The current role of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in adults and children

Allergy/Pulmonary rehabilitation, Istituti Clinici di Perfezionamento, Milan, Italy
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 02/2011; 4:13-7. DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S16632
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Allergic rhinitis is a very common disease affecting about 20% of people. It may be treated by allergen avoidance when possible, by antiallergic drugs such as antihistamines and topical corticosteroids, and by allergen-specific immunotherapy. The latter is the only treatment able to act on the causes and not only on the symptoms of respiratory allergy and is able to maintain its efficacy even after stopping, provided an adequate duration of treatment of 3-5 years is ensured. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced in the 1990s as a possible solution to the problem of adverse systemic reactions to subcutaneous immunotherapy and has been demonstrated by more than 50 trials and globally evaluated thus far by five meta-analyses as an effective and safe treatment for allergic rhinitis. Life-threatening reactions are extremely rare. However, it is important to note that clinical efficacy occurs only if SLIT meets its needs, ie, sufficiently high doses are regularly administered for at least 3 consecutive years. This is often overlooked in the current practice and may prevent the same success reported by trials from being achieved.

Download full-text


Available from: Cristoforo Incorvaia, Jun 30, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Immunotherapy is considered to be the only curative treatment for allergic diseases such as pollinosis, perennial rhinitis, asthma, and food allergy. The sublingual route is widely applied for immunotherapy for allergy, instead of the conventional administration by subcutaneous route. A recent meta-analysis of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has shown that this approach is safe, has positive clinical effects, and provides prolonged therapeutic effects after discontinuation of treatment. However, the mechanism of SLIT and associated biomarkers are not fully understood. Biomarkers that change after or during SLIT have been reported and may be useful for response monitoring or as prognostic indicators for SLIT. In this review, we focus on the safety, therapeutic effects, including prolonged effects after treatment, and new methods of SLIT. We also discuss response monitoring and prognostic biomarkers for SLIT. Finally, we discuss immunological mechanisms of SLIT with a focus on oral dendritic cells and facilitated antigen presentation.
    Journal of Allergy 01/2012; 2012:381737. DOI:10.1155/2012/381737
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with histamine-release related allergic diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis and urticaria, and to compare them to the safety profiles of other medications, mostly topical corticosteroids and leukotriene antagonists (LTRA). Systematic search of the published literature (PubMed) and of the regulatory authorities databases (EMA and FDA) for oral AHs. Similarly to histamine, antihistamines (AHs) have organ-specific efficacy and adverse effects. The peripheral H(1)-receptor (PrH1R) stimulation leads to allergic symptoms while the brain H(1)-receptor (BrH1R) blockade leads to somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, decreased cognitive functions (impaired memory and learning), seizures, aggressive behaviour, etc. First-generation oral AHs (FGAHs) inhibit the effects of histamine not only peripherally but also in the brain, and additionally have potent antimuscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic and antiserotonin effects leading to symptoms such as visual disturbances (mydriasis, photophobia, and diplopia), dry mouth, tachycardia, constipation, urinary retention, agitation, and confusion. The somnolence caused by FGAHs interferes with the natural circadian sleep-wake cycle and therefore FGAHs are not suitable to be used as sleeping pills. Second-generation oral AHs (SGAHs) have proven better safety and tolerability profiles, much lower proportional impairment ratios, with at least similar if not better efficacy, than their predecessors. Only SGAHs, and especially those with a proven long-term (e.g., ≥12 months) clinical safety, should be prescribed for young children. Evidence exist that intranasally applied medications, like intranasal antihistamines, have the potential to reach the brain and cause somnolence. Second-generation oral antihistamines are the preferred first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Patients taking SGAHs report relatively little and mild adverse events even after long-term continuous treatments. An antihistamine should ideally possess high selectivity for the H(1)-receptor, high PrH1R occupancy and low to no BrH1R occupancy.
    Current Medical Research and Opinion 03/2012; 28(4):623-42. DOI:10.1185/03007995.2012.672405 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective allergy immunotherapy (IT) requires patient compliance. Numerous studies have shown high noncompliance rates in patients undergoing IT. For patients enrolled in subcutaneous IT (SCIT), noncompliance rates were noted to range from 11% to 50%, whereas sublingual IT (SLIT) patients had noncompliance rates ranging from 3% to 25%. Comparing noncompliance rates is difficult because noncompliance in SCIT is defined as withdrawal from therapy, whereas in SLIT it is considered poor adherence to daily administration. The aim of this study was to compare attrition rates in patients enrolled in SCIT vs SLIT, as well as major factors leading to termination of IT. We retrospectively compared attrition rates, IT duration, and reasons for termination between patients enrolled in SCIT (n = 139) and SLIT (n = 78), over a 4-year period. Attrition rates for SCIT and SLIT were 45% and 41%, respectively (p = 0.669). No significant difference in duration of IT was observed between the groups (≤1 month, p = 0.079; 1-2 months, p = 0.486; 2-3 months, p = 0.165; 3-6 months, p = 0.575; 6-12 months, p = 0.361; 12-24 months, p = 1.000; and ≥24 months, p = 0.258). Among reasons cited for discontinuing IT, SCIT patients reported inconvenience (p = 0.001), whereas SLIT patients indicated efficacy concerns (p = 0.022) as the major basis for withdrawal. No significant difference was observed in attrition rates between SCIT and SLIT. While there was no significant difference in duration of IT prior to withdrawal, there was a trend toward earlier withdrawal in SCIT patients. The reasons for withdrawal, however, were considerably different between the 2 groups.
    International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology 07/2012; 2(4):280-4. DOI:10.1002/alr.21037 · 2.37 Impact Factor