Search

Introduction: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic relapsing skin disease, characterized by flare-up due to the exposure to allergens in patients sensitized to them. Currently, therapy of AD is mainly based on symptomatic treatment and avoidance of irritating/allergenic factors, house dust mites being particularly important. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is suggested to be the only etiologic treatment, to modify the natural history of the disease. Areas covered: The aim of this review is investigating the putative role of AIT in AD through the evaluation of the most recent scientific literature. Several studies have been conducted since 1970, with promising results in improving the clinical outcome of AD, but they often lack the necessary scientific rigorousness. Moreover, heterogeneity of the studies makes it very difficult to compare and to analyze data in a systematic review or meta-analysis. Expert commentary: As a result of the above-mentioned limitations, the treatment of AD with causative aeroallergen can nowadays be suggested only as an add-on therapy in selected patients who are non-responsive to the traditional therapy.

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in its two forms of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is an effective treatment of respiratory allergy, but is particularly concerned by the issue of compliance., Objective: We aimed a real-life study at evaluating the compliance to SLIT and to SCIT administered by a short-course of four injections during a 3-year period of observation., Methods: A group of 145 patients (79 males, 66 females, age ranging from 14 to 69 years), suffering from pollen-induced rhino-conjunctivitis with or without asthma, were included in the study. Following adequate education on AIT and according to patient's preference, 72 patients chose to be treated with short-course SCIT and 73 chose to be treated with SLIT. The latter was performed by allergen extracts from different manufacturers according to the suggested schedules., Results: The rate of withdrawal was as follows: after one year, 15.6% for SCIT and 33.4 for SLIT; after two years, 25.6% for SCIT and 44.8% for SLIT; after three years, 26.7 for SCIT and 46% for SLIT. There was no significant difference in the rate of withdrawal between males and females. Regarding the safety, no systemic reaction requiring medical treatment was observed either in SCIT or SLIT group., Conclusion: The findings of this study confirm that involving the patient in the choice of the route of administration is associated to a satisfactory compliance to AIT. In particular, more than 70% of patients treated with a short schedule of SCIT completed the three-years course of treatment that is recommended for AIT, while this goal was reached by 54% of SLIT treated patients.

Background: Specific immunotherapy (SIT) efficacy and safety by subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual (SLIT) route is supported by literature data. Pre-coseasonal treatment is currently the more accepted option for pollen immunotherapy in terms of costs and patient's compliance. This retrospective study evaluated the patient's preference concerning subcutaneous or sublingual route in pre-coseasonal treatment., Materials and Methods: We evaluated 145 patients (79 males, 66 females, age ranging from 14 to 69 years), suffering from moderate-severe rhino-conjunctivitis or mild bronchial asthma and with homogeneous characteristic according to allergic disease severity. We proposed either SLIT, with extracts by different producers, or SCIT with Pollinex 4 (Allergy Therapeutics, Worthing, UK), a product designed for ultra-short administration in 4 injections, highlighting for each kind of SIT the major practical advantages or burdens., Results: Of 145 patients, 72 chose Pollinex 4 SCIT and 73 chose SLIT. SCIT-treated patients received a total of 90 vaccines (18 patients had double course of SCIT). SLIT-treated patients received a total of 87 vaccines (14 patients had double course of SLIT). In the SCIT group, there were 49 males and 23 females; in the SLIT group, there were 30 males and 43 females. Mean age was 36.5 years in SCIT group and 28.5 years in SLIT group. Males preferred SCIT (49 of 72 patients) and females preferred SLIT (43 of 73 patients). No severe reaction was observed either in SCIT or SLIT group., Conclusion: Patients are active subjects in decisional process. Trying to apply in real life the indications coming from guidelines about patient's preference is an important matter. In our patients SCIT with ultra short schedule and SLIT are similarly preferred.

Background: Quality of life (QOL) is an important issue in allergic rhinitis and has been evaluated in a number of studies that have shown how it is impaired in untreated patients and improved by effective treatment. However, there are no data concerning QOL after sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in polysensitized patients., Objective: To evaluate the effect, in real-life clinical practice, of SLIT on QOL in a population of polysensitized patients with allergic rhinitis., Methods: We prospectively evaluated 167 consecutively enrolled polysensitized patients with allergic rhinitis. QOL was measured in all cases with the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire at baseline and after 1 year of SLIT (performed in approximately 70% of cases using single allergen extracts provided by the same manufacturer)., Results: The most frequent causes of sensitization were grass pollen, Parietaria, and house dust mites. The mean number of sensitizations per patient was 3.65. SLIT was performed with 1 extract in 123 patients (73.6%), with 2 extracts in 31 patients (18.6%), and with more than 2 extracts in 13 patients (7.8%). The mean values of all the QOL items improved significantly (P < .01 in all cases), with the following reductions noted: activities, 3.96 to 2.89; sleep, 2.07 to 1.56; general problems, 2.16 to 1.5; practical problems, 3.69 to 2.58; nasal symptoms, 3.57 to 2.50; eye symptoms, 2.92 to 1.83; and emotional aspects, 2.2 to 1.44., Conclusions: This study provides evidence that QOL can be improved in polysensitized patients treated with SLIT, and that the use of just 1 or 2 allergen extracts seems to be sufficient and effective in terms of improving QOL.

Allergen extracts for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are currently marketed by several manufacturers, with administration schedules and amount of allergen(s) quite variable in the different products, although almost all are standardized biologically or immunologically. The allergen extracts for SLIT are available in two main pharmaceutical forms: solution to be delivered by drop-counters, pre-dosed actuators (mini-pumps) or disposable single-dose vials; tablets with appropriate composition that allows a slow (1-2 minutes) dissolution in the mouth in contact with saliva. In Europe, SLIT is prescribed in general for one or a few allergens, and mixtures are less used, though there is no immunological contraindication to give multiple allergens. SLIT traditionally involves a build-up phase and a maintenance phase with the top dose. The build-up phase has usually the duration of 4 - 6 weeks. The patient must start with the lowest concentration and gradually increase, using the different dosage preparations, until the maintenance dose is reached. Rush and ultra-rush inductions have been introduced, based on the safety profile of SLIT that is very favorable. For these reasons it has been suggested that an updosing phase maybe even not necessary. The no-updosing approach would result in a treatment that is more patient-friendly and convenient to manage. Indeed, the most recent randomized trials were performed with the no-updosing regimen and their results in term of safety were as favorable as the studies performed with the traditional updosing approach. The currently recommended duration of SLIT is comprised between 3 and 4 years depending on the clinical response in single patients.

Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment targeting the causes, and not only the symptoms, of allergic diseases. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was introduced and developed to solve the problem of the adverse reactions, uncommon but possibly severe and rarely fatal, to the traditional subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). The evidence of SLIT efficacy concerns rhinitis and asthma caused by sensitization to pollens and to house dust mites, but there are increasing data suggesting that SLIT could be applied in forms of allergy hardly feasible for SCIT because of its poor safety (this is true for food allergy and latex allergy) or could be considered for new applications, such as atopic dermatitis or baker's asthma. In particular, there are placebo-controlled trials indicating good efficacy and safety of SLIT in patients allergic to latex and to foods and in children with atopic dermatitis, that indicate SLIT as a real treatment option in such clinical entities. This article also discusses some patent related to the field.

A number of experimental and clinical evidence has shown that exposure to high amounts of allergen molecules favours the development of tolerance. This is true also for subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), for which a dose dependence of clinical efficacy was clearly demonstrated. The effective doses, measured as microg of major allergens, to be administered during maintenance treatment were established for the main allergens. Regarding pollens, the range of effectiveness corresponds to 25-41 and 13-20 microg of major allergens Phl p 5 and Phl p 6 for grasses, to 10-47 microg of Amb a 1 for ragweed, to 12 microg of Bet v 1 for birch, and to 6.2 microg of Par j 1 for Parietaria. With house dust mites, a maintenance dose of 5-11.5 microg of the major allergen from Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus Der p 1 is associated to clinically relevant effects, and with cat epithelium the clinical success is observed using a dose of 13-15 microg of Fel d 1. Nevertheless, there are adverse reactions facing SCIT, which are related to the amount of injected allergen. In fact, the safety decreases when the administered doses increase. This has led to "optimal doses" being defined which show a good balance between efficacy and safety (corresponding for example to a dose of 7 microg for Der p 1 and of 13 microg for Fel d 1). The dose dependency with respect to both efficacy and safety makes essential to accurately consider the risk/benefit ratio in each patient eligible for SCIT.