UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

SCIT: Standard schedules, administration techniques, and monitoring

Author
Harold Nelson, MD
Section Editor
Peter S Creticos, MD
Deputy Editor
Anna M Feldweg, MD

INTRODUCTION

There is significant variation in the way subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is administered around the world, including differences in schedules for injections, safety precautions, training requirements, and approaches to documentation. Over the past few decades, professional allergy societies in the United States have made attempts to reduce variations in practice across the United States and identify best practices. Practice parameters for SCIT have been published and the practices described in this topic review are consistent with American guidelines [1].

This topic will review conventional schedules for the administration of SCIT, focusing on those used to administer inhalant allergens. Adjustments in schedules in response to adverse effects, injection techniques, safety requirements for facilities at which immunotherapy is given, documentation, and patient monitoring will also be discussed. Accelerated schedules for SCIT (including rush, cluster, and ultrarush) and schedules for Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy are reviewed elsewhere. (See "Hymenoptera venom immunotherapy: Technical issues, protocols, adverse effects, and monitoring", section on 'Choice of protocol'.)

CONVENTIONAL SCHEDULES

SCIT schedules differ in the number of injections per visit, number of visits per week, and the rapidity with which the patient reaches the maintenance dose. Conventional immunotherapy schedules involve one to three injections per week during a build-up phase that lasts a number of weeks, followed by a maintenance phase, during which injections are given every two to four weeks over a period of years.

There are faster and slower versions of conventional schedules. The clinician may choose a schedule with a slower (more gradual) build-up for the patient at increased risk for a systemic allergic reaction to the immunotherapy itself. The primary advantage of slower schedules is the reduced risk of systemic allergic reactions. An example of a conservative build-up schedule is provided (table 1) [1].

Within the spectrum of conventional schedules, more conservative schedules are appropriate for patients with any of the following characteristics:

                             

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Nov 2016. | This topic last updated: Fri Feb 12 00:00:00 GMT 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Cox L, Nelson H, Lockey R, et al. Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter third update. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 127:S1.
  2. DaVeiga SP, Liu X, Caruso K, et al. Systemic reactions associated with subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy: timing and risk assessment. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2011; 106:533.
  3. Allergenic extract: Prescription set of serial dilutions. www.greerlabs.com (Accessed on December 06, 2010).
  4. Roy SR, Sigmon JR, Olivier J, et al. Increased frequency of large local reactions among systemic reactors during subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2007; 99:82.
  5. Calabria CW, Coop CA, Tankersley MS. The LOCAL Study: Local reactions do not predict local reactions in allergen immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 124:739.
  6. Calabria CW, Coop CA, Tankersley MS. The GILL study: glycerin-induced local reactions in immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008; 121:222.
  7. Van Metre TE Jr, Rosenberg GL, Vaswani SK, et al. Pain and dermal reaction caused by injected glycerin in immunotherapy solutions. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996; 97:1033.
  8. Ohashi Y, Nakai Y, Murata K. Effect of pretreatment with fexofenadine on the safety of immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2006; 96:600.
  9. Wöhrl S, Gamper S, Hemmer W, et al. Premedication with montelukast reduces local reactions of allergen immunotherapy. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2007; 144:137.
  10. Majak P, Rychlik B, Pułaski L, et al. Montelukast treatment may alter the early efficacy of immunotherapy in children with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 125:1220.
  11. Tankersley MS, Butler KK, Butler WK, Goetz DW. Local reactions during allergen immunotherapy do not require dose adjustment. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2000; 106:840.
  12. Kelso JM. The rate of systemic reactions to immunotherapy injections is the same whether or not the dose is reduced after a local reaction. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2004; 92:225.
  13. Calabria CW, Stolfi A, Tankersley MS. The REPEAT study: recognizing and evaluating periodic local reactions in allergen immunotherapy and associated systemic reactions. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2011; 106:49.
  14. Cox L, Larenas-Linnemann D, Lockey RF, Passalacqua G. Speaking the same language: The World Allergy Organization Subcutaneous Immunotherapy Systemic Reaction Grading System. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 125:569.
  15. Larenas-Linnemann DE, Gupta P, Mithani S, Ponda P. Survey on immunotherapy practice patterns: dose, dose adjustments, and duration. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2012; 108:373.
  16. Ebner C, Kraft D, Ebner H. Booster immunotherapy (BIT). Allergy 1994; 49:38.
  17. Tinkelman DG, Cole WQ 3rd, Tunno J. Immunotherapy: a one-year prospective study to evaluate risk factors of systemic reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1995; 95:8.
  18. Lin MS, Tanner E, Lynn J, Friday GA Jr. Nonfatal systemic allergic reactions induced by skin testing and immunotherapy. Ann Allergy 1993; 71:557.
  19. Epstein TG, Liss GM, Murphy-Berendts K, Bernstein DI. AAAAI/ACAAI surveillance study of subcutaneous immunotherapy, years 2008-2012: an update on fatal and nonfatal systemic allergic reactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2014; 2:161.
  20. Bousquet J, Maasch H, Martinot B, et al. Double-blind, placebo-controlled immunotherapy with mixed grass-pollen allergoids. II. Comparison between parameters assessing the efficacy of immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1988; 82:439.
  21. Des Roches A, Paradis L, Knani J, et al. Immunotherapy with a standardized Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus extract. V. Duration of the efficacy of immunotherapy after its cessation. Allergy 1996; 51:430.