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.

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.

The adsorption of allergoids and 3-O-desacyl-4'-monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL®) to microcrystalline tyrosine (MCT) in formulations for use in allergy immunotherapy.

Infectious disease vaccine potency is affected by antigen adjuvant adsorption. WHO and EMA guidelines recommend limits and experimental monitoring of adsorption in vaccines and allergy immunotherapies. Adsorbed allergoids and MPL® in MATA-MPL allergy immunotherapy formulations effectively treat IgE mitigated allergy. Understanding vaccine antigen adjuvant adsorption allows optimisation of potency and should be seen as good practice; however current understanding is seldom applied to allergy immunotherapies. The allergoid and MPL® adsorption to MCT in MATA-MPL allergy immunotherapy formulations was experimental determination using specific allergen IgE allerginicity and MPL® content methods. Binding forces between MPL® and MCT were investigated by competition binding experiments. MATA-MPL samples with different allergoids gave results within 100-104% of the theoretical 50µg/mL MPL® content. Unmodified drug substance samples showed significant desirable IgE antigenicity, 1040-170 QAU/mL. MATA-MPL supernatant samples with different allergoids gave results of ≤2 µg/mL MPL® and ≤0.1-1.4 QAU/mL IgE antigenicity, demonstrating approximately ≥96 & 99% adsorption respectively. Allergoid and MPL® adsorption in different MATA-MPL allergy immunotherapy formulations is consistent and meets guideline recommendations. MCT formulations treated to disrupt electrostatic, hydrophobic and ligand exchange interactions, gave an MPL® content of ≤2 µg/mL in supernatant samples. MCT formulations treated to disrupt aromatic interactions, gave an MPL® content of 73-92 µg/mL in supernatant samples. MPL® adsorption to l-tyrosine in MCT formulations is based on interactions between the 2-deoxy-2-aminoglucose backbone on MPL® and aromatic ring of l-tyrosine in MCT, such as C-H⋯π interaction. MCT could be an alternative adjuvant depot for some infectious disease antigens.