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.

The SQ tree SLIT-tablet is highly effective and well tolerated: Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: The SQ tree sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT)-tablet (ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark) is developed for treatment of tree pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pivotal phase III trial was to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 634 subjects (12-65 years) with moderate-to-severe ARC despite use of symptom-relieving medication. Eligible subjects were randomized 1:1 to active or placebo treatment. The primary end point was the average daily ARC total combined score (TCS) during the birch pollen season (BPS) analyzed for subjects with diary data during the BPS. Secondary end points included average daily symptom scores (DSS) during the BPS, average TCS and DSS during the tree pollen season (TPS), and average daily medication scores (DMS) in the BPS and TPS. RESULTS: The primary and key secondary end points demonstrated statistically significant and clinically relevant effects of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet compared with placebo. For the BPS, absolute (relative) differences from placebo were 3.02 (40%) for TCS, 1.32 (37%) for DSS, and 1.58 (49%) for DMS (all P < .0001). For the TPS, absolute (relative) differences from placebo were 2.27 (37%) for TCS, 0.99 (33%) for DSS, and 1.20 (47%) for DMS (all P < .0001). Treatment was well tolerated. The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse events were mild or moderate local reactions related to sublingual administration. CONCLUSION: The trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the SQ tree SLIT-tablet compared with placebo during the BPS and TPS in adolescents and adults with birch pollen-induced ARC (EudraCT 2015-004821-15).

Safety of a New Amino Acid Formula in Infants Allergic to Cow's Milk and Intolerant to Hydrolysates.

OBJECTIVES: Amino acid-based formulas (AAFs) are recommended for children with cow's-milk allergy (CMA) failing to respond to extensively hydrolysed formulas (eHFs). We evaluated the effects of a new thickened AAF (TAAF, Novalac), containing a pectin-based thickener, and a reference AAF (RAAF, Neocate) on allergy symptoms and safety, through blood biochemistry analysis and growth. METHODS: Infants (ages < 18 months) with CMA symptoms failing to respond to eHFs were randomised in a double-blind manner to receive TAAF or RAAF for 3 months. All of the infants were then fed TAAF for 3 additional months. Paediatric visits occurred at 1, 3, and 6 months. Blood samples were collected at inclusion and 3 months. RESULTS: Results at 1 month were previously described. The 75 infants with proven CMA and eHF intolerance tolerated their allocated formula. At 3 months, the dominant allergic symptom had disappeared in 76.2% of the infants with TAAF and in 51.5% of the infants with RAAF (P = 0.026). The Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Index significantly improved more with TAAF than with RAAF (-27.3 ±â€Š2.3 vs -20.8 ±â€Š2.2, P = 0.048). Of the infants, 92.9% had normal stools (soft or formed consistency) with TAAF vs 75.8% with RAAF (P = 0.051). More infants in TAAF group had better quality of nighttime sleep (P = 0.036) and low frequency of irritability signs (P < 0.001). With both formulas, all of the biochemical parameters were within normal ranges. There were no differences between the 2 groups in any of the anthropometric z scores. CONCLUSIONS: The new TAAF was tolerated by all of the infants with CMA and intolerance to eHFs. Anthropometric and clinical data showed that both formulas were safe.

Hazelnut allergy across Europe dissected molecularly: A EuroPrevall outpatient clinic survey.

BACKGROUND: Hazelnut allergy is birch pollen-driven in Northern/Western Europe and lipid transfer protein-driven in Spain and Italy. Little is known about other regions and other allergens. OBJECTIVE: Establishing a molecular map of hazelnut allergy across Europe. METHODS: In 12 European cities, subjects reporting reactions to hazelnut (n = 731) were evaluated and sensitization to 24 foods, 12 respiratory allergen sources, and latex was tested by using skin prick test and ImmunoCAP. A subset (124 of 731) underwent a double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge to hazelnut. Sera of 423 of 731 subjects were analyzed for IgE against 7 hazelnut allergens and cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants by ImmunoCAP. RESULTS: Hazelnut allergy was confirmed in 70% of those undergoing double-blind placebo-controlled food challenges. Birch pollen-driven hazelnut sensitization (Cor a 1) dominated in most cities, except in Reykjavik, Sofia, Athens, and Madrid, where reporting of hazelnut allergy was less frequent anyhow. In Athens, IgE against Cor a 8 dominated and strongly correlated with IgE against walnut, peach, and apple and against Chenopodium, plane tree, and mugwort pollen. Sensitization to seed storage proteins was observed in less than 10%, mainly in children, and correlated with IgE to nuts, seeds, and legumes. IgE to Cor a 12, observed in all cities (10% to 25%), correlated with IgE to nuts, seeds, and pollen. CONCLUSIONS: In adulthood, the importance of hazelnut sensitization to storage proteins, oleosin (Cor a 12), and Cor a 8 is diluted by the increased role of birch pollen cross-reactivity with Cor a 1. Cor a 8 sensitization in the Mediterranean is probably driven by diet in combination with pollen exposure. Hazelnut oleosin sensitization is prevalent across Europe; however, the clinical relevance remains to be established.

Sublingual-swallow immunotherapy with standardized 3-grass pollen extract: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is accepted as a safe and effective route for the treatment of grass pollen allergy, but clarification of its clinical and biological efficacy requires more study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and compliance of SLIT with a standardized 3-grass pollen extract in patients with grass pollen seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without mild asthma. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study included 127 patients (aged 12-41 years; mean age, 24.9 years) with grass pollen seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without mild asthma. They received either SLIT with a high-dose, standardized, 3-grass pollen extract or placebo for 10 months before and during the grass pollen season. The efficacy evaluation compared weekly clinical scores (defined as the sum of the symptom score and rescue medication score) to measure rhinoconjunctivitis and asthma for the first 8 weeks of the pollen season. We also evaluated safety and compliance and measured changes in anti-Dactylis specific IgG4 antibody levels. RESULTS: There was a trend in favor of the study group in the mean adjusted clinical score. The groups were not comparable on inclusion (P = .02): the SLIT group included more subjects with asthma and had a higher mean IgG4 serum level. Additional exploration according to subgroups with and without asthma found that among the patients without asthma, the SLIT group had a significantly better clinical score (P = .045). Anti-Dactylis specific IgG4 levels increased significantly in the SLIT group. CONCLUSION: SLIT with a standardized, high-dose, 3-grass pollen extract is safe and significantly improves the clinical score in patients with hay fever and without asthma during the pollen season.

Skin test diagnosis of grass pollen allergy with a recombinant hybrid molecule.

BACKGROUND: A recombinant hybrid molecule (HM) consisting of 4 major allergens from timothy grass (Phl p 1, 2, 5, and 6) was expressed in Escherichia coli, purified, and characterized regarding its immunologic properties. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the recombinant HM can be used for the diagnosis of grass pollen allergy by means of skin testing. METHODS: Skin prick testing was performed in 32 patients with grass pollen allergy and in 9 control individuals by using increasing concentrations (4, 12, 36, and 108 mug/mL) of the HM and using commercial grass pollen extract. Specific IgE reactivities against the HM, grass pollen extract, and a panel of purified grass pollen allergens (recombinant Phl p 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 13 and natural Phl p 4) were measured by means of ELISA, and timothy grass pollen-specific IgE levels were determined by using ImmunoCAP. RESULTS: Grass pollen allergy was diagnosed in all patients by means of skin testing with the HM. No false-positive skin test responses were obtained in the control individuals. There was an excellent correlation between IgE levels obtained with the HM and natural grass pollen extract measured by means of ELISA (r = 0.98, P < .0001) and by means of ImmunoCAP (r = 0.98, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The recombinant HM permitted accurate and specific in vivo diagnosis of grass pollen allergy in all tested patients. It can be considered a well-defined tool for the diagnosis and perhaps for immunotherapy of grass pollen allergy. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A recombinant HM can replace traditional allergen extracts for skin test-based diagnosis of grass pollen allergy.