Search

Objective: Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment for the underlying allergic disease in patients with respiratory allergies. The primary objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two maintenance doses of immunologically enhanced, standardised quality (SQ+) grass subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) [4,000 SQ+ and 15,000 SQ+; AVANZ(®) Phleum pratense (ALK)] compared with placebo., Methods: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II/III trial. The primary evaluation was based on the combined rhinoconjunctivitis score during the entire grass pollen season. Adult subjects with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis interfering with usual activities or sleep despite symptomatic medication use, were enrolled., Results: Four hundred and fifty subjects were randomised to receive either 4,000 SQ+ (n = 150), 15,000 SQ+ (n = 152) or placebo (n = 148). The average grass pollen exposure was 27 grains/m(3)/day. No statistically significant differences between the active groups and the placebo group were found for clinical endpoints (p > 0.05). Highly statistically significant (p < 0.001) increases in IgG4 and IgE-blocking factor were found for both active groups versus placebo. The most frequently reported adverse events were mild-to-moderate local injection-site reactions; events were generally more frequent with 15,000 SQ+ than with 4,000 SQ+ and placebo. The most common adverse events leading to premature discontinuation from the trial were anaphylactic reactions (one subject from the placebo group and five subjects from the 15,000 SQ+ group)., Conclusions: The inconclusive results were most probably influenced by a very low grass pollen season. Other factors such as the extent of the pre-seasonal treatment could potentially have contributed. The tolerability profile was acceptable for further development.

Background: Allergic sensitization to cat allergens is common and represents a major risk factor for asthma. Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is effective but cumbersome and associated with IgE-dependent adverse events. Immunotherapy targeting allergen-specific T cells, with synthetic peptides representing T-cell epitopes, might improve safety and reduce the duration of treatment., Objective: We sought to define major T-cell epitopes of Fel d 1 for peptide immunotherapy, generate a peptide vaccine, and evaluate its safety and tolerability in subjects with cat allergy., Methods: We determined the binding affinities of Fel d 1 peptides for 10 commonly expressed HLA-DR molecules. Functionally immunodominant peptides were identified by means of proliferation and cytokine secretion. Histamine-releasing activity was assessed, and a peptide vaccine was formulated. Safety and tolerability were evaluated in a dose-ranging phase IIa clinical trial., Results: MHC-binding sequences were identified throughout Fel d 1. Some regions contained multiple overlapping T-cell epitopes that bound multiple MHC molecules. Immunodominant sequences were identified on the basis of proliferative and cytokine (IFN-γ, IL-10, and IL-13) responses. Cat allergen extract, but not peptides, induced histamine release in blood basophils. A single administration of peptide vaccine was safe and well tolerated. The dose of vaccine resulting in the greatest inhibition of the late-phase skin response to intradermal whole allergen challenge was 3 nmol., Conclusions: Fel d 1 contains multiple overlapping MHC-binding motifs. A peptide vaccine comprising the immunodominant regions of the allergen was safe and well tolerated when given to subjects with cat allergy as a single dose. The dose of vaccine resulting in the greatest reduction in late-phase skin response was defined for future clinical development., (Copyright © 2010 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

One hundred and ten years after Noon's first clinical report of the subcutaneous application of allergen extracts, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has evolved as the most important pillar of the treatment of allergic patients. It is the only disease‐modifying treatment option available and the evidence for its clinical efficacy and safety is broad and undisputed. Throughout recent decades, more insights into the underlying mechanisms, in particular the modulation of innate and adaptive immune responses, have been described. AIT is acknowledged by worldwide regulatory authorities, and following the regulatory guidelines for product development, AIT products are subject to a rigorous evaluation before obtaining market authorization. Knowledge and practice are anchored in international guidelines, such as the recently published series of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI). Innovative approaches continue to be further developed with the focus on clinical improvement by, for example, the usage of adjuvants, peptides, recombinants, modification of allergens, new routes of administration, and the concomitant use of biologicals. In addition, real‐life data provide complementary and valuable information on the effectiveness and tolerability of this treatment option in the clinical routine. New mobile health technologies and big‐data approaches will improve daily treatment convenience, adherence, and efficacy of AIT. However, the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has also had some implications for the feasibility and practicability of AIT. Taken together, AIT as the only disease‐modifying therapy in allergic diseases has been broadly investigated over the past 110 years laying the path for innovations and further improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progressive knowledge of allergenic structures resulted in a broad availability of allergenic molecules for diagnosis. Component‐resolved diagnosis allowed a better understanding of patient sensitization patterns, facilitating allergen immunotherapy decisions. In parallel to the discovery of allergenic molecules, there was a progressive development of a regulation framework that affected both in vitro diagnostics and Allergen Immunotherapy products. With a progressive understanding of underlying mechanisms associated to Allergen immunotherapy and an increasing experience of application of molecular diagnosis in daily life, we focus in analyzing the evidences of the value provided by molecular allergology in daily clinical practice, with a focus on Allergen Immunotherapy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Allergy today is a public health concern of pandemic proportions, affecting more than 150 million people in Europe alone. In view of epidemiological trends, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) predicts that within the next few decades, more than half of the European population may at some point in their lives experience some type of allergy. Not only do allergic patients suffer from a debilitating disease, with the potential for major impact on their quality of life, career progression, personal development and lifestyle choices, but they also constitute a significant burden on health economics and macroeconomics due to the days of lost productivity and underperformance. Given that allergy triggers, including urbanization, industrialization, pollution and climate change, are not expected to change in the foreseeable future, it is imperative that steps are taken to develop, strengthen and optimize preventive and treatment strategies. Allergen specific immunotherapy is the only currently available medical intervention that has the potential to affect the natural course of the disease. Years of basic science research, clinical trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have convincingly shown that allergen specific immunotherapy can achieve substantial results for patients, improving the allergic individuals’ quality of life, reducing the long-term costs and burden of allergies, and changing the course of the disease. Allergen specific immunotherapy not only effectively alleviates allergy symptoms, but it has a long-term effect after conclusion of the treatment and can prevent the progression of allergic diseases. Unfortunately, allergen specific immunotherapy has not yet received adequate attention from European institutions, including research funding bodies, even though this could be a most rewarding field in terms of return on investments, translational value and European integration and, a field in which Europe is recognized as a worldwide leader. Evaluation and surveillance of the full cost of allergic diseases is still lacking and further progress is being stifled by the variety of health systems across Europe. This means that the general population remains unaware of the potential use of allergen specific immunotherapy and its potential benefits. We call upon Europe’s policy-makers to coordinate actions and improve individual and public health in allergy by: Promoting awareness of the effectiveness of allergen specific immunotherapy Updating national healthcare policies to support allergen specific immunotherapy Prioritising funding for allergen specific immunotherapy research Monitoring the macroeconomic and health economic parameters of allergy Reinforcing allergy teaching in medical disciplines and specialties The effective implementation of the above policies has the potential for a major positive impact on European health and well-being in the next decade.

The placebo (Latin "I will please") effect commonly occurs in clinical trials. The psychological and physiological factors associated with patients' expectations about a treatment's positive and negative effects have yet to be well characterized, although a functional prefrontal cortex and intense bidirectional communication between the central nervous system and the immune system appear to be prerequisites for a placebo effect. The use of placebo raises certain ethical issues, especially if patients in a placebo group are denied an effective treatment for a long period of time. The placebo effect appears to be relatively large (up to 77%, relative to pretreatment scores) in controlled clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy (AIT), such as the pivotal, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled (DBPC) randomized clinical trials currently required by regulatory authorities worldwide. The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) therefore initiated a Task Force, in order to better understand the placebo effect in AIT and its specific role in comorbidities, blinding issues, adherence, measurement time points, variability and the natural course of the disease. In this Position Paper, the EAACI Task Force highlights several important topics regarding the placebo effect in AIT such as a) regulatory aspects, b) neuroimmunological and psychological mechanisms, c) placebo effect sizes in AIT trials, d) methodological limitations in AIT trial design and e) potential solutions in future AIT trial design. In conclusion, this Position Paper aims to examine the methodological problem of placebo in AIT from different aspects and also to highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for future trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pollen from various Fagales tree species prolongs the season and makes tree pollen allergy a major health problem. Despite involving the same causative allergens, allergy immunotherapy (AIT) treatment habits differ significantly across different geographical regions. Diagnosis and treatment with AIT in patients allergic to tree pollen were discussed by a group of German medical experts who give practical recommendations based on the available data. Regulatory perspective: According to current guidelines on allergen products, birch pollen are the representative allergen source of the birch homologous group including several Fagales trees based on sequence and structural similarity of their allergen proteins. Immunological perspective: A high level of IgE cross‐reactivity towards allergens from the birch homologous group has been observed in basic research and clinical trials. Clinical perspective: Clinical trial data show that the efficacy of birch pollen AIT is not only related to birch pollen allergy but extends to pollen from other trees, especially alder, hazel and oak. In order to optimize diagnosis and treatment of tree pollen allergy, the experts recommend to focus diagnosis and respective treatment with AIT primarily to birch as the representative allergen of the Fagales tree homologous group, but further diagnostics may be needed for some patients to determine adequate treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The seventh "Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT)" workshop held in 2019 provided a platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review current developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Key domains of the meeting included the following: (a) Biomarkers for AIT and allergic asthma; (b) visions for the future of AIT; (c) progress and data for AIT in asthma and the updates of GINA and EAACI Asthma Guidelines (separated for house dust mite SCIT, SLIT tablets and SLIT drops; patient populations) including a review of clinically relevant endpoints in AIT studies in asthma; (d) regulatory prerequisites such as the "Therapy Allergen Ordinance" in Germany; (e) optimization of trial design in AIT clinical research; (f) challenges planning and conducting phase III (field) studies and the future role of Allergen Exposure Chambers (AEC) in AIT product development from the regulatory point of view. We report a summary of panel discussions of all six domains and highlight unmet needs and possible solutions for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background There is a need to establish the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of allergen immunotherapy ( AIT) for the prevention of allergic disease. Methods Two reviewers independently screened nine international biomedical databases. Studies were quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. Results A total of 32 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Overall, meta-analysis found no conclusive evidence that AIT reduced the risk of developing a first allergic disease over the short term ( RR = 0.30; 95% CI: 0.04-2.09) and no randomized controlled evidence was found in relation to its longer-term effects for this outcome. There was, however, a reduction in the short-term risk of those with allergic rhinitis developing asthma ( RR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.54), with this finding being robust to a pre-specified sensitivity analysis. We found inconclusive evidence that this benefit was maintained over the longer term: RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23. There was evidence that the risk of new sensitization was reduced over the short term, but this was not confirmed in the sensitivity analysis: RR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.24-2.18. There was no clear evidence of any longer-term reduction in the risk of sensitization: RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.08-2.77. AIT appeared to have an acceptable side effect profile. Conclusions AIT did not result in a statistically significant reduction in the risk of developing a first allergic disease. There was, however, evidence of a reduced short-term risk of developing asthma in those with allergic rhinitis, but it is unclear whether this benefit was maintained over the longer term. We are unable to comment on the cost-effectiveness of AIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology ( EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy ( AIT) for the Prevention of Allergic Disease. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the prevention of allergic disease. Methods We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesized. Discussion The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI's Guidelines on AIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Asthma. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic asthma. Methods: We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised. Discussion: The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI's Guidelines on AIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article continues the comprehensive international consensus (ICON) statement on allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The initial article also recently appeared in the Journal . The conclusions below focus on key mechanisms of AIT-triggered tolerance, requirements in allergen standardization, AIT cost-effectiveness, and regulatory guidance. Potential barriers to and facilitators of the use of AIT are described in addition to future directions. International allergy specialists representing the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization critically reviewed the existing literature and prepared this summary of recommendations for best AIT practice. The authors contributed equally and reached consensus on the statements presented herein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used to treat allergic disease since the early 1900s. Despite numerous clinical trials and meta-analyses proving AIT efficacious, it remains underused and is estimated to be used in less than 10% of patients with allergic rhinitis or asthma worldwide. In addition, there are large differences between regions, which are not only due to socioeconomic status. There is practically no controversy about the use of AIT in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma, but for atopic dermatitis or food allergy, the indications for AIT are not well defined. The elaboration of a wider consensus is of utmost importance because AIT is the only treatment that can change the course of allergic disease by preventing the development of asthma and new allergen sensitizations and by inducing allergen-specific immune tolerance. Safer and more effective AIT strategies are being continuously developed both through elaboration of new allergen preparations and adjuvants and alternate routes of administration. A number of guidelines, consensus documents, or both are available on both the international and national levels. The international community of allergy specialists recognizes the need to develop a comprehensive consensus report to harmonize, disseminate, and implement the best AIT practice. Consequently, the International Collaboration in Asthma, Allergy and Immunology, formed by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization, has decided to issue an international consensus on AIT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]