How to design and evaluate randomized controlled trials in immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an ARIA-GA2LEN 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.


Available from: Roy Gerth van Wijk, Jun 14, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Allergy today is a public health concern of pandemic proportions, affecting more than 150 million people in Europe alone. In view of epidemiological trends, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) predicts that within the next few decades, more than half of the European population may at some point in their lives experience some type of allergy. Not only do allergic patients suffer from a debilitating disease, with the potential for major impact on their quality of life, career progression, personal development and lifestyle choices, but they also constitute a significant burden on health economics and macroeconomics due to the days of lost productivity and underperformance. Given that allergy triggers, including urbanization, industrialization, pollution and climate change, are not expected to change in the foreseeable future, it is imperative that steps are taken to develop, strengthen and optimize preventive and treatment strategies. Allergen specific immunotherapy is the only currently available medical intervention that has the potential to affect the natural course of the disease. Years of basic science research, clinical trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses have convincingly shown that allergen specific immunotherapy can achieve substantial results for patients, improving the allergic individuals' quality of life, reducing the long-term costs and burden of allergies, and changing the course of the disease. Allergen specific immunotherapy not only effectively alleviates allergy symptoms, but it has a long-term effect after conclusion of the treatment and can prevent the progression of allergic diseases. Unfortunately, allergen specific immunotherapy has not yet received adequate attention from European institutions, including research funding bodies, even though this could be a most rewarding field in terms of return on investments, translational value and European integration and, a field in which Europe is recognized as a worldwide leader. Evaluation and surveillance of the full cost of allergic diseases is still lacking and further progress is being stifled by the variety of health systems across Europe. This means that the general population remains unaware of the potential use of allergen specific immunotherapy and its potential benefits. We call upon Europe's policy-makers to coordinate actions and improve individual and public health in allergy by: * Promoting awareness of the effectiveness of allergen specific immunotherapy * Updating national healthcare policies to support allergen specific immunotherapy * Prioritising funding for allergen specific immunotherapy research * Monitoring the macroeconomic and health economic parameters of allergy * Reinforcing allergy teaching in medical disciplines and specialties The effective implementation of the above policies has the potential for a major positive impact on European Health and Well-Being in the next decade.
    10/2012; 2(1):20. DOI:10.1186/2045-7022-2-20
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Design and execution of immunotherapy trials for seasonal allergies may be complicated by numerous factors including variable allergy testing methods, pollen levels, and timing and intensity of other seasonal allergens. We evaluated grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) treatment in North American adults with grass pollen-induced allergic rhinitis with or without conjunctivitis (AR/C), with/without asthma. METHODS: Subjects age 18--65 with clinical history of grass pollen--induced AR/C, with/without asthma were randomized 1:1 to once-daily 2800 BAU Timothy grass AIT (oral lyophilisate, Phleum pratense, 75,000 SQ-T, containing approximately 15 mug of Phl p 5) or placebo. The AR/C symptom and medication scores were recorded daily. The primary end point was the average AR/C daily symptom score (DSS) during the entire grass pollen season (GPS). Ranked key secondary end points were Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) score, daily medication score (DMS), and percentage of well days, all over entire GPS. Safety was monitored through adverse event reporting. RESULTS: Efficacy analysis included 289 subjects. Over the entire GPS, mean DSS was 6% lower with AIT versus placebo (5.69 vs. 6.06), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.3475) despite significantly higher immunological response in the grass AIT group. No significant between-group differences were seen for key secondary end points. In general, DSS was high before GPS began and no clear relationship between DSS and grass pollen counts was seen during GPS. In post hoc analysis of subjects with pre-seasonal DSS <=3, mean DSS and DMS were both significantly lower with grass AIT versus placebo (27%; p = 0.0327 and 68%; p = 0.0060, respectively). In this subgroup a relationship between DSS and grass pollen counts was observed. Grass AIT was generally well tolerated, with no events of anaphylactic shock or respiratory compromise. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, 2800 BAU grass AIT did not demonstrate significant symptom improvement versus placebo. Lack of relationship between pollen count and symptom score in the study population, and post hoc findings among subjects with low pre-seasonal symptoms, suggest that the symptoms reported in this study were not primarily reflective of the effects of grass pollen exposure.
    Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine 06/2013; 12(1):10. DOI:10.1186/1477-5751-12-10 · 1.47 Impact Factor
  • [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