Current Allergy and Asthma Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 131–138 | Cite as

Sublingual Immunotherapy in Patients with Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis

  • Deborah GentileEmail author
  • David P. Skoner


Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-established treatment option for allergic rhinitis in several European countries, but it is considered investigational in the United States. Studies conducted in Europe provided a large body of evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of SLIT, but those studies used allergen products that are different from those that are likely to be approved in the United States, and many of them were not controlled, randomized, double-blinded trials. This review summarize research conducted on the efficacy, safety, and mechanisms of SLIT published during the past year, with a focus on ragweed and grass antigens. Results of recent US studies document the safety and efficacy of SLIT and have started to yield insight into the mechanisms of SLIT.


Sublingual immunotherapy Allergic rhinitis Safety Efficacy 



Dr. Gentile has received grant support from Merck & Co. and Greer Laboratories and has received payment for development of educational presentations from Merck & Co.

Dr. Skoner has served as a consultant for Merck & Co., has received grant support from Merck & Co. and Greer Laboratories, and has received payment for development of educational presentations from Merck & Co.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Esch RE, Bush RK, Peden D, et al.: Sublingual-oral administration of standardized allergenic extracts: phase 1 safety and dosing results. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008, 100:475–481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    • Skoner D, Gentile D, Bush R, et al.: Sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused by ragweed pollen. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010,125:660–666. This study was significant in that it showed that standardized, glycerinated short ragweed pollen extract administered sublingually at maintenance doses of 4.8 to 48 μg Amb a 1/d was safe and induced favorable clinical and immunologic changes in ragweed-sensitive individuals. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seidenberg J, Pajno GB, Bauer CP, et al.: Safety and tolerability of seasonal ultra-rush, high-dose sublingual-swallow immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis to grass and tree pollens:an observational study in 193 children and adolescents. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2009, 19(2):125–131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • 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, 124:150–156. This study was important, as it evaluated the effectiveness of SLIT with multiple allergens, the way that most allergen immunotherapy in the United States is administered. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciprandi G, Cadario G, Valle C, et al.: Sublingual Immunotherapy in polysensitized patients: effect on quality of life. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol 2010, 20 (4):274–279.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciprandi G, Cadario G, Di Gioacchino GM, et al.: Sublingual immunotherapy in children with allergic polysensitization. Allergy Asthma Proc 2010, 31:227–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim ST, Han DH, Moon IJ, et al.: Clinical and immunologic effects of sublingual immunotherapy on patients with allergic rhinitis to house-dust mites: 1-year follow-up results. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2010, 24:271–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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, 124:471–477.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Durham SR, Emminger W, Kapp A, et al.: Long-term clinical efficacy in grass pollen- induced rhinoconjunctivitis after treatment with SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010, 125:131–138. This is a very important article in which the authors provided the first convincing evidence of long-term disease modification by SLIT. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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, 126:969–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ariano R, Berto P, Incorvaia C, et al.: Economic evaluation of sublingual immunotherapy vs symptomatic treatment in allergic asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2009,103:254–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sieber J, Koberlein J, Mosges R. Sublingual immunotherapy in daily medical practice: effectiveness of different treatment schedules-IPD meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2010, 26(4):925–932.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Casale TB, Canonica GW, Bousquet J, et al.: Recommendations for appropriate sublingual immunotherapy clinical trials. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2009, 124:665–670. This is an important review that identified deficiencies and sources of considerable heterogeneity in both design and data interpretation of published SLIT studies, with the hope that recommendations provided will allow the conduct of more adequately designed SLIT trials to facilitate the appropriate placement of SLIT therapy to treat patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blaiss M, Maloney J, Nolte H, Gawchik S, Yao R, Skoner DP. Efficacy and safety of Timothy grass allergy immunotherapy tablet in North American children and adolescents. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011 (in press).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Nelson HS, Nolte H, Creticos P, Maloney J, Wu J, Bernstein DI. Efficacy and Safety of Timothy grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) in North American adults. In Press, J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011. This study and that by Blaiss et al. [14] are important due in part to their large sample sizes, rigorous design, and large effect sizes detected (larger than those of many drugs currently in use to treat allergic rhinoconjunctivitis). Moreover, given its convenient administration, no dose build-up requirement, safety profile, and efficacy, this form of SLIT may become an important addition to the allergic rhinoconjunctivitis treatment armamentarium of North American adults. The cross-reactivity of Timothy grass with Festucoideae is also likely to be important. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    de Groot H, Bijl A. Anaphylactic reaction after the first dose of sublingual immunotherapy with grass pollen tablet. Allergy. 2009 Jun;64(6):963–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dunsky EH, Goldstein MF, Dvorin Dj, Belechanech GA: Anaphylaxis to sublingual immunotherapy. Allergy 2006, 61:1235.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ciprandi G, DeAmici M, Tosca MA, et al.: Sublingual immunotherapy affects specific antibody and TGF-β serum levels in patients with allergic rhinitis. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2009, 22 4(S):1089–1096.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Canonica GW, Bousquet J, Casale T, et al: Sub-lingual Immunotherapy: World Allergy Organization position paper 2009. Allergy 2009, 64 (Suppl 91):1–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scadding G, Durham S: Mechanisms of sublingual immunotherapy. J Asthma 2009,46:322–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allam JP, Wurtzen PA, Reinartz M, et al.: Phl p 5 resorption in human oral mucosa leads to dose-dependent and time-dependent allergen binding by oral mucosal Langerhans cells, attenuates their maturation, and enhances their migratory and TGF-β1 and IL-10-producing properties. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2010,126:638–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scadding GW, Shamji MH, Jacobson MR, et al.: Sublingual grass pollen immunotherapy is associated with increase in sublingual Foxp3-expressing cells and elevated allergen-specific immunoglobulin G4, immunoglobulin A and serum inhibitory activity for immunoglobulin E-facilitated allergen binding to B cells. Clin Exp Allergy 2010,40:598–606.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fujimura T, Yonekura S, Taniguchi Y, et al.: The induced regulatory T cell level, defined as the proportion of IL-10+Foxp3+cells among CD25+CD4+leukocytes, is a potential therapeutic biomarker for sublingual immunotherapy: a preliminary report. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2010, 153(4):378–387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maggi E: T cell responses induced by allergen-specific immunotherapy. Clin Exp Immunol 2010, 161(1):10–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaminuma O, Suzuki K, Mori A: Effect of sublingual immunotherapy on antigen-induced bronchial and nasal inflammation in mice. Int Arch Allergy Immunol 2010,152(Suppl 1):75–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ciprandi G, Tosca MA, Marseglia GL: Sublingual immunotherapy mechanisms of action: the role of TH1 response. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2009, 22 4(S):9–12.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    O’Hehir RE, Gardner LM, deLeon MP: House dust mite sublingual immunology: the role for transforming growth factor-β and functional regulatory T cells. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009, 180:936–947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, Department of Internal MedicineAllegheny General HospitalPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Drexel University College of Medicine; West Virginia University School of Medicine, Departments of Pediatrics and Allergy, Asthma, and ImmunologyAllegheny General HospitalPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations