Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3-5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.

Defining pollen exposure times for clinical trials of allergen immunotherapy for pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis - an EAACI position paper.

BACKGROUND: Clinical efficacy of pollen allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been broadly documented in randomized controlled trials. The underlying clinical endpoints are analysed in seasonal time periods predefined based on the background pollen concentration. However, any validated or generally accepted definition from academia or regulatory authorities for this relevant pollen exposure intensity or period of time (season) is currently not available. Therefore, this Task Force initiative of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) aimed to propose definitions based on expert consensus. METHODS: A Task Force of the Immunotherapy and Aerobiology and Pollution Interest Groups of the EAACI reviewed the literature on pollen exposure in the context of defining relevant time intervals for evaluation of efficacy in AIT trials. Underlying principles in measuring pollen exposure and associated methodological problems and limitations were considered to achieve a consensus. RESULTS: The Task Force achieved a comprehensive position in defining pollen exposure times for different pollen types. Definitions are presented for 'pollen season', 'high pollen season' (or 'peak pollen period') and 'high pollen days'. CONCLUSION: This EAACI position paper provides definitions of pollen exposures for different pollen types for use in AIT trials. Their validity as standards remains to be tested in future studies.

Understanding the molecular sensitization for Cypress pollen and peach in the Languedoc-Roussillon area.

BACKGROUND: Cypress allergy is a typical winter pollinosis and the most frequent one in the South of France. Main symptoms are rhinitis, conjunctivitis, and asthma. Peach allergy is common too in Southern Europe. Allergic cross-reactions between cypress and peach have been reported, including an oral allergy syndrome. We wanted to investigate whether a cross-reactive allergen between cypress and peach might be responsible for the observed clinical association. METHODS: We analyzed 127 patients included over a 3-month period, outside the pollen season, and we dosed specific IgE levels, for selected, individual allergens. RESULTS: Patients sensitized to peach were mainly positive for the peach-nonspecific lipid-transfer protein. CONCLUSIONS: Profilins or thaumatins could not explain the observed clinical association between cypress and peach.

Epidemiology of cypress pollen allergy in Montpellier.

BACKGROUND: Cupressaceae pollen allergy is a worldwide winter pollinosis. Exposure to cypress pollen has increased enormously during recent decades, and cypress pollen allergy has become a major health problem, especially in Mediterranean countries. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of cypress pollen sensitization and allergy in the Montpellier area and the symptoms presented by sensitized patients. METHODS: We included all 6185 consecutive patients who were referred to our center for any allergic disorder during a 36-month period. For each patient, we evaluated skin prick test results, allergy symptoms, pulmonary function test results, and the need for allergen immunotherapy. RESULTS: We found that 20.7% of patients were sensitized to cypress pollen and 46.4% presented symptoms during the pollen season. The main symptoms were rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma. Oral allergy syndrome to peach was detected in 4% of sensitized and symptomatic patients. Allergen immunotherapy was necessary to control symptoms in 57.9% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Cypress pollen allergy is one of the leading causes of respiratory allergy in the Montpellier area. Symptoms are often severe and include pollen-induced asthma. Moreover,many patients need allergen immunotherapy in order to achieve better control of their symptoms.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy: mode of action and its relationship with the safety profile.

Allergen immunotherapy reorients inappropriate immune responses in allergic patients. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been approved, notably in the European Union, as an effective alternative to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy (SCIT) for allergic rhinitis patients. Compared with SCIT, SLIT has a better safety profile. This is possibly because oral antigen-presenting cells (mostly Langerhans and myeloid dendritic cells) exhibit a tolerogenic phenotype, despite constant exposure to danger signals from food and microbes. This reduces the induction of pro-inflammatory immune responses leading to systemic allergic reactions. Oral tissues contain relatively few mast cells and eosinophils (mostly located in submucosal areas) and, in comparison with subcutaneous tissue, are less likely to give rise to anaphylactic reactions. SLIT-associated immune responses include the induction of circulating, allergen-specific Th1 and regulatory CD4+ T cells, leading to clinical tolerance. Although 40-75% of patients receiving SLIT experience mild, transient local reactions in the oral mucosa, these primary reactions rarely necessitate dose reduction or treatment interruption. We discuss 11 published case reports of anaphylaxis (all nonfatal) diagnosed according to the World Allergy Organization criteria and relate this figure to the approximately 1 billion SLIT doses administered worldwide since 2000. Anaphylaxis risk factors associated with SCIT and/or SLIT should be characterized further.

How to design and evaluate randomized controlled trials in immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an ARIA-GA(2) LEN statement.

Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is one of the treatments for allergic rhinitis. However, for allergists, nonspecialists, regulators, payers, and patients, there remain gaps in understanding the evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although treating the same diseases, RCTs in SIT and pharmacotherapy should be considered separately for several reasons, as developed in this study. These include the severity and persistence of allergic rhinitis in the patients enrolled in the study, the problem of the placebo, allergen exposure (in particular pollen and mite), the analysis and reporting of the study, the level of symptoms of placebo-treated patients, the clinical relevance of the efficacy of SIT, the need for a validated combined symptom-medication score, the differences between children and adults and pharmacoeconomic analyses. This statement reviews issues raised by the interpretation of RCTs in sublingual immunotherapy. It is not possible to directly extrapolate the rules or parameters used in medication RCTs to SIT. It also provides some suggestions for the research that will be needed. Interestingly, some of the research questions can be approached with the available data obtained from large RCTs.

The average Adjusted Symptom Score, a new primary efficacy end-point for specific allergen immunotherapy trials.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the efficacy of immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms is often evaluated with the average Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score (ARTSS). Effective treatment is associated with a lower ARTSS vs. placebo but use of rescue medication to alleviate symptoms reduces the RTSS and decreases the mean difference between active treatment and placebo groups. OBJECTIVE: To develop and describe the average Adjusted Symptom Score (AdSS), a new end-point reflecting symptom severity and rescue medication use in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis trials. METHODS: To calculate the AdSS, the RTSS is adjusted as follows: if a patient takes rescue medication on day d, the day's AdSS (AdSS(d)) is defined as the value of RTSS(d) or AdSS(d-1), whichever is higher. The AdSS on the following day (AdSS(d+1)) is defined as the value of RTSS(d+1) or AdSS(d), whichever is higher. The average of the daily AdSSs (during the season) was calculated post hoc for two trials investigating the efficacy of five-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablets in adult and paediatric patients and compared with the ARTSS and three other outcome measures (the average Rescue Medication Score (ARMS), the ARTSS and the average Combined Score). RESULTS: The average AdSS clearly discriminated between active and placebo treatments and confirmed the original ARTSS results. Adjustment for rescue medication use decreased the observed placebo effect. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The average AdSS can be a valuable alternative to the ARTSS as a primary efficacy end-point in grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis trials. By adjusting the RTSS for rescue medication use, the AdSS can estimate symptom severity and the treatment effect more accurately. The AdSS is now being tested prospectively in large clinical trials.

The 2009-2010 H1N1 vaccination campaign for patients with egg allergy in a region of France.

We describe our experience of the influenza H1N1 vaccination in patients with egg allergy. All patients tolerated the vaccination in a simple or double dose protocol without any significant allergic reaction in this series.

Towards evidence-based medicine in specific grass pollen immunotherapy.

When initiating grass pollen immunotherapy for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, specialist physicians in many European countries must choose between modalities of differing pharmaceutical and regulatory status. We applied an evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach to commercially available subcutaneous and sublingual Gramineae grass pollen immunotherapies (SCIT and SLIT) by evaluating study design, populations, pollen seasons, treatment doses and durations, efficacy, quality of life, safety and compliance. After searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library up until January 2009, we identified 33 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (including seven paediatric trials) with a total of 440 specific immunotherapy (SIT)-treated subjects in seven trials (0 paediatric) for SCIT with natural pollen extracts, 168 in three trials (0 paediatric) for SCIT with allergoids, 906 in 16 trials (five paediatric) for natural extract SLIT drops, 41 in two trials (one paediatric) for allergoid SLIT tablets and 1605 in five trials (two paediatric) for natural extract SLIT tablets. Trial design and quality varied significantly within and between SIT modalities. The multinational, rigorous trials of natural extract SLIT tablets correspond to a high level of evidence in adult and paediatric populations. The limited amount of published data on allergoids prevented us from judging the level of evidence for this modality.

Severe anaphylaxis to bee venom immunotherapy: efficacy of pretreatment and concurrent treatment with omalizumab.

Immunotherapy is an established mode of treatment for Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis, although adverse reactions may occur. We report the case of a 33-year-old woman, the wife of a beekeeper, who experienced a systemic allergic reaction following a bee sting. Initial specific immunotherapy had to be stopped due to anaphylaxis (multiple immediate cardiovascular reactions). We looked for an alternative treatment option, and repeated immunotherapy accompanied by the anti-immunoglobulin (Ig) E monoclonal antibody omalizumab. Our new protocol was well tolerated. After 1 year of therapy, the patient was stung by a bee and developed only a slight local reaction, which resolved spontaneously. This result confirmed the success of our specific immunotherapy. We compared our results with those of 6 similar cases in the literature. AntiIgE has provided a treatment option for patients with severe IgE-mediated allergic disease that is difficult to treat. This case suggests that omalizumab may be able to prevent anaphylaxis during immunotherapy.

Sinus CT scans and mediator release in nasal secretions after nasal challenge with cypress pollens.

BACKGROUND: Involvement of paranasal sinuses has been suggested in allergic rhinitis but not clearly demonstrated. AIMS: To investigate the relationship between intermittent allergic rhinitis and computerized tomography (CT). METHODS: Twenty patients with intermittent rhinitis and sensitized to cypress pollens underwent unilateral nasal provocation tests (NPTs) using increasing concentrations of cypress pollens out of the pollen season. Sinus CT-scans were carried out just before a NPT and 24 h later. Nasal lavage was carried out just before a NPT, 30 min after a positive challenge and again 24 h later. Leucotriene C4/D4, intracellular adhesion molecule-1 and eosinophil cationic protein were measured in nasal secretions. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (65%) showed an alteration in their CT-scans after allergen challenge. Ten of them showed sinus changes controlateral to their allergenic provocation. Radiological changes mainly affected the osteomeatal complex and the ethmoid sinuses. Pre-existing abnormalities (13 of 20 cases) mainly concerned the maxillary sinuses. There was no correlation between CT-scan abnormalities and levels of mediators released in nasal secretions. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that nasal allergen challenge can produce radiological changes in the paranasal sinuses. This mainly concerned the ethmoid sinuses.

In vitro diagnosis of cypress pollen allergy by using cytofluorimetric analysis of basophils (Basotest).

BACKGROUND: Cupressaceae pollen allergy is a worldwide pollinosis, but its in vitro diagnosis is notoriously difficult. The Basotest is a newly available in vitro test for the detection of allergen-specific IgE based on the level of cellular activation of basophils by using flow cytometry. OBJECTIVES: The Basotest was compared with the measurement of cypress pollen-specific IgE in highly selected patients. METHODS: We analyzed 34 patients allergic to cypress pollen selected on the basis of a suggestive clinical history and positive skin test and nasal challenge responses to cypress pollen extract. We also analyzed 8 patients with positive skin test responses to cypress pollen extract who did not present symptoms during the pollen season (intermediate group) and 33 control subjects. Sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency of the Basotest and serum-specific IgE levels measured by using the CAP System were determined in patients allergic to cypress pollen. Histamine release was studied in a selected group of patients. RESULTS: The Basotest was more sensitive (91.2%) than the CAP System (76%) for the in vitro diagnosis of cypress pollen allergy. A dose-response curve was observed in basophils obtained from patients allergic to cypress pollen. There were no false-positive results with either test (specificity 100%). The results of the Basotest or those of the CAP System did not correlate with the patients' in vivo threshold sensitivity assessed by skin tests and nasal challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The Basotest was found to be an effective diagnostic test in patients allergic to cypress pollen.