REGN1908/1909 prevented cat allergen-induced early asthmatic responses in an environmental exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: The dominant allergen in cat dander, Felis domesticus allergen 1 (Fel d 1), is a persistent trigger for allergic rhinitis and asthma symptoms. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of Fel d 1 monoclonal antibodies (REGN1908/1909) in preventing cat allergen-induced early asthmatic responses (EARs) in cat-allergic patients with mild asthma. METHODS: Patients were randomized to single-dose REGN1908/1909 600 mg (n = 29) or placebo (n = 27). The FEV1 was measured for up to 4 hours in a cat allergen environmental exposure unit up to 85 days after dosing. Assessments included between-group differences in change from baseline in FEV1 area under the curve (AUC; 0-2 hours) and incidence of EAR (FEV1 reduction ≥20%). TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03838731. RESULTS: Single-dose REGN1908/1909 significantly prevented reductions in FEV1 on days 8, 29, 57, and 85. Most REGN1908/1909 patients did not have an EAR by 4 hours (the last time point tested). In contrast, placebo-treated patients experienced a ≥20% mean FEV1 reduction on days 8, 29, 57, and 85 after dosing, with most experiencing an EAR within 1 hour. REGN1908/1909-treated patients tolerated 3-fold higher allergen quantities (P < .05 at all time points) versus placebo. REGN1908/1909 substantially reduced skin test reactivity to cat allergen versus placebo at all time points tested (nominal P < .001). REGN1908/1909 was generally well tolerated; no serious adverse events or deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Single-dose REGN1908/1909 significantly prevented reductions in FEV1 in cat-allergic patients with mild asthma on cat allergen environmental exposure unit exposure at 8 days and up to 85 days after dose.

Cat allergen exposure in a naturalistic exposure chamber: A prospective observational study in cat-allergic subjects.

BACKGROUND: To determine the proportion and reproducibility of cat-allergic mild asthmatics with early asthmatic response (EAR) during cat allergen exposure in a naturalistic exposure chamber (NEC). METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study in 30 cat-allergic mild asthmatics who received two 180-min cat-allergen (Felis domesticus allergen 1 [Fel d 1]) challenges 27 days apart in an NEC. RESULTS: An EAR (≥20% reduction from baseline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]) was observed in 67% and 52% of subjects at first and second NEC exposure, respectively, with similar median time to EAR; 44% of subjects had an EAR on days 1 and 28. Late asthmatic response (≥15% reduction in FEV1 within 24 h of NEC exit) was observed in 33% of subjects following either exposure. Average FEV1 and total nasal symptom score during NEC exposure were highly correlated within subjects between NEC exposures (r = 0.91, p < 0.0001; r = 0.73, p < 0.001), but total ocular symptom score was not. Time to EAR, but not average FEV1, was significantly associated with NEC Fel d 1 concentration, which was variable. There were no serious adverse events; 12/30 subjects experienced 20 adverse events (including asthma, 10%; headache, 10%). CONCLUSIONS: The NEC model demonstrates that average FEV1 change is highly reproducible and has a low correlation with cat allergen levels. However, time to EAR and incidence of EAR are less reproducible and are highly correlated with NEC allergen levels. Average FEV1, rather than incidence of EAR or time to EAR, could be considered as an endpoint for interventional trials testing cat-specific anti-allergy therapies using an NEC.

Clinical and immunological evaluation of cat-allergic asthmatics living with or without a cat.

BACKGROUND: Characterising the clinical and immunological impact of daily cat exposure in cat-allergic subjects with asthma who live with cats (WC) and those who do not (WoC) may provide understanding of the drivers of the allergic response. METHODS: Clinical and immunological characteristics (skin prick test, spirometry, symptom assessments, immunological markers) were compared between asthmatic subjects WC (n = 10) and WoC (n = 9). RESULTS: WC subjects had greater use of long-acting beta agonists (p < .05) and high-potency corticosteroids. No differences were observed in lung function, nasal and ocular symptoms, or asthma control between the groups. Cat dander- and Fel d 1-specific IgG4 concentrations were higher in WC than WoC subjects (both p < .05). Total IgE and cat dander-, Fel d 1- and Fel d 7-specific IgE concentrations were similar, but Fel d 4-sIgE was higher in WC subjects (p < .05) versus WoC. Basophil sensitivity to cat dander extract and Fel d 1 was lower in WC versus WoC subjects (p < .05) and correlated with higher IgG4 concentrations (r = 0.63; p = .009). Fel d 1-specific CD4+ T-cell responses polarised toward Th2A responses in WC versus WoC subjects; Fel d 1-specific IgE correlated with surface expression of CRTH2 and CD200R (both p ≤ .05). CONCLUSION: Immunological differences observed in WC versus WoC did not reflect clinical tolerance with natural cat exposure. The ability to live with a cat despite allergy could be driven by higher preventative medication use. This study may support design of novel therapeutics for allergy management.