The Effective Allergenic Reactivity of House Dust Mite Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets Is Determined by Tablet Formulation.

House dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the form of SLIT-tablets is now an established treatment option for HDM allergy and HDM-induced allergic asthma. In SLIT-tablet immunotherapy allergen extracts are formulated as dry tablets and administered under the tongue where it must be solubilized in saliva in order to be able to interact with the immune system of the sublingual mucosa. Solubilization of the extract must occur within a short time span of about one minute after administration, determined by the sublingual holding time recommended by the manufacturer. Currently, two types of HDM SLIT-tablets are available. Both tablet types contain natural HDM extracts from two common HDM species as the active ingredient, but differ with regard to formulation as one tablet type is based on a freeze-dried tablet formulation while the other is based on a compressed formulation. HDM extracts contain a number of major and minor allergens, which in combination provide the allergenic activity that drives the immunological response and in turn the clinical efficacy of the tablets. Here, a biologically relevant human immunoglobulin E (IgE)-based assay is used to compare the ability of the two HDM SLIT-tablet types to deliver HDM allergenic reactivity from the dry tablet into soluble form. The experiments demonstrate that the freeze-dried formulation delivers HDM allergenic activity into solution faster and more efficiently than the compressed formulation.

Bioavailability of House Dust Mite Allergens in Sublingual Allergy Tablets Is Highly Dependent on the Formulation.

BACKGROUND: In sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), the immune system is addressed by solubilized allergen that interacts with immunocompetent cells of the oral mucosa, the efficiency of which is governed by 2 main factors of SLIT allergen bioavailability: the allergen concentration and the mucosal contact time. Recently, 3 house dust mite (HDM) SLIT tablets were developed that differ with regard to allergen content, nominal strength (maintenance doses: 6 SQ-HDM/10,000 Japanese Allergen Units [JAU], 12 SQ-HDM/ 20,000 JAU, and 300 IR/57,000 JAU), and formulation (freeze-dried/compressed). Here, the importance of the SLIT tablet formulation for HDM major allergen bioavailability is examined. METHODS: The HDM major allergen content, tablet disintegration times, and allergen release kinetics were determined. Dissolution kinetics (allergen concentration vs. time) of Der f 1, Der p 1, and Der 2 were measured. Area under the curve (AUC) was used as a surrogate parameter for allergen bioavailability. RESULTS: The release of HDM major allergens from the freeze-dried tablets was complete after 30 s, while only partial release was achieved with the compressed tablets, even after prolonged dissolution. At 1 min, i.e., the recommended sublingual holding time for the freeze-dried tablets, the allergen bioavailability (AUC) of the compressed 300 IR/57,000 JAU tablet was 4.7-fold (Der f 1), 10.8-fold (Der p 1), and 23.6-fold (Der 2) lower than that of the freeze-dried 12 SQ-HDM/20,000 JAU tablet and similar to (Der f 1) and 5.3-fold (Der p 1) and 12.5-fold (Der 2) lower than that of the freeze-dried 6 SQ-HDM/10,000 JAU tablet. CONCLUSIONS: SLIT tablet allergen bioavailability depends highly on the tablet formulation. Only the fast-dissolving freeze-dried tablets provide maximal delivery of soluble allergens and achieve allergen concentrations that reflect the nominal tablet strengths within the recommended sublingual holding time.

The Importance of Tablet Formulation on Allergen Release Kinetics and Efficiency: Comparison of Freeze-dried and Compressed Grass Pollen Sublingual Allergy Immunotherapy Tablet Formulations.

PURPOSE: Efficient delivery of allergens to the sublingual mucosa is a prerequisite for successful sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for allergy, and in order to become available to immune-competent cells embedded in the sublingual mucosa, allergens need to be delivered in a soluble form. Delivery of solubilized allergens poses a particular challenge for tablet-based allergy immunotherapy, in which allergens are administered under the tongue in the form of dry tablets and need to be dissolved rapidly in a small volume of saliva, with little or no agitation. The purposes of this article were to compare the properties of 2 different pharmaceutical SLIT-tablet formulations, freeze-dried and compressed, and to examine how the tablet formulation affects the efficiency with which allergen is delivered from the dry state of the tablet into soluble form. METHODS: Two SLIT-tablet formulations, both indicated for grass pollen allergic rhinitis and containing grass pollen extract as the active ingredient, were examined with regard to tablet disintegration times, allergen dissolution kinetics, dependency on solvent volume and agitation, and the achieved recovery of the grass allergen content in soluble form with each tablet. FINDINGS: The freeze-dried and the compressed SLIT-tablet formulations differed markedly with respect to efficiency of allergen release. The freeze-dried tablet disintegrated faster and released grass allergen into solution with a release rate higher than that of the compressed formulation and, in contrast to the compressed formulation, achieved full recovery of the allergen content in soluble form in a small volume of solvent. IMPLICATIONS: Rapid and complete release of soluble allergen in a small volume of solvent, as demonstrated by the freeze-dried formulation, are key elements of efficient sublingual allergen delivery by SLIT-tablets. Complete allergen release means that the full allergen dose of the tablet is recovered from the tablet and made available to the sublingual immune system in soluble form, and rapid release ensures that the immune system becomes exposed to the highest possible dose of soluble allergen for the maximal duration before swallowing. In contrast, a SLIT-tablet formulation that provides incomplete and slower allergen release will likely require a higher allergen content compared to the more efficient formulation, in order to achieve the same dose of soluble allergen, consequently leading to an excess load of allergen that becomes swallowed without having been made immunologically available.