Sublingual immunotherapy.

A J Frew; H E Smith

doi:10.1067/mai.2001.113525

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11240942

Sublingual immunotherapy.

A J Frew·H E Smith

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Recent claims have been made that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) may be a viable alternative to injection immunotherapy (SIT). Animal studies show that when allergens are administered topically, they are handled differently, and IgE responses can be reduced. Most published studies of human SLIT have been small but show fairly consistent benefits on symptom scores, with few systemic side effects. Objective measures of allergen reactivity usually do not change. Relatively few subjects have been treated in SLIT trials compared with the numbers that would be required to validate new drug therapies. On the plus side, SLIT appears to work in adults and in children; it offers some logistic advantages and seems to be safe. Giving allergen by mouth rather than by injection should decrease the costs of immunotherapy, but the cumulative dose of allergen used in SLIT has been between 20 to 375 times the dose given in conventional SIT. Further cost-benefit analysis is needed. On the other hand, standard SIT is effective and is supported by better clinical and experimental evidence. The balance sheet for SLIT is improving, but on the current evidence, SLIT requires further evaluation before it could be recommended for use in routine clinical practice.

Explore related subjects

Administration, Sublingual Allergens Animals Dose-Response Relationship, Immunologic Humans Immunotherapy Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

A J Frew, H E Smith. 2001. Sublingual immunotherapy.. https://doi.org/10.1067/mai.2001.113525

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Provocation of neurocardiogenic syncope during head-up tilt testing in children: comparison between isoproterenol and nitroglycerin.

OBJECTIVE: Although nitroglycerin- and isoproterenol-augmented tilt tests are of equal value in the diagnosis of neurocardiogenic syncope in adults, no data exist in children. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of the 2 tests in a pediatric population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 85 patients (33 boys; mean age: 11.6 +/- 2.9 years). Of them, 56 had a diagnostic history of neurocardiogenic syncope, whereas 29 served as controls. After a negative passive phase, they were randomly assigned to either intravenous isoproterenol or sublingual nitroglycerin, and tilt was continued for 20 minutes. RESULTS: Sensitivity was 0.78 for the isoproterenol test and 0.79 for the nitroglycerin test, but specificity was significantly higher for isoproterenol test compared with nitroglycerin test. In patients with a positive test, the duration of the recovery period was significantly longer after nitroglycerin (8.4 +/- 2.7 minutes) than after isoproterenol (5.1 +/- 1.6 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Nitroglycerin- and isoproterenol-augmented tilt tests are associated with equal sensitivity in the diagnosis of neurocardiogenic syncope in children and adolescents. However, nitroglycerin results in more false-positive tests and produces more prolonged vasovagal symptoms. Our data do not support the routine use of nitroglycerin in the evaluation of syncope in this age group.

Administration, Sublingual↗

PubMed2007

Successful sublingual immunotherapy with birch pollen has limited effects on concomitant food allergy to apple and the immune response to the Bet v 1 homolog Mal d 1.

BACKGROUND: Cross-reactivity between the major birch pollen allergen, Bet v 1, and the apple protein, Mal d 1, frequently causes food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of successful sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) with birch pollen extract on apple allergy and the immune response to Bet v 1 and Mal d 1. METHODS: Before and after 1 year of SLIT, Bet v 1-sensitized patients with oral allergy syndrome to apple underwent nasal challenges with birch pollen and double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges with apple. Bet v 1-specific and Mal d 1-specific serum antibody levels and proliferation in PBMCs and allergen-specific T-cell lines (TCLs) were determined. Bet v 1-specific TCLs were mapped for T-cell epitopes. RESULTS: In 9 patients with improved nasal provocation scores to birch pollen, apple-induced oral allergy syndrome was not significantly reduced. Bet v 1-specific IgE and IgG(4) levels significantly increased. Bet v 1-specific T-cell responses to all epitopes and those cross-reactive with Mal d 1 significantly decreased. However, neither Mal d 1-specific IgE and IgG(4) levels nor Mal d 1-induced T-cell proliferation changed significantly. In contrast, Mal d 1-specific TCLs showed increased responses to Mal d 1 after 1 year of SLIT. CONCLUSION: This longitudinal study indicates that pollen SLIT does not efficiently alter the immune response to pollen-related food allergens, which may explain why pollen-associated food allergy is frequently not ameliorated by pollen immunotherapy even if respiratory symptoms significantly improve. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: SLIT with birch pollen may have no clinical effect on associated apple allergy.

Administration, Sublingual↗

PubMed2007

Update on epinephrine for the treatment of anaphylaxis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Epinephrine is the treatment of choice for anaphylaxis--a life-threatening and potentially fatal event. The purpose of this review is to highlight recent publications relevant to the management of anaphylaxis and identify potential barriers which prevent or delay appropriate administration of epinephrine. RECENT FINDINGS: Experts have moved towards a consensus on how to define anaphylaxis, which has a variable clinical presentation. A clear definition, across specialties, is necessary for more accurate determinations of prevalence, diagnosis and management. Epinephrine injected intramuscularly is the treatment of choice, but there remain gaps in physician knowledge despite increases in hospitalization rates for anaphylaxis. Epinephrine is also underused by parents, day-care centers and schools. Barriers to access for treatment exist in lower socioeconomic groups. Women appear to be at risk for suboptimal treatment when autoinjectors are used. Given these issues, other routes of administration of epinephrine have been explored. Epinephrine delivered via a sublingual route has been successful in animal studies. SUMMARY: Epinephrine is the primary therapy for anaphylaxis, yet studies show that it is underutilized. By addressing the contributory factors that have been identified, acute and long-term care of individuals with this potentially life-threatening disorder can be optimized.

Administration, Sublingual↗