The house dust mite (HDM) is a major perennial allergen source and a significant cause of allergic rhinitis and allergic asthma. However, awareness of the condition remains generally low. This review ...assesses the links between exposure to HDM, development of the allergic response, and pathologic consequences in patients with respiratory allergic diseases. We investigate the epidemiology of HDM allergy to explore the interaction between mites and human subjects at the population, individual, and molecular levels. Core and recent publications were identified by using “house dust mite” as a key search term to evaluate the current knowledge of HDM epidemiology and pathophysiology. Prevalence data for HDM allergen sensitization vary from 65 to 130 million persons in the general population worldwide to as many as 50% among asthmatic patients. Heterogeneity of populations, terminology, and end points in the literature confound estimates, indicating the need for greater standardization in epidemiologic research. Exposure to allergens depends on multiple ecological strata, including climate and mite microhabitats within the domestic environment, with the latter providing opportunity for intervention measures to reduce allergen load. Inhaled mite aeroallergens are unusually virulent: they are able to activate both the adaptive and innate immune responses, potentially offering new avenues for intervention. The role of HDM allergens is crucial in the development of allergic rhinitis and asthma, but the translation of silent sensitization into symptomatic disease is still incompletely understood. Improved understanding of HDMs, their allergens, and their microhabitats will enable development of more effective outcomes for patients with HDM allergy.
Currently, testing for immunoglobulin E (IgE) sensitization is the cornerstone of diagnostic evaluation in suspected allergic conditions. This review provides a thorough and updated critical ...appraisal of the most frequently used diagnostic tests, both in vivo and in vitro. It discusses skin tests, challenges, and serological and cellular in vitro tests, and provides an overview of indications, advantages and disadvantages of each in conditions such as respiratory, food, venom, drug, and occupational allergy. Skin prick testing remains the first line approach in most instances; the added value of serum specific IgE to whole allergen extracts or components, as well as the role of basophil activation tests, is evaluated. Unproven, non-validated, diagnostic tests are also discussed. Throughout the review, the reader must bear in mind the relevance of differentiating between sensitization and allergy; the latter entails not only allergic sensitization, but also clinically relevant symptoms triggered by the culprit allergen.
Abstract Background Allergic rhinitis affects 10 to 40% of the population. It reduces quality of life, school and work performance, and is a frequent reason for office visits in general practice. ...Medical costs are large but avoidable costs associated with lost work productivity are even larger than those incurred by asthma. New evidence has accumulated since the last revision of the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma – ARIA guidelines in 2010 prompting its update. Objective To provide a targeted update of the ARIA guidelines. Methods The ARIA guideline panel identified new clinical questions and selected questions requiring an update. We performed systematic reviews of health effects and the evidence about patient values and preferences, and resource requirements (up to June 2016). We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-to-decision frameworks to develop recommendations. Results The 2016 revision of the ARIA guidelines provides updated and new recommendations about the pharmacological treatment of allergic rhinitis. It specifically addresses the relative merits of using oral H1-antihistamines, intranasal H1-antihistamines, intranasal corticosteroids, and leukotriene receptor antagonists either alone or their combination. The ARIA guideline panel provides specific recommendations for the choice of treatment, the rationale for the choice, and discusses specific considerations that clinicians and patients may want to review in order to choose the management most appropriate for an individual patient. Conclusions Appropriate treatment of allergic rhinitis may improve patients’ quality of life, school and work productivity. ARIA recommendations support patients, their caregivers, and health care providers in choosing the optimal treatment.
Abstract Guidelines on the treatment of asthma, allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) lack recommendations for house dust mite (HDM) allergy. An expert panel reviewed current ...guidelines in the light of new data, to assess whether guidelines could be improved. Most guidelines and key position papers did not provide specific recommendations on treatment of allergic asthma (AA) caused by HDM allergy, although some included AIT as a treatment option for AA in general. Around half of the guidelines stated that AIT with HDM extract was an effective treatment for AR, with several indicating sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) as an option. This heterogeneity is caused by quality issues affecting studies of AIT with perennial allergens in AA and AR, including use of different diagnosis and severity criteria, lack of consistent scoring or grading systems for primary and safety outcomes, and lack of consensus on treatment parameters. There is a need for well-designed clinical trials to serve as a basis for guideline recommendations. Although results from recent studies strengthen the evidence base for the efficacy and safety of SLIT in HDM AA and AR, their impact on subsequent guideline updates will depend on the methodology and evidence model used by each guideline.
House dust mite (HDM)-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) is a major cause of allergic respiratory disease. The efficacy and safety of the 300 IR HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet in patients ...with moderate-to-severe HDM-AR was confirmed in a large, international, phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Here, we analyzed the results in the European population.
Data from 91 European centers that participated in the international, double-blind, RCT (EudraCT 2014-004223-46, NCT02443805) with the 300 IR HDM SLIT tablet versus placebo over 12 months were analyzed post hoc. The treatment effect in European adults and adolescents was notably assessed through the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)-recommended combined symptom and medication score (CSMS
, pre-defined endpoint) and the total combined rhinitis score (TCRS
, post hoc endpoint, also balanced) during the primary evaluation period (4 weeks at the end of treatment period) using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
There were 818 patients who comprised the modified full analysis set in Europe. Over the primary period, the differences in CSMS
and TCRS
between the 300 IR and placebo groups were statistically significant (p < 0.0001): -0.32 (95%CI -0.46; -0.17) and -1.28 (95%CI -1.63; -0.94), respectively, with relative differences of -20.9% and -21.2%. All post hoc and the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life endpoints were significantly improved with 300 IR versus placebo. The 300 IR HDM tablet was generally well tolerated.
This RCT sub-analysis confirmed the 300 IR HDM SLIT tablet is an effective and safe treatment for European adults and adolescents with HDM-AR with clinically meaningful benefits from the patients' perspective.
NCT02443805. Registered on April 29, 2015./EudraCT 2014-004223-46. Registered on September 16, 2015.
Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is today the only etiological therapy for respiratory allergic diseases, including allergic rhinitis, allergic conjunctivitis, and allergic asthma. Even though interest ...in real-world data has recently increased, publications mainly focus on short-term and long-term efficacy and safety of AIT. Indeed, information is still lacking regarding the “key parameters” or “drivers of prescription” used by doctors to prescribe AIT or by the patients to accept AIT as treatment for their respiratory allergic disease. Examining these factors is therefore the main goal of the CHOICE-Global Survey: “Criteria Used by Health Professionals on the Selection of Allergen Immunotherapy in Real Clinical Practice: An international academic electronic survey”.
We present the methodology of the CHOICE-Global Survey, an academic, prospective, multicenter, observational, transversal, web-based e-survey, conducted in real-life clinical settings designed to collect data from 31 countries representing 9 global different socio-economic and demographic regions. In the present document, we describe the survey, how it was conceived and developed, how data are stored and analyzed, and the different steps that will provide this information to the allergy community.
The CHOICE-Global Survey will be able to provide, from an academic point of view, information on the drivers of prescription of AIT in real-life practice and improve understanding regarding the key parameters considered by doctors and patients for such therapy.
Allergy and hypersensitivity intervention management procedures, such as desensitization and/or tolerance induction and immunotherapy, have not been pondered up to now in the content of International ...Classification of Diseases (ICD) context because the focus has been on prioritizing the condition implementations. Tremendous efforts have been devoted to implementing allergic and hypersensitivity conditions in the forthcoming ICD-11. However, we consider that it is crucial now to have nomenclature and classification universally accepted for these procedures to be able to provide scientifically consistent proposals into the new ICD-11 platform for the best practice parameters of our specialty. With the aim of promoting a harmonized comprehension and aligning it with the ICD-11 revision, we have reviewed the definitions and concepts currently used for desensitization and/or tolerance induction and immunotherapy. We strongly believe that this review is a key instrument to support the allergy specialty identity into the ICD-11 framework and serves as a platform to perform positive quality improvement in clinical practice.
There is no description of the drivers of prescription for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for respiratory allergic diseases.
A prospective, multicentre, observational, non-interventional real-life ...study was performed in France and Spain for 20 months. Data were gathered using 2 different questionnaires, anonymously collected in an online platform. No names of AIT products were recorded. Multivariate analysis and unsupervised cluster analysis were performed.
One hundred and three physicians (50.5% from Spain and 49.5% from France) reported 1735 patients (433 in France and 1302 in Spain), 47.9% males, 64.8% adults with a mean age 26.2 years old. They suffered from allergic rhinitis (99%), allergic conjunctivitis (70.4%), allergic asthma (51.8%), atopic dermatitis (13.9%), and food allergy (9.9%). A clustering analysis based on 13 predefined relevant variables for AIT-prescription identified 5 different clusters, each of them including information regarding doctor's profile and patient demographics, baseline disease characteristics, and main AIT indication: 1) Looking at the future: focusing on asthma prevention (n = 355), 2) Efficacy after discontinuation of AIT (n = 293), 3) Fighting severe allergic disease (n = 322), 4) Looking at the present, facing current symptoms (n = 265) and 5) Doctor's own clinical experience (n = 500). Each one of these clusters have specific patients' and doctors' characteristics, representing distinctive AIT prescription drivers.
Using data-driven analysis, we identified for the first time some reasons and patterns of AIT prescriptions in real-life clinical settings. There is no uniform indication for prescribing AIT, which varies amongst patients and doctors with multiple but specific drivers, taking into account several relevant parameters.
Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic asthma and rhinitis, as well as venom-induced anaphylaxis. In addition to reducing symptoms, AIT can change the course of allergic ...disease and induce allergen-specific immune tolerance. In current clinical practice immunotherapy is delivered either subcutaneously or sublingually; some allergens, such as grass pollen, can be delivered through either route, whereas others, such as venoms, are only delivered subcutaneously. Both subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy appear to have a duration of efficacy of up to 12 years, and both can prevent the development of asthma and new allergen sensitivities. In spite of the advances with AIT, safer and more effective AIT strategies are needed, especially for patients with asthma, atopic dermatitis, or food allergy. Novel approaches to improve AIT include use of adjuvants or recombinant allergens and alternate routes of administration. As part of the PRACTALL initiatives, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology nominated an expert team to develop a comprehensive consensus report on the mechanisms of AIT and its use in clinical practice, as well as unmet needs and ongoing developments in AIT. This resulting report is endorsed by both academies.
The 300IR house dust mite (HDM) sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet is approved for treatment of HDM-induced allergic rhinitis (AR). To provide a comprehensive review of the 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet ...safety profile based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) pooled data and post-marketing (PM) pharmacovigilance data.
Subjects (5–65 years) with confirmed HDM-AR with or without controlled asthma were treated with 300IR or placebo in 8 RCTs. Reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were pooled and analyzed descriptively in subsets of adults/adolescents and children. Adverse reactions (ADRs) collected from spontaneous reporting and PM studies through a pharmacovigilance system since the first marketing authorization were also analyzed.
Across RCTs, 1853 subjects were treated with the 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet and 1846 with placebo. In both subsets of adults/adolescents and children whichever their asthma status, treatment-related TEAEs of higher incidence in active groups vs placebo were mostly consistent with mild or moderate local application-site reactions. They were mainly reported on the first days of treatment and decreased over time. 4 severe laryngopharyngeal reactions (2 requiring adrenaline/epinephrine) and 1 moderate eczema considered serious rapidly resolved with medications; no anaphylaxis was reported. In PM settings, ADRs reported in more than 235,000 patients were in line with RCT findings. Severe systemic reactions occurred rarely; 12 anaphylactic reactions resolved safely (5 with adrenaline). No new safety signal was raised.
Safety data from RCTs and more than 7 years of real-life experience confirmed the favorable safety profile of 300IR HDM-SLIT tablet in patients across different regions, regardless of age and asthma status.
NCT00674700; Retrospectively registered 06 May 2008.
NCT01199133; Retrospectively registered 09 September 2010.
NCT01527188; Retrospectively registered 01 February 2012.
NCT02443805; Registered 29 April 2015/EudraCT 2014-004223-46; Registered 16 September 2015.
jRCT2080221872/JapicCTI-121917; Registered 01 August 2012.
jRCT2080222929/JapicCTI-15298; Registered 04 August 2015.
PDF
