[TWO CASES OF LARYNGEAL EDEMA CAUSED BY SUBLINGUAL ALLERGEN IMMUNOTHERAPY].

Sublingual immunotherapy is a widely used treatment, and serious adverse reactions such as anaphylaxis are rare. We report two cases of laryngeal edema as adverse reactions to sublingual immunotherapy, which could be continued due to a change in the administration method. Case 1 presents a 15-year-old male suspected to have had anaphylaxis due to the dust at the age of 6 years. He started treatment with Miticure® and developed laryngeal edema 30 minutes after taking the 10000JAU dose on the 10th day. laryngeal edema was treated with intravenous infusion. Case 2 presents a 48-year-old woman. She started treatment with Cidacure® and developed respiratory distress and laryngeal edema 1 hour after taking the 5000JAU dose on the 5th day. she had resolved mildly without therapeutic intervention. In both cases, the patients were switched to sublingual spitting, resumed with the initial dose cautiously, and were able to continue. Sublingual immunotherapy is a safe treatment, but sudden adverse reactions may occur. Laryngeal symptoms may be treated by changing to the sublingual spitting method, but laryngeal findings should be examined, and the dosage should be carefully increased.

Anaphylaxis in Clinical Trials of Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus method to identify anaphylaxis in sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) trials. Standardized Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) queries (SMQs) are standardized groupings of MedDRA terms used in drug safety monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To develop a method to identify potential anaphylaxis in SLIT-tablet trials using SMQ searches and case definitions of anaphylaxis adopted from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. METHODS: The SMQ search tool contained 2 criteria including treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs): (1) narrow MedDRA terms related to anaphylaxis and (2) all AEs with broad MedDRA terms from at least 2 of 3 categories (respiratory/skin/cardiovascular) occurring on the same day. Criteria were applied to a pooled data set of all subjects from 48 timothy grass, ragweed, house dust mite, and tree SLIT-tablet trials (SLIT-tablet, N = 8200; placebo, N = 7033). Additional search strategies were any treatment-emergent AE with MedDRA preferred term "hypersensitivity" and epinephrine administrations. Identified potential cases underwent blinded independent medical expert review. Nonanaphylaxis cases were designated local AEs or mild to moderate systemic reactions. RESULTS: Using the SMQ search tool and after subsequent medical review, 8 anaphylaxis cases were identified; 3 were considered treatment-related, resulting in a proportion of anaphylaxis cases/subject of 0.02% (2 of 8200) with SLIT-tablet and 0.01% (1 of 7033) with placebo. One additional anaphylaxis case related to SLIT-tablet was identified by the preferred term "hypersensitivity." The 3 anaphylaxis cases associated with SLIT-tablet treatment were not life-threatening. The epinephrine administration rate was 17 of 8200 (0.2%) with SLIT-tablet treatment and 2 of 7033 (0.03%) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: SMQ search criteria for identifying potential anaphylaxis related to SLIT were developed. Anaphylaxis was rare for SLIT-tablets.

Tolerability of sublingual versus vestibular allergy immunotherapy tablet administration: A randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Local application site reactions are common with sublingual allergy immunotherapy (AIT)-tablets for the treatment of allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) and occasionally lead to treatment discontinuation. Because of the lower mast cell density in the vestibular mucosa than the sublingual area, vestibular AIT-tablet administration may result in fewer adverse events (AEs). This pilot study evaluated the tolerability of the vestibular administration route of AIT-tablets compared with the sublingual route in adult subjects with AR/C. METHODS: Adults (n = 164) aged 18-65 years with AR/C treated with daily birch pollen, grass pollen, ragweed pollen or house dust mite AIT in tablet form were randomized 1:1 to vestibular or sublingual administration for 28 days, followed by 28 days of sublingual administration only. The primary endpoint was the severity (mild, moderate, severe) of local treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) during the first 28 days of treatment. RESULTS: During the first 28 days, the percentage of subjects in the vestibular and sublingual groups reporting mild TRAEs were 55.6% versus 50.6%, respectively; moderate TRAEs were 27.2% versus 30.1%; and severe TRAEs were 12.3% versus 6.0% (p = .16). In the vestibular group, 95.1% of the subjects experienced at least one TRAE during the first period versus 81.9% in the sublingual group (p = .01) and discontinuation rates due to AEs were higher (12.3% vs. 3.6%). CONCLUSION: The frequencies of subjects experiencing severe TRAEs, at least one TRAE, and discontinuations due to AEs at the initiation of AIT-tablets were numerically higher with vestibular administration than sublingual administration. Sublingual administration should remain the standard of care for subjects treated with AIT-tablets for AR/C.

Sublingual immunotherapy for cedar pollinosis possibly triggers eosinophilic esophagitis.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is an effective and popular treatment for cedar pollinosis. Although SLIT can cause allergic side effects, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a lesser-known side effect of SLIT. A 26-year-old male with cedar pollinosis, wheat-dependent exercise-induced anaphylaxis, and food allergies to bananas and avocados presented with persistent throat itching, difficulty swallowing, heartburn, and anterior chest pain 8 days after starting SLIT for cedar pollinosis. Laboratory examination showed remarkably elevated eosinophils, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed linear furrows in the entire esophagus. Histological examination of an esophageal biopsy specimen revealed high eosinophil levels. The patient was strongly suspected with EoE triggered by SLIT. The patient was advised to switch from the swallow to the spit method for SLIT, and the symptoms associated with SLIT-triggered EoE were reduced after switching to the spit method. This case highlights the importance of recognizing SLIT-triggered EoE as a potential side effect of SLIT for cedar pollinosis, especially with the increasing use of SLIT in clinical practice. EoE can occur within a month after initiating SLIT in patients with multiple allergic conditions, as observed in our case. Furthermore, the spit method should be recommended for patients who experience SLIT-triggered EoE before discontinuing SLIT.

Safety of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy with allergoids in children: a real-life pharmacovigilance study.

Aims: Allergen-specific immunotherapy uses a sublingual (sublingual immunotherapy [SLIT]) or subcutaneous (subcutaneous immunotherapy [SCIT]) route. This pharmacovigilance study aimed to determine the number and type of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) for SLIT and SCIT using carbamylated monomeric allergoids (CMAs) in children. Materials & methods: This pharmacovigilance study analyzed real-world post-marketing reports collected from a safety database of Lais sublingual tablets and injective Lais-in, containing CMAs for over 10 years. Results & conclusion: From January 2009 to September 2022, 26,107 doses of Lais-in were administered in children; only two nonserious related ADRs (incidence: 0.000077%) were reported. Regarding SLIT, the results showed only 12 spontaneous nonserious ADR reports (incidence: 0.000004%). These data showed the excellent safety profile of both SLIT and SCIT CMAs.

The cure for allergic people is named allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT). Recently, AIT uses new substances named allergoids. This study has shown that AIT with allergoids is very safe.

Genetic and T2 biomarkers linked to the efficacy of HDM sublingual immunotherapy in asthma.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity to house dust mite (HDM) allergens is a common cause of allergic asthma symptoms and can be effectively treated with allergy immunotherapy (AIT). OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether genetic and type 2 (T2) inflammatory biomarkers correlate with disease severity in subjects with allergic asthma, and whether this can be modified by AIT. METHODS: MITRA (NCT01433523) was a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablets in adults with HDM allergic asthma. Post hoc analyses of the study population (N=742) evaluated associations between T2 inflammatory (blood eosinophils, eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), total IgE and tryptase) and genetic (single-nucleotide polymorphisms, SNP) biomarkers (n=582) for the primary study endpoint (time to first moderate/severe asthma exacerbation). SNP associations were verified in HDM-positive subgroup from an independent 3-year Severe Asthma Research Programme (SARP3) subject cohort. RESULTS: An increased asthma exacerbation risk in subjects homozygous for SNP rs7216389 (chromosomal locus 17q12-21) was reduced (p=0.037) by treatment with HDM SLIT (HR=0.37 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.64), p<0.001). The associations between exacerbation risk and 17q12-21 SNPs were replicated in the SARP3 HDM-positive subgroup. High levels of T2 biomarkers were associated with increased risk of asthma exacerbations in the placebo group. HDM SLIT-tablet treatment reduced this risk (blood eosinophils: HR=0.50 (95% CI 0.30 to 0.85); ECP: HR=0.45 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.87); tryptase: HR=0.45 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.80)). The treatment effect was higher (p=0.006) for subjects with a higher number of elevated T2 biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: HDM SLIT-tablet AIT is efficacious in HDM-sensitised asthma subjects with a genetic asthma predisposition and/or an underlying T2 endotype. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01433523.

Sublingual immunotherapy tablets in monosensitized and polysensitized adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Background: Most patients with allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C) are sensitized to more than one allergen. An ongoing question is the efficacy of single-allergen immunotherapy in patients who are polysensitized. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of grass, ragweed, tree, and house-dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets in adults with AR/C who are mono- or polysensitized. Methods: Data from adults (ages ≥ 18 years) with AR/C who participated in phase III double-blind, placebo controlled field trials (four grass, two ragweed, two HDM, one tree) were included in the post hoc analyses. Efficacy was assessed by the total combined score (TCS) (sum of AR/C daily symptom and medication scores) during the entire pollen season for grass and tree trials, and peak pollen season for ragweed trials versus placebo. Efficacy for the HDM SLIT-tablet was assessed by the total combined rhinitis score (TCRS) (sum of rhinitis daily symptom and medication scores) during the last 8 weeks of treatment versus placebo. Results: For the grass SLIT-tablet, TCS improved by 20% (mean difference 1.33 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.44-2.22]) in the subjects who were monosensitized (n = 442) and 20% (mean difference 1.28 [95% CI, 0.90-1.67]) in the subjects who were polysensitized (n = 1857). For the ragweed SLIT-tablet, TCS improved by 19% (mean difference 1.72 [95% CI, -0.20 to 3.63]) in the subjects who were monosensitized (n = 115) and 27% (mean difference 2.27 [95% CI, 1.28-3.27]) in the subjects who were polysensitized (n = 528). For the tree SLIT-tablet, TCS improved by 54% (mean difference 4.65 [95% CI, 2.48-6.82]) in the subjects who were monosensitized (n = 138) and 34% (mean difference 2.51 [95% CI, 1.34-3.69]) in the subjects who were polysensitized (n = 437). For the HDM SLIT-tablet, TCRS improved by 20% (mean difference 1.24 [95% CI, 0.48-1.99]) in the subjects who were monosensitized (n = 468) and 17% (mean difference 0.85 [95% CI, 0.43-1.28]) in the subjects who were polysensitized (n = 1294). The overall safety profile was not qualitatively different between the subjects who were monosensitized and the subjects who were polysensitized. Conclusion: Grass, ragweed, tree, or HDM SLIT-tablet treatment is effective for the specific allergen in question in adults with AR/C and who are monosensitized or polysensitized. Targeting one relevant allergen with SLIT-tablets induces a clinical effect for that allergen in patients who were polysensitized.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in Monosensitized and Polysensitized Children With Allergic Rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) in monosensitized and polysensitized children with allergic rhinitis (AR). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. METHODS: One hundred thirty children were enrolled and categorized into 2 groups: monosensitized to only dust mites and polysensitized to at least 1 additional allergen beyond dust mites. All patients received SCIT targeting dust mites for 3 years, followed by a 5-year monitoring period. The Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Symptom and Medication Score (SMS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) were assessed before SCIT (T0); at 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) years of SCIT; immediately after SCIT (T3); and 2 years post-SCIT (T5). Safety was assessed based on adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Fifty-one monosensitized and 50 polysensitized children completed the study. At T3, 47 monosensitized and 46 polysensitized children were effectively treated, with no significant between-group difference in efficacy (P > .05). The TNSS, SMS, VAS scores, and RQLQ score were significantly lower at T1, T2, T3, and T5 than at T0 in both groups (P < .05). The differences in the TNSS, SMS, VAS score, and RQLQ score between the 2 groups were nonsignificant at T0, T1, T2, and T3 (P > .05), but significant at T5 (P < .05). No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: Monosensitized and polysensitized children exhibited similar beneficial efficacy and safety after 3 years of dust mite SCIT. Monosensitized children derived more benefits 2 years after discontinuation.

Safety of allergen immunotherapy in children.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review discusses allergen immunotherapy (AIT) safety in children. RECENT FINDINGS: AIT is a well tolerated and effective treatment for pediatric allergic conditions. While mostly well tolerated, severe reactions and near fatal reactions may occur with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) once in every 160 000 visits. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is associated more with local side effects, but severe systemic reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been rarely reported. Providing informed consent, recognizing risk factors for severe systemic reactions, such as severe or uncontrolled asthma, and mitigating the risk of severe reactions are important components to improving the safety of AIT. SUMMARY: Overall, AIT is well tolerated in children, and data suggest that the incidence of systemic reactions in children receiving SCIT is no less than mixed populations of adult and pediatric patients. SLIT carries less risk for systemic reactions, and local oral site-application reactions are usually mild and resolve within 15 days of treatment.

Safety and effectiveness of a 300 IR house dust mite sublingual tablet: descriptive 4-year final analysis of a post-marketing surveillance in Japan.

Background: Data are limited for clinical outcomes with house dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy beyond 2 years' observation. Materials & methods: A post-marketing drug-use survey assessed the safety and effectiveness of the 300 index of reactivity (IR) HDM tablet during use for up to 4 years in Japan. Results: 538 patients were evaluable for safety and 383 for effectiveness. Most adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred early and were local reactions; 5.6% of 249 total events were reported during years 2 to 4 as new ADRs after the interim analysis. The CAP-RAST score was identified as a potential risk factor for ADRs. The proportion of evaluable patients with severe allergic rhinitis symptoms decreased from 46.4% at baseline (n = 317) to 1.0% at 4 years (n = 104). Patients (n = 16) who discontinued 300 IR HDM tablet due to symptomatic improvement had sustained improvement relative to baseline 1 to 2 years later. Conclusion: Long-term use of the 300 IR HDM tablet is safe and effective.

The 300 index of reactivity house dust mite (HDM) sublingual tablet (Actair^®) is a treatment option for people with HDM allergy. A Japanese study investigated the safety and effectiveness of the HDM sublingual tablet during its use for up to 4 years. Less than a third of patients (29%) reported adverse effects, mainly itching or irritation in the mouth. The percentage of patients with no allergic rhinitis symptoms increased from 0.3% before treatment to 57.7% after 4 years of use. The percentage of patients who perceived that their allergic rhinitis had improved 'substantially' compared with before treatment increased from 22.3% at 6 months to 73.5% at 4 years. Patients who ended treatment with the HDM sublingual tablet because their symptoms had improved continued to perceive benefit 1 to 2 years later. Clinical Trial Registration: University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry identifier: UMIN000042840.

The relationship between sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis and the risk of symptoms in patients with COVID-19 infection.

To evaluated the risk ratio of Allergic rhinitis (AR) people on the symptoms after COVID-19 infection, and explored the relationship between AR and the symptoms after COVID-19 infection. An observational study was performed of people from outpatient department of the Hospital of Chengdu University of Chinese Medicine. Participants completed an electronic survey and between January 10 to January 20, 2023. We divided the participants into three groups according to the disease information of the population: non-AR people group (AR-N), AR patients with sublingual immunotherapy group (AR-S), and AR patients with conventional therapy group (AR-C). A total of 1116 participants were included in the study, with an average age of 21.76 ± 8.713, women accounted for 62.5%, men accounted for 37.5%. The final results showed that the risk of most symptoms after AR-C infection was not different from that of AR-N, except for sore throat, dry and itchy, chest distress, shortness of breath, and dyspnea. AR-S could effectively reduce the risk of post-infection symptoms including: dry and itchy (OR = 0.484, 95%CI: 0.335-0.698), pain (OR = 0.513, 95%CI:0.362-0.728), cough (OR = 0.506, 95% CI:0.341-0.749), expectoration (OR = 0.349, 95% CI:0.244-0.498), fever (OR = 0.569, 95% CI:0.379-0.853), head and body pain (OR = 0.456, 95% CI:0.323-0.644), fatigue (OR = 0.256, 95% CI:0.177-0.371), cold limbs (OR = 0.325, 95%CI:0.227-0.465), diarrhea (OR = 0.246, 95% CI:0.132-0.457), constipation (OR = 0.227, 95%CI:0.100-0.513), hyposmia (OR = 0.456, 95% CI:0.296-0.701), hypogeusia (OR = 0.397, 95% CI:0.259-0.607), chest distress (OR = 0.534, 95% CI:0.343-0.829), shortness of breath (OR = 0.622, 95% CI:0.398-0.974), palpitations (OR = 0.355, 95% CI:0.206-0.613). The risk of symptoms after COVID-19 infection in allergic rhinitis population receiving sublingual immunotherapy is lower.

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.

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.

Clinical efficacy and safety of coseasonal initiation of Artemisia annua sublingual immunotherapy on patients with Artemisia-induced rhinoconjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: Patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC) might seek evaluation and treatment when symptoms appear during the pollen season. It is unclear whether coseasonal-initiated sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) would be effective and safe for SARC. This study aims to identify the feasibility of initiating Artemisia annua SLIT during the pollen season. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with Artemisia-induced SARC were equally recruited into the SLIT and control groups during the pollen season in 2021. The SLIT group was treated with standardized Artemisia annua SLIT drops using a modified dosing schedule combined with pharmacotherapy, while the control group only received pharmacotherapy. Diary cards for clinical symptoms, rescue medication use, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded during the pollen seasons. Objective measures, including average daily combined scores of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms (CSMRS), total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (TRSS), total medication score (TMS), and the score of visual analog scale (VAS) were calculated to evaluate the efficacy of SLIT. Safety was assessed through the occurrence and severity of AEs. RESULTS: In total, 80.0 % (24/30) patients in the SLIT group and 86.67 % (26/30) patients in the control group completed the study. The severity of SARC, which was assessed by objective measures including CSMRS, TRSS, TMS, and VAS of the SLIT group and the control group, was generally at the same level during the 2021 pollen season, except for the medical consumption, which the score of TMS was slightly higher in the SLIT group. After one year of treatment, the scores of CSMRS, TRSS, and VAS in the SLIT group were significantly improved compared with the control group (all P < 0.001), and the difference in the TMS between the two groups disappeared (P > 0.05). Moreover, clinical improvement of the four objective measures was also observed in the SLIT group compared with the baseline value (P < 0.001). Overall, 9/24 patients in the SLIT group experienced mild local AEs, and two patients experienced mild systemic AEs during the SLIT period. CONCLUSIONS: This controlled preliminary study identified that coseasonal-initiated Artemisia annua SLIT treatment for one year was generally safe and effective in improving the symptoms of SARC patients induced by Artemisia annua pollen.

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.

House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablet safety in adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: Worldwide clinical trial results.

BACKGROUND: The house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet is a treatment option for allergic rhinitis with/without conjunctivitis (AR/C) approved in adults worldwide and in adolescents in some countries. OBJECTIVE: To supplement existing adolescent HDM SLIT-tablet safety data by conducting the MT-18 trial in adolescents. METHODS: MT-18 (EudraCT:2020-000446-34) was a phase 3, open-label, single-arm, 28-day safety trial of daily HDM SLIT-tablet (12 SQ-HDM dose) in European adolescents (12-17 years) with HDM AR/C, with or without asthma. The primary end point was at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). MT-18 results were compared with 12 SQ-HDM adolescent subpopulation data from previously described 1-year phase 3 trials conducted in North America (P001; clinicaltrials.gov:NCT01700192) or Japan (TO-203-3-2; JapicCTI:121848). RESULTS: No treatment-related anaphylaxis, epinephrine administrations, severe local swellings, severe mouth or throat edema, or eosinophilic esophagitis occurred in the trials. For MT-18 (N = 253), P001 (N adolescents = 189), and TO-203-3-2 (N adolescents = 206), the percentage of adolescents treated with 12 SQ-HDM reporting any TEAE was 88%, 95%, and 93%, respectively, and the percentage reporting any treatment-related AE (TRAE) was 86%, 93%, and 66%, respectively. The most common TRAEs were local application site reactions. Most TRAEs were mild in intensity and were typically experienced the first 1 to 2 days of treatment. There were no asthma-related TEAEs with the HDM SLIT-tablet. The safety profile appears similar between adolescents with or without asthma at baseline. CONCLUSION: The HDM SLIT-tablet was well tolerated in European, North American, and Japanese adolescents with HDM AR/C, indicating safety of the HDM SLIT-tablet is insensitive to age or geographic region. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: (P001: NCT01700192); EudraCT: (MT-18; 2020-000446-34); JapicCTI: (TO-203-3-2; 121848).

Open-label study of the efficacy, safety, and durability of peanut sublingual immunotherapy in peanut-allergic children.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the efficacy of peanut sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are limited. The durability of desensitization after SLIT has not been well described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 4-mg peanut SLIT and persistence of desensitization after SLIT discontinuation. METHODS: Challenge-proven peanut-allergic 1- to 11-year-old children were treated with open-label 4-mg peanut SLIT for 48 months. Desensitization after peanut SLIT was assessed by a 5000-mg double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC). A novel randomly assigned avoidance period of 1 to 17 weeks was followed by the DBPCFC. Skin prick test results immunoglobulin levels, basophil activation test results, TH1, TH2, and IL-10 cytokines were measured longitudinally. Safety was assessed through patient-reported home diaries. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants were enrolled and 47 (87%) completed peanut SLIT and the 48-month DBPCFC per protocol. The mean successfully consumed dose (SCD) during the DBPCFC increased from 48 to 2723 mg of peanut protein after SLIT (P < .0001), with 70% achieving clinically significant desensitization (SCD > 800 mg) and 36% achieving full desensitization (SCD = 5000 mg). Modeled median time to loss of clinically significant desensitization was 22 weeks. Peanut skin prick test; peanut-specific IgE, IgG4, and IgG4/IgE ratio; and peanut-stimulated basophil activation test, IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IFN-γ, and IL-10 changed significantly compared with baseline, with changes seen as early as 6 months. Median rate of reaction per dose was 0.5%, with transient oropharyngeal itching being the most common, and there were no dosing symptoms requiring epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label, prospective study, peanut SLIT was safe and induced clinically significant desensitization in most of the children, lasting more than 17 weeks after discontinuation of therapy.