibiotics will be established through this trial, which may help to reduce unnecessary usage and potential morbidity. If ESS is shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective, the trial may encourage earlier intervention. In contrast, if it is shown to be ineffective, then there should be a significant reduction in surgery rates. The trial results will feed into the other components of the MACRO research programme to establish best practice for the management of adults with CRS and design the ideal patient pathway across primary and secondary care.

Trial registration

ISRCTN36962030. Registered on 17 October 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3314-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Expert panel process to optimise the design of a randomised controlled trial in chronic rhinosinusitis (the MACRO programme)

BACKGROUND

MACRO (Defining best Management for Adults with Chronic RhinOsinusitis) is an NIHR-funded programme of work designed to establish best practice for adults with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The 7-year programme comprises three consecutive workstreams, designed to explore NHS care pathways through analysis of primary and secondary data sources, and to undertake a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a longer-term course of macrolide antibiotics and endoscopic sinus surgery for patients with CRS. A number of outstanding elements still required clarification at the funding stage. This paper reports an expert panel review process designed to agree and finalise the MACRO trial design, ensuring relevance to patients and clinicians whilst maximising trial recruitment and retention.

METHODS

An expert panel, consisting of the MACRO Programme Management Group, independent advisors, and patient contributors, was convened to review current evidence and the mixed-method data collected as part of the programme, and reach agreement on MACRO trial design. Specifically, agreement was sought for selection of macrolide antibiotic, use of orally administered steroids, inclusion of CRS phenotypes (with/without nasal polyps), and overall trial design.

RESULTS

A 12-week course of clarithromycin was agreed as the main trial comparator due to its increasing use as a first- and second-line treatment for patients with CRS, and the perceived need to establish its role in CRS management. Orally administered steroids will be used as a rescue medication during the trial, rather than routinely either pre or post trial randomisation, to limit any potential effects on surgical outcomes and better reflect current UK prescribing habits. Both CRS phenotypes will be included in a single trial to ensure that the MACRO trial is both pragmatic and generalisable to primary care. A modified, three-arm trial design was agreed after intense discussions and further exploratory work. Inclusion criteria were amended to ensure that the patients recruited would be considered eligible for the treatment offered in the trial due to having already received appropriate medical therapy as deemed suitable by their ENT surgeon. A proposed 6-week run-in period prior to randomisation was removed due to the new criteria prior to randomisation.

CONCLUSION

The expert panel review process resulted in agreement on key elements and an optimal design for the MACRO trial, considered most likely to be successful in terms of both recruitment potential and ability to establish best management of patients with CRS.

EAACI Position paper on the standardization of nasal allergen challenges

Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is an important tool to diagnose allergic rhinitis. In daily clinical routine, experimentally, or when measuring therapeutic success clinically, nasal allergen challenge is fundamental. It is further one of the key diagnostic tools when initiating specific allergen immunotherapy. So far, national recommendations offered guidance on its execution; however, international divergence left many questions unanswered. These differences in the literature caused EAACI to initiate a task force to answer unmet needs and find a consensus in executing nasal allergen challenge. On the basis of a systematic review containing nasal allergen challenges of the past years, task force members reviewed evidence, discussed open issues, and studied variations of several subjective and objective assessment parameters to propose a standardized way of a nasal allergen challenge procedure in clinical practice. Besides an update on indications, contraindications, and preparations for the test procedure, main recommendations are a bilaterally challenge with standardized allergens, with a spray device offering 0.1 mL per nostril. A systematic catalogue for positivity criteria is given for the variety of established subjective and objective assessment methods as well as a schedule for the challenge procedure. The task force recommends a unified protocol for NAC for daily clinical practice, aiming at eliminating the previous difficulty of comparing NAC results due to unmet needs.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

METHODS

We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.63, -0.42), medication (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.49, -0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.69, -0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores.

CONCLUSIONS

AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.

Erratum to: Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: protocol for a systematic review

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s13601-016-0099-6.].

On the calculation of the reliability of general load sharing systems

Harlow et al. (1983) have given a recursive formula which is fundamental for computing the bundle strength distribution under a general class of load sharing rules called monotone load sharing rules. As the bundle size increases, the formula becomes prohibitively complex and, by itself, does not give much insight into the relationship of the assumed load sharing rule to the overall strength distribution. In this paper, an algorithm is given which gives some additional insight into this relationship. Here it is shown how to explicitly compute the bundle strength survival distribution by using a new type of graph called the loading diagram. The graph is parallel in structure and recursive in nature and so would appear to lend itself to large-scale computation. In addition, the graph has an interesting property (which we refer to as the cancellation property) which is related to the asymptotics of the Weibull as a minimum stable law.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: protocol for a systematic review

Background

The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for the Management of Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Methods

We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised.

Conclusion

The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI’s Guidelines on AIT.

Specific allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of atopic eczema

BACKGROUND

Specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is a treatment that may improve disease severity in people with atopic eczema (AE) by inducing immune tolerance to the relevant allergen. A high quality systematic review has not previously assessed the efficacy and safety of this treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT), including subcutaneous, sublingual, intradermal, and oral routes, compared with placebo or a standard treatment in people with atopic eczema.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), LILACS (from 1982), Web of Science™ (from 2005), the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT database), and five trials databases. We searched abstracts from recent European and North American allergy meetings and checked the references of included studies and review articles for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of specific allergen immunotherapy that used standardised allergen extracts in people with AE.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction (including adverse effects), assessment of risk of bias, and analyses. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 RCTs for inclusion in this review; the total number of participants was 733. The interventions included SIT in children and adults allergic to either house dust mite (10 trials), grass pollen, or other inhalant allergens (two trials). They were administered subcutaneously (six trials), sublingually (four trials), orally, or intradermally (two trials). Overall, the risk of bias was moderate, with high loss to follow up and lack of blinding as the main methodological concern.Our primary outcomes were 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment'; 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'; and 'Adverse events, such as acute episodes of asthma or anaphylaxis'. SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) is a means of measuring the effect of atopic dermatitis by area (A); intensity (B); and subjective measures (C), such as itch and sleeplessness, which we used.For 'Participant- or parent-reported global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment', one trial (20 participants) found improvement in 7/9 participants (78%) treated with the SIT compared with 3/11 (27%) treated with the placebo (risk ratio (RR) 2.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 7.96; P = 0.04). Another study (24 participants) found no difference: global disease severity improved in 8/13 participants (62%) treated with the SIT compared with 9/11 (81%) treated with the placebo (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.26; P = 0.38). We did not perform meta-analysis because of high heterogeneity between these two studies. The quality of the evidence was low.For 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures', two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved SCORAD part C (mean difference (MD) -0.74, 95% CI -1.98 to 0.50) or sleep disturbance (MD -0.49, 95% CI -1.03 to 0.06) more than placebo. For SCORAD part C itch severity, these two trials (184 participants) did not find that the SIT improved itch (MD -0.24, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.52). One other non-blinded study (60 participants) found that the SIT reduced itch compared with no treatment (MD -4.20, 95% CI -3.69 to -4.71) and reduced the participants' overall symptoms (P < 0.01), but we could not pool these three studies due to high heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was very low.Seven trials reported systemic adverse reactions: 18/282 participants (6.4%) treated with the SIT had a systemic reaction compared with 15/210 (7.1%) with no treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.49; the quality of the evidence was moderate). The same seven trials reported local adverse reactions: 90/280 participants (32.1%) treated with the SIT had a local reaction compared with 44/204 (21.6%) in the no treatment group (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.81). As these had the same study limitations, we deemed the quality of the evidence to also be moderate.Of our secondary outcomes, there was a significant improvement in 'Investigator- or physician-rated global assessment of disease severity at the end of treatment' (six trials, 262 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.88). None of the studies reported our secondary outcome 'Parent- or participant-rated eczema severity assessed using a published scale', but two studies (n = 184), which have been mentioned above, used SCORAD part C, which we included as our primary outcome 'Participant- or parent-reported specific symptoms of eczema, by subjective measures'.Our findings were generally inconclusive because of the small number of studies. We were unable to determine by subgroup analyses a particular type of allergen or a particular age or level of disease severity where allergen immunotherapy was more successful. We were also unable to determine whether sublingual immunotherapy was associated with more local adverse reactions compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was low. The low quality was mainly due to the differing results between studies, lack of blinding in some studies, and relatively few studies reporting participant-centred outcome measures. We found limited evidence that SIT may be an effective treatment for people with AE. The treatments used in these trials were not associated with an increased risk of local or systemic reactions. Future studies should use high quality allergen formulations with a proven track record in other allergic conditions and should include participant-reported outcome measures.

Safety of sublingual immunotherapy Timothy grass tablet in subjects with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis and history of asthma

BACKGROUND

Patients with asthma may be more susceptible to adverse events (AEs) with sublingual immunotherapy tablet (SLIT-tablet) treatment, such as severe systemic reactions and asthma-related events. Using data from eight trials of grass SLIT-tablet in subjects with allergic rhinitis with/without conjunctivitis (AR/C), AE frequencies were determined in adults and children with and without reported asthma.

METHODS

Data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of Timothy grass SLIT-tablet MK-7243 (2800 BAU/75 000 SQ-T, Merck/ALK-Abelló) were pooled for post hoc analyses. Subjects with uncontrolled and severe asthma were excluded from the trials. Frequencies for treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), local allergic swelling (mouth or throat), systemic allergic reactions, and asthma-related treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Among adults (n = 3314) and children (n = 881), 24% and 31%, respectively, had reported asthma. No serious local allergic swellings or serious systemic allergic reactions occurred in subjects with asthma treated with SLIT-tablet. There was no evidence of increased TEAEs, systemic allergic reactions, or severe local allergic swellings in adults or children with asthma treated with grass SLIT-tablet versus subjects without asthma in or outside of pollen season. There were 6/120 asthma-related TRAEs assessed as severe with grass SLIT-tablet and 2/60 with placebo, without a consistent trend among subjects with and without asthma (5 and 3 events, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In the AR/C subjects with reported well-controlled mild asthma included in these studies, grass SLIT-tablet did not increase TEAE frequency, severe local allergic swelling, or systemic allergic reactions versus subjects without asthma. There was no indication that treatment led to acute asthma worsening.

Beta₂-agonists for exercise-induced asthma

BACKGROUND

It is well known that physical exercise can trigger asthma symptoms and can induce bronchial obstruction in people without clinical asthma. International guidelines on asthma management recommend the use of beta2-agonists at any stage of the disease. At present, however, no consensus has been reached about the efficacy and safety of beta2-agonists in the pretreatment of exercise-induced asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. For the purpose of the present review, both of these conditions are referred to by the acronymous EIA, independently from the presence of an underlying chronic clinical disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of inhaled short- and long-acting beta2-agonists, compared with placebo, in the pretreatment of children and adults with exercise-induced asthma (or exercise-induced bronchoconstriction).

SEARCH METHODS

Trials were identified by electronic searching of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meetings. Searches are current as of August 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any study design, published in full text, that assessed the effects of inhaled beta2-agonists on EIA in adults and children. We excluded studies that did not clearly state diagnostic criteria for EIA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 trials consisting of 1139 participants. Forty-eight studies used a cross-over design, and five were performed in accordance with a parallel-group design. Forty-five studies addressed the effect of a single beta2-agonist administration, and eight focused on long-term treatment. We addressed these two different intervention regimens as different comparisons.Among primary outcomes for short-term administration, data on maximum fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) showed a significant protective effect for both short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -17.67% (95% confidence interval (CI) -19.51% to -15.84%, P = 0.00001, 799 participants from 72 studies). The subgroup analysis of studies performed in adults compared with those performed in children showed high heterogeneity confined to children, despite the comparable mean bronchoprotective effect.Secondary outcomes on other pulmonary function parameters confirmed a more positive and protective effect of beta2-agonists on EIA compared with placebo. Occurrence of side effects was not significantly different between beta2-agonists and placebo.Overall evaluation of the included long-term studies suggests a beta2-agonist bronchoprotective effect for the first dose of treatment. However, long-term use of both SABA and LABA induced the onset of tolerance and decreased the duration of drug effect, even after a short treatment period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of low to moderate quality shows that beta2-agonists, both SABA and LABA, when administered in a single dose, are effective and safe in preventing EIA.Long-term regular administration of inhaled beta2-agonists induces tolerance and lacks sufficient safety data. This finding appears to be of particular clinical relevance in view of the potential for prolonged regular use of beta2-agonists as monotherapy in the pretreatment of EIA, despite the warnings of drug agencies (FDA, EMA) regarding LABA.

Human IL-31 is induced by IL-4 and promotes TH2-driven inflammation

BACKGROUND

The pruritic cytokine IL-31 has been shown to be expressed by murine activated effector T Lymphocytes of a TH2 phenotype. Like IL-17 and IL-22, IL-31 is a tissue-signaling cytokine the receptor of which is mainly found on nonimmune cells. An overabundance of IL-31 has been shown in patients with atopic disorders, including dermatitis, as well as asthma, and therefore represents a promising drug target, although its regulation in the context of the human TH2 clusters is not yet known.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to address the gene regulation of human IL-31 and to test whether IL-31 possesses a similar proallergic function as members of the human TH2 cytokine family, such as IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13.

METHODS

Polyclonal and purified protein derivative of tuburculin-specific T-cell clones were generated. TH phenotype was determined, and IL-31 was measured by means of ELISA. Gene expression of primary bronchial epithelial cells treated with IL-31 was also measured.

RESULTS

IL-31 was expressed by all of the TH2 clones and not by TH1, TH17, or TH22. This expression was dependent on autocrine IL-4 expression from these clones because it could be reduced if blocking antibodies to IL-4 were present. Interestingly, TH1 clones were able to express IL-31 if IL-4 was added to culture. This IL-31 expression was transient and did not affect the phenotype of the TH1 clones. IL-31 was able to induce proinflammatory genes, such as CCL2 and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

CONCLUSION

IL-31 is not a TH2 cytokine in the classical sense but is likely to be expressed by a number of cells in an allergic situation in which IL-4 is present and possibly contribute to the allergic reaction.

The skin prick test - European standards

Skin prick testing is an essential test procedure to confirm sensitization in IgE-mediated allergic disease in subjects with rhinoconjunctivitis, asthma, urticaria, anapylaxis, atopic eczema and food and drug allergy. This manuscript reviews the available evidence including Medline and Embase searches, abstracts of international allergy meetings and position papers from the world allergy literature. The recommended method of prick testing includes the appropriate use of specific allergen extracts, positive and negative controls, interpretation of the tests after 15 – 20 minutes of application, with a positive result defined as a wheal ≥3 mm diameter. A standard prick test panel for Europe for inhalants is proposed and includes hazel (Corylus avellana), alder (Alnus incana), birch (Betula alba), plane (Platanus vulgaris), cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), grass mix (Poa pratensis, Dactilis glomerata, Lolium perenne, Phleum pratense, Festuca pratensis, Helictotrichon pretense), Olive (Olea europaea), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), Alternaria alternata (tenuis), Cladosporium herbarum, Aspergillus fumigatus, Parietaria, cat, dog, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Dermatophagoides farinae, and cockroach (Blatella germanica). Standardization of the skin test procedures and standard panels for different geographic locations are encouraged worldwide to permit better comparisons for diagnostic, clinical and research purposes.

Scalp arteriovenous malformation associated with a superior sagittal sinus, sinus pericranii

Scalp arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) and sinus pericranii are two rare vascular lesions of the scalp that are part of the differential diagnosis in patients with scalp masses. The necessity of treatment of sinus pericranii, due to its risk of catastrophic hemorrhage or scalp necrosis, makes its diagnosis imperative. There are several theories on the pathogenesis of sinus pericranii with some of them stressing the importance of altered hemodynamic parameters in the affected area. An 8-year-old girl presented with a five centimeter soft, reducible scalp mass that had been present since birth. Clinical and radiographic evaluation revealed a sinus pericranii in association with a scalp AVM. She underwent resection of the sinus pericranii followed by embolization and planned separate en bloc resection of the AVM. During resection of the scalp AVM at a later date, the sinus pericranii was noted to have recurred. Concurrent treatment of all vascular anomalies associated with a sinus pericranii appears to be the key to its complete eradication.

European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology task force report on 'dose-response relationship in allergen-specific immunotherapy'

BACKGROUND

For a century, allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) has proven to be an effective treatment for allergic rhinitis, asthma, and insect sting allergy. However, as allergen doses are frequently adapted to the individual patient, there are few data on dose-response relationship in SIT. Allergen products for SIT are being increasingly required to conform to regulatory requirements for human medicines, which include the need to demonstrate dose-dependent effects.

METHODS

This report, produced by a Task Force of the EAACI Immunotherapy Interest Group, evaluates the currently available data on dose-response relationships in SIT and aims to provide recommendations for the design of future studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen dose-ranging studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and twelve reported a dose-response relationship for clinical efficacy. Several studies also reported a dose-response relationship for immunological and safety endpoints. Due to the use of different reference materials and methodologies for the determination of allergen content, variations in study design, and choice of endpoints, no comparisons could be made between studies and, as a consequence, no general dosing recommendations can be made.

CONCLUSION

Despite recently introduced guidelines on the standardization of allergen preparations and study design, the Task Force identified a need for universally accepted standards for the measurement of allergen content in SIT preparations, dosing protocols, and selection of clinical endpoints to enable dose-response effects to be compared across studies.

Sublingual immunotherapy for treating allergic conjunctivitis

BACKGROUND

Allergic ocular symptoms, although frequently trivialised, are common and represent an important comorbidity of allergic rhinitis. Sublingual Immunotherapy (SLIT) is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis, but its effects on symptoms of ocular allergy have not been well established.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of SLIT compared with placebo for reductions in ocular symptoms, topical ocular medication requirements and conjunctival immediate allergen sensitivity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (January 1950 to January 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2011), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2011), Web of Science (January 1970 to January 2011), Biosis Previews, (January 1979 to January 2011), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com) (January 2011), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) (January 2011), the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (www.actr.org.au) (July 2010), SCOPUS (November 2008) and the UK Clinical Trials Gateway (January 2010). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. All electronic databases except for SCOPUS, the UK Clinical Trials Gateway and ANZCTR were last searched on 19 January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), double-masked and placebo controlled, which evaluated the efficacy of SLIT in patients with symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) or allergic conjunctivitis (AC).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome was the total ocular symptom scores. Secondary endpoints included individual ocular symptom scores (such as itchy eyes, red eyes, watery eyes, swollen eyes), ocular medication scores (eye drops) and conjunctival immediate allergen sensitivity (CIAS). Data were analysed and reported as standardised mean differences (SMDs) using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two trials (n = 3958 total participants; n= 2011 SLIT and n = 1947 placebo) had available data to evaluate the efficacy of SLIT on AC and were included in the meta-analyses. Heterogeneity among studies (I(2) statistic) was around 50% or below for all endpoints. Sublingual immunotherapy induced a significant reduction in both total ocular symptom scores (SMD -0.41; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to -0.28; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 59%) and individual ocular symptom scores for red eyes (SMD -0.33; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.22; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 27%), itchy eyes (SMD -0.31; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.20; P < 0.00001; I(2) = 46%) and watery eyes (SMD -0.23; 95% CI -0.34 to -0.11; P < 0.0001; I(2) = 42%) compared to placebo. Those participants having active treatment showed an increase in the threshold dose for the conjunctival allergen provocation test (SMD 0.35; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.69; P = 0.05; I(2) = 43%). No significant reduction was observed in ocular eye drops use (SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.03; P = 0.13; I(2) = 34%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, SLIT is moderately effective in reducing total and individual ocular symptom scores in participants with ARC and AC. There were however some concerns about the overall quality of the evidence-base, this relating to inadequate descriptions of allocation concealment in some studies, statistical heterogeneity and the possibility of publication bias. There is a need for further large rigorously designed studies that study long-term effectiveness after discontinuation of treatment and establish the cost-effectiveness of SLIT.

How to design and evaluate randomized controlled trials in immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an ARIA-GA(2) LEN statement

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is one of the treatments for allergic rhinitis. However, for allergists, nonspecialists, regulators, payers, and patients, there remain gaps in understanding the evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although treating the same diseases, RCTs in SIT and pharmacotherapy should be considered separately for several reasons, as developed in this study. These include the severity and persistence of allergic rhinitis in the patients enrolled in the study, the problem of the placebo, allergen exposure (in particular pollen and mite), the analysis and reporting of the study, the level of symptoms of placebo-treated patients, the clinical relevance of the efficacy of SIT, the need for a validated combined symptom-medication score, the differences between children and adults and pharmacoeconomic analyses. This statement reviews issues raised by the interpretation of RCTs in sublingual immunotherapy. It is not possible to directly extrapolate the rules or parameters used in medication RCTs to SIT. It also provides some suggestions for the research that will be needed. Interestingly, some of the research questions can be approached with the available data obtained from large RCTs.

Systematic reviews of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)

Allergic rhinitis is common worldwide, with significant morbidity and impact on quality of life. In patients who don't respond adequately to anti-allergic drugs. Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy is effective although requires specialist administration. Sublingual immunotherapy may represent an effective and safer alternative. This Cochrane systematic review is an update of one published in 2003. We searched Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register, Central, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Biosis Previews, Cambridge Scientific Abstarcts, mRCT and additional sources. We included randomised, double-blind, placebo- controlled trials of sublingual immunotherapy in adults and children. Two authors selected studies and assessed them for quality. Data were put into RevMan 5.0 for a statistical analysis. We used standardised mean difference (SMD), with a random effect model to combine data. Sixty studies were included, with 49 suitable for meta-analysis. We found significant reductions in symptoms (SMD -0.49; 95%CI (-0.64 to -0.34, P < 0.00001)) and medication requirements (SMD -0.32; 95%CI (-0.43 to -0.21, P < 0.00001)) compared with placebo. None of the trials reported severe systemic reactions, anaphylaxis or use of Adrenaline. This updated review reinforces the conclusion of the original 2003 Cochrane Review that sublingual immunotherapy is effective for allergic rhinitis and appears a safe route of administration.

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 2, 2003.Allergic rhinitis is a common condition which can significantly impair quality of life. Immunotherapy by injection can significantly reduce symptoms and medication use but its use is limited by the possibility of severe systemic adverse reactions. Immunotherapy by the sublingual route is therefore of considerable interest.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis in adults and children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register; CENTRAL (2010, Issue 3); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; mRCT and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 14 August 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of sublingual immunotherapy in adults or children. Primary outcome measures were symptom and medication scores. We also collected adverse event data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors selected studies and assessed risk of bias. One author extracted data which was rechecked by two other authors. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with a random-effects model to combine data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 60 randomised controlled trials in the review. Forty-nine were suitable for pooling in meta-analyses (2333 SLIT, 2256 placebo participants). Overall, we found a significant reduction in symptoms (SMD -0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.34, P < 0.00001) and medication requirements (SMD -0.32; 95% CI -0.43 to -0.21, P < 0.00001) in participants receiving sublingual immunotherapy compared to placebo. None of the trials included in this review reported severe systemic reactions or anaphylaxis, and none of the systemic reactions reported required the use of adrenaline.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review reinforces the conclusion of the original 2003 Cochrane Review that sublingual immunotherapy is effective for allergic rhinitis and has been proven to be a safe route of administration.

GA2LEN skin test study III: minimum battery of test inhalent allergens needed in epidemiological studies in patients

BACKGROUND

The number of allergens to be tested in order to identify sensitized patients is important in order to have the most cost-effective approach in epidemiological studies.

OBJECTIVE

To define the minimal number and the type of skin prick test (SPT) allergens required to identify a patient as sensitized using results of the new Pan-European GA(2)LEN skin prick test study.

METHOD

In a large Pan-European multicenter (17 centers in 14 countries) patient based study, a standardized panel of 18 allergens has been prick tested using a standardized procedure. Conditional approach allowed to determine the allergens selection.

RESULT

Among the 3034 patients involved, 1996 (68.2%) were sensitized to at least one allergen. Overall, eight allergens (grass pollen, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, birch pollen, cat dander, Artemisia, olive pollen, Blatella and Alternaria) allowed to identified more than 95% of sensitized subjects. However, differences were observed between countries, two allergens being sufficient for Switzerland (grass pollen and cat dander) as opposed to nine for France (grass pollen, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, olive pollen, cat dander, Blatella, cypress, dog dander, alder and [Artemisia or Alternaria]). According to country, up to 13 allergens were needed to identify all sensitized subjects.

CONCLUSION

Eight to ten allergens allowed the identification of the majority of sensitized subjects. For clinical care of individual patients, the whole battery of 18 allergens is needed to appropriately assess sensitization across Europe.

GA(2)LEN skin test study II: clinical relevance of inhalant allergen sensitizations in Europe

BACKGROUND

Skin prick testing is the standard for diagnosing IgE-mediated allergies. A positive skin prick reaction, however, does not always correlate with clinical symptoms. A large database from a Global Asthma and Allergy European Network (GA(2)LEN) study with data on clinical relevance was used to determine the clinical relevance of sensitizations against the 18 most frequent inhalant allergens in Europe. The study population consisted of patients referred to one of the 17 allergy centres in 14 European countries (n = 3034, median age = 33 years). The aim of the study was to assess the clinical relevance of positive skin prick test reactions against inhalant allergens considering the predominating type of symptoms in a pan-European population of patients presenting with suspected allergic disease.

METHODS

Clinical relevance of skin prick tests was recorded with regard to patient history and optional additional tests. A putative correlation between sensitization and allergic disease was assessed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

While an overall rate of >or=60% clinically relevant sensitizations was observed in all countries, a differential distribution of clinically relevant sensitizations was demonstrated depending on type of allergen and country where the prick test was performed. Furthermore, a significant correlation between the presence of allergic disease and the number of sensitizations was demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

This study strongly emphasizes the importance of evaluating the clinical relevance of positive skin prick tests and calls for further studies, which may, ultimately, help increase the positive predictive value of allergy testing.

GA(2)LEN skin test study I: GA(2)LEN harmonization of skin prick testing: novel sensitization patterns for inhalant allergens in Europe

BACKGROUND

Skin prick testing is the standard for diagnosing IgE-mediated allergies. However, different allergen extracts and different testing procedures have been applied by European allergy centres. Thus, it has been difficult to compare results from different centres or studies across Europe. It was, therefore, crucial to standardize and harmonize procedures in allergy diagnosis and treatment within Europe.

AIMS

The Global Asthma and Allergy European Network (GA(2)LEN), with partners and collaborating centres across Europe, was in a unique position to take on this task. The current study is the first approach to implement a standardized procedure for skin prick testing in allergies against inhalant allergens with a standardized pan-European allergen panel.

METHODS

The study population consisted of patients who were referred to one of the 17 participating centres in 14 European countries (n = 3034, median age = 33 years). Skin prick testing and evaluation was performed with the same 18 allergens in a standardized procedure across all centres.

RESULTS

The study clearly shows that many allergens previously regarded as untypical for some regions in Europe have been underestimated. This could partly be related to changes in mobility of patients, vegetation or climate in Europe.

CONCLUSION

The results of this large pan-European study demonstrate for the first time sensitization patterns for different inhalant allergens in patients across Europe. The standardized skin prick test with the standardized allergen battery should be recommended for clinical use and research. Further EU-wide monitoring of sensitization patterns is urgently needed.

Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy

Allergen-specific sublingual immunotherapy is now recognized to be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for allergic rhinitis. Emerging treatment strategies are also aimed at the primary treatment of allergic asthma, particularly allergy to house dust mites. Knowledge of the exact mechanisms of action of sublingual immunotherapy is at a basic level, although there appear to be similarities to the immunological changes seen in subcutaneous immunotherapy. An improved understanding should allow the development of more effective treatment programs and widen the potential use of this form of immunotherapy. This review discusses the possible mechanism of action of sublingual immunotherapy, including data from animal and clinical studies, while comparing this with the current understanding of subcutaneous immunotherapy.