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.

An international Delphi study on the burden of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria and the role of bilastine among current treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria are common histamine-driven diseases, exerting detrimental effects on cognitive functions, sleep, daily activities, and quality of life. Non-sedating second-generation H1-antihistamines are the first-line treatment of choice. Aim of the study was to define the role of bilastine among second-generation H1-antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and urticaria in patients of different ages. METHODS: An international Delphi study was carried out to assess consensus among experts from 17 European and extra-European countries on three main topics: 1) Burden of disease; 2) Current treatment options; 3) Specific characteristics of bilastine among second-generation antihistamines. RESULTS: Here, we present the results obtained for a selection of 15 out of 27 consensus statements, focused on disease burden, role of second-generation antihistamines and bilastine profile. The rate of concordance was ≥98% for 4 statements, ≥ 96% for 6, ≥ 94% for 3, and ≥90% for 2. CONCLUSIONS: The high degree of agreement obtained suggests a wide awareness of the burden of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and chronic urticaria among experts from all over the world and reflects a broad consensus on the role of second-generation antihistamines in general and of bilastine in particular for their management.

Update about Oralair® as a treatment for grass pollen allergic rhinitis.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective approach to treating allergic rhinitis (AR). Oralair® is a five-grass pollen SLIT tablet containing natural pollen allergens from five of the major grass species responsible for seasonal AR due to grass pollen allergy. Recommended use is in a pre-coseasonal regimen, starting daily treatment approximately 4 months before the start of the pollen season, with treatment then continued daily throughout the season; treatment should continue for 3-5 y. Clinical efficacy and safety of Oralair® in patients with grass pollen-induced AR has been demonstrated in a comprehensive clinical development program of randomized controlled trials. Effectiveness has been substantiated in subsequent observational studies with sustained efficacy following treatment cessation and a favorable level of adherence, quality of life, benefit, and satisfaction for the patients. Supportive evidence for a benefit in reducing the risk or delaying the development of allergic asthma is emerging.

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.

Treatment of allergic rhinitis during and outside the pollen season using mobile technology. A MASK study.

BACKGROUND: The analysis of mobile health (mHealth) data has generated innovative insights into improving allergic rhinitis control, but additive information is needed. A cross-sectional real-world observational study was undertaken in 17 European countries during and outside the estimated pollen season. The aim was to collect novel information including the phenotypic characteristics of the users. METHODS: The Allergy Diary-MASK-air-mobile phone app, freely available via Google Play and App, was used to collect the data of daily visual analogue scales (VASs) for overall allergic symptoms and medication use. Fluticasone Furoate (FF), Mometasone Furoate (MF), Azelastine Fluticasone Proprionate combination (MPAzeFlu) and eight oral H1-antihistamines were studied. Phenotypic characteristics were recorded at entry. The ARIA severity score was derived from entry data. This was an a priori planned analysis. RESULTS: 9037 users filled in 70,286 days of VAS in 2016, 2017 and 2018. The ARIA severity score was lower outside than during the pollen season. Severity was similar for all treatment groups during the pollen season, and lower in the MPAzeFlu group outside the pollen season. Days with MPAzeFlu had lower VAS levels and a higher frequency of monotherapy than the other treatments during the season. Outside the season, days with MPAzeFlu also had a higher frequency of monotherapy. The number of reported days was significantly higher with MPAzeFlu during and outside the season than with MF, FF or oral H1-antihistamines. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the overall efficacy of treatments is similar during and outside the pollen season and indicates that medications are similarly effective during the year.

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.

Allergen immunotherapy phase II trials: Challenges in dose finding.

Phase II studies on allergen immunotherapy (AIT) should define the dose with the best balance between efficacy and safety ("optimal dose"). Their key role is based on dose selection for subsequent pivotal studies (phase III, field studies). Since products for AIT differ in composition and unit definitions, phase II trials are mandatory for new products and preparations being developed according to the German Therapy Allergen Ordinance ("Therapie-Allergeneverordnung", TAV) due to current EMA guidelines since 2009. The latter permit various in-vivo models and endpoints for phase II studies, e.g., AIT-induced changes in skin test, nasal, conjunctival or bronchial provocation, or in exposure chamber or field trials. Selection and graduation of the doses, minimization of placebo effects, and sufficient numbers of patients are a challenge. Effort, required time, and costs are important variables for the initiators of phase II trials. Risks are characterized by e.g., a) too small doses without relevant differences compared to placebo, b) missing true dose-response relationships, c) strong placebo effect and consequently small "therapeutic window", d) large heterogeneity and missing distinct differences (compared to placebo), e) too small effects in field studies due to low allergen exposure, f) missing dose-related increase (in case of too high doses). In the view of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, the unambiguous phase II trials with TAV products performed until today were not able to confirm the marketed doses for AIT. Regardless of the utilized model, more raw and single data should illustrate the individual outcome of AIT during phase II trials, facilitating an improved and more intuitive interpretation of the data (placebo effects? scattering?). In the medium term, evidence regarding AIT efficacy will considerably increase due to phase II trials as a prerequisite for subsequent phase III field studies. This affects all manufacturers offering AIT products in Germany and Europe.

MASK 2017: ARIA digitally-enabled, integrated, person-centred care for rhinitis and asthma multimorbidity using real-world-evidence.

mHealth, such as apps running on consumer smart devices is becoming increasingly popular and has the potential to profoundly affect healthcare and health outcomes. However, it may be disruptive and results achieved are not always reaching the goals. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) has evolved from a guideline using the best evidence-based approach to care pathways suited to real-life using mobile technology in allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma multimorbidity. Patients largely use over-the-counter medications dispensed in pharmacies. Shared decision making centered around the patient and based on self-management should be the norm. Mobile Airways Sentinel networK (MASK), the Phase 3 ARIA initiative, is based on the freely available MASK app (the Allergy Diary, Android and iOS platforms). MASK is available in 16 languages and deployed in 23 countries. The present paper provides an overview of the methods used in MASK and the key results obtained to date. These include a novel phenotypic characterization of the patients, confirmation of the impact of allergic rhinitis on work productivity and treatment patterns in real life. Most patients appear to self-medicate, are often non-adherent and do not follow guidelines. Moreover, the Allergy Diary is able to distinguish between AR medications. The potential usefulness of MASK will be further explored by POLLAR (Impact of Air Pollution on Asthma and Rhinitis), a new Horizon 2020 project using the Allergy Diary.

Geolocation with respect to personal privacy for the Allergy Diary app - a MASK study.

BACKGROUND: Collecting data on the localization of users is a key issue for the MASK (Mobile Airways Sentinel networK: the Allergy Diary) App. Data anonymization is a method of sanitization for privacy. The European Commission's Article 29 Working Party stated that geolocation information is personal data.To assess geolocation using the MASK method and to compare two anonymization methods in the MASK database to find an optimal privacy method. METHODS: Geolocation was studied for all people who used the Allergy Diary App from December 2015 to November 2017 and who reported medical outcomes. Two different anonymization methods have been evaluated: Noise addition (randomization) and k-anonymity (generalization). RESULTS: Ninety-three thousand one hundred and sixteen days of VAS were collected from 8535 users and 54,500 (58.5%) were geolocalized, corresponding to 5428 users. Noise addition was found to be less accurate than k-anonymity using MASK data to protect the users' life privacy. DISCUSSION: k-anonymity is an acceptable method for the anonymization of MASK data and results can be used for other databases.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.