Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

OBJECTIVE: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AIT is administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Skin testing for inhalant allergy.

BACKGROUND: Allergy is diagnosed by a combination of history, physical examination, and confirmatory testing. Modalities for testing include skin testing, in vitro assessment, and challenge testing of the conjunctiva or nasal mucosa. Challenge testing is primarily reserved for research. METHODS: A review of the literature on skin testing methods for inhalant allergic rhinitis was performed. RESULTS: Different forms of commonly used skin testing are available, including: individual prick; multiple prick; single, intradermal, and intradermal dilutional testing; and blended techniques. Each has inherent benefits and limitations. CONCLUSION: Skin testing remains a valid and in some cases superior means of identifying inhalant allergy. Skin-prick testing and intradermal testing are the primary categories, although different formats exist for each. Caution must be taken to avoid creating a serious systemic reaction by injecting an injudicious amount of antigen into the skin, or in skin testing a patient whose medication profile puts them at increased risk.

Stepwise treatment of asthma.

Therapy for asthma has undergone substantial changes in the past three decades, prompted by a better understanding of the role of inflammation in reversible airway disease. Improved therapies and a workable algorithm of therapy guidelines have provided an improved quality of life for the patient with asthma. This article outlines the most recent revisions of the stepwise guidelines provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Safety of intradermal skin tests for inhalants and foods: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Intradermal skin testing is a useful allergy diagnostic tool. Although considered safe when properly performed, systemic reactions have been reported. This is the first large, prospective study to record and evaluate all systemic reactions from intradermal skin testing (IDT) to inhalant or food antigens. METHODS: A 24-month prospective study by 40 physician practices, recording all IDT tests, including reactions, symptoms, severity, time after injection, and reaction treatments. RESULTS: Eighty systemic reactions (22 major) occurred among 20,530 patients (878,583 wheals). Nine had epinephrine treatment, 4 were observed in an emergency department, and there were no hospitalizations or fatalities. The overall systemic reaction risk was 0.009%. The risk of having a major reaction was 0.003%, or 1 reaction per 933 patients. CONCLUSION: Intradermal skin tests for inhalants or foods, when performed with appropriate precautions, have a safety profile comparable to skin prick tests.

Keys to successful management of patients with allergic rhinitis: focus on patient confidence, compliance, and satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: The American Academy of Otolaryngic Allergy (AAOA) convened an expert, multidisciplinary Working Group on Allergic Rhinitis to discuss patients' self-treatment behaviors and how health care providers approach and treat the condition. PROCEDURES AND DATA SOURCES: Co-moderators, who were chosen by the AAOA Board of Directors, were responsible for initial agenda development and selection of presenters and participants, based on their expertise in diagnosis and treatment of allergic rhinitis. Each presenter performed a literature search from which a presentation was developed, portions of which were utilized in developing this review article. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Allergic rhinitis is a common chronic condition that has a significant negative impact on general health, co-morbid illnesses, productivity, and quality of life. Treatment of allergic rhinitis includes avoidance of allergens, immunotherapy, and/or pharmacotherapy (ie, antihistamines, decongestants, corticosteroids, mast cell stabilizers, anti-leukotriene agents, anticholinergics). Despite abundant treatment options, 60% of all allergic rhinitis patients in an Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America survey responded that they are "very interested" in finding a new medication and 25% are "constantly" trying different medications to find one that "works." Those who were dissatisfied also said their health care provider does not understand their allergy treatment needs and does not take their allergy symptoms seriously. Dissatisfaction leads to decreased compliance and an increased reliance on multiple agents and over-the-counter products. Furthermore, a lack of effective communication between health care provider and patient leads to poor disease control, noncompliance, and unhappiness in a significant portion of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers must gain a greater understanding of patient expectations to increase medication compliance and patient satisfaction and confidence.

Sublingual Immunotherapy: Past, present, paradigm for the future? A review of the literature.

Since the early 1900s, allergen immunotherapy has been recognized as an effective treatment option for patients with inhalant allergies. Subcutaneous injection has traditionally been the main route of antigen delivery for immunotherapy in the United States. Over the past 15 years, sublingual administration of allergen extract has become a widely used method of immunotherapy in other countries, particularly in Europe. Although sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has been used by some physicians in the United States, this technique has not found widespread utilization. A growing interest in SLIT use in this country is developing. SLIT offers several potential advantages, including excellent safety and tolerability, increased access to immunotherapy, and improved method of antigen delivery to children. This paper reviews the basic and clinical science data available in the literature concerning the immunology, efficacy, and safety of SLIT. It is written to serve as a springboard for future discussions and clinical investigations regarding the potential expanded use of SLIT in the United States.

Clinical practice guidelines and specific antigen immunotherapy.

Allergy immunotherapy is a safe, effective treatment modality in selected patients. The length of therapy and the wide variety of patient sensitivities make it difficult to develop and test evidence-based guidelines in all areas of immunotherapy. A review of techniques and the evidence supporting them is provided in this article.

Correlation between presumed sinusitis-induced pain and paranasal sinus computed tomographic findings.

BACKGROUND: The correlation between facial and/or head pain in patients clinically suspected of having sinusitis and actual localized findings on sinus computed tomographic (CT) imaging are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the relationship of paranasal sinus pain symptoms with CT imaging. METHODS: Two hundred consecutive patients referred by otolaryngologists and internists for CT of the paranasal sinuses participated by completing a questionnaire immediately before undergoing CT. Three radiologists blinded to the patients' responses scored the degree of air/fluid level, mucosal thickening, bony reaction, and mucus retention cysts using a graded scale of severity (0 to 3 points). The osteomeatal complexes and nasolacrimal ducts were also evaluated for patency. Bivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between patients' localized symptoms and CT findings in the respective sinus. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-three patients (82%) reported having some form of facial pain or headache. The right temple/forehead was the most frequently reported region of maximal pain. On CT imaging the maxillary sinus was the most frequently involved sinus. Bivariate analysis failed to show any relationship between patient symptoms and findings on CT. Patients with a normal CT reported a mean 5.88 sites of facial or head pain versus 5.45 sites for patients with an abnormal CT. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-based responses of sinonasal pain symptoms fail to correlate with findings in the respective sinuses. CT should therefore be reserved for delineating the anatomy and degree of sinus disease before surgical intervention.