1 / 67

Specific Allergen Immunotherapy Safety World Allergy Organization 2011 Congress Cancun, Mexico

Specific Allergen Immunotherapy Safety World Allergy Organization 2011 Congress Cancun, Mexico. Linda Cox, MD, FAAAAI, FACAAI Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine Nova Southeastern University Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Allergen Immunotherapy Safety. Subcutaneous immunotherapy

brittney
Download Presentation

Specific Allergen Immunotherapy Safety World Allergy Organization 2011 Congress Cancun, Mexico

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Specific Allergen Immunotherapy SafetyWorld Allergy Organization 2011 CongressCancun, Mexico Linda Cox, MD, FAAAAI, FACAAI Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine Nova Southeastern University Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

  2. Allergen Immunotherapy Safety • Subcutaneous immunotherapy • Sublingual Immunotherapy • Adverse reactions: types and incidence per published studies ,post marketing surveillance & surveys • Lessons learned from the literature: risk factors • WAO Grading system for SCIT/SLIT systemic reactions and SLIT local reactions • Other forms of immunotherapy • Oral immunotherapy (foods) • Adjuvants/peptides • Epicutaneous/intralympahatic

  3. Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Adverse Reactions Local SCIT reactions • Erythema, pruritus and swelling at the injection site • Very common: ranging from 26% to 82% of patients and 0.7% to 16% of injections.1 • 92% of A/I adjust for LR in concern for LR/SR or pt will discontinue2 3 1.Calabria et al., J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124:739-44 2.Coop et al, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101(1):96-100. 3. Tankersley MS. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2011;11(2):115-214.

  4. Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Adverse Reactions Local reactions ‘pearls/myths’ • Small or large LR rate defined as ≤ or > palm of hand) .1 • Not related to glycerin content but • Small LR rate higher with increasing allergen content. • LLR found not to be predictive of local or systemic reactions with subsequent injections 2-4 • Survey of 249 SCIT patients-those who experienced LR5 • 81.9% deemed LR not to be bothersome. • 96.0% stated they would not stop SCIT because of these LR • 1. Calabria et al., J Allergy ClinImmunol. 2008;121:222-6. 2. Calabria et al., J Allergy ClinImmunol. 2009;124:739-44. 3. Tankersley et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106(5):840-3. 4.Kelso Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004;92(2):225-7. 5. Coop et al, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101(1):96-100

  5. Individuals with a greater frequency of LLR may be a greater risk for SR • Methods: Retrospective review of a database: comparing LLR rate in pts who had SRs with pts who did not have SRs • LLR= redness & swelling ≥25 mm • Results: 258 pts had 283 SRs in 108,621 injections • LLR rate 4 times higher in pts with SRs than pts with no SRs • SR group: LLR rate: 35.2% of visits and 19.5% of injections • No SR group: LLR rate: 8.9% of visits and 5.3% of injections (P < .001 each). • Conclusions: Patients with increased frequency of LLR may have increased risk for future SR . Roy et al., Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2007; 99: 82-6.

  6. Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Systemic Reactions • SCIT SR rate varies greatly depending on several factors: allergen dose, extract type , induction schedule, premeditation, extract type, etc. • SR rate: review of SCIT studies that reported SR rate:1 • Per injection frequency was ~0.2% • Per patient rate of 2% in most US studies & 5% (mean) in Europe • Signs and symptoms of the SR: One 1 year retrospective survey of 31/773 (4%) subjects had 32 SR in ~28,000 injections (.1%), the symptoms frequency was:2 • Generalized pruritus ( 34.4%); upper airway pruritus (28.1%); cough( 25.0%); shortness of breath ( 21.9%). • Cox L, et al J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(3):569-74 • Phillips JF, Lockey RF, et al Systemic reactions to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy and the response to epinephrine. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2011;32(4):288-94.

  7. WAO Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Systemic Reaction Grading Systems • 5 Grades: based on organ system involved and severity. • Organ systems are defined as: • Cutaneous, conjunctival, upper respiratory, • Lower respiratory, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular and other. • Grade 1: single organ system such as cutaneous, conjunctival, upper respiratory, but not asthma, gastrointestinal or cardiovascular • Grade 2 & 3. Symptoms from >1 organ system or asthma, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular • Grade 4: Respiratory failure, hypotension ±loss of consciousness • The Grade is determined by the physician’s clinical judgment after the event is over. Endorsed by AAAAI, ACAAI, the Latin American Society of Allergy and Immunology, the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology,

  8. Cox et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125:569-74

  9. The final reaction grade will not be determined until the event is over, regardless of the medication administered. • The final report should include the first symptom(s)/sign(s) and the time of onset after the SCIT injection and • A suffix that denotes if and when epinephrine is or is not administered in relationship to symptom(s)/sign(s) of the SR: • ≤ 5 minutes; • >5 minutes to ≤10 minutes; • >10 to ≤ 20 minutes; • >20 minutes; • epinephrine not administered.

  10. Excel Tracking Log for SR Grading & Treatment Cox L, Larenas-Linnemann D, Lockey RF, Passalacqua G. Speaking the same language: The World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Systemic Reaction Grading System. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(3):569-74, 74 e1-74 e7.

  11. Worse Case Scenario Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Fatalities 3 surveys of AAAAI members on immunotherapy fatalities spanning time period between 1945-2001

  12. Timing of SCIT Systemic Reactions • Some studies report up to 50% of SR have be reported to occur beyond the 30 minute wait period recommended by JTFPP & EACCI • Most serious SR occur within 30 minutes 1,2 • 1-year survey of 733 pts on SCIT: 22% of the SR occurred beyond 30 minutes.3 • WAO Grade 4 reactions: • 2 occurred within seconds & 10 minutes • 1 RTC at 45minutes with a Grade 3 4 • Cox L, et al J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(3):569-74 • Tinkleman et al, JAllergy Clin Immunol. 1995;95 3 Phillips JF, Lockey RF, et al. 2011;32(4):288-94.

  13. Timing of SCIT Systemic Reactions & Potential Risk Factors • 7-years retrospective study to determine whether a pattern of greater STR is associated with elevated risk for systemic reaction. • Results: 20 patients had 46 SR in 16,375 injections • SR rate was 0.28% per injection visit. • 72% of SR patients had prior SR: • 9/15 cases had 2-7 prior SR. • SR risk 6 times higher for patients with > 33% 3 to 4+ SPT (OR = 5.83; 95%CI: 1.23-27.59, P = .026). • All severe reactions occurred within 30 minutes. DaVeigast al, . Systemic reactions associated with subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy: timing and risk assessment. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2011;106(6):533-7.

  14. AAAAI/ACAAI Surveillance Study of SCIT Safety: Time of Onset and Treatment of Systemic Reactions • In 3 years, no fatalities reported by ~806 physicians (representing 1922 SCIT prescribers & 8.1 million injection visits/year) • Of 222 (35% respondents) providing time of onset and epinephrine data on a total of 2,117 SRs: • Epinephrine was administered to most (77%) but not all SRs beginning within 30-minutes, including: • 70% of Grade 1, 93% of Grade 2, 93% of Grade 3 SRs. • Delayed SR: 289 (13.7%) SR 289 occurred after 30 minutes • 9 (13%) of delayed SR were Grade 3 Bernstein DI, Epstein T. Systemic reactions to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy. Immunology and Allergy Clinics of North America. 2011;31(2):241-9

  15. AAAAI/ACAAI Surveillance Study of SCIT Safety: Time of Onset and Grade 74% Per injection SR rate & number (%) practices reporting1 • Grade 1mild SR: • 1 per 1,287 (.07% injection visits) • 613 (76%) practices • Grade 2 moderate SR: • 1 per 4,166 (.02% injection visits) • 436 (54%) practices • Grade 3 severe SR: • 1 per 30,566 (.003%) • 144 (18%) practices • Practices reporting Grade 3 vs. 1 only were more likely to prescribe epinephrine autoinjectors, check patient identifiers prior to injection, and prescribe routine premedication & higher HDM doses.2 23% 3% 1.Bernstein et al, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2010;104:530-5. 2.Epstein et al, AAAAI/ACAAI Surveillance Study of SCIT(Year 2): Time of Onset and Treatment of SR (Abstract). JACI 2011.

  16. AAAAI/ACAAI IT Safety Survey July 2010-July 2011 Response rates were down with 518 respondents representing 1,135 prescribers in 2010-11 (630 in previous year) Some important novel findings discovered in Year 3 include: • Practices reporting routinely antihistamine premedication were also more likely to have reported injection related SR. • Practices never or sometimes reducing allergen doses following LLR were no more likely to experience injection related SR than practices who adjusted doses. • Practices who always adjusted allergen doses during peak pollen seasons were significantly less likely to experience moderate or severe SR to allergen injections. Personal communication David Bernstein; publication in preparation

  17. Biphasic Systemic Reactions • Summary Statement 35: Biphasic immunotherapy reactions, defined as resolution of the initial reaction with recurrence 2 to 24 hours, were reported in up to 23% of patients, who experienced a SR after SCIT in one study. Biphasic reactions were typically less severe than the initial reaction. C • 2 prospective studies found 10%1 and 23%2 of IT SRs were biphasic • No specific symptoms during the initial reaction predicted a biphasic reaction. • Biphasic reactors more likely to be female , older and require >1 dose of epinephrine during initial SR • Biphasic reactions were typically less severe than the initial reaction and none required additional epinephrine • Confino-Cohen et al, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2010;104:73-8. • Scranton et al, J Allergy ClinImmunol 2009;123:493-8.

  18. Wait Period & Delayed reactions • The recommendation that a patient should remain in the physician’s office/medical clinic for 30 minutes after the injection is unchanged from the previous update. • It is recommended that at the onset of immunotherapy, patients should be counseled on the possibility of immediate and delayed systemic reactions during risk communication; an action plan for such an event should be discussed. • The decision to prescribe epinephrine autoinjectors to patients receiving immunotherapy should be at the physician’s discretion. Cox L, Nelson H, Lockey R, Calabria C, Chacko T, Finegold I, et al. Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter third update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(1 Suppl):S1-55.

  19. AcceleratedImmunotherapy Schedules ,Premedication and Medications to be Used with Caution

  20. Advantages & Disadvantages of Accelerated Immunotherapy Schedules* * *Cox L. Advantages & disadvantages of accelerated immunotherapy schedules. J Allergy ClinImmunol 2008; 122:432-4. 2

  21. Subcutaneous Rush Schedule • RIT incremental doses of allergen at intervals varying between 15 and 60 minutes over 1 to 3 days • Aeroallergen RIT schedules can be associated with greater risk of SR, premedication appears to reduce the risk (27% in premed vs. 73% in placebo premed group1) • The most accelerated schedule for inhalant allergens: 7 injections in 4 hours. Regimen includes 4 drug premedication: prednisone, LTR, AH and H2-blocker. SR occurred in 38% of patients; 1 severe systolic BP = 50 mm Hg • 72% after last dose • 16% after next to last • Remainder 3rd to last 1. Portnoy et al., Ann Allergy 1994;73:409-18 2. Harvey et al Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004;92(4):414-9.

  22. Subcutaneous Rush Schedule • Ultrarush stinging insect protocols achieve the maintenance dose in 2.5 to 4 hours • RIT for administration of Hymenoptera have not been associated with a similar high incidence of systemic reactions. • Conflicting data on safety of fire ant (FA) RIT without premedication • 1-day FA RIT without premedication reported 24.3% of the 37 patients experienced SR most being urticaria and pruritus • “Further studies are needed to clarify the risk of fire ant rush immunotherapy, and premedication might be considered.” (from the 2011 Allergen Immunotherapy Practice Parameter 3rd Update) 1. Tankersley J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;109(3):556-62. 2. Dietrich et al, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009;103(6):535-6 .

  23. Subcutaneous Cluster Schedule • Cluster entails administering several injections at increasing doses (generally 2-3 per visit) sequentially in a single day of treatment on nonconsecutive days. • Cluster schedule associated with the same or a slightly increased frequency of SRs compared with conventional schedules. • Example of a 8 visit 18 injection schedule in the ITPP Cox L, Li J, Lockey R, Nelson H. Allergen immunotherapy: A practice parameter second update. JACI 2007;120:S25-S85.

  24. Studies Comparing Cluster and Conventional Immunotherapy Schedule • DBPC study of 239 pts with dust mite AR ± asthma comparing 6-week with a 12-week conventional schedule found:1 • No differences between the 2 schedules in terms of AEs • Improved clinical and objective parameters in the cluster 6 weeks before conventional group • Randomized study of 96 patients with dust mite AR comparing 6 week cluster with 14 week conventional found: • Cluster reduced time to maintenance dose by 57%. • No differences in SRs compared with conventional schedule.2 1. Taber et al., J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005; 116:109-18 2. Zhang et al., Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2009;148:161-9.

  25. Systemic reactions with aeroallergen cluster immunotherapy in a clinical practice Methods: A retrospective, observational review in a large, multicenter group regarding cluster IT safety Maintenance dose based on AIPP guidelines, most premedicated Results: Data from 441 cluster patients. 48 patients (10.9%) experienced SRs Based on the WAO SCIT SR Grading System, • 18 grade 1 reactions (38.3%), • 23 grade 2 reactions (48.9%), • 5 grade 3 reactions (10.6%), Compared with clinics conventional IT during 2-yr period with 12,963 receiving SIT: SR rate 0.043% of IT visits and 2.2% of patients Copenhaver et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2011;107(5):441-7..

  26. Higher Systemic reaction rate with aeroallergen cluster immunotherapy in a clinical practice • Risk factors for a systemic reaction included: female sex, asthma, age 21 to 40 years, and inclusion of certain allergens in the immunotherapy vaccine. • Conclusions Cluster buildup may lead to a higher rate of systemic reactions. Identifying risk factors for systemic reactions will help improve the safety of cluster immunotherapy. Copenhaver et al. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2011;107(5):441-7..

  27. Systemic tolerability of SCIT with IR– standardized allergen extracts administered using clustered regimens • Methods: Retrospective, observational, multicenter study in 1,147 patients who were treated with one of 9 cluster regimen • Results: 39 patients (3.4%) experienced 42 SRs (0.6% of doses). observed a higher risk of SRs in patients who received an initial dose higher than 0.3 index of reactivity (IR); only • Only 2 reactions occurred after initial dose both with 0.4 IR. Remainder never with a dose lower than 0.35 IR. • Conclusions: Clustered regimens with IR-standardized extracts are an alternative to classic immunotherapy initial dose no greater than 0.35 IR to minimize the incidence of SRs. Serrano et al, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009;102(3):247-52.

  28. Measures to Improve Safety Premedication Antihistamines • Studies with RIT & cluster suggest decreased incidence of local and SRs. • Conventional IT: • One DBPC study found premedication with fexofenadine reduced # of severe SRs, ↑ number of pts who reached TMD &↓ time to TMD1 Leukotriene receptor antagonist • Anecdotal reports of reductions in SR rates . One DBPC study demonstrated ↓ LLR during venom RIT with moneleukast2 1.Ohashi et al, Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2006; 96 2. Wohrl et al., Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2007;144:137-42

  29. Omalizumab Premedication and Allergen Immunotherapy • Summary Statement 58: Omalizumab pretreatment has been shown to improve the safety and tolerability of cluster and rush immunotherapy schedules in patients with moderate-persistent asthma and allergic rhinitis, respectively. Additionally, omalizumab used in combination with immunotherapy has been shown to be effective in improving symptom scores compared to immunotherapy alone. A Cox L, et al. Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter third update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(1 Suppl):S1-55.

  30. Effect of pretreatment with omalizumab on the tolerability of SIT in allergic asthma Massanari et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(2):383-9

  31. Severity of First Systemic Allergic Reaction Patients who experienced SR: omalizumab 13.5%, placebo 26.2% P= 0.017 N=17 N=32 Massanari et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(2):383-9

  32. β-adrenergic blocking agents and allergen Immunotherapy • Summary Statement 37: Exposure to β-adrenergic blocking agents is a risk factor for more serious and treatment-resistant anaphylaxis.  Concomitant use of β-blockers and allergen immunotherapy should be carefully considered from an individualized risk/benefit standpoint, and incorporate patient preferences in the medical decision-making process. C • Cardioselective β-blockers, which mainly affect β1 receptors, are less likely to promote bronchospasm than non-selective β-blockers…. • Unusually severe anaphylaxis in patients taking ophthalmic and cardioselective β-blockers has been described for this reason, absence of increased β-blocker risk in association with either ophthalmic or β-blockers in patients receiving AIT cannot be assumed. Cox L, et al. Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter third update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(1 Suppl):S1-55.

  33. ACE inhibitors & Venom Immunotherapy Summary Statement 40: . • ACE inhibitors have been associated with greater risk for more severe reaction from VIT as well as field stings ACE inhibitor discontinuation should be considered for patients receiving VIT. • Concurrent administration of VIT and an ACE inhibitor is warranted in selected cases in which no equally efficacious alternative for an ACE inhibitor exists, and this is judged to be favorable from an individualized risk/benefit standpoint and consideration of patient preferences. • No evidence exists that angiotensin receptor blockers are associated with greater risk for anaphylaxis from allergen immunotherapy. C Cox L, et al. Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter third update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(1 Suppl):S1-55.

  34. ACE Inhibitors Associated with More Severe but not More Frequent Venom Anaphylaxis • Retrospective review to evaluate frequency VIT or field sting SRs in 79 pts on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors(ACE-I) did not find an increase SR frequency1 • Cases of anaphylaxis/severe anaphylaxis in pts receiving VIT while on ACE Inhibitors, then none when withheld, with recurrence when ACE Inhibitor restarted.1 ,2 • A large multi-center study found that ACE inhibitors were associated with increased risk for more severe anaphylaxis after venom field sting.3 • These data provide support for the contention that ACE inhibitor use is not associated with increased SR frequency; however, greater risk for more serious reaction may still exist. • White KM, England RW. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008; 101:426-30. • Tunon-de-Lara et al, Lancet 1992;340:908 • Ober et al, J Allergy ClinImmunol 2003;112:1008-9 • Ruëff et al, J Allergy ClinImmunol 2009;124:1047-54.

  35. Measurement of Baseline Tryptase in Patients with Moderate-Severe Venom Anaphylaxis • Summary Statement 10b: Measurement of baseline serum tryptase level is recommended in patients with moderate or severe anaphylactic reactions to stings because its predictive value is useful regardless of the decision about VIT. Elevated tryptase is associated with more frequent and more severe anaphylactic reactions to stings, as well as greater failure rates with VIT and greater relapse rates after stopping VIT.B Cox L, Nelson H, Lockey R, Calabria C, Chacko T, Finegold I, et al. Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter third update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(1 Suppl):S1-55.

  36. Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Safety Summary • Incidence of SRs dependent on multiple factors at a rate ~0.2% of injections and 2-5% of patients • Delayed & biphasic do occur not infrequently • Fatalities rare in previous surveys but none in ~24 million injection visits from June 2008-July 2011 • WAO Grading System for classifying systemic reactions: • Aeroallergen RIT higher rate of SR even with premedication • Cluster SR rater appears similar to conventional but more studies needed with multiallergen SCIT. • Premedication • Reduces LR and SR with conventional & accelerated IT schedules • Recommended for aeroallergen RIT • Does not appear to be needed for VIT but need in FA RIT unclear • Caution with ACE- inhibitor & beta-blockers including β1 -selective

  37. Sublingual Immunotherapy Safety • Some difficulty in evaluating SLIT safety because: • Treatment administered at home • Thus adverse reactions primarily occur at home, i.e., unwitnessed and/or not evaluated by a someone with medical training • May be significant variability in accuracy and interpretation of patient’s reported AEs

  38. AAAAI/ACAAI JTF Summary of SLIT Adverse Events • In 66 SLIT studies AE there were no fatalities or anaphylactic reactions accompanied by hypotension • 1,181,000 doses of unmodified allergen to 4765 patients • No reports of SLIT-related fatalities • Oral-mucosal symptoms: affecting up to 75% of patients • Systemic Rx: 0.56 SR per 1000 SLIT doses • No clear predictors for SLIT adverse reactions (e.g., dose, induction schedule , asthma etc.) ‘ • 14 probable SLIT SAE: 7 asthma-1 hospitalized • Post JTF report:4 cases of anaphylaxis in the published literature: 2 hospitalized and 1 with LOC (B/P 70/40)

  39. SLIT Safety in Published Literature • No reports of SLIT-related fatalities to date in an estimated ___billion doses • Most AE are local and occur in the beginning of treatment • Dose-response relationship with AEs in some studies • No apparent relationship with updosing schedule and AEs • Several large (>400 patients) grass-pollen tablet studies in adults & children demonstrate good safety profile with no updosing • Few reported cases of anaphylaxis (at least 6 )

  40. Reported Rates of Adverse Events in Post-marketing Surveys * including systemic side effects only Passalacqua et al, Grading side effects of sublingual immunotherapy speaking the same language. 2011 in preparation

  41. Characteristics Of The Slit-induced Anaphylaxis Reported In Literature Passalacqua et al, Grading side effects of sublingual immunotherapy speaking the same language. 2011 in preparation

  42. Two Cases SLIT Anaphylaxis with First Grass Table Dose • 17 yo male d/c grass SCIT due to SR-developed urticaria, facial and tongue angioedema within15 minutes 1st grass tablet • 24 yo female with AR & asthma also d/c grass SCIT due SRs • After 1st grass tablet taken at home, she immediately experienced asthma sx, generalized itching, faintness and abdominal cramps; she recognized this from the SCIT side effect, but felt much worse ! • She took a lot of antihistamines, ICS & sympaticomimetica, and rushed to the GP office; • In distress on arrival: wheezing, pale, nearly fainting, BP 90/50 mmHg. Given adrenaline. • She recovered in the next few hours. de Groot H, Bijl A. Anaphylactic reaction after the first dose of sublingual immunotherapy with grass pollen tablet. Allergy 2009; 64:963-4.

  43. SLIT-Anaphylaxis: are there identifiable risk factors? • Risk factors in these cases? dose, gap in treatment, history of previous SR, updosing phase, multi-allergen treatment, delay in epinephrine, height of season, asthma???? • Multiallergen SLIT Safety: Two postmarketing surveys (1 adult1, 1 pediatrics2) found no difference in safety of between single allergen & multiple allergen SLIT. • Previous SR: prospective study of 43 pts receiving SLIT : 3/5 pts with SLIT SR had previous SCIT SRs3 • Lombardi C Allergy 2008; 63:375-6 • Agostinis F ,Allergy 2008; 63:1637-9 • Rodriguez-Perez N Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008; 101:304-10

  44. Most Adverse Reactions Occur During Beginning of SLIT Treatment • Most AEs occurred within the 1st few weeks then declined • Pattern similar to other studies • Higher doses=more AEs Dosing Range 5 to 200 mcg Phl p 5: Kleine-Tebbe Allergy 2006; 61: 181-184

  45. Didier et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(3):559-66. Comparison of 2 vs. 4 Month Pre & Co-seasonal Grass-pollen Tablet in an Intermittent 3-Year Treatment Regimen

  46. Full analysis set of patients over 4 evaluation seasons Randomized patients = 633 300IR (4M) = 207 year 1 (2007) year 1 (2007) 188 (91%) 172 (79%) 155 (75%) 160 (77%) year 2 (2008) year 2 (2008) 300IR (2M) = 207 Placebo = 219 year 3 (2009) year 3 (2009) 165 (75%) 147 (71%) 149 (72%) 188 (91%) 205 (94%) year 4 (2010) year 4 (2010) 155 (71%) 137 (66%) 143 (69%) • Didier et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(3):559-66

  47. Treatment Emergent AEs (≥ 5% in any treatment group) • Compared with season 1, seasons 2 and 3 showed a progressive decrease in the: • Incidence of AE • Intensity of AE Didier et al, J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;128(3):559-66 47

  48. Description of the local side effects related to SLIT Using MeDRA Terminology Passalacqua et al, Grading side effects of sublingual immunotherapy speaking the same language. 2011 in preparation

  49. WAO Grading System for SLIT Local Reactions Passalacqua et al, Grading side effects of sublingual immunotherapy speaking the same language. 2011 in preparation

  50. EAACI Immunotherapy Task Force Recommendations • “The scientific documentation for treatment schedules and dose modifications is limited. For routine treatment following the guidelines from the manufacturers is sensible. • • The administration of SLIT must be postponed in the following circumstances: • – In the presence of oro-pharyngeal infection. • – In the case of major dental surgery. • – Acute gastroenteritis. • – Exacerbation of the asthma. • – PEFR <80% of personal best value. • – Simultaneous administration of viral vaccines.” • Alvarez-Cuesta et al. Standards for practical allergen-specific immunotherapy. Allergy 2006; 61 Suppl 82:1-20.

More Related