Dataset Information

Sustained efficacy and safety of a 300IR daily dose of a sublingual solution of birch pollen allergen extract in adults with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) due to birch pollen is a growing health concern in Europe. Here, we report the efficacy and safety of 300IR birch pollen sublingual solution administered discontinuously for 2 consecutive years to patients with birch-associated allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

Methods

Birch pollen-allergic adults were randomized in this double blind study to 300IR birch pollen sublingual solution or placebo, daily, starting 4 months before and continuing through the pollen season for two pollen seasons. Randomization was stratified according to the presence or absence of oral allergy syndrome (OAS). The primary efficacy endpoint was the Average Adjusted Symptom Score (AAdSS) over the second pollen season and was analyzed by ANCOVA. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the AAdSS over the first pollen period. Safety was evaluated by means of adverse event monitoring.

Results

574 patients (284 in the active group and 290 in the placebo group) were randomized and 496 completed the study. Over the second pollen period, the least square (LS) mean AAdSS was significantly lower in the 300IR group than in the placebo group (LS mean difference -2.04, 95% CI [-2.69, -1.40], (p <0.0001) with a relative reduction of 30.6%. Results were consistent in patients with and without OAS (-33.6% and -28.4%, respectively). A significant reduction in LS mean AAdSS was also observed over the first pollen season. The most frequently reported adverse events were application site reactions: oral pruritus, throat irritation, and mouth edema. There were no reports of anaphylaxis.

Conclusions

Pre- and co-seasonal treatment with 300IR birch pollen sublingual solution demonstrated sustained clinical efficacy over 2 pollen seasons and was well tolerated in adults with birch pollen-associated allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Efficacy results were consistent in patients with and without oral allergy syndrome.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01731249.

SUBMITTER: Worm M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3928083 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The capacity of sublingual allergen immunotherapy (SLIT) to provide effective symptom relief in pollen-induced seasonal allergic rhinitis is often questioned, despite evidence of clinical efficacy from meta-analyses and well-powered, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. In the absence of direct, head-to-head, comparative trials of SLIT and symptomatic medication, only indirect comparisons are possible. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of classes of products (second-generation H1-antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids and grass pollen SLIT tablet formulations) and single products (the azelastine-fluticasone combination MP29-02, and the leukotriene receptor antagonist montelukast) for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis in adults, adolescents and/or children. We searched the literature for large (n >100 in the smallest treatment arm) double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials. For each drug or drug class, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect on symptom scores. For each selected trial, we calculated the relative clinical impact (according to a previously published method) on the basis of the reported post-treatment or season-long nasal or total symptom scores: 100 × (scorePlacebo - scoreActive)/scorePlacebo. RESULTS: Twenty-eight publications on symptomatic medication trials and ten on SLIT trials met our selection criteria (total number of patients: n = 21,223). The Hedges' g values from the meta-analyses confirmed the presence of a treatment effect for all drug classes. In an indirect comparison, the weighted mean (range) relative clinical impacts were -29.6% (-23% to -37%) for five-grass pollen SLIT tablets, -19.2% (-6% to -29%) for timothy pollen SLIT tablets, -23.5% (-7% to -54%) for nasal corticosteroids, -17.1% (-15% to -20%) for MP29-02, -15.0% (-3% to -26%) for H1-antihistamines and -6.5% (-3% to -10%) for montelukast. CONCLUSIONS: In an indirect comparison, grass pollen SLIT tablets had a greater mean relative clinical impact than second-generation antihistamines and montelukast and much the same mean relative clinical impact as nasal corticosteroids. This result was obtained despite the presence of methodological factors that mask the clinical efficacy of SLIT for the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Project description:BackgroundThe World Allergy Organization and the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommend to perform product-specific meta-analyses for allergen-specific immunotherapies because of the high degree of heterogeneity between individual products. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of Glutaraldehyde-modified and MCT® (MicroCrystalline Tyrosine)-adsorbed allergoids (MATA).MethodsThe databases MEDLINE, LILACS, embase, LIVIVO, Web of Science and Google (Scholar) were searched for publications on MATA up to June 2019. Primary endpoint was the combined symptom and medication score (CSMS). Secondary endpoints were single scores, immunogenicity and improvement of allergic condition. Secondary safety endpoints were the occurrence of side effects. A random effects model was applied with (standardized) mean differences ([S]MDs) including confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was analyzed using the I2 index and publication bias using Egger's test and Funnel plots. Subgroups were analyzed regarding age and asthma status.ResultsEight randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials were selected for efficacy and 43 publications for safety analysis. In total, 4531 patients were included in this analysis including eight studies containing data on children and adolescents. AIT with MATA significantly reduced allergic symptoms and medication use with a SMD for CSMS of -0.8 (CI: -1.24, -0.36) in comparison to placebo. Heterogeneity was moderate between the studies. The total symptom score (-1.2 [CI: -2.11, -0.29]) and the total medication score (-2.2 [CI: -3.65, -0.74]) were also significantly reduced after MATA treatment. Patient's condition improved significantly after treatment with MATA, with an odds ratio of 3.05 (CI: 1.90, 4.90) when compared to placebo. The proportion of patients, who developed side effects was 38% (CI: 19%, 57%). No serious side effects occurred. Safety in the subgroups of asthmatic patients, children and adolescents did not differ from the overall patient population.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis reveals a large body of evidence from publications investigating MATA. MATA significantly improved allergic symptoms and reduced the use of anti-allergic medication in comparison to placebo, with an excellent safety profile. Especially for children and asthmatic patients, the use of MATAs can be considered as safe, because the safety profiles in these groups did not differ from the total patient population.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Currently accepted therapies for ragweed allergy in North America consist of pharmacotherapy and subcutaneous allergen immunotherapy injections to treat symptoms. Allergen immunotherapy not only reduces symptoms and the need for pharmacotherapy but has also been shown to have disease-modifying potential. Recently, ragweed immunotherapy administered via sublingual allergen tablet has been approved in North America for treatment of allergic rhinitis with and without conjunctivitis. METHODS:This was an analysis of pooled data for a prespecified subgroup of Canadian subjects from two multicentre, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials of ragweed sublingual tablet (SLIT-T; 6 and 12 Amb a 1-U of Ambrosia artemisiifolia) in patients aged ?18y, with ragweed-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR/C) with or without asthma. Randomized subjects used once-daily ragweed SLIT-T or placebo for at least 12 weeks before the ragweed season and for up to 52 weeks post-randomization. The primary efficacy endpoint was the total combined score (TCS) based on the sum of AR/C daily symptom score (DSS) and daily medication score (DMS) averaged over the peak season. Treatment effects on TCS, DSS, and DMS in the entire season were also assessed. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored to assess safety. RESULTS:337 Canadian subjects were randomized in the two trials. During the peak season, ragweed SLIT-T 6 and 12 Amb a 1-U significantly reduced TCS by 26% (difference, -2.46 score point; p?=?.0009) and 40% (difference, -3.75 score point; p?<?.0001), respectively. In the overall population (N?=?961), TCS reductions with 6 and 12 Amb a 1-U were 20% and 23%, respectively (both p?<?.001). Clinically meaningful reductions in entire-season TCS in Canadians were similar to those during peak ragweed season. Dose-dependent reduction of DSS and DMS was also observed for ragweed SLIT-T 6 and 12 Amb a 1-U during the peak season and the entire season. Ragweed SLIT-T was well tolerated in Canadian subjects and the overall population. Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and transient, occurring early in treatment; no systemic allergic reaction/anaphylaxis was noted. CONCLUSION:Ragweed SLIT-T is an effective form of immunotherapy that provides symptomatic efficacy of AR/C with a favorable risk profile in Canadian and overall populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT00783198 and NCT00770315.