Immunologic effects and tolerability profile of in-season initiation of a standardized-quality grass allergy immunotherapy tablet: a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis

Clinical efficacy and safety of coseasonal initiation of Artemisia annua sublingual immunotherapy on patients with Artemisia-induced rhinoconjunctivitis

PURPOSE

Patients with seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SARC) might seek evaluation and treatment when symptoms appear during the pollen season. It is unclear whether coseasonal-initiated sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) would be effective and safe for SARC. This study aims to identify the feasibility of initiating Artemisia annua SLIT during the pollen season.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients with Artemisia-induced SARC were equally recruited into the SLIT and control groups during the pollen season in 2021. The SLIT group was treated with standardized Artemisia annua SLIT drops using a modified dosing schedule combined with pharmacotherapy, while the control group only received pharmacotherapy. Diary cards for clinical symptoms, rescue medication use, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded during the pollen seasons. Objective measures, including average daily combined scores of medication and rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms (CSMRS), total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (TRSS), total medication score (TMS), and the score of visual analog scale (VAS) were calculated to evaluate the efficacy of SLIT. Safety was assessed through the occurrence and severity of AEs.

RESULTS

In total, 80.0 % (24/30) patients in the SLIT group and 86.67 % (26/30) patients in the control group completed the study. The severity of SARC, which was assessed by objective measures including CSMRS, TRSS, TMS, and VAS of the SLIT group and the control group, was generally at the same level during the 2021 pollen season, except for the medical consumption, which the score of TMS was slightly higher in the SLIT group. After one year of treatment, the scores of CSMRS, TRSS, and VAS in the SLIT group were significantly improved compared with the control group (all P < 0.001), and the difference in the TMS between the two groups disappeared (P > 0.05). Moreover, clinical improvement of the four objective measures was also observed in the SLIT group compared with the baseline value (P < 0.001). Overall, 9/24 patients in the SLIT group experienced mild local AEs, and two patients experienced mild systemic AEs during the SLIT period.

CONCLUSIONS

This controlled preliminary study identified that coseasonal-initiated Artemisia annua SLIT treatment for one year was generally safe and effective in improving the symptoms of SARC patients induced by Artemisia annua pollen.

Mechanisms of Allergen Immunotherapy and Potential Biomarkers for Clinical Evaluation

Allergen-immunotherapy (AIT) is an efficacious and disease-modifying treatment option for IgE-mediated diseases. Among these allergic rhinitis, insect venom allergy, food allergy, and allergic asthma are the most common candidates for AIT. AIT gives rise to clinical immunotolerance which may last for years after the treatment cessation. Mechanisms of AIT include suppression of allergic inflammation in target tissues and stimulation of the production of blocking antibodies, especially IgG4 and IgA. These mechanisms are followed by a reduction of underlying allergen-specific Th2 cell-driven responses to the allergens. Tolerance induction takes place through the desensitization of effector cells and stimulation of regulatory T cells that show their effects by mechanisms involving cell-cell cross-talk, but also other mechanisms, e.g., by the production of immunomodulatory cytokines such as, e.g., IL-10 and TGF-beta. From a personalized medical perspective, there is a need for clinical biomarkers of value in selecting responders and optimizing patient care during AIT. Also, a deeper understanding of underlying mechanistic processes will improve AIT's future outcomes. In this paper, the current knowledge of mechanisms in AIT is reviewed with a special focus on biomarkers of this therapy.

Changes in Immunologic Indicators During Allergen-Specific Immunotherapy for Allergic Rhinitis and Determinants of Variability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

To date, there are no generally recognized biomarkers for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) and even the changes in immunological indicators during AIT are inconsistent in different publications.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to quantify the immunological changes that occur during AIT and identify the determinants of heterogeneity.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials of AIT published in the past 10 years were searched in Medline, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Data on immunological indicators were extracted, and the characteristics of the included studies were collected. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted for each indicator. The study was registered on the PROSPERO website (CRD42020176127).

RESULTS

We reviewed 1898 studies. Forty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, and 31 studies were included in the quantitative analyses. Subset analyses by time demonstrated that serum allergen-specific IgE (sIgE) of AIT patients increased in the first 12 months, then decreased and became slightly lower than that of control patients. Allergen-specific IgG4 (sIgG4) was elevated in the AIT group during and after treatment. IgE-blocking factor (IgE-BF) was increased and IgE-facilitated allergen binding (IgE-FAB) was reduced in AIT patients. Both of them of the 2 factors were associated with clinical efficacy in the multivariate regression analysis. sIgE/sIgG4 decreased in AIT patients, while there was no change in total IgE.

CONCLUSION

The levels of serum sIgE and sIgG4 during AIT showed a time-dependent pattern. IgE-BF and IgE-FAB should be further investigated as biomarkers for predicting and monitoring AIT efficacy.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. Fifty-two studies were identified and synthesised in the original Cochrane Review in 2015, but questions remained about the safety and efficacy of sublingual immunotherapy for people with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

The original searches for trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles found trials up to 25 March 2015. The most recent search for trials for the current update was conducted on 29 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials, irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma. We selected outcomes to reflect recommended outcomes for asthma clinical trials and those most important to people with asthma. Primary outcomes were asthma exacerbations requiring a visit to the emergency department (ED) or admission to hospital, validated measures of quality of life, and all-cause serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes were asthma symptom scores, exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, response to provocation tests, and dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data, and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We considered the strength of evidence for all primary and secondary outcomes using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria for this update, including 52 studies from the original review. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, varied in duration from one day to three years, and recruited participants with mild or intermittent asthma, often with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Twenty-three studies recruited adults and teenagers; 31 recruited only children; three recruited both; and nine did not specify. The pattern of reporting and results remained largely unchanged from the original review despite 14 further studies and a 50% increase in participants studied (5077 to 7944). Reporting of primary efficacy outcomes to measure the impact of SLIT on asthma exacerbations and quality of life was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence; 16 studies did not contribute any data, and a further six studies could only be included in a post hoc analysis of all adverse events. Allocation procedures were generally not well described; about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of performance or detection bias (or both); and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies. The primary outcome in most studies did not align with those of interest to the review (mostly asthma or rhinitis symptoms), and only two small studies reported our primary outcome of exacerbations requiring an ED or hospital visit; the pooled estimate from these studies suggests SLIT may reduce exacerbations compared with placebo or usual care, but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.20; n = 108; very low-certainty evidence). Nine studies reporting quality of life could not be combined in a meta-analysis and, whilst the direction of effect mostly favoured SLIT, the effects were often uncertain and small. SLIT likely does not increase SAEs compared with placebo or usual care, and analysis by risk difference suggests no more than 1 in 100 people taking SLIT will have a serious adverse event (RD -0.0004, 95% CI -0.0072 to 0.0064; participants = 4810; studies = 29; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding secondary outcomes, asthma symptom and medication scores were mostly measured with non-validated scales, which precluded meaningful meta-analysis or interpretation, but there was a general trend of SLIT benefit over placebo. Changes in ICS use (MD -17.13 µg/d, 95% CI -61.19 to 26.93; low-certainty evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events), and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.82; low-certainty evidence) were not often reported. Results were imprecise and included the possibility of important benefit or little effect and, in some cases, potential harm from SLIT. More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.67; high-certainty evidence; participants = 4251; studies = 27), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild. Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite continued study in the field, the evidence for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life remains too limited to draw clinically useful conclusions about the efficacy of SLIT for people with asthma. Trials mostly recruited mixed populations with mild and intermittent asthma and/or rhinitis and focused on non-validated symptom and medication scores. The review findings suggest that SLIT may be a safe option for people with well-controlled mild-to-moderate asthma and rhinitis who are likely to be at low risk of serious harm, but the role of SLIT for people with uncontrolled asthma requires further evaluation.

GRAZAX®: a sublingual immunotherapy vaccine for Hay fever treatment: from concept to commercialization

Allergen immunotherapy has been used for more than 100 y, but only recently underlying immunological mechanisms have started to be understood. New Allergy vaccines are now considered to be full pharmaceutical products, that should comply with general as well as specific pharmaceutical legal framework. GRAZAX® is the first global allergy vaccine developed in compliance with the new legal environment and is thus a reference for developing new allergy vaccines. Here, we provide a rationale description of GRAZAX®, providing a sequential description of its pharmaceutical and clinical development. With more than 25 clinical trials, involving more than 8000 patients, including as well three 5-y prospective clinical trials, GRAZAX® is a key product to understand the unique position of allergen-specific immunotherapy as a disease-modifying intervention.

Intra-Seasonal Initiation of the SQ-Standardised Grass Allergy Immunotherapy Tablet Routinely Applied by Allergy Specialists and General Practitioners with Experience in Treatment of Allergy: A Non-Interventional Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Intra-seasonal start of treatment with the SQ® grass sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablet (GRAZAX®, ALK, Denmark) has been previously demonstrated to be well-tolerated. The objective of our study was to investigate the tolerability of intra-seasonal start of treatment comparing patients treated by allergists and general practitioners experienced in treatment of allergy (GPs).

METHODS

In a non-interventional, open-label, observational study, data on intra-seasonal start with the SQ® grass SLIT tablet were recorded in patients treated by allergists and GPs in Germany. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded by the physicians at first administration and during the 1-3-month observation period. The tablets taken and any AEs were recorded by the patients in diaries for the first 14 days.

RESULTS

Treatment with the SQ® grass SLIT tablet was started in 198 patients, and in 179 intra-seasonal (allergists: 140, GPs: 39) and 19 post-seasonal; average treatment period was 47 days. AEs related to intra-seasonal start were reported in 43.6% of patients; no relevant differences between allergists and GPs were observed. In the subgroup of GPs, patients were younger (p = 0.0191), had more frequently asthma (p = 0.0043), more patients used symptomatic medication in the previous pollen season (p = 0.0198) and were more frequently treated for other diseases (p = 0.0467). In the allergists subgroup, more diagnostic allergy tests were applied (p < 0.0001) with less anti-allergic premedication at first administration (p = 0.0026).

CONCLUSION

The intra-seasonal start of treatment with the SQ® grass SLIT tablet in patients routinely treated by allergists or GPs with experience in treatment of allergy was well-tolerated, although patient characteristics were different with respect to age, frequency of asthma and concomitant allergies, use of symptomatic medication in the previous grass pollen season and concomitant treatment of other diseases. The safety profile from a previous placebo-controlled clinical trial and data from a previous real-life study on intra-seasonal start performed by allergists were confirmed.

Biomarkers for monitoring clinical efficacy of allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma: an EAACI Position Paper

BACKGROUND

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is an effective treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) with or without asthma. It is important to note that due to the complex interaction between patient, allergy triggers, symptomatology and vaccines used for AIT, some patients do not respond optimally to the treatment. Furthermore, there are no validated or generally accepted candidate biomarkers that are predictive of the clinical response to AIT. Clinical management of patients receiving AIT and efficacy in randomised controlled trials for drug development could be enhanced by predictive biomarkers.

METHOD

The EAACI taskforce reviewed all candidate biomarkers used in clinical trials of AR patients with/without asthma in a literature review. Biomarkers were grouped into seven domains: (i) IgE (total IgE, specific IgE and sIgE/Total IgE ratio), (ii) IgG-subclasses (sIgG1, sIgG4 including SIgE/IgG4 ratio), (iii) Serum inhibitory activity for IgE (IgE-FAB and IgE-BF), (iv) Basophil activation, (v) Cytokines and Chemokines, (vi) Cellular markers (T regulatory cells, B regulatory cells and dendritic cells) and (vii) In vivo biomarkers (including provocation tests?).

RESULTS

All biomarkers were reviewed in the light of their potential advantages as well as their respective drawbacks. Unmet needs and specific recommendations on all seven domains were addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

It is recommended to explore the use of allergen-specific IgG4 as a biomarker for compliance. sIgE/tIgE and IgE-FAB are considered as potential surrogate candidate biomarkers. Cytokine/chemokines and cellular reponses provided insight into the mechanisms of AIT. More studies for confirmation and interpretation of the possible association with the clinical response to AIT are needed.

Therapeutic vaccines for allergic disease

Allergic diseases are highly prevalent worldwide and affect all age groups, contributing to a high personal and socioeconomic burden. Treatment with an “allergy vaccine” or allergen immunotherapy aims to provide long-lasting benefits by inducing unresponsiveness to the relevant antigen. The consequences of the therapy are considered disease modifying and range from dampening of the immediate immune responses to the reduction of secondary tissue remodeling. Furthermore, allergen immunotherapy interventions have a potential to slow or cease the development of additional allergic manifestations with a long-term overall effect on morbidity and quality of life. Here, we review proposed mechanisms underlying the therapeutic effects of immunotherapy for allergic diseases. Further, we discuss both standard and novel approaches and possible future directions in the development of allergen immunotherapy.

How does the efficacy and safety of Oralair(®) compare to other products on the market?

Due to differences between allergen immunotherapy (AIT) trials in patient populations, trial design (including primary efficacy variables), the definition of a pollen season, data analysis, and comparisons between AIT products with existing data, is not possible nor valid. The efficacy of two grass pollen AIT tablets, Oralair^® and Grazax^®/Grastek^®, should not be compared by looking at the percentage of score improvement in their respective trials. However, the evidence available concerning the efficacy and safety in trials can be compared by paying close attention to the scientific quality of the trials, details in the administration schedules, and safety issues. It can be concluded due to the high level of evidence available, that Oralair^® is effective in a pre (2-months)-coseasonal schedule to reduce symptoms and medication use, and improve a patients’ quality of life during the treatment season. For the long-term, where the quality of efficacy evidence is moderate at 2-year posttreatment due to a high dropout rate, the pre (4-months)-coseasonal schedule should be used. No clinical efficacy data exists for starting treatment in-season, but the clinical onset of action of Oralair^® is detectable after only 1 month of treatment. In the pivotal trials in Europe and the USA, no tablet-related epinephrine was needed, though some rare severe local reactions have been reported. Research for Grazax^®/Grastek^® showed that the long-term efficacy needs a continuous 3-year administration (moderate-low quality evidence available), and in two patients, tablet-related epinephrine was given. Further details on the comparative efficacy of both tablets would only be possible if both were evaluated in the same, adequately powered trial.

Sublingual immunotherapy for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common long-term respiratory disease affecting approximately 300 million people worldwide. Approximately half of people with asthma have an important allergic component to their disease, which may provide an opportunity for targeted treatment. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) aims to reduce asthma symptoms by delivering increasing doses of an allergen (e.g. house dust mite, pollen extract) under the tongue to induce immune tolerance. However, it is not clear whether the sublingual delivery route is safe and effective in asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy compared with placebo or standard care for adults and children with asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/) and reference lists of all primary studies and review articles. The search is up to date as of 25 March 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of blinding or duration, that evaluated sublingual immunotherapy versus placebo or as an add-on to standard asthma management. We included both adults and children with asthma of any severity and with any allergen-sensitisation pattern. We included studies that recruited participants with asthma, rhinitis, or both, providing at least 80% of trial participants had a diagnosis of asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included trials, extracted numerical data and assessed risk of bias, all of which were cross-checked for accuracy. We resolved disagreements by discussion.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) or risk differences (RDs) using study participants as the unit of analysis; we analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and presented results in the 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met our inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 5077 participants to comparisons of interest. Most studies were double-blind and placebo-controlled, but studies varied in duration from one day to three years. Most participants had mild or intermittent asthma, often with co-morbid allergic rhinitis. Eighteen studies recruited only adults, 25 recruited only children and several recruited both or did not specify (n = 9).With the exception of adverse events, reporting of outcomes of interest to this review was infrequent, and selective reporting may have had a serious effect on the completeness of the evidence. Allocation procedures generally were not well described, about a quarter of the studies were at high risk of bias for performance or detection bias or both and participant attrition was high or unknown in around half of the studies.One short study reported exacerbations requiring a hospital visit and observed no adverse events. Five studies reported quality of life, but the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. Serious adverse events were infrequent, and analysis using risk differences suggests that no more than 1 in 100 are likely to suffer a serious adverse event as a result of treatment with SLIT (RD 0.0012, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0077 to 0.0102; participants = 2560; studies = 22; moderate-quality evidence).Within secondary outcomes, wide but varied reporting of largely unvalidated asthma symptom and medication scores precluded meaningful meta-analysis; a general trend suggested SLIT benefit over placebo, but variation in scales meant that results were difficult to interpret.Changes in inhaled corticosteroid use in micrograms per day (MD 35.10 mcg/d, 95% CI -50.21 to 120.42; low-quality evidence), exacerbations requiring oral steroids (studies = 2; no events) and bronchial provocation (SMD 0.69, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.43; very low-quality evidence) were not often reported. This led to many imprecise estimates with wide confidence intervals that included the possibility of both benefit and harm from SLIT.More people taking SLIT had adverse events of any kind compared with control (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.38; low-quality evidence; participants = 1755; studies = 19), but events were usually reported to be transient and mild.Lack of data prevented most of the planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lack of data for important outcomes such as exacerbations and quality of life and use of different unvalidated symptom and medication scores have limited our ability to draw a clinically useful conclusion. Further research using validated scales and important outcomes for patients and decision makers is needed so that SLIT can be properly assessed as clinical treatment for asthma. Very few serious adverse events have been reported, but most studies have included patients with intermittent or mild asthma, so we cannot comment on the safety of SLIT for those with moderate or severe asthma. SLIT is associated with increased risk of all adverse events.

Oral/sublingual Phleum pretense grass tablet (Grazax/Grastek) to treat allergic rhinitis in the USA

With the approval of two grass tablets and one ragweed tablet for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) by the US FDA in April 2014, the practice of allergy immunotherapy (AIT) in the USA has dramatically changed. Until this time, there were no approved allergen extracts for sublingual administration and physicians who prescribed SLIT for their patients did so without full knowledge of proper dosing or assurance of its safety. Now sublingual allergen tablets are available that have proven safe and effective doses. This article describes, in detail, the studies that have been conducted with a timothy grass SLIT tablet and draws some comparisons to the alternative 5-grass SLIT tablet. It also attempts to predict what will be the impact of the introduction of these tablets on the practice of AIT in the USA over the next few years.

Arguing the misconceptions in allergen-specific immunotherapy

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has a clear evidence of efficacy and safety, as shown by a number of meta-analyses. However, a number of issues limit the use of AIT, many of them being not actually supported by solid data from the literature. In particular, several contraindications to AIT deserve to be argued, being needed to accurately balance in single cases the benefits versus the disadvantages. This concerns comorbidities, such as autoimmune diseases and malignancies, concomitant drug treatments, particularly β-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, pregnancy, patient's age, the severity of asthma, allergen polysensitization and the period of starting the treatment. Another important aspect producing misconceptions on AIT is the quality of the allergen extracts, because currently a patient with respiratory allergy to a given source may be prescribed to treat his allergyby products with very different quality. Improving characterization and standardization of allergen extracts will pave the way to the general acknowledgment of AIT as an effective treatment.

Safety and tolerability of an intra-seasonal initiation of the SQ-standardised grass allergy immunotherapy tablet: a non-interventional observational study investigating the feasibility during routine administration

Background and Objective

For specific immunotherapy to pollen allergy, a pre-seasonal start of treatment is recommended by international guidelines. In a placebo-controlled clinical trial with adults, an intra-seasonal start of therapy with the SQ-standardised grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) was well-tolerated. The objective of our study was to investigate the feasibility of an intra-seasonal start of grass AIT administered during routine treatment by practising allergists.

Methods

In a multicentre, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled, non-interventional observational study, data on routine treatment with grass AIT were recorded in patients who started administration of tablets within the 2010 grass pollen season in Germany. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded by the physician at visits for the first administration in the clinic and at the end of the 1- to 3-month observation period. AEs and daily administration of the tablet were recorded by the patients in diaries for the first 14 days. Treatment satisfaction, global tolerability and perceived effect of treatment were assessed by the patient and physician at the end of the study.

Results

A total of 662 patients were treated with 1 tablet daily by 286 physicians. Grass AIT was started intra-seasonally in 620 patients and post-season in 42. The average treatment period was 51.6 days. AEs were recorded in 52.1 % of all patients and in 35.6 % at first administration, with throat irritation (21.3 %), paraesthesia oral (19.9 %), oral pruritus (14.0 %) and ear pruritus (10.3 %) being the most frequent AEs related to grass AIT. The intensity of the AEs was assessed as mild or moderate in 42.1 % of patients and severe in 8.0 %; AEs related to grass AIT were classified as serious in two patients. Grass AIT was discontinued due to AEs in 7.7 % of patients. Diaries were evaluable for 77.0 % of patients; the average rate of patients with AEs decreased continuously from 44.7 % (day 1) to 26.9 % (day 14) and the average daily rate of patients who forgot to take their tablet was about 5 %. Overall tolerability was assessed by 87.2 % of patients and 91.4 % physicians as “very good” or “good” and effectiveness of treatment was assessed as “very good” or “good” in 81.4 % of patients and 85.8 % of physicians. More than 90 % of patients and physicians were satisfied with the treatment.

Conclusion

The tolerability data for an intra-seasonal start of grass AIT during routine treatment confirm the safety profile from the previous controlled trial. Tolerability was assessed as good in combination with high satisfaction with the treatment and compliance.

Immunologic effect and tolerability of intra-seasonal subcutaneous immunotherapy with an 8-day up-dosing schedule to 10,000 standardized quality-units: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend that allergen-specific immunotherapy for pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis is initiated preseasonally. However, because subjects often present to physicians with allergy symptoms during the pollen season, "within-season" initiation of specific immunotherapy is of special interest.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the immunomodulatory effects and tolerability of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with Standardized Quality (SQ) 6-grass mix and rye allergen extract, using an 8-day intra-seasonal up-dosing schedule to 10,000 SQ-units (SQ-U).

METHODS

In a 9-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (mean age, 34.6 years; 99.3% whites) with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis (mean disease duration, 15.1 years) were randomized 3:1 to receive SCIT or placebo. Treatment was initiated during the 2008 pollen season, with an 8-day up-dosing from 100 to 10,000 SQ-U (6 daily injections) followed by 2 maintenance injections of 10,000 SQ-U at intervals of 2 and 4 weeks, respectively. The primary end point examined immunologic effects, assessing the difference in IgE-blocking factor (serum components competing with IgE for allergen binding) between SCIT and placebo at week 9. Secondary/explorative end points included the difference in IgE-blocking factor, specific IgG(4), and specific IgE at various times. Tolerability (adverse events, local and systemic allergic reactions) of the up-dosing schedule was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 148 treated subjects 144 (SCIT n = 109; placebo n = 35) were analyzed for the primary parameter. Immunologic response (significantly higher increase in IgE-blocking factor and IgG(4) levels) occurred with SCIT versus placebo at week 9 (IgE-blocking factor, P = 0.0017; IgG(4,)P = 0.0215). Significant differences were observed as early as week 3. AEs were reported in 60.7% of SCIT- and 30.6% of placebo-treated subjects, with no treatment-related serious AEs. Local allergic reactions occurred in 46.4% of SCIT and 8.3% of placebo subjects (χ(2) test, P < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed between groups in the incidence of systemic reactions (7.1% SCIT vs 5.6% placebo; χ(2) test, P = 0.7413).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial provides the first description of short (8-day) intra-seasonal up-dosing with SCIT, which induced immunologic effects after only 3 weeks, and was generally well tolerated, although it induced a marked increase in the rate of local reactions compared with placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00807547; ALK trial ID SHX0562.