Carrageenan-Containing Nasal Spray Alleviates Allergic Symptoms in Participants with Grass Pollen Allergy: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Clinical Trial.

Purpose: Nonpharmacological, barrier-forming nasal sprays are used to manage symptoms of allergic rhinitis. We aim to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Callergin (investigational product, IP), a nasal spray containing barrier-forming iota-carrageenan, in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). Methods: In this randomized, controlled, crossover trial, adults with grass pollen allergy underwent a treatment sequence with IP, VisAlpin (comparator product, CP), and no treatment in random order. Treatment blocks consisted in prophylactic administration of the assigned treatment or no treatment, followed by a 3-hr allergen exposure, and were separated by a washout period of 7 days. Primary endpoint was a mean change from baseline in "Total Nasal Symptom Score" (TNSS, sum of rhinorrhea, itching, sneezing, and congestion scores) over 3 hr, recorded every 15 min during the challenge period. Results: A total of 42 participants underwent randomization. Exposure to grass pollen for 3 hr induced a notable TNSS increase from baseline in all participants at all times. Mean TNSS change from baseline over 3 hr was lower when participants received IP compared to no treatment, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (untreated 6.96 ± 2.30; IP 6.59 ± 1.93; difference 0.37 points [95% CI (confidence interval) -0.17 to 0.91]; p=0.170). In a post-hoc analysis, mean TNSS at 3 hr was significantly reduced after IP treatment compared to no treatment (untreated 8.29 ± 2.64; IP 7.70 ± 2.56; difference 0.60 points [95% CI -0.10 to 1.29] p=0.028). While all individual nasal symptoms contributed to this effect, rhinorrhea (p=0.013) and congestion (p=0.076) contributed most. Consistently, nasal secretion weight was slightly reduced with IP treatment (p=0.119). IP was safe and well-tolerated, with similar incidence of adverse events across treatment groups. Conclusion: Prophylactic treatment with the iota-carrageenan nasal spray IP is safe, well-tolerated, and alleviates nasal allergy symptoms in adults with grass pollen-induced AR. Trial Registration: NCT04531358.

Update on the use of allergen challenge chambers in immunotherapy: clinical implications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to reflect on and discuss recent evidence of applicability of allergen exposure chambers (AEC) for allergen immunotherapy studies, especially focussing on validation of AECs, technical documentation and future perspectives. RECENT FINDINGS: Publications covered by this review summarize the historical background, current status of research use and validation of AEC systems. It describes identified unmet needs regarding comparability of AEC systems, reproducibility of clinical assessments and correlation of AEC-induced symptoms with scores under natural environmental exposure. Furthermore, new information on technical specifications, for example, dimensions, allergen dispersal and validation procedures is highlighted and future activities of the EAACI AEC task force group regarding harmonization of clinical endpoints are delineated. SUMMARY: AECs are in use for evaluation of allergic patients for over three decades now. As different systems largely vary regarding technical set up and standard assessments, detailed technical documentation must be available. To gain acceptance of regulatory authorities for pivotal immunotherapy trials conducted with the use of AEC system, harmonization of clinical assessments as well as documentation of correlation of clinical AEC outcomes with environmental exposure clinical scores is required.

Levocetirizine has a longer duration of action on improving total nasal symptoms score than fexofenadine after single administration.

AIMS: To compare the onset and duration of action of the new antihistamine levocetirizine with that of the second-generation antihistamine fexofenadine using the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC). The latter is an environment where subjects can be exposed to specific aeroallergens in controlled and reproducible conditions allowing for precise comparisons of anti-allergic drugs. METHODS: Ninety-four subjects received a single dose of levocetirizine 5 mg, fexofenadine 120 mg or placebo in a random order using a three-way cross-over design. On day 1, subjects were exposed to grass pollens (1500 grains/m(3)) in the VCC over a period of 4 h. Treatment was given 2 h after the start of challenge. On day 2, 22 h after drug intake, subjects were again exposed to pollens for 6 h. Specified symptoms were assessed by the subjects every 15 min using 5-point scales. The main efficacy parameter was the change from baseline in the Major Symptom Complex Score (MSCS = sum of rhinorrhea, sneezing, itchy nose and eyes). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, including symptoms scores, were similar in the three study groups. During the first 2 h after drug intake both antihistamines achieved clinically relevant and significant (P < 0.001) improvements in symptom scores. Twenty-two to 24 h after drug intake, mean (SEM) MSCS reductions were: 1.9 (0.3) after placebo (baseline of 9.7), 3.8 (0.3) after fexofenadine (baseline of 9.9), and 5.1 (0.3) after levocetirizine (baseline of 9.8). Levocetirizine was significantly (P < 0.001) more effective than fexofenadine with a score difference of 1.3 (95% CI 0.7, 1.9). This was maintained until the end of the study (up to 28 h). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid onset of action in alleviating seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms of subjects exposed to grass pollens in the VCC was observed after levocetirizine and fexofenadine. Levocetirizine was more effective than fexofenadine at and later than 22 h after drug intake, an indication of the longer-duration of action of levocetirizine.