Double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation of grass pollen specific immunotherapy with oral drops administered sublingually or supralingually

Department of Immunology and Allergology, Charles University, Medical Faculty in Pilsen, Alej Svobody 80, 32300 Plzen, Czech Republic.
Respiratory Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.92). 07/2008; 102(9):1296-304. DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.03.024
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Forty-one patients suffering from grass pollen allergy underwent specific immunotherapy with standardized allergen extract consisting of six grass pollens (H-Al per os) administered either sublingually or supralingually for one year. In order to investigate clinical and immunological changes induced by the administration of allergens via the oral mucosa, the double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized design of the trial with 30 other patients enrolled in placebo groups was applied. Specific immunotherapy with oral drops administered sublingually or supralingually was performed in the same way, keeping the drops under or on the tongue, respectively, for 1-2 min before swallowing them; at the end of the trial the cumulative dose of the allergen was almost 20 times higher than that of the subcutaneous therapy with corresponding allergen preparation. Data about symptoms scores and drugs intake during grass pollen season, as well as skin reactivity, levels of specific IgG and IgE antibodies, before the study and after the study's completion, were obtained. It was found that both routes of administration are effective according to subjective clinical parameters and drug consumption, with a highly significant reduction of symptoms and drug intake favoring sublingual administration where a reduction of more than 60% was achieved. Only sublingual active group showed a significant increase in Dactylis glomerata-specific IgG serum levels. Adverse effects were limited to a small number of generally mild local and/or systemic reactions. The results suggest that the administration of allergens via the oral mucosa is safe and clinically effective, favoring the sublingual rather than supralingual route.


Available from: Marek Petras, Apr 20, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have been shown to effectively treat grass pollen allergies, although direct comparisons are sparse. To estimate the relative efficacy of SLIT tablets compared with SCIT and SLIT drops in commercially available products though network meta-analysis. A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library publications. Randomized, double-blind clinical trials of SCIT, SLIT drops, and SLIT tablets for grass pollen were included. Bayesian network meta-analyses estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) across 3 immunotherapy modalities on allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication score data from publications or received from authors. Both fixed and random effects models were investigated. Thirty-seven studies were included in meta-analyses for symptom scores and 31 studies for medication scores. In the random effects model, SCIT and SLIT tablets were significantly different from placebo for symptom scores: SMDs (95% CI) of -0.32 (-0.45 to -0.18) and -0.32 (-0.41 to -0.23), respectively. No significant difference was identified for SLIT drops compared with placebo (SMD, -0.17; -0.37 to 0.04). For medication scores, significant differences compared with placebo were observed for SCIT (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.13), SLIT tablets (SMD, -0.23; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.17), and SLIT drops (SMD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.06). Network meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in SMDs (95% credible interval) for symptom scores (0.0145 [-0.19 to 0.23]) or medication scores (0.133 [-0.31 to 0.57]) between SLIT tablets and SCIT, or for symptom scores (-0.175 [-0.37 to 0.02]) and medication scores (0.188 [-0.18 to 0.56]) between SLIT tablets and SLIT drops. The comparisons for grass pollen immunotherapy products commercialized in at least 1 country indicate comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms and supplemental medication use for SLIT tablets and SCIT in the first pollen season. Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    11/2014; 3(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jaip.2014.09.018
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To perform a structured analysis of the latest scientific evidence obtained for the clinical efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in children. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, reference lists from reviews, and personal databases were reviewed for original articles on clinical trials with SLIT in patients younger than 18 years published from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2012, using broad search and medical subject heading terms. STUDY SELECTIONS: Clinical trials, irrespective of their design, of SLIT in the treatment of respiratory and food allergy in patients 18 years or younger were selected. Clinical outcomes (symptom scores, medication use, provocation tests, pulmonary function tests, skin prick tests, and adverse events) and immunologic changes were tabulated. Quality of each trial and total quality of compounded evidence was analyzed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Of 56 articles, 29 met the inclusion criteria. New evidence is robust for the precoseasonal tablet and drop grass pollen SLIT efficacy in allergic rhinitis and scarce for seasonal asthma. Some evidence for Alternaria SLIT efficacy is appearing. For house dust mite (HDM) SLIT in asthma, there is high-quality evidence for medication reduction while maintaining symptom control; evidence for HDM SLIT efficacy in allergic rhinitis is of moderate-low quality. There is moderate evidence for efficacy of dual grass pollen-HDM SLIT after 12 months of treatment and 1 year after discontinuation. Specific provocation test results (nasal, skin) improve with grass pollen and HDM SLIT but nonspecific bronchial provocation testing does not. Food oral immunotherapy is more promising than food SLIT. Possible new surrogate markers have been reported. No anaphylaxis was found among 2469 treated children. CONCLUSION: Evidence for efficacy of SLIT in children with respiratory or food allergy is growing.
    Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology 06/2013; 110(6):402-415.e9. DOI:10.1016/j.anai.2013.02.017 · 2.75 Impact Factor
  • Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 10/1996; 99(4):305-305. DOI:10.1016/0013-4694(96)88245-9