Immunologic mechanisms of a short-course of Lolium perenne peptide immunotherapy: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A 3-week short-course of adjuvant-free hydrolysates of Lolium perenne peptide (LPP) immunotherapy for rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma over 4 physician visits is safe, well tolerated, and effective. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate immunologic mechanisms of LPP immunotherapy in a subset of patients who participated in a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (clinical.govNCT02560948). METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive LPP (n = 21) or placebo (n = 11) for 3 weeks over 4 visits. Grass pollen-induced basophil, T-cell, and B-cell responses were evaluated before treatment (visit [V] 2), at the end of treatment (V6), and after the pollen season (V8). RESULTS: Combined symptom and rescue medication scores (CSMS) were lower during the peak pollen season (-35.1%, P = .03) and throughout the pollen season (-53.7%, P = .03) in the LPP-treated group compared with those in the placebo-treated group. Proportions of CD63+ and CD203cbrightCRTH2+ basophils were decreased following LPP treatment at V6 (10 ng/mL, P < .0001) and V8 (10 ng/mL, P < .001) compared to V2. No change in the placebo-treated group was observed. Blunting of seasonal increases in levels of grass pollen-specific IgE was observed in LPP-treated but not placebo-treated group. LPP immunotherapy, but not placebo, was associated with a reduction in proportions of IL-4+ TH2 (V6, P = .02), IL-4+ (V6, P = .003; V8, P = .004), and IL-21+ (V6, P = .003; V8, P = .002) follicular helper T cells. Induction of FoxP3+, follicular regulatory T, and IL-10+ regulatory B cells were observed at V6 (all P < .05) and V8 (all P < .05) in LPP-treated group. Induction of regulatory B cells was associated with allergen-neutralizing IgG4-blocking antibodies. CONCLUSION: For the first time, we demonstrate that the immunologic mechanisms of LPP immunotherapy are underscored by immune modulation in the T- and B-cell compartments, which is necessary for its effect.

Improving cancer outcomes through international collaboration in academic cancer treatment trials.

PURPOSE: The need for international collaboration in cancer clinical trials has grown stronger as we have made progress both in cancer treatment and screening. We sought to identify those efforts already underway which facilitate such collaboration, as well as barriers to greater collaboration. METHODS: We reviewed the collective experiences of many cooperative groups, governmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and academic investigators in their work to build international collaboration in cancer clinical trials across multiple disease sites. RESULTS: More than a decade of work has led to effective global harmonization for many of the elements critical to cancer clinical trials. Many barriers remain, but effective international collaboration in academic cancer treatment trials should become the norm, rather than the exception. CONCLUSION: Our ability to strengthen international collaborations will result in maximization of our resources and patients, permitting us to change practice by establishing more effective therapeutic strategies. Regulatory, logistical, and financial hurdles, however, often hamper the conduct of joint trials. We must work together as a global community to overcome these barriers so that we may continue to improve cancer treatment for patients around the world.