Abstract
Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been in use since more than one century, when Leonard Noon experimentally proved its efficacy in hayfever (Noon, in Lancet 1:1572–3, 1911). Since then, AIT was administered only as subcutaneous injections (SCIT) until the sublingual route (SLIT) was proposed in 1986. The use of SLIT was proposed following several surveys from the USA and UK that repeatedly reported fatalities due to SCIT (Lockey et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol 75(1): 166, 1985; Lockey et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol 660–77, 1985; Committee on the safety of medicines. CSM update. Desensitizing vaccines. Br Med J, 293: 948, 1986). These reports raised serious concerns about the safety and the risk/benefit ratio of AIT. Many cases of life-threatening events with SCIT were due to avoidable human errors in administration, but a relevant fraction of them remained unexplained and unpredictable (Aaronson and Gandhi in J Allergy Clin Immunol 113: 1117–21, 2014). Subsequently, in a few years, SLIT gained credibility and was included in the official documents and guidelines (Table 1) (Bousquet et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol 108(5 Supp):S146–S150, 2001; Canonica et al. in Allergy 64 (Supp 91):1–59, 2009) as a viable alternative to traditional SCIT. Of note, the local bronchial (aerosol) and the intranasal route of administration were attempted after the 1970s as alternatives to SCIT: the bronchial route was soon abandoned due to the poor efficacy and/or side effects, and the local nasal route, although effective and safe, was judged substantially impractical (Canonica and Passalacqua in J Allergy Clin Immunol 111: 437–48, 2003). In contrast to SCIT, SLIT was tested in very large clinical trials (need references), including hundreds of patients and with dose-ranging experimental designs, so that some products (tablets) for grass, mite, and ragweed were officially approved as commercial drugs by regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency and the optimal content for the maintenance dose was identified for selected allergens. In parallel, the knowledge on the mechanisms of action of AIT was rapidly refined, leading to further improvements, such as the chemically modified extracts and the use of adjuvants to enhance efficacy and safety. In addition, in the last 10 years, there has been an increasing scientific and clinical interest in AIT applied to food allergies, in particular in children, with the use of orally administered extracts (Albin and Nowak-Węgrzyn in Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 35: 77–100, 2015). The results are so far encouraging, at least for cow’s milk, egg, and peanut, although the use of treatment is still restricted to clinical trials or within specialized centers. Finally, the introduction of molecular- or component-resolved diagnosis has allowed detailing the prescription of AIT, by better delineating true sensitization versus cross-reactivity (Canonica et al. in World Allergy Organ J 6(1):17, 2013). This latter point is also in strict relation to the use of recombinant, engineered or highly purified molecules, instead of raw extracts, for the desensitization process.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
An Overview on the Mechanisms of Action of AIT
Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is not a receptor antagonist or a mediator-blocking agent. It acts by deeply affecting the immunologic allergen-oriented response at various levels [1]. The main mechanism previously investigated for subcutaneous injections (SCIT) involve (a) the immune deviation towards a Th1-oriented response (and a reduction of the Th2 response); (b) the production of allergen-specific IgG4, which inhibit the IgE-facilitated antigen presentation; and (c) the emergence of T regulatory cells, which secrete cytokines like IL-10 able to downregulate the allergen-mediated response [2, 3]. The immunologic mechanisms of the action of sublingual route (SLIT) do not substantially differ from those of SCIT. The mechanistic aspect of SLIT includes a relevant role for dendritic cells that are particularly abundant in the mouth and that, through specific cytokine and signaling networks, perform an efficient antigen presentation [4, 5].
Indeed, the purported rationale of a rapid mucosal absorption with SLIT was incorrect [6], but the role of local antigen presentation in the oral mucosa was soon recognized as a main mechanism of action [7].
Efficacy and Safety: SCIT and SLIT
The demonstration of the efficacy of AIT in reducing symptoms and symptomatic drug intake in allergic rhinitis and asthma relies on numerous randomized trials, as reported in the official documents (of which agencies) reported in 37 [8, 9, 10, 11] (Table 1). In particular, the updated version of the World Allergy Organization document on SLIT included 77 trials [10]. Looking at the literature at a glance, the class effect of AIT is well demonstrated in both rhinitis and asthma, for the most relevant allergens, and this observation was confirmed by several meta-analyses [12–17]. Whereas for SCIT, there has been only one dose-ranging study [18]; several dose-finding studies were conducted with standardized extracts for SLIT, leading to identify the optimal maintenance dose for some products (Table 2).
SCIT is quite well standardized in regimens and protocols [8, 11], while SLIT can still be administered as drops, monodose vials or tablets, and with variable timings and doses. At present, tablets which were firstly introduced in 1998 as monomeric allergoid [19], and that are now well standardized, seem to represent the preferred option [20] either as pre-co-seasonal or continuous administration.
One of the most important methodological problems in studying AIT is the definition of outcomes and measurements. This is considered simple when pollen allergy is taken into account, since the allergen exposure can be easily measured and rhinitis symptoms are easy to quantify subjectively. In the case of asthma, only a few studies were powered for asthma symptoms, with a concomitant measurement of objective variables (such as pulmonary function) as what [21, 22]? More recently, some large clinical trials specifically designed for house dust mite-induced asthma were performed using SLIT, and all confirmed the reduction in asthma symptoms, asthma exacerbations, and a significant reduction in the use of inhaled corticosteroids [23–25].
The safety of AIT is well demonstrated. With SCIT, there were in the past some reports of fatalities, mainly coming from the USA [26, 27, 28, 29, 30], where highly concentrated extracts are used and multiple allergens are mixed for administration [31]. This information cannot be extrapolated to other countries (e.g., Europe) where AIT is given only for a limited number of allergens and where severe adverse events have been reported only anecdotally [32]. With SLIT, it is well recognized that side effects are mainly local, transient, and self-resolving [10, 33, 34]. Specifically, for both SLIT and SCIT, uncontrolled (symptomatic) asthma remains the main absolute contraindication, in addition to active autoimmune diseases or malignancies [35].
SCIT is well standardized, whereas SLIT maintains a certain variability in protocols and procedures of administration. Nonetheless, the available literature suggests that the once a day administration and the pre-co-seasonal protocol should be preferred [36–38].
Finally, it must to be considered that, due to the particular mechanism of action, AIT display an effect that persists for years after it is discontinued. In addition, some studies consistently showed that AIT can prevent the onset of asthma in children with rhinitis, thus intervening in the evolution of the allergic march [39].
SCIT and SLIT: a Critical Appraisal
The comparison of SCIT vs. SLIT has been a matter of discussion since the introduction of SLIT in clinical practice[8]. Presently, this aspect seems to be of secondary relevance. Both routes of administration have a clearly demonstrated efficacy that is certainly of better methodological quality for SLIT. The direct comparison studies [41–44] failed to show a difference in clinical efficacy between the two routes [45], and this was confirmed in recent reviews [46, 47], where SLIT resulted to be even superior to SCIT [46], at least in the use of symptomatic medications for rhinitis. (For rhinitis alone? For asthma too?)
Despite the demonstration of clinical efficacy is considered robust enough as “class effect” for AIT in general, there are still so far some unmet needs. For instance, almost all AIT vaccines currently commercialized are standardized either biologically or immunologically, but the standardization methods are based on in-house references. Thus, extracts are labeled in units that differ from one manufacturer to another, although the content in micrograms of the major allergen(s) is usually available for the EMA and FDA officially approved products [48]. There is no controlled study on the optimal duration of an AIT treatment; thus, the current suggestions remain empirical. An open controlled 15-year follow-up of subjects treated with SLIT for 3, 4, or 5 years suggested that a 4-year course would be the best option [49], and another controlled trial in children showed that a 3-year is equivalent to a 5-year course [50]. AIT is currently being tested in conditions different from respiratory allergy, e.g., food allergy and extrinsic atopic dermatitis, where favorable results were reported [51, 20, 52, 53]. Of note, the pioneering studies, previously performed with peanut SCIT, provided overall positive results, but with an unacceptable occurrence of severe adverse events. In this sense, the favorable safety profile of oral or sublingual administration for food AIT encourages its experimental use to clearly define indications and contraindications.
The clinical efficacy of AIT (SCIT and SLIT) is well documented by clinical trials and meta-analyses in rhinitis and asthma. Nevertheless, several questions still need to be addressed: (a) the standardization of extracts and the optimal dose of allergen at maintenance, for all the relevant allergens and products [54]; (b) the real existence of a long-term benefit from AIT, such as persistent relief of symptoms following discontinuation, or prevention of disease progression; (c) combination therapy with multiple allergens has not been sufficiently evaluated for both efficacy and safety, although repeatedly suggested [55, 56], whereas the efficacy of SLIT for a single allergen in polysensitized patients was demonstrated [57]; (d) adherence remains a main problem [58] that can be partly resolved with a strict surveillance [58]; and (e) the available meta-analyses pooled the results of clinical trials performed with different extracts and different allergens, thus enhancing the heterogeneity of results that remain not generalizable.
In conclusion, AIT is one of the cornerstones in the management of respiratory allergic diseases since it is allergen specific, immunomodulating, and may affect disease progression. SLIT represents a significant clinical advance, offering an excellent safety and acceptance profile. The tablet-formulated AIT is an additional step-up, since its robustly based demonstration of efficacy and safety, and its recognition as a pharmaceutical product (for grass and mite in Europe, plus ragweed in the USA) is the best example of the rapid evolution in this field [59].
References
Noon L. Prophylactic inoculation against hay fever. Lancet. 1911;1: 1572–3.
BöhmL, Maxeiner J, Meyer-Martin H, et al. IL-10 and regulatory T cells cooperate in allergenspecific immunotherapy to ameliorate allergic asthma. J Immunol. 2015;194:887–97.
Fujita H, SoykaMB, AkdisM, Akdis CA. Mechanisms of allergen specific immunotherapy. Clin Transl Allergy. 2012;2:2.
Nadeau KC. Immune mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2014;14:473.
Ozdemir C, Kucuksezer UC, Akdis M, Akdis CA. Under the skin or under the tongue: differences and similarities in mechanisms of sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy. Immunotherapy. 2013;5:1151–8.
Bagnasco M, Altrinetti V, Pesce G, Caputo M, Mistrello G, Falagiani P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of Der p 2 allergen and derived monomeric allergoid in allergic volunteers. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2005;138:197–202.
Allam JP, Novak N. Immunological mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy.Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;14:564–9.
Bousquet J, Van Cauwenberge P, editors. Allergic rhinits and its impact on asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001; 108(5 Supp): S146–S150.
Canonica GW, Bousquet J, Casale T, et al., editors. Sub-lingual immunotherapy World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009. Allergy 2009; 64 (Supp 91):1–59.
Canonica GW, Cox L, Pawankar R, Baena-Cagnani CE, Blaiss M,Bonini S, et al Sublingual Immunotherapy World Allergy Organization Paper. Update 2013. World Allergy Organiz J 2014; 7(1):6
Cox L, Nelson H, Lockey R, Calobria C, Checko T, Finegold I, et al. Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter third update. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(1 Suppl):S1–55.
Abramson MJ, Puy RR, WeinerJM. Injection allergen immunotherapy for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;8.
Radulovic S, Calderon MA, Wilson D, Durham S. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;12.
Penagos M, Passalacqua G, Compalati E, Baena-Cagnani CE, Orozco S, Pedroza A, et al. Metaanalysis of the efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic asthma in pediatric patients, 3 to 18 years of age. Chest. 2008;133(3):599–609.
Di Bona D, Plaia A, Leto-Barone MS, La Piana S, Di Lorenzo G.Efficacy of grass pollen allergen sublingual immunotherapy tablets for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(8):1301–9.
Compalati E, Passalacqua G, Bonini M, Canonica GW. The efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for house dust mites respiratory allergy: results of a GA2LEN meta-analysis. Allergy. 2009;64(11): 1570–9.
Penagos M, Compalati E, Tarantini F, Baena-Cagnani R, Huerta J, Passalacqua G, et al. Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in pediatric patients 3 to 18 years of age: a meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled, doubleblind trials. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2006;97:141–8.
Frew A, Powell JL, Corrigan CJ, Durham SR. Efficacy and safety of specific immunotherapy with SQ allergen extract in treatment resistant seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. JACI. 2006;117: 319–25.
Passalacqua G, Albano M, Fregonese L, Riccio A, Pronzato C, Mela GS, et al. Randomised controlled trial of local allergoid immunotherapy on allergic inflammation in mite-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. Lancet. 1998; 351(9103): 629-632
Passalacqua G, Canonica GW. Allergen immunotherapy: history and future developments. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2016;36(1):1–12.
Canonica GW, Bagnasco D, Ferrantino G, Ferrando M, Passalacqua G. Update on immunotherapy for the treatment of asthma. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2016;22(1):18–24.
Passalacqua G, Canonica GW. Specific immunotherapy in asthma: efficacy and safety. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41(9):1247–55.
Mosbech H, Deckelmann R, de Blay F, Pastorello EA, Trebas-Pietras E, Andres LP, et al. Standardized quality (SQ) house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablet (ALK) reduces inhaled corticosteroid use while maintaining asthma control: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol.2014;134(3):568–75.
Virchow JC, Backer V, Kuna P, Prieto L, Nolte H, Villesen HH, et al. Efficacy of a house dustmite sublingual allergen immunotherapy tablet in adults with allergic asthma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(16):1715–25.
Nolte H, Maloney J, Nelson HS, Bernstein DI, Lu S, Li Z, et al. Onset and dose-related efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets in an environmental exposure chamber. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;135(6):1494–501.
Lockey RF, Nikoara-Kasti GL, Theodoropoulos DS, Bukantz SC. Systemic reactions and fatalities associated with allergen immunotherapy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2001; 87 (1 supp): S46-S55 3.
Stewart GE, Lockey RF Systemic reactions from allergen immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992; 90: 567-78.
Committee on the safety of medicines. CSM update. Desensitizing vaccines. Br Med J 1986; 293:948
Aaronson DW, Gandhi TK. Incorrect allergy injections: allergists’ experiences and recommendations for prevention. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;113:1117–21
Lockey RF, Benedict LM, Turkeltaub PC, Bukantz SC. Fatalities associated with immunotherapy and skin testing. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1987; 660–677.
Cox L, Jacobsen L. Comparison of allergen immunotherapy practice patterns in the United States and Europe. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2009;103:451–9.
Schiappoli M, Ridolo E, Senna G, Alesina R, Antonicelli L, Asero R, et al. A prospective Italian survey on the safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy for respiratory allergy. Clin Exp Allergy. 2009;39(10):1569–74.
Passalacqua G, Nowak-Węgrzyn A, Canonica GW. Local side effects of sublingual and oral immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.jaip.2016.06.020.
Passalacqua G, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bousquet J, Canonica GW, Casale TB, Cox L, et al. Grading local side effects of sublingual immunotherapy for respiratory allergy: speaking the same language. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;132(1):93–8.
Pitsios C, Demoly P, Bilò MB, Gerth van Wijk R, Pfaar O, Sturm GJ, et al. Clinical contraindications to allergen immunotherapy: an EAACI position paper. Allergy. 2015;70(8):897–909.
Pajno GB, Caminiti L, Crisafulli G, Vita D, Valenzise M, De Luca R, et al. Direct comparison between continuous and coseasonal regimen for sublingual immunotherapy in children with grass allergy: a randomized controlled study. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011;22:803–7.
Stelmach I, Kaluzińska-Parzyszek I, Jerzynska J, Stelmach P, Stelmach W, Majak P. Comparative effect of pre-coseasonal and continuous grass sublingual immunotherapy in children. Allergy.2012;67:312–20.
Nakonechna A, Hills J, Moor J, Dore P, Abuzakouk M. Grazax sublingual immunotherapy in pre-co-seasonal and continuous treatment regimens: is there a difference in clinical efficacy? Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;114:73–4.
Passalacqua G. Specific immunotherapy: beyond the clinical scores. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2011;107:401–6.
Canonica GW, Passalacqua G. Noninjection routes for immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;111:437–48.
Bernardis P, Agnoletto M, Puccinelli P, Parmiani S, Pozzan M. Injective versus sublingual immunotherapy in Alternaria tenuis allergic patients. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1996;6:55–62.
Quirino T, Iemoli E, Siciliani E, Parmiani S, Milazzo F. Sublingual versus injective immunotherapy in grass pollen allergic patients: a double blind (double dummy) study. Clin Exp Allergy. 1996;26: 1253–61.
Mungan D, Misirligil Z, Gurbuz L. Comparison of the efficacy of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in mite-sensitive patients with rhinitis and asthma—a placebo controlled study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1999;82:485–90.
Khinchi MS, Poulsen LK, Carat F, André C, Hansen AB, Malling. HJ. Clinical efficacy of sublingual and subcutaneous birch pollen allergen-specific immunotherapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy study. Allergy. 2004;59: 45–53.
Calderón MA, Simons FE, Malling HJ, Lockey RF, Moingeon P, Demoly P. Sublingual allergen immunotherapy:mode of action and its relationship with the safety profile. Allergy. 2012;67(3):302–11.
Durham SR, PenagosM. Sublingual or subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(2):339–349.
Nelson HS, Makatsori M, Calderon MA. Subcutaneous immunotherapy and sublingual immunotherapy: comparative efficacy, current and potential indications, and warnings—United States versus Europe. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2016;36(1):13
Passalacqua G, Canonica GW. Sublingual immunotherapy: focus on tablets. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2015;115(1):4–9.
Marogna M, Spadolini I, Massolo A, Canonica GW, Passalacqua G. Long-lasting effects of sublingual immunotherapy according to its duration: a 15-year prospective study. J Allergy Clin Immunol.2010;126(5):969–75.
Stelmach I, Sobocinska A, Majak P, Smejda K, Jerzynska J, Stelmach W. Comparison of the long-term efficacy of 3- and 5-year house dust mite allergen immunotherapy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2012;109:274–8.
Albin S, Nowak-Wegrzyn A. Potential treatments for food allergy. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2015;35:77–100.
Anagnostou K, Clark A. Peanut immunotherapy. Clin Transl Allergy. 2014;4:30.
Gendelman SR, Lang DM. Sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a systematic review using the GRADE system. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2015;15(2):498.
Bachert C, Larché M, Bonini S, Canonica GW, Kündig T, Larenas-Linnemann D, et al. Allergen immunotherapy on the way to product-based evaluation—a WAO statement. World Allergy Organ J. 2015;8(1):29.
Canonica GW, Ansotegui IJ, Pawankar R, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, van Hage M, Baena-Cagnani CE, et al. AWAO - ARIA - GA2LEN consensus document onmolecular-based allergy diagnostics.World Allergy Organ J. 2013;6(1):17.doi:10.1186/1939-4551-6-17.
Demoly P, Passalacqua G, Pfaar O, Sastre J,Wahn U. Management of the polyallergic patient with allergy immunotherapy: a practicebased approach. Allergy, Asthma Clin Immunol. 2016;12:2.
Maloney J, Bernstein DI, Nelson H, Creticos P, Hébert J, Noonan M, et al. Efficacy and safety of grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet, MK-7243: a large randomized controlled trial. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol.2014;112:146–53.
Savi E, Peveri S, Senna G, Passalacqua G. Causes of SLIT discontinuation and strategies to improve the adherence: a pragmatic approach.Allergy. 2013;68(9):1193–5.
Passalacqua G, Canonica GW. AIT (allergen immunotherapy): a model for the Bprecision medicine^. Clin Mol Allergy. 2015;13:24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Drs. Passalacqua, Canonica, and Bagnasco declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Funding
The authors have none to declare.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Allergies and the Environment
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Passalacqua, G., Canonica, G.W. & Bagnasco, D. Benefit of SLIT and SCIT for Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 16, 88 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-016-0666-x
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-016-0666-x