TOPLINE:

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) had a favorable safety profile in patients with severe allergic asthma, with significant improvements in lung function and reduced emergency department visits.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective study of 93 patients including 88 adults (mean age, 41.3 months; 54.8% women) and five children with severe allergic asthma across 16 centers in Spain between 2018 and 2023 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of AIT.
• Patients received either subcutaneous immunotherapy (91.4%) or sublingual immunotherapy (8.6%), with 95.7% of participants following perennial treatment schedules.
• Researchers used the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), with higher numbers indicating better quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• Systemic and local reactions were observed in 8.6% and 16.1% of patients, respectively, and only four patients required epinephrine for severe reactions.
• Significant improvements from baseline were observed in fractional exhaled nitric oxide (P = .049) after 6 months and in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (P = .028) after 12 months of AIT.
• Mini ‑ AQLQ scores were numerically higher at 1, 2, and 3 years after starting AIT than at baseline, and fewer patients required rescue medication (P = .019).
• Emergency department visits decreased by 75.8%, from 62 before to 15 after AIT initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

"This study reinforces the favorable safety profile of AIT in patients with well-controlled severe allergic asthma when administered in a specialized clinical setting," the authors wrote. "The findings support the use of AIT as a viable therapeutic option in this population — even in those receiving concomitant biological therapy — provided asthma control is maintained," they added.

SOURCE:

Ana I. Tabar, MD, PhD, with the University Hospital of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, was the corresponding author of the study, which was published online on September 19, 2025, in the Journal of Asthma and Allergy.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was limited by its retrospective design and possibly missing data during the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic, a small overall sample — particularly few pediatric patients —precluding reliable subgroup analyses, potential geographic bias because over half of the participants were enrolled in Madrid centers, and the absence of a control group, limiting causal inference and definitive conclusions.

DISCLOSURES:

Several authors reported receiving research grants, consultancy fees, speaking honoraria, meeting travel assistance, or payment for manuscript preparation from various pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.