BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy and safety of a six-grass pollen allergoid has been studied. The advent of more exacting clinical guidelines and a better appreciation of the possible mechanisms of treatment prompted this reappraisal. METHODS: A 2-year double-blind multicentre placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial was undertaken in 154 patients suffering symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma (GINA I or II). Therapy comprised two consecutive preseasonal short-courses of subcutaneous injections using a grass pollen allergoid adsorbed to aluminium hydroxide. RESULTS: A combined symptom and medication score (SMS) was used as the primary end-point for clinical efficacy. SMS from the first year showed a significant difference of 26.6% between the two study groups (P=0.026) and this was improved after the second year when there was a 48.4% difference in SMS between active and placebo treatment in favour of the allergoid (P = 0.018). Highly significant increases in grass pollen allergen-specific IgG1 and IgG4 antibody concentrations were measured in association with active treatment. Allergen tolerance was increased as judged by a conjunctival provocation test and significant improvements in quality of life were documented using a standardized questionnaire. The allergoid was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The grass pollen allergoid was shown to be safe and clinically efficacious in the management of hay fever with or without asthma (GINA I or II).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy and safety of a six-grass pollen allergoid has been studied. The advent of more exacting clinical guidelines and a better appreciation of the possible mechanisms of treatment prompted this reappraisal. METHODS: A 2-year double-blind multicentre placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial was undertaken in 154 patients suffering symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis with or without asthma (GINA I or II). Therapy comprised two consecutive preseasonal short-courses of subcutaneous injections using a grass pollen allergoid adsorbed to aluminium hydroxide. RESULTS: A combined symptom and medication score (SMS) was used as the primary end-point for clinical efficacy. SMS from the first year showed a significant difference of 26.6% between the two study groups (P=0.026) and this was improved after the second year when there was a 48.4% difference in SMS between active and placebo treatment in favour of the allergoid (P = 0.018). Highly significant increases in grass pollen allergen-specific IgG1 and IgG4 antibody concentrations were measured in association with active treatment. Allergen tolerance was increased as judged by a conjunctival provocation test and significant improvements in quality of life were documented using a standardized questionnaire. The allergoid was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The grass pollen allergoid was shown to be safe and clinically efficacious in the management of hay fever with or without asthma (GINA I or II).
Authors: G Walter Canonica; Jean Bousquet; Thomas Casale; Richard F Lockey; Carlos E Baena-Cagnani; Ruby Pawankar; Paul C Potter; Philippe J Bousquet; Linda S Cox; Stephen R Durham; Harold S Nelson; Giovanni Passalacqua; Dermot P Ryan; Jan L Brozek; Enrico Compalati; Ronald Dahl; Luis Delgado; Roy Gerth van Wijk; Richard G Gower; Dennis K Ledford; Nelson Rosario Filho; Erkka J Valovirta; Osman M Yusuf; Torsten Zuberbier Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2009-11-19 Impact factor: 4.084
Authors: Bärbel Heydenreich; Iris Bellinghausen; Steffen Lorenz; Helene Henmar; Dennis Strand; Peter A Würtzen; Joachim Saloga Journal: Immunology Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 7.397
Authors: Sarah K Wise; Sandra Y Lin; Elina Toskala; Richard R Orlandi; Cezmi A Akdis; Jeremiah A Alt; Antoine Azar; Fuad M Baroody; Claus Bachert; G Walter Canonica; Thomas Chacko; Cemal Cingi; Giorgio Ciprandi; Jacquelynne Corey; Linda S Cox; Peter Socrates Creticos; Adnan Custovic; Cecelia Damask; Adam DeConde; John M DelGaudio; Charles S Ebert; Jean Anderson Eloy; Carrie E Flanagan; Wytske J Fokkens; Christine Franzese; Jan Gosepath; Ashleigh Halderman; Robert G Hamilton; Hans Jürgen Hoffman; Jens M Hohlfeld; Steven M Houser; Peter H Hwang; Cristoforo Incorvaia; Deborah Jarvis; Ayesha N Khalid; Maritta Kilpeläinen; Todd T Kingdom; Helene Krouse; Desiree Larenas-Linnemann; Adrienne M Laury; Stella E Lee; Joshua M Levy; Amber U Luong; Bradley F Marple; Edward D McCoul; K Christopher McMains; Erik Melén; James W Mims; Gianna Moscato; Joaquim Mullol; Harold S Nelson; Monica Patadia; Ruby Pawankar; Oliver Pfaar; Michael P Platt; William Reisacher; Carmen Rondón; Luke Rudmik; Matthew Ryan; Joaquin Sastre; Rodney J Schlosser; Russell A Settipane; Hemant P Sharma; Aziz Sheikh; Timothy L Smith; Pongsakorn Tantilipikorn; Jody R Tversky; Maria C Veling; De Yun Wang; Marit Westman; Magnus Wickman; Mark Zacharek Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.858