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.

Treatment with grass allergen peptides improves symptoms of grass pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Synthetic peptide immunoregulatory epitopes are a new class of immunotherapy to treat allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC). Grass allergen peptides, comprising 7 synthetic T-cell epitopes derived from Cyn d 1, Lol p 5, Dac g 5, Hol l 5, and Phl p 5, is investigated for treatment of grass pollen-induced ARC. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of intradermally administered grass allergen peptides. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated 3 regimens of grass allergen peptides versus placebo in patients with grass pollen-induced allergy (18-65 years). After a 4-day baseline challenge to rye grass in the environmental exposure unit (EEU), subjects were randomized to receive grass allergen peptides at 6 nmol at 2-week intervals for a total of 8 doses (8x6Q2W), grass allergen peptides at 12 nmol at 4-week intervals for a total of 4 doses (4x12Q4W), or grass allergen peptides at 12 nmol at 2-week intervals for a total of 8 doses (8x12Q2W) or placebo and treated before the grass pollen season. The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline in total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score across days 2 to 4 of a 4-day posttreatment challenge (PTC) in the EEU after the grass pollen season. Secondary efficacy end points and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-two subjects were randomized. Significantly greater improvement (reduction of total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score from baseline to PTC) occurred across days 2 to 4 with grass allergen peptide 8x6Q2W versus placebo (-5.4 vs -3.8, respectively; P = .0346). Greater improvement at PTC also occurred for grass allergen peptide 8x6Q2W versus placebo (P = .0403) in patients with more symptomatic ARC. No safety signals were detected. CONCLUSION: Grass allergen peptide 8x6Q2W significantly improved ARC symptoms after rye grass allergen challenge in an EEU with an acceptable safety profile.

Neural stem cells express melatonin receptors and neurotrophic factors: colocalization of the MT1 receptor with neuronal and glial markers.

BACKGROUND: In order to optimize the potential benefits of neural stem cell (NSC) transplantation for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders, it is necessary to understand their biological characteristics. Although neurotrophin transduction strategies are promising, alternative approaches such as the modulation of intrinsic neurotrophin expression by NSCs, could also be beneficial. Therefore, utilizing the C17.2 neural stem cell line, we have examined the expression of selected neurotrophic factors under different in vitro conditions. In view of recent evidence suggesting a role for the pineal hormone melatonin in vertebrate development, it was also of interest to determine whether its G protein-coupled MT1 and MT2 receptors are expressed in NSCs. RESULTS: RT-PCR analysis revealed robust expression of glial cell-line derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and nerve growth factor (NGF) in undifferentiated cells maintained for two days in culture. After one week, differentiating cells continued to exhibit high expression of BDNF and NGF, but GDNF expression was lower or absent, depending on the culture conditions utilized. Melatonin MT1 receptor mRNA was detected in NSCs maintained for two days in culture, but the MT2 receptor was not seen. An immature MT1 receptor of about 30 kDa was detected by western blotting in NSCs cultured for two days, whereas a mature receptor of about 40 - 45 kDa was present in cells maintained for longer periods. Immunocytochemical studies demonstrated that the MT1 receptor is expressed in both neural (beta-tubulin III positive) and glial (GFAP positive) progenitor cells. An examination of the effects of melatonin on neurotrophin expression revealed that low physiological concentrations of this hormone caused a significant induction of GDNF mRNA expression in NSCs following treatment for 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The phenotypic characteristics of C17.2 cells suggest that they are a heterogeneous population of NSCs including both neural and glial progenitors, as observed under the cell culture conditions used in this study. These NSCs have an intrinsic ability to express neurotrophic factors, with an apparent suppression of GDNF expression after several days in culture. The detection of melatonin receptors in neural stem/progenitor cells suggests involvement of this pleiotropic hormone in mammalian neurodevelopment. Moreover, the ability of melatonin to induce GDNF expression in C17.2 cells supports a functional role for the MT1 receptor expressed in these NSCs. In view of the potency of GDNF in promoting the survival of dopaminergic neurons, these novel findings have implications for the utilization of melatonin in neuroprotective strategies, especially in Parkinson's disease.

Induction of GDNF mRNA expression by melatonin in rat C6 glioma cells.

In order to determine the physiological effect of melatonin on glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), which is reportedly up-regulated by high doses of this hormone, concentration-dependent studies were carried out in cultured cells. RT-PCR studies indicated that, in addition to GDNF, rat C6 glioma cells express both of the G protein-coupled melatonin receptor subtypes, MT1 and MT2. When C6 cells were treated with physiological (0.05-1 nM) or higher (10 and 100 nM) concentrations of melatonin for 24 h, a significant induction of relative GDNF mRNA levels (n = 4) was detected by semi-quantitative RT-PCR. These findings suggest that induction of GDNF is involved in physiological neuroprotection by melatonin. Given the potency of GDNF in maintaining nigrostriatal dopaminergic integrity, understanding the mechanisms of its induction by melatonin could provide novel therapies for Parkinson's disease.