Efficacy and safety of specific immunotherapy with a high-dose sublingual grass pollen preparation: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Rhinology and Allergology Center, Wiesbaden, Germany.
Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology: official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology (Impact Factor: 2.75). 04/2008; 100(3):256-63. DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)60451-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is increasingly being used for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, but there are conflicting study results demonstrating clinically relevant efficacy.
To show clinical efficacy and safety of a new high-dose grass pollen preparation for SLIT.
In a 2-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 185 subjects with rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without asthma, were treated with a recently developed, high-dose, 6-grass pollen mixture for SLIT once daily.
The primary end point, a combined symptom-medication score, showed almost no change in the placebo group during a 42-day evaluation period in the grass pollen season from 2003 to 2005, whereas active treatment was associated with a significant and clinically relevant improvement (full analysis set, P = .01; main data set, P = .002). The effect was irrespective of asthma diagnosis. Allergen-specific IgE showed no difference in both groups, and specific IgG4 and IgG1 increased with active treatment in the first and second study years compared with placebo, clearly indicating the immunogenic effect of the active treatment. The SLIT was well tolerated. No serious adverse drug reactions occurred.
High-dose, sublingual, specific immunotherapy with an extract of a 6-grass pollen mixture showed a significant and clinically relevant improvement in subjects with grass pollen-associated rhinitis or rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without asthma. The treatment with the sublingual solution was well tolerated.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) have been shown to effectively treat grass pollen allergies, although direct comparisons are sparse. To estimate the relative efficacy of SLIT tablets compared with SCIT and SLIT drops in commercially available products though network meta-analysis. A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library publications. Randomized, double-blind clinical trials of SCIT, SLIT drops, and SLIT tablets for grass pollen were included. Bayesian network meta-analyses estimated the standardized mean difference (SMD) across 3 immunotherapy modalities on allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication score data from publications or received from authors. Both fixed and random effects models were investigated. Thirty-seven studies were included in meta-analyses for symptom scores and 31 studies for medication scores. In the random effects model, SCIT and SLIT tablets were significantly different from placebo for symptom scores: SMDs (95% CI) of -0.32 (-0.45 to -0.18) and -0.32 (-0.41 to -0.23), respectively. No significant difference was identified for SLIT drops compared with placebo (SMD, -0.17; -0.37 to 0.04). For medication scores, significant differences compared with placebo were observed for SCIT (SMD, -0.33; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.13), SLIT tablets (SMD, -0.23; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.17), and SLIT drops (SMD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.06). Network meta-analysis revealed no significant differences in SMDs (95% credible interval) for symptom scores (0.0145 [-0.19 to 0.23]) or medication scores (0.133 [-0.31 to 0.57]) between SLIT tablets and SCIT, or for symptom scores (-0.175 [-0.37 to 0.02]) and medication scores (0.188 [-0.18 to 0.56]) between SLIT tablets and SLIT drops. The comparisons for grass pollen immunotherapy products commercialized in at least 1 country indicate comparable reductions in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms and supplemental medication use for SLIT tablets and SCIT in the first pollen season. Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice. 11/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A set of standard clinical chemistry and hematology parameters are usually measured during clinical studies. The major outcome of these standard tests is to control that the drug investigated does not lead to pathophysiological changes in respective organs or blood. In some cases based on scientific rationale such tests may not be needed. In this paper we report on a standard set of clinical chemistry and hematology laboratory parameters measured before and after treatment in three different immunotherapy studies, representing different routes of administration and different formulations.
    Clinical and translational allergy. 01/2014; 4:18.
  • Source