Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is safe and effective but is typically administered under strict clinic observation to mitigate the risk of a systemic reaction to immunotherapy (SRIT). However, in the setting of the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, alternative care models should be explored.

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of home immunotherapy self-administration (HITSA) in a highly idealized circumstance for provision of maintenance AIT in a shelter-in-place or other scenarios of unforeseen reduction in nonessential medical services.

Markov modeling was used to compare in-office clinic AIT in selected patients using cohort analysis and microsimulation from the societal and health care perspectives.

Assuming similar SRIT rates, HITSA was found to be a cost-effective option with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44,554/quality-adjusted life-year when considering both incremental epinephrine autoinjector costs and coronavirus disease 2019 risks. Excluding epinephrine autoinjector costs, HISTA dominated other options. However, outside of pandemic considerations, HITSA was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $198,877,286) at annual epinephrine autoinjector costs above $287. As the incremental HITSA SRIT rate increased above 15%, clinic AIT was the most cost-effective strategy. Excluding both pandemic risks and risk of motor vehicle accident fatality from round-trip clinic transit, clinic AIT dominated other strategies. Clinic AIT was the more cost-effective option at very high fatality relative risk for HITSA or at very low annual risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019.

Under idealized assumptions HITSA can be a safe and cost-effective option during a global pandemic in appropriately selected patients provided home rates of SRIT remain stable.

In early 2020, the first US and Canadian cases of the novel SARS-CoV-2 infection were detected. In the ensuing months, there has been rapid spread of the infection. In March 2020, in response to the virus, state/provincial and local governments instituted shelter-in-place orders, and non-essential ambulatory care was significantly curtailed, including allergy/immunology services. With rates of new infections and fatalities potentially reaching a plateau and/or declining, restrictions on provision of routine ambulatory care are lifting, and there is a need to help guide the allergy/immunology clinician on how to re-initiate services. Given COVID-19 will circulate within our communities for months or longer, we present a flexible, algorithmic best-practices planning approach on how to prioritize services, in 4 stratified phases of re-opening according to community risk level, as well highlight key considerations for how to safely do so. The decisions on what services to offer and how fast to proceed are left to the discretion of the individual clinician and practice, operating in accordance with state and local ordinances with respect to the level of non-essential ambulatory care that can be provided. Clear communication with staff and patients before and after all changes should be incorporated into this new paradigm on continual change, given the movement may be forward and even backward through the phases as this is an evolving situation.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) reduces symptoms and medication use associated with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis and allergic asthma. Although several AIT guidelines exist, there remain unanswered questions about AIT that are relevant to everyday practice. Our objective was to prepare an evidence-based overview addressing the practical aspects of AIT in clinical practice based on published evidence and the experience of international experts in the field. Topics covered include interpretation and translation of clinical trial data into everyday clinical practice (e.g., allergen doses and treatment duration), assessment of risk and treatment of local and systemic allergic reactions, recommendations for improvement of AIT guidelines, and identification of appropriate data for seeking regulatory approval, to name a few. Many informational gaps in AIT practice need further evaluation as products and practices evolve.

Allergen immunotherapy can provide long-term benefits, including symptomatic relief and reduced disease progression, but requires a lengthy regimen that presents barriers to patient adherence. Thus, there is a need for improved approaches to immunotherapy. Recently, several clinical trials have reported successful results from intralymphatic immunotherapy.

To evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of intralymphatic immunotherapy for allergies caused by mountain cedar pollen in a proof-of-concept study.

Twenty-one patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis due to mountain cedar pollen were randomized to receive three monthly intralymphatic injections of allergenic extract or placebo prior to the 2018-2019 mountain cedar pollen season. Safety was monitored during treatment thru the end of pollen season using structured and spontaneous reports. Clinical efficacy information was collected using a daily electronic diary of symptoms and allergy medication. Allergen-specific serum IgE was assessed before treatment and at the end of the study.

There were no serious adverse events or systemic reactions in either group. Four patients experienced mild injection-site reactions. Patients receiving intralymphatic immunotherapy experienced a significant improvement in allergy symptoms and medication use relative to patients receiving placebo (p < 0.001) and the active treatment group had lower average total combined scores on 20 of 27 days during peak pollen season (p < 0.05). There was not a significant difference between groups in changes to mean mountain cedar-specific serum IgE levels.

In this proof-of-concept trial, intralymphatic immunotherapy was well tolerated and reduced the symptoms and medication use associated with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused by mountain cedar pollen.

Specific immunotherapy is the only treatment acting on the causes and not only on symptoms of respiratory allergy. It was first introduced as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with the aim to induce immunological tolerance to the administered allergen(s). In the 1980s, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) was developed, mainly to improve the safety, which was a critical issue at that time. This article reviewed the available literature, including a large number of randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and real-life studies as well, on the outcomes of SCIT and SLIT concerning the treatment critical issues of the two routes, that are efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and compliance to treatment. The efficacy of SCIT and SLIT is similar in respiratory allergy, providing, based on the induction of typical changes in the immunologic response, an early control of symptoms that steadily increases during the treatment and its efficacy lasts after the recommended duration of three years. Such results are the reason why SCIT and SLIT have economic advantage over symptomatic drugs.A

Gastrointestinal side effects are common during oral immunotherapy (OIT) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a potential complication. We aimed to characterize eosinophilic gastrointestinal responses to peanut OIT, in which peanut protein is given orally, with incremental increases in dose over time.

Twenty adults with IgE-mediated peanut allergy were randomly assigned to groups given peanut OIT (n=15) or placebo (n=5); 1 additional subject withdrew before randomization. Serial gastrointestinal biopsies were collected at baseline (n=21, 0 weeks), following dose escalation (n=10, 52 weeks), and during the maintenance phase (n=11, 104 weeks). Endoscopic findings were characterized using the EoE endoscopic reference score. Biopsies were assessed for eosinophils per high-power field (eos/hpf) and other pathology features using EoE histologic scoring system scores. We performed immunohistochemical analyses of eosinophil peroxidase deposition, quantified using automated image analysis.

At baseline, no subjects reported current gastrointestinal symptoms. However, 3 of the 21 subjects (14%) had esophageal peak eosinophil counts ≥15 eos/hpf and all subjects had dilated intercellular spaces (DIS). OIT induced or exacerbated esophageal eosinophilia (EE) at 52 weeks in most subjects (peak eosinophil counts >5 eos/hpf in 6 of 7 patients [86%]; peak eosinophil counts ≥15 eos/hpf in 4 of 7 patients [57%]). One subject met clinicopathologic criteria for EoE and withdrew; no significant changes in esophageal peak eosinophil counts were observed in the placebo group. EE in the OIT group corresponded with significant increases in EoE histologic scoring system scores and deposition of eosinophil peroxidase. In 4 of 6 participants (67%), OIT-induced EE and gastrointestinal eosinophilia resolved by the end of the maintenance phase. Gastrointestinal symptoms were not clearly associated with EE or gastrointestinal eosinophilia.

In this pilot study, we found that peanut OIT-induced EE and gastrointestinal eosinophilia are usually transient and are not always associated with gastrointestinal symptoms.

Allergen immunotherapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of allergic children. The clinical efficiency relies on a well-defined immunologic mechanism promoting regulatory T cells and downplaying the immune response induced by allergens. Clinical indications have been well documented for respiratory allergy in the presence of rhinitis and/or allergic asthma, to pollens and dust mites. Patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction to hymenoptera venom are also good candidates for allergen immunotherapy. Administration of allergen is currently mostly either by subcutaneous injections or by sublingual administration. Both methods have been extensively studied and have pros and cons. Specifically in children, the choice of the method of administration according to the patient’s profile is important. Although allergen immunotherapy is widely used, there is a need for improvement. More particularly, biomarkers for prediction of the success of the treatments are needed. The strength and efficiency of the immune response may also be boosted by the use of better adjuvants. Finally, novel formulations might be more efficient and might improve the patient’s adherence to the treatment. This user’s guide reviews current knowledge and aims to provide clinical guidance to healthcare professionals taking care of children undergoing allergen immunotherapy.

Local respiratory allergy (LRA) is an eosinophilic phenotype of chronic airway disease. Three entities have been described within the LRA spectrum: local allergic rhinitis (LAR) and local allergic asthma (LAA) in non-atopic patients, and dual allergic rhinitis (DAR) in atopic patients (coexistence of LAR and allergic rhinitis). In this article, we aim to review the current evidence on the therapeutic options for LRA.

No controlled study has assessed the effect of standard therapy (oral antihistamines, intranasal or inhaled corticosteroids, bronchodilators) in LRA subjects. Three randomized clinical trials and one observational study demonstrated that allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is able to control nasal and ocular symptoms, decrease the need for rescue medication, and improve quality of life in LAR individuals. Nasal or inhaled steroids can be expected to improve eosinophilic inflammation in LRA patients but cannot change the natural course of the disease. Moreover, the long-term and disease-modifying effects of AIT in LRA subjects need to be investigated.

The chemical modification of allergens with glutaraldehyde improves safety while maintaining clinical efficacy, which permits the administration of higher doses of immunotherapy, reducing the risk of adverse reactions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the immunogenic capacity of a new cat dander polymer by immunizing mice and quantifying immunoglobulins in serum, in comparison with the non-modified allergen.

The study consists of the immunization of three mice groups with the polymerized and the native extract, together with a negative control group. The immunoglobulin levels in serum have been measured by indirect ELISA. By means of the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test, it was determined if there were significant differences in the values of specific antibodies between groups.

The group immunized with the allergoid showed significantly higher specific IgG and IgG1 values to dander allergens and specific IgG to the major allergen Fel d 1, while there were no significant changes in IgG2a and IgE values. These results could be due to a higher immunization dose. The vaccine formulation was based on the optimal defined dose for clinical efficacy of allergen immunotherapy.

This preclinical study carried out with the present assay has established that the allergoid of cat dander extract, as designed for its optimal use in allergen immunotherapy, produces a higher specific IgG than the native extract, in addition to showing significantly higher specific IgG1 levels, evidencing a greater effectiveness in immunization.

Allergic rhino-conjunctivitis (ARC) is an IgE-mediated disease that occurs after exposure to indoor or outdoor allergens, or to non-specific triggers. Effective treatment options for seasonal ARC are available, but the economic aspects and burden of these therapies are not of secondary importance, also considered that the prevalence of ARC has been estimated at 23% in Europe. For these reasons, we propose a novel flexible cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) model, intended to provide healthcare professionals and policymakers with useful information aimed at cost-effective interventions for grass-pollen induced allergic rhino-conjunctivitis (ARC).

Treatments compared are: 1. no AIT, first-line symptomatic drug-therapy with no allergoid immunotherapy (AIT). 2. SCIT, subcutaneous immunotherapy. 3. SLIT, sublingual immunotherapy. The proposed model is a non-stationary Markovian model, that is flexible enough to reflect those treatment-related problems often encountered in real-life and clinical practice, but that cannot be adequately represented in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). At the same time, we described in detail all the structural elements of the model as well as its input parameters, in order to minimize any issue of transparency and facilitate the reproducibility and circulation of the results among researchers.

Using the no AIT strategy as a comparator, and the Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) as a statistic to summarize the cost-effectiveness of a health care intervention, we could conclude that: SCIT systematically outperforms SLIT, except when a full societal perspective is considered. For example, for T = 9 and a pollen season of 60 days, we have ICER = €16,729 for SCIT vs. ICER = €15,116 for SLIT (in the full societal perspective).For longer pollen seasons or longer follow-up duration the ICER decreases, because each patient experiences a greater clinical benefit over a larger time span, and Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALYs) gained per cycle increase accordingly.Assuming that no clinical benefit is achieved after premature discontinuation, and that at least three years of immunotherapy are required to improve clinical manifestations and perceiving a better quality of life, ICERs become far greater than €30,000.If the immunotherapy is effective only at the peak of the pollen season, the relative ICERs rise sharply. For example, in the scenario where no clinical benefit is present after premature discontinuation of immunotherapy, we have ICER = €74,770 for SCIT vs. ICER = €152,110 for SLIT.The distance between SCIT and SLIT strongly depends on under which model the interventions are meta-analyzed.

Even though there is a considerable evidence that SCIT outperforms SLIT, we could not state that both SCIT and SLIT (or only one of these two) can be considered cost-effective for ARC, as a reliable threshold value for cost-effectiveness set by national regulatory agencies for pharmaceutical products is missing. Moreover, the impact of model input parameters uncertainty on the reliability of our conclusions needs to be investigated further.