Clinical validation of controlled exposure to house dust mite in the environmental exposure unit (EEU).

RATIONALE: The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), a controlled allergen exposure model of allergic rhinitis (AR), has traditionally utilized seasonal allergens. We sought to clinically validate the use of house dust mite (HDM), a perennial allergen, in the HDM-EEU, a specially designed facility within the larger EEU. METHODS: Forty-four HDM-allergic and eleven non-allergic participants were screened and deemed eligible for one of two 3-h exposure sessions in the HDM-EEU. Participants were exposed to a modest or higher HDM target, with blood and nasal brushing samples collected before and after allergen exposure. Symptomatic data, including Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS), Total Rhinoconjunctivitis Symptom Score (TRSS), and Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) were collected at baseline, every 30 min until 3 h, on an hourly basis for up to 12 h, and at 24 h following the onset of HDM exposure. RESULTS: The modest and higher HDM target sessions respectively featured cumulative total particle counts of 156,784 and 266,694 particles (2.5-25 µm), Der f 1 concentrations of 2.67 ng/m3 and 3.80 ng/m3, and Der p 1 concentrations of 2.07 ng/m3 and 6.66 ng/m3. Allergic participants experienced an increase in symptoms, with modest target participants plateauing at 1.5 to 2 h and achieving a mean peak TNSS of 5.74 ± 0.65, mean peak TOSS of 2.47 ± 0.56, and mean peak TRSS of 9.16 ± 1.32. High HDM-target allergics reached a mean peak TNSS of 8.17 ± 0.71, mean peak TOSS of 4.46 ± 0.62, and mean peak TRSS of 14.08 ± 1.30 at 3 h. All allergic participants' symptoms decreased but remained higher than baseline after exiting the HDM-EEU. Sixteen participants (37.2%) were classified as Early Phase Responders (EPR), eleven (25.6%) as protracted EPR (pEPR), seven (16.3%) as Dual Phase Responders (DPR), and nine (20.9%) as Poor Responders (PR). Allergic participants experienced significant percent PNIF reductions at hours 2 and 3 compared to healthy controls. Non-allergics were asymptomatic during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The HDM-EEU is an appropriate model to study HDM-induced AR as it can generate clinically relevant AR symptoms amongst HDM-allergic individuals.

Biologic Responses to House Dust Mite Exposure in the Environmental Exposure Unit.

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is an inflammatory disease of the nasal mucosa that can be modeled using Controlled Allergen Exposure Facilities (CACF). Recently, we clinically validated the house dust mite (HDM) Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) facility. In the current study, we aimed to assess biological responses in the blood following HDM exposure in the HDM-EEU. Methods: Fifty-five participants passed a screening visit, where they provided consent and completed a skin prick test (SPT), then attended a modest or higher HDM exposure session. Baseline and post-exposure blood samples were collected. Complete blood counts with differentials were measured, and isolated serum was used to determine Dermatophagoides farinae- and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus-specific IgE (sIgE) and cytokine concentrations (IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-13, TNF-α). Results: HDM-allergic participants had significantly greater SPT wheal sizes than healthy controls. sIgE concentrations were significantly greater in allergic participants, with a strong correlation between Dermatophagoides farinae and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Serum eosinophil counts were significantly decreased post-exposure for allergic participants. White blood cell, neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts were significantly increased for both allergic and non-allergic participants post-exposure. Serum IL-13 concentrations were significantly reduced post-exposure in allergics while TNF-α was significantly reduced in non-allergics. Conclusion: The HDM-EEU is a useful model for investigating biologic mechanisms of HDM-induced AR. Allergic participants produced measurable biological changes compared to healthy controls following allergen exposure, specifically with serum expression of eosinophils and related markers, namely IL-5, which promotes the proliferation and differentiation of eosinophils, and IL-13, a cytokine released by eosinophils. The exact mechanisms at play require further investigation.

Cholinergic Synapse Pathway Gene Polymorphisms Associated With Late-Phase Responses in Allergic Rhinitis.

Allergic rhinitis (AR) is characterized by an early-phase response (EPR), and in a subgroup of individuals, a late-phase response (LPR). We sought to investigate polymorphisms in cholinergic synapse pathway genes, previously associated with late-asthmatic responses, in the LPR. Twenty healthy participants and 74 participants with AR underwent allergen exposure using the Environmental Exposure Unit. Allergic participants were sub-phenotyped using self-reported nasal congestion scores; congestion is the predominant symptom experienced during the LPR. Acute congestion (AC, n = 36) participants developed only an EPR, while persistent congestion (PC, n = 38) participants developed both allergic responses. We interrogated blood samples collected before allergen exposure with genotyping and gene expression assays. Twenty-five SNPs located in ADCY3, AKT3, CACNA1S, CHRM3, CHRNB2, GNG4, and KCNQ4 had significantly different allele frequencies (P < 0.10) between PC and AC participants. PC participants had increased minor allele content (P = 0.009) in the 25 SNPs compared to AC participants. Two SNPs in AKT3 were associated with gene expression differences (FDR < 0.01) in PC participants. This study identified an association between the LPR and polymorphisms in the cholinergic synapse pathway genes, and developed a novel method to sub-phenotype AR using self-reported nasal congestion scores.

Utility of Environmental Exposure Unit Challenge Protocols for the Study of Allergic Rhinitis Therapies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper explores how the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) experimental model can be used to further our understanding of pharmacotherapies and immunotherapies for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). RECENT FINDINGS: EEUs are used increasingly for the study of combination therapies, immunotherapies, and novel AR treatments. A combined antihistamine/corticosteroid nasal spray formulation was seen to have a faster onset of action relative to the therapies individually in the Environmental Exposure Chamber. House dust mite sublingual immunotherapy tablets are both safe and efficacious as evaluated by the Vienna Challenge Chamber. The Kingston EEU found that a novel peptide-based immunotherapy approach to be effective in reducing grass pollen-induced AR. Lastly, nasal filters were determined to reduce seasonal AR symptoms, given out-of-season in the Denmark Environmental Exposure Unit. EEUs are controlled, replicable models that provide valuable insight into the efficacy, onset and duration of action, and dose-related impacts of AR therapeutics, with direct clinical relevance.

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.

Iodixanol nasal solution reduces allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms in Allergen BioCube®: a randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Allergic rhinitis (AR) affects ~20% of the population worldwide. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of iodixanol nasal solution (Nasapaque) for AR treatment, using the Allergen BioCube® (ABC®), an environmental exposure unit. Iodixanol is a commonly used contrast media agent that shows efficacy on the signs and symptoms of AR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-three adult subjects with AR were randomized to iodixanol or placebo treatment in a double-masked efficacy and safety study conducted outside of ragweed pollen season. In-office treatment was administered after BioCube® ragweed pollen exposure, and again 8 days later prior to ragweed exposure. Nasal and ocular efficacy and safety assessments were conducted before and after treatment. RESULTS: Iodixanol treatment resulted in statistically significantly lower total nasal symptom scores as compared to placebo at several time points post-treatment and ABC exposure. Individual nasal and ocular symptoms, notably nasal itching and ocular itching, showed evidence of lower scores in the iodixanol group. Peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) improved (9%-16%) with iodixanol from baseline as compared to PNIF in the placebo group which ranged from 3% worsening to improvement of 2%. Few (9) adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Iodixanol nasal solution demonstrated efficacy for relief of several nasal and ocular allergic rhinoconjunctivitis signs and symptoms, and was safe and well tolerated in this early Phase II exploratory trial. Further studies with iodixanol are warranted. Allergy challenge models such as the ABC provide valuable assessments of allergen exposures and drug efficacies. STUDY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: NCT02377895.

Onset of action for loratadine tablets for the symptomatic control of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults challenged with ragweed pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit: a post hoc analysis of total symptom score.

BACKGROUND: Loratadine is a second-generation, non-sedating antihistamine used for the relief of allergic rhinitis symptoms. Previous studies reported that when loratadine was encapsulated, the onset of action for symptom relief was 180 min. However, unmodified loratadine tablets were not evaluated at that time. Using data from a previously published Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) study comparing azelastine nasal spray with loratadine tablets, cetirizine tablets, and placebo, this post hoc analysis determines the onset of action of loratadine tablets (i.e. unmodified) by analyzing the total symptom score for the relief of nasal and ocular seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) symptoms. METHODS: A Phase IV, randomized, single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, double-dummy, four-way crossover study was conducted in the EEU. Seventy participants were randomized sequentially into one of the four treatments during ragweed pollen exposure. Nasal and ocular symptom scores were self-reported by the participants and recorded. The original study analysis was carried out by evaluating the nasal symptom scores only. For this post hoc analysis, both nasal and ocular data from the loratadine and placebo treatment arms were analyzed. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the onset of action of loratadine as measured by the change in total symptom score (TSS) from baseline in comparison to placebo. The onset of ocular symptom relief using the total ocular symptom score (TOSS) was also reported. RESULTS: Loratadine tablets demonstrated a significant and durable improvement in both TSS (P = .005) and TOSS (P = .013) at 75 min post-treatment administration compared to placebo. The mean proportion of participants reporting none or mild for all component symptoms of TSS and TOSS at 75 min and thereafter was significantly higher in the loratadine (TSS, P = .0005; TOSS, P ≤ .0001) vs. placebo treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: The onset of action of loratadine tablets was 75 min for the relief of nasal and ocular symptoms in adults with SAR. These results suggest a faster onset of action for loratadine tablets (75 min) compared to previously reported studies which were conducted with modified (i.e. gelatin-encapsulated) loratadine tablets (180 min).Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00561717.

Blood and nasal epigenetics correlate with allergic rhinitis symptom development in the environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Epigenetic alterations may represent new therapeutic targets and/or biomarkers of allergic rhinitis (AR). Our aim was to examine genome-wide epigenetic changes induced by controlled pollen exposure in the environmental exposure unit (EEU). METHODS: 38 AR sufferers and eight nonallergic controls were exposed to grass pollen for 3 hours on two consecutive days. We interrogated DNA methylation at baseline and 3 hours in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) using the Infinium Methylation 450K array. We corrected for demographics, cell composition, and multiple testing (Benjamini-Hochberg) and verified hits using bisulfite PCR pyrosequencing and qPCR. To extend these findings to a clinically relevant tissue, we investigated DNA methylation and gene expression of mucin 4 (MUC4), in nasal brushings from a separate validation cohort exposed to birch pollen. RESULTS: In PBMCs of allergic rhinitis participants, 42 sites showed significant DNA methylation changes of 2% or greater. DNA methylation changes in tryptase gamma 1 (TPSG1), schlafen 12 (SLFN12), and MUC4 in response to exposure were validated by pyrosequencing. SLFN12 DNA methylation significantly correlated with symptoms (P < 0.05), and baseline DNA methylation pattern was found to be predictive of symptom severity upon grass allergen exposure (P = 0.029). Changes in MUC4 DNA methylation in nasal brushings in the validation cohort correlated with drop in peak nasal inspiratory flow (Spearman's r = 0.314, P = 0.034), and MUC4 gene expression was significantly increased (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study revealed novel and rapid epigenetic changes upon exposure in a controlled allergen challenge facility, and identified baseline epigenetic status as a predictor of symptom severity.

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.

Clinical validation of controlled exposure to birch pollen in the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU).

BACKGROUND: The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) in Kingston, Ontario, Canada is a controlled allergen challenge facility (CACF) that has been previously clinically validated for the use of ragweed and grass pollen in clinical studies. In this study we aim to validate the use of birch pollen to challenge allergic participants. METHODS: A total of 59 volunteers were screened and 38 birch allergic participants and ten non-allergics completed the study, outside of tree pollen season. Participants had to have a minimum of 2-year history of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis during the typical tree pollen season and have a positive skin prick test to birch allergen ≥5 mm from the control. Qualified participants were exposed to birch (Betula pendula) pollen for 4 h in the EEU and recorded their symptoms of sneezing, rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itch which comprised the total nasal symptom score (TNSS), as well as itchy/watery eyes, red/burning eyes and itching of ears/palate/throat which along with the TNSS comprised the total rhinoconjunctival symptom score (TRSS) along with Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) at baseline and at 30 min intervals for the duration of exposure, then hourly for up to 12 h from the start of exposure. RESULTS: Allergic participants reported a gradual rise in TNSS and TRSS, reaching a mean and standard error of the mean of 7.08 ± 0.45 and 11.58 ± 0.93 respectively by 180 min from the start of exposure. Symptoms gradually declined to near baseline values following departing from the unit, reaching 1.9 and 2.7 by 450 min. Allergic participants reported significantly higher TNSS than non-allergics starting from 30 min (p < 0.01, two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni corrections), maintaining maximum significance from 60 to 300 min (p < 0.0001) and losing significance by 420 min. TRSS and PNIF followed similar trends as those seen with TNSS. Participants were phenotyped using previously published definitions using the TNSS into Early Phase Responders (EPR, 57.8 %), protracted EPR (pEPR, 39.5 %), and Dual Phase Responders (DPR, 2.7 %). CONCLUSIONS: The EEU can competently challenge birch allergic participants and achieve statistically significant changes in symptoms and nasal airflow, while such changes are not reported in non-allergic controls. Trial registration NCT02351830 clinicaltrials.gov.

Clinical validation of controlled grass pollen challenge in the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU).

RATIONALE: The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), a controlled allergen exposure model of allergic rhinitis (AR), has traditionally utilized ragweed pollen. We sought to clinically validate the use of grass pollen in the EEU. METHODS: Healthy volunteers with a history of AR symptoms during grass pollen season and supportive skin test responses attended the EEU for 3 hrs of rye grass pollen exposure (Lolium Perenne). Non-atopic controls were also recruited. Participants assessed individual rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms to generate Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS; max 12) and Total Symptom Score (TSS; max 24) and recorded Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) q30min while in the EEU. Participants returned the following day for an additional 3 hrs of pollen exposure. Two separate groups allowed for the exploration of lower vs. higher pollen concentrations and subsequent effects on symptoms. RESULTS: 78 participants were screened, of whom 39 were eligible and attended the 2x3h EEU visits, plus 8 non-atopic controls. Mean TSS, TNSS and PNIF values amongst participants in the higher pollen concentration group (target 3500 grains/m3) after the first 3 hr exposure were 18.9, 9.7 and 68 L/min, respectively. In comparison, mean TSS, TNSS and PNIF values in the lower pollen concentration (2500 grains/m3) group were only 13.3, 7.6, and 82 L/min, respectively. The subsequent day of pollen exposure did not appreciably alter the maximal TSS/TNSSs, but rather resulted in a more rapid onset of symptomatology, with higher mean scores at the 30 min, 60 min and 90 min timepoints. The non-atopic controls remained asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides clinical validation of the ability to generate allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms amongst grass-allergic individuals in the EEU.

Add-on histamine receptor-3 antagonist for allergic rhinitis: a double blind randomized crossover trial using the environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Oral antihistamines that target the histamine receptor-1, such as fexofenadine, offer suboptimal relief of allergic rhinitis-associated nasal congestion. Combinations with oral sympathomimetics, such as pseudoephedrine, relieve congestion but produce side effects. Previous animal and human studies with histamine receptor-3 antagonists, such as PF-03654764, demonstrate promise. METHODS: Herein we employ the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) to conduct the first randomized controlled trial of PF-03654764 in allergic rhinitis. 64 participants were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled 4-period crossover study. Participants were exposed to ragweed pollen for 6 hours post-dose in the EEU. The primary objective was to compare the effect of PF-03654764 + fexofenadine to pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine on the subjective measures of congestion and Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS). The objectives of our post-hoc analyses were to compare all treatments to placebo and determine the onset of action (OA). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01033396). RESULTS: PF-03654764 + fexofenadine was not superior to pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine. In post-hoc analyses, PF-03654764 + fexofenadine significantly reduced TNSS, relative to placebo, and OA was 60 minutes. Pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine significantly reduced congestion and TNSS, relative to placebo, with OA of 60 and 30 minutes, respectively. Although this study was not powered for a statistical analysis of safety, it was noted that all PF-03654764-treated groups experienced an elevated incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: PF-03654764 + fexofenadine failed to provide superior relief of allergic rhinitis-associated nasal symptoms upon exposure to ragweed pollen compared to fexofenadine + pseudoephedrine. However, in post-hoc analyses, PF-03654764 + fexofenadine improved TNSS compared to placebo. Side effects in the PF-03654764-treated groups were clinically significant compared to the controls.

A four-way, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study to determine the efficacy and speed of azelastine nasal spray, versus loratadine, and cetirizine in adult subjects with allergen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Azelastine has been shown to be effective against seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) is a validated model of experimental SAR. The objective of this double-blind, four-way crossover study was to evaluate the onset of action of azelastine nasal spray, versus the oral antihistamines loratadine 10 mg and cetirizine 10 mg in the relief of the symptoms of SAR. METHODS: 70 participants, aged 18-65, were randomized to receive azelastine nasal spray, cetirizine, loratadine, or placebo after controlled ragweed pollen exposure in the EEU. Symptoms were evaluated using the total nasal symptom score (TNSS). The primary efficacy parameter was the onset of action as measured by the change from baseline in TNSS. RESULTS: Azelastine displayed a statistically significant improvement in TNSS compared with placebo at all time points from 15 minutes through 6 hours post dose. Azelastine, cetirizine, and loratadine reduced TNSS compared to placebo with an onset of action of 15 (p < 0.001), 60 (p = 0.015), and 75 (p = 0.034) minutes, respectively. The overall assessment of efficacy was rated as good or very good by 46% of the participants for azelastine, 51% of the participants for cetirizine, and 30% of the participants for loratadine compared to 18% of the participants for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Azelastine's onset of action for symptom relief was faster than that of cetirizine and loratadine. The overall participant satisfaction in treatment with azelastine is comparable to cetirizine and statistically superior to loratadine. These results suggest that azelastine may be preferential to oral antihistamines for the rapid relief of SAR symptoms.