How to design and evaluate randomized controlled trials in immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an ARIA-GA(2) LEN statement.

University Hospital, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France.
Allergy (Impact Factor: 6). 06/2011; 66(6):765-74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2011.02590.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Specific immunotherapy (SIT) is one of the treatments for allergic rhinitis. However, for allergists, nonspecialists, regulators, payers, and patients, there remain gaps in understanding the evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although treating the same diseases, RCTs in SIT and pharmacotherapy should be considered separately for several reasons, as developed in this study. These include the severity and persistence of allergic rhinitis in the patients enrolled in the study, the problem of the placebo, allergen exposure (in particular pollen and mite), the analysis and reporting of the study, the level of symptoms of placebo-treated patients, the clinical relevance of the efficacy of SIT, the need for a validated combined symptom-medication score, the differences between children and adults and pharmacoeconomic analyses. This statement reviews issues raised by the interpretation of RCTs in sublingual immunotherapy. It is not possible to directly extrapolate the rules or parameters used in medication RCTs to SIT. It also provides some suggestions for the research that will be needed. Interestingly, some of the research questions can be approached with the available data obtained from large RCTs.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allergen immunotherapy is the sole treatment for IgE-mediated allergic diseases directed at the underlying mechanism. The two widely accepted administration routes are sublingual (SLIT) and subcutaneous (SCIT). We reviewed how patients should best be selected for immunotherapy and how the optimal administration route can be defined. Before deciding SCIT or SLIT, appropriate selection of patients for allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is mandatory. To be eligible for AIT, subjects must have a clear medical history of allergic disease, with exacerbation of symptoms on exposure to one or more allergens and a corresponding positive skin or in vitro test. Then the route of administration should be based on: published evidence of clinical and immunologic efficacy (which varies per allergic disease and per allergen); mono- or multi-allergen immunotherapy, for SLIT multi-allergen immunotherapy was not effective; safety: adverse events with SLIT are more frequent, but less severe; and, costs and patient preferences, closely related to adherence issues. All these are discussed in the article.
    Immunotherapy 07/2014; 6(7):871-884. DOI:10.2217/imt.14.55 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rhinoconjunctivitis, and especially allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC) are increasing in prevalence, progressively affecting the well being of more and more adults and children. Clinical trials using allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the sole causal treatment of allergies, are being conducted, but discussions on optimal patient-related outcomes (PROs) are still ongoing. Almost all publications discussing PROs relate to adults. The authors comment on the importance of broader PROs when assessing the results of AIT trials, as focusing on only nasal symptom improvement and medication reduction does not capture the full benefit of AIT. Such intervention also improves comorbid allergic diseases and general well being. In studies on rhinoconjunctivitis in children, using medical treatment or immunotherapy published between November 2012 - February 2014 nasal symptom (and medication) scores were primary outcomes in 18 of 20 trials. Only two trials applied quality-of-life questionnaires. Clinical trials conducted in children with ARC should be interpreted with caution, as most currently used PROs give a restricted view, by not considering disease manifestations beyond nasal/ocular symptoms. To correctly estimate the full benefit of AIT in pediatric patients with ARC, broader PROs should be investigated, including disease control and quality of health.
    Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 04/2014; DOI:10.1097/ACI.0000000000000062 · 3.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sublingual immunotherapy is currently considered a viable alternative to the subcutaneous route. The body of evidence of its efficacy is based on the results of 77 clinical trials and 7 meta-analyses, that have been published so far. Nonetheless, the experimental evidence is partially weak due to the large heterogeneity of studies, namely: doses, regimens, patient selection, duration of treatment, outcomes and reporting. In addition, it is virtually impossible to compare the potency of extracts produced by different manufacturers. Also, there is large variability in reporting and in the classification of adverse events, either systemic or local, so that only a rough estimate can be provided. Considering all these aspects, efforts are needed to harmonize the methodology, outcome measures and reporting of SLIT clinical trials, to achieve the ability of comparing the results of various studies. International societies and the World Allergy Organization have recently provided general recommendations on how to design and conduct trials which can provide more interpretable and homogeneous data.
    World Allergy Organization Journal 01/2014; 7(1):21. DOI:10.1186/1939-4551-7-21


Available from
May 30, 2014