Silvia Scurati

Patient's compliance with allergen immunotherapy.

Background Allergen immunotherapy (IT) is an effective treatment of respiratory allergy, but requires strict rules of performance. This makes compliance particularly relevant, but thus far only a few studies have investigated this issue. Methods We reviewed all the available articles on compliance and adherence with IT in its different forms of administration, ie, subcutaneous (SCIT), sublingual (SLIT), and local nasal (LNIT). Results Early studies, when only SCIT was available, reported a low compliance, ranging from 45% to 60%, but the demanding schedules used, with very frequent injections, accounted for this outcome, as shown by patients’ recognition of inconvenience as the major cause of noncompliance. The most recent studies reported a good compliance, estimated in 75% to 90%, to both SCIT and SLIT, inconvenience remaining the major cause of noncompliance, followed by cost of the treatment. The only study addressing LNIT found a very poor compliance (27%), the major cause being the side effects, with repeated nasal reactions to the allergen extract. Conclusions Adequate education of patients and optimization of administration schedules, with fine balancing between dose effectiveness and cost, are the factors most likely to achieve further improvement of compliance with IT.

Sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic polysensitization.

Polysensitization is quite frequent in allergic children and may cause difficulties for the allergist in prescribing allergen-specific immunotherapy. This study aimed at evaluating the clinical effectiveness of 1 year of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in a cohort of Italian allergic children with polysensitization. This open study was performed on 51 polysensitized children (34 boys; mean age, 11.8 years; range, 5.2-17.7 years) with allergic rhinitis and/or mild to moderate asthma. All of them were treated with SLIT for 1 year. The kind and the number of prescribed allergen extracts, the type of diagnosis, the severity of symptoms, and the use of drugs were evaluated at baseline and after 1 year. The adverse events to SLIT were also evaluated. Forty-two children were treated with a single extract, four with two different extracts and three with a mix of allergens. SLIT treatment induced a significant reduction in the number of sensitizations (p = 0.018); significant improvement of allergic rhinitis classification and severity; significant reduction of ocular, nasal, and bronchial symptoms (p < 0.01 for all); and drugs use (p < 0.01 for all drugs). No systemic reactions to SLIT were observed. This open study provides evidence that polysensitization is not an obstacle for prescribing SLIT in polysensitized children. Indeed, SLIT efficacy on clinical parameters is significant after 1 year and the therapy is safe.

Polysensitization as a challenge for the allergist: the suggestions provided by the Polysensitization Impact on Allergen Immunotherapy studies

Introduction: Polysensitization, that is, sensitization to more than one allergen family, is a common feature of patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) and significantly impairs their quality of life (QoL). Allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment for AR. However, the polysensitization phenomenon may represent a crucial obstacle as far as it concerns the choice of the allergen extract to be used for immunotherapy. Areas covered: A series of real-life based multi-center studies, named POLISMAIL (Polysensitization Impact on Allergen Immunotherapy), have been designed with the aim of evaluating the behavior of allergists in managing polysensitized AR patients. The effect of immunotherapy treatment in these patients was also evaluated. A single allergen extract was used in two-thirds of patients, whereas a mix of two allergens was chosen in the remaining. The severity grade of AR and the QoL were significantly improved by immunotherapy. Both outcomes confirmed that immunotherapy with one or two allergen extracts achieves a significant improvement in polysensitized patients. Expert opinion: In conclusion, POLISMAIL studies demonstrate that polysensitization should not represent a counter-indication for prescribing immunotherapy. The choice of limiting sublingual immunotherapy to one to two allergen extracts, preferably separated and at high dosages, is sufficient and effective in improving symptoms and QoL.

Patient-related factors in rhinitis and asthma: the satisfaction with allergy treatment survey

Abstract Background: Patient satisfaction with the prescribed treatments represents a crucial issue that may have clinical relevance as it may significantly affect treatment compliance. We designed an observational study to evaluate the satisfaction level concerning different pharmacological treatments for allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma in a real-life setting. Methods: The study was conducted in 21 allergy centres homogeneously distributed in Italy. Three hundred and one patients (46.8% males; 53.2% females; mean [SD] age, 33.1 [13.8] years) with AR and/or asthma were consecutively evaluated. Diagnosis, classification, symptom severity, and satisfaction degree (assessed by a questionnaire) were the parameters considered. Results: Only 33.5% of the AR patients were satisfied with the rhinitis treatments. Only 40.7% of the asthmatic patients were satisfied with the asthma treatments. Some factors associated with treatment dissatisfaction are as follows: female gender (odds ratio [OR] 2.36; p < 0.01), co-morbidity (OR 2.39; p < 0.05), rhinitis severity (OR 1.39; p < 0.05), asthma severity (OR 2.04; p < 0.05), and antihistamine use (OR 2.53); however, the use of bronchodilators had a favourable impact (OR 0.28; p < 0.05). The relatively low number of subjects prevented performing stratification of patients by treatment classes. Conclusion: The findings of this real-life study strengthen the concept that AR is particularly troublesome and that most allergic patients suffering from both rhinitis and asthma are dissatisfied with prescribed drugs.

Adherence issues related to sublingual immunotherapy as perceived by allergists

Objectives: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a viable alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy to treat allergic rhinitis and asthma, and is widely used in clinical practice in many European countries. The clinical efficacy of SLIT has been established in a number of clinical trials and meta-analyses. However, because SLIT is self-administered by patients without medical supervision, the degree of patient adherence with treatment is still a concern. The objective of this study was to evaluate the perception by allergists of issues related to SLIT adherence. Methods: We performed a questionnaire-based survey of 296 Italian allergists, based on the adherence issues known from previous studies. The perception of importance of each item was assessed by a VAS scale ranging from 0 to 10. Results: Patient perception of clinical efficacy was considered the most important factor (ranked 1 by 54% of allergists), followed by the possibility of reimbursement (ranked 1 by 34%), and by the absence of side effects (ranked 1 by 21%). Patient education, regular follow-up, and ease of use of SLIT were ranked first by less than 20% of allergists. Conclusion: These findings indicate that clinical efficacy, cost, and side effects are perceived as the major issues influencing patient adherence to SLIT, and that further improvement of adherence is likely to be achieved by improving the patient information provided by prescribers.

Specific immunotherapy by the sublingual route for respiratory allergy

Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment able to act on the causes and not only on the symptoms of respiratory allergy. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced as an option to subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), the clinical effectiveness of which is partly counterbalanced by the issue of adverse systemic reactions, which occur at a frequency of about 0.2% of injections and 2-5% of the patients and may also be life-threatening. A large number of trials, globally evaluated by several meta-analyses, demonstrated that SLIT is an effective and safe treatment for allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, severe reactions being extremely rare. The application of SLIT is favored by a good compliance, higher than that reported for SCIT, in which the injections are a major factor for noncompliance because of inconvenience, and by its cost-effectiveness. In fact, a number of studies showed that SLIT may be very beneficial to the healthcare system, especially when its effectiveness persists after treatment withdrawal because of the induced immunologic changes.

Development of a sublingual allergy vaccine for grass pollinosis.

Grass pollen is a very common cause of allergic rhinitis and asthma. The only treatment targeting the underlying causes of allergy is immunotherapy (IT). Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been introduced to solve the problem of systemic reactions to subcutaneous IT (SCIT). This article evaluates the characteristics of the allergen extract, Staloral, in terms of practical administration, effectiveness, safety, and mechanism of action. Efficacy data were obtained from double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using Staloral in patients sensitized to grass pollen, while practical administration, cost-effectiveness, and mechanism of action data were provided by well designed studies. The efficacy and safety of Staloral, as demonstrated by review of published studies which used doses up to 1125 times those administered with SCIT, shows that this allergen extract has optimal characteristics for treating patients with seasonal allergies due to grass pollens. The main mechanism of action is the interaction between dendritic cells of the oral mucosa and the subsequent tolerance induced in T-cells.

Development of an allergen extract for sublingual immunotherapy – evaluation of Staloral

Background: Specific immunotherapy (IT) is an effective treatment for rhinitis and asthma caused by aeroallergens sensitization. Sublingual IT (SLIT) was introduced to solve the problem of systemic reactions to subcutaneous IT (SCIT) and developed to represent an actual treatment option. It is now generally accepted that allergen doses much higher than those administered by SCIT must be used to achieve clinical efficacy on allergic symptoms. Objective: To evaluate the characteristics of Staloral, an allergen extract produced by Stallergenes (Antony, France) in terms of practical administration, efficacy, safety and mechanism of action. Methods: Data were obtained from 20 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies using Staloral in patients sensitized to pollens and house-dust mites, and also from open studies concerning practical administration and the mechanism of action. Results/conclusion: Efficacy and safety of Staloral, as demonstrated by the revision of the studies, which used doses up to 1125 times those administered with SCIT, are very satisfactory and confer to this allergen extract optimal characteristics for treating patients with seasonal allergies due to pollens or with perennial symptoms induced by dust mites. The main mechanism of action is the interaction with dendritic cells of the oral mucosa and the subsequent tolerance induced in T cells.

Which Allergen Extract for Grass Pollen Immunotherapy? an in Vitro Study

Background: Grass pollen is a major cause of allergy throughout the world. The only treatment targeting the causes and not only the symptoms of allergy is specific immunotherapy (IT). A number of controlled trials demonstrated the efficacy of IT in grass pollen allergic subjects, most using extracts of multiple grasses but some using extracts of a single grass. The optimal grass extract for IT has not yet been established. Methods: This study is aimed at investigating the IgE-binding pattern in sera from IT-naïve patients from central Italy with allergic rhinitis and/or asthma caused by grass pollen. A 5-grass extract was used (containing Dactylis glomerata, Poa pratensis, Lolium perenne, Antoxanthum odoratum and Phleum pratense) and compared to Phleum pratense alone, which is the most frequently used single grass extract, by the RAST-inhibition technique. Results: The 5-grass extract showed, by RAST-inhibition, a significantly higher binding compared to the Phleum pratense extract for Antoxanthum odoratum and Poa pratensis, while the two extracts for immunotherapy showed similar binding affinity for Phleum pratense and the non-Pooideae grass, Cynodon dactylon. Conclusions: The use of a mixed-grass pollen extract seems to be the optimal choice when applying specific IT in grass pollen-allergic subjects from the Mediterranean area.

The current role of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children.

Allergic rhinitis is a very common disease affecting about 20% of people. It may be treated by allergen avoidance when possible, by antiallergic drugs such as antihistamines and topical corticosteroids, and by allergen-specific immunotherapy. The latter is the only treatment able to act on the causes and not only on the symptoms of respiratory allergy and is able to maintain its efficacy even after stopping, provided an adequate duration of treatment of 3–5 years is ensured. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced in the 1990s as a possible solution to the problem of adverse systemic reactions to subcutaneous immunotherapy and has been demonstrated by more than 50 trials and globally evaluated thus far by five meta-analyses as an effective and safe treatment for allergic rhinitis. Life-threatening reactions are extremely rare. However, it is important to note that clinical efficacy occurs only if SLIT meets its needs, ie, sufficiently high doses are regularly administered for at least 3 consecutive years. This is often overlooked in the current practice and may prevent the same success reported by trials from being achieved.