Download

POINT OF VIEW

Tablet allergen immunotherapy: the anaphylaxis issue

Giorgio Ciprandia*, Matteo Nasob, Maria Angela Toscab

aAllergy Clinic, Casa di Cura Villa Montallegro, Genoa, Italy

bAllergy Center, IRCCS Giannina Gaslini, Genoa, Italy

Abstract

For the first time 15 years ago, tablet allergen immunotherapy (T-AIT) formulations were approved by regulatory agencies for treating allergic rhinitis caused by grass pollen in adults and children aged >5 years. Extensive evidences existed about effectiveness and safety of AIT. However, the safety profile is particularly compelling in children. Generally, T-AIT causes local reactions, mostly in the oral cavity, that are usually mild-to-moderate and often self-resolving. However, systemic allergic reactions are also observed with T-AIT, anaphylaxis representing the most fearsome adverse event, considering that it occurs in subjects treated for allergic rhinitis. Therefore, we conducted a literature search of patients reporting anaphylaxis because of T-AIT. Nine cases of anaphylactic reactions were reported in literature. Notably, no death was reported using T-AIT. This outcome was very important as it underscored the substantial safety of T-AIT. However, T-AIT deserves careful attention, mainly in the pediatric population. In this regard, after the first report of anaphylactic reaction at the first administration of T-AIT, manufacturers recommended that the first dose should be administered in a medical facility in the presence of staff with experience in managing anaphylaxis and the patient should be observed for at least 30 min. Interestingly, reported anaphylactic reactions were due to grass pollen extracts, with no report concerning other allergen extracts. However, it is relevant to note that anaphylactic reactions because of T-AIT are not reported in recent years.

Key words: adults, allergen immunotherapy, anaphylactic reaction, children, safety, tablets

*Corresponding author: Giorgio Ciprandi, Allergy Clinic, Casa di Cura Villa Montallegro, Via Boselli 5, 16146 Genoa, Italy. Email: [email protected]

Received 6 September 2023; Accepted 21 November 2023; Available online 1 May 2024

DOI: 10.15586/aei.v52i3.990

Copyright: Ciprandi G, et al.
License: This open access article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Allergic rhinitis and asthma are prevalent diseases that share a type-2 inflammation caused by specific and functional defects in regulatory T cells. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a unique causal therapy, specifically dampening type-2 immunity and restoring physiologic regulatory mechanisms.1

For the first time, 15 years ago, tablet AIT (T-AIT) formulations were approved by regulatory agencies for treating allergic rhinitis because of grass pollen allergy in adults and children aged >5 years.2 Consequently, presently, T-AIT is a drug, so safety constitutes a compelling issue.

Extensive evidences, provided by pivotal trials, exist that T-AIT is effective and usually safe.3 However, the safety profile is particularly relevant, mainly in children. Generally, T-AIT may cause local reactions, mostly in the oral cavity (similar to sublingual drops), that are usually mild to moderate and often self-resolving.4 However, systemic allergic reactions are also possible with T-AIT. Concerning this issue, anaphylaxis represents the most fearsome adverse event.

The term “anaphylaxis” is derived from the old Greek words ἀνά (over) and φύλαξις (defense); therefore, it means a reaction of excessive response toward allergens. Namely, anaphylaxis is a relevant clinical event that may evolve toward a life-threatening condition requiring immediate identification and treatment, as stated by the updated European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) guidelines.5 However, there are different definitions and criteria for diagnosing anaphylaxis.6 Nevertheless, an immediate and severe multi-organ involvement represents a shared definition of anaphylaxis. In other words, at least two systems must be affected to define anaphylaxis.

Allergen immunotherapy through sublingual route may induce an anaphylactic reaction in susceptible individuals who are usually very sensitive to a causal allergen. It is well-known fact that allergic patients, depending on different immunological and clinical characteristics, significantly differ from one another.7 In particular, there are allergy patients who may tolerate very low doses of an allergen, while others can tolerate very high doses of the same allergen. In addition, some subjects are only sensitized but not allergic.8 Thus, the spectrum of the degree of allergy and immunization varies. Several factors influence these different phenotypes, such as subject’s age, duration of allergic disease, organs involved (e.g., rhinitis only or rhinitis with asthma), comorbidities, intercurrent illnesses, medications used, physical exertion, and hormonal factors, such as menstrual cycle.9 Therefore, in allergic patients, anaphylactic reaction could be triggered even with a low dose of an allergen. Paradigmatic examples are food, drug, and hymenoptera venom allergies.10 In fact, once the ingested allergen is exposed to immunoglobulin E (IgE) expressed on the surface of mast cells, it causes a massive and rapid release of preformed mediators (especially histamines) that, once released into the circulation, cause clinical manifestations typical of anaphylaxis.11 It must be noted that anaphylactic reactions are usually unpredictable and not necessarily dose-dependent.

Anaphylaxis represents an exceptionally high risk during AIT, mainly considering that it could occur in a patient, primarily a child, treated for allergic rhinitis, such as a common and trivial disease. For this reason, it is essential to know the number of anaphylaxis patients reported during T-AIT in literature. Therefore, we conducted a literature search, consulting PubMed and Scopus, for pediatric (aged < 18 years) and adult (aged ≥ 18 years) patients reporting anaphylaxis because of T-AIT.

Some patients of anaphylactic reactions are reported in the literature (Table 1). In particular, T-AIT with pollen extracts caused anaphylaxis in 11 children and 13 adults. However, T-AIT with house dust mite extracts caused anaphylaxis in four adults, not in children.

Table 1 Studies reporting cases of anaphylaxis because of tablet-allergen immunotherapy.

Author, year, reference No. Design Allergen Manufacturer Duration Pediatric study Number of patients Frequency of anaphylaxis Rate of anaphylaxis Adult study Number of patients Frequency of anaphylaxis Rate of anaphylaxis
Grass
Hsiao and Smart, 201413 Case-report Grass pollen Stallergènes N/A Yes 1 1 N/A No N/A N/A N/A
Eberle et al., 201414 O-OL Grass pollen Stallergènes 2 years Yes 829 2 0.24% No N/A N/A N/A
Didier and Bons, 201515 Review on 5 years of experience Grass pollen Stallergènes 6 years Yes 55,056 4 0.01% Yes 115,729 8 0.01%
Blin et al., 201516 O Grass pollen Stallergènes 1 year Yes 203 0 N/A Yes 280 1 0.36%
Gerstlauer et al., 201917 O Grass pollen Stallergènes 1 month Yes 307 1 0.32% No N/A N/A N/A
De groot and Bijl, 200918 Case-report Phleum pratense ALK-Abello´ N/A No N/A N/A N/A Yes 1 1 N/A
European Union
Clinical Trials
Register, 200919;
Halken et al., 202020
RCDB Phleum pratense ALK-Abello´ N/R Yes 33 1 3.03% No N/A N/A N/A
Bufe et al., 200921 RCDB Phleum pratense ALK-Abello´ 10 months Yes 126 1 (two episodes on different days in the same patient) 0.79% No N/A N/A N/A
Blaiss et al., 201122 RCDB Phleum pratense ALK-Abello´ 6 months Yes 175 1 0.57% No N/A N/A N/A
Murphy et al., 201323 RCDB Phleum pratense ALK-Abello´ 4–6 months No N/A N/A N/A Yes 163 2 1.23%
Schwab et al., 201324 NI, OL Phleum pratense ALK-Abello´ 3 months Yes 75 0 N/A Yes 587 1 0.17%
House dust mites
Reiber et al., 202125 OL, NI HDM ALK-Abello´ 1 year Yes 6 0 N/A Yes 1519 4 0.26%

RCDB: randomized controlled double-blind; OL: open label; O: observational; N/A: not applicable; N/R: not reported; HDM: house dust mites.

Considering the frequency of anaphylaxis, we stratified the reported cases by the type of allergen extracts and the age. The proportion of anaphylaxis caused by five-grass-pollen products ranged from 0.01% to 0.32% in the pediatric population. The proportion of anaphylaxis caused by Timothy grass (Phleum pratense of the Pooideae family) extract ranged from 0.6% to 3.03% in children. In the adult population, the five-grass-pollen product had an anaphylaxis proportion of 0.01%–0.36%. The Phleum pratense extract caused a rate ranging from 0.17% to 1.23% in adults. T-AIT with dust mite showed a proportion of 0.26% in the adult population. These data emphasized the relevance of allergen extract used for AIT, that is, pollens were more frequently a cause of anaphylaxis than mites. It depends on the biological and immunological characteristics of different allergens. In this regard, a previous study showed that response to allergen nasal challenge significantly differed depending on single allergen.12 In particular, each single allergen caused different immunological, inflammatory, functional, and clinical responses.

In addition, comparing the pediatric and adult population data, the prevalence was slightly more in children as reported in Table 2. However, the calculation of proportions deserves particular caution in interpretation, as the frequencies are obviously a function of the number of cases studied as well as the type of studies. Indeed, the studies conducted for regulatory purposes resulted in a higher frequency of anaphylaxis cases than the real-life studies.

Table 2 Comparison between pediatric and adult cases of anaphylaxis because of tablet allergen immunotherapy.

Allergen Allergen extracts Frequency of anaphylaxis reported in pediatric studies (n) Rate of anaphylaxis in pediatric patients
(mean [range])
Frequency of anaphylaxis reported in adult studies (n) Rate of anaphylaxis in adult patients
(mean [range])
Grass 11 0.83% (0.01–3.03%) 13 0.44% (0.01–1.23%)
Grass pollen 8 0.19% (0.01–0.32%) 9 0.19% (0.01–0.36%)
Phleum pratense 3 1.46% (0.6–3.03%) 4 0.7% (0.17–1.23%)
HDM D. farinae and D. pteronyssinus 0 N/A 4 0.26%

HDM: house dust mites; N/A: not applicable.

5 grass pollen allergy pediatric studies (0.24%, 0.01%, and 0.32%).

5 grass pollen allergy adult studies (0.36% and 0.01%).

Phleum pratense pediatric studies (3.03%, 0.79%, and 0.57%).

Phleum pratense adult studies (1.23% and 0.17%).

This discrepancy was derived due to intentness to adverse events in the registration studies and the selected case series regarding the severity of allergic diseases. Furthermore, this literature review could not exclude the cases of anaphylaxis that were not published in literature.

Remarkably, no death has been reported with T-AIT up to now. This outcome is essential as it underscores the safety of T-AIT. However, T-AIT deserves careful attention, mainly in the pediatric population. In this regard, after the first reported instance of anaphylactic reaction following the first administration of T-AIT, manufacturers recommended that the first dose must be administered in a medical facility with the staff experienced in managing anaphylaxis, and the patient should be observed for at least 30 min.

Interestingly, anaphylactic reactions in children were due to grass pollen extracts only; no reaction has been reported regarding other allergen extracts at present. Moreover, it is relevant to note that in recent past, no anaphylactic reactions are reported because of T-AIT. This confirmed the substantial safety of T-AIT in children.

Conclusion

T-AIT very rarely determined an anaphylactic reaction and never caused a death. However, care is always required for T-AIT management, and the first dose of T-AIT must be administered in a medical setting. It would be even more prudent, at least in the pediatric population, to administer the second and third dose in a protected environment. In addition, a close contact must be ensured with the referral center through telemedicine, considering that T-AIT management is managed typically at home. Finally, as a good procedural principle, the patient should always be in good/optimal health, with a forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) being within the normal range (spirometry must be conducted, especially in case of asthmatic patients) at the beginning of the treatment as well as in general, thus avoiding administration of the product in a condition of poor symptomatology in spite of controlling intercurrent facts.

Funding

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of Health, RICERCA CORRENTE 2023 - RRC-2023-23683432.

Conflict of interest

The authors stated no conflict of interest.

Author contributions

Giorgio Ciprandi designed the study, Matteo Naso collected the literature data, and Maria Angela Tosca discussed the results. Giorgio Ciprandi wrote the manuscript, Matteo Naso and Maria Angela Tosca discussed the final text.

REFERENCES

1. Głobińska A, Boonpiyathad T, Satitsuksanoa P, Kleuskens M, van de Veen W, Sokolowska M, et al. Mechanisms of allergen--specific immunotherapy: Diverse mechanisms of immune tolerance to allergens. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(3):306–12. 10.1016/j.anai.2018.06.026

2. Calderon MA, Simons FER, 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):302–31. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02761.x

3. Pfaar O, Bousquet J, Durham SR, Kleine-Tebbe J, Larché M, Roberts G, et al. One hundred and ten years of allergen immunotherapy: a journey from empiric observation to evidence. Allergy. 2022;77(2):454–68. 10.1111/all.15023

4. Tankersley M, Han JK, Nolte H. Clinical aspects of sublingual tablets and drops. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;124:573–82. 10.1016/j.anai.2019.12.025

5. Muraro A, Worm M, Alviani C, Cardona V, DunnGalvin A, Garvey LH, et al. EAACI guidelines: anaphylaxis (2021 update). Allergy. 2022;77(2):357–77. 10.1111/all.15032

6. Turner PJ, Worm M, Ansotegui IJ, El-Gamal Y, Fernandez Rivas M, Fineman S, et al. Time to revisit the definition and clinical criteria for anaphylaxis? World Allergy Org J. 2019;12:100066. 10.1016/j.waojou.2019.100066

7. Stafford A, Turner PJ. Grading the severity of anaphylaxis. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2023;23(3):218–25. 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000901

8. Ciprandi G, Tosca MA. LTP allergy: a pragmatic and reasonable approach in clinical practice. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;51(2):84–5. 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.75

9. Bilò MB, Martini M, Tontini C, Corsi A, Antonicelli L. Anaphylaxis. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;53(1):4–17. 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.158

10. Turner PJ, Arasi S, Ballmer-Weber B, Baseggio Conrado A, Deschildre A, Gerdts J, et al. Risk factors for severe reactions in food allergy: rapid evidence review with meta-analysis. Allergy. 2022;77(9):2634–52. 10.1111/all.15318

11. Motosue MS, Li JT, Campbell RL. Anaphylaxis: epidemiology and differential diagnosis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2022;42(1):13–25. 10.1016/j.iac.2021.09.010

12. Gelardi M, Maselli Del Giudice A, Candreva T, Fiorella ML, Allen M, et al. Nasal resistance and allergic inflammation depend on allergen type. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2006;141(4):384–9. 10.1159/000095465

13. Hsiao KC, Smart J. Anaphylaxis caused by in-season switchover of sublingual immunotherapy formulation. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2014 Nov;25(7):714–5. 10.1111/pai.12268

14. Eberle P, Brueck H, Gall R, Hadler M, Sieber J, Karagiannis E. An observational, real-life safety study of a 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in children and adolescents. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2014 Dec;25(8):760–6. 10.1111/pai.12298

15. Didier A, Bons B. Safety and tolerability of 5-grass pollen tablet sublingual immunotherapy: pooled analysis and clinical review. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015 May;14(5):777-88. 10.1517/14740338.2015.1017468. Epub 2015 Mar 3. Erratum In: Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2015 Jul;14(7):1169. 25732009.

16. Blin P, Demoly P, Drouet M, Falissard B, Lignot-Maleyran S, Maizi H et al.; An observational cohort study of the use of five-grass-pollen extract sublingual immunotherapy during the 2015 pollen season in France. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2018 Sep 24;14:38. 10.1186/s13223-018-0262-9

17. Gerstlauer M, Szepfalusi Z, Golden D, Geng B, de Blic J. Real-life safety of 5-grass pollen tablet in 5-to-9-year-old children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2019 Jul;123(1):70–80. 10.1016/j.anai.2019.04.011

18. de Groot H, Bijl A. Anaphylactic reaction after the first dose of sublingual immunotherapy with grass pollen tablet. Allergy. 2009 Jun;64(6):963–4. 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.01998.x. Epub 2009 Feb 16. 19222420.

19. European Union Clinical Trials Register. 2009. A phase IIIB trial investigating 3-year treatment efficacy, tolerability and safety of Grazax in children aged 5-18 years with grass pollen induced rhinoconjunctivitis with/without controlled asthma (three consecutive pollen seasons treatment). Eudra CT number 2009-0149 23-22. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctrsearch/trial/2009-014923-22/results (Accessed on 24 May 2023).

20. Halken S, Roberts G, Valovirta E, Nolte H, Hulstrøm V, Blaiss MS. Safety of Timothy Grass Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablet in Children: Pooled Analyses of Clinical Trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Apr;8(4):1387–1393.e2. 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.01.008

21. Bufe A, Eberle P, Franke-Beckmann E, Funck J, Kimmig M, Klimek L, Knecht R, Stephan V, Tholstrup B, Weisshaar C, Kaiser F. Safety and efficacy in children of an SQ-standardized grass allergen tablet for sublingual immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009 Jan;123(1):167–173.e7. 10.1016/j.jaci.2008.10.044

22. Blaiss M, Maloney J, Nolte H, Gawchik S, Yao R, Skoner DP. Efficacy and safety of timothy grass allergy immunotherapy tablets in North American children and adolescents. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011 Jan;127(1):64–71, 71.e1–4. 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.11.034

23. Murphy K, Gawchik S, Bernstein D, Andersen J, Pedersen MR. A phase 3 trial assessing the efficacy and safety of grass allergy immunotherapy tablet in subjects with grass pollen--induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis, with or without asthma. J Negat Results Biomed. 2013 Jun 1;12:10. 10.1186/1477-5751-12-10. 23725348; PMC3689082.

24. Schwab JA, Wolf H, Schnitker J, Wüstenberg E. Safety and tolerability of an intra-seasonal initiation of the SQ-standardised grass allergy immunotherapy tablet: a non-interventional observational study investigating the feasibility during routine administration. Clin Drug Investig. 2013 Oct;33(10):719–26. 10.1007/s40261-013-0115-8

25. Reiber R, Wolf H, Futschik T, Schwab JA, Hölscher U, Schnitker J et al.; Safety and tolerability of the standardized quality house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablet in real life: A noninterventional, open-label study. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 Aug;9(8):3221–3223.e5. 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.03.045