International Consensus on Allergen Immunotherapy II: Mechanisms, standardization, and pharmacoeconomics.

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.

International consensus on allergy immunotherapy.

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.

Allergen immunotherapy practice patterns: a worldwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Allergists around the world have different practice styles when administering subcutaneous aeroallergen immunotherapy (IT) in peak pollen seasons, especially when changing doses or frequency of IT. The Immunotherapy practice parameters do not specifically address this issue. OBJECTIVE: Given the paucity of good data about adjustment of allergen immunotherapy during the pollen seasons, we examined whether a significant difference is present in the way allergists administer immunotherapy during allergy seasons. METHODS: To quantify the practice styles of allergists who are members of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI), a self-reported electronic survey was disseminated in September 2010 with the help of the AAAAI Needs Assessment Committee. The responses were tallied and analyzed according to demographic information. RESULTS: A total of 1,201 allergists in the AAAAI responded to the survey. Most responders practice in an urban or suburban nonacademic practice in the United States and have been in practice for more than 10 years. The size of their practice was variable. Those in practice for more than 10 years were more likely to adjust the dose and frequency of immunotherapy in pollen seasons. CONCLUSION: This survey highlights the differences in the practice styles of AAAAI member allergists, and these differences may be associated with their demographic characteristics. Given the wide variability in how allergists adjust dose and frequency of immunotherapy during pollen seasons, establishing guidelines regarding this routine dilemma might help standardize the delivery of treatment to patients.

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement applied to allergen-specific immunotherapy with inhalant allergens: a Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN) article.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials provide evidence to inform treatment decisions. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement is a set of recommendations for the reporting of trials. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the quality of reporting allergen-specific immunotherapy trials according to CONSORT criteria. METHODS: The reporting of the procedure, randomization, dropouts, strict conduct of intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, and sample size calculation according to CONSORT were assessed in the 46 subcutaneous and 48 sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) blind, placebo-controlled randomized trials published between 1996 and 2009 in English. RESULTS: One subcutaneous immunotherapy (2.2%) and 3 SLIT (6.6%) trials met CONSORT Statement criteria. These were used for the registration of sublingual tablets to the European Medicines Agency. In subcutaneous immunotherapy, 16 (35%) studies reported a CONSORT flow chart, and 12 (26%) provided a description of dropouts. Adequate randomization was reported in 9 (35%) studies, and incomplete randomization was reported in 15 (33%). Power analysis was reported in 15 (33%) studies. In SLIT, 20 (42%) studies reported a CONSORT flow chart, and 16 (32%) a description of dropouts. ITT analysis was carried out in 1 (2.2%) SLIT study, and a modified ITT analysis was used in 1 (2.2%) subcutaneous immunotherapy study and 2 (4.4%) SLIT studies. Adequate randomization was reported in 6 (12%) studies, and incomplete randomization was reported in 16 (32%). Power analysis was reported in 15 (27%) studies. CONCLUSION: As in other areas of medicine, the quality of reporting of most immunotherapy trials is low, and only 4.2% of SLIT randomized controlled trials met all of the criteria of the CONSORT Statement. Use of the CONSORT criteria should be encouraged.