Conjunctival provocation tests: prediction of seasonal allergy

Validation of AI-based software for objectification of conjunctival provocation test

Background

Provocation tests are widely used in allergology to objectively reveal patients' sensitivity to specific allergens. The objective quantification of an allergic reaction is a crucial characteristic of these tests. Because of the absence of objective quantitative measurements, the conjunctival provocation test (CPT) is a less frequently used method despite its sensitivity and simplicity.

Objective

We developed a new artificial intelligence (AI)-based method, called AllergoEye, for quantitative evaluation of conjunctival allergic reactions and validated it in a clinical study.

Methods

AllergoEye was implemented as a 2-component system. The first component is based on an Android smartphone camera for screening and imaging the patient's eye, and the second is personal computer-based for image analysis and quantification. For the validation of AllergoEye, an open-label, prospective, monocentric study was carried out on 41 patients. Standardized CPT was performed with sequential titration of grass allergens in 4 dilutions, with the reaction evaluated by subjective/qualitative symptom scores and by quantitative AllergoEye scores.

Results

AllergoEye demonstrated high sensitivity (98%) and specificity (90%) as compared with human estimation of allergic reaction. Tuning cutoff thresholds allowed us to increase the specificity of AllergoEye to 97%, at which point the correlation between detected sensitivity to allergen and specific IgE carrier-polymer system class becomes obvious. Strikingly, such correlation was not found with sensitivity to allergen detected on the basis of subjective and qualitative symptom scores.

Conclusion

The clinical validation demonstrated that AllergoEye is a sensitive and efficient instrument for objective measurement of allergic reactions in CPT for clinical studies as well as for routine therapy control.

EAACI position paper on the clinical use of the bronchial allergen challenge: Unmet needs and research priorities

Allergic asthma (AA) is a common asthma phenotype, and its diagnosis requires both the demonstration of IgE-sensitization to aeroallergens and the causative role of this sensitization as a major driver of asthma symptoms. Therefore, a bronchial allergen challenge (BAC) would be occasionally required to identify AA patients among atopic asthmatics. Nevertheless, BAC is usually considered a research tool only, with existing protocols being tailored to mild asthmatics and research needs (eg long washout period for inhaled corticosteroids). Consequently, existing BAC protocols are not designed to be performed in moderate-to-severe asthmatics or in clinical practice. The correct diagnosis of AA might help select patients for immunomodulatory therapies. Allergen sublingual immunotherapy is now registered and recommended for controlled or partially controlled patients with house dust mite-driven AA and with FEV1 ≥ 70%. Allergen avoidance is costly and difficult to implement for the management of AA, so the proper selection of patients is also beneficial. In this position paper, the EAACI Task Force proposes a methodology for clinical BAC that would need to be validated in future studies. The clinical implementation of BAC could ultimately translate into a better phenotyping of asthmatics in real life, and into a more accurate selection of patients for long-term and costly management pathways.

Allergen exposure chambers: implementation in clinical trials in allergen immunotherapy

Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) have been developed for controlled allergen challenges of allergic patients mimicking natural exposure. As such, these facilities have been utilized e.g., for proof of concept, dose finding or the demonstration of onset of action and treatment effect sizes of antiallergic medication. Moreover, clinical effects of and immunological mechanisms in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) have been investigated in AECs. In Europe AIT products have to fulfill regulatory requirements for obtaining market authorization through Phase I to III clinical trials. Multiple Phase II (dose-range-finding or proof-of-concept) trials on AIT products have been performed in AECs. However, they are not accepted by regulatory bodies for pivotal (Phase III) trials and a more thorough technical and clinical validation is requested. Recently, a Position Paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has outlined unmet needs in further development of AECs. The following review aims to address some of these needs on the basis of recently published data in the first part, whereas the second part overviews published examples of most relevant Phase II trials in AIT performed in AEC facilities.

Strong dose response after immunotherapy with PQ grass using conjunctival provocation testing

Background

Pollinex Quattro Grass (PQ Grass) is an effective, well-tolerated, short pre-seasonal subcutaneous immunotherapy to treat seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (SAR) due to grass pollen. In this Phase II study, 4 cumulative doses of PQ Grass and placebo were evaluated to determine its optimal cumulative dose.

Methods

Patients with grass pollen-induced SAR were randomised to either a cumulative dose of PQ Grass (5100, 14400, 27600 and 35600 SU) or placebo, administered as 6 weekly subcutaneous injections over 31-41 days (EudraCT number 2017-000333-31). Standardized conjunctival provocation tests (CPT) using grass pollen allergen extract were performed at screening, baseline and post-treatment to determine the total symptom score (TSS) assessed approximately 4 weeks after dosing. Three models were pre-defined (Emax, logistic, and linear in log-dose model) to evaluate a dose response relationship.

Results

In total, 95.5% of the 447 randomized patients received all 6 injections. A highly statistically significant (p < 0.0001), monotonic dose response was observed for all three pre-specified models. All treatment groups showed a statistically significant decrease from baseline in TSS compared to placebo, with the largest decrease observed after 27600 SU (p < 0.0001). The full course of 6 injections was completed by 95.5% of patients. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across PQ Grass groups, and mostly mild and transient in nature.

Conclusions

PQ Grass demonstrated a strong curvilinear dose response in TSS following CPT without compromising its safety profile.