Nasal allergen challenge (NAC): Practical aspects and applications from an EU/US perspective-a Work Group Report of the AAAAI Rhinitis, Rhinosinusitis and Ocular Allergy Committee.

Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is applied in a variety of settings (research centers, specialty clinics, and hospitals) as a useful diagnostic and research tool. NAC is indicated for diagnosis of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis, local allergic rhinitis, and occupational rhinitis; to design the composition of allergen immunotherapy in patients who are polysensitized; and to investigate the physio-pathological mechanisms of nasal diseases. NAC is currently a safe and reproducible technique, although it is time- and resource-consuming. NAC can be performed by a variety of methods, but the lack of a uniform technique for performing and recording the outcomes represents a challenge for those considering NAC as a clinical tool in the office. The availability of standardized allergens for NAC is also different in each country. The objective of this workgroup report is to review the current information about NAC, focusing on the practical aspects and application for diagnosis of difficult rhinitis phenotypes (eg, local allergic rhinitis, occupational rhinitis), taking into account the particular context of practice in the United States and the European Union.

Which patients with asthma are most likely to benefit from allergen immunotherapy?

If allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is to be considered as a treatment option for allergic asthma, it must undergo the same developmental steps as other antiasthmatic drugs. The bronchial allergen challenge model has demonstrated excellent negative predictive value for the development of new therapies for asthma. Subcutaneous immunotherapy appears to have a clinical and significant effect on the early asthmatic response to mite, cat, and birch and grass pollens in children and adults. Use of AIT in children with asthma is widely practiced but not supported by as strong a level of evidence as in adults. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets demonstrate efficacy in asthma exacerbations and other outcomes when used as add-on therapy in adult patients. Using a biologic to improve the patient's lung functions and asthma control before initiating AIT can transform unsuitable candidates for AIT into appropriate candidates. Because AIT is a form of personalized medicine, phenotyping the most suitable patient is necessary. Field studies of adults and children have suggested that polysensitized patients with rhinitis and Global Initiative for Asthma class 2 to class 4 asthma appear the most likely to be good responders. We hypothesized that AIT responders are those who demonstrate a high eosinophilic response to natural or experimental exposure.

REGN1908/1909 prevented cat allergen-induced early asthmatic responses in an environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: The dominant allergen in cat dander, Felis domesticus allergen 1 (Fel d 1), is a persistent trigger for allergic rhinitis and asthma symptoms. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of Fel d 1 monoclonal antibodies (REGN1908/1909) in preventing cat allergen-induced early asthmatic responses (EARs) in cat-allergic patients with mild asthma. METHODS: Patients were randomized to single-dose REGN1908/1909 600 mg (n = 29) or placebo (n = 27). The FEV1 was measured for up to 4 hours in a cat allergen environmental exposure unit up to 85 days after dosing. Assessments included between-group differences in change from baseline in FEV1 area under the curve (AUC; 0-2 hours) and incidence of EAR (FEV1 reduction ≥20%). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03838731. RESULTS: Single-dose REGN1908/1909 significantly prevented reductions in FEV1 on days 8, 29, 57, and 85. Most REGN1908/1909 patients did not have an EAR by 4 hours (the last time point tested). In contrast, placebo-treated patients experienced a ≥20% mean FEV1 reduction on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 after dosing, with most experiencing an EAR within 1 hour. REGN1908/1909-treated patients tolerated 3-fold higher allergen quantities (P < .05 at all time points) versus placebo. REGN1908/1909 substantially reduced skin test reactivity to cat allergen versus placebo at all time points tested (nominal P < .001). REGN1908/1909 was generally well tolerated; no serious adverse events or deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Single-dose REGN1908/1909 significantly prevented reductions in FEV1 in cat-allergic patients with mild asthma on cat allergen environmental exposure unit exposure at 8 days and up to 85 days after dose.

Efficacy of N-acetyl aspartyl glutamic acid versus fluorometholone for treating allergic conjunctivitis in an environmental exposure chamber.

BACKGROUND: Topical mast cell stabilizers were previously shown to treat the signs and symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic conjunctivitis safely and effectively in active and placebo-controlled trials. However, mast cell stabilizers have not been compared to topical corticosteroids for efficacy. We tested the non-inferiority of a topical mast cell stabilizer, N-acetyl aspartyl glutamic acid (4.9%, NAAGA), compared to fluorometholone (0.1%, FM) during controlled exposures to the airborne birch pollen allergen, Bet v 1, in an environmental exposure chamber (EEC). METHODS: This randomized, cross-over, investigator-blinded study included 24 patients with a history of birch pollen allergic conjunctivitis. Patients were randomized to 5 days of treatment with NAAGA, then FM (n = 12) or FM, then NAAGA (n = 12). After each treatment, patients were exposed to a fixed airborne concentration of Bet v 1 in ALYATEC EEC. The primary endpoint was the amount of allergen required to trigger a conjunctival response (Abelson score ≥5). Groups were compared with a linear model for cross-over studies. Non-inferiority was assumed, when the lower bound of the risk ratio confidence interval (CI) was >0.5. RESULTS: At screening, the mean time-to-conjunctival response was 72.5 ± 35.9 min. NAAGA and FM extended the response time to 114.8 ± 55.0 and 116.6 ± 51.5 min respectively. The mean amounts of allergen required to trigger a conjunctival response were 1.165 ng after NAAGA and 1.193 ng after FM treatment. The risk ratio for the conjunctival response was 0.977 (95% CI: 0.812; 1.174), which indicated non-inferiority. Adverse events occurred less frequently with NAAGA (29.2%) than with FM (58.3%). CONCLUSION: In patients with allergic conjunctivitis to birch pollen, NAAGA was non-inferior to FM in exposures to airborne Bet v 1. The EEC was a good model for simulating real-life airborne allergen exposure and for demonstrating the efficacy and safety of eye drops for treating allergic conjunctivitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not registered.

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.

Technical standards in allergen exposure chambers worldwide - an EAACI Task Force Report.

Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) can be used for controlled exposure to allergenic and non-allergenic airborne particles in an enclosed environment, in order to (i) characterize the pathological features of respiratory diseases and (ii) contribute to and accelerate the clinical development of pharmacological treatments and allergen immunotherapy for allergic disease of the respiratory tract (such as allergic rhinitis, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and allergic asthma). In the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency for the clinical development of products for allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the role of AECs in determining primary endpoints in dose-finding Phase II trials is emphasized. Although methodologically insulated from the variability of natural pollen exposure, chamber models remain confined to supporting secondary, rather than primary, endpoints in Phase III registration trials. The need for further validation in comparison with field exposure is clearly mandated. On this basis, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) initiated a Task Force in 2015 charged to gain a better understanding of how AECs can generate knowledge about respiratory allergies and can contribute to the clinical development of treatments. Researchers working with AECs worldwide were asked to provide technical information in eight sections: (i) dimensions and structure of the AEC, (ii) AEC staff, (iii) airflow, air processing, and operating conditions, (iv) particle dispersal, (v) pollen/particle counting, (vi) safety and non-contamination measures, (vii) procedures for symptom assessments, (viii) tested allergens/substances and validation procedures. On this basis, a minimal set of technical requirements for AECs applied to the field of allergology is proposed.

Efficacy of air cleaners in asthmatics allergic to cat in ALYATEC® environmental exposure chamber.

BACKGROUND: Air cleaners have been promoted for respiratory allergic disease prevention, but there is no clear clinical proof of their efficacy in allergic asthma. OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of a new air cleaner on early and late asthmatic responses in cat-allergic patients. METHODS: This randomized, cross-over, double-blind placebo-controlled study enrolled 24 cat-asthmatic patients with GINA 1 asthma. At baseline, participants were exposed to 40 ng/m3 of airborne cat allergen for a maximum of 2 hours in ALYATEC® environmental exposure chamber (EEC). All participants were subsequently randomized into two groups that were exposed to cat allergen, either with active then placebo air cleaners or with placebo then active air cleaners with a 3-week interval in the EEC. This study was registered under number (NCT03928561). RESULTS: Fewer patients experienced an EAR with active air cleaners (seven patients; 29.17%) than placebo (21 patients; 87.50%). The response incidence was lower with active than with placebo air cleaners. A Cox model demonstrated a significant treatment effect (hazard ratio, 0.10; P = .002). Active air cleaners also prevented late asthmatic response: four patients (16.67%) had a late asthmatic response with active air cleaners compared to 11 patients (45.83%) with placebo (Prescott test P = .002). Active air cleaners also decreased the maximal severity of bronchial response (FEV1 decrease of 17.24% with active vs 25.62% with placebo air cleaners; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our present results demonstrated that Intense Pure Air XL® air cleaners significantly prevented early and late asthmatic responses among cat-allergic asthmatics during cat allergen exposure in the ALYATEC® EEC.

Does Air Filtration Work for Cat Allergen Exposure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The goal of this review is to compress all important information and results of the research in reducing cat allergen exposure using air filtration. Fel d 1 is the major allergen responsible for IgE responses in 90 to 95% of patients with cat allergy. RECENT FINDINGS: Reduction of cat allergen in indoor air with different air filtration systems and portable devices has been demonstrated in the majority of the studies. Recently, early and late asthmatic responses were significantly reduced using portable HEPA air cleaners in an environmental exposure chamber. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of airborne Fel d 1 air filtration targeting the most efficient devices in cat allergen reduction. Novel emerging HEPA filters are targeting reduction of cat indoor asthma trigger so patient can might benefit from efficient solution.

Validation of Strasbourg environmental exposure chamber (EEC) ALYATEC® in mite allergic subjects with asthma.

Objective: Environmental Exposure Chamber (EEC) should have standardized and controlled allergenic and non-allergenic exposures to perform reproducible clinical studies. The aim was to demonstrate that mite exposure in the Alyatec® EEC could induce early (EAR) and/or late asthmatic reactions (LAR) in at least 60% of subjects allergic to mite.Methods: The EEC has a volume of 147-m3 with 20 seats. The nebulized particle number, airborne Der p1, endotoxins, and volatile organic compound (VOC) concentrations were measured. Twenty-four asthmatics allergic to mite were randomly exposed to 15, 25, and 46 ng/m3 Der p1. Specificity was assessed in not mite-sensitized asthmatics.Results: No significant endotoxin or VOC contamination was measured. The mean inter-assay CVs were 12.5% for the airborne particle number and 28.7% for airborne Der p1 concentrations. For the three Der p1 concentrations, at least 88% of the subjects developed EAR and/or LAR, and at least 46% developed a dual response. No reaction occurred with placebo or in the control group. No severe bronchial reaction occurred.Conclusions: The Alyatec® EEC demonstrated a tight control of allergenic and non-allergenic exposures. The EEC was clinically validated, with airborne Der p1 levels close to levels found in natural settings.

Proof-of-concept study of anti-Fel d 1 IgY antibodies in cat food using the MASK-air® app.

BACKGROUND: An innovation to better manage cat-allergic patients utilises anti-Fel d 1 IgY antibodies to neutralise Fel d 1 after its production by the cat. However, there is no published study showing its clinical efficacy in humans in a home setting. A longitudinal, open-label, proof-of-concept study was carried out to approach clinical efficacy of the cat food in cat-allergic patients. METHODS: After a baseline evaluation, the cats ate only the cat food for the following 4 months. Daily evaluation of efficacy was performed for 2 weeks at baseline and after 1, 2 and 3 months of intervention for periods of 2 weeks. The MASK-air app was used daily to assess symptoms, work productivity and medications. RESULTS: Of the 49 patients screened, 42 were followed up and 33 (78.5%) reported MASK-air data at all 3 evaluation periods. The primary end point (visual analogue scale [VAS] for global allergy symptoms) was significantly improved (p < 0.0001). All symptoms (VAS nose, eye, and asthma), VAS work and the combined symptom-medication score significantly improved after 1 month. The percentage of uncontrolled days (VAS>20/100) decreased from 64% at baseline to 35% at 1 month (p < 0.0001) and 14% at 3 months. A sensitivity analysis in patients with uncontrolled disease at baseline found similar results. DISCUSSION: A cat diet containing anti-Fel d 1 antibodies was able to (i) show decreased allergic symptoms and related outcomes, (ii) inform the design and feasibility of future studies with a control arm and (iii) estimate the sample size of the study. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05656482.

The use of environmental exposure chambers in studies related to ocular surface effects.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The potential of allergen challenges using environmental exposure facilities in allergic conjunctivitis drug development and more recently its implication on the diagnosis of the united airways concept have been emphasized in the recent literature. This study aims to present an overview of new and important data in this field. RECENT FINDINGS: Standardized methodologies for ocular surface assessment during allergen challenges were described. The Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) is the main validated questionnaire used for the assessment of ocular surface during allergen challenges. It combines patient and investigator assessments for more accurate conjunctival response and was extensively used in clinical research and daily practice. Environmental Exposure Chambers (EECs) studies aim to conduct tight-controlled challenges to a stable and well defined allergen airborne concentration, closer to natural exposure to evaluate the efficacy of nonpharmaceutical and antiallergic treatments. Recent studies showed a good correlation between ocular symptoms elicited by EEC and those assessed during natural exposure. These validated methods allow to investigate the efficacy of novel pharmacotherapies for allergic conjunctivitis and allergen immunotherapy (AIT) in a real-world model of allergen exposure. SUMMARY: This study aims to summarize novel data regarding the impact of EECs in studying pathophysiology and drug efficacy in the context of existing clinical protocols related to ocular surface effects. In this regard, studies comparing conjunctival response during natural and EEC exposures in patients with pollen-induced conjunctivitis aimed to demonstrate better outcomes in tight-controlled exposures mimicking natural exposure. Because allergen challenges are widely implemented in allergy treatment, this article will focus on the most important outcomes and the evolution of treatments for allergic conjunctivitis.

Birch-induced allergic rhinitis: Results of exposure during nasal allergen challenge, environmental chamber, and pollen season.

Background: Pollen variation can affect field study data quality. Nasal allergen challenge (NAC) is considered the gold standard for evaluating allergic rhinitis, while environmental exposure chambers (EECs) are mainly used in phase 2 drug development studies. We aimed to study birch-induced allergic rhinitis under 3 different conditions. Methods: This study included 30 participants allergic to birch pollen, based on birch skin prick test, specific immunoglobulin E (IgE), and positive NAC. Participants were exposed to placebo twice, followed by 2 consecutive 4-h birch airborne exposures, repeated on 2 occasions to evaluate reproducibility and priming effect. Nasal response was defined as total corrected nasal symptom score (ΔTNSS) ≥ 5 during NAC and EEC. The primary end-point was to measure TNSS during the last 2 h of first allergen exposure. TNSS was also analyzed during natural exposure. Results: The dose most commonly yielding positive TNSS during NAC was 175.2 ng/200 µL. Eighteen participants experienced ΔTNSS ≥5 during the last 2 h of the first exposure, whereas 21 had positive responses at all 4 exposures. Mean ΔTNSS was 1 with placebo versus 6 with birch. Exposures were reproducible, with no observed priming effect. Airborne Bet v 1 was 25 ng/m3, while the pollen measurement was 279/m3 during pollen season. TNSS reached 5 in 67.9% of participants during peak pollen season. Conclusion: EEC outcomes were similar to those obtained with NAC and natural exposure, suggesting the usefulness of EEC in allergic rhinitis studies. The primary end-point was reached, as 60% of participants experienced nasal responses.

Birch allergen challenges in allergic conjunctivitis using standard conjunctival allergen challenge and environmental exposure chamber.

BACKGROUND: Environmental exposure chambers (EECs) have been used extensively to study allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Few studies have been published using EECs in conjunctivitis only, and none have used conjunctival allergen challenge as a selection criterion. The present study validated ALYATEC EEC in allergic conjunctivitis to birch pollen. METHODS: Sixteen patients with a positive conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) were exposed to 60 ng/m3 of Bet v 1 in an EEC on two consecutive days for a maximum of 4 h to validate EEC exposure to birch. Reproducibility was tested among seven of the patients. A conjunctival positive scoring during the CAC and the EEC exposure was defined as a Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS) ≥ 5. RESULTS: Fifty percent of patients had a conjunctival positive scoring during first exposure and 75% during second exposure. The mean time to a conjunctival response was 81.2 ± 33.9 min and 101.6 ± 57 (P > 0.05) during first and second exposure, respectively. No difference in TOSS occurred between the two exposures. The time necessary to obtain a positive response during the CAC was significantly shorter than with the EEC. The estimated quantity of Bet v 1 inducing a positive response was 0.07 ± 0.03 ng (exposure 1), 0.07 ± 0.07 ng (exposure 2), 980 ± 784 ng (CAC). Conjunctival positive scoring and quantity of Bet v 1 was reproducible in all six EEC exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Early conjunctival responses induced by birch allergen exposures in EEC were different than from those identified with direct instillation during CAC. EEC appears to be closer to natural exposure than CAC.

Confounders of severe asthma: diagnoses to consider when asthma symptoms persist despite optimal therapy.

Asthma can often be challenging to diagnose especially when patients present with atypical symptoms. Therefore, it is important to have a broad differential diagnosis for asthma to ensure that other conditions are not missed. Clinicians must maintain a high index of suspicion for asthma mimickers, especially when patients fail to respond to conventional therapy. The purpose of this review is to briefly review some of the more common causes of asthma mimickers that clinicians should consider when the diagnosis of asthma is unclear.