Major Allergen Content In Allergen Immunotherapy Products: The Limited Value of Numbers

The prevalence of allergic disorders drastically increased over the last 50 years that today they can be considered epidemic. At present, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only therapy targeting the underlying cause of allergic disorders, and its superior evidence is based on accumulated data from clinical trials and observational studies demonstrating efficacy and safety. However, several aspects remain unsolved, such as harmonization and standardization of manufacturing and quantification procedures across manufacturers, homogeneous reporting of strength, and also the establishment of international reference standards for many allergens. This article discusses the issues related to the measurement of major allergen content in AIT extracts, raising the question of whether comparison of products by different manufacturers are appropriate as basis to choose among the different AIT products. Allergen standardization in immunotherapy products is critical to ensure quality and thereby safety and efficacy. However, lack of harmonization in manufacturing process, allergen quantification (methodologies and references), national regulatory differences, clinical practice, and labeling shows that the comparison of AIT products solely based on major allergen amounts is not rationale and, in fact, impossible. Moreover, further inherent characteristics of products and their clinical use such as their state of extract modification, addition of adjuvant or adjuvant-system, route of administration (sublingual/subcutaneous) and cumulative dose as per posology (including the volume per administration) need to be taken into account, when rating the information given for a specific product. Finally, only convincing clinical data can serve as the product-specific evaluation, or the basis for cross-product comparability, for individual products.

Venom Immunotherapy: From Proteins to Product to Patient Protection

In this review, we outline and reflect on the important differences between allergen-specific immunotherapy for inhalant allergies (i.e., aeroallergens) and venom-specific immunotherapy (VIT), with a special focus on Venomil® Bee and Wasp. Venomil® is provided as a freeze-dried extract and a diluent to prepare a solution for injection for the treatment of patients with IgE-mediated allergies to bee and/or wasp venom and for evaluating the degree of sensitivity in a skin test. While the materials that make up the product have not changed, the suppliers of raw materials have changed over the years. Here, we consolidate relevant historical safety and efficacy studies that used products from shared manufacture supply profiles, i.e., products from Bayer or Hollister-Stier. We also consider the characterization and standardization of venom marker allergens, providing insights into manufacturing controls that have produced stable and consistent quality profiles over many years. Quality differences between products and their impacts on treatment outcomes have been a current topic of discussion and further research. Finally, we review the considerations surrounding the choice of depot adjuvant most suitable to augmenting VIT.

First-in-human phase I study of ISTH0036, an antisense oligonucleotide selectively targeting transforming growth factor beta 2 (TGF-β2), in subjects with open-angle glaucoma undergoing glaucoma filtration surgery

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of intravitreal ISTH0036, an antisense oligonucleotide selectively targeting transforming growth factor beta 2 (TGF-β2), in patients with primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) undergoing trabeculectomy (TE; glaucoma filtration surgery).

Methods

In this prospective phase I trial glaucoma patients scheduled for TE with mitomycin C (MMC) received a single intravitreal injection of ISTH0036 at the end of surgery in escalating total doses of 6.75 μg, 22.5 μg, 67.5 μg or 225 μg, resulting in calculated intraocular ISTH0036 concentrations in the vitreous humor of approximately 0.3 μM, 1 μM, 3 μM or 10 μM after injection, respectively. Outcomes assessed included: type and frequency of adverse events (AEs), intraocular pressure (IOP), numbers of interventions post trabeculectomy, bleb survival, visual acuity, visual field, electroretinogram (ERG), slit lamp biomicroscopy and optic disc assessment.

Results

In total, 12 patients were treated in the 4 dose groups. Main ocular AEs observed were corneal erosion, corneal epithelium defect, or too high or too low IOP, among others. No AE was reported to be related to ISTH0036. All other safety-related analyses did not reveal any toxicities of concern, either. The mean medicated preoperative IOP at decision time-point for surgery was 27.3 mmHg +/- 12.6 mmHg (SD). Mean IOP (±SD) for dose levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 were at Day 43 9.8 mmHg ± 1.0 mmHg, 11.3 mmHg ± 6.7 mmHg, 5.5 mmHg ± 3.0 mmHg and 7.5 mmHg ± 2.3 mmHg SD; and at Day 85 9.7 mmHg ± 3.3 mmHg, 14.2 mmHg ± 6.5 mmHg, 5.8 mmHg ± 1.8 mmHg and 7.8 mmHg ± 0.6 mmHg, respectively. In contrast to IOP values for dose levels 1 and 2, IOP values for dose levels 3 and 4 persistently remained below 10 mmHg throughout the observation period.

Conclusion

This first-in-human trial demonstrates that intravitreal injection of ISTH0036 at the end of TE is safe. Regarding IOP control, single-dose ISTH0036 administration of 67.5 μg or 225 μg at the time of TE resulted in IOP values persistently < 10 mmHg over the three month postoperative observation period.