Allergen immunotherapy in allergic respiratory diseases: from mechanisms to meta-analyses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Viswanathan RK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4694090 | biostudies-other | 2012 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic brought unprecedented global disruption to both healthcare providers and patients with respiratory allergies. There are limited real-life data on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the risk perception of patients with allergy treated with allergen immunotherapy (AIT).ObjectiveTo understand the risk perception of allergic patients treated with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) before and during the pandemic, and their attitudes towards COVID-19 infection and vaccination.MethodsThis was a non-interventional, cross-sectional survey conducted from October to November 2021 in France. Adult patients, who had been prescribed and had received a Stallergenes SLIT (liquid or liquid and tablets) before the pandemic (from August 1, 2018 to March 10, 2020) and during the pandemic (from March 11, 2020 to August 31, 2021), were identified from the Stallergenes named-patient products (NPP) database. Patients completed an online questionnaire. Data were analyzed descriptively.ResultsA total of 5258 patients from all over France completed the questionnaire. Mean (±SD) age of the respondents was 39.3 (±13.0) years and 66.9% were female. Some of them (11.8%) were obese (BMI >30 kg/m2). Main allergic diseases were rhinitis (80.0% of patients) with or without conjunctivitis, and asthma (39.0%). More than half of the patients experienced moderate to severe (58.0%) and persistent allergic rhinitis profile (70.4%). Most patients were poly-allergic (72.7%), mostly to house dust mites (61.9%), grass pollens (61.5%), tree pollens (57.8%), and cat dander (37.2%). Only 14.1% of patients experienced an aggravation of their allergy symptoms during lockdown and 14.8% were infected with COVID-19, with hospitalization required for 1.8%. Only 3.1% of patients reported their SLIT initiation as being postponed due to the pandemic. SLIT was changed, temporarily interrupted or permanently discontinued during the pandemic in 21.9% of patients. Changes mainly concerned the maintenance dose for SLIT-liquid (63.2%). SLIT modification was due to COVID-19 infection in only 4.2%. Most patients did not feel vulnerable (53.1%), anxious (55.2%), at risk to present severe symptoms of COVID-19 (77.1%), or at risk to transmit coronavirus (80.4%). However, greater anxiety was reported in patients with allergic asthma (33.6%) or other respiratory disorders (50.4%). Patients who felt vulnerable partly assigned their vulnerability to their allergic disease (59.3%). Suffering from an allergic disease did not make patients feel more vulnerable to side effects of COVID-19 vaccine for 79.6% of them.ConclusionOverall, most patients with allergy and under SLIT were not strongly concerned by the COVID-19 infection. SLIT did not have a negative impact on the COVID-19 symptoms.
| S-EPMC11017353 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although traditional pharmacological approaches improve outcomes in disease management for allergic asthma, these fail to modify the underlying immune responses. Allergen immunotherapy remains the only etiological therapy for the treatment of respiratory allergies for which clinical efficacy has been demonstrated through several well-controlled studies. In this review, we examine evidence from the past 5 years regarding the impact of allergen immunotherapy on allergic asthma to inform practitioners and stimulate further discussion and research.
| S-EPMC5994829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing the EAACI Guidelines for Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Asthma. We seek to critically assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT in the management of allergic asthma.We will undertake a systematic review, which will involve searching international biomedical databases for published, in progress and unpublished evidence. Studies will be independently screened against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data will be descriptively and, if possible and appropriate, quantitatively synthesised.The findings from this review will be used to inform the development of recommendations for EAACI's Guidelines on AIT.
| S-EPMC4746770 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible.MethodsWe performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (scorePlacebo - scoreActive)/scorePlacebo.ResultsTwenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were -29.6% (-23% to -37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets, -19.2% (-6% to -29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets, -23.5% (-7% to -54%) for nasal corticosteroids, -17.1% (-15% to -20%) for MP29-02, -15.0% (-3% to -26%) for H1-antihistamines and -6.5% (-3% to -10%) for montelukast.ConclusionsIn an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.
| S-EPMC4101870 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is clinical uncertainty about the effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for the treatment of allergic asthma.To undertake a systematic overview of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT for the treatment of allergic asthma.We searched nine electronic databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Systematic reviews were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively and thematically synthesized.We identified nine eligible systematic reviews; these focused on delivery of AIT through the following routes: subcutaneous (SCIT; n = 3); sublingual (SLIT; n = 4); and both SCIT and SLIT (n = 2). This evidence found that AIT delivered by SCIT and SLIT can improve medication and symptom scores and measures of bronchial hyper-reactivity. The impact on measures of lung function or asthma control was however less clear. We found no systematic review level evidence on the cost-effectiveness of SCIT or SLIT. SLIT had a favorable safety profile when compared to SCIT, particularly in relation to the risk of systemic reactions.AIT has the potential to achieve reductions in symptom and medication scores, but there is no clear or consistent evidence that measures of lung function can be improved. Bearing in mind the limitations of synthesizing evidence from systematic reviews and the fact that these reviews include mainly dated studies, a systematic review of current primary studies is now needed to update this evidence base, estimate the effectiveness of AIT on asthma outcomes and to investigate the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT.
| S-EPMC5539638 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAlthough allergen specific immunotherapy (SIT) represents the only immune- modifying and curative option available for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), the optimal schedule for specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is still unknown. The objective of this study is to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of cluster SCIT for patients with AR.MethodsBy searching PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane clinical trials database from 1980 through May 10th, 2013, we collected and analyzed the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cluster SCIT to assess its efficacy and safety.ResultsEight trials involving 567 participants were included in this systematic review. Our meta-analysis showed that cluster SCIT have similar effect in reduction of both rhinitis symptoms and the requirement for anti-allergic medication compared with conventional SCIT, but when comparing cluster SCIT with placebo, no statistic significance were found in reduction of symptom scores or medication scores. Some caution is required in this interpretation as there was significant heterogeneity between studies. Data relating to Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) in 3 included studies were analyzed, which consistently point to the efficacy of cluster SCIT in improving quality of life compared to placebo. To assess the safety of cluster SCIT, meta-analysis showed that no differences existed in the incidence of either local adverse reaction or systemic adverse reaction between the cluster group and control group.ConclusionBased on the current limited evidence, we still could not conclude affirmatively that cluster SCIT was a safe and efficacious option for the treatment of AR patients. Further large-scale, well-designed RCTs on this topic are still needed.
| S-EPMC3904879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectives: The relationship between air pollen quantity and the sensitization of allergic patients is crucial for both the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases. Weather conditions influence the distribution of allergenic pollen and increases in pollen concentration may negatively affect the health of allergic patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the implementation of allergen immunotherapy with regard to air pollen concentration. Material and Methods: Here we examined the relationship between Betula air pollen concentration and the usage of Betula verrucosa allergen immunotherapy in Serbia. Examination covered the period from 2015 to 2018. Measurement of airborne pollen concentration was performed with Lanzoni volumetric pollen traps. The evidence of the usage of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) was gathered from patients with documented sensitization to specific pollen. Results: During this period tree pollens were represented with 58% ± 21% of all measured air pollen species, while Betula pollen represented 15% ± 8% of all tree pollens. Betula pollination peaked in April. Allergen immunotherapy to Betula verrucosa in Serbia is entirely conducted as sublingual immunotherapy and represents 47.1% ± 1.4% of issued tree pollen SLIT. The use of pollen SLIT increased by 68% from 2015 to 2018, with an even greater increase in usage recorded for Betula SLIT-80%. Conclusions: This analysis shows a clear causative relationship between pollination and the type/prevalence of applied allergen immunotherapy. Information about the flowering seasons of allergenic plants is very important for people who suffer from allergy, for clinical allergologists, as well as for governing authorities. The presented data is of practical importance to the proper timing of immunotherapy initiation and of importance for urban landscaping. The obtained data can be the starting point for the instatement of a thorough epidemiological study and the inclusion of Serbia on the pollen map of Europe.
| S-EPMC7074275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). To inform the development of recommendations, we sought to critically assess the systematic review evidence on the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of AIT for ARC.We undertook a systematic overview, which involved searching nine international biomedical databases from inception to October 31, 2015. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against pre-defined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Systematic Review Checklist for systematic reviews. Data were descriptively synthesized.Our searches yielded a total of 5932 potentially eligible studies, from which 17 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Eight of these were judged to be of high, five moderate and three low quality. These reviews suggested that, in carefully selected patients, subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) immunotherapy resulted in significant reductions in symptom scores and medication requirements. Serious adverse outcomes were rare for both SCIT and SLIT. Two systematic reviews reported some evidence of potential cost savings associated with use of SCIT and SLIT.We found moderate-to-strong evidence that SCIT and SLIT can, in appropriately selected patients, reduce symptoms and medication requirements in patients with ARC with reassuring safety data. This evidence does however need to be interpreted with caution, particularly given the heterogeneity in the populations, allergens and protocols studied. There is a lack of data on the relative effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of SCIT and SLIT. We are now systematically reviewing all the primary studies, including recent evidence that has not been incorporated into the published systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC5547534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the last few decades, there has been a progressive increase in the prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) in China, where it now affects approximately 250 million people. AR prevention and treatment include allergen avoidance, pharmacotherapy, allergen immunotherapy (AIT), and patient education, among which AIT is the only curative intervention. AIT targets the disease etiology and may potentially modify the immune system as well as induce allergen-specific immune tolerance in patients with AR. In 2017, a team of experts from the Chinese Society of Allergy (CSA) and the Chinese Allergic Rhinitis Collaborative Research Group (C2AR2G) produced the first English version of Chinese AIT guidelines for AR. Since then, there has been considerable progress in basic research of and clinical practice for AIT, especially regarding the role of follicular regulatory T (TFR) cells in the pathogenesis of AR and the use of allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) in nasal secretions for the diagnosis of AR. Additionally, potential biomarkers, including TFR cells, sIgG4, and sIgE, have been used to monitor the incidence and progression of AR. Moreover, there has been a novel understanding of AIT during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Hence, there was an urgent need to update the AIT guideline for AR by a team of experts from CSA and C2AR2G. This document aims to serve as professional reference material on AIT for AR treatment in China, thus improving the development of AIT across the world.
| S-EPMC9709690 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Placebo control in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) trials presents ethical and blinding concerns. We tested a trial design with an "active allergen placebo," as proposed by ARIA-GA2 LEN, to investigate in a double-blind trial the efficacy and safety of AIT in dual-allergic patients (grass and birch pollen) using active untargeted treatments as controls. METHODS:We randomized 95 patients to receive either grass (N = 47) or birch AIT (N = 48). Patients were exposed to both allergens in an allergen challenge chamber (ACC) before and after 9 months of AIT. Targeted (ACC-allergen = AIT-allergen) and untargeted (ACC-allergen ≠ AIT-allergen) treatment effects were assessed. RESULTS:Immunotherapy reduced significantly the mean (95% confidence interval) area under the curve of total nasal symptom score (targeted effects) by -13.55 (-17.56, -9.54; P < 0.001) after grass and -9.81 (-14.13, -5.50; P < 0.001) after birch AIT. Differences in targeted vs untargeted effects between AIT groups (utility of control group) were statistically significant for both grass (P = 0.02) and birch (P = 0.02) allergens. Targeted vs untargeted differences within-treatment groups (specificity of ACC measurement) were significant for grass AIT (P < 0.001) but not significant for birch AIT group (P = 0.24). Specific immunoglobulin G4 to both allergens increased significantly (P < 0.001) after targeted treatment, while remained unchanged for untargeted treatments. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS:Immunotherapies for both grass and birch allergens were efficacious and safe. The study confirms the specificity of AIT. Untargeted treatment groups could serve as controls in future AIT trials.
| S-EPMC6773203 | biostudies-other