Relationship between pollen levels and CSMS
The patients treated in Malmö in ILIT after SCIT- 10 000 (12 active and
7 placebo) were included in a subgroup analysis regarding responsiveness
to allergen exposure measured by the local pollen counts. With a
generalized additive model, we attempted to analyze if the relationship
between the risk for worsening of symptoms and increased pollen
concentration changed during the study. Before treatment, at an increase
with 10 grain/m3 the RR for aggravated CSMS was 1.017
[SE 1.010-1.024] p= 0.029 in the active group. After treatment, the
relationship between increased pollen concentration and worsening of the
symptoms did not reach statistical significance. However, in the placebo
group the pattern was the same. (See Table E4 and Figure E4.)
Discussion
These are the first studies that investigate dose-escalation ILIT with
ALK Alutard®. Doses up to 10 000 SQ-U was safe after recent SCIT, but
up-dosing to 5000 SQ-U caused serious adverse reactions in previously
non-AIT treated patients. Grass-specific IgG4-levels
were boosted in both studies but the CSMS was improved only in ILIT
after SCIT- 10 000. ILIT de novo- 3000 showed increased activation of
DCs in the lymph nodes but no induction of Treg cells in blood.
The dose-escalation 1000-3000-5000 SQ-U with one-month intervals in de
novo-patients clearly seems hazardous and should be avoided. No obvious
technical problems at the injections can explain the result. It is
possible that the allergen bolus was drained fast to the hilus of the
lymph node and further to the thoracic duct and systemically through the
venous system. An even slower injection might prevent this, but that
would confer more discomfort for the patient. Uncontrolled asthma and
previous systemic reactions are known risk factors for adverse reactions
in SCIT (23, 24 ). Both patients that had anaphylactic reactions
in ILIT de novo- 3000 had seasonal asthma but normal lung function test
and denied perennial symptoms. The patient with the serious anaphylaxis
had reported heavy breathing after the previous ILIT-injection. This was
at the time considered unspecific, but in retrospect it can be
understood as a risk factor. Late systemic reactions after ILIT have
been described preceding anaphylactic reactions at subsequent
dose-escalated injections (19 ). However, the other patient in the
present study with anaphylactic reaction had not reported any previous
symptoms making up-dosing contraindicated.
At the planning stage of the trials, the only previous up-dosing ILIT
study had used ALK Center-AL® Phleum pratense. Doses up to 250 PNU was
given without any severe adverse events (18 ). We estimated that
5000-10 000 SQ-U ALK Alutard® could be in the same range, after
comparing the conventional SCIT up-dosing protocols. However, it is hard
to translate allergen doses between different extracts, which this study
confirms. The intralymphatic dose escalation after SCIT could probably
be carried out since the patients had a remaining tolerance to the
allergen, even 20 months after the last SCIT-injection.
In ILIT after SCIT- 10 000, the median CSMS was 31% lower in the active
group at the pollen season after treatment compared to the season
before. The placebo group did not improve. In general, it is recommended
to use between groups comparisons of active versus placebo in
AIT-trials, and a difference of 20% or more is considered to be the
minimal relevant level of improvement (25 ). When baseline
registration of symptoms is available, as in our two studies, within
group comparisons of before versus after treatment is also valid
(25 ). Before-after
comparisons cannot measure the relative treatment effect in relation to
the placebo effect and different pollen counts during the two seasons of
comparison is a confounding factor. However, the fact that the pollen
levels were 17-21% lower the season after treatment compared to
baseline did not improve the symptoms in the placebo group. This
supports a true improvement in the active group. Our limited sample
size, with unbalanced group at baseline, made it difficult to achieve a
positive result in the comparison of the active versus placebo group
after treatment. Among the secondary outcomes in ILIT after SCIT- 10
000, there was an absolute improvement of MS by 52% in the active group
while the placebo group did not improve. This is above the reported
relative improvement of MS in previous grass SLIT-studies, that have
shown 27-38% reduction in medication (26 ).
In ILIT after SCIT- 10 000, the GAM regression analysis investigated the
relationship between CSMS and increasing grass pollen concentration. The
results before treatment were similar to what was found in a pediatric
study in the Malmö area during the grass pollen season 2009 (27 )
and in a study of grass pollen sufferers in France and Switzerland
(28 ). However, after treatment in our study, we couldn’t verify
any relationship between pollen levels and symptoms. Few days with high
pollen count and limited sample size may explain the result.
In ILIT de novo- 3000, the pollen counts were 25-46% lower the year
after treatment compared to baseline. Low pollen counts might mask
improvements after AIT (29 ). None of the parameters CSMS, MS, SS,
QoL or NPT improved in the active group. This small study might have
been underpowered for the secondary outcome measures. However, no trend
for improvement could be seen in any of the parameters, which speak
against a favorable effect of up-dosing ILIT among de-novo patients. If
anything, at the peak pollen season, the placebo group but not the
active group had improved CSMS, MS and QoL.
Immunologically, IgG4 increased after active ILIT in
both studies, although accompanied with symptom improvement only in ILIT
after SCIT- 10 000. The increase in IgG4 was larger in
ILIT after SCIT, compared to in ILIT de novo- 3000. It seems that the
SCIT treated patients were already primed towards inducible
IgG4 production and responded after booster ILIT therapy
with an expected recall response from the memory B cell population
leading to the increased IgG4 levels. The raise in
IgG4 in ILIT de novo- 3000 was modest and returned to
baseline levels already after 8 months. It is possible that that the
failure to improve the symptoms in ILIT de novo- 3000 is linked to the
weak IgG4 induction. Another observation is that the
IgE-levels increased in the active group in both studies, which reduced
the IgG4/IgE ratio and theoretically could indicate an
incomplete immunological skew (30, 31 ).
In the presented studies we used the same depot formulated Aluminum
hydroxide adsorbed grass extract as in the first ILIT study from 2008
(5 ). The purpose of Aluminum adjuvant in AIT is to enhance the
availability of the allergen for antigen presentation and to activate
the immune system with its local pro-inflammatory properties
(32 ). The advantage of intralymphatic administration is that the
allergen is delivered directly to secondary lymphoid organs with high
density of immunologically active cells. The need for Aluminum in ILIT
has never been evaluated. There are ongoing investigations about the use
of Alum in general, considering also the potential for an immune balance
towards more activation of T helper (Th) type 2 cells (33 ).
Future knowledge about the role of Alum in ILIT and evaluation of more
specific Th1 skewing adjuvants would be of great interest.
In ILIT de novo, we could indeed see signs of Th2 type of activation.
Lymph node derived DCs increased the expression of CD141, previously
described on DC:s promoting differentiation of T-cells to Th2
(34 ). Our previous low dose ILIT study (16 ) showed
activation of Th1 and T regulatory (Treg) cells in PBL. This could not
be repeated in the present study. The negative clinical results in ILIT
de novo-3000 might partly be explained by the limited sample size and
low pollen levels. However, adding the immunological results, we must
question if the dose-response relationship in ILIT with Alum adjuvant is
linear. The positive effects of ILIT may get saturated at high doses and
negative effects might stand out. Alternatively, there may be a maximum
antigen dose per time interval that induces optimal immunological
protective responses. This hypothesis is in theory supported by a
previous ILIT trial with lack of symptom improvement when the time
intervals between the injections were shortened, which increased the
allergen dose per time unit (10, 35 ).
The mode of action of ILIT induced tolerance is only partly elucidated.
It may include a combination of multiple mechanisms as in conventional
AIT, such as Treg expansion, Th1 skewing and the induction of allergen
specific IgG4 responses. Hypothetically, an additional
mechanism for long term effect in ILIT can be a fine-tuned apoptosis of
high affinity IgE memory B cells due to the abundance of allergen in in
the lymph nodes upon ILIT-injections. Thus, it is not surprising that
allergen dose, adjuvant composition and time intervals needs to be
titrated to find the optimal tolerance inducing window.
This is not a consensus experience for other forms of AIT, but according
to the literature, one birch SLIT study have shown that increasing the
dose from 7 DU (developmental units) to 12 DU only increased the
improvement in rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score from 24 to 25%
(36 ). Further, one earlier grass SLIT study have even shown a
lower treatment effect in a high-dose group (500 IR[index
reactivity]) compared to a moderate dose group (300 IR), resulting in
further development of the moderate dose (37 ). In the present
study of ILIT in de novo patients, the lack of clinical improvement and
favorable immunological changes after 3000 SQ-U suggests that the
optimal dose for ILIT with injections four weeks apart is 1000 SQ-U or
below.
ILIT after SCIT- 10 000 shows that three intralymphatic injections up to
10 000 SQ-U might give additional symptom relief. Since SCIT rarely
eliminates the symptoms completely, pre-seasonal ILIT after SCIT might
play a role in the AIT toolbox in the future as a cost-effective
supplementary treatment.
Future treatments of airborne allergies probably involve the expansion
of sublingual at-home administration and the development of
hypoallergenic allergoids or peptide vaccines (38, 39 ). However,
these branches of AIT may not be suitable for all patients and health
care systems due to the adherence problems, oral side effects and costs.
If our knowledge about the mechanisms behind ILIT could be improved and
doses, time interval and technique further optimized, ILIT might become
a strong alternative AIT modality in the future.
Conclusion
De novo treatment with ILIT in patients with grass pollen induced
allergic rhinitis should not exceed 1000 SQ-U, due to risk for severe
side effects and limited improvement gain. An up-dosing schedule to
10 000 SQ-U after previous SCIT seems safe, appears to improve the
seasonal symptoms and might be used to boost a previously given
treatment.
Acknowledgement
We thank research nurses Maria Axelsson and Carina Israelsson for
logistics and handling of patients and all other nurses at the ENT- and
Allergology departments that helped to prepare the medical products. The
studies were funded by grants from the Swedish Research Council, the
Asthma and Allergy Association, Hesselman’s Research Foundation and ACTA
Otolaryngologica.
Wk: 3775 (3500)
References
1. A. J. Frew, Allergen immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol125 , S306-313 (2010).
2. S. R. Durham, M. Penagos, Sublingual or subcutaneous immunotherapy
for allergic rhinitis? J Allergy Clin Immunol 137 ,
339-349.e310 (2016).
3. K. Aasbjerg, K. P. Dalhoff, V. Backer, Adverse Events During
Immunotherapy Against Grass Pollen-Induced Allergic Rhinitis -
Differences Between Subcutaneous and Sublingual Treatment. Basic
Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 117 , 73-84 (2015).
4. B. G. Bender, J. Oppenheimer, The special challenge of nonadherence
with sublingual immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract2 , 152-155 (2014).
5. G. Senti et al. , Intralymphatic allergen administration
renders specific immunotherapy faster and safer: a randomized controlled
trial. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105 , 17908-17912 (2008).
6. G. Senti et al. , Intralymphatic immunotherapy for cat allergy
induces tolerance after only 3 injections. J Allergy Clin Immunol129 , 1290-1296 (2012).
7. K. Wang et al. , Clinical efficacy and safety of cervical
intralymphatic immunotherapy for house dust mite allergic rhinitis: A
pilot study. Am J Otolaryngol 40 , 102280 (2019).
8. T. Terada et al. , Sustained effects of intralymphatic
pollen-specific immunotherapy on Japanese cedar pollinosis.Rhinology , (2020).
9. C. P. Thompson, S. Silvers, M. A. Shapiro, Intralymphatic
immunotherapy for mountain cedar pollinosis: A randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol125 , 311-318 e312 (2020).
10. M. Witten, H. J. Malling, L. Blom, B. C. Poulsen, L. K. Poulsen, Is
intralymphatic immunotherapy ready for clinical use in patients with
grass pollen allergy? J Allergy Clin Immunol 132 ,
1248-1252.e1245 (2013).
11. J. M. Schmid, H. Nezam, H. H. Madsen, A. Schmitz, H. J. Hoffmann,
Intralymphatic immunotherapy induces allergen specific plasmablasts and
increases tolerance to skin prick testing in a pilot study. Clin
Transl Allergy 6 , 19 (2016).
12. L. Ahlbeck, E. Ahlberg, U. Nyström, J. Björkander, M. C. Jenmalm,
Intralymphatic allergen immunotherapy against pollen allergy: A 3-year
open follow-up study of 10 patients. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol121 , 626-627 (2018).
13. S. H. Skaarup, J. M. Schmid, T. Skjold, O. Graumann, H. J. Hoffmann,
Intralymphatic immunotherapy improves grass pollen allergic
rhinoconjunctivitis: A 3-year randomized placebo-controlled trial.J Allergy Clin Immunol , (2020).
14. T. Hylander, L. Latif, U. Petersson-Westin, L. O. Cardell,
Intralymphatic allergen-specific immunotherapy: an effective and safe
alternative treatment route for pollen-induced allergic rhinitis.J Allergy Clin Immunol 131 , 412-420 (2013).
15. T. Hylander et al. , Intralymphatic immunotherapy of
pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis: a double-blind placebo-controlled
trial. Respir Res 17 , 10 (2016).
16. L. Hellkvist et al. , Intralymphatic immunotherapy with 2
concomitant allergens, birch and grass: A randomized, double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol 142 ,
1338-1341.e1339 (2018).
17. J. R. Konradsen et al. , Intralymphatic immunotherapy in
pollen-allergic young adults with rhinoconjunctivitis and mild asthma:
A randomized trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol , (2019).
18. A. M. Patterson, A. E. Bonny, W. E. Shiels, E. A. Erwin,
Three-injection intralymphatic immunotherapy in adolescents and young
adults with grass pollen rhinoconjunctivitis. Ann Allergy Asthma
Immunol , (2015).
19. S. P. Lee et al. , A Pilot Study of Intralymphatic
Immunotherapy for House Dust Mite, Cat, and Dog Allergies. Allergy
Asthma Immunol Res 9 , 272-277 (2017).
20. S. P. Lee et al. , Intralymphatic Immunotherapy Alleviates
Allergic Symptoms During Allergen Exposure in Daily Life. Allergy
Asthma Immunol Res 10 , 180-181 (2018).
21. M. A. Calderón et al. , European Academy of Allergy and
Clinical Immunology task force report on ’dose-response relationship in
allergen-specific immunotherapy’. Allergy 66 , 1345-1359
(2011).
22. C. James, D. I. Bernstein, Allergen immunotherapy: an updated review
of safety. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 17 , 55-59
(2017).
23. D. I. Bernstein, M. Wanner, L. Borish, G. M. Liss, A. A. o. A.
Immunotherapy Committee, A.thma and Immunology, Twelve-year survey of
fatal reactions to allergen injections and skin testing: 1990-2001.J Allergy Clin Immunol 113 , 1129-1136 (2004).
24. M. Makatsori, M. A. Calderon, Anaphylaxis: still a ghost behind
allergen immunotherapy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol14 , 316-322 (2014).
25. G. W. Canonica 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 62 , 317-324 (2007).
26. S. R. Durham et al. , Treatment effect of sublingual
immunotherapy tablets and pharmacotherapies for seasonal and perennial
allergic rhinitis: Pooled analyses. J Allergy Clin Immunol138 , 1081-1088.e1084 (2016).
27. H. Kiotseridis et al. , Grass pollen allergy in children and
adolescents-symptoms, health related quality of life and the value of
pollen prognosis. Clin Transl Allergy 3 , 19 (2013).
28. D. M. Caillaud et al. , Nonlinear short-term effects of
airborne Poaceae levels on hay fever symptoms. J Allergy Clin
Immunol 130 , 812-814.e811 (2012).
29. S. R. Durham et al. , Magnitude of efficacy measurements in
grass allergy immunotherapy trials is highly dependent on pollen
exposure. Allergy 69 , 617-623 (2014).
30. C. A. Akdis, M. Akdis, Mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotherapy
and immune tolerance to allergens. World Allergy Organ J8 , 17 (2015).
31. M. H. Shamji et al. , Biomarkers for monitoring clinical
efficacy of allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and
allergic asthma: an EAACI Position Paper. Allergy 72 ,
1156-1173 (2017).
32. L. Klimek, C. B. Schmidt-Weber, M. F. Kramer, M. A. Skinner, M. D.
Heath, Clinical use of adjuvants in allergen-immunotherapy. Expert
Rev Clin Immunol 13 , 599-610 (2017).
33. E. Jensen-Jarolim, Aluminium in Allergies and Allergen
immunotherapy. World Allergy Organ J 8 , 7 (2015).
34. C. Gueguen et al. , Changes in markers associated with
dendritic cells driving the differentiation of either TH2 cells or
regulatory T cells correlate with clinical benefit during allergen
immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 137 , 545-558
(2016).
35. T. M. Kündig, P. Johansen, M. F. Bachmann, L. O. Cardell, G. Senti,
Intralymphatic immunotherapy: time interval between injections is
essential. J Allergy Clin Immunol 133 , 930-931 (2014).
36. P. Couroux et al. , A birch sublingual allergy immunotherapy
tablet reduces rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms when exposed to birch and
oak and induces IgG. Allergy 74 , 361-369 (2019).
37. A. Didier 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 120 ,
1338-1345 (2007).
38. R. Valenta, R. Campana, M. Focke-Tejkl, V. Niederberger, Vaccine
development for allergen-specific immunotherapy based on recombinant
allergens and synthetic allergen peptides: Lessons from the past and
novel mechanisms of action for the future. J Allergy Clin Immunol137 , 351-357 (2016).
39. L. Klimek, O. Pfaar, J. Bousquet, G. Senti, T. Kündig, Allergen
immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: current use and future trends.Expert Rev Clin Immunol 13 , 897-906 (2017).