Search

Background: Subcutaneous immunotherapy is an effective allergy treatment only if properly dosed. In this article we review the data on the probable effective dose range for subcutaneous immunotherapy and convert the recommended doses into a clinically relevant format., Methods: A comprehensive literature search of dose-response subcutaneous immunotherapy studies was done of EBM databases, Medline database, PreMedline, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse for the period 1980-2016. Recommended doses were converted to the volume of allergen extract that should be added to a 5-mL maintenance vial., Results: A safe and effective dose for subcutaneous immunotherapy is likely 5-20 μg of major allergen per injection. A 0.5-mL injection from a 5-mL maintenance vial containing 0.2 mL of manufacturer's extract of each allergen should reach the lower end of the probable effective dose range for most allergens. A larger volume of extract is required to reach that range when treatment includes cat, dog, or only 1 dust mite. Increasing beyond the commonly prescribed 0.2 mL of manufacturer's extract added to a 5-mL treatment vial is reasonable for nearly all allergens to achieve a maintenance dose higher in the probable effective dose range., Conclusion: Current otolaryngic allergy practice usually escalates patients to 0.5-mL injections from 5-mL maintenance vials containing 0.2 mL of manufacturer's extract of each allergen. With the main exceptions of cat and dog, those injections administered 1 or 2 times per month likely provide an efficacious dose of allergen and are consistent with published guidelines. A larger volume of extract should be considered in certain clinical situations., (© 2018 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

Background: Otolaryngologists commonly use glycerin and normal saline with phenol (NSP) in diluting solutions to help preserve allergenicity in immunotherapy vials. Studies have shown that diluting with human serum albumin (HSA) may provide better allergen stability. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of various diluents to preserve allergen content in testing/treatment boards (TTBs) and immunotherapy treatment vials (ITVs) at multiple time points., Methods: TTBs with 4 allergens were prepared with HSA, NSP, 10% glycerin, and 50% glycerin. The major allergen content of the TTBs was measured at creation (time 0), 3 days, 8 weeks, and 18 weeks. Multiallergen ITVs containing the 4 allergens were prepared from the NSP board (diluted to 10% glycerin) and the HSA board (diluted in HSA) at the time of making the freshly prepared TTBs and again 8 weeks later, simulating the creation of ITVs from a "new" and an "old" TTB. The major allergen content of these ITVs was determined at creation and at interval time points thereafter., Results: TTBs and ITVs showed a substantial loss of allergen at day 3. The loss of allergen was more pronounced in the more dilute (#4, #5, and #6) vials. HSA and 50% glycerin showed superior allergen preservation compared to NSP and 10% glycerin in TTBs. HSA showed superior allergen preservation compared to 10% glycerin-NSP in ITVs., Conclusion: The use of HSA as a diluent in TTBs and ITVs showed superior allergen preservation compared to NSP and 10% glycerin, particularly for more dilute vials., (© 2015 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

Background: The practices and beliefs of the provider specialties that treat allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) with allergen immunotherapy (AIT) may vary., Methods: A telephone survey of 500 randomly selected health care practitioners in 7 specialties, conducted in 2012., Results: AIT was provided as a subcutaneous injection (SCIT) by 91% of allergist/immunologists, 54% of otolaryngologists, and 18% to 24% of other specialties. Otolaryngologists were the most frequent providers of sublingual drops of AIT (SLIT; 33%), compared to 2% to 10% of other specialties. AIT was recommended for adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis by 100% of allergist/immunologists vs 62% to 84% of the other specialties (p < 0.001). The primary reason for recommending AIT for adults (52%) or children (46%) was that other therapies did not work. Between 48% (nurse practitioners/physician assistants) and 93% (allergist/immunologists) of practitioners always or often decreased symptomatic medications over the course of AIT treatment. Most practitioners in all specialties (82-100%) thought that AIT was appropriate for patients with severe allergy symptoms. Significantly more allergist/immunologists and otolaryngologists than other specialists thought AIT was appropriate for mild allergy symptoms (p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively, vs other specialties). Significantly more allergist/immunologists than other specialists thought that AIT was more effective than symptomatic medications (p < 0.001), could reduce the further development of allergies (p = 0.03), and could prevent the development of asthma., Conclusion: SCIT was more frequently provided than SLIT by all the specialties. Otolaryngologists were the most likely to offer SLIT, while very few allergist/immunologists offered SLIT. Allergist/immunologists differed from other specialties in some beliefs about the effectiveness of AIT., (© 2014 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

Background: Clinical practices for the diagnosis and treatment of allergic disease evolve over time in response to a variety of forces. The techniques used by various physician specialties are not clearly defined and may vary from published descriptions or recommendations in the literature., Methods: This work is a Web-based survey enrolling 250 U.S. physicians in the following specialties: otolaryngology (ENT), allergy-immunology (A/I), and primary care (PCP)., Results: Respondents reported that skin-prick testing is the most common diagnostic testing method, followed by in vitro specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) testing. ENTs were more likely to use intradermal testing compared to other specialties (p = 0.0003 vs A/I; p < 0.0001 vs PCP). Respondents reported a wide distribution in number of allergens tested, regardless of testing method (range, 11 to >60). Significant use of home immunotherapy injections (defined as >10% of immunotherapy patients) ranged from 27% to 36% of physicians, with no statistically significant difference noted based upon specialty. PCPs reported greater use of sublingual immunotherapy (PCP, 68%; A/I, 45%; otolaryngology, 35%; A/I vs PCP, p = 0.005; ENT vs PCP p < 0.001))., Conclusion: A variety of allergy testing and treatment methods are employed by U.S. physicians, with some differences noted based upon specialty. Home immunotherapy continues to be employed in allergy practices, and sublingual immunotherapy is a common form of delivery, especially in primary care practices., (© 2014 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is used for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis as a subcutaneous injection (subcutaneous immunotherapy [SCIT]). Extracts used for SCIT are also used off-label to formulate a liquid delivered as sublingual drops (sublingual immunotherapy [SLIT]). This study was designed to survey patients' experiences and beliefs regarding SCIT and SLIT. People who had ever been diagnosed with nasal and/or ocular allergies were identified in a 2012 telephone survey of U.S. households. Respondents were asked questions about their or their child's use of SCIT and SLIT and their beliefs about AIT. Of 2765 respondents, 46.5% had ever heard of AIT and 22.7% had ever initiated it: 20.9% with SCIT and 1.8% with SLIT (p < 0.0001). The most frequently cited reason for beginning AIT was that symptoms were unresolved with other medications (SCIT, 32.1%; SLIT, 14.0%). Some or full symptom relief was reported by 74.9% of respondents treated with SCIT and 66.0% of those treated with SLIT (p = 0.17 for SCIT versus SLIT). Approximately one-third of respondents who had ever heard of or had been treated with AIT said "don't know" when asked if immunotherapy controls allergy symptoms for years (33.6%), is a very safe treatment (29.3%), or can cure allergy symptoms (27.5%). Effective relief of allergy symptoms was cited most often as the primary benefit of SCIT (37.8%) and convenience was the primary benefit of SLIT (14%). Only one-fifth of respondents had ever been treated with AIT, largely with SCIT. More than one-half of respondents had never heard of AIT and respondents' beliefs indicated a need for educational efforts.

Previous nationwide surveys of allergies in the United States have focused on nasal symptoms, but ocular symptoms are also relevant. This study determines the effects of ocular and nasal allergies on patients' lives. Telephone surveys of randomly selected U.S. households (the patient survey) and health care providers (provider survey) were conducted in the United States in 2012. Study participants were 2765 people ≥5 years of age who had ever been diagnosed with nasal or ocular allergies and 500 health care providers in seven specialties. Respondents to the patient survey reported a bimodal seasonal distribution of allergy symptoms, with peaks in March to May and September. Nasal congestion was the most common of the symptoms rated as "extremely bothersome" (39% of respondents), followed by red, itchy eyes (34%; p = 0.84 for difference in extreme bothersomeness of nasal and ocular symptoms). Twenty-nine percent of respondents reported that their or their child's daily life was impacted "a lot" when allergy symptoms were at their worst. Workers rated their mean productivity at 29% lower when allergy symptoms were at their worst (p < 0.001 compared with no symptoms). Providers reported that itchy eyes was the symptom causing most patients to seek medical treatment by pediatricians (73%), ophthalmologist/optometrists (72%), and nurse practitioners or physician assistants (62%), whereas nasal congestion was the symptom causing most patients to seek treatment from otolaryngologists (85%), allergist/immunologists (79%), and family medicine practitioners (64%). Ocular and nasal allergy symptoms substantially affected patients' lives and were comparable in their impact.

Background: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) is managed by a number of health care professional specialties, whose practice styles may vary., Objective: To survey patients and health care professionals about the diagnosis and treatment of ARC., Methods: The Allergies, Immunotherapy, and RhinoconjunctivitiS (AIRS) surveys were telephone surveys of randomly selected patients and health care professionals in the United States in 2012. Participants were 2,765 people ever diagnosed as having nasal and/or ocular allergies and 500 practitioners in 7 specialties who were treating ARC., Results: Adult respondents to the patient survey reported that their allergies had been diagnosed most often by physicians in family practice (46%) rather than by allergists/immunologists (17%) or otolaryngologists (11%). Children's allergies had been diagnosed most often by pediatricians (41%) and family practitioners (22%). Most respondents with conditions diagnosed by an allergist/immunologist (94.9%) or otolaryngologist (62.7%) had been given an allergy test, but the test was not given to most patients with conditions diagnosed by family practitioners (61.3%) or pediatricians (64.9%). Most patients (75.8%) were treating their allergies with over-the-counter medications, and 53.5% were taking prescription medications. Allergen immunotherapy was being used by 33% (adult) or 28% (child) patients of allergist/immunologists, 25% (adult) or 24% (child) patients of otolaryngologists, and 8% and 10% of patients of family practitioners and pediatricians, respectively., Conclusion: Most patients took nonprescription medications for their allergy symptoms or were treated by general practitioners, who did not use allergy testing when diagnosing ARC. Most patients seen by allergist/immunologists and otolaryngologists were evaluated with allergy tests, and most allergen immunotherapy was provided by allergy specialists., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been shown to be safe and efficacious in treating allergic rhinitis. It has been used in Europe for more than 20 years, and interest in the United States is increasing. SLIT has been shown to elicit immunologic changes similar to subcutaneous injection immunotherapy. SLIT may prevent new sensitizations, improve asthma control, and decrease asthma development in allergic individuals. Although differences in antigen quantification and standardization make European dosing schemes difficult to translate in the United States, several new studies suggest the range for effective dosing. Further studies will help clarify optimal dosing., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Children with allergic rhinitis (AR) often experience significant impairment in quality of life and health, which increases health care utilization., Objective: To determine whether allergen immunotherapy reduces health care utilization and costs in children newly diagnosed as having AR using a retrospective matched cohort design., Methods: Among children (age <18 years) with a Florida Medicaid paid claim between 1997 and 2007, immunotherapy-treated patients were selected who had newly diagnosed AR, who had not received immunotherapy before their first (index) AR diagnosis, who had received at least 2 immunotherapy administrations after their index AR diagnosis, and who had at least 18 months of data after their first immunotherapy administration. A control group of patients with newly diagnosed AR who had not received immunotherapy either before or subsequent to their index AR diagnosis also were identified, and up to 5 were matched with each immunotherapy-treated patient by age at first AR diagnosis, sex, race/ethnicity, and diagnosis of asthma, conjunctivitis, or atopic dermatitis., Results: Immunotherapy-treated patients had significantly lower 18-month median per-patient total health care costs ($3,247 vs $4,872), outpatient costs exclusive of immunotherapy-related care ($1,107 vs $2,626), and pharmacy costs ($1,108 vs $1,316) compared with matched controls (P < .001 for all). The significant difference in total health care costs was evident 3 months after initiating immunotherapy and increased through study end., Conclusions: This study demonstrates the potential for early and significant cost savings in children with AR treated with immunotherapy. Greater use of this treatment in children could significantly reduce AR-related morbidity and its economic burden.

The spectrum of allergic disease involves both the upper and lower airways. Immunotherapy has been shown to produce immunologic changes that can result in the improvement of allergic diseases. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of injection and sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of rhinitis and asthma. Recent data suggest that immunotherapy may have a role in preventing the development of new sensitizations or in decreasing the progression of allergic disease from rhinitis to asthma. Models of immunotherapy may therefore transition from symptom-relieving treatments to preventive methodologies for the management of allergic disease.