A regulator's view on AIT clinical trials in the United States and Europe: Why successful studies fail to support licensure.

Clinical studies demonstrate that efficacy and safety in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) are linked to a multiplicity of factors decisively influencing success or failure. In recent years, numerous trials were performed with correspondent study results published. Yet, the number of AIT products successfully obtaining licensure in the analogous time frame is comparably limited. Essential for licensure is that the AIT product investigated remains comparable in its qualitative and quantitative composition throughout the clinical development. Verification of efficacy is not solely demonstrated by a statistically significant difference between the test and control populations; it must also be shown to be clinically relevant. Choice of meaningful inclusion and end-point criteria is critical. Post hoc or subgroup analysis can be supportive but needs verification as predefined criteria in additional studies. Data analysis may be presented on varying analysis populations, while it should be based on the intention-to-treat population for regulatory review to allow objective assessment of the treatment effect on the overall study population. Apparently conflicting interpretations of clinical data between publications and regulatory review are frequently based on their inherently different objectives, with regulatory review taking into considerations the full data sets of all relevant clinical studies for the concerned AIT product to allow an informed decision on licensure.

The History, Present and Future of Allergen Standardization in the United States and Europe.

The topic of standardization in relation to allergen products has been discussed by allergists, regulators, and manufacturers for a long time. In contrast to synthetic medicinal products, the natural origin of allergen products makes the necessary comparability difficult to achieve. This holds true for both aspects of standardization: Batch-to-batch consistency (or product-specific standardization) and comparability among products from different manufacturers (or cross-product comparability). In this review, we focus on how the United States and the European Union have tackled the topic of allergen product standardization in the past, covering the early joint standardization efforts in the 1970s and 1980s as well as the different paths taken by the two players thereafter until today. So far, these two paths have been based on rather classical immunological methods, including the corresponding benefits like simple feasability. New technologies such as mass spectrometry present an opportunity to redefine the field of allergen standardization in the future.

Allergenic extracts to diagnose and treat sensitivity to insect venoms and inhaled allergens.

OBJECTIVE: To review allergenic extracts used to diagnose or treat insect allergies, including how the extracts are manufactured and their measurements of potency or concentration. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed articles derived from searching PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information) about insect allergies and extract preparation. Encyclopedia of Life (http://www.eol.org/) and http://allergome.org/ were also referenced for background information on insects and associated allergens. STUDY SELECTIONS: Search terms used for the PubMed searches included insect allergens and allergies, Apidae, Vespidae, fire ants, cockroach allergies, insect allergen extract preparation, and standardization. RESULTS: Humans may be sensitized to insect allergens by inhalation or through stings. Cockroaches and moths are predominantly responsible for inhalation insect allergy and are a major indoor allergen in urban settings. Bees, fire ants, and wasps are responsible for sting allergy. In the United States, there are multiple insect allergen products commercially available that are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. Of those extracts, honeybee venom and insect venom proteins are standardized with measurements of potency. The remaining insect allergen extracts are nonstandardized products that do not have potency measurements. CONCLUSION: Sensitization to inhalational and stinging insect allergens is reported worldwide. Crude insect allergen extracts are used for diagnosis and specific immunotherapy. A variety of source materials are used by different manufacturers to prepare these extracts, which may result in qualitative differences that are not reflected in measurements of potency or protein concentration.

The US Food and Drug Administration review of the safety and effectiveness of nonstandardized allergen extracts.

BACKGROUND: Nonstandardized allergen extracts have been used for a century. Until 1972, these products were regulated by the National Institutes of Health, and products were not required to have an individualized showing of effectiveness. Jurisdiction was then transferred to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which established external review panels to make recommendations regarding safety and effectiveness. Two external panels deliberated, the first from 1974-1979 and the second from 1982-1983. OBJECTIVE: We sought to review external panels' recommendations and assess the safety and effectiveness of nonstandardized allergen extracts, FDA-reviewed available literature, and databases since 1972. METHODS: Currently licensed nonstandardized allergen extracts were reviewed according to extract type. Available data were collected from medical and nonscientific search engines. Nomenclature was ascertained by consulting www.itis.gov or www.atcc.org. The FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System was probed for events associated with extract use. Provisional threshold levels of safety and effectiveness were established, and extracts were sorted according to whether they met the thresholds. RESULTS: In the Adverse Event Reporting System, there were 178 adverse event reports, including 13 deaths, associated with allergen extract use over 23 years. No single group of extracts predominated. Among 1269 allergen extracts reviewed, there were 480 for which use in the diagnosis and treatment of allergic disease were addressed in the literature, 207 for which only diagnostic use was addressed, 565 for which minimal or no supportive literature was identified, and 17 for which potential safety concerns were found. CONCLUSIONS: When used according to professional guidelines, almost all nonstandardized allergen extracts for diagnosis and therapy appear to be safe. Provisional thresholds of effectiveness were met by 54% of extracts reviewed.