Short-course subcutaneous treatment with PQ Grass strongly improves symptom and medication scores in grass allergy.

BACKGROUND: A modified grass allergen subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) product with MicroCrystalline Tyrosine and monophosphoryl lipid-A as an adjuvant system (Grass MATA MPL [PQ Grass]) is being developed as short-course treatment of grass-pollen allergic rhinitis (SAR) and/or rhinoconjunctivitis. We sought to evaluate the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) of the optimized cumulative dose of 27,600 standardized units (SU) PQ Grass in a field setting prior to embarking on a pivotal Phase III trial. METHODS: In this exploratory, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial subjects were enrolled across 14 sites (Germany and the United States of America). Six pre-seasonal subcutaneous injections of PQ Grass (using conventional or extended regimens) or placebo were administered to 119 subjects (aged 18-65 years) with moderate-to-severe SAR with or without asthma that was well-controlled. The primary efficacy endpoint was CSMS during peak grass pollen season (GPS). Secondary endpoints included Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire standardized (RQLQ-S) and allergen-specific IgG4 response. RESULTS: The mean CSMS compared to placebo was 33.1% (p = .0325) and 39.5% (p = .0112) for the conventional and extended regimens, respectively. An increase in IgG4 was shown for both regimens (p < .01) as well as an improvement in total RQLQ-S for the extended regimen (mean change -0.72, p = .02). Both regimens were well-tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrated a clinically relevant and statistically significant efficacy response to PQ Grass. Unprecedented effect sizes were reached for grass allergy of up to ≈40% compared to placebo for CSMS after only six PQ Grass injections. Both PQ Grass regimens were considered equally safe and well-tolerated. Based on enhanced efficacy profile extended regime will be progressed to the pivotal Phase III trial.

Major Allergen Content in Allergen Immunotherapy Products: The Limited Value of Numbers.

The prevalence of allergic disorders has increased drastically over the last 50 years to the extent that they can be considered epidemic. At present, allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only therapy that targets the underlying cause of allergic disorders, and evidence of its superiority is based on data accumulated from clinical trials and observational studies demonstrating efficacy and safety. However, several aspects remain unresolved, such as harmonization and standardization of manufacturing and quantification procedures across manufacturers, homogeneous reporting of strength, and the establishment of international reference standards for many allergens. This article discusses issues related to the measurement of major allergen content in AIT extracts, raising the question of whether comparison of products from different manufacturers is an appropriate basis for selecting a specific AIT product. Allergen standardization in immunotherapy products is critical for ensuring quality and, thereby, safety and efficacy. However, lack of harmonization in manufacturing processes, allergen quantification (methodologies and references), national regulatory differences, clinical practice, and labeling shows that the comparison of AIT products based solely on major allergen amounts is not rational and, in fact, impossible. Moreover, when rating the information given for a specific product, it is necessary to take into account further inherent characteristics of products and their application in clinical practice, such as the 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). Finally, only convincing clinical data can serve as the basis for product-specific evaluation and cross-product comparability of individual products.

European position paper on diagnostic tools in rhinology.

The accurate diagnosis of rhinologic disease depends on the clinical history, examination findings and, in many cases, further investigations. There are a wide variety of diagnostic tests available, the choice of which depends upon the condition being assessed. This position paper is intended to provide an up-to-date comprehensive description of the diagnostic tools available to rhinologists, allergists, general otolaryngologists and other physicians with an interest in sinonasal disease. The literature has been reviewed and evidence-based recommendations are included. The relevant history and examination techniques are described, including endoscopic assessment of the nose. General and disease-specific quality of life instruments are an important tool in assessing the impact of rhinologic disease and the response to treatment. Relevant blood tests are discussed, as well as the various methods of allergy testing. Techniques for collecting microbiological and tissue samples are described, as well as the use of more specialised tests such as nasal nitric oxide and those evaluating ciliary structure and function. Imaging techniques and their indications are included. Chemosensory (smell and taste) testing is explained, and the available techniques for objective measurement of nasal airflow and patency are reviewed. Prompt and accurate diagnosis allows appropriate management to be initiated; an understanding of the currently available diagnostic tools is a vital part of the assessment of rhinologic disease.

Clinical trials in allergen immunotherapy: current concepts and future needs.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a safe, effective treatment for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and allergic asthma. However, AIT's clinical effect is still contested-primarily due to heterogeneity in clinical trial designs, study populations, therapeutic formulations, and efficacy criteria. After discussing current concepts and unmet needs, an international panel of experts made several recommendations: (i) explore and validate definitions for (clinical) responders in AIT trials; (ii) use of well-documented, standardized provocation tests prior to inclusion of subjects with relevant diseases in AIT trials; (iii) monitoring neo-sensitizations and occurrence of new allergy in extended AIT trials, and exclusion of polyallergic participants; (iv) validation of allergen exposure chambers with regard to natural exposure; (v) in studies of seasonal allergies, focus on peak exposure but also consider organizing two parallel, geographically distinct but otherwise identical trials; (vi) discuss adaptive trial designs with the regulatory authorities; (vii) use e-health and m-health technologies to capture more information on individual exposure to allergens; (viii) initiate research on potential psychological, biochemical, immune, neural, and even genomic markers of the placebo response; (ix) identify trial designs and primary endpoints that will give children with allergies easier, faster access to AIT formulations; and (x) promote and apply standardized methods for reporting systemic and local adverse events. The latest technologies and trial designs may provide novel, ethical ways of reducing bias and heterogeneity in AIT clinical trials. There is scope for physicians, patient organizations, companies, and regulators to improve clinical trials in AIT and, ultimately, to provide patients with better treatments.

RCAT reflects symptom control and quality of life in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis patients.

BACKGROUND: The Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2 LEN) Taskforce has requested more data on correlations between various patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials on allergy. We compared three tools-the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test (RCAT), Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and Rhinitis Total Symptom Score (RTSS)-to determine whether the RCAT alone is a sufficient primary outcome parameter in clinical trials on allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: In two double-blind, placebo-controlled immunotherapy studies, 33 patients allergic to grass pollen and 94 to birch pollen completed two questionnaires (RCAT and RQLQ) and kept their own symptom diary from which the RTSS was calculated. RESULTS: Upon comparing RCAT and RQLQ results, we found strong correlations of r = -0.871 for grass pollen-allergic patients and r = -0.795 for birch pollen-allergic patients. The comparison between RCAT and RTSS results showed a strong correlation of r = -0.811 (grass pollen-allergic patients) and a moderate correlation of r = -0.539 (birch pollen-allergic patients). In the RCAT, 69.7% of grass pollen-allergic patients and 45.7% of birch pollen-allergic patients receiving guideline-concordant therapy were regarded as having insufficiently controlled symptoms. CONCLUSION: The strong correlations suggest that the RCAT alone is equivalent to the RQLQ with respect to patients' symptom control and quality of life. Patients with uncontrolled symptoms can be identified using the RCAT. Hence, the physician can decide whether symptomatic therapy can be intensified or allergy immunotherapy should be administered.

Ultra-short-course booster is effective in recurrent grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: A relevant proportion of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) patients experience recurrent symptoms after successfully completing allergen immunotherapy (AIT). This prospective, controlled, noninterventional study used internationally standardized instruments to determine the clinical effects of a preseasonal, ultra-short-course booster AIT on clinical outcome parameters. METHODS: This two-arm study included patients aged ≥12 years with recurrent grass pollen-induced seasonal AR who had completed a successful course of any grass pollen AIT at least 5 years before enrolment. Overall, 56 patients received one preseasonal short-course booster AIT using tyrosine-absorbed grass pollen allergoids containing the adjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL® ); 51 control patients received symptomatic medication. The combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) was recorded in the (peak) grass pollen season. Furthermore, concomitant (antiallergic) medication use, the patients' state of health, Mini Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniRQLQ) results and safety/tolerability of the treatment were assessed. RESULTS: The CSMS in the peak grass pollen season was significantly lower in the booster AIT group (Δ=38.4%, P<.01). Moreover, significantly more patients in this group used no concomitant antiallergic medication throughout the peak grass pollen season. Twice as many patients in the booster AIT group as in the control group reported having a better state of health than in the preceding season. MiniRQLQ results showed significant differences favouring the booster AIT. The booster AIT was generally well tolerated, with only two patients reporting mild, grade 1 systemic adverse events. CONCLUSION: Booster AIT using tyrosine-absorbed allergoids containing the adjuvant MPL® effectively prevents re-occurrence of symptoms in patients with grass pollen-induced ARC.

Randomized controlled trials define shape of dose response for Pollinex Quattro Birch allergoid immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The Birch Allergoid, Tyrosine Adsorbate, Monophosphoryl Lipid A (POLLINEX® Quattro Plus 1.0 ml Birch 100%) is an effective, well-tolerated short course subcutaneous immunotherapy. We performed 2 phase II studies to determine its optimal cumulative dose. METHODS: The studies were conducted in Germany, Austria and Poland (EudraCT numbers: 2012-004336-28 PQBirch203 and 2015-000984-15 PQBirch204) using a wide range of cumulative doses. In both studies, subjects were administered 6 therapy injections weekly outside the pollen season. Conjunctival Provocation Tests were performed at screening, baseline and 3-4 weeks after completing treatment, to quantify the reduction in Total Symptom Scores (as the primary endpoint) with each cumulative dose. Multiple Comparison Procedure and Modeling analysis was used to test for the dose response, shape of the curve and estimation of the median effective dose (ED50 ), a measure of potency. RESULTS: Statistically significant dose responses (P < .01 & .001) were seen, respectively. The highest cumulative dose in PQBirch204 (27 300 standardized units [SU]) approached a plateau. Potency of the PQBirch was demonstrated by an ED50 2723 SU, just over half the current dose. Prevalence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for active doses, most being short-lived and mild. Compliance was over 85% in all groups. CONCLUSION: Increasing the cumulative dose of PQBirch 5.5-fold from 5100 to 27 300 SU achieved an absolute point difference from placebo of 1.91, a relative difference 32.3% and an increase in efficacy of 50%, without compromising safety. The cumulative dose response was confirmed to be curvilinear in shape.

Lolium perenne peptide immunotherapy is well tolerated and elicits a protective B-cell response in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients.

BACKGROUND: Systemic allergic reactions are a risk for allergen immunotherapy that utilizes intact allergen preparations. We evaluated the safety, efficacy and immune mechanisms of short-course treatment with adjuvant-free Lolium perenne peptides (LPP) following a 6-week dose-escalation protocol. METHODS: In a prospective, dose-escalation study, 61 grass pollen-allergic patients received 2 subcutaneous injections of LPP once weekly for 6 weeks. Safety was assessed evaluating local reactions, systemic reactions and adverse events. The clinical effect of LPP was determined by reactivity to the conjunctival provocation test (CPT). Specific IgE, IgG4 and blocking antibodies were measured at baseline (V1), during (V6) and after treatment (V8). RESULTS: No fatality, serious adverse event or epinephrine use was reported. Mean wheal diameters after injections were <0.6 cm and mean redness diameters <2.5 cm, independent of dose. Transient and mostly mild adverse events were reported in 33 patients. Two patients experienced a grade I and 4 patients a grade II reaction (AWMF classification). At V8, 69.8% of patients became nonreactive to CPT. sIgG4 levels were higher at V6 (8.1-fold, P < .001) and V8 (12.2-fold, P < .001) than at V1. The sIgE:sIgG4 ratio decreased at V6 (-54.6%, P < .001) and V8 (-71.6%, P < .001) compared to V1. The absolute decrease in IgE-facilitated allergen binding was 18% (P < .001) at V6 and 25% (P < .001) at V8. CONCLUSION: Increasing doses of subcutaneous LPP appeared safe, substantially diminished reactivity to CPT and induced blocking antibodies as early as 4 weeks after treatment initiation. The benefit/risk balance of LPP immunotherapy remains to be further evaluated in large studies.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding trial with Lolium perenne peptide immunotherapy.

BACKGROUND: A novel subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy formulation (gpASIT+™) containing Lolium perenne peptides (LPP) and having a short up-dosing phase has been developed to treat grass pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. We investigated peptide immunotherapy containing the hydrolysate from perennial ryegrass allergens for the optimum dose in terms of clinical efficacy, immunogenicity and safety. METHODS: This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb, parallel, four-arm, dose-finding study randomized 198 grass pollen-allergic adults to receive placebo or cumulative doses of 70, 170 or 370 µg LPP. All patients received weekly subcutaneous injections, with the active treatment groups reaching assigned doses within 2, 3 and 4 weeks, respectively. Efficacy was assessed by comparing conjunctival provocation test (CPT) reactions at baseline, after 4 weeks and after completion. Grass pollen-specific immunoglobulins were analysed before and after treatment. RESULTS: Conjunctival provocation test (CPT) response thresholds improved from baseline to V7 by at least one concentration step in 51.2% (170 µg; P = .023), 46.3% (370 µg), and 38.6% (70 µg) of patients receiving LPP vs 25.6% of patients receiving placebo (modified per-protocol set). Also, 39% of patients in the 170-µg group became nonreactive to CPT vs 18% in the placebo group. Facilitated allergen-binding assays revealed a highly significant (P < .001) dose-dependent reduction in IgE allergen binding across all treatment groups (70 µg: 17.1%; 170 µg: 18.8%; 370 µg: 26.4%). Specific IgG4 levels increased to 1.6-fold (70 µg), 3.1-fold (170 µg) and 3.9-fold (370 µg) (mPP). CONCLUSION: Three-week immunotherapy with 170 µg LPP reduced CPT reactivity significantly and increased protective specific antibodies.

Short course of grass allergen peptides immunotherapy over 3 weeks reduces seasonal symptoms in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis with/without asthma: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with peptide hydrolysates from Lolium perenne (LPP) is an alternative treatment for seasonal allergic rhinitis with or without asthma. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of a cumulative dose of 170 µg LPP administered subcutaneously over 3 weeks. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 554 adults with grass pollen rhinoconjunctivitis were randomized (1:2 ratio) to receive 8 subcutaneous injections of placebo or 170 µg LPP administered in increasing doses in 4 visits over 3 weeks. The primary outcome was the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS) measured over the peak pollen season. Reactivity to conjunctival provocation test (CPT) and quality of life (QOL) was assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The mean reduction in CSMS in the LPP vs placebo group was -15.5% (P = .041) during the peak period and -17.9% (P = .029) over the entire pollen season. LPP-treated group had a reduced reactivity to CPT (P < .001) and, during the pollen season, a lower rhinoconjunctivitis QOL global score (P = .005) compared with placebo group. Mostly mild and WAO grade 1 early systemic reaction (ESR) were observed ≤30 minutes in 10.5% of LPP-treated patients, whereas 3 patients with a medical history of asthma (<1%) experienced a serious ESR that resolved with rescue medication. CONCLUSION: Lolium perenne pollen peptides administered over 3 weeks before the grass pollen season significantly reduced seasonal symptoms and was generally safe and well-tolerated.

EAACI Position paper on the standardization of nasal allergen challenges.

Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is an important tool to diagnose allergic rhinitis. In daily clinical routine, experimentally, or when measuring therapeutic success clinically, nasal allergen challenge is fundamental. It is further one of the key diagnostic tools when initiating specific allergen immunotherapy. So far, national recommendations offered guidance on its execution; however, international divergence left many questions unanswered. These differences in the literature caused EAACI to initiate a task force to answer unmet needs and find a consensus in executing nasal allergen challenge. On the basis of a systematic review containing nasal allergen challenges of the past years, task force members reviewed evidence, discussed open issues, and studied variations of several subjective and objective assessment parameters to propose a standardized way of a nasal allergen challenge procedure in clinical practice. Besides an update on indications, contraindications, and preparations for the test procedure, main recommendations are a bilaterally challenge with standardized allergens, with a spray device offering 0.1 mL per nostril. A systematic catalogue for positivity criteria is given for the variety of established subjective and objective assessment methods as well as a schedule for the challenge procedure. The task force recommends a unified protocol for NAC for daily clinical practice, aiming at eliminating the previous difficulty of comparing NAC results due to unmet needs.

EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) is an allergic disorder of the nose and eyes affecting about a fifth of the general population. Symptoms of AR can be controlled with allergen avoidance measures and pharmacotherapy. However, many patients continue to have ongoing symptoms and an impaired quality of life; pharmacotherapy may also induce some side-effects. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) represents the only currently available treatment that targets the underlying pathophysiology, and it may have a disease-modifying effect. Either the subcutaneous (SCIT) or sublingual (SLIT) routes may be used. This Guideline has been prepared by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Taskforce on AIT for AR and is part of the EAACI presidential project "EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy." It aims to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations and has been informed by a formal systematic review and meta-analysis. Its generation has followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) approach. The process included involvement of the full range of stakeholders. In general, broad evidence for the clinical efficacy of AIT for AR exists but a product-specific evaluation of evidence is recommended. In general, SCIT and SLIT are recommended for both seasonal and perennial AR for its short-term benefit. The strongest evidence for long-term benefit is documented for grass AIT (especially for the grass tablets) where long-term benefit is seen. To achieve long-term efficacy, it is recommended that a minimum of 3 years of therapy is used. Many gaps in the evidence base exist, particularly around long-term benefit and use in children.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis using mobile technology with real-world data: The MASK observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Large observational implementation studies are needed to triangulate the findings from randomized control trials as they reflect "real-world" everyday practice. In a pilot study, we attempted to provide additional and complementary insights on the real-life treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) using mobile technology. METHODS: A mobile phone app (Allergy Diary, freely available in Google Play and Apple App stores) collects the data of daily visual analog scales (VAS) for (i) overall allergic symptoms, (ii) nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms, (iii) work, as well as (iv) medication use using a treatment scroll list including all medications (prescribed and over the counter (OTC)) for rhinitis customized for 15 countries. RESULTS: A total of 2871 users filled in 17 091 days of VAS in 2015 and 2016. Medications were reported for 9634 days. The assessment of days appeared to be more informative than the course of the treatment as, in real life, patients do not necessarily use treatment on a daily basis; rather, they appear to increase treatment use with the loss of symptom control. The Allergy Diary allowed differentiation between treatments within or between classes (intranasal corticosteroid use containing medications and oral H1-antihistamines). The control of days differed between no [best control], single, or multiple treatments (worst control). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the usefulness of the Allergy Diary in accessing and assessing everyday use and practice in AR. This pilot observational study uses a very simple assessment (VAS) on a mobile phone, shows novel findings, and generates new hypotheses.

Daily allergic multimorbidity in rhinitis using mobile technology: A novel concept of the MASK study.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity in allergic airway diseases is well known, but no data exist about the daily dynamics of symptoms and their impact on work. To better understand this, we aimed to assess the presence and control of daily allergic multimorbidity (asthma, conjunctivitis, rhinitis) and its impact on work productivity using a mobile technology, the Allergy Diary. METHODS: We undertook a 1-year prospective observational study in which 4 210 users and 32 585 days were monitored in 19 countries. Five visual analogue scales (VAS) assessed the daily burden of the disease (i.e., global evaluation, nose, eyes, asthma and work). Visual analogue scale levels <20/100 were categorized as "Low" burden and VAS levels ≥50/100 as "High" burden. RESULTS: Visual analogue scales global measured levels assessing the global control of the allergic disease were significantly associated with allergic multimorbidity. Eight hypothesis-driven patterns were defined based on "Low" and "High" VAS levels. There were <0.2% days of Rhinitis Low and Asthma High or Conjunctivitis High patterns. There were 5.9% days with a Rhinitis High-Asthma Low pattern. There were 1.7% days with a Rhinitis High-Asthma High-Conjunctivitis Low pattern. A novel Rhinitis High-Asthma High-Conjunctivitis High pattern was identified in 2.9% days and had the greatest impact on uncontrolled VAS global measured and impaired work productivity. Work productivity was significantly correlated with VAS global measured levels. CONCLUSIONS: In a novel approach examining daily symptoms with mobile technology, we found considerable intra-individual variability of allergic multimorbidity including a previously unrecognized extreme pattern of uncontrolled multimorbidity.

The Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) score of allergic rhinitis using mobile technology correlates with quality of life: The MASK study.

Mobile technology has been used to appraise allergic rhinitis control, but more data are needed. To better assess the importance of mobile technologies in rhinitis control, the ARIA (Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma) score ranging from 0 to 4 of the Allergy Diary was compared with EQ-5D (EuroQuol) and WPAI-AS (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment in allergy) in 1288 users in 18 countries. This study showed that quality-of-life data (EQ-5D visual analogue scale and WPA-IS Question 9) are similar in users without rhinitis and in those with mild rhinitis (scores 0-2). Users with a score of 3 or 4 had a significant impairment in quality-of-life questionnaires.

A 12-week DBPC dose-finding study with sublingual monomeric allergoid tablets in house dust mite-allergic patients.

BACKGROUND: In sublingual immunotherapy, optimal doses are a key factor for therapeutic outcomes. The aim of this study with tablets containing carbamylated monomeric house dust mite allergoids was to determine the most effective and safe dose. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study, 131 patients with house dust mite-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis were randomized to 12-week treatments with 300 UA/day, 1000 UA/day, 2000 UA/day, 3000 UA/day or placebo. Conjunctival provocation tests (CPT) were performed before, during and after treatment. The change in mean allergic severity (primary endpoint), calculated from the severity of the CPT reaction, and the proportion of patients with an improved CPT threshold (secondary endpoint) determined the treatment effect. RESULTS: The mean allergic severity decreased in all groups, including the placebo group. It was lower in all active treatment groups (300 UA/day: 0.14, 1000 UA/day: 0.15, 2000 UA/day: 0.10, 3000 UA/day: 0.15) than in the placebo group (0.30). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P < 0.1). The percentage of patients with an improved CPT threshold was higher in the active treatment groups (300 UA/day: 73.9%; 1000 UA/day: 76.0%; 2000 UA/day: 88.5%; 3000 UA/day: 76.0%) than in the placebo group (64.3%). The difference between placebo and 2000 UA/day was statistically significant (P = 0.04). In 13 (10%) exposed patients, a total of 20 treatment-related adverse events of mild severity were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-week daily treatment using 2000 UA/day monomeric allergoid sublingual tablets is well tolerated and reduces the CPT reaction in house dust mite-allergic patients.

Allergen immunotherapy for allergic asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To inform the development of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology's (EAACI) Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy (AIT) for allergic asthma, we assessed the evidence on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of AIT. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, which involved searching nine databases. Studies were screened against predefined eligibility criteria and critically appraised using established instruments. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: 98 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Short-term symptom scores were reduced with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -1.11 (95% CI -1.66, -0.56). This was robust to a prespecified sensitivity analyses, but there was evidence suggestive of publication bias. Short-term medication scores were reduced SMD -1.21 (95% CI -1.87, -0.54), again with evidence of potential publication bias. There was no reduction in short-term combined medication and symptom scores SMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.23, 0.58), but one study showed a beneficial long-term effect. For secondary outcomes, subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) improved quality of life and decreased allergen-specific airway hyperreactivity (AHR), but this was not the case for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). There were no consistent effects on asthma control, exacerbations, lung function, and nonspecific AHR. AIT resulted in a modest increased risk of adverse events (AEs). Although relatively uncommon, systemic AEs were more frequent with SCIT; however no fatalities were reported. The limited evidence on cost-effectiveness was mainly available for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) and this suggested that SLIT is likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: AIT can achieve substantial reductions in short-term symptom and medication scores in allergic asthma. It was however associated with a modest increased risk of systemic and local AEs. More data are needed in relation to secondary outcomes, longer-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Non-allergic rhinitis: Position paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

This EAACI position paper aims at providing a state-of-the-art overview on nonallergic rhinitis (NAR). A significant number of patients suffering from persistent rhinitis are defined as nonallergic noninfectious rhinitis (NANIR) patients, often denominated in short as having NAR. NAR is defined as a symptomatic inflammation of the nasal mucosa with the presence of a minimum of two nasal symptoms such as nasal obstruction, rhinorrhea, sneezing, and/or itchy nose, without clinical evidence of endonasal infection and without systemic signs of sensitization to inhalant allergens. Symptoms of NAR may have a wide range of severity and be either continuously present and/or induced by exposure to unspecific triggers, also called nasal hyperresponsiveness (NHR). NHR represents a clinical feature of both AR and NAR patients. NAR involves different subgroups: drug-induced rhinitis, (nonallergic) occupational rhinitis, hormonal rhinitis (including pregnancy rhinitis), gustatory rhinitis, senile rhinitis, and idiopathic rhinitis (IR). NAR should be distinguished from those rhinitis patients with an allergic reaction confined to the nasal mucosa, also called "entopy" or local allergic rhinitis (LAR). We here provide an overview of the current consensus on phenotypes of NAR, recommendations for diagnosis, a treatment algorithm, and defining the unmet needs in this neglected area of research.

Allergen exposure chambers: harmonizing current concepts and projecting the needs for the future - an EAACI Position Paper.

BACKGROUND: Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) are clinical facilities allowing for controlled exposure of subjects to allergens in an enclosed environment. AECs have contributed towards characterizing the pathophysiology of respiratory allergic diseases and the pharmacological properties of new therapies. In addition, they are complementary to and offer some advantages over traditional multicentre field trials for evaluation of novel therapeutics. To date, AEC studies conducted have been monocentric and have followed protocols unique to each centre. Because there are technical differences among AECs, it may be necessary to define parameters to standardize the AECs so that studies may be extrapolated for driving basic immunological research and for marketing authorization purposes by regulatory authorities. METHODS: For this task force initiative of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), experts from academia and regulatory agencies met with chamber operators to list technical, clinical and regulatory unmet needs as well as the prerequisites for clinical validation. RESULTS: The latter covered the validation process, standardization of challenges and outcomes, intra- and interchamber variability and reproducibility, in addition to comparability with field trials and specifics of paediatric trials and regulatory issues. CONCLUSION: This EAACI Position Paper aims to harmonize current concepts in AECs and to project unmet needs with the intent to enhance progress towards use of these facilities in determining safety and efficacy of new therapeutics in the future.