Clinical efficacy in one-year treatment with Artemisia annua-SLIT drops in monosensitized and polysensitized individuals.

PURPOSE: Seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC) caused by Artemisia seriously affects patients' quality of life in northern China. This study aimed to estimate further the efficacy and safety of a one-year course of Artemisia annua-sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) on SARC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, controlled, single-centre study involving 150 SARC patients induced by Artemisia, randomized to SLIT group (n = 75, SLIT along with pharmacotherapy) or control group (n = 75, pharmacotherapy only). According to the skin prick test (SPT) results, the SLIT group was divided into monosensitized and polysensitized groups to analyze the influence of sensitization status on the efficacy of Artemisia annua-SLIT. The clinical indicators of this study were total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (TRSS), total medication score (TMS), combined scores of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptom (CSMRS), and score of visual analog scale (VAS). Safety was evaluated by the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Daily administration of the drops was recorded in diaries by the patients. RESULTS: After nearly one year of treatment and follow-ups, there was a significant decline in TRSS, TMS, CSMRS, and VAS from the baseline scores in the SLIT group (p < 0.001). However, as pollen counts increased in 2022, indicators above in the control group increased significantly during the peak pollen phase (PPP) in 2022 grass pollen season (GPS) compared to the baseline. Meanwhile, we found no significant difference in TRSS, TMS, CSMRS, and VAS between the monosensitized and polysensitized groups (p > 0.05). Moreover, the result indicated that the clinical improvement in TRSS, TMS, CSMRS, and VAS was still observed in polysensitized patients who were allergic to Artemisia pollen and sensitized to house dust mite (HDM) (n = 15) in PPP of 2022, compared to the baseline value (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Artemisia annua-SLIT was proven effective, tolerable and safe in patients with SARC after nearly one year of treatment, whether monosensitization or polysensitization.

Pharmacotherapy and immunotherapy of allergic rhinitis induced by house dust mite, grass, and birch pollen allergens: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral antihistamines (AHs), intranasal antihistamines (INAH) intranasal glucocorticosteroids (INCS), subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in the management of allergic rhinitis (AR). The authors focused on the division into selected AR's triggers: house dust mites (HDMs), grass pollen, and birch pollen. METHODS: For each drug and allergen class, a meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse events (AEs) was performed. The obtained results were presented as a therapeutic index (TIX-Score). RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The best total efficacy was observed for: HDMs for INCS and grass pollen for combination of INCS with INAH in a single device and for INAH. Considering the data that was obtained for birch pollen, SLIT showed statistically significant total efficacy. Summation scores for efficacy and AEs showed highest TIX-Score for combination of INCS and INAH in a single device in grass pollen. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment methods selected for this review may serve as an effective and safe treatment in reducing perennial and seasonal AR's symptoms. However, due to high heterogeneity probably associated with potential confounders existence in control in some cases, results should be interpreted with caution.

Efficacy and safety of Artemisia annua sublingual immunotherapy in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis over two pollen seasons.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with A. annua allergens in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis over two pollen seasons. METHODS: Seventy patients with moderate-severe seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were divided evenly into the SLIT and control groups. The SLIT last from 3 months before the summer-autumn pollen season in 2021 till the end of the summer-autumn pollen season in 2022. The daily individual symptom score, total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (dTRSS), total medication score (dTMS), combined score of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptom (dCSMRS), visual analog scale (VAS) score, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: The average pollen concentration in 2022 was twice that previous two-year during the pollen season. Fifty-six patients completed treatments (SLIT group: 29, control group: 27). Compared with baseline, the individual symptoms, dTRSS, dTMS, dCSMRS, and VAS scores of SLIT group declined in 2021. After 16 months of SLIT, all efficacy indexes in 2022 were still lower than baseline and equivalent to those in 2021. In control group, the efficacy indexes in 2022 were higher than that in 2020 and 2021. The efficacy indexes of SLIT group were lower than those of control group in 2021 and 2022. SLIT is effective for both mono- and poly-sensitized patients. AEs incidence in SLIT group was 82.7% without severe AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The A. annua-SLIT can obtain efficacy and safety over two pollen seasons for patients with moderate-severe seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: A network meta-analysis.

Background: To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis (AR) and provide evidence for clinical treatment. Methods: A literature search was performed on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase database. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sublingual immunotherapy for AR were screened and extracted from the establishment of those databases to November 2022. Subsequently, a network meta-analysis was performed using a statistical software R 4.2. Results: Totally 22 RCTs that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and screened from 1,164 literature were included. A total of 4,941 AR patients were involved in the 22 trials, as well as five interventions including placebo, pharmacotherapy, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, and sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract. The results of network meta-analysis showed that, based on symptom scores after different interventions for AR, the most effective treatments for AR were in order as follows: sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite, subcutaneous immunotherapy_dust mite, sublingual immunotherapy_ grass mix plus pollen extract, placebo, and pharmacotherapy. Importantly, sublingual immunotherapy had fewer adverse reactions and higher safety. Conclusion: Sublingual immunotherapy_dust mite for AR has the best efficacy, whereas traditional medicine has the worst. More high-quality studies with a large sample and multiple centers are needed to verify this conclusion in the future, so as to further provide more reliable evidence-based medical evidence for the clinical treatment options of AR patients.

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.

Recent development on the use of sublingual immunotherapy tablets for allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated inflammatory condition that causes sneezing, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and nasal itch. Although subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of AR has been in use and well established as a treatment modality, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly considered to be the safer and more convenient alternative. Thus, the objective of this review is to describe recent findings pertaining to the use of SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) for AR. DATA SOURCES: A database search (PubMed.gov) for articles published between January 1, 2017, and February 9, 2021, was conducted using the following key words: "allergic rhinitis," AND-ed "sublingual immunotherapy." Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials. Other experimental design studies were excluded. STUDY SELECTIONS: A total of 11 randomized placebo-controlled trials were selected for full-text review and included in the analysis. All studies investigated the use of SLIT on patients with seasonal AR (4 tree pollen, 1 grass pollen, and 1 Japanese cedar) or perennial AR (3 house dust mite). RESULTS: Our review of 7 recently published randomized placebo-controlled trials with 2348 subjects receiving SLIT reported increased efficacy, safety, supportive immunologic parameters (IgE and IgG4 pre- and posttreatment levels), and improved quality of life. All studies excluded subjects with overlapping seasonal or perennial allergens, a history of moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma, or reduced lung function. CONCLUSION: Our review highlights that SLIT is a safe and effective treatment that considerably reduces symptoms and medication requirements in AR and improves quality of life.

Long-term treatment of Japanese cedar pollinosis with Japanese cedar pollen SLIT drops and persistence of treatment effect: A post-marketing clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There have been no reports of treatment effect persistence after long-term sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in patients with Japanese cedar (JC) pollinosis. Therefore, we conducted a post-marketing clinical trial to investigate the efficacy, safety, and effect persistence of JC pollen SLIT drops after approximately 3 years of treatment. METHODS: This was an open-label trial of 233 patients with JC pollinosis who were treated with JC pollen SLIT drops for approximately 3 years (2015-2017) and followed-up for an additional 2 years (2018-2019). Efficacy and effect persistence were evaluated using nasal and ocular symptom scores, daily use of rescue medication, and Japanese Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire scores recorded during the JC pollen dispersal season of each year. Safety was evaluated by monitoring adverse events and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: The mean combined total nasal symptom and medication score (range 0-18) during the peak symptom periods of 2015 through 2019 were 5.47 ± 3.38, 4.52 ± 3.13, 3.58 ± 2.63, 5.28 ± 4.01, and 6.83 ± 4.65, respectively. The percentage of patients who used no rescue medications during the same periods was 64.8%, 75.2%, 80.3%, 63.7%, and 50.3%, respectively. A total of 138 adverse drug reaction incidents were recorded in 73 of the 233 patients (31.3%), of which 134 incidents (97.1%) were mild in severity. CONCLUSIONS: JC pollen SLIT drops demonstrated treatment duration-dependent efficacy with effects that persisted for 2 years after cessation of treatment. The drug had a favorable safety profile over the 5-year study period.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma. SEARCH METHODS: The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

Safety profile and immunological response of dual sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite tablet and Japanese cedar pollen tablet.

BACKGROUND: There have been no studies of dual administration of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets for perennial and seasonal allergic rhinitis. This trial (JapicCTI-184014) was conducted to investigate the safety profile and immunological response during dual therapy with SQ house dust mite (HDM) and Japanese cedar pollen (JCP) SLIT tablets. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial of 109 Japanese patients with coexisting HDM and JCP allergic rhinitis who had positive tests for HDM- and JCP specific IgE (≥0.7 kU/L). Patients were allocated to receive HDM (N = 54) or JCP (N = 55) SLIT tablets alone for 4 weeks followed by 8 weeks of dual therapy with both SLIT tablets administered within 5 min of each other. Adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and serum IgE and IgG4 specific for HDM (Dermatophagoides farinae, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) and JCP were recorded. RESULTS: The percentage of subjects with AEs and ADRs was similar between the two groups and between the two periods of monotherapy and dual therapy. Most AEs and ADRs were mild in severity, and no serious events were observed. The most common ADRs were local events in the oral cavity. Levels of IgE and IgG4 specific for HDM (D. farinae, D. pteronyssinus) and JCP were increased after treatment with HDM and JCP SLIT tablets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dual therapy with both SLIT tablets administered within 5 min after 4 weeks of monotherapy with HDM or JCP tablet was well tolerated and induced the expected immunological responses.

Principles of Allergen Immunotherapy and Its Clinical Application in China: Contrasts and Comparisons with the USA.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic rhinitis (AR), asthma, and other allergic diseases has developed quickly. House dust mite (HDM), Artemisia (wormwood), Humulus japonicus (Japanese hop), Alternaria alternata, and Cladosporium herbarum are the five most common inhalant allergens in China. AIT has been performed in China for over 60 years. With the support of the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) and the Chinese Medical Doctors Association (CMDA), the Chinese College of Allergy and Asthma (CCAA) was established in 2016 as a specialized branch of CDMA and is the main certification authority for AIT. Chinese allergists and scientists have made tremendous progress in the development of AIT. There have been many publications by Chinese allergists and scientists worldwide encompassing original research studies, systematic reviews, case studies, and clinical trials. Currently, conventional subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is the preferred AIT in China, but sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is beginning to gain recognition. An increasing number of clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the clinical efficacy and side effects of SLIT and SCIT. In China, HDM is the only commercial standardized allergen extracts in clinical use, whereas the others are crude allergen extracts. Besides standardized allergen extracts, other forms of hypoallergenic extracts are still being investigated and developed in China. Immunotherapy in China is similar to that in the USA in which allergen extracts can be mixed for SCIT. However, allergen extracts cannot be mixed for SCIT in Europe.

Real-life safety of 5-grass pollen tablet in 5-to-9-year-old children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Although 5-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy has a good safety profile in controlled clinical trials, additional safety information among pediatric patients in a real-world setting would be useful. OBJECTIVE: To further document the safety of 5-grass tablet among children aged 5 to 9 years with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). METHODS: This multicenter, observational study included allergy immunotherapy-naïve 5- to 9-year-old children with grass pollen-induced ARC prescribed with 5-grass tablet daily (3-day dose escalation to 300 index of reactivity [IR]). Patients were followed up daily for safety and tolerability over the first 30 treatment days. Adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Three hundred seven children (mean age, 7.1 years) were enrolled. Fifty-eight percent were confirmed as polysensitized, and 36% had mild-to-moderate asthma. Of 307 patients, 233 (76%) reported AEs, and 173/307 (56%) reported ADRs, most frequently mild application-site reactions (throat irritation, oral pruritus, oral paresthesia). Sixteen of 307 (5.2%) patients withdrew because of ADRs. In 143 of 173 (83%) patients, ADRs first occurred within 1 week of starting treatment. More than half of the ADRs lasted less than 2 days, and ADRs resolved spontaneously in 161 of 173 (93%) patients. Recurrences of ADRs were reported in 45 of 173 (26%) patients and were also mainly application-site reactions. No notable differences were found in ADRs related to whether patients had asthma at inclusion. Neither epinephrine use nor admission to intensive care unit was reported. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of 5-grass tablet in pediatric ARC patients aged 5 to 9 years was consistent with safety findings in older patients, most ADRs being at the application site and mild to moderate. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02295969; EUPAS registration number: 8104.

Sublingual allergen immunotherapy with a liquid birch pollen product in patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) has been demonstrated to be both clinically efficacious and safe. However, in line with the current regulatory guidance from the European Medicines Agency, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) products must demonstrate their efficacy and safety in pivotal phase III trials for registration. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of sublingual high-dose liquid birch pollen extract (40,000 allergy units native [AUN]/mL) in adults with birch pollen allergy. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicenter trial was conducted in 406 adult patients with moderate-to-severe birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without mild-to-moderate controlled asthma. Treatment was started 3 to 6 months before the birch pollen season and continued during the season in 40 clinical study centers in 5 European countries. For primary end point assessment, the recommended combined symptom and medication score of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology was used. Secondary end points included quality-of-life assessments, immunologic parameters, and safety. RESULTS: Primary efficacy results demonstrated a significant (P < .0001) and clinically relevant (32%) reduction in the combined symptom and medication score compared with placebo after 3 to 6 months of SLIT. Significantly better rhinoconjunctivitis quality-of-life scores (P < .0001) and the patient's own overall assessment of his or her health status, including the visual analog scale score (Euro Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale; P = .0025), were also demonstrated. In total, a good safety profile of SLIT was observed. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed both the clinical efficacy and safety of a sublingual liquid birch pollen extract in adults with birch pollen allergy in a pivotal phase III trial (EudraCT: 2013-005550-30; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02231307).

Ragweed allergy immunotherapy tablet MK-3641 (Ragwitek®) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is among the most common chronic conditions affecting both children and adults. It is the cause of significant morbidity from the symptoms and interference with sleep. It results in major impairment of performance both at school and at work. In the U.S. and certain parts of Europe, ragweed pollen is a major cause of seasonal AR. In 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a sublingual ragweed tablet (MK-3641) for use in adults with ragweed-induced AR. Areas covered: This paper will review the impact of ragweed-induced AR and available treatments including subcutaneous immunotherapy and studies with MK-3641. The principal search method was PubMed. Expert commentary: One dosing finding, two 28-day safety and two 52-week safety and efficacy studies have been conducted with MK-3641. The 12-U (12µg Amb a 1) tablet was the most effective. Local application site reactions were common but usually not serious. Only one, non-serious systemic reaction was reported in four safety studies. MK-3641 is a safe and effective treatment for ragweed-pollen-induced AR when treatment is initiated ≥ 12 weeks prior to the onset of the ragweed pollen season.

[ANALYSIS OF BACKGROUNDS AND LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF TREATMENT OF POOR ADHERENCE AND DROPOUT CASES ON SUBLINGUAL IMMUNOTHERAPY FOR JAPANESE CEDAR POLLINOSIS IN THE FIRST FOLLOW-UP YEAR].

BACKGROUND: We considered the factors of poor adherence to and dropout from sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) by verifying patient backgrounds 1 year after start of treatment. METHODS: We recruited 38 patients who began SLIT between November 2014 and September 2015. We analyzed their attributes and level of understanding of the treatment, and conducted a self-reported survey on factors behind dropout cases and poor adherence cases. RESULTS: Four patients dropped out 1 year after start of treatment. Three left for reasons related to anxiety about side effects. There were five cases of poor adherence. There was no significant difference between good adherence, poor adherence, and dropout regarding level of understanding of the treatment (p=0.59). In the comparison between good and poor adherence groups, except four dropout patients, the adherence tended to be poor in patients with short duration of disease, smoking patients, and young patients. Continuous rate of SLIT achieved about 90%, suggesting relatively high level of adherence. CONCLUSION: It appears possible that anxiety related to side effects could be a factor affecting dropout from SLIT. There was no significant difference regarding level of understanding of the treatment. The adherence tended to be poor in patients with short duration of disease, smoking patients, and young patients.

[CLINICAL EFFICACY OF SUBLINGUAL IMMUNOTHERAPY IN THE THIRD TREATED YEAR WITH JAPANESE CEDAR POLLINOSIS IN 2017].

It past 3 years in 2017 after the first purchase of the drug for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) for Japanese Cedar pollinosis (JCP). We reported the clinical efficacy of SLIT in the first and the second treated year. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to clear the clinical efficacy of SLIT in the third treated year by comparing with other therapies, such as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), or other pharmacotherapy. METHODS: We compared the clinical efficacy in 2017, of 112 SLIT in the third treated year with 38 SCIT, 364 primary pharmacotherapy that started therapies before pollen dispersal, 254 pharmacotherapy that started therapies after pollen disposal, or 333 non-treatment. The clinical efficacy was evaluated with symptom scores, total nasal symptom scores and combined total nasal symptom-medication scores (TNSMS), symptoms of nose and eye by visual analog scale (VAS), quality of life (QOL) scores by Japanese rhino-conjunctivitis QOL questionnaire (JRQLQ No1). RESULTS: Both SCIT and SLIT showed good clinical efficacy without significant difference in every assessment. Both SCIT and SLIT were significantly better than other pharmacotherapy in most assessment. Patients, whose symptom scores of nose and eye were 0 and 1 point without any rescue drugs, accounted for 9 and 24% of total SLIT, respectively. CONCLUSION: SLIT in the third treated year showed good clinical efficacy in reducing symptoms and TNSMS of JCP, and in improving QOL. SLIT was significantly effective compared with other pharmacotherapies.

The current state of food allergy therapeutics.

The prevalence of IgE mediated food allergy is an increasing public health concern. The current standard of treatment is strict avoidance of the offending food(s). There are no FDA approved treatments for food allergy. This review will provide an overview of strategies currently under investigation for the treatment of food allergy. The main focus of research has been directed at various forms of immunotherapy, including oral, sublingual and epicutaneous delivery routes. While oral immunotherapy (OIT) has shown the greatest promise for efficacy in terms of amount of protein that can be ingested, it has also demonstrated less tolerability and a less favorable safety profile as compared to sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and epicutaneous immunotherapy (EPIT), which offers the least protection but has the best safety and tolerability profile. Investigation is also underway for modified antigens that may be used for immunotherapy and for adjuncts that may help facilitate immunotherapy, including biologics such as anti-IgE therapy, and also probiotics. There are also a number of preclinical concepts that are being evaluated to manipulate the antigens and/or the immune system that may one day be translatable to patients.