Search

The Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy ( FASIT) workshop provides a regular platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy ( AIT). The most recent meeting, held in February 2017, had two main themes: advances in AIT and hot topics in AIT from the regulatory point of view. The first theme covered opportunities for personalized AIT, advances in adjuvants and delivery systems, and the development of new molecules and future vaccines for AIT. Key topics in the second part of the meeting were the effects of the enactment of European Directive 2001/83 on the availability of allergens for therapy and diagnosis across the EU, the challenges of conducting Phase 3 studies in the field, the future role of allergen exposure chambers in AIT studies and specific considerations in performing AIT studies in the paediatric population. Finally, the group highlighted the forthcoming EAACI guidelines and their particular importance for the standardization of practice in the treatment of allergies. This review presents a comprehensive insight into those panel discussions and highlights unmet needs and also possible solutions to them for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the development of the medical term "allergen immunotherapy," approved by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI). It states that the term is used to describe a treatment of an allergy using an allergen-containing therapy and defines immunotherapy under which the immune system is suppressed to enhance a treatment's effectiveness.

Allergen immunotherapy was introduced by Leonard Noon 100 years ago and is the only disease-modifying treatment for allergic individuals. Improved understanding of immunology has taught us a great deal about the underlying mechanisms involved in allergen immunotherapy; however, despite these developments, a number of important questions remain unanswered. Several of these questions relate to the practice of allergen immunotherapy in the clinic, such as: Is it possible to unify units of allergen potency? Which treatment schedules are best? Is allergen immunotherapy effective in all patient groups? Is there a dose-response relationship for efficacy and safety?, and Is there evidence for long-term effects following allergen immunotherapy? Others are related to new developments, such as new indications, or developments in the production of allergens. On the centenary of Noon's discovery, European experts in the field of immunotherapy met in Geneva under the aegis of the EAACI to discuss these controversial issues. This study presents outcomes and conclusions from these discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To cite this article: Calderón MA, Larenas D, Kleine-Tebbe J, Jacobsen L, Passalacqua G, Eng PA, Varga EM, Valovirta E, Moreno C, Malling HJ, Alvarez-Cuesta E, Durham S, Demoly P. European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology task force report on 'dose-response relationship in allergen-specific immunotherapy'. Allergy 2011; 66: 1345-1359. Abstract 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergen-specific immunotherapy is used to treat allergic rhinoconjuctivitis and asthma worldwide. The clinical efficacy of the most common routes, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy, is documented for respiratory allergy by double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials (DB PC RCT). However, dose–effect relationships are not available for all extracts. The 1998 WHO Consensus Report on Allergen Immunotherapy found SCIT ineffective at low doses, with high doses more likely to result in an unacceptably high level of systemic reactions. Recent large well-designed DB PC RCTs using SLIT grass pollen tablets have undergone phase II–III studies in adults with allergic rhinitis, yielding proper dose– response studies. These were analysed by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Immunotherapy Interest Group task force on dose effect. In general, low doses (5–7 lg of allergen Phl p 5 per day) are ineffective. Daily doses of 15–25 lg of the major allergen protein are required for significant clinical improvement measured by symptom scores. A higher dose (33–40 lg of Phl p 5 per day) was not more effective than 15–25 lg. Optimization of the allergen/adjuvant ratio may allow for lower allergen doses, increase the safety/efficacy profile and allow for shorter updosing. However, our analysis of the available studies concluded that every product requires its own dose–response relationship study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]