Barrier-forming, drug-free nasal spray reduces allergic symptoms induced by house dust mite allergen

A Modern Approach to Clinical Outcome Assessment in Allergy Management: Advantages of Allergen Exposure Chambers

Allergic diseases triggered by airborne allergens such as allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis are increasingly prevalent, posing significant challenges for both patients and healthcare systems. Assessing the efficacy of allergen immunotherapy and other anti-allergic treatments requires precise and reproducible methods. Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) have emerged as advanced tools for evaluating clinical outcomes, offering controlled conditions that address many limitations of traditional field-based studies. This review explores the advantages of AECs in allergy management, emphasizing their role in providing standardized allergen exposure for both clinical research and routine assessments. AECs deliver consistent and reproducible data comparable to the nasal allergen challenge and natural allergen exposure, making them a valuable addition to the diagnosis and treatment effectiveness of allergic diseases. Although they are well suited to early-stage clinical trials, further standardization and validation are needed to gain broader acceptance in pivotal phase III studies. Future research should focus on refining AEC protocols and integrating them into regulatory frameworks, ensuring their role in the advancement of therapeutic approaches for allergic diseases.

Construction of a Hybrid Vaccine Based on Der f 35-Derived Peptides with Reduced Allergenicity

INTRODUCTION

House dust mite is the primary trigger of allergic respiratory diseases worldwide, and allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment in the clinic. The use of allergen molecules instead of extracts is a promising strategy in AIT. In this study, we constructed a peptide hybrid vaccine against the major mite allergen Der f 35 and verified its hypoallergenicity, making it to be a promising candidate for AIT of mite allergy.

METHODS

The gene encoding Der f 35 was retrieved and synthesized. The hypoallergenic peptide fragments derived from the B-cell epitopes were synthesized based on the predicted profiles of B-cell or T helper-cell epitopes in Der f 35, they were verified by immunoglobulin E (IgE)-reaction test and fused to non-allergenic protein carrier to form the hybrid vaccine. Both the wild-type Der f 35 and the designed vaccine were expressed in Escherichia coli and purified by chromatography; their IgE-binding activity was compared by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), Western blot, inhibition ELISA, and basophil activation test (BAT). The blocking immunoglobulin G (IgG) against the designed vaccine was raised in rabbits and its ability to inhibit IgE binding of Der f 35 was evaluated by ELISA. The vaccine's effects on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 29 out of 60 (48.33%) IgE-positive sera against Der f 35 were screened. Five peptide fragments (residue 39-42, 60-67, 73-107, 111-118, 126-143) from Der f 35 were selected as candidates, in which four peptides exhibited almost no IgE reactivity and the fragment 73-107 had weak reactions. Only 5.98-24.02% inhibition rates could be achieved by the peptides when compared with Der f 35 (97.32%). The designed vaccine migrated at approximately 30 kDa by SDS-PAGE. The IgE-ELISA revealed a significant reduction in IgE-binding activity to the vaccine when compared to wild-type Der f 35 (p < 0.0001); the decreased allergenicity was further confirmed by IgE-Western blot, inhibition ELISA, and BAT, respectively. The IgE-reactivity of Der f 35 could be blocked by the vaccine-induced IgG (p < 0.01). The levels of IL-5 and IL-13 from PBMCs were significantly decreased after stimulation by the vaccine than that by Der f 35 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The designed B-cell epitope vaccine of Der f 35 showed greatly diminished allergenicity and Th2 activity. It could be an effective and safe candidate to prevent allergic adverse reactions during the immunotherapy of mite allergy and merits the further study.

AM-301, a barrier-forming nasal spray, versus saline spray in seasonal allergic rhinitis: A randomized clinical trial

RATIONALE

Saline nasal sprays are frequently used in the management of seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) for the cleansing and clearing of aeroallergens from the nasal cavity. Also using a drug-free approach, AM-301 nasal spray is forming a thin film barrier on the nasal mucosa to prevent contact with allergens, trap them, and facilitate their discharge. A clinical trial compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AM-301 and saline spray in SAR.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to self-administer AM-301 or saline 3 × daily for 2 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoint: reduction in mean daily reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints: reduction in mean instantaneous TNSS and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ), global impression of efficacy. Safety and tolerability: adverse events, relief medication use, symptom-free days, global impression of tolerability.

RESULTS

AM-301-treated patients achieved a significantly lower rTNSS than the saline group (LS square means difference -1.1, 95% CI -1.959 to -0.241, p = .013) with improvement observed across all individual nasal symptoms. Likewise, all secondary endpoints showed statistical significance in favor of AM-301; for example, quality of life was significantly improved overall (p < .001) as well as for each individual RQLQ domain. Both treatments showed similarly good safety and tolerability. With AM-301, fewer patients used relief medication and more enjoyed symptom-free days compared to saline treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

AM-301 was more effective than saline in improving SAR nasal symptoms and related quality of life while offering similar tolerability, demonstrating the benefits of a barrier approach.