Allergen Immunotherapy Clinical Trial Outcomes and Design: Working Toward Harmonization of Methods and Principles

Future Directions of Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis: Experts' Perspective

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is broadly used all over the world as the only available disease-modifying treatment option. The aim of this experts' perspective is to address 7 important unmet needs for the further direction of AIT and to provide the readership with the authors' positions on these topics. An international group of experts in the field of AIT have formulated 7 important aspects for the future position of AIT, performed a current literature review, and proposed a consented position on these topics. The aspects discussed and consented by the authors include: (1) alternative routes of allergen application in AIT, (2) potential of recombinant vaccines, (3) the role of allergy diagnosis based on component-resolved diagnosis for AIT composition, (4) the impact of COVID-19 vaccination for further innovations in AIT, (5) potential of combining biologics to AIT, (6) future innovations in high-risk children/adolescents, and (7) the future regulatory position on AIT. Important unmet needs and topics for AIT have been addressed in this expert review. The authors' views and personal position on these 7 aspects have also been elaborated.

Clinical benefits with 300 IR HDM SLIT tablet in Europeans with house dust mite allergic rhinitis: Post hoc analysis of a large phase 3 trial

Background

House dust mite (HDM)-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) is a major cause of allergic respiratory disease. The efficacy and safety of the 300 IR HDM sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet in patients with moderate-to-severe HDM-AR was confirmed in a large, international, phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Here, we analyzed the results in the European population.

Methods

Data from 91 European centers that participated in the international, double-blind, RCT (EudraCT 2014-004223-46, NCT02443805) with the 300 IR HDM SLIT tablet versus placebo over 12 months were analyzed post hoc. The treatment effect in European adults and adolescents was notably assessed through the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI)-recommended combined symptom and medication score (CSMS0-6, pre-defined endpoint) and the total combined rhinitis score (TCRS0-24, post hoc endpoint, also balanced) during the primary evaluation period (4 weeks at the end of treatment period) using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

Results

There were 818 patients who comprised the modified full analysis set in Europe. Over the primary period, the differences in CSMS0-6 and TCRS0-24 between the 300 IR and placebo groups were statistically significant (p < 0.0001): -0.32 (95%CI [-0.46; -0.17]) and -1.28 (95%CI [-1.63; -0.94]), respectively, with relative differences of -20.9% and -21.2%. All post hoc and the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life endpoints were significantly improved with 300 IR versus placebo. The 300 IR HDM tablet was generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

This RCT sub-analysis confirmed the 300 IR HDM SLIT tablet is an effective and safe treatment for European adults and adolescents with HDM-AR with clinically meaningful benefits from the patients' perspective.

Trial registration

NCT02443805. Registered on April 29, 2015./EudraCT 2014-004223-46. Registered on September 16, 2015.

Randomized controlled trial of ragweed sublingual immunotherapy tablet in the subpopulation of Canadian children and adolescents with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis

Background

Post hoc analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability of the ragweed sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet in Canadian adults with ragweed pollen-induced allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis (AR/C). This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the ragweed SLIT-tablet in the subpopulation of Canadian children and adolescents with AR/C in a previously described randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Methods

The trial (NCT02478398) was conducted in North American and European children/adolescents ages 5–17 years with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C with or without asthma (FEV1 ≥ 80% predicted). Participants were randomized to daily ragweed SLIT-tablet (12 Amb a 1-U) or placebo for up to 28 weeks. The primary endpoint was the average total combined score (TCS; sum of rhinoconjunctivitis daily symptom score [DSS] and daily medication score [DMS]) during peak ragweed pollen season (RPS). Key secondary endpoints were TCS during the entire RPS, and DSS and DMS during peak RPS. Post hoc analyses of the primary and key secondary endpoints were conducted in the subpopulation of Canadian participants.

Results

Of the 1025 randomized participants, 246 (SLIT-tablet, n = 116; placebo, n = 130) were in the Canadian subpopulation. In the total study population, relative TCS (95% CI) improvement with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo was − 38.3% (− 46.0%, − 29.7%; least square [LS] mean difference, − 2.73; P < 0.001) during peak RPS. In the Canadian subpopulation, relative TCS improvements with ragweed SLIT-tablet versus placebo were − 40.8% (− 54.5%, − 20.2%; LS mean difference, − 1.59; P = 0.001) during peak RPS and − 36.6% (− 50.2%, − 16.5%; LS mean difference, − 1.36; P = 0.002) during the entire RPS. DSS and DMS during peak RPS in the Canadian subpopulation improved with SLIT-tablet versus placebo by − 30.6% (− 45.2%, − 7.7%; LS mean difference, − 0.94; P = 0.010) and − 77.2% (− 97.5%, − 44.2%; LS mean difference, − 0.66; P = 0.003), respectively. No events of anaphylaxis, airway compromise, intramuscular epinephrine administration, eosinophilic esophagitis, or severe treatment-related systemic allergic reactions were reported in the overall population or Canadian subpopulation.

Conclusion

Efficacy and safety of the ragweed SLIT-tablet in Canadian children/adolescents with ragweed pollen-induced AR/C was consistent with the total study population. The ragweed SLIT-tablet resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms, decreased symptom-relieving medication use, and was well tolerated in Canadian children/adolescents.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02478398. Registered June 23, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02478398?term=NCT02478398&draw=2&rank=1

Clinical and immunological evaluation of cat-allergic asthmatics living with or without a cat

BACKGROUND

Characterising the clinical and immunological impact of daily cat exposure in cat-allergic subjects with asthma who live with cats (WC) and those who do not (WoC) may provide understanding of the drivers of the allergic response.

METHODS

Clinical and immunological characteristics (skin prick test, spirometry, symptom assessments, immunological markers) were compared between asthmatic subjects WC (n = 10) and WoC (n = 9).

RESULTS

WC subjects had greater use of long-acting beta agonists (p < .05) and high-potency corticosteroids. No differences were observed in lung function, nasal and ocular symptoms, or asthma control between the groups. Cat dander- and Fel d 1-specific IgG₄ concentrations were higher in WC than WoC subjects (both p < .05). Total IgE and cat dander-, Fel d 1- and Fel d 7-specific IgE concentrations were similar, but Fel d 4-sIgE was higher in WC subjects (p < .05) versus WoC. Basophil sensitivity to cat dander extract and Fel d 1 was lower in WC versus WoC subjects (p < .05) and correlated with higher IgG₄ concentrations (r = 0.63; p = .009). Fel d 1-specific CD4+ T-cell responses polarised toward Th2A responses in WC versus WoC subjects; Fel d 1-specific IgE correlated with surface expression of CRTH2 and CD200R (both p ≤ .05).

CONCLUSION

Immunological differences observed in WC versus WoC did not reflect clinical tolerance with natural cat exposure. The ability to live with a cat despite allergy could be driven by higher preventative medication use. This study may support design of novel therapeutics for allergy management.

Antihistamine premedication improves safety and efficacy of allergen immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT)-associated adverse events are a major concern for safety and efficacy of AIT. Presently, there is no consensus to whether antihistamine premedication could improve such conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the superiority of antihistamine pretreatment in AIT.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search for randomized controlled trials reporting the effects of antihistamine premedication on safety and efficacy of AIT was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Safety was evaluated according to the number of patients reporting systemic adverse reactions (SARs, the primary outcome) and efficacy according to the number of patients achieving target maintenance dose (TMD) and sustained unresponsiveness to allergen.

RESULTS

A total of 11 randomized controlled trials (including 609 patients) satisfied the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. All premedication protocols were temporary. Pooled analysis revealed that compared with control patients, significantly fewer antihistamine-pretreated patients reported total and moderate-to-severe SARs (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.56; P < .05 and OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.74; P < .05, respectively) and total and moderate-to-severe SAR episodes (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.34-0.53; P < .05 and OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.50; P < .05, respectively). Similarly, antihistamine pretreatment significantly increased the number of patients achieving TMD (OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.72-5.03; P < .05), but not sustained unresponsiveness (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.77-3.54; P = 0.2), compared with the control group. Subgroup analysis according to different allergens and dose-escalating approaches also displayed superiority of antihistamine pretreatment than control.

CONCLUSION

Antihistamine premedication can markedly improve safety and efficacy of AIT by reducing frequency and severity of SAR and increasing TMD.

Recent development on the use of sublingual immunotherapy tablets for allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E-mediated inflammatory condition that causes sneezing, nasal congestion, rhinorrhea, and nasal itch. Although subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of AR has been in use and well established as a treatment modality, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly considered to be the safer and more convenient alternative. Thus, the objective of this review is to describe recent findings pertaining to the use of SLIT tablets (SLIT-T) for AR.

DATA SOURCES

A database search (PubMed.gov) for articles published between January 1, 2017, and February 9, 2021, was conducted using the following key words: "allergic rhinitis," AND-ed "sublingual immunotherapy." Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials. Other experimental design studies were excluded.

STUDY SELECTIONS

A total of 11 randomized placebo-controlled trials were selected for full-text review and included in the analysis. All studies investigated the use of SLIT on patients with seasonal AR (4 tree pollen, 1 grass pollen, and 1 Japanese cedar) or perennial AR (3 house dust mite).

RESULTS

Our review of 7 recently published randomized placebo-controlled trials with 2348 subjects receiving SLIT reported increased efficacy, safety, supportive immunologic parameters (IgE and IgG4 pre- and posttreatment levels), and improved quality of life. All studies excluded subjects with overlapping seasonal or perennial allergens, a history of moderate-to-severe uncontrolled asthma, or reduced lung function.

CONCLUSION

Our review highlights that SLIT is a safe and effective treatment that considerably reduces symptoms and medication requirements in AR and improves quality of life.

A 300 IR sublingual tablet is an effective, safe treatment for house dust mite-induced allergic rhinitis: An international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Allergic rhinitis induced by house dust mites (HDMs) is a highly prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated/untreated chronic disease. It often has a negative impact on sleep, work, leisure activities, and health-related quality of life. Allergen immunotherapy is a proven, safe treatment for respiratory allergies.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of a 300 index of reactivity (IR) sublingual tablet formulation of Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus:Dermatophagoides farinae 1:1 extract in adolescents (aged ≥12) and adults with moderate to severe HDM-induced allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In a phase III, international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, participants received approximately 12 months of treatment with placebo or the 300 IR tablet. The primary end point was the average total combined score during 4 weeks at the end of the treatment period.

RESULTS

A total of 1607 participants were randomized, and 1476 (including 555 [37.6%] with concomitant mild controlled asthma at inclusion) comprised the full analysis set. Over the primary evaluation period, the least squares mean average total combined score in the 300 IR group (3.62) was significantly lower (P < .0001) than in the placebo group (4.35), with a relative least squares mean difference of -16.9% (95% CI, -24.0% to -9.2%). All prespecified secondary end points were consistently improved in the 300 IR group, relative to placebo. The 300 IR tablet was generally well tolerated. Treatment-related adverse events (mainly mild or moderate local reactions) were reported for 51.0% of the patients in the 300 IR group and 14.9% in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

The 300 IR sublingual HDM tablet is an effective, safe treatment for HDM-induced allergic rhinitis.

Clinical Practice of Allergen Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis and Asthma: An Expert Panel Report

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) reduces symptoms and medication use associated with allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis and allergic asthma. Although several AIT guidelines exist, there remain unanswered questions about AIT that are relevant to everyday practice. Our objective was to prepare an evidence-based overview addressing the practical aspects of AIT in clinical practice based on published evidence and the experience of international experts in the field. Topics covered include interpretation and translation of clinical trial data into everyday clinical practice (eg, allergen doses and treatment duration), assessment of risk and treatment of local and systemic allergic reactions, recommendations for improvement of AIT guidelines, and identification of appropriate data for seeking regulatory approval, to name a few. Many informational gaps in AIT practice need further evaluation as products and practices evolve.

Venom immunotherapy in patients with clonal mast cell disorders: IgG4 correlates with protection

BACKGROUND

Patients with clonal mast cell disorders (cMCD), systemic mastocytosis (SM) and monoclonal mast cell activation syndrome (MMAS), represent an increased risk for Hymenoptera venom anaphylaxis (HVA). Lifelong venom immunotherapy (VIT) is recommended; however, its efficacy and safety are controversial. Hence, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of VIT in HVA patients with cMCD.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted among 46 patients with Vespula venom allergy who had experienced severe HVA, 32 cMCD (22 with SM and 10 with MMAS) and 14 controls. There were no differences between cMCD patients and controls in age (58 vs 66) and duration of VIT (47 vs 48 months), respectively.

RESULTS

During VIT, 11 (34%) cMCD patients experienced adverse reactions (ARs) (7% in controls), including 1 anaphylaxis. There were 23 re-stings in 17 (53%) patients during VIT. Of episodes, four (17%) presented with anaphylaxis, 14 (60%) presented with local reaction, and five (23%) were asymptomatic. In 11 episodes (48%), the patient did not take epinephrine, of these 8 (73%) presented with local reaction, and 3 (27%) were asymptomatic. Patient-based protection from anaphylaxis was 76% (4/17) in cMCD vs. 100% in controls during VIT. The venom-specific IgG4 concentrations increased during VIT (P < .001) although tryptase and IgE were unaltered.

CONCLUSION

Both safety and efficacy of VIT in cMCD patients were slightly reduced than controls. Severe ARs were rare. The elevated IgG4 levels may be a biomarker for efficacy of VIT in cMCD patients, as it correlates with protection from re-stings.

Determination of the minimally important difference in a nasal symptom score in house dust mite allergy

BACKGROUND

House dust mite (HDM) allergens are responsible for the most prevalent persistent respiratory allergies. Clinical trials in this field often use a four-component nasal symptom score (T4NSS) as a measure of efficacy.

METHODS

The present observational, prospective, multinational, multicenter study determined the minimal important difference (MID) for a T4NSS in children, adolescents, and adults with physician-diagnosed HDM-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR). Patients rated the T4NSS daily, a 15-point global rating of change scale (GRCS) and the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire weekly. The MID was determined primarily by using a regression method with a GRCS threshold of 2.

RESULTS

A total of 546 patients (210 adults, 133 adolescents, and 203 children) were included; 92.6% of the patients had moderate-to-severe AR, and 30.1% had concomitant mild asthma. During the first week, the mean ± standard deviation T4NSS was 5.68 ± 2.76 in adults, 5.34 ± 2.66 in adolescents, and 5.07 ± 2.48 in children. In a GRCS regression analysis, the MID [95% confidence interval] for the T4NSS was -0.90 [-1.06;-0.75] overall (n = 509), -0.94 [-1.19;-0.69] in children (n = 187), -0.74 [-1.07;-0.41] in adolescents (n = 125), and -1.04 [-1.29;-0.79] in adults (n = 197). The MID did not differ greatly from one disease severity tertile to another. Confirmatory distribution-based analyses yielded overall MID values of -0.87 for the first week of the study and -0.93 for the week 2-week 1 difference.

CONCLUSION

The MID for improvement in the T4NSS is at least -0.90 units in children, adolescents, and adults suffering from HDM-induced AR This value could be rounded up to -1 unit for convenience.

Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Clinical Trials in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review

Although regulatory authorities have recently recommended the use of a combined symptom-medication score as a primary efficacy end point, none has been psychometrically validated. Here, we sought to determine to what extent allergic rhinitis (AR)-related patient-reported outcomes (symptom scores, medication scores, disease control scores, and satisfaction or quality-of-life scales) have been assessed for construct, content, and/or criterion validity, reliability, responsiveness, and the minimal clinically important difference. We searched the PubMed database from January 1997 to June 2018 with logical combinations of key words related to validation, AR, and patient-rated outcomes and scales. From a total of 1705 potentially relevant publications, 55 were reviewed. Despite the current emphasis on a combined symptom-medication score for evaluating the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy in AR, symptom scores have not been extensively validated, and we did not find any publications describing the validation of a medication score. Disease control scales (mainly the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test, the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test, and the Allergic Rhinitis Control Test) and health-related quality-of-life scales (mainly the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire [RQLQ] and the mini-RQLQ) have been extensively validated in AR but have some practical disadvantages as primary efficacy criteria in clinical trials.

Early nonreactivity in the conjunctival provocation test predicts beneficial outcome of sublingual immunotherapy

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice needs a common parameter that can provide an early, reliable estimation of the outcome of sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in an upcoming pollen season. We investigated whether the conjunctival provocation test (CPT) can predict the beneficial outcome of SLIT in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis after 4 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

We conducted two separate prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trials. Adults 18-75 years of age received placebo or SLIT tablets containing tree or grass pollen allergoids and underwent CPTs. Participants receiving SLIT were divided into two groups (reactive, nonreactive) according to their CPT reactions after 4 weeks of treatment. These two groups were compared with regard to clinical outcome parameters (total combined score, rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score, total rescue medication score, well days) assessed during the pollen season for the 14-day (tree) or 30-day (tree/grass) peaks and for the entire 60-day seasons. Participants' global evaluations of therapy after completing treatment were also compared.

RESULTS

The tree pollen trial randomized 188 participants; 182 participants were evaluable, 76 of whom received SLIT and were suitable for this post hoc analysis. The grass pollen trial included 90 participants; 82 participants were evaluable, 44 of whom underwent SLIT. Comparing SLIT participants who reacted to the CPT after 4 weeks (tree: 77.6%; grass: 79.5%) with those who ceased to show a reaction (tree: 22.4%; grass: 20.5%) (tree: P = 0.0001; grass: P = 0.003), the total combined score for the 14-day (P = 0.017) and 30-day peaks (P = 0.042) as well as the rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score assessed for the 14-day peak (P = 0.024) were significantly lower in the nonreactive group of the tree pollen trial. In the grass pollen trial, the nonreactive group rated their SLIT treatment significantly better (P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Using clinically meaningful outcome parameters during the pollen season, both trials independently led to similar results when comparing participants' reactions to the CPT 4 weeks after beginning SLIT. These results suggest that CPT allows an early estimation of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms before an upcoming season. Thus, the CPT can be used as a valuable parameter to predict the beneficial outcome of ongoing SLIT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Both trials registered with the Medical Ethics Committee of the North Rhine Medical Council (EudraCT numbers 2012-004916-79 (grass pollen trial) and 2013-002129-43 (tree pollen trial)) and the German Federal Ministry of Health (Paul-Ehrlich-Institut).

The global development and clinical efficacy of sublingual tablet immunotherapy for allergic diseases

Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is a treatment option for respiratory allergy that is complementary to pharmacotherapy, with a distinct mechanism of action. Alternative methods to subcutaneous administration of AIT that enable patients to safely self-administer AIT is considered an unmet clinical need. The sublingual immunotherapy tablet (SLIT-tablet) is an orally disintegrating pharmaceutical formulation (oral lyophilisate) containing standardized allergens. SLIT-tablets have been developed for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) of cedar-pollen, grass-pollen, ragweed-pollen, tree-pollen, and house dust mite allergies. It is a once-daily tablet treatment to be self-administered after the first dose has been provided under the supervision of a physician with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases. Once the first dose is adequately tolerated, subsequent doses may be self-administered. SLIT-tablets have proven efficacy for allergic rhinitis (AR) with and without conjunctivitis (C) and allergic asthma (AA) in adults, children, and poly-sensitized allergic patients. Meta-analyses indicate that SLIT-tablets have superior or similar efficacy compared with anti-allergic pharmacotherapies for seasonal AR and superior efficacy for perennial AR. SLIT-tablets have also demonstrated clinically relevant improvements of asthma, with significant reductions in the following: daily inhaled corticosteroid use, risk of asthma exacerbations, and asthma symptoms. SLIT-tablets are generally well tolerated, with a low risk of systemic allergic reactions. The most common treatment-related adverse events are mild-moderate oral reactions. Current evidence supports SLIT-tablets to be considered as an alternative or add-on treatment to pharmacotherapy for AR/C and asthma. Future SLIT developments may include early intervention to prevent the development or progression of allergic disease in children.