Martin Penagos

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic conjunctivitis: Cochrane systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background. Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a common manifestation and represents an important co‐morbidity of allergic rhinitis (AR). Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is an effective and safe treatment for nasal symptoms of AR; its effectiveness is however less well established for ocular symptoms.

Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic conjunctivitis

Background. Allergic conjunctivitis (AC) is a common manifestation and represents an important co‐morbidity of allergic rhinitis (AR). Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is an effective and safe treatment for nasal symptoms of AR; its effectiveness is however less well established for ocular symptoms.

Sublingual or subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis

Allergen immunotherapy is effective in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and, unlike antiallergic drugs, has been shown to modify the underlying cause of the disease, with proved long-term benefits. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has been the gold standard, whereas sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has emerged as an effective and safe alternative. Previous Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed that both SLIT and SCIT are effective in patients with seasonal AR, whereas evidence for their efficacy in patients with perennial disease has been less convincing. Recent large, adequately powered trials have demonstrated reductions in both symptoms and use of rescue medication in patients with seasonal and those with perennial AR. Here we appraise evidence for SCIT versus SLIT based on indirect evidence from Cochrane reviews and recent well-powered double-blind, randomized controlled trials versus placebo and the limited direct evidence available from randomized blind head-to-head comparisons. At present, based on an overall balance of efficacy and side effects, the patient is in equipoise. Pending definitive comparative trials, choice might be determined largely by the local availability of SCIT and SLIT products of proved value and personal (patient) preference.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis.

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side‐effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease‐modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunologys (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project “EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy.” It aims to provide evidence‐based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta‐analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product‐specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short‐term benefit. The strongest evidence for long‐term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long‐term benefit is seen. To achieve long‐term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long‐term benefit and use in children.

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

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.

Allergen immunotherapy for the prevention of allergy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

There is a need to establish the effectiveness, cost‐effectiveness, and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the prevention of allergic disease.

Effect of 2 Years of Treatment With Sublingual Grass Pollen Immunotherapy on Nasal Response to Allergen Challenge at 3 Years Among Patients With Moderate to Severe Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: The GRASS Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Sublingual immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy are effective in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Three years of continuous treatment with subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy has been shown to improve symptoms for at least 2 years following discontinuation of treatment. Objective To assess whether 2 years of treatment with grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy, compared with placebo, provides improved nasal response to allergen challenge at 3-year follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3–parallel-group study performed in a single academic center, Imperial College London, of adult patients with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (interfering with usual daily activities or sleep). First enrollment was March 2011, last follow-up was February 2015. Interventions Thirty-six participants received 2 years of sublingual immunotherapy (daily tablets containing 15 µg of major allergen Phleum p 5 and monthly placebo injections), 36 received subcutaneous immunotherapy (monthly injections containing 20 µg of Phleum p 5 and daily placebo tablets) and 34 received matched double-placebo. Nasal allergen challenge was performed before treatment, at 1 and 2 years of treatment, and at 3 years (1 year after treatment discontinuation). Main Outcomes and Measures Total nasal symptom scores (TNSS; range; 0 [best] to 12 [worst]) were recorded between 0 and 10 hours after challenge. The minimum clinically important difference for change in TNSS within an individual is 1.08. The primary outcome was TNSS comparing sublingual immunotherapy vs placebo at year 3. Subcutaneous immunotherapy was included as a positive control. The study was not powered to compare sublingual immunotherapy with subcutaneous immunotherapy. Results Among 106 randomized participants (mean age, 33.5 years; 34 women [32.1%]), 92 completed the study at 3 years. In the intent-to-treat population, mean TNSS score for the sublingual immunotherapy group was 6.36 (95% CI, 5.76 to 6.96) at pretreatment and 4.73 (95% CI, 3.97 to 5.48) at 3 years, and for the placebo group, the score was 6.06 (95% CI, 5.23 to 6.88) at pretreatment and 4.81 (95% CI, 3.97 to 5.65) at 3 years. The between-group difference (adjusted for baseline) was −0.18 (95% CI, −1.25 to 0.90; [P = .75]). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis, 2 years of sublingual grass pollen immunotherapy was not significantly different from placebo in improving the nasal response to allergen challenge at 3-year follow-up. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01335139; EudraCT Number: 2010-023536-16

Effect of grass pollen immunotherapy on clinical and local immune response to nasal allergen challenge

Nasal allergen provocations may be useful in investigating the pathophysiology of allergic rhinitis and effects of treatments.

Immunotherapy: The Meta-Analyses. What have we Learned?

Meta-analysis is a powerful tool for evaluating the efficacy of a therapeutic intervention, and has clearly demonstrated that specific allergen immunotherapy (SIT) is effective for treating allergic rhinitis and asthma. Future research needs to focus on specifying the most effective forms of SIT for specific populations and allergens, using validated clinical outcomes, studying long-term outcomes (particularly the potential disease-modifying effect of immunotherapy), and assessing outcomes regarding health economics. The safety profile of SIT should be evaluated using international guidelines and terminology, and needs to include high-quality surveillance data.

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Prevention of allergy

Allergic diseases are common and frequently coexist. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a disease‐modifying treatment for IgE‐mediated allergic disease with effects beyond cessation of AIT that may include important preventive effects. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has developed a clinical practice guideline to provide evidence‐based recommendations for AIT for the prevention of (i) development of allergic comorbidities in those with established allergic diseases, (ii) development of first allergic condition, and (iii) allergic sensitization. This guideline has been developed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE II) framework, which involved a multidisciplinary expert working group, a systematic review of the underpinning evidence, and external peer‐review of draft recommendations. Our key recommendation is that a 3‐year course of subcutaneous or sublingual AIT can be recommended for children and adolescents with moderate‐to‐severe allergic rhinitis (AR) triggered by grass/birch pollen allergy to prevent asthma for up to 2 years post‐AIT in addition to its sustained effect on AR symptoms and medication. Some trial data even suggest a preventive effect on asthma symptoms and medication more than 2 years post‐AIT. We need more evidence concerning AIT for prevention in individuals with AR triggered by house dust mites or other allergens and for the prevention of allergic sensitization, the first allergic disease, or for the prevention of allergic comorbidities in those with other allergic conditions. Evidence for the preventive potential of AIT as disease‐modifying treatment exists but there is an urgent need for more high‐quality clinical trials.