Dogmas, challenges, and promises in phase III allergen immunotherapy studies

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Pieter Jan De Kam - , Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd (Author)
  • Matthias F. Kramer - , Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd, Bencard Allergie GmbH (Author)
  • Mohamed H. Shamji - , Imperial College London (Author)
  • Kemi Oluwayi - , Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd (Author)
  • Matthew D. Heath - , Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd (Author)
  • Erika Jensen-Jarolim - , Medical University of Vienna, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna (Author)
  • Markus H. Berger - , Medical University of Vienna (Author)
  • Uwe E. Berger - , Medical University of Vienna (Author)
  • Anke Graessel - , Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd, Bencard Allergie GmbH (Author)
  • Fiona Sellwood - , Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd (Author)
  • Stefan Zielen - , University Hospital Frankfurt (Author)
  • Christian Vogelberg - , Department of Paediatrics, TUD Dresden University of Technology (Author)
  • Petra Zieglmayer - , Vienna Challenge Chamber, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences (Author)
  • Ralph Mösges - , University of Cologne (Author)
  • Ludger Klimek - , Center of Rhinology and Allergology (Author)
  • Lawrence M. DuBuske - , George Washington University (GWU) (Author)
  • Wayne G. Shreffler - , Harvard University (Author)
  • Jonathan A. Bernstein - , University of Cincinnati (Author)
  • Thomas M. Kündig - , University of Zurich (Author)
  • Murray A. Skinner - , Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd (Author)

Abstract

The concept of treatment of an allergy with the offending allergen was introduced more than a century ago. Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease modifying treatment of allergic diseases caused by inhalational allergens and insect venoms. Despite this, only few AIT products have reached licensure in the US or an official marketing authorization status in European countries. Moreover, most of these AIT products are provided on an individual patient basis as named patient products (NPP) in Europe, while individualized preparations of (mixed) allergenic extract vials for subcutaneous administration (compounding) is common practice in the US. AIT products are generally considered safe and well tolerated, but the major practical clinical development challenge is to define the optimal dose and prove the efficacy and safety of these products using state-of-the art Phase II and pivotal Phase III studies. In planning Phase II-III AIT studies, a thorough understanding of the study challenges is essential (e.g. variability and non-validated status of subjective primary endpoints, limitations of pollen season definitions) and dogmas of these products (e.g., for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) trials double-blinding conditions cannot be maintained, resulting in stronger placebo responses in the active treatment group and inflated treatment effects in Phase III). There is future promise for more objective biomarker endpoints (e.g. basophil activation (CD63 and CD203c), subsets of regulatory dendritic, T and B cells, IL-10–producing group 2 innate lymphoid cells; alone or in combination) to overcome several of these dogmas and challenges; innovation in AIT clinical trials can only progress with integral biomarker research to complement the traditional endpoints in Phase II-III clinical development. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of these dogmas, challenges and recommendations based on published data, to facilitate the design of Phase III studies and improve the evidence basis of safe and effective AIT products.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Article number100578
JournalWorld Allergy Organization journal
Volume14
Issue number9
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2021
Peer-reviewedYes

Keywords

Keywords

  • Allergen immunotherapy, Biomarker, Blinding, Phase III, Placebo effect