Persistence of the clinical effect of grass allergen peptide immunotherapy after the second and third grass pollen seasons.

BACKGROUND: Grass allergen peptides are in development for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. A previous randomized, placebo-controlled study demonstrated that grass allergen peptides significantly improved total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores (TRSSs) after posttreatment challenge (PTC) to rye grass in an environmental exposure unit after 1 intervening grass pollen season (GPS1). OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy/safety of 4 dosing regimens of grass allergen peptides after a second (GPS2) and third (GPS3) intervening GPS in the environmental exposure unit. METHODS: Eligible subjects who were randomized in the parent study (GPS1) during the first year of recruitment were invited to participate in GPS2 and GPS3, which took place 1 and 2 years after treatment cessation, respectively. Participants were not treated further, and both participants and study personnel remained blinded. The primary efficacy end point was the change in mean TRSS (reported every 30 minutes) from GPS1 baseline to the follow-up PTC calculated across all time points over days 2 to 4 for GPS2 and across hours 1 to 3 over days 2 to 4 for GPS3. Secondary efficacy end points and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two and 85 participants were enrolled in GPS2 and GPS3, respectively. A numerically greater, but not statistically significant improvement from baseline in mean TRSS at PTC was observed in the group receiving one 6-nmol intradermal injection every 2 weeks for 14 weeks group compared with the placebo at GPS2 (-6.0 vs -3.6, P = .0535) and GPS3 (-6.2 vs -3.6, P = .1128). Similar findings were observed for the group receiving one 6-nmol intradermal injection every 2 weeks for 14 weeks at GPS3 (-6.4 vs -3.6, P = .0759). No adverse safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Treatment with grass allergen peptides led to an improvement in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms after 3 intervening GPSs, corresponding to up to 2 years off treatment.

Clinical standardization of two controlled allergen challenge facilities: The Environmental Exposure Unit and the Biogenics Research Chamber.

BACKGROUND: Controlled allergen challenge facilities (CACF), in disparate geographic regions with dissimilar engineering and base populations, have historically functioned as single, independent sites in clinical allergy trials. We aimed to demonstrate "between-unit reproducibility" to allow controlled challenge trials of participants using 2 CACFs. OBJECTIVE: To compare and standardize 2 CACFs located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and San Antonio, Texas, by examining participant-reported symptom severity during qualifying and treatment visits and evaluating response to treatment, while using the same allergen. METHODS: At 2 different CACFs, participants were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover intervention trial with cetirizine 10 mg. Different distribution devices delivered common short ragweed pollen via laminar air flow and maintained an airborne concentration of 3500 ± 700 grains/m3 in both facilities. A 1-hour "sham" run with no pollen release preceded a priming exposure of 3 hours and was followed 3 days later by a qualifying/treatment 5-hour exposure. At least 14 days later, another priming exposure was followed by the crossover exposure and treatment. RESULTS: Forty-eight and 43 subjects completed the study at Kingston and San Antonio, respectively. Demographics were similar. Fewer than 10% exhibited symptoms with sham exposure. No significant differences were found between the 2 facilities in maximal total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score, total nasal symptom score, and total ocular symptom score, nor in areas under the curve. In both facilities, no significant effects of cetirizine 10 mg over placebo were detected. CONCLUSION: The results were equivalent, demonstrating that the 2 CACFs can be used together in dual-center clinical trials and show the possibility of multicenter trials involving multiple CACFs.

Lack of effect of Timothy grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablet on birch pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in an environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Timothy grass pollen allergen extract tablets (Grastek) are standardized sublingual immunotherapy tablets (SLIT-T) approved for the treatment of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis (AR) and conjunctivitis. Many grass allergic patients are also cosensitized to birch pollen. Whether Timothy grass SLIT-T can confer symptomatic benefits for birch pollen-induced AR symptoms is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the treatment effect of Timothy grass SLIT-T for birch pollen-induced AR in participants sensitized to both grass and birch pollen using an environmental exposure unit (EEU). METHODS: This study was a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that enrolled participants aged 18 to 65 years allergic to both timothy grass and birch pollen. After a baseline EEU birch pollen challenge, in which a minimum total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of 6 of 12 was required for enrollment, participants were randomized to receive Timothy grass SLIT-T or placebo taken once daily for 4 months. No confirmatory grass pollen challenge was performed. The primary end point was the change in TNSS averaged from assessments from hours 2 to 5 during the posttreatment birch pollen challenge compared with baseline. The secondary and exploratory end points included temporally identical changes in total ocular symptom score (TOSS), total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (TRSS), and individual symptom scores. RESULTS: The difference in TNSS reduction after 4 months of therapy between the Timothy grass SLIT-T and placebo group was not significant (P = .83). Reductions in TOSS (P = .19) and TRSS (P = .67) were also comparable between groups. Findings between groups for individual symptom scores were similar (all P > .40), except for watery eyes, in which symptom reduction was slightly better in the placebo arm (P = .01). Timothy grass SLIT-T was well tolerated, and no serious adverse effects occurred. CONCLUSION: A bystander effect of grass SLIT-T on birch pollen-induced AR symptoms was not detected. Symptomatic benefits of grass SLIT-T are likely allergen specific. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02394600.