Next Article in Journal
Leukocyte Telomeric G-Tail Length Shortening Is Associated with Esophageal Cancer Recurrence
Next Article in Special Issue
Malaysian Society of Allergy and Immunology Consensus Statement on Sublingual Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis
Previous Article in Journal
Protective Effect and Mechanism of Melatonin on Cisplatin-Induced Ovarian Damage in Mice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 24
10.3390/jcm11247384
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Real-Life Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Immune Therapy with Carbamylated Monomeric Allergoids on Mite, Grass, and Pellitory Respiratory Allergy: A Retrospective Study

by
Mario Di Gioacchino
1,2,*,
Loredana Della Valle
3,
Rocco Mangifesta
2,
Arianna Lumaca
4,
Francesco Cipollone
2,5,
Franco Frati
6,
Enrico Compalati
6,
Eralda Lekli
7,
Etleva Qirco Loloci
8 and
Francesca Santilli
2,4,5
1
YDA—Institute for Immunotherapy and Advanced Biological Treatments, 65100 Pescara, Italy
2
Centre of Advanced Studies and Technology (CAST), G. d’Annunzio University, 66100 Chieti, Italy
3
Pneumology Division, University Hospital, 66100 Chieti, Italy
4
Specialization School in Allergology and Clinical Immunology, G. d’Annunzio University, 66100 Chieti, Italy
5
Department of Medicine and Science of Ageing, G. d’Annunzio University, 66100 Chieti, Italy
6
Medical Department, Lofarma, 20143 Milan, Italy
7
Allergology, Salus Hospital, 1031 Tirana, Albania
8
Allergology and Clinical Immunology Service, Mother Teresa UHC, 1031 Tirana, Albania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(24), 7384; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247384
Submission received: 6 October 2022 / Revised: 29 November 2022 / Accepted: 9 December 2022 / Published: 12 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Allergen Immunotherapy in Allergic Diseases)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: real-life studies are encouraged to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). In this context, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety of carbamylated monomeric allergoid subcutaneous immunotherapy (MA-SCIT), along with patient satisfaction. Methods: a total of 291 patients with rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma with inhalant (house dust mite, grass, and pellitory) allergies were enrolled in this study. Perceived efficacy and perceived satisfaction with MA-SCIT, symptom score by VAS, ARIA classification of rhinitis, drug consumption, number of asthma worsening episodes, and asthma symptom control were evaluated by questionnaires before, after one year, at the end of treatment, and after one or two years of MA-SCIT. Results: the overall symptom score significantly decreased over the years of MA-SCIT, irrespective of specific sensitization (p < 0.01). There was a substantial amelioration of rhinitis severity, with a significant reduction (p < 0.01) in drug use. A significant reduction was observed in the asthma symptom VAS score and asthma-worsening episodes requiring systemic steroids. None of the patients reported any severe adverse reactions. Finally, 90% of the patients reported full satisfaction with the treatment. Conclusions: the study showed that AIT with carbamylated monomeric allergoids of grass, pellitory, and mites was effective and well tolerated by patients.

1. Introduction

Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) was introduced in 1911 [1], but the immunological modifications responsible for allergy improvement have only been clarified in the last 30 years [2,3]. The efficacy and safety of this treatment have been widely documented in clinical trials for both subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), with the highest levels of EBM. Studies on allergen immunotherapy (AIT) have been discussed in many reviews and meta-analyses, [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11] all of which support AIT as an effective, relatively safe, and well-tolerated treatment for inhalant allergic diseases. However, the relative underutilization of this effective treatment is surprising. There are many reasons for not using AIT. For example, the heterogeneity of published studies and some methodological inconsistencies may affect the applicability of the results to individual, real-life settings. Furthermore, patient selectivity in randomized clinical trials is difficult to apply to patients in real-life clinical practice, who are only partially represented by the highly selected population of RCTs [12,13,14,15]. It follows that real-life studies are required to confirm the applicability of AIT in common practice [16].
In recent years, real-life studies have been performed for AIT, demonstrating its effectiveness and safety and ensuring a better understanding of the best candidates for this therapy [16], thus leading to more widespread and appropriate AIT use. The importance of real-life studies has now been realized, and it has been recommended that real-life trials be conducted, suggesting that such studies should be introduced in the major EBM validation process for each individual product [17,18].
Over the past 5 years, real-life studies have been published on injection therapy [19,20,21,22,23,24]. They focused on adverse events, compliance, and long-term preventive effects, all showing a good profile for the allergens studied and pharmaceutical products [16]. Great importance is also attributed to retrospective studies [25].
Safety is a further aspect that limits the use of both SCIT and SLIT as in some cases, severe adverse reactions have been reported for both SCIT [26] and SLIT [27]. However, the use of carbamylated allergoids could overcome this problem. In fact, they are significantly less allergenic than native ones due to a decreased capacity to bind IgE to its specific receptor while maintaining immunogenicity and thus their therapeutic efficacy. A pharmacovigilance study [28] showed that the rate of adverse reactions to monomeric allergoid-based AIT corresponds to 0.0004% of the doses administered, both local and mild, far below the commonly reported rates for native allergen AIT products, for which anaphylactic reactions have been reported in some cases [29].
Considering these premises, this real-life retrospective cohort study was conducted to assess the effectiveness, safety, patient satisfaction, and perceived effectiveness of three consecutive years of monomeric SCIT with carbamylated monomeric allergoids (MC-SCIT) for the most important allergens (mites, grass, and pellitory) in subjects with rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted at the Universities of Chieti (Italy) and Tirana (Albania) and was approved by the respective ethics committees.

2.1. Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

All patients with rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma mono-sensitized to house dust mites, grass, or pellitory who had received MC-SCIT (Lofarma, Milan, Italy) for three consecutive years and had withdrawn from the treatment for 1–2 years were eligible for the study. The exclusion criteria were polysensitization to other allergens and previous AIT.
Allergy was diagnosed in all patients using the skin prick test (Lofarma, Milan, Italy) and specific IgE. All patients with asthma underwent pulmonary function tests before treatment and almost every 12 months during the AIT and follow-up period.

2.2. Treatment

SCIT had been prescribed according to international guidelines [30,31]. The dosage and intervals of administration were established on the technical data sheet for the product (Supplementary file S1). In particular, after a building phase with an increasing dose (0.1 to 0.5 mL) administered every week, a maintenance dose of 0.5 mL was administered every month for 3 years. Every maintenance shot of mites (0.5 mL) contained 2 μg of group 1 major allergens (Der p 1 and Der f 1), those of grass contained 2.5 μg of group 5 major allergens (Phl p5, Hol l5, and Poa p5), and those of pellitory contained 0.75 μg of group 1 major allergens (Par j 1 and Par o 1).
Treatments were performed at the allergy clinics in 48% of the patients, at the family doctors in the remaining cases. In either case, a control visit at the allergy unit was performed every year or as needed on request.
All anti-allergic treatments, such as inhaled and oral steroids, antihistamines, and beta2 agonists, were prescribed by the allergy specialist at various control visits. All patients were given written instructions to treat their exacerbations and to record the drugs used and their dosage.

2.3. Questionnaires

Specific digital questionnaires for asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis were prepared (Supplementary files S2 and S3) and administered to all patients with questions related to four time points: the year before the start of MC-SCIT (T0), the end of the first year of MC-SCIT (T1), the end of the three years of MC-SCIT (T2), and one–two years after discontinuation of MC-SCIT (T3).
In particular, patients were asked questions about (a) perceived efficacy of the treatment measured through a digital VAS for symptoms with a score from 0 to 10, where 0 represents “no symptoms” and 10 represents “severe and extremely annoying symptoms”; (b) local and systemic antihistamine and steroid treatment (oculorhinitis patients) evaluated by a digital VAS where 0 represents “never used” and 10 represents “frequently used;”; (c) ARIA classification of rhinitis based on the criteria of duration and severity/impact of symptoms on the quality of life [32,33] (data relating to T0 and T3); (d) assessment of asthma control by means of a standardized questionnaire concerning the frequency of daytime and nocturnal asthma symptoms, use of reliever medications, and limitation of any activity due to asthma; (e) number of severe asthma attacks requiring systemic steroid treatment or hospitalization; and (f) perceived impact of rhinitis and asthma using the rhinitis asthma patient perspective (RAPP) test [34]. Moreover, perceived satisfaction with the treatment expressed through one of the following options: “very dissatisfied,” “dissatisfied,” “satisfied,” and “very satisfied” was evaluated at the end of the study.
The data were obtained online (giving telephonic assistance through a professional, where necessary) in view of the concurrent COVID-19 pandemic using software that guaranteed the anonymity and integrity of the data acquired and compliance with privacy legislation. All patients signed an informed consent form to participate in the study and were informed of the anonymity of the data acquired.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All quantitative variables are summarized as mean and standard deviation, and the qualitative variables are summarized as frequency and percentage. Statistical analyses were performed using non-parametric tests. The chi-square test for unpaired data was used to compare the qualitative variables between the Albanian and Italian patients, while the Mann–Whitney U test for paired data was applied to evaluate the differences in various parameters between the same groups. The Wilcoxon test was applied for comparison before and after treatment. The Friedman test was used to evaluate differences in VAS scores within the same group. McNemar’s test was applied to the paired nominal data. Cochran’s Q test was applied where the response variable only had two possible outcomes. The statistical significance of the differences was evaluated at an alpha level of 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software (version 11.0; SPPS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

A total of 291 patients (169 Albanian and 122 Italian) were enrolled in this study.

3.1. Demographics

No demographic differences were found between the Albanian and Italian patients (Chi-square test: p = 0.215; Mann–Whitney U-Test: p = 0.811). Rhinoconjunctivitis and sensitization to dust mites were the most frequent in both groups but were more prevalent in the Albanian group (Table 1).

3.2. Baseline Characteristics

Before MA-SCIT, according to the ARIA classification, 109 patients had severe/persistent rhinitis (22 grass-sensitized, 1 pellitory-sensitized, and 86 mite-sensitized), 128 had severe/intermittent rhinitis (40 grass-sensitized, 19 pellitory-sensitized, and 71 mite-sensitized), 13 had mild/persistent rhinitis (6 grass-sensitized, 2 pellitory-sensitized, and 5 mite-sensitized), and 12 had mild/intermittent rhinitis (9 grass-sensitized, 0 pellitory-sensitized, and 4 mite-sensitized).
Furthermore, 60 of 67 asthmatic patients had uncontrolled asthma before treatment, since they reported frequent symptoms, activity limitation, sleep disorders, and need for asthma relievers, with an average of 3.5 exacerbations per year.

3.3. MC-SCIT Effectiveness

3.3.1. Overall Results

The perception of MC-SCIT effectiveness of the patients, as assessed by symptom reduction over the course of treatment, was excellent. The symptom score evaluated by VAS decreased over the years (Figure 1A) with a high statistical significance (Friedman test: p < 0.001), with a reduction in symptom score evident and significant already after the first year of MC-SCIT (Wilcoxon test: p < 0.01). Similar results were obtained by dividing the patients according to clinical manifestation (Figure 1B) or specific sensitization (Table 2).

3.3.2. Patients with Oculorhinitis

The decrease in symptom scores in patients with oculorhinitis confirmed a reduction in the severity of rhinitis, as evaluated by the parameters of the ARIA document. There was a significant reduction in the persistence and severity of symptoms, sleep disturbance, and symptom interference with daily activities after treatment compared with before treatment (Table 3). It follows that there was a decrease in the number of patients with severe/persistent (from 109 to 10) and severe/intermittent (from 128 to 94) rhinitis, in parallel with an increase in those with mild rhinitis (from 28 to 161), the majority was intermittent (141).
Similar results were obtained by dividing patients according to specific sensitization. A reduction in severe and persistent rhinitis was paralleled by an increase in mild and intermittent rhinitis for sensitization to all three allergens. In particular, the number of patients with severe rhinitis decreased from 62 before to 17 after treatment in grass-sensitized, from 20 to 2 in pellitory-sensitized, and from 157 to 85 in mite-sensitized patients, with an increase in mild rhinitis from 15 to 60 after treatment in grass-sensitized, from 2 to 20 in pellitory-sensitized, and from 9 to 81 in mite-sensitized patients.
The consumption of local and systemic antihistamines and steroids, evaluated by VAS, over the course of MC-SCIT was in line with the reported symptom decrease, with a significant reduction during the first year of MC-SCIT (Wilcoxon: p < 0.01) and throughout the treatment period (Friedman test: p < 0.001) (Figure 2A). A significant reduction in drug consumption was also detected in patients with allergic sensitization (Friedman test: p < 0.01 in patients allergic to pellitory; p < 0.001 in patients allergic to grass and mites). Significantly lower drug use was observed even after the first year of MC-SCIT in all three groups of patients (Wilcoxon test: p < 0.05) (Figure 2B).

3.3.3. Patients with Asthma

The improvement of symptoms was also evident in patients with asthma, whether associated or not with oculorhinitis, with a significant improvement in VAS over the year of MC-SCIT (Friedman test: p < 0.001) (Figure 1B). VAS reduction was also observed in patients based on their allergic sensitization; the reduction of VAS observed over the years of MC-SCIT reached a significance of p < 0.01 (Friedman test) in patients allergic to mites and pellitory and p = 0.05 in patients allergic to grass (Table 2). Patients with mite and pellitory allergies also showed a significant VAS reduction after the first year of MC-SCIT compared with that before treatment (p < 0.05), whereas the change in VAS did not reach statistical significance in patients with grass allergies.
Asthma improvement was confirmed by the significant reduction in asthma exacerbations per year requiring treatment with systemic corticosteroids, considering all patients together or by dividing them by allergic sensitization (Table 4).
All patients were requested to answer the questions on the asthma control test referred to at various stages of the treatment, in particular, frequency of symptoms, activity limitation, sleep disorder, and need for relievers due to asthma. In all cases, or by dividing patients by allergic sensitization, there was a reduction in all parameters with a high statistical significance (Cochran’s Q test: p < 0.001) (Figure 3).

3.3.4. Results 1–2 Years after MC-SLIT

Patients, considered together or divided by disease or allergic sensitization, maintained the improvements found at the end of therapy 1–2 years after the end of MC-SLIT (all Figures and Tables). Moreover, patients with asthma and oculorhinitis were asked to answer the RAPP questionnaire, all but two showed values lower than 15, demonstrating good disease control (Table 5).
The vast majority (90%) of the patients, regardless of the disease or specific sensitization, declared their satisfaction with the treatment received; five patients were unhappy, one was dissatisfied, and four were disappointed (Table 6).

3.4. Adherence to Treatment

Sixty percent of the patients completed the course of MA-SCIT with a maximum delay of five days in carrying out various maintenance doses. Twenty missed up to three injections during the course of therapy, eleven missed up to five injections, and nine missed up to seven injections
During the 3 years of treatment, the maximal dose received by patients with mite allergies was 74.4 μg of major allergens (Der p 1 and Der f 1), patients with grass allergies received 93 μg (Phl p5, Hol l5, and Poa p5), and patients with pellitory allergies received 27.9 μg (Par j 1 and Par o 1).

3.5. Safety

No patient reported severe local and systemic adverse reactions, and only 12 patients reported a local reaction at the site of injection, not requiring treatment.

4. Discussion

This study showed that carbamylated monomeric allergoid-based SCIT is a safe and effective treatment for grass, pellitory, and mite respiratory allergies.
The retrospective assessments in this study were performed using VAS for various items. The VAS is well-validated for the measurement of rhinitis and asthma symptoms and correlates well with the severity assessed by various questionnaires (ARIA, rTNSS, RQLQ, and ACT). It has been used in several treatment studies, demonstrating that VAS is highly effective in assessing disease control [35,36,37].
The concordance of the various results obtained in the present study confirms the accuracy of the results. The significant improvement in VAS for oculorhinitis symptoms correlates with the decrease in the severity of rhinitis over the year of MC-SCIT, evaluated by the ARIA questionnaire, and results corroborated by the significant reduction in the use of local and systemic antihistamines and steroids. The improvement in these parameters was progressive during the treatment, with early amelioration after the first year of MC-SCIT. These results were consistent when considering all recruited patients as well as selecting them according to the presence or absence of asthma or allergic sensitization, namely grass, pellitory, and mites.
Similar results were obtained in asthmatic patients (all patients together or divided by allergic sensitization), where the improvement of VAS for symptoms correlated with reduction of sleep disorders, activity limitation, frequency of symptoms, need for a reliever, and severe exacerbations over the year of MC-SCIT, in all cases with a high statistical significance.
The good clinical condition reached at the end of MC-SCIT was maintained 1–2 years after the end of treatment, as demonstrated by the almost perfect equivalence between values found at T2 and those found at T3 (considering all patients together or divided by clinical manifestation or allergic sensitization), confirming that the effect of MC-SLIT persisted after the end of treatment [38]. Health status was confirmed in patients with asthma and oculorhinitis by the RAPP questionnaire values, which were lower than 15 in all patients except two. Values lower than 15 demonstrated good asthma and rhinitis control [34].
Considering both the perceived health status of the patients (VAS for symptoms, level of sleep, and interference with daily activities) and the final questionnaire on their level of satisfaction with the treatment received, it may be concluded that the expectations of the patients are adequately fulfilled for all three sensitizing allergens. Patient satisfaction is a useful measure of the effectiveness of medical treatment. It affects health-related decisions and treatment-related behaviors of the patients, which in turn have a substantial effect on the success of treatment outcomes in many fields of medicine [39,40]. Patient satisfaction with AIT was recorded and was a key factor in its long-term efficacy assessment and adherence to therapy [41,42,43,44].
Data from large-scale real-life trials on subcutaneous AIT [19,20,21,22,23,45,46,47,48,49] demonstrate that SCIT in a real-world setting is effective and achieves significantly higher adherence rates than sublingual administration [50]. Adherence to AIT can be increased by minimizing its adverse reactions. The patients participating in the present study did not experience any severe adverse reactions and the few reported were local, mild, and did not require treatment. The safety profile of the allergoids used in this study is based on chemical modification by monomeric carbamylation, which causes allergen lysine substitution with preserved size and structural conformation of the native allergen but with a low capacity to link IgE to its specific receptor [51], while maintaining immunogenicity [52,53,54,55]. There are many reports showing that both SLIT and SCIT with carbamylated monomeric allergens are safe as well as effective [28,56,57,58,59,60].
Limitations of the study: although the number of enrolled patients was largely sufficient to evaluate the global effectiveness of MA-SCIT, selecting patients by specific sensitization, the number of pellitory allergic subjects should be increased to confirm the results obtained, even if they are already statistically significant. Equally, the number of asthmatic pollen-sensitized patients evaluated was small, in any case the evaluation of the entire group of asthmatics supports the conclusion reached.
Moreover, it was impossible to examine drug consumption by checking drug prescription records, which would render the data more objective. However, the accordance of all the results obtained in this study minimizes this shortcoming.
Conclusion and key messages:
This study shows that carbamylated monomeric allergoid-based SCIT is effective in treating respiratory allergies to mites, grass, and pellitory. Moreover, this therapy does not cause severe local or systemic adverse reactions.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11247384/s1, PDF S1: Supplementary File 1_drugdata shit; PDF S2: Supplementary File 2_rhinocongiunctivitis questionnaire; PDF S3: Supplementary File 3_asthma questionnaire.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D.G., L.D.V., R.M., A.L., F.C., F.F., E.C., E.L., E.Q.L. and F.S.; formal analysis, M.D.G., R.M. and F.F.; investigation, M.D.G., L.D.V., A.L., E.L. and E.Q.L.; methodology, M.D.G., R.M., A.L., F.C., E.C. and F.S.; resources, F.F.; software, F.F., E.C. and E.L.; supervision, M.D.G., L.D.V., F.C., E.L. and E.Q.L.; validation, L.D.V., A.L., E.Q.L. and F.S.; visualization, M.D.G. and E.C.; writing—original draft, M.D.G.; writing—review & editing, M.D.G., L.D.V., R.M., A.L., F.C., F.F., E.Q.L. and F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of provinces of Chieti and Pescara (Italy) protocol 15 of 8 September 2022.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this research are not publicly available due to concerns about confidentiality; however, we summarize descriptive information about our participants in the manuscript. The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to all doctors of the Monomeric Allergoid study group for their essential help in recruiting patients. Monomeric Allergoid study group: Borici Sonia-Allergology and Pneumology Service, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital “Mother Teresa”, Tirana; Bruzzese Domenico-Territorial Allergology Service, Department of Prevention, Marina di Gioiosa Ionica, Italy; Cabras Sergio-Allergology Private Outpatient Clinic, Oristano, Italy; Calafiore Paolo-U.O.S.D. Allergology, “Maria SS. dello Splendore” Hospital, Giulianova, Italy; Casale Giuseppe-Allergology Department, ASL Outpatient Clinic, Conversano, Italy; De Cristofaro Maria Laura-Allergology Outpatient Clinic, San Timoteo Hospital, Termoli, Italy; Di Lizia Michela-U.O.S.D. Allergology, “Maria SS. dello Splendore” Hospital, Giulianova, Italy; Fasano Rosa-Center of High Specialization on Allergy and Respiratory Physiopathology, House of Health, Chiaravalle Centrale, Italy; Ferrarini Ettore-UOS Allergology and Clinical immunology “Rizza Hospital”, Siracusa, Italy; Gaspardini Giulio-Allergology Private Outpatient Clinic, Cagliari, Italy; Hitaj Mirela-Allergy Outpatient Polyclinic, Tirana, Albania; Hoxha Mehmet-Service of Alergology, Department of Internal Disease, University Hospital “Mother Teresa”, Tirana, Albania; Martini Valbona-Deparment of Internal Disease, Lezha Regional Hospital, Albania; Mesonjesi Eris-Service of Alergology, Department of Internal Disease, University Hospital “Mother Teresa”, Tirana, Albania; Milita Osvaldo-Primary Pediatrics and Neonatology Hospital, Anzio, Italy; Muratore Lionello-Allergology Private Outpatient Clinic, Lecce, Italy; Paladini Antonio-Allergology Unit, “Perrino” Hospital, Brindisi, Italy; Pavone Franco-Pneumology Department, Gravina Hospital, Caltagirone, Italy; Pisani Arianna-Medical Department, Lofarma, Milan, Italy; Qerimi Dorina-Deparment of Internal Disease, Durres Regional Hospital, Albania; Rinciani Antonio-Pediatric Allergology Private Outpatient Clinic, Gela, Italy; Ronchi Giuseppe-Allergology Private Outpatient Clinic, Gonnosfanadiga, Italy; Scalone Gino-Center of High Specialization on Allergy and Respiratory Physiopathology, House of Health, Chiaravalle Centrale, Italy; Serbo Kote Luljeta-Service of Alergology and Pneumology, Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Center “Mother Teresa”, Tirana; Tanzariello Antonio-Allergology Private Outpatient Clinic, Messina, Italy; Xhixha Fatmira-Allergology Outpatient Clinic, Tirana.

Conflicts of Interest

Mario Di Gioacchino and Rocco Mangifesta received research funds (not correlated to the present work) from Lofarma SpA; Franco Frati and Enrico Compalati are Lofarma employees.

References

  1. Noon, L. Prophylactic inoculation against hay fever. Lancet 1911, 177, 1572–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Xian, M.; Feng, M.; Dong, Y.; Wei, N.; Su, Q.; Li, J. Changes in CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ Regulatory T Cells and Serum Cytokines in Sublingual and Subcutaneous Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis with or without Asthma. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 2019, 181, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Pavón-Romero, G.F.; Parra-Vargas, M.I.; Ramírez-Jiménez, F.; Melgoza-Ruiz, E.; Serrano-Pérez, N.H.; Teran, L.M. Allergen Immunotherapy: Current and Future Trends. Cells 2022, 11, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Kim, J.Y.; Jang, M.J.; Kim, D.Y.; Park, S.W.; Han, D.H. Efficacy of Subcutaneous and Sublingual Immunotherapy for House Dust Mite Allergy: A Network Meta-Analysis-Based Comparison. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2021, 9, 4450–4458.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Fortescue, R.; Kew, K.M.; Leung, M.S.T. Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2020, 9, CD011293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Passalacqua, G.; Landi, M.; Peroni, D.G. Allergen immunotherapy for pediatric asthma: Current evidence and knowledge gaps. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2020, 20, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Larenas-Linnemann, D.; Luna-Pech, J.A. What you should not miss from the systematic reviews and meta-analyses on allergen-specific immunotherapy in 2017. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2018, 18, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dhami, S.; Kakourou, A.; Asamoah, F.; Agache, I.; Lau, S.; Jutel, M.; Muraro, A.; Roberts, G.; Akdis, C.A.; Bonini, M.; et al. Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy 2017, 72, 1825–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Roberts, G.; Pfaar, O.; Akdis, C.A.; Ansotegui, I.J.; Durham, S.R.; Gerth van Wijk, R.; Halken, S.; Larenas-Linnemann, D.; Pawankar, R.; Pitsios, C.; et al. EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Allergy 2018, 73, 765–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Normansell, R.; Kew, K.M.; Bridgman, A.L. Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD011293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lu, Y.; Xu, L.; Xia, M.; Li, Y.; Cao, L. The efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy in mite-sensitized subjects with asthma: A meta-analysis. Respir. Care 2015, 60, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Saturni, S.; Bellini, F.; Braido, F.; Paggiaro, P.; Sanduzzi, A.; Scichilone, n.; Santus, P.A.; Morandi, L.; Papi, A. Randomized Controlled Trials and real life studies. Approaches and methodologies: A clinical point of view. Pulm. Pharmacol. Ther. 2014, 27, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Corrigan-Curay, J.; Sacks, L.; Woodcock, J. Real-World Evidence and Real-World Data for Evaluating Drug Safety and Effectiveness. JAMA 2018, 320, 867–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, N.; Heitner, M.; Bai, C. The time has come for “Real-World Studies” (RWS). Clin. eHealth 2018, 1, 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Paoletti, G.; Di Bona, D.; Chu, D.K.; Firinu, D.; Heffler, E.; Agache, I.; Jutel, M.; Klimek, L.; Pfaar, O.; Mösges, R.; et al. Allergen immunotherapy: The growing role of observational and randomized trial “Real-World Evidence”. Allergy 2021, 76, 2663–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Passalacqua, G.; Bagnasco, D. Real-life studies in allergen immunotherapy. Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2021, 21, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Campbell, J.D.; Perry, R.; Papadopoulos, N.G.; Krishnan, E.A. The Real Life Evidence Assessment Tool (RELEVANT): Development of a novel quality assurance asset to rate observational comparative effectiveness research studies. Clin. Transl. Allergy 2019, 9, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Roche, N.; Campbell, J.D.; Krishnan, J.A.; Brusselle, G.; Ghisholm, A.; Bjermer, L.; Thomas, M.; van Ganse, E.; van den Berge, M.; Christoff, G.; et al. Quality standards in respiratory real-life effectiveness research: The Real Life Evidence Assessment Tool: Report from the Respiratory Effectiveness Group-European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Task Force. Clin Transl. Allergy 2019, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pereira, A.M.; Pereira, M.; Araújo, L.M.; Castel-Branco, M.G.; Morete, A.; Almeida Fonseca, J. Self-reported adverse reactions to subcutaneous airborne allergen immunotherapy: A real-life, single center study. Eur. Ann. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lourenco, T.; Fernandes, M.; Coutinho, C.; Lopes, A.; Spinola Santos, A.; Neto, M.; Pereira Barbosa, M. Subcutaneous immunotherapy with aeroallergens Evaluation of adherence in real life. Eur. Ann. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2020, 52, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Roger, A.; Malet, A.; Moreno, V.; Parra, A.; Gutiérrez, D.; Lleonart, R.; Moreno, F.; Valero, A.; Navarro, B.; Hinojosa, B.; et al. Real-life effect of a microcrystalline tyrosine adjuvanted mite immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis. Immunotherapy 2020, 12, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tat, T.S. Adherence to Subcutaneous Allergen Immunotherapy in Southeast Turkey: A Real-Life Study. Med. Sci. Monit. 2018, 24, 8977–8983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Yang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Yang, L.; Wang, J.; Huang, N.; Wang, X.; Hu, L.; Jiang, Q.; Liu, G.; Zhu, R. Risk factors and strategies in nonadherence with subcutaneous immunotherapy: A real-life study. Int. Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018, 8, 1267–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Vogelberg, C.; Klimek, L.; Brüggenjürgen, B.; Jutel, M. Real-world evidence for the long-term effect of allergen immunotherapy: Current status on database-derived European studies. Allergy 2022, 77, 3584–3592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Devillier, P.; Demoly, P.; Molimard, M. Allergen immunotherapy: What is the added value of real-world evidence from retrospective claims database studies? Expert Rev. Respir. Med. 2020, 14, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aue, A.; Ho, J.; Zhu, R.; Kim, H.; Jeimy, S. Systemic reactions to subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy: Real-world cause and effect modelling. Allergy Asthma Clin. Immunol. 2021, 17, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mösges, R.; Passali, D.; Di Gioacchino, M. Worldwide surveys on anaphylaxis to sublingual immunotherapy with house dust mite tablets are urgently needed. Clin. Transl. Allergy 2021, 11, e12012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Compalati, E.; Incorvaia, C.; Urbano, S.; Strada, P.; Frati, F. The safety of carbamylated monomeric allergoids for sublingual immunotherapy. Data from a pharmacovigilance study. Immunotherapy 2020, 12, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. European database of suspected adverse drug reaction reports. Available online: .www.adrreports.eu (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  30. Muraro, A.; Roberts, G.; Halken, S.; Agache, I.; Angier, E.; Fernandez-Rivas, M.; Gerth van Wijk, R.; Jutel, M.; Lau, S.; Pajno, G.; et al. EAACI guidelines on allergen immunotherapy: Executive statement. Allergy 2018, 73, 739–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bousquet, J.; Pfaar, O.; Agache, I.; Bedbrook, A.; Akdis, C.A.; Canonica, G.W.; Chivato, T.; Al-Ahmad, M.; Abdul Latiff, A.H.; Ansotegui, I.J.; et al. ARIA-EAACI care pathways for allergen immunotherapy in respiratory allergy. Clin. Transl. Allergy 2021, 11, e12014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bousquet, J.; Khaltaev, N.; Cruz, A.A.; Denburg, J.; Fokkens, W.J.; Togias, A.; Zuberbier, T.; Baena-Cagnani, C.E.; Canonica, G.W.; Van Weel, C.; et al. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen). Allergy 2008, 63, 8–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bousquet, J.; Schünemann, H.J.; Togias, A.; Bachert, C.; Erhola, M.; Hellings, P.W.; Klimek, L.; Pfaar, O.; Wallace, D.; Ansotegui, I.; et al. Next-generation Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines for allergic rhinitis based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and real-world evidence. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2020, 145, 70–80.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Baiardini, I.; Fasola, S.; La Grutta, S.; Trucco, E.; Canonica, G.W.; Braido, F. Rhinitis and Asthma Patient Perspective (RAPP): Clinical Utility and Predictive Value. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Pract. 2022, 10, 846–852.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Klimek, L.; Bergmann, K.C.; Biedermann, T.; Bousquet, J.; Hellings, P.; Jung, K.; Merk, H.; Olze, H.; Schlenter, W.; Stock, P.; et al. Visual analogue scales (VAS): Measuring instruments for the documentation of symptoms and therapy monitoring in cases of allergic rhinitis in everyday health care. Allergo J. Int. 2017, 26, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Demoly, P.; Bousquet, P.J.; Mesbah, K.; Bousquet, J.; Devillier, P. Visual analogue scale in patients treated for allergic rhinitis: An observational prospective study in primary care: Asthma and rhinitis. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2013, 43, 881–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ünal, D. Effects of Perennial Allergen Immunotherapy in Allergic Rhinitis in Patients with/without Asthma: A-Randomized Controlled Real-Life Study. Int. Arch. Allergy Immunol. 2020, 181, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Di Rienzo, V.; Marcucci, F.; Puccinelli, P.; Parmiani, S.; Frati, F.; Sensi, L.; Canonica, G.W.; Passalacqua, G. Long-lasting effect of sublingual immunotherapy in children with asthma due to house dust mite: A 10-year prospective study. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2003, 33, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chow, A.; Mayer, E.K.; Darzi, A.W.; Athanasiou, T. Patient-reported outcome measures: The importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery 2009, 146, 435–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Reay, N. How to measure patient experience and outcomes to demonstrate quality in care. Nurs Times 2010, 106, 12–14. [Google Scholar]
  41. Aarestrup, M.F.; Aarestrup, P.F.; de Andrade, M.S.; Aarestrup, B.J.V.; Nagato, A.C.; Aarestrup, F.M. Satisfaction of allergic patients treated with house dust mite sublingual immunotherapy. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol. 2021, 35, 20587384211015528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Antolín-Amerigo, D.; Tabar, I.A.; Del Mar Fernández-Nieto, M.; Callejo-Melgosa, A.M.; Muñoz-Bellido, F.J.; Martínez-Alonso, J.C.; Méndez-Alcalde, J.D.; Reche, M.; Rodríguez-Trabado, A.; Rosado-Ingelmo, A.; et al. Satisfaction and quality of life of allergic patients following sublingual five-grass pollen tablet immunotherapy in Spain. Drugs Context 2017, 6, 212309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Schäfer, U.; Kienle-Gogolok, A.; Hadler, M.; Karagiannis, E.; Schnitzer, S. Treatment Satisfaction During Sublingual Immunotherapy with a Five-Grass Pollen Tablet for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis: A Prospective, Non-Interventional Study. Drugs Real World Outcomes 2017, 4, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Roger Reig, A.; Ibero Iborra, M.; Carrillo Díaz, T.; López Abad, R.; Sánchez Moreno, V.; Álvarez Nieto, J.; Cancelliere, N. Perceived efficacy and satisfaction of patients with subcutaneous hypoallergenic high-dose house dust mite extract. Eur. Ann. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2017, 49, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Gelincik, A.; Demir, S.; Olgaç, M.; İşsever, H.; Khishigsuren, B.; Özşeker, F.; Çolakoğlu, B.; Büyüköztürk, S. High adherence to subcutaneous immunotherapy in a real-life study from a large tertiary medical center. Allergy Asthma Proc. 2017, 38, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. El-Qutob, D.; Moreno, F.; Subtil-Rodríguez, A. Specific immunotherapy for rhinitis and asthma with a subcutaneous hypoallergenic high-dose house dust mite extract: Results of a 9-month therapy. Immunotherapy 2016, 8, 867–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kiel, M.A.; Röder, E.; Gerth van Wijk, R.; Al, M.J.; Hop, W.C.; Rutten-van Mölken, M.P. Real-life compliance and persistence among users of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2013, 132, 353–360.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zhang, W.; Deng, Y.; Tong, H.; Xiang, R.; Chen, S.; Kong, Y.; Tao, Z.; Xu, Y. Adverse reactions to subcutaneous immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis, a real-world study. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2021, 278, 4353–4360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fritzsching, B.; Contoli, M.; Porsbjerg, C.; Buchs, S.; Larsen, J.R.; Elliott, L.; Rodriguez, M.R.; Freemantle, N. Long-term real-world effectiveness of allergy immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma: Results from the REACT study, a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Reg. Health Eur. 2021, 13, 100275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Vogelberg, C.; Brüggenjürgen, B.; Richter, H.; Jutel, M. Real-World Adherence and Evidence of Subcutaneous and Sublingual Immunotherapy in Grass and Tree Pollen-Induced Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma. Patient Prefer. Adherence 2020, 14, 817–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mistrello, G.; Brenna, O.; Roncarolo, D.; Zanoni, D.; Gentili, M.; Falagiani, P. Monomeric chemically modified allergens: Immunologic and physicochemical characterization. Allergy 1996, 51, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Di Gioacchino, M.; Cavallucci, E.; Ballone, E.; Cervone, M.; Di Rocco, P.; Piunti, E.; Filardo, G.S.; Turi, M.C.; Mangifesta, R.; Quecchia, C.; et al. Dose dependent clinical and immunologiacl efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy sith mite monomericl allergoid. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol. 2012, 25, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Burastero, S.E.; Mistrello, G.; Falagiani, P.; Paolucci, C.; Breda, D.; Roncarolo, D.; Zanotta, S.; Monasterolo, G.; Rossi, R.E. Effects of sublingual immunotherapy with grass monomeric allergoid on allergen specific T cell proliferation and IL 10 production. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008, 100, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Di Gioacchino, M.; Perrone, A.; Petrarca, C.; Di Claudio, F.; Mistrello, G.; Falagiani, P.; Dadorante, V.; Verna, N.; Braga, M.; Ballone, E.; et al. Early cytokine modulation after the rapid induction phase of sublingual immunotherapy with mite monomeric allergoids. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol. 2008, 21, 969–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Cosmi, L.; Santarlasci, V.; Angeli, R.; Liotta, F.; Maggi, L.; Frosali, F.; Rossi, O.; Falagiani, F.; Riva, G.; Romagnani, S.; et al. Sublingual immunotherapy with dermatophagoides monomeric allergoid down-regulates allergen-specific immunoglobulin E and increases both interferon-gamma- and interleukin-10-production. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2006, 36, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Agostinis, F.; Tellarini, L.; Canonica, G.W.; Falagiani, P.; Passalacqua, G. Safety of sublingual immunotherapy with a monomeric allergoid in very young children. Allergy 2005, 60, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lombardi, C.; Gargioni, S.; Melchiorre, A.; Tiri, A.; Falagiani, P.; Canonica, G.w.; Passalacqua, G. Safety of sublingual immunotherapy with monomeric allergoid in adults: Multicenter post-marketing surveillance study. Allergy 2001, 56, 989–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Passali, D.; Mösges, R.; Passali, G.C.; Passali, F.M.; Ayoko, G.; Bellussi, L. Safety, tolerability and efficacy of sublingual allergoid immunotherapy with three different shortened up-dosing administration schedules. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2010, 30, 131–137. [Google Scholar]
  59. Palma-Carlos, A.G.; Santos, A.S.; Branco-Ferreira, M.; Pregal, A.L.; Palma-Carlos, M.L.; Bruno, M.E.; Falagiani, P.; Riva, G. Clinical efficacy and safety of preseasonal sublingual immunotherapy with grass pollen carbamylated allergoid in rhinitic patients. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2006, 34, 194–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Compalati, E.; Rinciani, A. Safety of injective immunotherapy with monomeric carbamylated allergoid given to pediatric patients with allergic rhinitis with/without asthma due to house dust mite. WAO J. 2015, 8 (Suppl. 1), A20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 11 07384 g001 550
Figure 1. Symptom score evaluated by VAS over the years of AIT. A significant decrease of VAS was observed in all patients (291) (A), and selecting patients with oculorhinitis, asthma, or both (B). Values are expressed as (µ ± SD). * p < 0.01 Wilcoxon test comparing VAS changes at 1 year AIT respect before. ** p < 0.01 Friedman test detecting differences across the course of AIT.
Figure 1. Symptom score evaluated by VAS over the years of AIT. A significant decrease of VAS was observed in all patients (291) (A), and selecting patients with oculorhinitis, asthma, or both (B). Values are expressed as (µ ± SD). * p < 0.01 Wilcoxon test comparing VAS changes at 1 year AIT respect before. ** p < 0.01 Friedman test detecting differences across the course of AIT.
Jcm 11 07384 g001
Jcm 11 07384 g002 550
Figure 2. (A). VAS for the use of oral and systemic antihistamines and corticosteroids by all patients with oculorhinitis (265) over the course of AIT. A significant decrease was observed comparing the various phases of AIT with respect to before the treatment. ^ p < 0.01 Wilcoxon test comparing VAS changes at 1 year AIT respect before. * p < 0.001 Friedman test detecting differences across the course of AIT. (B). Drug consumption (systemic and local antihistamines and steroids) by oculorhinitis patients divided by allergic sensitization over the course of AIT. ^ p < 0.05 Wilcoxon test comparing VAS changes at 1 year AIT with respect to before treatment. * p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001 Friedman test detecting differences across the course of AIT.
Figure 2. (A). VAS for the use of oral and systemic antihistamines and corticosteroids by all patients with oculorhinitis (265) over the course of AIT. A significant decrease was observed comparing the various phases of AIT with respect to before the treatment. ^ p < 0.01 Wilcoxon test comparing VAS changes at 1 year AIT respect before. * p < 0.001 Friedman test detecting differences across the course of AIT. (B). Drug consumption (systemic and local antihistamines and steroids) by oculorhinitis patients divided by allergic sensitization over the course of AIT. ^ p < 0.05 Wilcoxon test comparing VAS changes at 1 year AIT with respect to before treatment. * p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001 Friedman test detecting differences across the course of AIT.
Jcm 11 07384 g002
Jcm 11 07384 g003 550
Figure 3. Number of patients with specific symptoms indicative of asthma control. (A) all asthmatics, (B) mite allergic patients, (C) pellitory allergic patients, and (D) grass allergic patients. Statistical significance of p < 0.001 in all cases (Cochran’s Q test).
Figure 3. Number of patients with specific symptoms indicative of asthma control. (A) all asthmatics, (B) mite allergic patients, (C) pellitory allergic patients, and (D) grass allergic patients. Statistical significance of p < 0.001 in all cases (Cochran’s Q test).
Jcm 11 07384 g003
Table
Table 1. Demographic and allergological characteristics of enrolled patients.
Table 1. Demographic and allergological characteristics of enrolled patients.
169 Albanian Pts 122 Italian PtsTotal: 291
Sex *, men/women 114/5576/46190/101
Age **, years ± SD26.6 ± 13.026.9 ± 14.426.7 ± 13.6
Disease ***, no. (%)
Asthma7 (4.1)19 (15.5)26 (8.9)
Rhinoconjunctivitis142 (84.1)82 (67.2)224 (77.0)
Asthma and Rhinoconjunctivitis20 (11.8)21 (17.2)41 (14.1)
Type of Allergen ***, no. (%)
Dust mite105 (62.1)77 (63.1)182 (62.5)
Grass62 (36.7)17 (13.9)79 (27.1)
Pellitory 2 (1.2)28 (23.0)30 (10.3)
* p = 0.215, Chi-square test; ** p = 0.811, Mann-Whitney U-Test; *** p < 0.01, Chi-square test.
Table
Table 2. VAS changes in AIT-treated patients divided by allergic sensitization.
Table 2. VAS changes in AIT-treated patients divided by allergic sensitization.
Before AIT1° Year AITEnd AIT1–2 Years after AITp Value*
Grass allergic patients
All oculorhinitis (n = 77)8.46 ± 0.916.65 ± 1.90 ^2.10 ± 1.991.72 ± 1.90<0.01
All asthmatics (n = 10)8.60 ± 0.407.00 ± 1.63 ns3.01 ± 1.182.90 ± 1.110.05
Pellitory allergic patients
All oculorhinitis (n = 22)8.57 ± 0.755.32 ± 1.20 ^1.01 ± 1.011.01 ± 1.08<0.01
All asthmatics (n = 12)8.54 ± 1.15.45 ± 1.44 ^0.90 ± 0.980.69 ± 0.60<0.01
Mite allergic patients
All oculorhinitis (n = 166)8.09 ± 0.965.27 ± 1.95 ^1.70 ± 1.900.98 ± 1.68<0.01
All asthmatics (n = 45)8.13 ± 1.055.54 ± 2.20 ^1.88 ± 1.781.42 ± 1.62<0.01
Values expressed as µ ± SD. * Friedman test over the course of treatment; ^ p < 0.05 Wilcoxon test: 1 year AIT versus before; ns = not significant.
Table
Table 3. Aria classification of rhinitis over the years of AIT (n. 265 pts).
Table 3. Aria classification of rhinitis over the years of AIT (n. 265 pts).
Before TherapyAfter Therapyp *
Yes: n (%)No: n (%)NeverYes: n (%)No: n (%)Never
All patients (265)
Symptoms > 4 d/w–4 week122 (46)143 (54)030 (11.3)28 (10.6)207 (78.1)<0.001
Troublesome symptoms237 (89.4)28 (10.6) 7 (2.6)258 (97.4) <0.001
Impairment of daily activity173 (65.3)92 (34.7) 61 (23)204 (77) <0.001
Sleep disturbance219 (82.6)46 (17.4) 21 (7.9)244 (92.1) <0.01
Grass sensitized (77)
Symptoms > 4 d/w–4 week28 (36.4)49 (63.6)013 (16.9)13 (16.9)51 (66.2)<0.001
Troublesome symptoms60 (77.9)17 (22.1) 3 (3.89)74 (96.1) <0.001
Impairment of daily activity54 (70.1)23 (29.9) 17 (22.1)60 (77.9) <0.001
Sleep disturbance62 (80.5)15 (19.5) 15 (19.5)62 (80.5) <0.01
Pellitory sensitized (n. 22)
Symptoms > 4 d/w–4 week3 (13.6)19 (86.4)01 (4.5)021 (95.5)<0.001
Troublesome symptoms20 (90.9)2 (9.1) 2 (9.1)20 (90.9) <0.001
Impairment of daily activity16 (72.7)6 (27.3) 2 (9.1)20 (90.9) 0.01
Sleep disturbance13 (59.1)9 (40.9) 2 (9.1)20 (90.9) <0.05
Mite sensitized (166)
Symptoms > 4 d/w–4 week91 (54.8)75 (45.2)016 (9.6)15 (9.0)135 (81.3)<0.001
Troublesome symptoms157 (94.6)9 (5.4) 2 (1.2)164 (98.8) <0.01
Impairment of daily activity103 (62.0)63 (37.97) 42 (25.3)124 (74.7) <0.01
Sleep disturbance144 (86.7)22 (13.3) 4 (2.4)162 (97.6) <0.001
* McNemar Test, before therapy vs. after therapy.
Table
Table 4. Number of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroids over the course of treatment.
Table 4. Number of asthma exacerbations requiring systemic steroids over the course of treatment.
Before AIT
Me (Min–Max)		1° year AIT
Me (Min–Max)		End AIT
Me (Min–Max)		1–2 y after AIT
Me (Min–Max)		Friedman Test
All asthmatics3.5 (2–8)1.5 (0–7)0.5 (0–2)0.5 (0–2)<0.01
Grass allergic (n = 10)3.5 (2–5)1.5 (0–4)0.5 (0–2)0.5 (0–2)0.05
Pellitory allergic (n = 12)3.5 (0–8)1.5 (0–3)0.5 (0–2)0.0 (0–1)<0.01
Mite allergic (n = 67)3.0 (0–8)0.5 (0–7)0.0 (0–2)0.0 (0–2)<0.01
Table
Table 5. RAPP evaluation after treatment in patients with oculorhinitis and asthma.
Table 5. RAPP evaluation after treatment in patients with oculorhinitis and asthma.
MeanSDMedianMin–Max
Mites (n. 29)
RAPP value11.74.6108–24
Grass (n. 8)
RAPP value11.72.211.59–15
Pellitory (n. 4)
RAPP value9.54.09.58–11
All patients (n. 41)
RAPP value11.494.02108–24
Table
Table 6. Patient perceived health status and satisfaction at the end of MA-SCIT.
Table 6. Patient perceived health status and satisfaction at the end of MA-SCIT.
SatisfactionDisease
AsthmaRhinoconjunctivitis Both
Completely satisfied26 (100%)218 (97.4)37 (90.2)
Unhappy--3 (1.3)2 (4.9)
Unsatisfied--1 (0.4)--
Disappointed--2 (0.9)2 (4.9)
Total2622441
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Di Gioacchino, M.; Della Valle, L.; Mangifesta, R.; Lumaca, A.; Cipollone, F.; Frati, F.; Compalati, E.; Lekli, E.; Loloci, E.Q.; Santilli, F. Real-Life Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Immune Therapy with Carbamylated Monomeric Allergoids on Mite, Grass, and Pellitory Respiratory Allergy: A Retrospective Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 7384. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247384

AMA Style

Di Gioacchino M, Della Valle L, Mangifesta R, Lumaca A, Cipollone F, Frati F, Compalati E, Lekli E, Loloci EQ, Santilli F. Real-Life Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Immune Therapy with Carbamylated Monomeric Allergoids on Mite, Grass, and Pellitory Respiratory Allergy: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(24):7384. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247384

Chicago/Turabian Style

Di Gioacchino, Mario, Loredana Della Valle, Rocco Mangifesta, Arianna Lumaca, Francesco Cipollone, Franco Frati, Enrico Compalati, Eralda Lekli, Etleva Qirco Loloci, and Francesca Santilli. 2022. "Real-Life Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Immune Therapy with Carbamylated Monomeric Allergoids on Mite, Grass, and Pellitory Respiratory Allergy: A Retrospective Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 24: 7384. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11247384

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop