Contributor disclosures are reviewed for conflicts of interest by the editorial group. When found, these are addressed by vetting through a multi-level review process, and through requirements for references to be provided to support the content. Appropriately referenced content is required of all authors and must conform to UpToDate standards of evidence.
INTRODUCTION — Allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic respiratory diseases has traditionally been administered by subcutaneous injections. Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) has proven efficacy in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma, but it requires regular injections at a clinician's office (typically over a period of three to five years) and carries the risk of potentially serious systemic allergic reactions in response to the treatment itself.
The alternate approach of administering allergens orally, and more specifically with a sublingual methodology in which the allergen is given as either a dissolvable tablet (under the tongue) or as an aqueous or liquid extract, has evolved into a viable treatment for allergic respiratory diseases. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) offers several specific advantages over injection immunotherapy. SLIT can be self-administered by patients or caregivers, does not require injections, and carries a much lower risk of anaphylaxis compared with SCIT. This topic will discuss the mechanisms of action, advantages, and limitations of SLIT for allergic rhinitis and the most common methods of administering immunotherapy via an oral route: sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-tablets) and sublingual aqueous or glycerinated liquid preparations (SLIT-drops).
The use of SCIT for the treatment of allergic respiratory diseases is discussed separately. (See "Subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic disease: Indications and efficacy" and "Allergen immunotherapy for allergic disease: Therapeutic mechanisms" and "SCIT: Standard schedules, administration techniques, and monitoring".)
Oral immunotherapy for the treatment of other allergic diseases is reviewed elsewhere. (See "Investigational therapies for food allergy: Immunotherapy and nonspecific therapies" and "Latex allergy: Management", section on 'Immunotherapy'.)
Background — Oral immunotherapy was first proposed as a method of treatment for allergic disease in the early 1900s. In the 1980s, properly designed clinical trials first demonstrated a dose-dependent therapeutic response with specific and well-characterized aeroallergens. In 1998, the World Health Organization (WHO) recognized that SLIT was a promising alternate mode of immunotherapy and encouraged continued clinical investigation into this form of treatment . In 2009, the World Allergy Organization (WAO) published their opinion that the cumulative evidence showed SLIT represented a viable alternative to SCIT and encouraged continued clinical investigation to characterize optimal techniques [2,3].
DELIVERY SYSTEMS — Several types of allergen preparations have been studied in SLIT. The following forms are most promising:
●Sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-tablets) – Allergen is formulated into a rapidly dissolving tablet that is held under the tongue until completely dissolved. The majority of United States clinical studies have defined a single optimal dose based on prior dose-ranging safety studies. The tablets are self-administered, once daily.
●Sublingual aqueous or glycerinated liquid allergen extracts (SLIT-drops) – An aqueous or liquid (eg, glycerinated) extract of allergen, generally administered as drops, is held under the tongue for a specified period of time, and then the residual is swallowed. The allergen is taken up through the rich vascular lymphoid network of the mouth. Oral solutions that are held in the mouth for a period of time, but then spit out rather than swallowed, have also been evaluated in clinical trials. However, holding the extract under the tongue appears more efficient for delivery of active drug.
Other approaches to oral immunotherapy that have been investigated in research trials include administration of the allergen(s) as enteric-coated tablets, liposomal constructs, or microencapsulated polymers. These oral (swallow) delivery systems are intended to protect the allergenic proteins from breakdown in the stomach and then allow a pH-dependent release in the small intestine for processing by the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT). However, research studies with these constructs have not demonstrated evidence for effective delivery [4,5].
Types of allergens — The majority of studies of SLIT have been performed with pollen allergens in patients with allergic rhinitis. There are a smaller number of studies of dust mite immunotherapy. The use of food allergens or latex allergens in oral immunotherapy is discussed separately. (See "Investigational therapies for food allergy: Immunotherapy and nonspecific therapies" and "Latex allergy: Management", section on 'Immunotherapy'.)
●In the United States, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved both a 5-grass pollen extract sublingual tablet (Oralair)  and a Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet (Grastek) in 2014 for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) in children and adults . A ragweed pollen sublingual tablet (Ragwitek) also received approval in 2014 for the treatment of short ragweed pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) in adults . In March 2017, the FDA approved a house dust mite sublingual tablet (Odactra) for the treatment of house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) in adults . (See 'Sublingual tablets' below.)
●Both grass tablets had previously received regulatory approval in Europe, Canada, Australia, and Russia (2006; 2008). The ragweed tablet is approved in Canada (2014). House dust mite tablets are approved in Europe and Australia (for both allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma), as well as in Japan (allergic rhinitis) and South Korea.
●There has been "off-label" use of liquid allergen extracts for SLIT. The issues regarding this practice are discussed below. (See 'Sublingual drops' below.)
MECHANISMS OF ACTION — The gut is the largest mucosal organ of the body and is exposed to numerous foreign proteins on a constant basis. The normal response of the gut immune system to nonpathogenic proteins is tolerance, a fact which forms the basis for the concept of oral immunization.
The gut immune system is comprised of various physical barriers, secretory immunoglobulin A (IgA), the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), and lymphoid organs (mesenteric lymph nodes, spleen, and liver). Within the GALT, areas of importance for antigen processing are the tonsils and adjacent ring of lymphoid tissue in the posterior pharynx and the Peyer's patches of the duodenum, jejunum, and small intestine. The GALT is essential for normal tolerance to most foreign proteins, as well as in the immunologic response to oral immunotherapy. The role of the GALT in the pathogenesis of food allergy is reviewed elsewhere. (See "Pathogenesis of food allergy".)
Allergens used in SLIT are usually intended for absorption either in the mouth or within the small intestine, as the conditions of the gastric environment (pH and other factors) destroy many allergenic proteins. Whether the immunologic response to allergens absorbed through the oral mucosa is different from that to allergens absorbed through the intestine is an area of ongoing investigation.
●Allergen extracts given sublingually are primarily taken up by dendritic cells in the mucosa and presented to T cells in the draining lymph nodes. Likely mechanisms of action include activation of T regulatory cells and downregulation of mucosal mast cells . Within the oral and sublingual mucosa, effector cells, such as mast cells, are less numerous . This characteristic of the oral mucosa is believed to be an important factor in the lower rates of adverse systemic allergic reactions seen with SLIT.
●Allergenic proteins that reach the small intestine are processed through columnar mucosal cells and presented to T lymphocytes within Peyer's patches . Allergen processing within the GALT is discussed in greater detail separately. (See "Pathogenesis of food allergy".)
●Under normal conditions, local tolerance is believed to arise through stimulation of antigen-specific T helper cells to increase IgA production with concomitant suppression of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) production . Systemic tolerance occurs as a result of a decline in T helper mechanisms or stimulation of T suppressor cells involved in immunoglobulin E (IgE) production. Mechanisms of oral tolerance are discussed in more detail separately. (See "Pathogenesis of food allergy", section on 'Factors influencing sensitization or tolerance'.)
Immunologic changes following SLIT — SLIT is less well-studied than subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), although similar immunologic mechanisms appear to be involved .
The following changes in the humoral responses to allergens are seen with SLIT [14-21]:
●Increases in allergen-specific immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) [14-16,18]. Several studies suggest that IgG4 production is under the control of interleukin-10 (IL-10).
●Blunting of seasonal increases in allergen-specific IgE .
SLIT also results in changes in the cellular response to allergens, including [22-26]:
●Increases in CD8+ T cells and decreases in the CD4:CD8 T cell ratio .
●Increases in IL-10 production and interleukin-12 (IL-12)/interferon-gamma by peripheral blood monocytes [22,23]. IgG4 production may be regulated by IL-10, and SCIT has been shown to induce T regulatory cells to produce IL-10. IL-10 downregulates T helper type 2 (Th2)-dependent inflammation and suppresses B cell isotype switching to IgE. (See "Pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis (rhinosinusitis)".)
●Decreases in interleukin-13 (IL-13) levels and in the ratio of serum eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) to eosinophils. Serum ECP is an indicator of activated eosinophils, and reductions in the ECP to eosinophil ratio suggest that a smaller percentage of eosinophils are in an activated state as a result of successful immunotherapy. Furthermore, IL-13 changes are associated with airway remodeling, and its reduction is also a positive marker of successful immunotherapy.
The immunologic changes observed with SCIT are discussed in more detail elsewhere. (See "Allergen immunotherapy for allergic disease: Therapeutic mechanisms".)
Indications and patient preparation — Each of the SLIT-tablet products are indicated for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) induced by the allergen contained in the product. The approved age ranges differ somewhat among the products (table 1). Sensitization to the relative allergen should be confirmed by positive skin test or in vitro testing for allergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies.
Patients should be informed to temporarily discontinue SLIT therapy if oral inflammation (eg, thrush, mouth ulcers, oral lichen planus) or oral wounds (eg, following dental surgery or tooth extraction) develop. Once the oral mucosa is completely healed, therapy can be resumed.
Contraindications — SLIT-tablets are labeled as contraindicated in patients with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma (table 1) [27-29]. In contrast, mild-to-moderate asthma that is controlled is not a contraindication. However, it is recommended that patients with asthma do not take SLIT-tablets when they are experiencing an acute asthma exacerbation and that they be reassessed after an asthma exacerbation or if they have recurrent asthma exacerbations on therapy, to determine if it is appropriate to continue treatment.
Other contraindications include a history of eosinophilic esophagitis, a history of any severe systemic reaction or severe local reaction after taking SLIT, and hypersensitivity to any of the inactive ingredients.
Labeling of specific products — SLIT-tablet therapy is initiated with a full dose or a short escalation in dose, with the first dose given under medical supervision, and then administration continues once daily and is self-administered by the patient or caregiver at home (table 1).
5-grass sublingual tablet — The 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet (Oralair) is indicated for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) in patients 10 to 65 years of age. Sensitization to any of the 5-grass species contained in the tablet (Timothy, Orchard, Perennial Rye, Kentucky Blue, Sweet Vernal) should be confirmed by positive skin test or in vitro testing for pollen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to any of the 5-grass species contained in the tablet.
The tablet is administered under the tongue and held there for at least one minute or until fully dissolved (table 1). The patient should be instructed not to ingest food or beverage for five minutes following dissolution of the tablet. The first dose is to be taken at the clinician's office under medical supervision, and patients should be observed for at least 30 minutes for signs of allergic reactions . Subsequent doses are to be administered once per day by the patient (or the patient's caregiver). Dosing is expressed in index of reactivity (IR) units. For children 10 to 17 years of age, a two-day dose escalation is stipulated (100 IR tablet on day 1, two 100 IR tablets on day 2, one 300 IR tablet daily thereafter, if tolerated). Patients 18 years and older start with the full 300 IR tablet, which contains approximately 25 mcg/mL of group 5 major allergens. Treatment should be started four months (16 weeks) prior to the expected onset of the respective grass season and continued through the grass season. The most common adverse effects were oral pruritus, throat irritation, ear pruritus, and mouth edema (25, 22, 8, and 8 percent, respectively).
Oralair was not studied in patients with moderate or severe asthma or patients requiring daily controller therapy .
Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet — The Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet (Grastek) contains 2800 bioequivalent allergy units (BAUs) of Timothy grass pollen (approximately 15 mcg Phl p 5) and is indicated for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) in patients 5 to 65 years of age. Prior to considering this therapy, allergy to Timothy or to a cross-reactive grass species (Sweet Vernal, Orchard, Perennial Rye, Kentucky Blue/June, Meadow Fescue, or Redtop) should be confirmed by positive skin test or in vitro testing for pollen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) to Timothy grass or to one of the cross-reactive grass pollens. Patients living in geographic areas with other grass species that do not cross-react with the temperate family (eg, Bermuda, Bahia) may not have as complete a therapeutic response to the Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet, depending upon the degree to which they are sensitive to these other grasses. In addition, there is some evidence that although grass allergens are highly homologous across species, individual allergens may be differentially recognized by T cells, and therefore, a 5-grass tablet may provide a broader array of clinically relevant epitopes . However, there is no evidence that the 5-grass tablet provides superior efficacy over the Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet.
The tablet is administered under the tongue and held there until fully dissolved, after which the patient should not ingest food or beverages for five minutes (table 1). The first dose is to be taken at the clinician's office under medical supervision, and patients should be observed for at least 30 minutes for signs of allergic reactions . Subsequent doses are to be administered once per day by the patient (or the patient's caregiver). Treatment should be started three months (12 weeks) prior to the expected onset of the respective grass season and continued through the grass season. It may be taken throughout the year and for three consecutive years, although the optimal schedule of treatment has not been determined. The most common adverse effects were oral pruritus, throat irritation, ear pruritus, and mouth edema (27, 23, 13, and 11 percent respectively).
Grastek was not studied in patients with moderate or severe asthma or those requiring daily controller therapy .
Short ragweed pollen sublingual tablet — The short ragweed pollen sublingual tablet (Ragwitek) contains 12 Amb a 1 units of short ragweed pollen (approximately 12 mcg Amb a 1) and is indicated for the treatment of short ragweed pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) in patients 18 to 65 years of age. Allergy to short ragweed should be confirmed by positive skin test or in vitro testing for specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) to short ragweed pollen . There is extensive cross-reactivity among common ragweed species (ie, short, giant, false, and western) [31-34].
The tablet is administered under the tongue and held there until fully dissolved, after which the patient should not swallow for at least one minute and not ingest food or beverage for five minutes (table 1) . The first dose should be administered at the clinician's office under medical supervision, and patients should be observed for at least 30 minutes for signs of allergic reactions. Subsequent doses are to be administered once per day by the patient. Treatment should be started at least three months (12 weeks) prior to the expected onset of the respective ragweed season and continued through the ragweed season.
The short ragweed pollen sublingual tablet is labeled as contraindicated in patients with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma; a history of any severe systemic allergic reaction; a history of any severe local reaction after taking SLIT; a history of eosinophilic esophagitis; or hypersensitivity to any of the inactive ingredients (eg, fish-derived gelatin, mannitol). The most common adverse effects were throat irritation, oral pruritus, ear pruritus, and oral paresthesias (17, 11, 10, and 10 percent, respectively) .
House dust mite sublingual tablet — The house dust mite sublingual tablet (Odactra) contains 12 standardized-quality house dust mite (SQ-HDM) units of house dust mite allergen and is indicated for the treatment of dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) in patients 18 to 65 years of age . Allergy to house dust mite should be confirmed by positive skin test or in vitro testing for specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) to Dermatophagoides farinae or D. pteronyssinus or skin testing to licensed house dust mite allergen extracts.
The tablet is administered under the tongue and held there until fully dissolved, after which the patient should not swallow for at least one minute and not ingest food or beverage for five minutes (table 1). The first dose should be administered at the clinician's office under medical supervision, and patients should be observed for at least 30 minutes for signs of allergic reactions. Subsequent doses are administered once daily year-round by the patient or patient's caregiver.
The house dust mite sublingual tablet is labeled as contraindicated in patients with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma; a history of any severe systemic reaction or severe local reaction after taking SLIT; a history of eosinophilic esophagitis; or hypersensitivity to any of the inactive ingredients (eg, fish-derived gelatin, mannitol). The most common adverse effects were oral pruritus, ear pruritus, and throat irritation (47, 40, and 36 percent, respectively) . The rates of adverse reactions in this study were higher than in other studies, probably because the study design actively solicited symptoms of local reactions from patients on their electronic daily diary cards, rather than relying on spontaneously-reported symptoms.
Doses — The cumulative amount of allergen administered in the course of one year is generally 20 to 200 times greater with SLIT compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) . The reason(s) that higher doses are needed have not been fully defined, although they may include loss of allergen through digestion as well as the immunologic effects of high versus low levels of allergen exposure in the gut.
In some studies, the daily dose of allergenic protein in micrograms is equivalent to the dose given every two to four weeks in SCIT.
●A range of allergen doses was evaluated in dose-exploratory phase 1 and 2 safety studies of patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis treated with Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablets [19,36]. In these studies, 100,000 standardized-quality tablet (SQ-T) units was equivalent to approximately 20 mcg Phl p 5, a dose similar to the effective maintenance dose for grass pollen SCIT. A randomized trial conducted in centers throughout Europe compared three different strengths of a Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet (Grazax) with placebo in 855 adults with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis . Subjects received one of three doses of the major Timothy allergen (Phl p 5): 2500 SQ-T units (0.5 mcg of major allergen), 25,000 SQ-T units (5 mcg), or 75,000 SQ-T units (15 mcg). Treatment was initiated 8 weeks prior to grass pollen season and continued daily throughout the season (mean duration of therapy was 18 weeks).
●A similar safety study of the 5-grass standardized allergen SLIT-tablet was performed to establish a tolerated dose for subsequent trials . Doses of 100 to 500 IR were evaluated for safety and tolerability in 30 grass-allergic adults over a 10-day treatment period. Through incorporation of a five-day up-dosing regimen, high-dose treatment with 500 IR (approximately 42 mcg group 5 major allergens) could be reached without significant untoward adverse events. The majority of adverse events were mild-to-moderate with the most common being oral pruritus, throat irritation, and tongue swelling. No serious adverse events occurred.
Schedules — Treatment is typically initiated 12 to 16 weeks prior to the allergen season and maintained through the end of the pollen season. As an example, SLIT-tablet treatment for seasonal allergens is generally started two to three months prior to the start of the relevant pollen season. Continuous year-round SLIT is another option, although in open-label studies of grass pollen SLIT, this did not appear to be superior to preseasonal treatment after the first year [38,39]. However, the best approach is not clear, since the studies that showed persistent benefit two years after completion of a three-year course of therapy used continuous year-round treatment . (See 'Persistence of therapeutic benefit' below.)
Duration of therapy — The optimal duration of a course of SLIT has not been defined. However, one controlled but nonrandomized study of 78 patients undergoing house dust mite SLIT for three, four, or five years found that patients experienced persistent reduction in symptoms lasting seven, eight, and eight years, respectively . Based on this, the authors suggested that four years of therapy is a reasonable goal until more data are available. Other studies evaluating the persistence of benefit after stopping therapy are reviewed below. (See 'Persistence of therapeutic benefit' below.)
SPECIFIC STUDIES AND EFFICACY DATA — The efficacy and safety of SLIT using products designed for oral use has been demonstrated in a number of properly designed European trials for both children and adults with allergic rhinitis. Trials involving each of the main forms of SLIT are reviewed below.
In a 2011 systematic review of 60 randomized trials (published through 2009) that included approximately 2300 adults and children receiving active SLIT treatment (tablets or drops) or placebo, treatment with SLIT resulted in a statistically significant reduction in symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] of -0.42 [95% CI -0.69 to -0.15]) and in medication requirements (SMD of -0.43 [95% CI -0.63 to -0.23]) . Most studies involved treatment with single pollens (most commonly grass) or house dust mite preparations at a range of doses. Fifteen studies included only children, with results that were similar to those in adults. There was a trend for greater improvement with treatments lasting longer than one year. Local side effects (oral pruritus and swelling, throat irritation) and nausea were more common with active treatment, although systemic adverse effects (rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis) were equal in active treatment and placebo groups. No trial reported anaphylaxis or the need to administer epinephrine. Effects on quality of life could not be assessed, because a variety of different measurements were used. Publication bias could not be excluded, as with any systematic review.
Outcome measures for immunotherapy trials — There have been efforts to standardize the outcome measures in trials of immunotherapy for respiratory allergy, to use validated tools that can be compared across studies, and to reach consensus about what degree of therapeutic benefit should be considered clinically meaningful [3,43,44].
●In 2012, the World Allergy Organization (WAO) proposed that a 20 percent mean reduction in total combined score (TCS) compared with placebo be considered the minimum change that corresponds to a clinically meaningful benefit . The decision as to what represents a sufficient therapeutic effect must be tempered by the risk:benefit ratio of the therapeutic agent. Traditionally, the bar has been set somewhat higher for a treatment such as injection immunotherapy, where the risks (ie, anaphylaxis induced by the injections) were perceived as relatively significant.
●For an allergen immunotherapy therapeutic agent to get approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), two statistical efficacy criteria must be met: (1) the TCS must demonstrate an average relative difference of 15 percent compared with placebo, and (2) the upper bound of the 95% CI must be ≤-10 percent. These statistical tests were selected after rigorous internal evaluation by the agency and have been mandated to more clearly identify and define a statistically significant and clinically meaningful therapeutic effect when comparing allergen immunotherapy with placebo.
Efficacy compared with pharmacotherapy — Based on indirect comparisons, the efficacy of SLIT-tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis to pollens appears to be slightly less than that of glucocorticoid nasal sprays, but superior to antihistamines and montelukast, while the efficacy of house dust mite SLIT-tablets appears to be superior to any medical therapies for perennial allergic rhinitis. This is based on a 2016 study that compared pooled efficacy data from 10 randomized trials of SLIT-tablets (for treatment of seasonal or perennial allergic rhinitis) with data from studies of pharmacotherapy and found that SLIT-tablet treatment resulted in an overall improvement in total nasal symptom scores of 16 to 17 percent . By comparison, trials of mometasone furoate nasal spray (n = 8), desloratadine (n = 9), and montelukast (n = 7), all at full strength, resulted in improvements in total nasal symptom scores of 22, 9, and 5 percent, respectively, for seasonal allergic rhinitis and 11, 5, and 4 percent, respectively, for perennial allergic rhinitis. Limitations of this analysis included the fact that most SLIT studies allowed for use of rescue medications, while trials of pharmacotherapy generally did not, which would potentially underestimate the effect of SLIT. However, this study design also provides evidence for the additive effects of SLIT beyond pharmacotherapy. Another limitation of the analysis was the lack of trials employing combinations of pharmacotherapies, which would more closely simulate "maximal medical therapy."
Efficacy compared with placebo
Grass — A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials (through 2014) evaluating grass pollen SLIT-tablet immunotherapy found a treatment benefit on symptom score (SMD, -0.28; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.19) and medication score (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.31 to -0.17) . Representative studies are discussed below.
Single grass allergen tablet — European and North American studies with the Timothy grass pollen SLIT-tablet have demonstrated clinical benefit in grass-allergic subjects [19,48-52].
●In a trial of 634 European adults with grass-induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, subjects received once daily treatment with a Timothy SLIT-tablet (Grazax) containing 15 mcg Phl p 5 or placebo . Treatment was initiated 16 weeks preseason and continued during the season within a study design that was extended to incorporate a two-year maintenance phase and a two-year follow-up after discontinuation of therapy. (See 'Persistence of therapeutic benefit' below.)
In this initial study, there were no serious or life-threatening adverse events, and <4 percent of patients withdrew. A fivefold higher adverse event rate probably or possibly related to drug was observed with active drug versus placebo, including oral pruritus (46 versus 4 percent), mouth edema (18 versus 1 percent), ear itch (42 versus 1 percent), and throat irritation (9 versus 1 percent), respectively.
Mean rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores and medication scores (30 and 38 percent, respectively) improved significantly compared with placebo. Additionally, there were significant increases in the number of well days (53 versus 44 percent) and improvements in quality of life in the treatment group.
●A study in grass-allergic children demonstrated similar efficacy and safety .
●The first United States randomized trials to demonstrate positive clinical outcomes with this Timothy grass pollen SLIT-tablet were completed in 2009 [49,50]. The protocol was similar to the European studies and used a dose of 15 mcg Phl p 5 in both adults and children. Both trials were large (300 to 400 patients each), and 85 to 90 percent of patients were sensitized to multiple allergens in addition to grass pollen. The primary endpoint, the combined daily symptom plus medication score, improved (was reduced) by 20 percent (difference versus placebo -1.31 [95% CI -2.8 to -0.36]) in adults and 26 percent (difference versus placebo -1.63 [95% CI -2.60 to -0.66]) in adolescents and children .
A 2014 United States SLIT study with the Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet showed efficacy in both primary and secondary outcomes and provided further assurance on safety, as it evaluated 1501 grass-allergic children and adults, the largest published trial of immunotherapy . Efficacy was similar to that demonstrated in the positive trials performed earlier [49,50].
Multiple grass allergen tablet — There are a number of high quality studies with the 5-grass pollen tablet [54-59]:
●An initial and pivotal study established dosing in 628 grass-allergic adults with rhinoconjunctivitis, who were randomized to three different doses: 100 index of reactivity (IR) units (approximately 8.3 mcg group 5 major grass allergen), 300 IR (approximately 25 mcg), or 500 IR (approximately 42 mcg) . Treatment was initiated 16 weeks prior to the grass season and continued through the grass season. A statistically significant benefit was seen in the primary efficacy variable (rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score) for both the 300 IR and the 500 IR treatment arms versus placebo (37 percent and 35 percent, respectively), but not in the lower 100 IR dose arm . Reliance on "rescue" medication was also significantly less in the active treatment groups. Improvements were observed for rhinoconjunctivitis, quality of life, and individual rhinitis symptom scores.
●A study in grass-allergic children demonstrated similar efficacy and safety .
●A randomized, placebo-controlled trial performed on 473 American adults used the 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet at the 300 IR dose and reproduced the findings from a similar European study . Compared with those receiving placebo, active treatment patients showed a 28 percent improvement in the primary efficacy measure of total combined score plus medication score (difference versus placebo -0.13 [95% CI -0.19 to -0.06]) (figure 1). Similar improvements were observed in the secondary outcome measurements, including daily rhinitis total symptom score (23 percent), daily rhinitis rescue medication score (46 percent), overall rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire score, and respective individual symptom scores (except nasal itch). Despite the fact that many patients in this study were highly grass-allergic, the most frequent adverse events in this trial were (again) oral pruritus, throat itch, and nasopharyngitis. There were no anaphylactic events, and no patients required epinephrine.
In this study, an interesting observation was made about the choice of patients for SLIT. Inclusion was based upon clinical history and a positive skin test reactivity reaction to Timothy pollen (prick skin test wheal >5 mm versus control), although Timothy-specific serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels were also measured. Eleven percent of skin test-positive study subjects had undetectable Timothy grass-specific serum IgE (<0.1 kU/L). This subgroup of patients was essentially asymptomatic during the grass pollen season and thus did not benefit from therapy, suggesting that the combination of skin test sensitivity and serum-specific IgE can identify a more appropriate population of study patients for inclusion in clinical trials of immunotherapy and for treatment (figure 1).
Ragweed tablet — Efficacy and safety have been demonstrated with a ragweed SLIT-tablet standardized on the basis of the major ragweed allergen, Amb a 1. In a multinational trial of 784 adults with allergic rhinitis caused by ragweed (with or without conjunctivitis or mild asthma), subjects were randomly assigned to placebo or to three different doses of ragweed SLIT-tablet (containing 1.5, 6, or 12 units of Amb a 1 protein, where 1 unit is approximately equal to 1 mcg) . Therapy was initiated four months preseason and continued for one year (for safety monitoring). The primary endpoint was the total combined symptom/medication score (TCS) during peak ragweed season. The 6 and 12 unit tablets reduced TCS by 19 percent (difference versus placebo -1.58 [95% CI -2.8 to -0.36]) and 24 percent (difference versus placebo -2.04 [95% CI -3.30 to -0.79]), respectively, which was statistically significant compared with placebo (figure 2). Similar findings were shown for the entire ragweed season (18 and 27 percent reduction, respectively). The 1.5 unit dose also reduced TCS, but not to a statistically significant degree. The WAO has proposed that a 20 percent mean reduction in TCS compared with placebo be considered a clinically meaningful benefit. Therefore, this dose-ranging study demonstrated meaningful clinical benefit for the 12 unit tablet. No serious systemic allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, or asthma exacerbations were reported. Approximately one-half of subjects receiving the 6 and 12 unit tablets noted itching and swelling of the mouth, throat, or ears, mostly of mild-to-moderate severity and limited in duration.
In another study of ragweed SLIT-tablet, in which patients were randomized to two strengths of tablet (6 or 12 units of Amb a 1) or to placebo, a similar degree of improvement in TCS was demonstrated (21 and 27 percent, respectively) versus placebo during the peak season . The tablets were well-tolerated, as the majority of treatment-related adverse events were mild, and no systemic reactions were reported. One patient receiving the lower dose tablet did receive epinephrine for the sensation of localized pharyngeal edema. This points to the need to carefully educate patients on the types of adverse events that can occur with SLIT and the importance of clearly outlining patient instructions on when to seek medical evaluation. It also raises the question of whether an epinephrine autoinjector should be prescribed to patients undergoing this form of self-administered home therapy.
House dust mite tablet — Randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of house dust mite SLIT-tablets for the treatment of allergic rhinitis [62-67].
●In a randomized trial of 1482 subjects (aged ≥12 years) with house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis with or without either conjunctivitis and/or asthma were randomized to one year of daily treatment with standardized-quality house dust mite (SQ-HDM) SLIT-tablet or placebo . The primary endpoint was the average total combined rhinitis score, which was defined as the daily rhinitis symptom score plus rhinitis daily medication score, during the last two months of treatment. Active treatment improved the total combined rhinitis score by 17 percent (95% CI, 10–25 percent) versus placebo and was well-tolerated.
●Another trial of the same product showed that the treatment effect was evident after 14 weeks of therapy .
Studies of house dust mite SLIT in patients with asthma are discussed below (See 'Patients with concomitant asthma' below.)
Persistence of therapeutic benefit — It is not clear if the benefit of SLIT-tablet immunotherapy consistently lasts beyond the treatment period to an extent that is clinically meaningful.
●The two-year house dust mite SLIT-tablet study reviewed previously showed that one year of treatment conferred continued control of symptoms through a second post-therapy year . (See 'House dust mite tablet' above.)
●However, another study with grass pollen SLIT-tablets evaluating persistence after just two years of daily therapy did not find continued benefit during the following year off therapy .
●The five-year randomized trial with the Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet (Grazax) involved three years of continuous daily therapy followed by a blinded assessment of symptom control in the two grass seasons following discontinuation of treatment [69,70]. There was sustained benefit during the three years of active treatment (ie, 38, 45, and 40 percent improvement in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively, all of which were statistically significant compared with placebo). However, benefit declined progressively during the two years following active therapy (ie, 29 and 20 percent in years 4 and 5, with loss of statistical significance by the final year).
Sublingual drops — Another approach to the delivery of SLIT involves aqueous or glycerinated liquid allergen extracts that are initially held under the tongue for two to three minutes and then swallowed (ie, SLIT-drops). This construct has gained acceptance in Europe and is being studied in clinical trials in the United States. In the United States, phase 1 studies on safety and tolerability have been carried out with ragweed, grass, house dust mite, and cat glycerinated extracts .
A 2013 systematic review, which included 63 randomized-controlled trials and 5131 subjects, was performed to determine if there was evidence that SLIT with aqueous or liquid drops, performed with products equivalent to those available in the United States for use in subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), were safe and effective for allergic asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis . Studies were only included if the methods could be replicated using allergen extracts available in the United States. A meta-analysis of efficacy could not be performed, because of the heterogeneity among studies, and the authors did not comment on efficacy. Instead, the authors summarized the quality of the evidence that SLIT-drops improved symptoms scores, need for medication, and quality of life for allergic asthma, rhinitis, and conjunctivitis. There were no reports of anaphylaxis, confirming that SLIT-drops are well-tolerated. For allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, the quality of the evidence that SLIT was effective was deemed "moderate," as defined in the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines . The same analysis performed on studies of children found that the evidence that SLIT-drops improved asthma scores was of high quality, and the evidence that it improved allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis scores was of moderate quality .
However, we believe that there are several factors limiting what can be learned from the above systematic review, including lack of standardized methods for conducting clinical trials, lack of uniformity regarding what defines a clinically meaningful effect, and variations in allergen selection (standardized versus nonstandardized allergens), allergen dose, and duration of therapy. Furthermore, many of the studies included were smaller phase 1 or 2 studies intended to evaluate safety, clarify dose, or examine mechanisms of action. In several instances, the clinical trials did not achieve significance for their primary endpoint and were only able to show an effect for secondary endpoints or upon subgroup analyses. This type of evidence does not meet the more rigorous standards required by various regulatory bodies and task forces [43,45,75].
Additional important limitations noted by the authors of the review, and which directly impact the ability of clinicians to create protocols with proven efficacy using SLIT-drops, included the following:
●Conclusions about effective dose ranges could not be drawn, because the dosing units used in European products and American products are not interchangeable.
●The effectiveness of multiple allergen immunotherapy was not clear, which is important because most patients receiving subcutaneous injection immunotherapy in the United States are sensitized to multiple allergens and are treated with multiple allergens. Few studies have examined combinations of SLIT-drops, but results were inconclusive [76,77].
●Many of the patients included had allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with mild intermittent asthma, rather than asthma requiring maintenance controller therapy. This is discussed more below. (See 'Patients with concomitant asthma' below.)
Thus, there are several fundamental issues with SLIT-drops that require further study before clinicians can be confident that SLIT-drops using available American products represent an effective alternative to SCIT . Of primary importance is the question of effective dose.
It is our opinion that the only definitive way to evaluate newer forms of immunotherapy, including SLIT-drops, is to use products with doses defined in well-established units (eg, micrograms of major allergen or bioequivalent allergy units [BAU]). A small number of studies have been performed on North American or European populations that meet this requirement [76,79-85]. These studies used the commercially available standardized glycerinated extracts licensed for SCIT. However, the data from most of these more rigorous studies do not demonstrate consistent or clinically meaningful benefit. It is clear that further work is required with standardized allergens, as well as with mixes of multiple allergens to determine effective dose, tolerability, and clinical evidence of effect.
●Ragweed – The most advanced clinical trials have been performed with ragweed in a series of studies using the commercially available standardized glycerinated ragweed extract licensed for SCIT [79,80,84].
A randomized dose-response clinical trial was conducted in 115 adult patients with a history of ragweed-induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma . In this study, a modest (approximately 15 percent) improvement in the primary endpoint (the total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score for the entire pollen season) was observed with both active treatment arms, although it was not statistically significant.
In 2014, the first large scale confirmatory clinical trial to demonstrate the efficacy of a sublingual liquid extract with a standardized (short ragweed) allergen extract was completed in North America. In this phase 3 clinical trial, 429 adults were randomized to either active treatment or placebo, with treatment initiated 8 to 16 weeks before and continued through the ragweed season . The study drug was administered sublingually via a calibrated dropper and held under the tongue for two minutes, with any residual liquid swallowed. Ninety-four percent of study subjects achieved the maximum tolerated dose (50 mcg Amb a 1). As consistent with accepted methods for assessment of SLIT studies, the primary endpoint was the total combined daily rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication scores, and the active treatment arm reported a 43 percent improvement in the primary endpoint as compared with the placebo group (difference versus placebo -0.83 [95% CI -1.30 to -0.37]). Expected increases in ragweed-specific immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4), the predictive biomarker associated with symptom improvement in SCIT, were also observed in the active treatment group. No serious adverse events or anaphylaxis occurred. This North American study provides the first conclusive evidence that SLIT with a liquid preparation using well-established (standardized) allergen units (ie, mcg Amb a 1) can result in highly significant and clinically meaningful therapeutic benefit in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
●Grass – In a multicenter, randomized trial of 207 children with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis (with or without asthma), subjects were treated with 40 mcg daily of grass pollen from six grass species or placebo in SLIT-drops held under the tongue for three minutes and then swallowed . Treatment was administered daily January through August initially, and then all patients received daily active open-label treatment for two additional years. The primary endpoint was the change of the area under the curve of the symptom medication score from the baseline season to the first season after start of treatment. The area under the curve of the symptom medication score was approximately twofold lower in the active treatment group. Allergen-specific IgG4 increased significantly in the active group also. No systemic allergic reactions occurred.
●Birch – The efficacy of SLIT-drop immunotherapy with birch pollen was demonstrated in a randomized trial of 574 adults with birch pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis, one-half of whom had oral allergy syndrome . This study also showed sustained effects during the subsequent pollen season. Subjects received a 300 IR solution daily beginning four months before and continuing through birch pollen season and self-recorded symptoms and medication use for two consecutive seasons. The AAdSS (which adjusts symptom scores for the use of rescue medication) in the treatment group was reduced by 19 and 30.6 percent, relative to the placebo group, in the first and second seasons, respectively. The authors did not comment on the therapeutic effect on the treatment on oral allergy syndrome symptoms.
●House dust mite – SLIT-drops with house dust mite allergen can induce the immunologic changes associated with clinical improvement. However, significant reductions in clinical symptom scores and medication use have not been clearly demonstrated [77,81,82,87,88].
SAFETY — The major safety benefit with SLIT-tablets is the markedly reduced incidence of anaphylaxis compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). The most common adverse effects of SLIT are oral mucosal itching and swelling. The European literature has provided extensive data on the safety of various forms of SLIT [89,90]. Well-designed clinical trials in Europe and North America are providing important safety information on research subjects receiving the newer sublingual constructs [91,92]. Postmarketing surveillance data will be an important source of information about real world issues that were not addressed in clinical trials, such as the safety of initiating treatment in season and reinitiating drug after missed doses.
Rare anaphylaxis — Anaphylaxis is uncommon to rare with SLIT, although a small number of cases have been reported [93-96]. One report suggested that a patient who had previously tolerated SLIT subsequently developed anaphylaxis after sustaining minor oral lacerations, emphasizing the importance of an intact oral mucosa for safe administration. Product inserts specify that patients should temporarily discontinue therapy if oral inflammation (eg, thrush, mouth ulcers, oral lichen planus) or oral wounds (eg, following dental surgery or tooth extraction) are present. Therapy can be resumed once healing of the mucosa is complete. Because anaphylaxis is possible, all manufacturers of SLIT-tablets recommend that patients be prescribed epinephrine for self-injection. (See 'Labeling of specific products' above.)
Oral and pharyngeal adverse effects — The most prominent adverse effects observed with SLIT-tablets are local oral mucosal side effects including oral pruritus (lips, inside of mouth, throat) and ear pruritus, occurring in up to one-quarter of patients. However, a smaller percentage of patients may also experience mouth edema (tongue, uvula, lips, throat). This latter deserves careful monitoring, and intervention may require epinephrine. Published SLIT-drops studies also are consistent with these observations [84,86,97].
●Oral mucosal pruritus and irritation are self-limited local reactions that typically occur with the first dose of treatment and last 10 to 30 minutes. These types of reactions tend to lessen (in duration) with continued therapy and resolve in the majority of patients within one to two weeks. However, in the house dust mite studies, up to 40 percent of patients experienced similar type local reactions, and the manifestations recurred over several weeks.
●Sublingual swelling, tongue swelling, or oropharyngeal edema occur in 6 to 11 percent of study subjects. It is described as a swelling under the tongue at the site of tablet application and typically resolves within 5 to 10 minutes. This adverse effect tends not to appear with first dosing, but rather is most likely to be observed at the end of the first week. It is self-limited in most patients, both with respect to severity and duration over the ensuing weeks of treatment.
●In patients with persistence or worsening of oropharyngeal adverse effects and particularly in those patients experiencing more severe complexity (with laryngeal edema/obstruction), appropriate intervention with epinephrine may be indicated, and follow-up with the clinician is necessary to ascertain whether SLIT-tablet therapy should be discontinued [49,50,60,61,91].
Eosinophilic esophagitis — A possible association has been reported between eosinophilic esophagitis and aeroallergen SLIT, as well as with oral immunotherapy with food allergens [98-101]. SLIT should be discontinued in patients who develop severe or persistent gastroesophageal symptoms (including dysphagia or chest pain), and the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis should be considered. (See "Clinical manifestations and diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis".)
Combined with other immunotherapy — The grass pollen tablets available in the United States were not studied in patients already receiving SCIT or additional SLIT treatments, and combining different forms of immunotherapy may increase likelihood of local or systemic reactions .
Use in pregnancy — Published data addressing the safety of SLIT in pregnancy are lacking. However, reports of adverse outcomes or fetal harm have not emerged despite decades of use in various countries. European manufacturers suggest an approach similar to the one used for injection immunotherapy (ie, that treatment not be initiated in a pregnant patient, but if a woman becomes pregnant during treatment, therapy could be continued provided the patient has not had significant allergic reactions to therapy in the past).
Use in primary care settings — SLIT should be prescribed by clinicians with expertise in allergy to ensure the optimal selection of patients and allergens. The performance and interpretation of skin test results and the interpretation of in vitro testing both require experience and clinical judgement. The small number of studies that have evaluated the use of SLIT in primary care settings have had disappointing results [102,103].
COMPLIANCE — SLIT requires a commitment by the patient to a long-term daily maintenance therapy that is self-administered, and compliance is likely to be lower than that obtained in supervised clinical trials .
A United States study reported an attrition rate of approximately 40 percent over four years .
Several European studies have assessed the compliance and adherence with SLIT:
●A study of 300 children (6 to 16 years of age) who received either grass or house dust mite sublingual drops or tablets over two years of treatment revealed that discontinuation rates were clearly tied to follow-up visits to the study site . The dropout rate was 30, 68, and 82 percent in patients evaluated in the clinic every 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively.
●Another study, which focused on young children (three to six years of age), reported that 46 percent of 150 children discontinued SLIT within three months of initiation . The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were lack of effect, time commitment, and adverse events.
●A third study addressed a more realistic measure of surveillance: drug sales figures (as opposed to marketing surveys, which can overestimate compliance due to contact of patients by the surveyor). In postmarketing surveys, compliance ranges from 50 to 90 percent depending on age and duration of treatment. In contrast, data on SLIT prescription refills shows a different picture: sales decreased from 100 percent to 44, 28, and 13 percent, in the first, second, and third years, respectively . Of the total prescriptions for SLIT from the two major manufacturers that participated in the survey, less than 20 percent of prescriptions were continued after three years.
●In a retrospective analysis of a community pharmacy database of 6486 patients beginning subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or SLIT, 23 percent of SCIT patients and only 7 percent of SLIT patients completed three years of treatment .
Although these rates of treatment adherence are not dramatically different from those for other chronic diseases, they may significantly impact efficacy.
Noncompliance should not impact safety, provided patients are clearly instructed not to take extra doses in an attempt to "catch up" if they have had gaps in treatment. This may be particularly important at times when symptoms are severe. Long-term surveillance reporting will be needed to ascertain with the impact of stopping-restarting therapy.
PATIENTS WITH CONCOMITANT ASTHMA — Trials examining the safety and efficacy of SLIT in patients with rhinoconjunctivitis and concomitant asthma have mostly included patients with mild or intermittent asthma. A 2015 systematic review concluded that SLIT was well-tolerated in patients with mild asthma, but data about patients with moderate-to-severe asthma were limited. In addition, the reviewers found that studies examining patient-important outcomes of efficacy were limited .
Mild asthma — Multiple studies have demonstrated that SLIT is safe in many patients with milder asthma [53,81,86,111-117]. These trials included patients who only required bronchodilators or low-dose daily inhaled glucocorticoids [42,60,61]. Studies specifically evaluating the impact of SLIT on asthma symptoms and medication use are described below.
Adults — A randomized trial of 114 adult subjects (18 to 65 years of age) with mostly mild grass pollen-induced asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis assigned subjects to treatment with 75,000 standardized-quality tablet (SQ-T) (15 mcg Phl p 5), Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet (Grazax), or placebo . The primary endpoints were average asthma symptom and medication scores during the grass pollen season.
During the grass season, asthma symptom and medication scores rose slightly in both active and placebo groups, but no discernible differences were observed between groups. Consistent with other trials with the SLIT-tablet construct, significant improvements in mean rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores, medication scores, and well days (37, 41, and 54 percent, respectively) were observed in the group receiving active SLIT-tablet. No serious adverse events were reported in the study, and the number of adverse events linked to asthma was similar between groups.
This clinical trial provided data on the safety of self-administration of the grass allergen tablet in asthmatic subjects and showed that allergen treatment did not impair asthma control, although there was no significant improvement in asthma symptoms either.
Children — A randomized trial of 253 children (5 to 16 years of age) with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without mild asthma demonstrated that the same Timothy grass pollen sublingual tablet formulation (75,000 SQ-T units [15 mcg Phl p 5]) was safe and effective and did appear to have a positive impact on asthma symptoms and medication use .
Treatment was initiated 8 to 23 weeks prior to the grass season and continued through the season. Ninety-two percent of children completed the trial. No serious adverse events were assessed as being treatment-related .
In the grass tablet-treated group, the primary endpoints of median improvement of rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores and medication scores were met . The active treatment also showed a significantly greater number of "well days" versus placebo treatment. During the study, 105 children (42 percent) reported asthma (5 percent severe, 48 percent moderate). Although only 23 percent used any asthma medications, a relative difference in median asthma symptom score was observed in the active treatment group versus placebo-treated children, and use of asthma "relief" medication was nominally lower in the active treatment group.
Moderate-persistent asthma — Fewer studies have included patients with moderate-persistent asthma [63,67,88,118]. These have shown that SLIT is well-tolerated, although the degree of improvement in asthma symptoms appears to be relatively modest.
●One trial that did include such patients evaluated whether SLIT-tablet therapy could reduce the need for inhaled glucocorticoids. This trial enrolled 604 adolescent and adult patients with mild-to-moderate asthma, allergic rhinitis, and sensitization to house dust mite who required low-to-medium doses of inhaled budesonide (100 to 800 mcg/day) . Patients were randomized to one of three doses of house dust mite SLIT-tablet or to placebo. The minimal dose of inhaled budesonide required to control asthma symptoms was measured at the outset and after one year of house dust mite SLIT-tablet therapy. There was a modest but statistically significant reduction in the amount of budesonide required (81 mcg/day) in the group receiving the highest dose of house dust mite SLIT (6 standardized-quality units, SQ-HDM) compared with placebo, but not in the groups receiving the lower doses (3 and 1 SQ-HDM). Thus, based on this limited data, SLIT appears to be well-tolerated and possibly helpful in patients with asthma requiring low-to-moderate doses of inhaled glucocorticoids.
●Another study also found SLIT to be safe and to have measurable benefits in patients with moderate-persistent asthma. This randomized trial included 834 adults with mild or moderate asthma not well-controlled by inhaled budesonide and short-acting beta-agonists, given one of two doses of house dust mite SLIT-tablet or placebo . About 40 percent of patients required high doses (800 to 1200 mcg) of budesonide daily at enrollment. Patients received house dust mite SLIT or placebo for 7 to 12 months, after which budesonide therapy was reduced by 50 percent for 3 months, then discontinued entirely for the next 3 months. The primary outcome was time to first moderate or severe asthma exacerbation during the period of budesonide withdrawal. Both doses of house dust mite SLIT prolonged this time compared with placebo. The absolute risk for a first moderate-to-severe exacerbation during budesonide reduction/discontinuation was 26 and 24 percent for the lower- and higher-dose SLIT, respectively, which were statically significant differences compared with placebo (32 percent). The absolute risk difference in the higher dose SLIT group compared with placebo was 0.10 (95% CI, 0.02-0.16). However, asthma-related quality of life assessment were not different among the three groups. Thus, in patients with mild or moderate asthma not controlled on inhaled glucocorticoids, house dust mite SLIT was safe, and delayed time to exacerbation during steroid withdrawal, although a clinically meaningful improvement in asthma symptoms, was not clearly demonstrated.
Severe asthma — SLIT has not been sufficiently studied in patients with severe asthma, although the limited data that are available are reassuring . Accordingly, all SLIT-tablet products available in the United States and Canada are labeled as contraindicated in patients with severe, unstable, or uncontrolled asthma. (See 'Labeling of specific products' above.)
COMPARISON OF SLIT AND SCIT
Advantages and disadvantages of SLIT — There are several potential advantages of SLIT compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT):
●SLIT is safer, with fewer local and systemic allergic reactions than SCIT. (See 'Safety' above.)
●SLIT is more comfortable for patients, since allergens are ingested rather than injected.
●SLIT is more convenient for patients and clinicians because therapy is self-administered by the patient (or caregiver) at home.
The disadvantages of SLIT include:
●Benefit is reliant upon consistent patient self-administration. Patients who regularly miss doses may not have satisfactory results. (See 'Compliance' above.)
●Patient education will be required to ensure that it is carried out safely and effectively. As an example, patients will require education about how to resume therapy after missed doses. Postmarketing surveillance studies should be performed to identify the frequency and severity of untoward reactions/adverse events that may be observed at an increased rate in the "real world" use of these products.
Comparative efficacy — One group compared various meta-analyses of SLIT (via sublingual extracts or tablets) and SCIT studies that measured changes in symptom scores and medication use in patients with allergic rhinitis due to grass pollen treated with grass pollen immunotherapy . The analysis included 36 randomized, controlled trials of over 3000 treated patients and a similar number of placebo-treated controls. To account for the methodologic variation among the studies, results were converted to standardized mean differences. Although indirect and limited by a very high degree of heterogeneity, this analysis showed greater overall benefit with SCIT compared with SLIT.
A small number of trials have directly compared SLIT and SCIT [35,120-127]. Three randomized trials involved head-to-head, double-dummy protocols [35,120,121]. Although each study had methodologic issues and small numbers of patients, two of three found SCIT to be at least somewhat more effective than SLIT.
●The earliest study included 20 adults monosensitized to grass (and without asthma) treated with SLIT-drops or SCIT, which found that both therapies resulted in reductions in symptoms and medication scores of at least 50 percent after one year of therapy. However, there was no placebo arm . In contrast, immunologic measures of efficacy, such as allergen-specific immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4), changed only in the group receiving SCIT.
●A subsequent trial involved 58 birch-allergic adults (one-third with asthma) treated with either SLIT-aqueous or SCIT . Some were also sensitized to other allergens. Rhinitis disease severity was significantly reduced in both treatment arms compared with placebo, although the two therapies were not statistically different from each other.
●In a third trial, 30 children, all with both rhinitis and asthma and monosensitized to house dust mite, were randomized to SLIT-drops, SCIT, or placebo . SCIT significantly reduced rhinitis and asthma symptoms and medication use. SLIT modestly reduced symptoms for both rhinitis and asthma and medication use for rhinitis, but the changes with SLIT were not statistically significant compared with placebo. The doses given were also not quantified in terms of micrograms of allergen, so it was difficult to assess whether SLIT dosing was adequate.
Other reviews have identified a few additional studies, although these studies were not as rigorous as those described already and reached the same conclusion [128-130].
Issues requiring further study — Further research is needed in several areas, in addition to optimizing dosing and delivery systems. Incompletely answered questions include the following [43,91]:
●Can SLIT alter the progression of allergic disease? – A small number of studies have addressed the question of whether oral forms of immunotherapy can be used to alter disease progression or prevent the onset of other allergic diseases. The preventative effects of immunotherapy are discussed elsewhere. (See "Subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic disease: Indications and efficacy", section on 'Preventive effects'.)
●What is the optimal duration of therapy? – Both SLIT [48-50,53,54,57,91] and SCIT [131-133] can produce clinical benefit within three to four months, and both appear to have some persistent benefit after therapy is discontinued, although the optimal duration of SLIT has yet to be defined. (See 'Persistence of therapeutic benefit' above.)
●How effective is SLIT for the polysensitized patient? – The most compelling data for use of SLIT is in the monosensitized pediatric or adult patient with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with or without mild asthma. Nearly all of the high quality studies available have shown benefit in this context. However, the typical patient in North America is sensitized to multiple aeroallergens, both seasonally and perennially. The few multiple allergen studies performed in the United States have not shown clinical benefit. In one study, 54 grass-allergic patients were randomized to placebo, monotherapy with Timothy extract (19 mcg Phl p 5 daily), or Timothy extract plus nine additional unstandardized pollen extracts . A modest positive trend was observed in clinical parameters in the multiple pollens group, which did not reach clinical significance.
However, a posthoc analysis of data from six randomized trials of grass pollen tablet immunotherapy, including 1871 adults and children, found no significant difference in the benefit reported by patients who were monosensitized to grass and those who were polysensitized to grass and other allergens during the grass pollen season . This analysis does not address the question of whether SLIT with one allergen has any effect on patients' symptoms from exposure to other allergens, a controversy that also applies to SCIT. (See "SCIT: Preparation of allergen extracts for therapeutic use", section on 'Multiple allergen immunotherapy extracts'.)
In addition, until a full range of oral products has been produced, tested, and made commercially available, it is not clear that it would be practical or cost-effective to combine SLIT (eg, grass SLIT-tablet) with SCIT in a patient with multiple allergen sensitivities as opposed to simply continuing SCIT to cover all the allergens relevant to that patient.
●What is the minimal amount of time required to see a clinical effect? – The minimal amount of time required to see a clinical effect with SLIT may vary somewhat depending upon the allergen (seasonal versus perennial), as well as the type of study design used to address the question. For example, clinical trials of grass or ragweed tablets have shown that treatment effect is optimized with initiation of treatment 12 to 16 weeks prior to the onset of pollen season [49-51,56,57,60,61]. In contrast, an environmental chamber study design with house dust mite SLIT demonstrated an early onset of action at eight weeks , whereas a natural field trial showed an onset of action at four months .
SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of respiratory allergy".)
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
●Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) involves the application of allergen to the sublingual tissue. There are two forms of SLIT with inhalant allergens that have been widely studied: dissolvable sublingual tablets (SLIT-tablet) and sublingual allergen extracts (SLIT-drops). The most consistent results have been obtained with SLIT-tablet formulations. (See 'Delivery systems' above.)
●SLIT has been shown in randomized trials to be effective for allergic rhinitis (with or without conjunctivitis) and safe for patients with concomitant mild-to-moderate asthma. However, efficacy in reducing the symptoms of persistent, not well-controlled allergic asthma has not been conclusively demonstrated. (See 'Specific studies and efficacy data' above and 'Patients with concomitant asthma' above.)
●SLIT has been used in Europe and some other countries for decades for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. In the United States, a 5-grass pollen tablet, a single grass pollen tablet, a short ragweed pollen sublingual tablet, and a house dust mite tablet are available (table 1). (See 'Availability' above.)
●SLIT is self-administered by patients (or their caregivers) at home, although the initial dose is usually given under medical supervision. A significant percentage of patients experience local application site reactions (eg, oral pruritus, throat irritation, tongue swelling), but systemic allergic reactions are markedly fewer as compared with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT). Local reactions subside in many patients within a few days to a week. (See 'Administration' above.)
●The main advantages of SLIT over SCIT are safety and the comfort and convenience of an oral therapy that is self-administered. SLIT appears to be somewhat less effective than SCIT, based upon meta-analyses and a small number of direct comparison studies. The main disadvantage of SLIT is that it requires the patient to be consistently compliant with therapy, and the impact of missed doses on efficacy is difficult to assess. (See 'Compliance' above and 'Comparison of SLIT and SCIT' above.)
- Bousquet J, Lockey R, Malling HJ. Allergen immunotherapy: therapeutic vaccines for allergic diseases. A WHO position paper. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1998; 102:558.
- Bousquet J. Sublingual immunotherapy: validated. Allergy 2006; 61(supplement 81):5.
- Canonica GW, Bousquet J, Casale T, et al. Sub-lingual immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization Position Paper 2009. Allergy 2009; 64 Suppl 91:1.
- Creticos PS, Balcer-Whaley SL, Moldt P, Pedersen O. Safety and efficacy of oral immunotherapy with a microencapsulated ragweed pollen extract (MRPE) in patients with ragweed-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis. Presented at the 27th Symposium of Collegium Internationale Allergologicum in Curacao, May 2008. (Abstract).
- Creticos PS, Balcer-Whaley SL, Moldt P, Pedersen O. Comparison of compositional differences and relative potency between different manufacturers of ragweed pollen extracts. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 119:S57 (Abstract).
- US Food and Drug Administration approval notification: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Allergenics/UCM391580.pdf (Accessed on April 04, 2014).
- US FDA approval letter. http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/allergenics/ucm393185.htm (Accessed on April 15, 2014).
- FDA approval letter is available online. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Allergenics/ucm393806.htm (Accessed on April 25, 2014).
- Prescribing information is available on the US FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Allergenics/UCM544382.pdf (Accessed on March 08, 2017).
- Frati F, Moingeon P, Marcucci F, et al. Mucosal immunization application to allergic disease: sublingual immunotherapy. Allergy Asthma Proc 2007; 28:35.
- Hemmings WA. Antigen absorption by the gut, MTP Press, Lancaster, England 1978.
- Elson CO, Heck JA, Strober W. T-cell regulation of murine IgA synthesis. J Exp Med 1979; 149:632.
- Frew AJ. How does sublingual immunotherapy work? J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120:533.
- La Rosa M, Ranno C, André C, et al. Double-blind placebo-controlled evaluation of sublingual-swallow immunotherapy with standardized Parietaria judaica extract in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999; 104:425.
- Lima MT, Wilson D, Pitkin L, et al. Grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy for seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Exp Allergy 2002; 32:507.
- Tari MG, Mancino M, Monti G. Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy in patients with rhinitis and asthma due to house dust mite. A double-blind study. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 1990; 18:277.
- Bufe A, Ziegler-Kirbach E, Stoeckmann E, et al. Efficacy of sublingual swallow immunotherapy in children with severe grass pollen allergic symptoms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Allergy 2004; 59:498.
- Smith H, White P, Annila I, et al. Randomized controlled trial of high-dose sublingual immunotherapy to treat seasonal allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2004; 114:831.
- Durham SR, Yang WH, Pedersen MR, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy with once-daily grass allergen tablets: a randomized controlled trial in seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 117:802.
- Bahçeciler NN, Işik U, Barlan IB, Başaran MM. Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy in children with asthma and rhinitis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Pediatr Pulmonol 2001; 32:49.
- Calderón M, Essendrop M. Specific immunotherapy with high dose SO standardized grass allergen tablets was safe and well tolerated. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2006; 16:338.
- Ciprandi G, Cirillo I, Fenoglio D, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy induces spirometric improvement associated with IL-10 production: preliminary reports. Int Immunopharmacol 2006; 6:1370.
- Arikan C, Bahceciler NN, Deniz G, et al. Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-induced interleukin-12 did not additionally improve clinical and immunologic parameters in asthmatic children treated with sublingual immunotherapy. Clin Exp Allergy 2004; 34:398.
- Ippoliti F, De Santis W, Volterrani A, et al. Immunomodulation during sublingual therapy in allergic children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2003; 14:216.
- Passalacqua G, Canonica GW. Sublingual or injection immunotherapy: the final answer? Allergy 2004; 59:37.
- Bahceciler NN, Ozdemir C, Barlan IB. Immunologic aspects of sublingual immunotherapy in the treatment of allergy and asthma. Curr Med Chem 2007; 14:265.
- Prescribing information for Oralair is available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Allergenics/UCM391580.pdf (Accessed on November 24, 2014).
- Prescribing information for Grastek http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/grastek/grastek_pi.pdf (Accessed on April 15, 2014).
- Prescribing information for Ragwitek is available at http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/ragwitek/ragwitek_pi.pdf (Accessed on April 24, 2014).
- Archila LD, DeLong JH, Wambre E, et al. Grass-specific CD4(+) T-cells exhibit varying degrees of cross-reactivity, implications for allergen-specific immunotherapy. Clin Exp Allergy 2014; 44:986.
- Yunginger JW, Gleich GJ. Measurement of ragweed antigen E by double antibody radioimmunoassay. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1972; 50:326.
- Leiferman KM, Gleich GJ, Jones RT. The cross-reactivity of IgE antibodies with pollen allergens. II. Analyses of various species of ragweed and other fall weed pollens. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1976; 58:140.
- Asero R, Weber B, Mistrello G, et al. Giant ragweed specific immunotherapy is not effective in a proportion of patients sensitized to short ragweed: analysis of the allergenic differences between short and giant ragweed. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005; 116:1036.
- Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Allergen immunotherapy: a practice parameter second update. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120:S25.
- Khinchi MS, Poulsen LK, Carat F, et al. Clinical efficacy of sublingual and subcutaneous birch pollen allergen-specific immunotherapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy study. Allergy 2004; 59:45.
- Kleine-Tebbe J, Ribel M, Herold DA. Safety of a SQ-standardised grass allergen tablet for sublingual immunotherapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Allergy 2006; 61:181.
- Larsen TH, Poulsen LK, Melac M, et al. Safety and tolerability of grass pollen tablets in sublingual immunotherapy--a phase-1 study. Allergy 2006; 61:1173.
- Pajno GB, Caminiti L, Crisafulli G, 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.
- Nakonechna A, Hills J, Moor J, et al. 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.
- Durham SR, GT-08 investigators. Sustained effects of grass pollen AIT. Allergy 2011; 66 Suppl 95:50.
- Marogna M, Spadolini I, Massolo A, et al. Long-lasting effects of sublingual immunotherapy according to its duration: a 15-year prospective study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 126:969.
- Radulovic S, Wilson D, Calderon M, Durham S. Systematic reviews of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Allergy 2011; 66:740.
- Casale TB, Canonica GW, Bousquet J, et al. Recommendations for appropriate sublingual immunotherapy clinical trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 124:665.
- Guideline on the clinical development of products for specific immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic diseases. European Medicines Agency; London, 2009.
- Canonica GW, Baena-Cagnani CE, Bousquet J, et al. Recommendations for standardization of clinical trials with Allergen Specific Immunotherapy for respiratory allergy. A statement of a World Allergy Organization (WAO) taskforce. Allergy 2007; 62:317.
- Durham SR, Creticos PS, Nelson HS, et al. Treatment effect of sublingual immunotherapy tablets and pharmacotherapies for seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis: Pooled analyses. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016; 138:1081.
- Di Bona D, Plaia A, Leto-Barone MS, et al. Efficacy of Grass Pollen Allergen Sublingual Immunotherapy Tablets for Seasonal Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175:1301.
- Dahl R, Kapp A, Colombo G, et al. Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergen tablets for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 118:434.
- Blaiss M, Maloney J, Nolte H, et al. Efficacy and safety of timothy grass allergy immunotherapy tablets in North American children and adolescents. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 127:64.
- Nelson HS, Nolte H, Creticos P, et al. Efficacy and safety of timothy grass allergy immunotherapy tablet treatment in North American adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 127:72.
- Maloney J, Bernstein DI, Nelson H, et al. Efficacy and safety of grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet, MK-7243: a large randomized controlled trial. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2014; 112:146.
- Murphy K, Gawchik S, Bernstein D, et al. 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; 12:10.
- Bufe A, Eberle P, Franke-Beckmann E, et al. Safety and efficacy in children of an SQ-standardized grass allergen tablet for sublingual immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 123:167.
- Wahn U, Tabar A, Kuna P, et al. Efficacy and safety of 5-grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablets in pediatric allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 123:160.
- Didier A, Worm M, Horak F, et al. Sustained 3-year efficacy of pre- and coseasonal 5-grass-pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablets in patients with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 128:559.
- Cox LS, Casale TB, Nayak AS, et al. Clinical efficacy of 300IR 5-grass pollen sublingual tablet in a US study: the importance of allergen-specific serum IgE. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 130:1327.
- Didier A, Malling HJ, Worm M, et al. Optimal dose, efficacy, and safety of once-daily sublingual immunotherapy with a 5-grass pollen tablet for seasonal allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 120:1338.
- Horak F, Zieglmayer P, Zieglmayer R, et al. Early onset of action of a 5-grass-pollen 300-IR sublingual immunotherapy tablet evaluated in an allergen challenge chamber. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 124:471.
- Zeldin RK, Rodriguez P, Abiteboul K, et al. Efficacy and saftey of 2-month pre-seasonal co-seasonal treatment with a 5-grass pollen allergen extrac sublingual tablet. Allergy Asthma Proc 2013; 34:298.
- Creticos PS, Maloney J, Bernstein DI, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a ragweed allergy immunotherapy tablet in North American and European adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013; 131:1342.
- Nolte H, Hébert J, Berman G, et al. Randomized controlled trial of ragweed allergy immunotherapy tablet efficacy and safety in North American adults. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2013; 110:450.
- Bergmann KC, Demoly P, Worm M, et al. Efficacy and safety of sublingual tablets of house dust mite allergen extracts in adults with allergic rhinitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 133:1608.
- Virchow JC, Backer V, Kuna P, et al. Efficacy of a House Dust Mite Sublingual Allergen Immunotherapy Tablet in Adults With Allergic Asthma: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2016; 315:1715.
- Nolte H, Maloney J, Nelson HS, et al. Onset and dose-related efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets in an environmental exposure chamber. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015; 135:1494.
- Demoly P, Emminger W, Rehm D, et al. Effective treatment of house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis with 2 doses of the SQ HDM SLIT-tablet: Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016; 137:444.
- Nolte H, Bernstein DI, Nelson HS, et al. Efficacy of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablet in North American adolescents and adults in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2016; 138:1631.
- Mosbech H, Deckelmann R, de Blay F, 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; 134:568.
- Scadding GW, Calderon MA, Shamji MH, et al. Effect of 2 Years of Treatment With Sublingual Grass Pollen Immunotherapy on Nasal Response to Allergen Challenge at 3 Years Among Patients With Moderate to Severe Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis: The GRASS Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2017; 317:615.
- Dahl R, Kapp A, Colombo G, et al. Sublingual grass allergen tablet immunotherapy provides sustained clinical benefit with progressive immunologic changes over 2 years. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008; 121:512.
- Durham SR, Emminger W, Kapp A, et al. SQ-standardized sublingual grass immunotherapy: confirmation of disease modification 2 years after 3 years of treatment in a randomized trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 129:717.
- Esch RE, Bush RK, Peden D, Lockey RF. Sublingual-oral administration of standardized allergenic extracts: phase 1 safety and dosing results. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008; 100:475.
- Lin SY, Erekosima N, Kim JM, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma: a systematic review. JAMA 2013; 309:1278.
- Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328:1490.
- Kim JM, Lin SY, Suarez-Cuervo C, et al. Allergen-specific immunotherapy for pediatric asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2013; 131:1155.
- Bousquet J, Schünemann HJ, Bousquet PJ, et al. How to design and evaluate randomized controlled trials in immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an ARIA-GA(2) LEN statement. Allergy 2011; 66:765.
- Amar SM, Harbeck RJ, Sills M, et al. Response to sublingual immunotherapy with grass pollen extract: monotherapy versus combination in a multiallergen extract. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 124:150.
- Swamy RS, Reshamwala N, Hunter T, et al. Epigenetic modifications and improved regulatory T-cell function in subjects undergoing dual sublingual immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 130:215.
- Nelson HS. Is sublingual immunotherapy ready for use in the United States? JAMA 2013; 309:1297.
- Skoner D, Gentile D, Bush R, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused by ragweed pollen. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 125:660.
- Press release. www.greerlabs.com/research_dev/rdev.slit.updates.php (Accessed on January 09, 2013).
- Bush RK, Swenson C, Fahlberg B, et al. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy: results of a US trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 127:974.
- Reshamwala SJ, Song GP, Yu R, et al. Study of sublingual immunotherapy in subjects with dermatophagoides farinae and Timothy grass allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009; 123:S126 (Abstract).
- Bowen T, Greenbaum J, Charbonneau Y, et al. Canadian trial of sublingual swallow immunotherapy for ragweed rhinoconjunctivitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2004; 93:425.
- Creticos PS, Esch RE, Couroux P, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of standardized ragweed sublingual-liquid immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 133:751.
- Worm M, Rak S, de Blay F, et al. Sustained efficacy and safety of a 300IR daily dose of a sublingual solution of birch pollen allergen extract in adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Clin Transl Allergy 2014; 4:7.
- Wahn U, Klimek L, Ploszczuk A, et al. High-dose sublingual immunotherapy with single-dose aqueous grass pollen extract in children is effective and safe: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 130:886.
- Aydogan M, Eifan AO, Keles S, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis mono-sensitized to house-dust-mites: a double-blind-placebo-controlled randomised trial. Respir Med 2013; 107:1322.
- Wang L, Yin J, Fadel R, et al. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy is safe and appears to be effective in moderate, persistent asthma. Allergy 2014; 69:1181.
- Radulovic S, Calderon MA, Wilson D, Durham S. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; :CD002893.
- Wilson DR, Lima MT, Durham SR. Sublingual immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy 2005; 60:4.
- Cox LS, Larenas Linnemann D, Nolte H, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy: a comprehensive review. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 117:1021.
- Maloney J, Prenner BM, Bernstein DI, et al. Safety of house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy standardized quality tablet in children allergic to house dust mites. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016; 116:59.
- Passalacqua G, Guerra L, Compalati E, Canonica GW. The safety of allergen specific sublingual immunotherapy. Curr Drug Saf 2007; 2:117.
- Rodríguez-Pérez N, Ambriz-Moreno Mde J, Canonica GW, Penagos M. Frequency of acute systemic reactions in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma treated with sublingual immunotherapy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008; 101:304.
- de Groot H, Bijl A. Anaphylactic reaction after the first dose of sublingual immunotherapy with grass pollen tablet. Allergy 2009; 64:963.
- Van Dyken AM, Smith PK, Fox TL. Clinical case of anaphylaxis with sublingual immunotherapy: house dust mite allergen. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2014; 2:485.
- Nolte H, Amar N, Bernstein DI, et al. Safety and tolerability of a short ragweed sublingual immunotherapy tablet. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2014; 113:93.
- Miehlke S, Alpan O, Schröder S, Straumann A. Induction of eosinophilic esophagitis by sublingual pollen immunotherapy. Case Rep Gastroenterol 2013; 7:363.
- Sampson HA. Peanut oral immunotherapy: is it ready for clinical practice? J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2013; 1:15.
- Hsieh FH. Oral food immunotherapy and iatrogenic eosinophilic esophagitis: an acceptable level of risk? Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2014; 113:581.
- Béné J, Ley D, Roboubi R, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis after desensitization to dust mites with sublingual immunotherapy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016; 116:583.
- Röder E, Berger MY, Hop WC, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy with grass pollen is not effective in symptomatic youngsters in primary care. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 119:892.
- de Bot CM, Moed H, Berger MY, et al. Sublingual immunotherapy not effective in house dust mite-allergic children in primary care. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2012; 23:150.
- Röder E, Berger MY, de Groot H, Gerth van Wijk R. Sublingual immunotherapy in youngsters: adherence in a randomized clinical trial. Clin Exp Allergy 2008; 38:1659.
- Hsu NM, Reisacher WR. A comparison of attrition rates in patients undergoing sublingual immunotherapy vs subcutaneous immunotherapy. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2012; 2:280.
- Vita D, Caminiti L, Ruggeri P, Pajno GB. Sublingual immunotherapy: adherence based on timing and monitoring control visits. Allergy 2010; 65:668.
- Pajno GB, Caminiti L, Crisafulli G, et al. Adherence to sublingual immunotherapy in preschool children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2012; 23:688.
- Senna G, Lombardi C, Canonica GW, Passalacqua G. How adherent to sublingual immunotherapy prescriptions are patients? The manufacturers' viewpoint. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 126:668.
- Kiel MA, Röder E, Gerth van Wijk R, et al. Real-life compliance and persistence among users of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2013; 132:353.
- Normansell R, Kew KM, Bridgman AL. Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; :CD011293.
- Calamita Z, Saconato H, Pelá AB, Atallah AN. Efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy in asthma: systematic review of randomized-clinical trials using the Cochrane Collaboration method. Allergy 2006; 61:1162.
- Penagos M, Passalacqua G, Compalati E, 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; 133:599.
- Valovirta E, Jacobsen L, Ljørring C, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy with tree pollen extract in children. Allergy 2006; 61:1177.
- Pozzan M, Milani M. Efficacy of sublingual specific immunotherapy in patients with respiratory allergy to Alternaria alternata: a randomised, assessor-blinded, patient-reported outcome, controlled 3-year trial. Curr Med Res Opin 2010; 26:2801.
- Marogna M, Spadolini I, Massolo A, et al. Clinical, functional, and immunologic effects of sublingual immunotherapy in birch pollinosis: a 3-year randomized controlled study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2005; 115:1184.
- Marogna M, Spadolini I, Massolo A, et al. Effects of sublingual immunotherapy for multiple or single allergens in polysensitized patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2007; 98:274.
- Dahl R, Stender A, Rak S. Specific immunotherapy with SQ standardized grass allergen tablets in asthmatics with rhinoconjunctivitis. Allergy 2006; 61:185.
- Devillier P, Fadel R, de Beaumont O. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy is safe in patients with mild-to-moderate, persistent asthma: a clinical trial. Allergy 2016; 71:249.
- Di Bona D, Plaia A, Leto-Barone MS, et al. Efficacy of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergens for seasonal allergic rhinitis: a meta-analysis-based comparison. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 130:1097.
- Quirino T, Iemoli E, Siciliani E, et al. Sublingual versus injective immunotherapy in grass pollen allergic patients: a double blind (double dummy) study. Clin Exp Allergy 1996; 26:1253.
- Yukselen A, Kendirli SG, Yilmaz M, et al. Effect of one-year subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy on clinical and laboratory parameters in children with rhinitis and asthma: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy study. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2012; 157:288.
- Mungan D, Misirligil Z, Gürbüz 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.
- Keles S, Karakoc-Aydiner E, Ozen A, et al. A novel approach in allergen-specific immunotherapy: combination of sublingual and subcutaneous routes. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 128:808.
- Mauro M, Russello M, Incorvaia C, et al. Comparison of efficacy, safety and immunologic effects of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapy in birch pollinosis: a randomized study. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 39:119.
- Tahamiler R, Saritzali G, Canakcioglu S, et al. Comparison of the long-term efficacy of subcutaneous and sublingual immunotherapies in perennial rhinitis. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2008; 70:144.
- Eifan AO, Akkoc T, Yildiz A, et al. Clinical efficacy and immunological mechanisms of sublingual and subcutaneous immunotherapy in asthmatic/rhinitis children sensitized to house dust mite: an open randomized controlled trial. Clin Exp Allergy 2010; 40:922.
- Piazza I, Bizzaro N. Humoral response to subcutaneous, oral, and nasal immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis due to Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Ann Allergy 1993; 71:461.
- Bahceciler NN, Galip N. Comparing subcutaneous and sublingual ımmunotherapy: what do we know? Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2012; 12:640.
- Lin SY, Erekosima N, Suarez-Cuervo C, et al. Allergen-specific immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and/or asthma: Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 111. AHRQ; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD 2013.
- Chelladurai Y, Suarez-Cuervo C, Erekosima N, et al. Effectiveness of subcutaneous versus sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma: a systematic review. J of All Clin Immunol: in Practice 2013; 4:361.
- Taylor WW, Ohman JL Jr, Lowell FC. Immunotherapy in cat-induced asthma. Double-blind trial with evaluation of bronchial responses to cat allergen and histamine. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1978; 61:283.
- Norman PS, Winkenwerder WL, Lichtenstein LM. Immunotherapy of hay fever with ragweed antigen E: comparisons with whole pollen extract and placebos. J Allergy 1968; 42:93.
- Creticos PS. Legends in allergy: Philip S. Norman and Lawrence M. Lichtenstein--the Hopkins experience. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007; 119:1031.
- Nelson H, Blaiss M, Nolte H, et al. Efficacy and safety of the SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet in mono- and polysensitized subjects. Allergy 2013; 68:252.