Exploring novel systemic biomarker approaches in grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy using omics.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy (SLIT) intervention improves the control of grass pollen allergy by maintaining allergen tolerance after cessation. Despite its widespread use, little is known about systemic effects and kinetics associated to SLIT, as well as the influence of the patient sensitization phenotype (Mono- or Poly-sensitized). In this quest, omics sciences could help to gain new insights to understand SLIT effects. METHODS: 47 grass-pollen-allergic patients were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial using GRAZAX® during 2 years. Immunological assays (sIgE, sIgG4, and ISAC) were carried out to 31 patients who finished the trial. Additionally, serum and PBMCs samples were analyzed by metabolomics and transcriptomics, respectively. Based on their sensitization level, 22 patients were allocated in Mono- or Poly-sensitized groups, excluding patients allergic to epithelia. Individuals were compared based on their treatment (Active/Placebo) and sensitization level (Mono/Poly). RESULTS: Kinetics of serological changes agreed with those previously described. At two years of SLIT, there are scarce systemic changes that could be associated to improvement in systemic inflammation. Poly-sensitized patients presented a higher inflammation at inclusion, while Mono-sensitized patients presented a reduced activity of mast cells and phagocytes as an effect of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The most relevant systemic change detected after two years of SLIT was the desensitization of effector cells, which was only detected in Mono-sensitized patients. This change may be related to the clinical improvement, as previously reported, and, together with the other results, may explain why clinical effect is lost if SLIT is discontinued at this point.

EAACI Allergen Immunotherapy User's Guide.

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient's profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient's adherence to the treatment. This user's guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.