RESUMEN
Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) can be used for controlled exposure to allergenic and non-allergenic airborne particles in an enclosed environment, in order to (i) characterize the pathological features of respiratory diseases and (ii) contribute to and accelerate the clinical development of pharmacological treatments and allergen immunotherapy for allergic disease of the respiratory tract (such as allergic rhinitis, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and allergic asthma). In the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency for the clinical development of products for allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the role of AECs in determining primary endpoints in dose-finding Phase II trials is emphasized. Although methodologically insulated from the variability of natural pollen exposure, chamber models remain confined to supporting secondary, rather than primary, endpoints in Phase III registration trials. The need for further validation in comparison with field exposure is clearly mandated. On this basis, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) initiated a Task Force in 2015 charged to gain a better understanding of how AECs can generate knowledge about respiratory allergies and can contribute to the clinical development of treatments. Researchers working with AECs worldwide were asked to provide technical information in eight sections: (i) dimensions and structure of the AEC, (ii) AEC staff, (iii) airflow, air processing, and operating conditions, (iv) particle dispersal, (v) pollen/particle counting, (vi) safety and non-contamination measures, (vii) procedures for symptom assessments, (viii) tested allergens/substances and validation procedures. On this basis, a minimal set of technical requirements for AECs applied to the field of allergology is proposed.
Asunto(s)
Asma , Rinitis Alérgica , Alérgenos , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Humanos , PolenAsunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/inmunología , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/terapia , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Polen/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/inmunología , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/terapia , Árboles/efectos adversos , Conjuntivitis Alérgica/diagnóstico , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Humanos , Rinitis Alérgica Estacional/diagnóstico , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/efectos adversos , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/métodos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim is to review recent literature up to July 2013 concerning the effect of allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) on asthma. AIT, effective in combined allergic rhinitis and asthma, was previously described as a convenient approach able to improve clinical outcomes and reduce bronchial hyperresponsiveness. In addition, long-term and preventive effects on the onset of new sensitizations and progression from allergic rhinitis to asthma have been shown. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent investigations, mainly based on observational or small open trials, confirmed previous findings, showing improvement in asthma control, symptoms and medication usage and steroid-sparing effects, sometimes inconsistent with changes in lung function. Some meta-analyses support the clinical benefit on adult and paediatric asthma. Only few trials, however, were specifically designed to explore asthma endpoints. SUMMARY: Clinical studies primarily have focused on AIT, and research on asthma endpoints is scarce; however, the evidence of beneficial effect of AIT for the treatment of adults and children affected by allergic rhinitis with or without asthma suggests that this treatment can favourably affect asthma. In children, sublingual AIT has been more extensively investigated than injective. Confirmatory, adequately powered trials are needed to reinforce the evidence of efficacy for individual AIT products. The main drawback in using injective AIT for asthma is the risk of serious adverse reactions and uncontrolled asthma. The sublingual route is better tolerated and does not appear inferior. As standard controller pharmacotherapy seems unable to affect the natural course of asthma, the potentially disease-modifying effect of AIT represents an appealing perspective that requires further investigation.
Asunto(s)
Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Asma/inmunología , Desensibilización Inmunológica/tendencias , Administración Sublingual , Adulto , Niño , Quimioterapia/tendencias , Humanos , Inmunosupresores/administración & dosificación , Inmunosupresores/inmunología , Inmunosupresores/uso terapéutico , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
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.
The cure for allergic people is named allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Recently, AIT uses new substances named allergoids. This study has shown that AIT with allergoids is very safe.
Asunto(s)
Rinitis Alérgica , Inmunoterapia Sublingual , Niño , Humanos , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/efectos adversos , Alergoides , Farmacovigilancia , Desensibilización Inmunológica/efectos adversos , Desensibilización Inmunológica/métodos , Inyecciones Subcutáneas , Alérgenos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
Aims of the Monaco Charter: (1) to present the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) and to address the reasons for its underuse in clinical practice; (2) to develop strategies to increase the awareness about the benefits and the hazards of SIT in allergic patients, lay public and healthcare professionals not trained in allergy, and (3) to make SIT accessible and affordable to eligible patients.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/inmunología , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad/terapia , Alérgenos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Difusión de la Información , Mónaco , Educación del Paciente como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To perform a structured analysis of the latest scientific evidence obtained for the clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, reference lists from reviews, and personal databases were reviewed for original articles on clinical trials with SLIT in patients younger than 18 years published from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2012, using broad search and medical subject heading terms. STUDY SELECTIONS: Clinical trials, irrespective of their design, of SLIT in the treatment of respiratory and food allergy in patients 18 years or younger were selected. Clinical outcomes (symptom scores, medication use, provocation tests, pulmonary function tests, skin prick tests, and adverse events) and immunologic changes were tabulated. Quality of each trial and total quality of compounded evidence was analyzed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Of 56 articles, 29 met the inclusion criteria. New evidence is robust for the precoseasonal tablet and drop grass pollen SLIT efficacy in allergic rhinitis and scarce for seasonal asthma. Some evidence for Alternaria SLIT efficacy is appearing. For house dust mite (HDM) SLIT in asthma, there is high-quality evidence for medication reduction while maintaining symptom control; evidence for HDM SLIT efficacy in allergic rhinitis is of moderate-low quality. There is moderate evidence for efficacy of dual grass pollen-HDM SLIT after 12 months of treatment and 1 year after discontinuation. Specific provocation test results (nasal, skin) improve with grass pollen and HDM SLIT but nonspecific bronchial provocation testing does not. Food oral immunotherapy is more promising than food SLIT. Possible new surrogate markers have been reported. No anaphylaxis was found among 2469 treated children. CONCLUSION: Evidence for efficacy of SLIT in children with respiratory or food allergy is growing.
Asunto(s)
Desensibilización Inmunológica , Hipersensibilidad/terapia , Administración Sublingual , Adolescente , Alérgenos/administración & dosificación , Alérgenos/inmunología , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Hipersensibilidad/diagnóstico , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is effective in reducing the clinical symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis, asthma and venom-induced anaphylaxis. Subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with unmodified allergen extracts are the most widely prescribed AIT regimens. The efficacy of these 2 routes appears comparable, but the safety profile with SLIT is more favorable allowing for home administration and requiring less patient time. However, both require that the treatment is taken regularly over several years, e.g., monthly in a supervised medical setting with SCIT and daily at home with SLIT. Despite the difference in treatment settings, poor adherence has been reported with both routes. Emerging evidence suggests that AIT may be effective in other allergic conditions such as atopic dermatitis, venom sting-induced large local reactions, and food allergy. Research with oral immunotherapy (OIT) for food allergies suggest that many patients can be desensitized during treatment, but questions remain about whether this can produce long term tolerance. Further studies are needed to identify appropriate patients and treatment regimens with these conditions. Efforts to develop safer and more effective AIT for inhalant allergies have led to investigations with modified allergens and alternate routes. Intralymphatic (ILIT) has been shown to produce long-lasting clinical benefits after three injections comparable to a 3-year course of SCIT. Epicutaneous (EPIT) has demonstrated promising results for food and inhalant allergies. Vaccine modifications, such as T cell epitopes or the use of viral-like particles as an adjuvant, have been shown to provide sustained clinical benefits after a relatively short course of treatment compared to the currently available AIT treatments, SLIT and SCIT. These newer approaches may increase the utilization and adherence to AIT because the multi-year treatment requirement of currently available AIT is a likely deterrent for initiating and adhering to treatment.
Asunto(s)
Anafilaxia/terapia , Asma/terapia , Desensibilización Inmunológica , Rinitis Alérgica Perenne/terapia , Adyuvantes Inmunológicos , Alérgenos , Humanos , Rinitis AlérgicaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It is well known that physical exercise can trigger asthma symptoms and can induce bronchial obstruction in people without clinical asthma. International guidelines on asthma management recommend the use of beta2-agonists at any stage of the disease. At present, however, no consensus has been reached about the efficacy and safety of beta2-agonists in the pretreatment of exercise-induced asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. For the purpose of the present review, both of these conditions are referred to by the acronymous EIA, independently from the presence of an underlying chronic clinical disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of inhaled short- and long-acting beta2-agonists, compared with placebo, in the pretreatment of children and adults with exercise-induced asthma (or exercise-induced bronchoconstriction). SEARCH METHODS: Trials were identified by electronic searching of the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials and by handsearching of respiratory journals and meetings. Searches are current as of August 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any study design, published in full text, that assessed the effects of inhaled beta2-agonists on EIA in adults and children. We excluded studies that did not clearly state diagnostic criteria for EIA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 trials consisting of 1139 participants. Forty-eight studies used a cross-over design, and five were performed in accordance with a parallel-group design. Forty-five studies addressed the effect of a single beta2-agonist administration, and eight focused on long-term treatment. We addressed these two different intervention regimens as different comparisons.Among primary outcomes for short-term administration, data on maximum fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) showed a significant protective effect for both short-acting beta-agonists (SABA) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) compared with placebo, with a mean difference of -17.67% (95% confidence interval (CI) -19.51% to -15.84%, P = 0.00001, 799 participants from 72 studies). The subgroup analysis of studies performed in adults compared with those performed in children showed high heterogeneity confined to children, despite the comparable mean bronchoprotective effect.Secondary outcomes on other pulmonary function parameters confirmed a more positive and protective effect of beta2-agonists on EIA compared with placebo. Occurrence of side effects was not significantly different between beta2-agonists and placebo.Overall evaluation of the included long-term studies suggests a beta2-agonist bronchoprotective effect for the first dose of treatment. However, long-term use of both SABA and LABA induced the onset of tolerance and decreased the duration of drug effect, even after a short treatment period. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of low to moderate quality shows that beta2-agonists, both SABA and LABA, when administered in a single dose, are effective and safe in preventing EIA.Long-term regular administration of inhaled beta2-agonists induces tolerance and lacks sufficient safety data. This finding appears to be of particular clinical relevance in view of the potential for prolonged regular use of beta2-agonists as monotherapy in the pretreatment of EIA, despite the warnings of drug agencies (FDA, EMA) regarding LABA.
Asunto(s)
Antagonistas de Receptores Adrenérgicos beta 2/administración & dosificación , Asma Inducida por Ejercicio/tratamiento farmacológico , Broncodilatadores/administración & dosificación , Administración por Inhalación , Adulto , Broncoconstricción , Niño , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado/efectos de los fármacos , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
The practice of administering sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy is gaining more and more diffusion worldwide as a consequence of the robust demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety provided by recent high-powered and well-designed studies, confirming for individual seasonal allergens the results of previous metanalyses in adult and pediatric populations. Preliminary evidence derives from recent rigorous trials on perennial allergens, like house dust mites, and specifically designed studies addressed the benefits on asthma. Emerging research suggests that SLIT may have a future role in other allergic conditions such as atopic dermatitis, food, latex and venom allergy. Efforts to develop a safer and more effective SLIT for inhalant allergens have led to the development of allergoids, recombinant allergens and formulations with adjuvants and substances targeting antigens to dendritic cells that possess a crucial role in initiating immune responses. The high degree of variation in the evaluation of clinical effects and immunological changes requires further studies to identify the candidate patients to SLIT and biomarkers of short and long term efficacy. Appropriate management strategies are urgently needed to overcome the barriers to SLIT compliance.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/metabolismo , Hipersensibilidad Respiratoria/inmunología , Hipersensibilidad Respiratoria/terapia , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/métodos , Adyuvantes Inmunológicos , Adulto , Alérgenos/genética , Alérgenos/inmunología , Presentación de Antígeno , Niño , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Humanos , Cooperación del Paciente , Proteínas Recombinantes/genética , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/tendenciasRESUMEN
The practice of administering sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy is gaining more and more diffusion worldwide as a consequence of the robust demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety provided by recent high-powered and well-designed studies, confirming for individual seasonal allergens the results of previous metanalyses in adult and pediatric populations. Preliminary evidence derives from recent rigorous trials on perennial allergens, like house dust mites, and specifically designed studies addressed the benefits on asthma. Emerging research suggests that SLIT may have a future role in other allergic conditions such as atopic dermatitis, food, latex and venom allergy. Efforts to develop a safer and more effective SLIT for inhalant allergens have led to the development of allergoids, recombinant allergens and formulations with adjuvants and substances targeting antigens to dendritic cells that possess a crucial role in initiating immune responses. The high degree of variation in the evaluation of clinical effects and immunological changes requires further studies to identify the candidate patients to SLIT and biomarkers of short and long term efficacy. Appropriate management strategies are urgently needed to overcome the barriers to SLIT compliance.
RESUMEN
Background: Fexofenadine emerged as one of the most representative second generation histamine H1 antagonist drugs since the 1990s, with an outstanding efficacy and appreciable safety for the treatment of allergic patients. While allergic rhino-conjunctivitis represents the most frequent atopic disease globally, an update of fexofenadine efficacy and safety on this entity was proposed as a surrogate of allergic condition. Methods: Double blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of fexofenadine for the treatment of Allergic Rhinitis were searched in 5 major global databases. Eligibility criteria and characteristics, risk of bias, and validity assessment, data extraction and heterogeneity evaluation are described. Primary outcome selected corresponded to 12-reflective and instantaneous total symptom scores (TSS), besides morning instantaneous TSS and the frequency of reported adverse events (AEs); analysis was planned on the intention-to-treat population.Standardized mean differences of scoring systems were analyzed, and Cochran's Q statistic test and the I2 test were assessed for heterogeneity. Results: From the initial 83 identified records, 12 eligible studies were selected. In the evaluated patients, individuals receiving fexofenadine (1910) showed a significant reduction of TSS compared with those who received placebo (1777), change from baseline: standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.33; 95% CI-0.47 to -0.18, p < 0.0001. Morning instantaneous TSS also demonstrated lower symptoms (change from baseline: SMS -1.42; 95% CI -2.22 to -0.62, p = 0.0005). Heterogeneity was found across selected studies.Frequency of AEs was similar compared to placebo (OR = 1.04; 0.88-1.21), with no detection of heterogeneity across these 12 studies. Conclusions: According to this new evidence, fexofenadine maintains its beneficial profile on signs and symptoms of patients with allergic conditions, as well as its attributes as one of the major candidates for an ideal antihistamine medication (including special conditions such as pregnancy and pre-school age), providing support to its over-the-counter condition in several countries.
RESUMEN
Background: real-life studies are encouraged to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). In this context, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of carbamylated monomeric allergoid subcutaneous immunotherapy (MA-SCIT), along with patient satisfaction. Methods: a total of 291 patients with rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma with inhalant (house dust mite, grass, and pellitory) allergies were enrolled in this study. Perceived efficacy and perceived satisfaction with MA-SCIT, symptom score by VAS, ARIA classification of rhinitis, drug consumption, number of asthma worsening episodes, and asthma symptom control were evaluated by questionnaires before, after one year, at the end of treatment, and after one or two years of MA-SCIT. Results: the overall symptom score significantly decreased over the years of MA-SCIT, irrespective of specific sensitization (p < 0.01). There was a substantial amelioration of rhinitis severity, with a significant reduction (p < 0.01) in drug use. A significant reduction was observed in the asthma symptom VAS score and asthma-worsening episodes requiring systemic steroids. None of the patients reported any severe adverse reactions. Finally, 90% of the patients reported full satisfaction with the treatment. Conclusions: the study showed that AIT with carbamylated monomeric allergoids of grass, pellitory, and mites was effective and well tolerated by patients.
RESUMEN
Aim: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is significantly less concerned by systemic reactions than subcutaneous immunotherapy. Allergoids were introduced to reduce systemic reaction to subcutaneous immunotherapy, but may also be used for SLIT. Methods: This pharmacovigilance study evaluated the post-marketing reports collected in a safety database, including the number and the type (serious or not serious) of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in Italy by SLIT with the carbamylated monomeric allergoid (CMA). Results: More than 15,000,000 CMA tablets were administered, with 25 spontaneous reports of ADRs, only two being serious. Conclusion: The rate of ADRs to CMA we found in this pharmacovigilance survey, corresponding to 0.0004% of all administered doses, is far lower than the rates commonly reported for allergen SLIT products.
Asunto(s)
Alergoides/efectos adversos , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/efectos adversos , Alérgenos/química , Alergoides/administración & dosificación , Alergoides/química , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Humanos , Italia/epidemiología , Farmacovigilancia , Carbamilación de Proteína , Seguridad , Inmunoterapia Sublingual/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have documented the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in patients with rhinitis, but the value of this treatment in those with asthma is still debated. We evaluated the efficacy of SLIT in the treatment of allergic asthma in children by a metaanalysis of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled (DBPC) clinical trials. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched up to May 31, 2006, for randomized DBPC trials assessing SLIT in pediatric cases of asthma. Effects on primary outcomes (ie, symptom scores and concomitant use of rescue medication) were calculated with standardized mean differences (SMDs) using the random-effects model. We performed the metaanalysis using a statistical software package (RevMan, 4.2.8; The Cochrane Collaboration; Oxford, UK), and we followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Quality of Reporting of Metaanalyses guidelines. RESULTS: Seventy-three articles were identified and reviewed. Nine studies, all published after 1990, fulfilled the selection criteria. A total of 441 patients had a final assessment and were included in the analysis. Two hundred thirty-two patients received SLIT, and 209 patients received placebo. The results of the present analysis demonstrated a relevant heterogeneity due to widely differing scoring systems. Overall, there was a significant reduction in both symptoms (SMD - 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 2.10 to - 0.18; p = 0.02) and medication use (SMD, - 1.63; 95% CI, - 2.83 to - 0.44; p = 0.007) following SLIT. CONCLUSION: SLIT with standardized extracts reduces both symptom scores and rescue medication use in children with allergic asthma compared with placebo.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos/administración & dosificación , Asma/tratamiento farmacológico , Inmunoterapia/métodos , Administración Sublingual , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Humanos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
We tested the hypothesis that contact allergy plays a role in chronic urticaria, and included the Italian series of patch tests in the diagnostic workup. Of 121 patients with chronic urticaria, 50 (41%) tested positive to contact allergens. In all patients, avoidance measures led to a complete remission within 1 month. We suggest that testing for contact sensitization can be helpful in the management of chronic urticaria.
Asunto(s)
Alérgenos , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/complicaciones , Urticaria/etiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Alérgenos/inmunología , Enfermedad Crónica , Cosméticos/efectos adversos , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/diagnóstico , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/dietoterapia , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/inmunología , Dermatitis Alérgica por Contacto/terapia , Detergentes/efectos adversos , Dieta/efectos adversos , Femenino , Artículos Domésticos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Níquel/efectos adversos , Pruebas del Parche , Inducción de Remisión , Urticaria/dietoterapia , Urticaria/inmunología , Urticaria/terapiaRESUMEN
AIM: To determine the optimal effective and safe dose of sublingual immunotherapy tablets containing carbamylated monomeric allergoids in patients with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter, Phase II study, four different daily doses were applied preseasonally for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of 158 randomized adults, 155 subjects (safety population) received 300 units of allergy (UA)/day (n = 36), 600 UA/day (n = 43), 1000 UA/day (n = 39), or 2000 UA/day (n = 37). After treatment, 54.3, 47.6, 59.0 and 51.4% of patients, respectively, ceased to react to the highest allergen concentration in a conjunctival provocation test. Furthermore, the response threshold improved in 70.4, 62.9, 76.7 and 66.7% of patients, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: This study found 1000 UA/day to be the optimal effective and safe dose.