Local nasal immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis to Parietaria

Preseasonal local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT) by means of an extract in macronized powder form has been studied in allergic rhinitis to parielaria . Twenty-four Parietari-sensitive patients have been studied for 18 weeks in a double-blind controlled trial. Subjects were selected on the basis of a positive skin test, RAST and intranasal challenge to Parietaria antigen. Three eight-patient groups were randomly planned: the first group was given native Parietaria product, the second modified Parietaria product, and the third placebo. During the pollen season no difference was observed in mean weekly symptom score between the three groups, while the mean weekly medication score was significantly lower in the treated groups than the control group. Only the treated groups showed a significant increase in specific nasal threshold to Parietaria after treatment. Adverse reactions to LNIT, limited to the upper respiratory tract, occurred rarely and did not interfere with the dose schedule. This study indicates that L nit in powder form may be a suitable alternative to the traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.     

Combination of omalizumab and specific immunotherapy is superior to immunotherapy in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and co-morbid seasonal allergic asthma

Background The treatment of allergic asthma by specific immunotherapy (SIT) is hampered by potential side-effects.
Objective The aim of this study was to study the effect of omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, in combination with SIT in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR) and co-morbid seasonal allergic asthma (SAA) incompletely controlled by conventional pharmacotherapy.
Methods A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre trial was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab (Xolair^®) vs. placebo in combination with depigmented SIT (Depigoid^®) during the grass pollen season. Omalizumab or placebo was started 2 weeks before SIT; the whole treatment lasted 18 weeks. Primary endpoint was daily 'symptom load', the sum of daily scores for symptom severity and rescue medication use.
Results A total of 140 patients (age 11–46 years) were randomized; and a total of 130 finished the study. Combination therapy reduced the symptom load by 39% ( P =0.0464, Wilcoxon test) over SIT monotherapy. This difference was mainly due to reduced symptom severity ( P =0.0044), while rescue medication use did not change significantly. Combination therapy also improved asthma control (Asthma Control Questionnaire, P =0.0295) and quality of life in the case of asthma (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, P =0.0293) and rhinoconjunctivitis (Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire, P =0.0537). Numbers of patients with 'excellent or good' treatment efficacy according to ratings of investigators (75.0% vs. 36.9%) or patients (78.5% vs. 46.1%) were markedly higher in the combination group than under SIT alone.
Conclusion Combination of omalizumab with SIT for treatment of patients with SAR and co-morbid SAA was safe and reduced the symptom load in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful manner.     

Sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of adult allergic rhinitis patients

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was accepted for clinical use by the medical community only 15 years after the first controlled trial published. The acceptance of SLIT has been driven by the evidence base of a large number of clinical trials confirming the efficacy and a recent meta-analysis study. Although SLIT is self-managed by the patient, this does not generate problems with compliance. The safety profile, assessed in clinical trials and postmarketing surveillance studies, is satisfactory with no reports of systemic adverse reactions. New data are available on the persisting, long-lasting effect of SLIT and on the association with the prevention of asthma in paediatric patients. However, there is only indirect evidence for such persistence and duration of effect in adult patients. Key priorities for further investigation are the mechanisms of action, the efficacy in asthma, the cost/effectiveness and the identification of those patients who will achieve the maximum benefit with SLIT.     

Physician and patient survey of allergic rhinitis in France: perceptions on prevalence, severity of symptoms, care management and specific immunotherapy

Background:  Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only aetiological treatment used in allergic rhinitis (AR). A telephone survey of patients and physicians in France was carried out to understand better the real and perceived advantages and inconveniences of this therapeutic approach.
Methods:  A cohort of 453 individuals with AR was selected using the Score For Allergic Rhinitis questionnaire. The survey evaluated the level of understanding of allergic rhinitis and its management, including both pharmacotherapy and SIT. A parallel survey was conducted with 400 general practitioners, allergists and nonallergist specialists.
Results:  Approximately 50% of patients had heard about SIT as a therapeutic option. Of these, 56% had a positive view of SIT and 14% a negative image. A majority of patients and physicians with a positive opinion associated SIT with improved well-being and quality of life, while those with a negative opinion considered it to be a long and inconvenient treatment, with uncertain results. Over 50% of patients who had been offered SIT had accepted it and approximately 60% of these were satisfied with it. The future availability of SIT as sublingual tablets was perceived positively by both patients and physicians.
Conclusions:  Many patients with AR are unaware of their pathology and few seek help from health professionals. When patients take medication, they are generally satisfied with their treatment, even if it is only symptomatic. Patients and physicians see the notion of definitive recovery as the main benefit of SIT, whereas the main disadvantage is the duration of treatment.     

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Allergic rhinitis is a common condition which, at its most severe, can significantly impair quality of life despite optimal treatment with antihistamines and topical nasal corticosteroids. Allergen injection immunotherapy significantly reduces symptoms and medication requirements in allergic rhinitis but its use is limited by the possibility of severe systemic reactions. There has therefore been considerable interest in alternative routes for delivery of allergen immunotherapy, particularly the sublingual route. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), compared with placebo, for reductions in symptoms and medication requirements. The Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register, MEDLINE (1966-2002), EMBASE (1974-2002) and Scisearch were searched, up to September 2002, using the terms (Rhin* OR hay fever) AND (immunotherap* OR desensiti*ation) AND (sublingual). All studies identified by the searches were assessed by the reviewers to identify Randomized Controlled Trials involving participants with symptoms of allergic rhinitis and proven allergen sensitivity, treated with SLIT or corresponding placebo. Data from identified studies was abstracted onto a standard extraction sheet and subsequently entered into RevMan 4.1. Analysis was performed by the method of standardized mean differences (SMD) using a random effects model. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the type of allergen administered, the age of participants and the duration of treatment. Twenty-two trials involving 979 patients, were included. There were six trials of SLIT for house dust mite allergy, five for grass pollen, five for parietaria, two for olive and one each for, ragweed, cat, tree and cupressus. Five studies enrolled exclusively children. Seventeen studies administered the allergen by sublingual drops subsequently swallowed, three by drops subsequently spat out and two by sublingual tablets. Eight studies involved treatment for less than 6 months, 10 studies for 6-12 months and four studies for greater than 12 months. All included studies were double-blind placebo-controlled trials of parallell group design. Concealment of treatment allocation was considered adequate in all studies and the use of identical placebo preparations was almost universal. There was significant heterogeneity, most likely due to widely differing scoring systems between studies, for most comparisons. Overall there was a significant reduction in both symptoms (SMD -0.42, 95% confidence interval -0.69 to -0.15; P = 0.002) and medication requirements [SMD -0.43 (-0.63, -0.23); P = 0.00003] following immunotherapy. Subgroup analyses failed to identify a disproportionate benefit of treatment according to the allergen administered. There was no significant reduction in symptoms and medication scores in those studies involving only children but total numbers of participants was too small to make this a reliable conclusion. Increasing duration of treatment does not clearly increase efficacy. The total dose of allergen administered may be important but insufficient data was available to analyse this factor.     

Effect of immunotherapy on asthma progression, BHR and sputum eosinophils in allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND: Bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) and airway inflammation are frequently associated with allergic rhinitis, and may be important risk factors for the development of asthma. Specific immunotherapy (SIT) reduces symptom in subjects with allergic rhinitis, but the mechanisms are not clear. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To assess the effect of Parietaria-SIT on asthma progression, rhinitic symptoms, BHR, and eosinophilic inflammation. METHODS: Nonasthmatic subjects with seasonal rhinitis were randomly assigned to receive Parietaria pollen vaccine (n = 15) or matched placebo (n = 15). Data on symptoms and medication score, BHR to methacholine, eosinophilia in sputum were collected throughout the 3-year study. RESULTS: By the end of the study, in the placebo group, symptoms and medication scores significantly increased by a median (interquartile range) of 121% (15-280) and 263% (0-4400) respectively (P < 0.01), whereas no significant difference was observed in the SIT group. We found no significant changes in sputum eosinophils and BHR to methacholine in both groups throughout the study. Nine of 29 participants developed asthma symptoms during the study; of these, only two subjects (14%) in the SIT-treated group (P = 0.056). CONCLUSIONS: Parietaria-SIT reduces symptom and rescue medication scores, but no changes in BHR to methacholine or sputum eosinophilia were observed. Moreover, Parietaria-SIT appears to prevent the natural progression of allergic rhinitis to asthma, suggesting that SIT should be considered earlier in the management of subjects with allergic rhinitis.     

Preseasonal intranasal immunotherapy in birch-alder allergic rhinitis

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out to test the clinical efficacy and safety of local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT) in powder form. Twenty-two patients suffering from allergic rhinitis strictly associated with early spring symptoms, with positive skin prick tests and RAST for birch-alder, all responders to a specific nasal provocation test (NPT), received randomly active or placebo treatment for 4 months. Immunotherapy consisted of administration of a set of capsules containing progressively increasing amounts of birch ( Betula pendula ) and speckled alder ( Alnus incana ) allergens in powder form with controlled granulometry. The active (birch-alder) and placebo (lactose) group completed the treatment according to a similar schedule. During the pollen season (March-April), the patients who took the active treatment reported less sneezing and rhinorrhea than the placebo group, on the basis of a symptoms score, and the differences were statistically significant; the need for drugs (terfenadine) was also significantly reduced. These findings agreed well with the results of specific NPT after the treatment; only patients in the active group had a higher threshold dose of nasal specific reactivity to birch-alder allergens than in tests before the LNIT.     

Advances and highlights in allergic rhinitis

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a growing public health, medical and economic problem worldwide. The current review describes the major discoveries related to AR during the past 2 years, including risk factors for the prevalence of AR, the corresponding diagnostic strategy, precise underlying immunological mechanisms, and efficient therapies for AR during the ongoing global “coronavirus disease 2019” (COVID-19) pandemic. The review further attempts to highlight future research perspectives. Increasing evidence suggests that environmental exposures, climate changes, and lifestyle are important risk factors for AR. Consequently, detailed investigation of the exposome and the connection between environmental exposures and health in the future should provide better risk profiles instead of single predictors, and also help mitigate adverse health outcomes in allergic diseases. Although patients with dual AR, a newly defined AR phenotype, display perennial and seasonal allergens-related nasal symptoms, they are only allergic to seasonal allergens, indicating the importance of measuring inflammation at the local sites. Herein, we suggest that a combination of precise diagnosis in local sites and traditional diagnostic methods may enhance the precision medicine-based approach for management of AR; however, this awaits further investigations. Apart from traditional treatments, social distancing, washing hands, and disinfection are also required to better manage AR patients in the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic. Despite recent advances in understanding the immune mechanisms underlying the effects of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), further understanding changes of cell profiles after AIT and accurately evaluate the efficacy of AIT are required.     

Low-dose local nasal immunotherapy in children with perennial allergic rhinitis due to Dermatophagoides

BACKGROUND: Allergen specific immunotherapy was known to be useful in the treatment of respiratory allergic disease. Local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT) offers advantages such as a good efficacy/safety ratio and a more convenient allergen delivery. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and clinical efficacy of a modified scheduling of LNIT in 32 children with allergic rhinitis due to Dermatophagoides. METHODS: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind placebo controlled study carried out for two years, with a modified schedule of LNIT treatment: a build-up phase at increasing dosages from 2.5 AU to 80 AU and a maintenance period at low dosage (80 AU) once a week. Symptom and medication scores. threshold dose with specific nasal provocation test (NPT) and immunological parameters (IgE and IgG4) were evaluated. RESULTS: No important local or systemic side-effects were observed in children who completed the study. Compared to placebo, the active treatment group showed significant improvement in rhinitis symptoms and a reduction of drug consumption after 18 months of LNIT. These results were confirmed by a significant reduction of allergen specific nasal reactivity. Serum and nasal specific IgE and IgG4 did not show any difference in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and clinical efficacy of low-dose LNIT suggests that this therapy may be useful in the treatment of allergic rhinitis disease in children.     

Allergen immunotherapy: immunomodulatory treatment for allergic diseases

Allergen immunotherapy is currently the only immune-modifying treatment for allergic disease. At the present time it is indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, asthma and venom hypersensitivity. Efficacy appears to be dose dependent, and the immunological mechanisms responsible for the clinical efficacy of immunotherapy are still being elucidated. Immunological changes associated with immunotherapy include induction of T regulatory cells, increase in allergen-specific immunoglobulin G4, increase in interleukin-10 production and downregulation of the T helper 2 response. The disadvantages of allergen immunotherapy include risk of adverse events and patient time and inconvenience. Risks of immunotherapy range from large local reactions to mild systemic reactions, such as rhinitis. Fatalities from immunotherapy injections have been reported at a rate of approximately one fatality per 2.5 million injections. Conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy build-up schedules involve administration of a single-dose increase each visit and it may take several months before a patient achieves the therapeutic maintenance dose. Accelerated schedules, such as rush and cluster, will allow the patient to achieve the maintenance dose sooner but there may be a greater risk of a systemic reaction. The current focus of immunotherapy research is to develop safer and more effective vaccines. Another approach to enhancing immunotherapy safety is through an alternative delivery method. Sublingual immunotherapy is clearly safer than subcutaneous immunotherapy, but further investigation is needed to determine optimal dose and appropriate patient selection.     

From IgE to clinical trials of allergic rhinitis

The current scientific research is continuously aiming at identifying new therapeutic targets with the purpose of modifying the immune response to allergens. The evolution in immunological methods has led to the identification of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as both a diagnostic biomarker and potential therapeutic target in allergic diseases, such as allergic rhinitis. Allergen immunotherapy has been used for more than 100 years to treat allergic diseases and it is today considered the only disease-modifying treatment capable of inducing a long-lasting immunological and clinical tolerance toward the causal allergen. During the past 20 years, major advances have been made in understanding the molecular and cellular mechanisms of allergen tolerance in humans. Moreover, there has been considerable progress in allergen extract modifications and additions to standard extracts. The recognition that IgE plays a pivotal role in basic regulatory mechanisms of allergic inflammation has recently stimulated research into the therapeutic potential of directly targeting this antibody. Omalizumab, the most advanced humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody, is currently approved for the treatment of uncontrolled allergic asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria. Interesting results also arise from studies in which omalizumab was administered in patients with allergic rhinitis. The aim of this review is to provide an update on current findings on immunological and clinical effects of allergen immunotherapy and anti-IgE therapy, which have been shown to have synergistic modes of action for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.     

Local nasal immunotherapy for birch allergic rhinitis with extract in powder form

Background Traditional subeutaneous immunotherepy has been proved effective in birch pollenosis. It has, however, some drawbacks as systeic reactions, which are rare but important. Local nasal immunotherapy (LNIT)represents a potential safer route of allergen administration.
Objective To study the clinical efficacy and safety of local nasal immunotherapy by means of an extract in powder form as treatment of birch allergic rhinitis.
Methods Thirty birch allergic patients have been selected on the basis of a positive history, skin test, radioalllergosorbent test assay (RAST)and specific nasal challange. Two 15 patient groups were randomly assigned to the active treatment or to the placebo one. Treatment lasted 22 weeks (14 for the build-up phase and eight for the maintenance period)and symptoms were recorded during the treatment and the birch pollen season.
Results The clinical efficacy of LNIT is suggested by a significant reduction of medication score only in the treated group during the pollen season, although the symptom score was significant increase of specific nasal thereshold dose was obserbved after treatment only in the active treated group. Mild adverse reaction to LNIT, limited to the upper respiratory tract, were reported during the treatment in the active group, but they did not interface with LNIT schedule. No asthmatic or systemic reaction were observed.
Conclusions This Study Indicates that LNIT with allergen in powder form has proven clinically effective in the treatment of birch allergic rhinitis. Further studies are needed to establish weather this treatment can be considered a real alternative to the traditional subeutaneous immunotherapy in birch allergic rhinitis.     

Specific allergy immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: subcutaneous and sublingual

Numerous controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) in reducing the clinical symptoms and costs associated with allergic rhinitis. Compared with pharmacotherapy, SIT may provide persistent clinical benefits after treatment discontinuation. Subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy are the two most widely prescribed SIT routes worldwide. This review compares the efficacy, safety, preventive effect, immunologic mechanisms, and adherence rates associated with these two forms of SIT.     

Close collaboration between academia, industry and drug regulators is required in the development of allergen products for specific immunotherapy in children

Modification of the response to allergens at an early stage and thereby of the natural history of a respiratory allergic disease by preventing disease progression would constitute the key benefit of specific immunotherapy (SIT) in children. However, although allergen products for SIT have been on the market on a named-patient basis for many years, long-term efficacy, the optimal duration of the treatment and the optimal dosage have not been sufficiently elaborated until now. The enactment of the Therapy Allergen Ordinance in Germany mandates that allergen products for SIT of the most prevalent allergies must submit an application for marketing authorization to the German authorities. In line with the European Paediatric Regulation, decisions by the European Medicines Agency on agreed paediatric investigation plans must be included in these applications. These regulatory requirements provide a unique opportunity to fill the gap in knowledge concerning the benefits of SIT for children and to obtain the data needed to support evidence-based authorization of allergen products for immunotherapy. This goal can only be achieved through close cooperation between academia, drug regulators and industry as well as parent/patient organizations.     

Effect of allergen immunotherapy on nasal responses in guinea-pigs with allergic rhinitis

Methods We have investigated the effects of allergen immunotherapy on the nasal responses in the guinea-pigs with allergic rhinitis. Thirty-three male Hartley guinea-pigs with allergic rhinitis were divided into three groups; those receiving intradermal injection of saline (Group 1) or 0.1% ovalbumin (Group 2) 6 days after the last intranasal sensitization, and those injected with 0.1% ovalbumin intradermally once daily for 6 consecutive days from the next day after the last intranasal sensitization (Group 3). Results The dye leakage and histamine content into the nasal lavage significantly decreased at 30min after antigen challenge in Group 3, compared with Group 1 or 2. We also observed the change of mast cell numbers in superficial nasal mucosa, lamina propria and injected dorsal skin. The number of mast cells in superficial nasal mucosa significantly decreased in Group 3 compared with Group 1 or 2, but not those in nasal lamina propria or dorsal skin. Conclusions These results suggest that the improvements of nasal responses such as dye leakage and histamine content may be caused by the decrease of mast cell numbers in the superficial mucosal layer after the specific immunotherapy. which may be developing tolerance and one of the mechanisms underlying the beneficial effect of immunotherapy.     

Sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of children

Children with controlled intermittent mild-to-moderate asthma, controlled rhinitis and a single sensitivity may be appropriate candidates for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Positive effects of SLIT may depend on initiation in early childhood and a long duration of treatment. To ensure optimum compliance, sociological, economic and familial factors should also be taken in to consideration when prescribing SLIT. Evidence from recent long-term trials indicates that SLIT interfered with the atopic march and the allergic progression from rhinitis to asthma without any severe adverse side effects. Local immune response has been seen to be blunted with SLIT, which suggests that treatment has an immunomodulatory effect. In addition, it may also decrease the risk of new sensitizations. Ongoing developments in SLIT, particularly advances in dosing and new indications, such as food allergies, will increase the use of this treatment modality in children.