Search

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), including SCIT and SLIT, is a treatment that involves the administration of allergens to which patients with allergic diseases have been sensitized. HDM-SCIT for asthma is indicated in cases of HDM-sensitized allergic asthma with normal lung function. HDM-SCIT improves asthma symptoms and AHR, and decreases the medication dose. Importantly, AIT can improve other allergic diseases complicated by asthma, such as allergic rhinitis, which can also contribute to the improvement of asthma symptoms. Several studies have suggested that HDM-SLIT also attenuates the risk of asthma exacerbations, and improves lung function in asthma cases with allergic rhinitis. Furthermore, AIT can modify the natural course of allergic diseases, including asthma. For example, the effects of AIT are maintained for at least several years after treatment discontinuation. AIT can prevent the onset of asthma when introduced in allergic rhinitis, and can also inhibit or reduce new allergen sensitizations. Recent data have suggested that AIT may suppress non-targeted allergen-induced immune responses in addition to targeted allergen-induced responses, and suppress infections of the lower respiratory tract by enhancing IFN responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Up to now, there is no generally accepted biomarker to indicate the clinical response of immunotherapy. This study mainly analyzed the correlation between eosinophil cationic protein-myeloperoxidase (ECP-MPO) test papers and other immunotherapy indices in subcutaneous immunotherapy of dust mites and to explore whether the test paper can be used as an auxiliary index to quickly evaluate the efficacy of immunotherapy. Patients and methods: This study included 53 participants who received subcutaneous immunotherapy at the allergy clinic of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University and 28 control participants. Six visits were conducted during a prospective study over one year. The results of the ECP-MPO test paper, nasal secretion eosinophil smear and count, nasal secretion ECP concentration, and clinical symptom scores were collected during five follow-up visits after the start of subcutaneous immunotherapy. Th1/Th2/Th17 cytokines, chemokines, IgE, IgG4 against dust mite components, and ECP concentrations were detected in the serum of participants at baseline, six months, and one year after subcutaneous immunotherapy. Results: The ECP test paper is not only easy to operate, but also can effectively and quickly detect the concentrations of ECP in the nasal secretion and diagnose allergic rhinitis. Symptom score is an important index for evaluating clinical immune efficacy, during subcutaneous immunotherapy, the ECP test paper showed a positive correlation with the symptom score. Simultaneously, during immunotherapy, the changes in the chromogenic grading of the test paper were synchronized with the changes in inflammatory cytokines and eosinophilic chemokines in Th2 cells of serum dust mite IgE. The sIgG4 against dust mites weakly negatively correlated with the concentration of ECP in nasal secretions and the color classification of the ECP test paper. Conclusion: The ECP-MPO test paper has a certain correlation with subcutaneous immunotherapy markers of allergic rhinitis, indicating that the ECP test paper may become an auxiliary biomarker to replace other complex laboratory tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractObjectiveMethodsResultsConclusionsAsthma is a common chronic condition in children globally. Allergen-specific immunotherapy, such as subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) therapies, are promising by increasing allergen tolerance. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of SLIT and SCIT in pediatric asthma.We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled trials and case–control studies comparing SLIT and SCIT in asthmatic children. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models with calculations via R software version 4.3.2 and RevMan version 5.4. Study quality and bias risk were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.The literature search yielded a total of 1787 records, with 7 studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening and assessments. There was no significant difference in the Total Asthma Symptoms Score between SLIT and SCIT (mean difference −0.05 [95% CI: −0.21; 0.10]). However, asthma improvement rates were higher in the SLIT group (risk ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64; 0.93]). FEV1 improvement showed no significant difference (mean difference −1.60 [95% CI: −6.27; 3.08]). Adverse events were similar between the treatments (risk ratio 0.56 [95% CI: 0.11; 2.82]).SLIT and SCIT were generally similarly effective and safe for treating pediatric asthma. SLIT may be preferred due to its noninvasive administration. More research is needed on long-term effects and tailored treatment approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Local allergic rhinitis (LAR) is defined by chronic nasal symptoms, absence of atopy, positive nasal allergen challenge (NAC) and a good response to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT). We sought to investigate SCIT capacity to induce local and systemic blocking antibodies in LAR patients. Methods: A RDBPC study of grass SCIT was performed, with participants receiving either SCIT (Group A; n = 10) or placebo (Group B; n = 14) in the first 6 months. Both groups subsequently received SCIT for 12 months at Year 2. Nasal and serum antibodies (IgG4, IgA1 and IgA2) and their inhibitory capacity were measured at multiple timepoints. Results: The allergen concentration tolerated increased significantly at 6 months (Group A; p =.047) and 24 months (Group B; p =.049) compared with baseline and persisted until the end of the study. Induction of serum sIgA1 to Phl p was seen in Groups A and B, albeit the former being induced earlier (1.71‐fold, p =.027). A significant induction in sIgG4 to Phl p 1 and 5 was observed in serum of Group A (p =.047 and p =.0039) and sIgA2 to Phl p in Group B (p =.032 and p =.0098) at 18 and 24 months, respectively. Both local and systemic blocking antibodies can inhibit allergen–IgE complexes binding to CD23 on B cells, and this correlated with level of allergen tolerated intra‐nasally in Group A (serum; 휌 = −.47, p =.0006, nasal; 휌 = −.38, p =.0294). Conclusions: Grass pollen SCIT induced functional systemic blocking antibodies that correlate with the concentration of allergen tolerated following NAC, highlighting their potential as a biomarker of SCIT in LAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) can induce systemic reactions (SRs) in certain patients, but the underlying mechanisms remain to be fully elucidated. Methods: AR patients who were undergoing standardized HDM SCIT (Alutard, ALK) between 2018 and 2022 were screened. Those who experienced two consecutive SRs were included in the study group. A control group was established, matched 1:1 by gender, age, and disease duration with the study group, who did not experience SRs during SCIT. Clinical and immunological parameters were recorded and analyzed both before SCIT and after 1 year of treatment. Results: A total of 161 patients were included, with 79 (49.07%) in the study group. The study group had a higher proportion of AR combined asthma (26.8% vs. 51.8%, p < 0.001) and higher levels of sIgE to HDM and HDM components (all p <.001). Serum IL‐4 and IL‐13 levels in the study group were higher than those in the control group (p <.05). The study group received a lower maintenance dosage of HDM extracts injections than control group due to SRs (50000SQ vs. 100000SQ, p <.05). After 1 year of SCIT, the VAS score, the lung function parameters of asthmatic patients over 14 years old significantly improved in both groups (all p <.05). After a 7‐day exposure to 20 μg/mL HDM extracts, the percentages of Th1, Th17, Tfh10, and Th17.1 in PBMCs decreased, while the Tfh13 cells significantly increased in the study group (p <.05). Conclusion: The type 2 inflammatory response is augmented in HDM‐induced AR patients who experienced SRs during SCIT. Despite this, SCIT remains effective in these patients when administered with low‐dosage allergen extracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT), including SCIT and SLIT, is a treatment that involves the administration of allergens to which patients with allergic diseases have been sensitized. HDM-SCIT for asthma is indicated in cases of HDM-sensitized allergic asthma with normal lung function. HDM-SCIT improves asthma symptoms and AHR, and decreases the medication dose. Importantly, AIT can improve other allergic diseases complicated by asthma, such as allergic rhinitis, which can also contribute to the improvement of asthma symptoms. Several studies have suggested that HDM-SLIT also attenuates the risk of asthma exacerbations, and improves lung function in asthma cases with allergic rhinitis. Furthermore, AIT can modify the natural course of allergic diseases, including asthma. For example, the effects of AIT are maintained for at least several years after treatment discontinuation. AIT can prevent the onset of asthma when introduced in allergic rhinitis, and can also inhibit or reduce new allergen sensitizations. Recent data have suggested that AIT may suppress non-targeted allergen-induced immune responses in addition to targeted allergen-induced responses, and suppress infections of the lower respiratory tract by enhancing IFN responses.

Allergic conjunctivitis is the most common type of allergic eye disease, and the incidence in children and adolescents is increasing year by year. Drug therapy can only relieve some symptoms and only in a short period, while allergen immunotherapy is currently a therapy that can significantly improve the symptoms of chronic allergy and the course of the disease. This method has been used abroad for many years but has yet to be reported in China. The author reviews the effective mechanism and clinical efficiency of allergen immunotherapy and provides a reference for the further clinical application in China.

Objective To observe the systemic reactions （SRs） associated with subcutaneous immunotherapy （SCIT） using dust mite allergen and to analyze potential risk factors. Methods The occurrence of SRs among 230 patients with allergic rhinitis （AR） who received house dust mite SCIT from December 2019 to December 2022 was retrospectively analyzed， and related risk factors were identified. Results A total of 5 422 injections were given to 230 patients， with an SRs incidence rate of 2.4% per injection and 20.0% per patient. Most SRs were grade I （51.9%）， and no fatal SRs occurred. Symptoms primarily affected the respiratory system for 111 times （84.7%）. Elevated peripheral blood eosinophil count （OR （95% CI）=6.02 （1.76， 20.60）， P = 0.004） and high levels of house dust mite-specific IgE （OR （95% CI）=1.01 （1.00， 1.01）， P = 0.016） were identified as risk factors for SRs， respectively. Conclusions Children with AR allergic to dust mites may experience SRs during SCIT with standardized dust mite allergen preparations， whereas the overall safety of SCIT is good. High eosinophil count and high levels of house dust mite-specific IgE are risk factors for SRs during SCIT.

Lars-Olaf Cardell,1,2,&ast; Thomas Sterner,3,&ast; Waqas Ahmed,4 Andreas Kallsoy Slættanes,5 Mikael Svärd,6 Richard F Pollock4 1Division of ENT Diseases, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; 2Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; 3Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; 4Covalence Research Ltd, Harpenden, UK; 5ALK, Hørsholm, Denmark; 6ALK Nordic, Kungsbacka, Sweden&ast;These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Richard F Pollock, Email pollock@covalence-research.comAim: In Sweden, allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is available as either subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) injections or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets and is used to treat moderate-severe allergic rhinitis (AR). This study sought to determine direct and indirect annual costs stemming from treatment-related travel, appointments, waiting times and medication costs, before exploring likely CO2 emission-related cost-savings for 20,330 patients receiving SCIT or SLIT-tablets in Sweden.Methods: A model was developed in Python to capture each category of costs in the target patient population. Absenteeism costs arising from treatment-related travel were determined by obtaining average hourly pay data from Swedish Government sources. Absenteeism costs were also calculated for 30-minute post-dose observation times, which occurred during one clinical appointment for SLIT patients, and all clinical appointments for SCIT patients. Clinical appointment costs were obtained from healthcare price lists for Sweden. Medication costs were retrieved from the Pharmaceutical Specialities in Sweden (Fass) website, and treatment doses required for SCIT and SLIT-tablets were determined based on product labels and previously-calculated dosage regimes. High-cost protection and reimbursement scheme payment caps were applied when determining patient appointment and medication costs, respectively, and when identifying financial burdens for individual payers.Results: Mean total annual costs for SCIT were Swedish Krona (SEK) 604.1 million (m), with clinical appointments contributing the largest share of these costs (52.7%), followed by medication (34.4%), travel-related absenteeism (8.9%), waiting time-related absenteeism (2.7%) and private transportation (1.3%). Mean total annual costs for SLIT-tablets were SEK 336.2m. Medication contributed the most to these costs (72.3%), followed by clinical appointments (22.7%), travel-related absenteeism (3.8%), waiting time-related absenteeism (0.6%) and private transportation (0.6%).Conclusion: For patients with moderate-severe AR receiving AIT in Sweden, SLIT-tablets displayed large potential cost savings to patients, the healthcare system, and the government, whilst possessing reduced societal costs of carbon emissions relative to SCIT.Keywords: allergic rhinitis, costs, subcutaneous immunotherapy, sublingual immunotherapy

Objective To observe the systemic reactions (SRs) associated with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) using dust mite allergen and to analyze potential risk factors. Methods The occurrence of SRs among 230 patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) who received house dust mite SCIT from December 2019 to December 2022 was retrospectively analyzed, and related risk factors were identified. Results A total of 5 422 injections were given to 230 patients, with an SRs incidence rate of 2.4% per injection and 20.0% per patient. Most SRs were grade I (51.9%), and no fatal SRs occurred. Symptoms primarily affected the respiratory system for 111 times (84.7%). Elevated peripheral blood eosinophil count (OR (95% CI)=6.02 (1.76, 20.60), P = 0.004) and high levels of house dust mite-specific IgE (OR (95% CI)=1.01 (1.00, 1.01), P = 0.016) were identified as risk factors for SRs, respectively. Conclusions Children with AR allergic to dust mites may experience SRs during SCIT with standardized dust mite allergen preparations, whereas the overall safety of SCIT is good. High eosinophil count and high levels of house dust mite-specific IgE are risk factors for SRs during SCIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this review is to investigate the possible role of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for house dust mites in the treatment of atopic dermatitis in adult patients (AD). AIT is a commonly accepted treatment for selected allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis, bronchial asthma, allergy to venom, and sometimes food allergy. There have been a few original reports on improving AD symptoms due to subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy with selected allergens, mainly house dust mites. However, the precise role of immunotherapy in treating atopic dermatitis (AD) is still not clearly defined despite some studies that have been conducted. The review discusses available studies that provide evidence of the efficacy of AIT in patients with AD who are allergic to house dust mites. The authors focused on those studies in which the indication for AIT was mainly AD and only in patients with clinically confirmed allergy to house dust mites. Despite extensive evidence of the effectiveness of such treatment, studies on large patient populations are needed to determine the exact indications for AIT in AD patients with house dust mite allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the oldest and an efficient immunotherapy method that has been used for the treatment of allergic diseases. Systemic adverse effects (SAEs) may occur during the SCIT. For this reason, there may be problems in the continuing treatment. In this study, we primarily aimed to determine the frequency of SAEs, the risk factors that may be associated with SAEs, and clinical and laboratory parameters that can predict systemic reactions in the patients who underwent SCIT. Second, we aimed to evaluate the reasons for discontinuing SCIT and the conditions special to Turkey. Methods: The files of 295 patients who had received SCIT were evaluated retrospectively. Results: SCIT was administered against house dust mites (HDM) in almost all patients (n: 291, 98.6%). A total of 14,357 injections were administered to 295 patients included in the study, and 47.8% (n: 141) of the patients discontinued treatment. The most common reason for discontinuing treatment was the supply problem in Turkey for immunotherapy preparations (n: 70, 49.6%). The second reason was that the injection visits were not continued regularly, even though there were no adverse effects related to the treatment (n: 44, 31.2%). SAEs were observed in 16.6% of the patients and 0.66% of the injections. SAEs were more frequent in girls, in asthmatic patients, and in moderate asthmatic patients (p = 0.005, p = 0.016, p = 0.043, respectively). Treatment was terminated in 13 patients (4.4%) due to SAEs. The most common SAE was bronchoconstriction (n: 40, 85.1%). None of our patients developed hypotension or loss of consciousness. Median blood eosinophil count and basophil count and the skin prick test diameter for Dermatophagoides farinae were observed to be significantly higher in the group with SAE (p = 0.024, p = 0.034, p = 0.045, respectively). Conclusion: Although SAE may develop in pediatric patients undergoing HDM-specific SCIT, severe reactions are rare. Girls, asthmatic patients, especially moderate asthmatic patients, and patients with high blood eosinophil and basophil levels should be monitored more carefully for the development of SAE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe the case of a 10-year-old boy with asthma (AS), accompanied by allergic rhinitis (AR), food allergy (FA), and combined attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), who was treated at Shanghai Renji Hospital on 11 July 2020. The efficiency of the previous treatment with salmeterol/ticlosone was poor. Treatment with montelukast sodium resulted in development of neurological symptoms. Treatment with omalizumab in combination with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) was then initiated in our department based on anti-asthmatic therapy. Symptoms of asthma were completely controlled, and FA and AR symptoms improved. The treatment regimen led to a significant improvement in ADHD symptoms and the overall quality of life of the patient. The literature search was done in the PubMed database using "attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder/ADHD" and "asthma" as keywords, and we identified 47 relevant articles. In conclusion, our results show that treating asthma with omalizumab in combination with salmeterol/ticlosone and SCIT is efficient in controlling symptoms of multiple allergies and may lead to the improvement in ADHD symptoms and the overall quality of life of pediatric patients with ADHD. While current studies suggest that allergic diseases are closely related to ADHD, there is still a lack of studies or case reports of complete treatment protocols to provide clinical clues for management of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) using dust mites in children with allergic asthma. Methods In a prospective randomized controlled study, 98 children with dust mite-induced allergic asthma were randomly divided into a control group (n=49) and an SCIT group (n=49). The control group received inhaled corticosteroid treatment, while the SCIT group additionally received a standardized three-year SCIT regimen. The two groups were compared based on peripheral blood eosinophil percentage, visual analogue score (VAS), total medication score, Asthma Control Test/Childhood Asthma Control Test scores, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and lung function before treatment, and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after treatment. Adverse reactions were recorded post-injection to evaluate the safety of SCIT. Results Compared with pre-treatment levels, the SCIT group showed a significant reduction in the percentage of peripheral blood eosinophils, VAS, total medication score, and FeNO, while lung function significantly improved, and asthma control levels were better 3 years after treatment (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the SCIT group showed more significant improvement in all evaluated indicators 3 years after treatment (P<0.05). A total of 2 744 injections were administered, resulting in 157 cases (5.72%) of local adverse reactions and 4 cases (0.15%) of systemic adverse reactions, with no severe systemic adverse events. Conclusions SCIT is an effective and safe treatment for allergic asthma in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Specific immunotherapy represents the only potentially curative treatment for allergic asthma. Allergens can be administered subcutaneously (SCIT) or sublingually (SLIT). The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of allergic asthma in children. Our study included 69 children with allergic asthma who underwent immunotherapy for house dust mites or pollen for at least 3 consecutive years. After 3 years of SCIT and SLIT, the median number of asthma exacerbations in the last three months decreased from 2 to 0 (p < 0.01) and from 1 to 0 (p < 0.01), respectively. When comparing the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT, our study revealed a significantly better efficacy of SCIT only in terms of increasing lung function. The median increase in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after 3 years was 8% with SCIT and −1% with SLIT (p < 0.01). Daily controller therapy could be withdrawn or reduced in 9 out of 16 (56.3%) children who received it before SCIT (p < 0.01) and in 19 of 29 (65.6%) children who received it before SLIT (p < 0.01), but the difference in efficacy was not significant (p = 0.88). Both SCIT and SLIT are effective treatments for allergic asthma in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and allergic rhinitis (AR) usually represent the latest manifestations of the atopic march, sharing a common type 2 inflammation response. A relevant prevalence of AR in EoE cohorts has been widely confirmed. An increasing literature assessed the involvement of aeroantigens in EoE pathogenesis, focusing foremost on the seasonality of new diagnoses, symptoms, and response to therapy. Unfortunately, no diriment direction has been achieved, probably due to the retrospective design of the studies so far available, which chose surrogate markers of EoE activity (mostly the date of new diagnosis) which may be affected by geographical, logistic and personal factors, probably not dependent by the disease itself. EoE exacerbations reported in the context of the pollen levels (preferably pollen counts) may represent a more reliable marker. AR might promote the onset and the re-exacerbation of EoE through mechanisms that are both local (ie, massive exposure to airborne antigens mediated by post-nasal drip) and systemic (type 2 inflammation). Furthermore, AR may facilitate EoE onset by predisposing to pollen food allergic syndrome (PFAS), and EoE patients with PFAS reported higher rate of AR, thus suggesting a bond among these 3 conditions whose causative relationship have still to be ascertained. In addition, because of its shifting activity from Th2 to Th1 inflammation, several case reports focused on the effect of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) employed to treat AR in EoE patients. Also in this instance, no certainties could be guaranteed, although sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is more frequently reported to exacerbate EoE, while SCIT is mostly described as a remission adjuvant. The real life experience reported from our allergy service appears to confirm such hypothesis. Finally, a watchful eye should be reserved to monoclonal antibodies as a potential future option for concomitant EoE and AR. In light of all this, an attentive evaluation of allergic history of EoE patients should be relevant. Future perspectives should be addressed on prospective studies targeted to shed light on causative relations among airborne antigens, AR and EoE, and to viable comprehensive treatments.

House dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has an established role in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) triggered by HDM sensitization. We aimed to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AR and AA in humans and to summarize the evidence for AIT products that are currently manufactured and available for clinical use.A total of 56 eligible double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AA and/or AR in humans fit the inclusion criteria and investigated a total of 14 commercial AIT products; together, the 56 studies enrolled a total of 14,619 patients. Of the 56 studies, 39 studies investigated the current manufacturer-recommended maintenance dose (MRMD) of the product, and 17 investigated other doses. We identified 39 studies (12,539 patients randomized) for 8 sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) products and 17 studies (2,080 patients randomized) for subcutaneous immunotherapy products. For AR, 3 products, the ALK 12 standardized-quality (SQ-HDM) SLIT tablet, the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, and the SG 300 index of reactivity SLIT tablet, had both dose-finding studies (DFSs) and phase III definitive studies (DSs) to demonstrate efficacy of the MRMD of the product. For AA, 2 products, the ALK 12 SQ-HDM SLIT tablet and the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, had both DFSs and DSs for the MRMD. No subcutaneous immunotherapy product had a paired DFS and DS supporting the MRMD. A total of 30 studies of products no longer commercially manufactured were excluded. This study will help to inform clinical care and product selection for the treatment of HDM-induced AR and AA.

Background: The German Therapy Allergen Ordinance (TAO) triggered an ongoing upheaval in the market for house dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products. Three HDM subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) products hold approval in Germany and therefore will be available after the scheduled completion of the TAO procedure in 2026. In general, data from clinical trials on the long‐term effectiveness of HDM AIT are rare. We evaluated real‐world data (RWD) in a retrospective, observational cohort study based on a longitudinal claims database including 60% of all German statutory healthcare prescriptions to show the long‐term effectiveness of one of these products in daily life. Aim of this analysis was to provide a per product analysis on effectiveness of mite AIT as it is demanded by international guidelines on AIT. Methods: Subjects between 5 and 70 years receiving their first (index) prescription of SCIT with a native HDM product (SCIT group) between 2009 and 2013 were included. The exactly 3:1 matched control group received prescriptions for only symptomatic AR medication (non‐AIT group); the evaluation period for up to 6 years of follow‐up ended in February 2017. Study endpoints were the progression of allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma, asthma occurrence and time to the onset of asthma after at least 2 treatment years. Results: In total, 892 subjects (608 adults and 284 children/adolescents) were included in the SCIT group and 2676 subjects (1824 adults and 852 children/adolescents) in the non‐AIT group. During the follow‐up period after at least 2 years of SCIT, the number of prescriptions in the SCIT group was reduced by 62.8% (p <.0001) for AR medication and by 42.4% for asthma medication (p =.0003). New‐onset asthma risk was significantly reduced in the SCIT vs non‐AIT group by 27.0% (p =.0212). The asthma‐preventive effect of SCIT occurred 15 months after start of the treatment. In the SCIT group, the time to onset of asthma was prolonged compared to the non‐AIT group (p =.0010). Conclusion: In this first product based RWD analysis on SCIT with a native HDM product, patients aged 5 to 70 years benefited from AIT in the long term in terms of reduced progression of AR and asthma after at least 2 years of treatment. The effects seemed to last for up to 6 years after treatment termination. A significantly reduced risk of asthma onset was observed, starting after 15 months of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a common condition that is frequently associated with atopic inferior turbinate hypertrophy (ITH) resulting in nasal obstruction. Current guidelines support the use of subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) when patients fail pharmacologic management. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the role of inferior turbinate reduction (ITR), a treatment that we hypothesize is cost‐effective compared with other available treatments. Methods: We conducted a cost‐effectiveness analysis comparing the following treatment combinations over a 5‐year time horizon for AR patients presenting with atopic nasal obstruction who fail initial pharmacotherapy: (1) continued pharmacotherapy alone, (2) allergy testing and SCIT, (3) allergy testing and SCIT and then ITR for SCIT nonresponders, and (4) ITR and then allergy testing and SCIT for ITR nonresponders. Results were reported as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: For patients who fail initial pharmacotherapy, prioritizing ITR, either by microdebrider‐assisting submucous resection or radiofrequency ablation, before SCIT was the most cost‐effective strategy. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that prioritizing ITR before SCIT was the most cost‐effective option in 95.4% of scenarios. ITR remained cost‐effective even with the addition of concurrent septoplasty. Conclusion: For many AR patients who present with nasal obstruction secondary to atopic inferior turbinate hypertrophy that is persistent despite pharmacotherapy, ITR is a cost‐effective treatment that should be considered prior to immunotherapy. Level of Evidence: NA – Laryngoscope, 2023 Laryngoscope, 134:1572–1580, 2024 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hay fever, characterized by seasonal allergic reactions, poses a significant health challenge. Existing therapies encompass standard drug regimens, biological agents, and specific immunotherapy. This study aims to assess and compare the effectiveness of anti-IgE (omalizumab), medication therapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for hay fever. Methods: Conducted as a retrospective cohort study, this research involved 98 outpatient hay fever patients who underwent routine medication, omalizumab treatment, or SCIT before the onset of the spring pollen season. A follow-up was performed one month after the start of the pollen season. The comprehensive symptoms and drug scores were used to evaluate patients with different intervention methods, facilitating a comparative analysis of therapeutic outcomes. Results: Compared with before treatment, the symptoms of patients treated with the three methods were all significantly relieved, and the medication score were significantly reduced. Patients treated with omalizumab demonstrated higher symptoms and medication scores than SCIT group before treatment, but similar scores after treatment, which were both lower than medicine treatment group. After treatment with omalizumab or SCIT, patients in both groups had significantly lower medication scores than the medication group and were close to no longer using medication for symptom relief. The mountain juniper-sIgE was significantly higher after treatment than before treatment in both medicine treatment group and omalizumab treatment group. Conclusion: Omalizumab and SCIT offer superior effects than medication therapy in hay fever patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence‐based recommendations for improved patient care. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence‐based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence‐based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. Action Statements: The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre‐ and co‐seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta‐blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence‐based recommendations for improved patient care. Purpose: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence‐based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence‐based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. Action Statements: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre‐ and co‐seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta‐blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The plain language summary explains allergen immunotherapy to patients, families, and caregivers. The summary is for patients aged 5 years and older who are experiencing symptoms from inhalant allergies and are considering immunotherapy as a treatment option. It is based on the 2024 "Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy." This plain language summary is a companion publication to the full guideline, which provides greater detail for health care providers. Guidelines and their recommendations may not apply to every patient, but they can be used to find best practices and quality improvement opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in monosensitized and polysensitized children with allergic rhinitis (AR). Study Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Tertiary referral center. Methods: One hundred thirty children were enrolled and categorized into 2 groups: monosensitized to only dust mites and polysensitized to at least 1 additional allergen beyond dust mites. All patients received SCIT targeting dust mites for 3 years, followed by a 5‐year monitoring period. The Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Symptom and Medication Score (SMS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) were assessed before SCIT (T0); at 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) years of SCIT; immediately after SCIT (T3); and 2 years post‐SCIT (T5). Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs). Results: Fifty‐one monosensitized and 50 polysensitized children completed the study. At T3, 47 monosensitized and 46 polysensitized children were effectively treated, with no significant between‐group difference in efficacy (P >.05). The TNSS, SMS, VAS scores, and RQLQ score were significantly lower at T1, T2, T3, and T5 than at T0 in both groups (P <.05). The differences in the TNSS, SMS, VAS score, and RQLQ score between the 2 groups were nonsignificant at T0, T1, T2, and T3 (P >.05), but significant at T5 (P <.05). No serious AEs were reported. Conclusion: Monosensitized and polysensitized children exhibited similar beneficial efficacy and safety after 3 years of dust mite SCIT. Monosensitized children derived more benefits 2 years after discontinuation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Die Ophthalmologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: To investigate the effect of response intensity of allergen skin prick test (SPT) on symptom severity and long-term efficacy of dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods: AR Patients diagnosed with dust mite allergy and completed 3 years of SCIT were collected and classified into three groups: grade 2 (SPT of + +), grade 3 (SPT of + + +) and grade 4 (SPT of + + + +). Comparisons between groups were performed to examine the associations of SPT categories and symptom severity and the long-term efficacy of SCIT in AR. Results: 181 AR patients were included. There was no significant difference in the baseline TNSS, SMS, RQLQ and VAS, and particularly to symptom severity grading among three SPT grade groups (P > 0.05). The moderate–severe AR was more likely to be smoking and accompany with asthma and had higher prevalence of sensitization to cockroach, mixed grass and tree pollen than mild AR (P < 0.05). Prevalence of sensitization to cockroach, mixed grass, ragweed and animal dander was increased in AR patients with asthma and allergic conjunctivitis (P < 0.05). Furthermore, after 3 years of SCIT, no statistical differences in TNSS, SMS, RQLQ, VAS and long-term efficacy were observed among the three SPT grade groups (P > 0.05). Similarly, long-term outcomes of patients with different SPT grades did not differ among different clinical characteristics and different efficacy determination criteria (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The SPT response intensity cannot be used as an objective evaluation index for symptom severity and the long-term efficacy of SCIT in AR patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundOral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising allergen-specific approach in the management of food allergy; however, studies on OIT for allergic rhinitis (AR) have rarely been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OIT using enteric-coated capsules for AR induced by house dust mites.MethodsA total of 49 patients with AR were enrolled, including 25 who received subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and 24 who received OIT. The clinical efficacy and safety in both groups were evaluated.ResultsAfter 1 year of treatment, both SCIT and OIT demonstrated significant therapeutic effects. OIT was found to be more effective than SCIT in reducing the total AR symptom score and improving the results of nasal provocation tests. Local and systemic adverse reactions were observed in the SCIT group, while none were reported in the OIT group.ConclusionOIT is an effective and safe treatment for mite-induced AR.

BackgroundLittle is known about the safety of mite extract product Novo-Helisen Depot (NHD) as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in the children with mite allergy especially immediate/late local reaction (LRs).MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study analyzing the adverse events of the children undergoing subcutaneous immunotherapy with NHD. Adverse events included local and systemic adverse reactions (SRs) at the very early and late stage. The correlation of the basic characteristics, laboratory analysis results, LRs and SRs were analyzed.ResultsTwo hundred and eighty-seven patients received at least 15 months of subcutaneous immunotherapy with NHD were included in the analysis. Skin-prick testing (SPT) results of D. pteronyssinus was associated with an increased risk of immediate LRs in build-up phase (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.37) and delayed LRs in maintenance phase (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.46), while SPT results of D. farinae was associated with an increased risk of SRs (OR = 3.22, 95% CI: 1.17, 10.00) and severe SRs (OR = 7.68, 95% CI: 1.13, 109.50). Serum IgE level of D. pteronyssinus was associated with an increased risk of SRs (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.03). Patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis was associated with an increased risk of SR, and severe SRs (P

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is still the only treatment that may affect the natural cause of allergic disease. This study is to investigate whether an accelerated up-dosing scheme for subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) using a native house dust mite (HDM) allergen extract is as safe as the standard 3-strengths dose-escalation scheme in children with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma in China. Methods: In this multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial, the children aged 5–14 years were randomized 1:1 either to One Strength group or the Standard group. The dose escalation scheme for patients in the One Strength group included 6 injections of strength 3, whereas the Standard group comprised 14 injections using strength 1, 2, and 3. All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded and analyzed. The 5-point Likert scale was used to assess tolerability (ChiCTR2100050311). Results: Overall, 101 children were included in the Safety Set (One Strength group: 50 vs. Standard group: 51). A total of 26 TEAEs were reported for 15 children. TEAEs related to AIT occurred in 10 % of the children in the One Strength group and 11.8 % of the Standard group. The number of systemic adverse reactions was comparable in both groups (One Strength: 5 vs. Standard: 4). No serious TEAEs was recorded for either group. 90.0 % of patients in the One Strength group reached the maintenance dose without an interventional dose adjustment due to adverse events, compared to 78.4 % in the Standard group. All patients who completed the dose-escalation phase reached the recommended maintenance dose of 1.0 ml of strength 3.Investigators and patients rated the tolerability of the One Strength regimen slightly better than the Standard scheme. Conclusions: This exploratory study suggests that the accelerated One Strength dose-escalation scheme is comparable in safety and tolerability to the Standard regimen. However, due to the preliminary nature and small sample size, further research with larger sample sizes and robust study designs is necessary for confirmation.

Specific immunotherapy represents the only potentially curative treatment for allergic asthma. Allergens can be administered subcutaneously (SCIT) or sublingually (SLIT). The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of allergic asthma in children. Our study included 69 children with allergic asthma who underwent immunotherapy for house dust mites or pollen for at least 3 consecutive years. After 3 years of SCIT and SLIT, the median number of asthma exacerbations in the last three months decreased from 2 to 0 (p < 0.01) and from 1 to 0 (p < 0.01), respectively. When comparing the efficacy of SCIT and SLIT, our study revealed a significantly better efficacy of SCIT only in terms of increasing lung function. The median increase in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) after 3 years was 8% with SCIT and −1% with SLIT (p < 0.01). Daily controller therapy could be withdrawn or reduced in 9 out of 16 (56.3%) children who received it before SCIT (p < 0.01) and in 19 of 29 (65.6%) children who received it before SLIT (p < 0.01), but the difference in efficacy was not significant (p = 0.88). Both SCIT and SLIT are effective treatments for allergic asthma in children.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and allergic rhinitis (AR) usually represent the latest manifestations of the atopic march, sharing a common type 2 inflammation response. A relevant prevalence of AR in EoE cohorts has been widely confirmed. An increasing literature assessed the involvement of aeroantigens in EoE pathogenesis, focusing foremost on the seasonality of new diagnoses, symptoms, and response to therapy. Unfortunately, no diriment direction has been achieved, probably due to the retrospective design of the studies so far available, which chose surrogate markers of EoE activity (mostly the date of new diagnosis) which may be affected by geographical, logistic and personal factors, probably not dependent by the disease itself. EoE exacerbations reported in the context of the pollen levels (preferably pollen counts) may represent a more reliable marker. AR might promote the onset and the re-exacerbation of EoE through mechanisms that are both local (ie, massive exposure to airborne antigens mediated by post-nasal drip) and systemic (type 2 inflammation). Furthermore, AR may facilitate EoE onset by predisposing to pollen food allergic syndrome (PFAS), and EoE patients with PFAS reported higher rate of AR, thus suggesting a bond among these 3 conditions whose causative relationship have still to be ascertained. In addition, because of its shifting activity from Th2 to Th1 inflammation, several case reports focused on the effect of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) employed to treat AR in EoE patients. Also in this instance, no certainties could be guaranteed, although sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is more frequently reported to exacerbate EoE, while SCIT is mostly described as a remission adjuvant. The real life experience reported from our allergy service appears to confirm such hypothesis. Finally, a watchful eye should be reserved to monoclonal antibodies as a potential future option for concomitant EoE and AR. In light of all this, an attentive evaluation of allergic history of EoE patients should be relevant. Future perspectives should be addressed on prospective studies targeted to shed light on causative relations among airborne antigens, AR and EoE, and to viable comprehensive treatments., Competing Interests: ER, FN, CL, GP and GS declare no conflict of interest. GWC has received research grants and lecture or advisory board fees from A. Menarini, Allergy – Therapeutics, AstraZeneca-MedImmune, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Faes, Genentech, Guidotti-Malesci, GlaxoSmithKline, HAL Allergy, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme/Regeneron, Stallergenes-Greer, Thermo Fisher, Valeas, and Vifor Pharma in the last 3 years., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of smoking statuses on disease severity and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) efficacy in allergic rhinitis (AR)., Study Design: Open observational cohort study., Setting: Tertiary referral center., Methods: Five hundred and five AR patients undergoing dust mite allergen SCIT were categorized into never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers. AR severity was assessed using widely employed questionnaires. The changes in questionnaire scores pre- and post-SCIT were evaluated for SCIT efficacy. The differences in disease severity and SCIT efficacy were compared for different smoking statuses among AR patients., Results: Compared to never smokers, former and current smokers exhibited higher proportion of male, alcohol, and asthma (P < .05). Current smokers had a greater prevalence of allergic conjunctivitis than former smokers (P < .05). Before SCIT, AR severity was similar across 3 groups, even after adjusting for confounders (P > .05). Current smokers reported lower SCIT efficacy in the first year (P < .05). By the third year, 3 groups showed comparable long-term efficacy (P > .05). However, current smokers experienced a significant decrease in benefits 2 years post-SCIT (P < .05) and lower improvement rates at the end of the 3-years SCIT period and 2 years following SCIT (P < .05)., Conclusion: AR patients across different smoking statuses demonstrated similar baseline disease severity and long-time SCIT efficacy. Active smoking was associated with increased asthma risk, delayed early SCIT efficacy perception, reduced improvement over 3 years, and diminished benefits 2 years after SCIT. Prompt smoking cessation is crucial to mitigate these effects., (© 2024 American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Copyright of Revue Francaise d'Allergologie is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic inflammatory condition of the upper airways caused by a type I hypersensitivity reaction triggered by environmental allergens. AR is associated with significant morbidity and affects patients' quality of life, emotional well-being, productivity, and cognitive functioning. As AR prevalence and morbidity have increased significantly worldwide, similar observations have been noted in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with AR becoming a potential public health issue. Management of AR in the UAE is mainly provided by non-allergy specialists relying on first-line treatments such as intranasal steroids and antihistamines, with often suboptimal and short-term efficacy. Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) is the only currently available disease-modifying treatment option in the form of either subcutaneous or sublingual allergen immunotherapy that has been proven to have long-term benefits. This article aims to provide recommendations regarding the use of AIT for managing AR in the UAE, considering both the current landscape in the Emirati healthcare system and local experience., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have received an honorarium from Biologix FZCO for the time invested in generating this manuscript, including making substantial contributions to data interpretation, reviewing the article critically for its scientific content, and revising and approving the final version independently. Financial relationships: Eike Wuestenberg declare(s) employment and stock/stock options from ALK. Tushar Arora declare(s) employment from Biologix FZCO. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Zaitoun et al.)

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) using dust mites in children with allergic asthma., Methods: In a prospective randomized controlled study, 98 children with dust mite-induced allergic asthma were randomly divided into a control group ( n =49) and an SCIT group ( n =49). The control group received inhaled corticosteroid treatment, while the SCIT group additionally received a standardized three-year SCIT regimen. The two groups were compared based on peripheral blood eosinophil percentage, visual analogue score (VAS), total medication score, Asthma Control Test/Childhood Asthma Control Test scores, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), and lung function before treatment, and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after treatment. Adverse reactions were recorded post-injection to evaluate the safety of SCIT., Results: Compared with pre-treatment levels, the SCIT group showed a significant reduction in the percentage of peripheral blood eosinophils, VAS, total medication score, and FeNO, while lung function significantly improved, and asthma control levels were better 3 years after treatment ( P <0.05). Compared with the control group, the SCIT group showed more significant improvement in all evaluated indicators 3 years after treatment ( P <0.05). A total of 2 744 injections were administered, resulting in 157 cases (5.72%) of local adverse reactions and 4 cases (0.15%) of systemic adverse reactions, with no severe systemic adverse events., Conclusions: SCIT is an effective and safe treatment for allergic asthma in children.

We describe the case of a 10-year-old boy with asthma (AS), accompanied by allergic rhinitis (AR), food allergy (FA), and combined attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), who was treated at Shanghai Renji Hospital on 11 July 2020. The efficiency of the previous treatment with salmeterol/ticlosone was poor. Treatment with montelukast sodium resulted in development of neurological symptoms. Treatment with omalizumab in combination with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) was then initiated in our department based on anti-asthmatic therapy. Symptoms of asthma were completely controlled, and FA and AR symptoms improved. The treatment regimen led to a significant improvement in ADHD symptoms and the overall quality of life of the patient. The literature search was done in the PubMed database using "attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder/ADHD" and "asthma" as keywords, and we identified 47 relevant articles. In conclusion, our results show that treating asthma with omalizumab in combination with salmeterol/ticlosone and SCIT is efficient in controlling symptoms of multiple allergies and may lead to the improvement in ADHD symptoms and the overall quality of life of pediatric patients with ADHD. While current studies suggest that allergic diseases are closely related to ADHD, there is still a lack of studies or case reports of complete treatment protocols to provide clinical clues for management of the disease., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Ding and Lu.)

Background: Oral immunotherapy (OIT) is a promising allergen-specific approach in the management of food allergy; however, studies on OIT for allergic rhinitis (AR) have rarely been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OIT using enteric-coated capsules for AR induced by house dust mites., Methods: A total of 49 patients with AR were enrolled, including 25 who received subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and 24 who received OIT. The clinical efficacy and safety in both groups were evaluated., Results: After 1 year of treatment, both SCIT and OIT demonstrated significant therapeutic effects. OIT was found to be more effective than SCIT in reducing the total AR symptom score and improving the results of nasal provocation tests. Local and systemic adverse reactions were observed in the SCIT group, while none were reported in the OIT group., Conclusion: OIT is an effective and safe treatment for mite-induced AR., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (© 2024 Zhang, Xie, Zhou, Chen, Wang, Zhu, Wen and Cheng.)

Summary: Background. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a potential disease-modifying therapy effective for treatment of various allergic disorders. Pain and fear are common concerns of children, which can pose stress and result in negative experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of three marketed distraction devices and ethyl chloride spray (a routinely used topical anesthetic agent for painful procedures), the current clinical standard of care in reducing the perception of needle pain during SCIT administration in children. Methods. 40 children, aged 4-17 years, receiving SCIT with use of one of three alternative pain therapies or with standard practice were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the pain-modifying interventions. The three interventional groups were ShotBlocker ® (Bionix, Toledo, OH, USA), Buzzy ® I (Pain Care Labs, Atlanta, GA, USA) (vibration only), and Buzzy ® II (vibration with ice). Control group was ethyl chloride spray. The study consisted of two visits during SCIT administration process. Results. Of these 40 children, 12 received the ShotBlocker, 8 received the Buzzy I, 11 received the Buzzy II, and 9 received ethyl chloride spray (control group). Conclusions. There were no significant differences found between each of the distraction devices and between the control group. Type II error/false negative finding cannot be ruled out because of a small sample. Therefore, we cannot conclude that no true difference exists between each distraction device and the control group simply because of occurrence of a non-significant P-value in our study.

Background: Little is known about the safety of mite extract product Novo-Helisen Depot (NHD) as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in the children with mite allergy especially immediate/late local reaction (LRs)., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study analyzing the adverse events of the children undergoing subcutaneous immunotherapy with NHD. Adverse events included local and systemic adverse reactions (SRs) at the very early and late stage. The correlation of the basic characteristics, laboratory analysis results, LRs and SRs were analyzed., Results: Two hundred and eighty-seven patients received at least 15 months of subcutaneous immunotherapy with NHD were included in the analysis. Skin-prick testing (SPT) results of D. pteronyssinus was associated with an increased risk of immediate LRs in build-up phase (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.02, 2.37) and delayed LRs in maintenance phase (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.05, 2.46), while SPT results of D. farinae was associated with an increased risk of SRs (OR = 3.22, 95% CI: 1.17, 10.00) and severe SRs (OR = 7.68, 95% CI: 1.13, 109.50). Serum IgE level of D. pteronyssinus was associated with an increased risk of SRs (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.03). Patients with both asthma and allergic rhinitis was associated with an increased risk of SR, and severe SRs ( P  < 0.05)., Conclusion: NHD as SCIT is safe. The children with higher SPT level with D. farinae or D. pteronyssinus , higher serum IgE level of D. pteronyssinus , children with both asthma and allergic rhinitis, and the children with treatment interruption had higher risk of adverse events., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Zhou, Liu, Dai, Chen, Han, Zhang, Shen and Shan.)

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is still the only treatment that may affect the natural cause of allergic disease. This study is to investigate whether an accelerated up-dosing scheme for subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) using a native house dust mite (HDM) allergen extract is as safe as the standard 3-strengths dose-escalation scheme in children with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma in China., Methods: In this multicenter, open label, randomized controlled trial, the children aged 5-14 years were randomized 1:1 either to One Strength group or the Standard group. The dose escalation scheme for patients in the One Strength group included 6 injections of strength 3, whereas the Standard group comprised 14 injections using strength 1, 2, and 3. All treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were recorded and analyzed. The 5-point Likert scale was used to assess tolerability (ChiCTR2100050311)., Results: Overall, 101 children were included in the Safety Set (One Strength group: 50 vs. Standard group: 51). A total of 26 TEAEs were reported for 15 children. TEAEs related to AIT occurred in 10 % of the children in the One Strength group and 11.8 % of the Standard group. The number of systemic adverse reactions was comparable in both groups (One Strength: 5 vs. Standard: 4). No serious TEAEs was recorded for either group. 90.0 % of patients in the One Strength group reached the maintenance dose without an interventional dose adjustment due to adverse events, compared to 78.4 % in the Standard group. All patients who completed the dose-escalation phase reached the recommended maintenance dose of 1.0 ml of strength 3.Investigators and patients rated the tolerability of the One Strength regimen slightly better than the Standard scheme., Conclusions: This exploratory study suggests that the accelerated One Strength dose-escalation scheme is comparable in safety and tolerability to the Standard regimen. However, due to the preliminary nature and small sample size, further research with larger sample sizes and robust study designs is necessary for confirmation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

House dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has an established role in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) triggered by HDM sensitization. We aimed to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AR and AA in humans and to summarize the evidence for AIT products that are currently manufactured and available for clinical use. A total of 56 eligible double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AA and/or AR in humans fit the inclusion criteria and investigated a total of 14 commercial AIT products; together, the 56 studies enrolled a total of 14,619 patients. Of the 56 studies, 39 studies investigated the current manufacturer-recommended maintenance dose (MRMD) of the product, and 17 investigated other doses. We identified 39 studies (12,539 patients randomized) for 8 sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) products and 17 studies (2,080 patients randomized) for subcutaneous immunotherapy products. For AR, 3 products, the ALK 12 standardized-quality (SQ-HDM) SLIT tablet, the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, and the SG 300 index of reactivity SLIT tablet, had both dose-finding studies (DFSs) and phase III definitive studies (DSs) to demonstrate efficacy of the MRMD of the product. For AA, 2 products, the ALK 12 SQ-HDM SLIT tablet and the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, had both DFSs and DSs for the MRMD. No subcutaneous immunotherapy product had a paired DFS and DS supporting the MRMD. A total of 30 studies of products no longer commercially manufactured were excluded. This study will help to inform clinical care and product selection for the treatment of HDM-induced AR and AA., Competing Interests: Medical writing assistance was funded by Seqirus (Australia) Pty Ltd (CSL Seqirus), the Australian distributors of ALK 6/12 SQ-HDM SLIT tablets. CSL Seqirus had no role in the systematic review, analysis, or data interpretation. Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: C. H. Katelaris has received honoraria for presentations and fees for advisory board participation from Seqirus, as well as fees for advisory board participation from Stallegenes. T. West has received honoraria for presentations for Seqirus., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Aim: We compared the effectiveness of rush subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) using standardized house dust mite (HDM) extract for pediatric bronchial asthma (BA). Methods: We followed the pediatric BA treatment score during 3 years of treatment. We assessed the median time to no longer requiring long-term control pharmacotherapy (LTCP) for BA (LTCP-free). We compared the outcomes after adjustment for confounding factors and propensity score matching. Results: Patients in the HDM SCIT group achieved the LTCP-free status significantly earlier than those in the HDM SLIT group after adjustment for confounding factors and propensity score matching. Conclusion: Patients treated for pediatric BA with rush HDM SCIT had earlier onset of therapeutic effects than those with HDM SLIT.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causal and disease-modifying treatment for immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated type I allergies. Regular exposure to the causative allergen results in an immunomodulatory effect by which the predominant T‑helper (Th) 2 lymphocyte response is shifted to a Th1 lymphocyte response and more allergen-specific blocking immunoglobulins are produced. The approval of substances for AIT is regulated by the Therapy Allergens Ordinance (TAV). There are subcutaneous and/or sublingual AITs for the following indications: allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, allergic asthma and insect venom allergy. In this article the indications for allergic conjunctivitis are discussed in particular. Clinical symptoms and a relevant type 1 sensitization are the prerequisites for the indications for AIT. The assessment of the indications and carrying out an AIT should only be carried out by physicians who have been trained in allergology., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: Hay fever, characterized by seasonal allergic reactions, poses a significant health challenge. Existing therapies encompass standard drug regimens, biological agents, and specific immunotherapy. This study aims to assess and compare the effectiveness of anti-IgE (omalizumab), medication therapy, and subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) for hay fever., Methods: Conducted as a retrospective cohort study, this research involved 98 outpatient hay fever patients who underwent routine medication, omalizumab treatment, or SCIT before the onset of the spring pollen season. A follow-up was performed one month after the start of the pollen season. The comprehensive symptoms and drug scores were used to evaluate patients with different intervention methods, facilitating a comparative analysis of therapeutic outcomes., Results: Compared with before treatment, the symptoms of patients treated with the three methods were all significantly relieved, and the medication score were significantly reduced. Patients treated with omalizumab demonstrated higher symptoms and medication scores than SCIT group before treatment, but similar scores after treatment, which were both lower than medicine treatment group. After treatment with omalizumab or SCIT, patients in both groups had significantly lower medication scores than the medication group and were close to no longer using medication for symptom relief. The mountain juniper-sIgE was significantly higher after treatment than before treatment in both medicine treatment group and omalizumab treatment group., Conclusion: Omalizumab and SCIT offer superior effects than medication therapy in hay fever patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Tang, Lyu, Hou, Yang, Fu, Zhu, Xue, Li and Wang.)

Traditional aluminum hydroxide is widely used as a vaccine adjuvant. Despite its favorable safety profile, it can cause an inflammatory response at the injection sites. However, multiple studies have shown that aluminum hydroxide nanoparticles have more potent adjuvant activity than their traditional aluminum hydroxide counterparts as antigen carriers; it has also been found that the local inflammation caused by aluminum hydroxide nanoparticle adjuvants is milder than that of other adjuvants. The aim of the present study was to compare the degree of inflammatory response between the aluminum hydroxide nanoparticle adjuvants and the traditional aluminum hydroxide adjuvants in the desensitization treatment of a mouse model of house dust mite (HDM)-induced allergic asthma. Mice were sensitized intraperitoneally with HDM. Subcutaneous desensitization was performed with PBS, traditional aluminum hydroxide adjuvants and aluminum hydroxide nanoparticle adjuvants. The mice were challenged and subsequently euthanized. The skin tissue at the local injection sites was assessed and specific indices were measured, such as the response of specific immunoglobulins, the airway hyper-responsiveness (AHR), and the inflammation in the bronchoalveolar lavage and lung tissues. Early hypersensitivity responses were suppressed in mice treated with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Both traditional aluminum hydroxide-SCIT and aluminum hydroxide nanoparticle-SCIT could inhibit AHR. However, aluminum hydroxide nanoparticle-SCIT was able to significantly inhibit the secretion of eosinophils in the lung tissue and the production of type 2 cytokine Interleukin (IL)-5 in blood compared with the corresponding effects noted by traditional aluminum hydroxide adjuvants. Moreover, the aluminum hydroxide nanoparticle group reduced the inflammatory response at the local injection site. Collectively, the data indicated that allergen-specific immunotherapy using aluminum hydroxide nanoparticle adjuvants reduces lung and local inflammation compared with traditional aluminum hydroxide adjuvants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The only FDA-approved oral immunotherapy for a food allergy provides protection against accidental exposure to peanuts. However, this therapy often causes discomfort or side effects and requires long-term commitment. Better preventive and therapeutic solutions are urgently needed. We develop a tolerance-inducing vaccine technology that utilizes glycosylation-modified antigens to induce antigen-specific non-responsiveness. The glycosylation-modified antigens are administered intravenously (i.v.) or subcutaneously (s.c.) and traffic to the liver or lymph nodes, respectively, leading to preferential internalization by antigen-presenting cells, educating the immune system to respond in an innocuous way. In a mouse model of cow's milk allergy, treatment with glycosylation-modified β-lactoglobulin (BLG) is effective in preventing the onset of allergy. In addition, s.c. administration of glycosylation-modified BLG shows superior safety and potential in treating existing allergies in combination with anti-CD20 co-therapy. This platform provides an antigen-specific immunomodulatory strategy to prevent and treat food allergies., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests D.S.W. and J.A.H. are inventors of patents related to synthetically glycosylated tolerance-inducing vaccines. D.S.W. and J.A.H. are shareholders of Anokion, Inc., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Allergen-specific immunotherapy uses a sublingual (sublingual immunotherapy [SLIT]) or subcutaneous (subcutaneous immunotherapy [SCIT]) route. This pharmacovigilance study aimed to determine the number and type of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for SLIT and SCIT using carbamylated monomeric allergoids (CMAs) in children. Materials & methods: This pharmacovigilance study analyzed real-world post-marketing reports collected from a safety database of Lais sublingual tablets and injective Lais-in, containing CMAs for over 10 years. Results & conclusion: From January 2009 to September 2022, 26,107 doses of Lais-in were administered in children; only two nonserious related ADRs (incidence: 0.000077%) were reported. Regarding SLIT, the results showed only 12 spontaneous nonserious ADR reports (incidence: 0.000004%). These data showed the excellent safety profile of both SLIT and SCIT CMAs.

Aim: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a new protocol for adjusting doses during interrupted subcutaneous immunotherapy maintenance, exceeding an 8-week interval, with mite allergen injections in children with allergic rhinitis. Patients & methods: 194 children with allergic rhinitis who underwent subcutaneous immunotherapy and experienced interruptions lasting more than 8 weeks during maintenance were enrolled. Following the adoption of a novel dose-adjustment protocol, a real-world study was conducted. Results: After 3 years of subcutaneous immunotherapy, the novel group exhibited a significant reduction in allergy symptoms compared with baseline. Systemic reactions related to the novel protocol did not significantly increase. Conclusion: The novel protocol was deemed safe and effective, offering advantages of time savings and reduced burdens.

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is a long-established treatment option for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Proper dosing of the allergens is critical for the efficacy and safety of SCIT. Of the hundreds of liquid allergen extracts in the United States, effective and well-tolerated SCIT dosing has only been established for a small number. Thus, SCIT dosing remains largely empiric and continues to be, by necessity, an art. To highlight the complexity of SCIT dosing, this review summarizes the historical and current landscape of U.S. allergen extracts, differences among U.S. and European allergen extracts, allergen selection for SCIT, considerations for compounding of allergen extract mixtures, and recommended dosing. As of 2021, 18 standardized allergen extracts are available in the United States; all other extracts remain unstandardized without characterization of allergen content or potency. U.S. allergen extracts differ from European extracts in formulation and potency characterization. There is no standardized methodology for SCIT allergen selection, and interpretation of allergen sensitization is not straightforward. Compounding of SCIT mixtures requires consideration of potential dilution effects, allergen cross-reactivity, proteolytic activity, and additives. Probable effective dose ranges for SCIT are recommended in U.S. allergy immunotherapy practice parameters, although there are few studies using U.S. extracts supporting these doses as therapeutic. In contrast, optimized doses of sublingual immunotherapy tablets have been confirmed in North American phase 3 trials. The SCIT dosing for each patient remains an art that requires clinical experience and consideration of polysensitization, tolerability, compounding of allergen extract mixtures, and the range of recommended doses within the context of extract potency variability., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)