Search

Background: Numerous products are available for subcutaneous (SCIT) and sublingual allergen-specific immunotherapy, but there are no information about the direct comparability regarding efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the different extracts., Aims: The aim of this open-labelled, prospective, controlled observational trial was to test the feasibility of a comparison of different products for SCIT in children., Methods: Pediatrician practices recruited patients with a confirmed diagnosis of a seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR) with or without asthma and an allergic sensitization against grass pollen allergen. Every patient was offered SCIT with one out of six allergen extracts: ALK SQ Depot, ALK Avanz, Allergovit, Depigoid, Purethal, Pollinex Quattro. Scores for symptoms and medications were calculated and the difference between treatment years and baseline were recorded., Results: In total, 284 were recruited and 255 children (89.8%; mean age 10.4, SD 3.54 years; 65% males) participated in this trial. Overall, 49,649 patient days were recorded in the electronic database (mean 183.2 days/patient). There was no significant difference in the AR and asthma symptom score or the medication score between the six different SCIT preparations. Similarly, no differences were observed in terms of safety and tolerability., Conclusion: The comparison of different SCIT products using an online tool is feasible. Based on our preliminary data, all extracts indicated efficacy; however, larger groups would be necessary to demonstrate superiority or non-inferiority of one specific SCIT product., (© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (SIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment for children, adolescents, and adults with allergic diseases. The EU has a combined system of national and EU-wide marketing authorization for all medicines. Germany introduced a new therapy allergen ordinance in 2008. Allergen products manufacturers had to apply for marketing authorization application for the major allergen groups (grass group, birch group, mites group, bee/wasp venom). Due to the EU pediatric regulation, in force since 2007, manufacturers had also to submit a pediatric investigation plan (PIP) for each allergen product. We investigated the allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) standard PIP, developed jointly by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the German Paul Ehrlich Institut (PEI). We analyzed the 118 EMA PIP decisions, looked for SIT trials in children in www.clinicaltrials.gov, and further analyzed EMA/EU justifications. The PIPs request a 1-year dose-finding study in adults, a 5-year placebo-controlled (PC) efficacy & safety (E&S) study in adults, and a 5-year PC E&S study in children. Fifty-eight PIP development programs will have to be performed until 2031. But children benefit even more from SIT for ARC than adults. There is no convincing medical/scientific justification for PC E&S studies in children in the relevant EMA documents. The PIP requirement to withhold effective treatment to thousands of children in the placebo group over a 5-year period raises profound concerns. The EMA justifications are formalistic and lack scientific foundation. A critical academic review of the ARC PIPs and the entire PIP system is urgently needed., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Recently, we showed that combination of omalizumab with specific immunotherapy (SIT) for treatment of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) and comorbid seasonal allergic asthma (SAA) is safe and reduced the symptom load in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful manner during the first pollen season., Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate long-lasting effects of an initial combination treatment with SIT+omalizumab, a monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, in a follow-up period with SIT treatment only in patients with SAR and comorbid SAA incompletely controlled by conventional pharmacotherapy., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of omalizumab (Xolair(®)) vs. placebo in combination with SIT (depigmented allergoid vaccine, Depigoid(®)) during the first grass pollen season. Omalizumab or placebo therapy was started 2 wk before SIT; the whole treatment lasted 18 wk. After the first pollen season, SIT was given for two subsequent years without omalizumab. Primary end-point was daily 'symptom load', the sum of daily scores for symptom severity and rescue medication use in the second and third year., Results: A total of 140 patients (age 11-46 yr) were randomized; 130, 128, and 114 patients finished the study after 1, 2, and 3 yr, respectively. The main efficacy variable was the mean daily symptom load as assessed in the patients' diary. No systematic differences between both analysis groups were detected in the findings from symptom load, symptom severity score, or rescue medication score. Further subjective data did not show differences between both groups in the quality-of-life data as assessed with the ACQ, AQLQ, and the RQLQ. Investigators' assessment of treatment effectiveness in the first and second year of study extension showed more patients with favorable long-term treatment outcome ('excellent' and 'good') in the SIT plus omalizumab group than in the SIT plus placebo group. In line with these findings, FEV1 improved at the end of both years in the group which was treated with the combination therapy in the double-blind study compared with the Depigoid plus placebo group., Conclusion: Eighteen weeks' treatment of omalizumab in combination with SIT in patients with SAR and comorbid SAA reduced the symptom load during the treatment period but showed no prolonged effect during treatment with SIT only. A slight increase in lung function (FEV1) in patients formerly treated with the omalizumab/SIT combination therapy should encourage further evaluation of long-term effects of omalizumab., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

To investigate the effect of omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, in addition to specific immunotherapy (SIT) on in vitro sulfidoleukotriene release (SLT) (A) before, (B) directly after, and (C) 1 yr after treatment with omalizumab. Children and adolescents (6.3-17.6 yr) with sensitization to birch and grass pollens and suffering from seasonal allergic rhinitis were included in a Phase III, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical study. Within the four-arm study, patients were randomly chosen to receive SIT for either birch or grass pollen and either subcutaneous omalizumab or placebo for 24 wk during the pollen season. Thereafter, omalizumab or placebo treatment ended, but SIT therapy continued. Blood samples were collected from 92 (A, B) and 78 children (C), respectively. Leukocytes were isolated and stimulated with grass and birch pollen allergens. In the supernatants, SLT (LTC4, LTD4, LTE4) were measured using ELISA [cellular allergen stimulation test, DPC-Biermann, Germany]. At the end of treatment the combination of omalizumab + SIT-grass [median SLT-release: 2125 (before) and 416 ng/ml (after omalizumab treatment); p < 0.001] as well as omalizumab + SIT-birch [1404 and 207 ng/ml; p < 0.001] resulted in significantly lower SLT release after stimulation with the corresponding allergen compared to placebo + SIT-grass [2231 and 2490 ng/ml] or placebo + SIT-birch [1324 and 2489 ng/ml]. One year after omalizumab or placebo treatment, there was no significant difference in SLT release between the 4 groups (omalizumab + SIT-grass: 2855; SIT-grass + placebo: 2543; omalizumab + SIT-birch: 2417; SIT-birch + placebo: 2573 ng/ml). These results strongly suggest that the observed effects of decreased SLT release after omalizumab treatment were attributable to the treatment with omalizumab, rather than to SIT therapy.

Background: IL-18 is a pleiotropic cytokine involved in the polarisation of T-cell response. This study was performed to determine whether or not IL-18 is detectable in phytohemagglutinin (PHA) or betalactoglobulin (BLG) stimulated supernatants of cord blood mononuclear cells (CBMC) and to study the in vitro effect of IL-18 on the interferon (IFN)-gaamma and IL-13 release of CBMC of healthy neonates., Methods: CBMC of neonates were isolated by Ficoll density centrifugation. The cytokines IFN-gamma, IL-13 and IL-18 in the cell culture supernatants were measured using the ELISA technique following stimulation with a unspecific (PHA 20 microg/ml) and an allergen-specific stimulus (BLG 25 microg/ml). In order to study the in vitro effect of IL-18, CBMC were stimulated either with medium alone or with IL-18, IL-18 + PHA and IL-18 + BLG., Results: IL-18 levels in supernatants of CBMC were low and did not vary significantly between unstimulated and PHA or BLG stimulated cell cultures (median 21.4; 23.5 and 15.5 pg/ml, respectively). IFN-gamma and IL-13 levels were significantly higher in response to PHA and BLG (PHA: IFN-gamma, 6154; IL-13, 4357; BLG: IFN-gamma, 801; IL-13, 249 pg/ml) compared to unstimulated cell cultures. The addition of IL-18 to PHA or BLG stimulated CBMC significantly enhanced the IFN-gamma release (PHA: 6154; PHA + IL-18: 13474, p = 0.0001; BLG: 801; BLG + IL-18: 1077, p = 0.008). In comparison to incubation without IL-18, the release of IL-13 was invariable or even reduced, when CBMC were stimulated with PHA + IL-18 (4026, p = 0.16) or BLG + IL-18 (124, p = 0.0001) compared to stimulation of CBMC with PHA (4357 pg/ml) or BLG (249 pg/ml) alone., Conclusions: IL-18 is detectable in supernatants of CBMC. We observed a significant effect of IL-18 + PHA as well as IL-18 + BLG on IFN-gamma release in vitro. Based on our findings we conclude that IL-18 could act as a strong TH1-inducing factor on stimulated CBMC also in vivo.

Background: Current in vitro allergen‐specific IgE (sIgE) detection assays measure IgE against allergen extracts or molecules in a single‐ or multiplex approach. Direct comparisons of the performance of such assays among young children with common presentations of allergic diseases regardless of sensitization status are largely missing. Objectives: The aim of this study was a comparison of the analytical and diagnostic performance for common clinical questions of three commonly used technologies which rely upon different laboratory methodologies among children of the All Age Asthma (ALLIANCE) cohort (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02496468). Methods: Sera from 106 paediatric study participants (mean age 4 years) were assessed for the presence of sIgE by means of the ImmunoCAP™ sx1 and fx5 mixes, the ImmunoCAP ISAC™ 112 microarray and a Euroline™ panel. Results: Total and negative concordance was high (>82%–>89%), while positive concordance varied considerably (0%–100%) but was also >50% for the most common sensitizations analysed (house dust mite and birch). All three test systems showed good sensitivity and specificity (AUC consistently > 0.7). However, no significant differences with regard to identifying sIgE sensitizations associated with symptoms in children with suspected pollen‐ or dust‐triggered wheeze or presenting with symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis or food allergy were detected. Extending the number of allergens did not change the similar performance of the three assay systems. Conclusion and Clinical Relevance: Among young children, the three sIgE assays showed good analytical and diagnostic concordance. Our results caution that the identification of larger numbers of sensitizations by more comprehensive multiplex approaches may not improve the clinical utility of sIgE testing in this age group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]