Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/all.13317

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

BACKGROUND:
Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR).
METHODS:
Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus.
RESULTS:
The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR.
CONCLUSION:
This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding.

/pdf/international-consensus-statement-on-allergy-and-rhinology-pnvs6cds27.pdf

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis.

Background: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) is in the process of developing Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis. To inform the development of clinical recommendations, we undertook a systematic review to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety of AIT in the management of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Methods: We searched nine international biomedical databases for published, in-progress, and unpublished evidence. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Our primary outcomes of interest were symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores. Secondary outcomes of interest included cost-effectiveness and safety. Data were descriptively summarized and then quantitatively synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: We identified 5960 studies of which 160 studies satisfied our eligibility criteria. There was a substantial body of evidence demonstrating significant reductions in standardized mean differences (SMD) of symptom (SMD −0.53, 95% CI −0.63, −0.42), medication (SMD −0.37, 95% CI −0.49, −0.26), and combined symptom and medication (SMD −0.49, 95% CI −0.69, −0.30) scores while on treatment that were robust to prespecified sensitivity analyses. There was in comparison a more modest body of evidence on effectiveness post-discontinuation of AIT, suggesting a benefit in relation to symptom scores. Conclusions: AIT is effective in improving symptom, medication, and combined symptom and medication scores in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis while on treatment, and there is some evidence suggesting that these benefits are maintained in relation to symptom scores after discontinuation of therapy.

/pdf/allergen-immunotherapy-for-allergic-rhinoconjunctivitis-a-2egr01z8ch.pdf

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This article continues the comprehensive international consensus (ICON) statement on allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The initial article also recently appeared in the Journal. The conclusions below focus on key mechanisms of AIT-triggered tolerance, requirements in allergen standardization, AIT cost-effectiveness, and regulatory guidance. Potential barriers to and facilitators of the use of AIT are described in addition to future directions. International allergy specialists representing the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology; the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology; the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and the World Allergy Organization critically reviewed the existing literature and prepared this summary of recommendations for best AIT practice. The authors contributed equally and reached consensus on the statements presented herein.

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(15)03114-0/pdf

International Consensus on Allergen Immunotherapy II: Mechanisms, standardization, and pharmacoeconomics.

Background Severe allergic rhinitis uncontrolled by conventional medication can substantially affect quality of life. Immunotherapy involves administering increasing doses of a specific allergen, with the aim of reducing sensitivity and symptomatic reactions. Recent meta-analyses have concluded that both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are more effective than placebo in reducing symptoms. It is uncertain which route of administration is more effective and whether or not treatment is cost-effective. Objective To determine the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCIT and SLIT for seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults and children. Data sources Electronic databases {MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library [Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)], NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED)} and trial registries (from inception up to April 2011). Review methods Standard systematic review methods were used for study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Double-blind randomised, placebo-controlled trials of SCIT or SLIT, or of SCIT compared with SLIT, and economic evaluations were included. Meta-analysis and indirect comparison meta-analysis and meta-regression were carried out. A new economic model was constructed to estimate cost-utility. Results Meta-analyses found statistically significant effects for SCIT and SLIT compared with placebo across a number of outcome measures and for the vast majority of subgroup analyses (type and amount of allergen, duration of treatment). There was less evidence for children, but some results in favour of SLIT were statistically significant. Indirect comparisons did not provide conclusive results in favour of either SCIT or SLIT. Economic modelling suggested that, when compared with symptomatic treatment (ST), both SCIT and SLIT may become cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) from around 6 years, or 5 years for SCIT compared with SLIT (NHS and patient perspective). Limitations It is uncertain to what extent changes in the outcome measures used in the trials translate into clinically meaningful benefits. Cost-effectiveness estimates are based on a simple model, limited data and a number of assumptions, and should be seen as indicative only. Conclusions A benefit from both SCIT and SLIT compared with placebo has been consistently demonstrated, but the extent of this effectiveness in terms of clinical benefit is unclear. Both SCIT and SLIT may be cost-effective compared with ST from around 6 years (threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY). Further research is needed to establish the comparative effectiveness of SCIT compared with SLIT and to provide more robust cost-effectiveness estimates. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

/pdf/a-systematic-review-and-economic-evaluation-of-subcutaneous-3fl4selsks.pdf

A systematic review and economic evaluation of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy in adults and children with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Background: Seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis can, for some people, reduce quality of life and the ability to cope with everyday tasks.Scope: In this paper we investigate the cost-effective­ness of immunization therapy with Alutard SQ (ASQ) and compare the cost-effectiveness in countries where the therapy has been in use in order to assess the impact of national therapeutic practices on the results of health economic assessments. Data are obtained from a clinical trial carried out in 2001–2002. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of immunization we have added data on resource use in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden.Findings: The computations result in cost-effectiveness ratios for allergen immunization between €10 000 and €20 000 per QALY even without provision for indirect costs, and achieving dominance in most countries where indirect costs have also been taken into account. The country comparisons show that the direct cost of administrating the up-dosing and ma...

A cost-effectiveness analysis of immunotherapy with SQ allergen extract for patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in selected European countries

Kasper P Jørgensen

Papers

A cost-effectiveness analysis of immunotherapy with SQ allergen extract for patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in selected European countries