Integrating the evidence in allergen immunotherapy: Why real-world data should be important for the practicing clinician?

Data obtained from controlled clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluation of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) efficacy and safety. Less prone to biases (with a strong internal validity), they allow their use and external validation in the real world. The quantity and diversity of real-world data has increased exponentially, and access to large cohorts and electronic medical records have made this information increasingly accessible and useful for research and regulatory purposes. New retrospective database studies have confirmed the sustained benefits of grass, birch pollen, and house dust mite AIT for both allergic rhinitis and asthma symptom and medication scores, the prevention of asthma (when used in nonasthmatic rhinitics), and the real rate of adverse systemic reactions. They also have addressed clinical practice issues not elsewhere analyzed, including the management of polysensitized patients with respiratory allergies and adherence to AIT. Real-world evidence has its own biases and limits that need to be taken into account. In this article we present a concise summary of the literature about the role of real-world evidence in AIT.

Personalized medicine for allergy treatment: Allergen immunotherapy still a unique and unmatched model.

The introduction of personalized medicine (PM) has been a milestone in the history of medical therapy, because it has revolutionized the previous approach of treating the disease with that of treating the patient. It is known today that diseases can occur in different genetic variants, making specific treatments of proven efficacy necessary for a given endotype. Allergic diseases are particularly suitable for PM, because they meet the therapeutic success requirements, including a known molecular mechanism of the disease, a diagnostic tool for such disease, and a treatment blocking the mechanism. The stakes of PM in allergic patients are molecular diagnostics, to detect specific IgE to single-allergen molecules and to distinguish the causative molecules from those merely cross-reactive, pursuit of patient's treatable traits addressing genetic, phenotypic, and psychosocial features, and omics, such as proteomics, epi-genomics, metabolomics, and breathomics, to forecast patient's responsiveness to therapies, to detect biomarker and mediators, and to verify the disease control. This new approach has already improved the precision of allergy diagnosis and is likely to significantly increase, through the higher performance achieved with the personalized treatment, the effectiveness of allergen immunotherapy by enhancing its already known and unique characteristics of treatment that acts on the causes.

Next-generation Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines for allergic rhinitis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and real-world evidence.

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis aims to control the disease and depends on many factors. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines have considerably improved the treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, there is an increasing trend toward use of real-world evidence to inform clinical practice, especially because randomized controlled trials are often limited with regard to the applicability of results. The Contre les Maladies Chroniques pour un Vieillissement Actif (MACVIA) algorithm has proposed an allergic rhinitis treatment by a consensus group. This simple algorithm can be used to step up or step down allergic rhinitis treatment. Next-generation guidelines for the pharmacologic treatment of allergic rhinitis were developed by using existing GRADE-based guidelines for the disease, real-world evidence provided by mobile technology, and additive studies (allergen chamber studies) to refine the MACVIA algorithm.

Nasal allergen-neutralizing IgG4 antibodies block IgE-mediated responses: Novel biomarker of subcutaneous grass pollen immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Grass pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is associated with induction of serum IgG4-associated inhibitory antibodies that prevent IgE-facilitated allergen binding to B cells. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether SCIT induces nasal allergen-specific IgG4 antibodies with inhibitory activity that correlates closely with clinical response. METHODS: In a cross-sectional controlled study, nasal fluid and sera were collected during the grass pollen season from 10 SCIT-treated patients, 13 untreated allergic patients (with seasonal allergic rhinitis [SAR]), and 12 nonatopic control subjects. Nasal and serum IgE and IgG4 levels to Phleum pratense components were measured by using the Immuno Solid Allergen Chip microarray. Inhibitory activity was measured by IgE-facilitated allergen binding assay. IL-10+ regulatory B cells were quantified in peripheral blood by using flow cytometry. RESULTS: Nasal and serum Phl p 1- and Phl p 5-specific IgE levels were increased in patients with SAR compared to nonatopic control subjects (all, P < .001) and SCIT-treated patients (nasal, P < .001; serum Phl p 5, P = .073). Nasal IgG4 levels were increased in the SCIT group compared to those in the SAR group (P < .001) during the pollen season compared to out of season. IgG-associated inhibitory activity in nasal fluid and serum was significantly increased in the SCIT group compared to that in the SAR (both, P < .01). The magnitude of the inhibitory activity was 93% (P < .001) in nasal fluid compared to 66% (P < .001) in serum and was reversed after depletion of IgG. Both nasal fluid (r = -0.69, P = .0005) and serum (r = -0.552, P = .0095) blocking activity correlated with global symptom improvement. IL-10+ regulatory B cells were increased in season compared to out of season in the SCIT group (P < .01). CONCLUSION: For the first time, we show that nasal IgG4-associated inhibitory activity correlates closely with the clinical response to allergen immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis with or without asthma.

Mind the gaps: Clinical trial concepts to address unanswered questions in aeroallergen immunotherapy-An NIAID/AHRQ Workshop.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases organized a workshop to develop trial concepts that could improve the use and effectiveness of aeroallergen immunotherapy (AAIT). Expert groups were formed to accomplish the following tasks: (1) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous versus sublingual AAIT; (2) propose a study design to compare the effectiveness and safety of AAIT by using 1 or a few allergens versus all or most allergens to which a patient is sensitized; (3) propose a study design to determine whether AAIT can alter the progression of childhood allergic airways disease; and (4) propose a study design to determine the optimal dose and duration of AAIT to achieve maximal effectiveness with acceptable safety. Study designs were presented by the workgroups, extensively discussed at the workshop, and revised for this report. The proposed trials would be of long duration and require large highly characterized patient populations. Scientific caveats and feasibility matters are discussed. These concepts are intended to help the development of clinical trials that can address some of the major questions related to the practice of AAIT for the management and prevention of allergic airways disease.

2019 ARIA Care pathways for allergen immunotherapy.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a proven therapeutic option for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma. Many guidelines or national practice guidelines have been produced but the evidence-based method varies, many are complex and none propose care pathways. This paper reviews care pathways for AIT using strict criteria and provides simple recommendations that can be used by all stakeholders including healthcare professionals. The decision to prescribe AIT for the patient should be individualized and based on the relevance of the allergens, the persistence of symptoms despite appropriate medications according to guidelines as well as the availability of good-quality and efficacious extracts. Allergen extracts cannot be regarded as generics. Immunotherapy is selected by specialists for stratified patients. There are no currently available validated biomarkers that can predict AIT success. In adolescents and adults, AIT should be reserved for patients with moderate/severe rhinitis or for those with moderate asthma who, despite appropriate pharmacotherapy and adherence, continue to exhibit exacerbations that appear to be related to allergen exposure, except in some specific cases. Immunotherapy may be even more advantageous in patients with multimorbidity. In children, AIT may prevent asthma onset in patients with rhinitis. mHealth tools are promising for the stratification and follow-up of patients.

Guideline recommendations on the use of allergen immunotherapy in house dust mite allergy: Time for a change?

Guidelines on the treatment of asthma, allergic rhinitis (AR), and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) lack recommendations for house dust mite (HDM) allergy. An expert panel reviewed current guidelines in the light of new data to assess whether guidelines could be improved. Most guidelines and key position papers did not provide specific recommendations on treatment of allergic asthma (AA) caused by HDM allergy, although some included AIT as a treatment option for AA in general. Around half of the guidelines stated that AIT with HDM extract was an effective treatment for AR, with several indicating sublingual immunotherapy as an option. This heterogeneity is caused by quality issues affecting studies of AIT with perennial allergens in patients with AA and AR, including use of different diagnosis and severity criteria, lack of consistent scoring or grading systems for primary and safety outcomes, and lack of consensus on treatment parameters. There is a need for well-designed clinical trials to serve as a basis for guideline recommendations. Although results from recent studies strengthen the evidence base for the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy in patients with HDM-induced AA and AR, their effect on subsequent guideline updates will depend on the methodology and evidence model used by each guideline.

Collaboration between specialties for respiratory allergies in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11.

BACKGROUND: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) has been grouping the allergic and hypersensitivity disorders involving the respiratory tract under topographic distribution, regardless of the underlying mechanisms, triggers or concepts currently in use for allergic and hypersensitivity conditions. In order to strengthen awareness and deliberate the creation of the new "Allergic or hypersensitivity disorders involving the respiratory tract" section of the ICD-11, we here propose make the building process public. METHODS: The new frame has been constructed to cover the gaps previously identified and was based on consensus academic reports and ICD-11 principles. Constant and bilateral discussion was kept with relevant groups representing specialties and resulted in proposals submission into the ICD-11 online platform. RESULTS: The "Allergic or hypersensitivity disorders involving the respiratory tract" section covers 64 entities distributed across five main categories. All the 79 proposals submitted resulted from an intensive collaboration of the Allergy working group, relevant Expert working groups and the WHO ICD governance. CONCLUSION: The establishment of the ICD-11 "Allergic or hypersensitivity disorders involving the respiratory tract" section will allow the dissemination of the updated concepts to be used in clinical practice by many different specialties and health professionals.

The SQ House Dust Mite SLIT-Tablet Is Well Tolerated in Patients with House Dust Mite Respiratory Allergic Disease.

BACKGROUND: The SQ house dust mite (HDM) SLIT-tablet (ALK, Denmark) addresses the underlying cause of HDM respiratory allergic disease, and a clinical effect has been demonstrated for both HDM allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. Here, we present pooled safety data from an adult population with HDM respiratory allergy, with particular focus on the impact of asthma on the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet tolerability profile. METHODS: Safety data from 2 randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials were included: MT-04: 834 adults with HDM allergic asthma not well controlled by inhaled corticosteroids and with HDM allergic rhinitis, and MT-06: 992 adults with moderate-to-severe HDM allergic rhinitis despite the use of allergy pharmacotherapy and with or without asthma. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects experiencing adverse events (AEs) was greater in the active treatment group (12 SQ-HDM; 73% of subjects) compared to placebo (53%). The most common treatment-related AEs were local allergic reactions. No AEs were reported as systemic allergic reactions. Regardless of asthma status, most AEs were mild or moderate (>97% of AEs) and the frequency of serious AEs was low. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the risk of experiencing moderate or severe treatment-related AEs for subjects with asthma compared to subjects without asthma (p = 0.88). In addition, subjects with partly controlled or uncontrolled asthma were no more likely to experience moderate or severe treatment-related AEs than subjects with controlled asthma (p = 0.42). CONCLUSION: The SQ HDM SLIT-tablet is well tolerated, and the safety profile was comparable for subjects with HDM respiratory allergic disease irrespective of asthma status.

The European Survey on Adverse Systemic Reactions in Allergen Immunotherapy (EASSI): A paediatric assessment.

BACKGROUND: Safety data on 'real-life' allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in children and adolescents is usually extrapolated from studies in adults. METHODS: Patients aged 18 or under initiating aeroallergen AIT were evaluated in a prospective European survey. Patient profiles and systemic reactions (SRs) were recorded. Descriptive, univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify risk factors for SRs. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients (mean ± SD age: 11.7 ± 3.9 years; rhinitis: 93.7%; asthma: 61.5%; polysensitization: 62.5%) and 1578 courses of AIT were assessed. Single-allergen AIT was administered in 89.5% of cases (n = 1412; mites: 49%; grass pollen: 25.8%; tree pollen: 8.7%; Alternaria: 4.6%; dander: 0.8%; weed pollen: 0.6%). Subcutaneous AIT (SCIT) was used in 71.4% (n = 1127) of the treatments, including 574 (50.9%) with natural extracts. Sublingual AIT (SLIT) was used for the remaining 451 treatments (drops: 73.8%; tablets: 26.2%). The mean ± SD follow-up period was 12.9 ± 3.3 months. The estimated total number of doses was 19,669 for SCIT and 131,550 for SLIT. Twenty-four patients (1.53%) experienced 29 SRs. Respiratory (55.7%) and skin symptoms (37.9%) were most frequent. Anaphylaxis was diagnosed in 3 SRs (10.3%), and adrenaline was administered in 2 of these cases. In a univariate analysis, the risk of SRs was lower in mite-sensitized patients and higher in cases of pollen polysensitization (>3), grass pollen extracts and the use of natural extracts (vs. allergoids). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-life paediatric setting, AIT is safe. SRs are infrequent and generally not severe. Pollen polysensitization, grass pollen extracts and natural extracts (vs. allergoids) were risk factors for AIT-associated SRs.

Allergen immunotherapy for the prevention of allergy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Prevention of allergy.

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.

Physicians' experience and opinion on contraindications to allergen immunotherapy: The CONSIT survey.

BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment in allergy but several contraindications limit its use. OBJECTIVE: To collect the outcome of using AIT in theoretically contraindicated situations in real patients in the Contraindications to Specific ImmunoTherapy (CONSIT) survey. METHODS: The CONSIT is an electronic European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology survey conducted to gather the safety outcomes of patients undergoing subcutaneous, sublingual, or venom AIT and the opinions of physicians on each of 17 selected conditions: children younger than 5 years; starting AIT during pregnancy; controlled severe asthma; arrhythmias; coronary disease; cancer; autoimmune disease; bone marrow and solid organ transplantation; human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; previous anaphylaxis during AIT; use of ß-blockers, angiotensin-converting inhibitors, cyclosporine, and methotrexate; and inability to communicate. Safety using AIT was reported in a 3-point scale: 1, "no problems"; 2, "minor problems" (requiring only dose modifications); and 3, "major problems" (AIT not tolerated). Each physician was asked about the degree of contraindication that each condition should have: no contraindication (score 1), relative contraindication (score 2), or absolute contraindication (score 3). RESULTS: Five hundred twenty physicians (75% Europeans, 89% allergists) reported on approximately 45,000 patients undergoing AIT with any of these conditions. Major problems were infrequent, occurring more frequently in patients with asthma (9.9%) and with previous anaphylaxis from AIT (9.5%). Regarding opinions, experienced physicians scored a significantly lower mean for all conditions than non-experienced physicians for all routes. CONCLUSION: Major problems were infrequent and experienced physicians were less likely to be restrictive in the use of AIT.

Allergen Immunotherapy Clinical Trial Outcomes and Design: Working Toward Harmonization of Methods and Principles.

Progress has been made in the harmonization of efficacy and safety outcome measures for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) trials, but unresolved issues still remain. Furthermore, there are discrepancies in recommendations from professional medical societies and regulatory agencies regarding requirements for AIT trials. In this article, we reviewed published recommendations and current data from recent clinical trials, as well as the criteria applied by regulatory authorities for approval of AIT products, to provide updated considerations for conducting phase 3 AIT trials. Topics discussed include analysis of outcomes and trial designs for pediatric and asthma indications, as well as trial designs for perennial allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. In addition, the need for harmonization of safety reporting is emphasized. Considerations presented in this article may further effort to find common ground among professional medical societies and government agencies in developing future recommendations for AIT trial design.

Sublingual grass and ragweed immunotherapy: Clinical considerations-a PRACTALL consensus report.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy provides a new option for patients with allergic rhinitis in the United States. The efficacy of these sublingual immunotherapy tablets in the treatment of allergic rhinitis has been firmly established in large multicenter clinical trials. In addition, the clinical benefits of sublingual immunotherapy might persist after treatment is discontinued. Local reactions, such as gastrointestinal or oropharyngeal symptoms, are common. However, severe anaphylaxis is rare, and therefore the immunotherapy tablets can be administered at home. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis has been used successfully for years in Europe, and these products might be appropriate for patients who do not do well with standard drug therapy or for those who prefer a disease-modifying approach.

Short-term subcutaneous grass pollen immunotherapy under the umbrella of anti-IL-4: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy is currently the only disease-modifying treatment available for allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the induction of sustained tolerance to allergen when anti-IL-4 was combined with a suboptimal course of grass pollen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) using the allergen-induced skin late-phase response (LPR) and exploratory immune monitoring as surrogate markers of therapeutic response. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, 3-group parallel design trial, 37 participants with seasonal allergic rhinitis received suboptimal SCIT (30,000 standardized quality units) in combination with anti-IL-4 (VAK694) and suboptimal SCIT (30,000 standardized quality units) plus placebo antibody or double placebo (placebo SCIT and placebo antibody) restricted to 13 weeks before the grass pollen season. The primary end point was the size of the LPR at 12 months. Exploratory end points included measures of the immunomodulatory activity of treatment by using IL-4 and IL-10 FluoroSpot assays, flow cytometry of T cells, and measurement of IgE, IgG4, and facilitated antigen binding. RESULTS: Both active treatment arms led to a substantial and sustained reduction of the LPR with no additional suppression with addition of anti-IL-4. Treatment with anti-IL-4 and SCIT compared with SCIT alone led to a sustained reduction in allergen-specific IL-4-producing cell counts (P < .01). Both active treatment arms led to induction of dual IL-4/IL-10-producing cells during the pollen season. CONCLUSION: The combination of anti-IL-4 with SCIT provided no additional benefit over SCIT alone in suppressing the allergen-induced skin LPR. A larger trial is needed to assess whether the observed ex vivo downregulation of TH2 responses might translate into clinical benefit.

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.

MACVIA clinical decision algorithm in adolescents and adults with allergic rhinitis.

The selection of pharmacotherapy for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) depends on several factors, including age, prominent symptoms, symptom severity, control of AR, patient preferences, and cost. Allergen exposure and the resulting symptoms vary, and treatment adjustment is required. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) might be beneficial for the assessment of disease control. CDSSs should be based on the best evidence and algorithms to aid patients and health care professionals to jointly determine treatment and its step-up or step-down strategy depending on AR control. Contre les MAladies Chroniques pour un VIeillissement Actif en Languedoc-Roussillon (MACVIA-LR [fighting chronic diseases for active and healthy ageing]), one of the reference sites of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing, has initiated an allergy sentinel network (the MACVIA-ARIA Sentinel Network). A CDSS is currently being developed to optimize AR control. An algorithm developed by consensus is presented in this article. This algorithm should be confirmed by appropriate trials.

Effect of 2 Years of Treatment With Sublingual Grass Pollen Immunotherapy on Nasal Response to Allergen Challenge at 3 Years Among Patients With Moderate to Severe Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: The GRASS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Sublingual immunotherapy and subcutaneous immunotherapy are effective in seasonal allergic rhinitis. Three years of continuous treatment with subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy has been shown to improve symptoms for at least 2 years following discontinuation of treatment. Objective: To assess whether 2 years of treatment with grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy, compared with placebo, provides improved nasal response to allergen challenge at 3-year follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-parallel-group study performed in a single academic center, Imperial College London, of adult patients with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis (interfering with usual daily activities or sleep). First enrollment was March 2011, last follow-up was February 2015. Interventions: Thirty-six participants received 2 years of sublingual immunotherapy (daily tablets containing 15 µg of major allergen Phleum p 5 and monthly placebo injections), 36 received subcutaneous immunotherapy (monthly injections containing 20 µg of Phleum p 5 and daily placebo tablets) and 34 received matched double-placebo. Nasal allergen challenge was performed before treatment, at 1 and 2 years of treatment, and at 3 years (1 year after treatment discontinuation). Main Outcomes and Measures: Total nasal symptom scores (TNSS; range; 0 [best] to 12 [worst]) were recorded between 0 and 10 hours after challenge. The minimum clinically important difference for change in TNSS within an individual is 1.08. The primary outcome was TNSS comparing sublingual immunotherapy vs placebo at year 3. Subcutaneous immunotherapy was included as a positive control. The study was not powered to compare sublingual immunotherapy with subcutaneous immunotherapy. Results: Among 106 randomized participants (mean age, 33.5 years; 34 women [32.1%]), 92 completed the study at 3 years. In the intent-to-treat population, mean TNSS score for the sublingual immunotherapy group was 6.36 (95% CI, 5.76 to 6.96) at pretreatment and 4.73 (95% CI, 3.97 to 5.48) at 3 years, and for the placebo group, the score was 6.06 (95% CI, 5.23 to 6.88) at pretreatment and 4.81 (95% CI, 3.97 to 5.65) at 3 years. The between-group difference (adjusted for baseline) was -0.18 (95% CI, -1.25 to 0.90; [P = .75]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with moderate to severe seasonal allergic rhinitis, 2 years of sublingual grass pollen immunotherapy was not significantly different from placebo in improving the nasal response to allergen challenge at 3-year follow-up. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01335139; EudraCT Number: 2010-023536-16.