Clinical trials in allergen immunotherapy in the age group of children and adolescents: current concepts and future needs

The evidence for commercial house dust mite immunotherapy products: A pragmatic systematic review with narrative synthesis

House dust mite (HDM) allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has an established role in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) triggered by HDM sensitization. We aimed to identify all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AR and AA in humans and to summarize the evidence for AIT products that are currently manufactured and available for clinical use. A total of 56 eligible double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of HDM AIT for the treatment of AA and/or AR in humans fit the inclusion criteria and investigated a total of 14 commercial AIT products; together, the 56 studies enrolled a total of 14,619 patients. Of the 56 studies, 39 studies investigated the current manufacturer-recommended maintenance dose (MRMD) of the product, and 17 investigated other doses. We identified 39 studies (12,539 patients randomized) for 8 sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) products and 17 studies (2,080 patients randomized) for subcutaneous immunotherapy products. For AR, 3 products, the ALK 12 standardized-quality (SQ-HDM) SLIT tablet, the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, and the SG 300 index of reactivity SLIT tablet, had both dose-finding studies (DFSs) and phase III definitive studies (DSs) to demonstrate efficacy of the MRMD of the product. For AA, 2 products, the ALK 12 SQ-HDM SLIT tablet and the ALK 6 SQ-HDM tablet, had both DFSs and DSs for the MRMD. No subcutaneous immunotherapy product had a paired DFS and DS supporting the MRMD. A total of 30 studies of products no longer commercially manufactured were excluded. This study will help to inform clinical care and product selection for the treatment of HDM-induced AR and AA.

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.

Subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy in the treatment of allergic respiratory disease

Subcutaneous immunotherapy is recognized as a cornerstone in the management of allergic respiratory disease in patients who are properly characterized with allergy and with allergic rhinoconjunctivis and/or well-controlled asthma, and who are willing to adhere to the rigorous treatment program. A key tenet is that it affords the opportunity to effect long-term clinical remission through its disease-modifying properties. Furthermore, it has the potential to prevent the progression of allergic rhinitis to asthma, prevent new allergen sensitivities, and improve a patient's quality of life.

New insights in mite immunotherapy - sublingual tablets

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sublingual tablet immunotherapy has been demonstrated to be effective for allergies induced by exposure to grass, ragweed, specific trees (Japanese Cedar; birch homologous tree mix), and house dust mites (HDM). This review provides both an overview of the evidence-based clinical studies that address the use of the HDM SLIT-tablet for the treatment of HDM-induced allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis and its appropriate use in carefully selected asthmatic patients and provides the clinician with practical management considerations.

RECENT FINDINGS

Solid evidence-based clinical studies have shown that the HDM SLIT-tablet is both well tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate asthma and has demonstrated a meaningful improvement in exacerbations, need for rescue medication, quality of life, and asthma control.

SUMMARY

The HDM SLIT-tablet provides the allergy specialist with a well-tolerated treatment that has established superior safety to subcutaneous injection therapy, which can be administered easily as a sublingual dissolvable tablet, and which provides the opportunity to address one of the more difficult aspects in the management of an inducer of perennial allergic disease - that of persistent airway inflammation and allergic asthma.

Subcutaneous Versus Sublingual Immunotherapy for Adults with Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) better improves patient outcomes and quality of life for adults with allergic rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis (AR/C) with or without mild to moderate asthma.

METHODS

Systematic review methodology was based on the Cochrane Collaboration handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) were queried from inception to July 30, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened potentially relevant studies and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes of interest were symptom score (SS), medication score (MS), combined symptom medication score (CSMS), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ). Meta-analyses with an adjusted indirect comparison were conducted in RevMan 5.4.1.

RESULTS

Seven SCIT versus SLIT randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated no significant differences for any outcomes, but insufficient data precluded direct meta-analysis. For the adjusted indirect comparison, 46 RCTs over 39 studies were included for SCIT versus placebo (n = 13) and SLIT versus placebo (n = 33). Statistically significant results favoring SCIT were found for SS (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.49), MS (SMD = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.14-0.39), CSMS (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.17-0.67), and RQLQ (MD = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.04-0.44). Statistically significant results favoring SLIT were found for SS (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.32-0.53), MS (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.28-0.53), CSMS (SMD = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.29-0.45), and RQLQ (MD = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.20-0.43). No significant differences were found between SCIT and SLIT for SS (SMD = -0.02; 95% CI = -0.15 to 0.11), MS (SMD = -0.14; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.03), CSMS (SMD = 0.05; 95% CI = -0.21 to 0.31), or RQLQ (MD = -0.08; 95% CI = -0.31 to 0.15).

CONCLUSION

SCIT and SLIT are comparably effective treatments for adults with AR/C. More RCTs analyzing SCIT versus SLIT are needed to directly compare the two. Laryngoscope, 2021.

Biomarkers for diagnosis and prediction of therapy responses in allergic diseases and asthma

Modern health care requires a proactive and individualized response to diseases, combining precision diagnosis and personalized treatment. Accordingly, the approach to patients with allergic diseases encompasses novel developments in the area of personalized medicine, disease phenotyping and endotyping, and the development and application of reliable biomarkers. A detailed clinical history and physical examination followed by the detection of IgE immunoreactivity against specific allergens still represents the state of the art. However, nowadays, further emphasis focuses on the optimization of diagnostic and therapeutic standards and a large number of studies have been investigating the biomarkers of allergic diseases, including asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, food allergy, urticaria and anaphylaxis. Various biomarkers have been developed by omics technologies, some of which lead to a better classification of distinct phenotypes or endotypes. The introduction of biologicals to clinical practice increases the need for biomarkers for patient selection, prediction of outcomes and monitoring, to allow for an adequate choice of the duration of these costly and long‐lasting therapies. Escalating healthcare costs together with questions about the efficacy of the current management of allergic diseases require further development of a biomarker‐driven approach. Here, we review biomarkers in diagnosis and treatment of asthma, atopic dermatitis, allergic rhinitis, viral infections, chronic rhinosinusitis, food allergy, drug hypersensitivity and allergen immunotherapy with a special emphasis on specific IgE, the microbiome and the epithelial barrier. In addition, EAACI guidelines on biologicals are discussed within the perspective of biomarkers.

The evolution of allergen-specific immunotherapy: The near and far future

In the era of precision medicine, allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents a landmark for the management of IgE-mediated allergic diseases. AIT is recognized as a potentially curative therapy and is currently accepted and routinely prescribed worldwide. However, there are still unmet needs. The efforts of researchers are aimed at implementing current immunotherapeutic strategies to improve the standard care of patients suffering from IgE-mediated respiratory allergic diseases. In addition, over the horizon, the most realistic option is the active treatment of IgE-mediated food allergy with oral immunotherapy. Preclinical studies and clinical trials are increasingly conducted to identify innovative forms of AIT administration, potential biomarkers, alternative immunotherapeutic allergen candidates, and new adjuvants. Telemedicine could represent a further emerging field capable of supporting health service delivery and improving clinical outcomes of AIT.

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.