Clinical validation of a house dust mite environmental challenge chamber model

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.

Decongestant Effect of "Coldamaris Akut", a Carrageenan- and Sorbitol-Containing Nasal Spray in Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis

Purpose

This study aimed to develop a hyperosmolar, barrier-forming nasal spray based on carrageenan and sorbitol, and to demonstrate its decongestant effect in the context of allergic rhinitis (AR).

Methods

The efficacy of the nasal spray components was tested in vitro by barrier function, virus replication inhibition, and water absorption assays. The decongestant effectiveness was assessed in a randomized, controlled, crossover environmental chamber trial, where participants with a history of seasonal grass pollen AR were exposed to grass pollen allergens under controlled conditions. Forty-one adults were randomized to receive either carrageenan- and sorbitol-containing nasal spray (CS) or saline solution (SS). After 1 week, participants repeated the exposure with the treatment they had not received before. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in nasal congestion symptom score (NCSS). Secondary efficacy endpoints were nasal airflow, nasal secretion, total nasal symptom score (TNSS), total ocular symptom score (TOSS) and total respiratory symptom score (TRSS).

Results

Preclinical assays demonstrated barrier-building, virus-blocking, and water-withdrawing properties of the CS components. In the clinical study, there was no significant difference in mean NCSS change from pre- to post-treatment between CS and SS. However, nasal airflow increased over time after treatment with CS, while it declined after SS, leading to a growing difference in airflow between CS and SS (p = 0.04 at 6:00 h). Mean nasal secretion over 2-6 h was reduced by ~25% after CS (p = 0.003) compared to pre-treatment, while it was reduced by only ~16% after SS (p = 0.137). No significant differences in TNSS, TOSS and TRSS were observed between CS and SS.

Conclusion

CS improves nasal airflow and reduces nasal secretion in adults with AR. We propose CS as a safe and effective adjuvant to baseline pharmacological treatments.

Trial Registration

NCT04532762.

Sodium Chloride versus Lactose as a Carrier for House Dust Mite Allergen in Allergen Chamber Studies: A Clinical Study to Assess Noninferiority

INTRODUCTION

In the Fraunhofer allergen challenge chamber (ACC), a standardized, universal, good manufacturing practice-conforming technology using a spray dried solution of lactose (L) and allergen extract has been established. In this study, we investigated the noninferiority of hypertonic sodium chloride (S) versus L as a carrier for house dust mite (HDM) allergen to simplify manufacturing, reduce costs, and allow for wider use.

METHODS

Using a participant-blinded, sham exposure-controlled, single-arm, sequential intervention study, we challenged adults with HDM allergic rhinitis five times in the ACC. Participants were first exposed to S, L, and clean air (block 1), followed by S + HDM and L + HDM (block 2). Primary endpoints were mean total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and mean nasal secretion weight.

RESULTS

19 participants were enrolled in the study (10 females; mean age 32 years [22-49], 4 with mild allergic asthma). The safety profile of S + HDM and L + HDM was similar; eight participants experienced mild procedure-related adverse events including tiredness, cough, and dyspnea. Due to dropouts, 13 participants completed the study and were evaluated. Mean TNSS and nasal secretion were as follows: S 0.98, 0.28 g; L 1.1, 0.20 g; clean air 1.1, 0.23 g; S + HDM 5.7, 4.8 g; L + HDM 5.1, 5.1 g. Separate block 1/block 2 MANOVAs with TNSS and nasal secretion as dependent variables revealed no significant differences between the carriers, neither alone and compared with clean air (p = 0.2059, Wilk's λ = 0.78) nor combined with HDM (p = 0.3474, Wilk's λ = 0.89). Noninferiority of S was established using a meta-analysis-based minimal clinical important difference of -0.55: mean TNSS difference between S + HDM and L + HDM was 0.62 (90% CI: -0.51 to 1.74).

CONCLUSION

S as an HDM carrier was safe and well tolerated. It was noninferior to L which makes it an adequate and easy-to-use carrier substitute.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis - 2023

BACKGROUND

In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document.

METHODS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work.

RESULTS

ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost.

CONCLUSION

The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment.

Validated allergen exposure chamber is plausible tool for the assessment of house dust mite-triggered allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND

Allergen exposure chamber (AEC) is a clinical facility that allows exposure to allergenic airborne particles in controlled environment. Although AECs offer stable levels of airborne allergens, the validation of symptoms and other endpoints induced by allergen challenge is key for their recommendation as a plausible tool for the assessment of patients, especially in clinical research. This study aimed to demonstrate the reproducibility of defined clinical endpoints after AEC house dust mite (HDM) challenge under optimal conditions in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR).

METHOD

HDM was distributed at different concentrations. The assessment was subjective by the patients: total nasal symptom score (TNSS), visual analog scale (VAS), and objective by the investigator: acoustic rhinometry, peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF), and nasal secretion weight. Safety was assessed clinically and by peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) and forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV₁ ).

RESULTS

Constant environment: temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) concentration were maintained during all challenges. The concentration of HDM on average remained stable within the targeted values: 1000, 3000, 5000, 7000 particles (p)/m³ . Most symptoms were observed at concentrations 3000 p/m³ or higher. The symptoms severity and other endpoints results were reproducible. 5000 p/m³ , and challenge duration of 120 min were found optimal. The procedure was safe with no lung function abnormalities due to challenge.

CONCLUSION

HDM challenge in ALL-MED AEC offers a safe and reliable method for inducing symptoms in AR patients for the use in controlled clinical studies including allergen immunotherapy.

Update on the use of allergen challenge chambers in immunotherapy: clinical implications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to reflect on and discuss recent evidence of applicability of allergen exposure chambers (AEC) for allergen immunotherapy studies, especially focussing on validation of AECs, technical documentation and future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Publications covered by this review summarize the historical background, current status of research use and validation of AEC systems. It describes identified unmet needs regarding comparability of AEC systems, reproducibility of clinical assessments and correlation of AEC-induced symptoms with scores under natural environmental exposure. Furthermore, new information on technical specifications, for example, dimensions, allergen dispersal and validation procedures is highlighted and future activities of the EAACI AEC task force group regarding harmonization of clinical endpoints are delineated.

SUMMARY

AECs are in use for evaluation of allergic patients for over three decades now. As different systems largely vary regarding technical set up and standard assessments, detailed technical documentation must be available. To gain acceptance of regulatory authorities for pivotal immunotherapy trials conducted with the use of AEC system, harmonization of clinical assessments as well as documentation of correlation of clinical AEC outcomes with environmental exposure clinical scores is required.

Technical standards in allergen exposure chambers worldwide - an EAACI Task Force Report

Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) can be used for controlled exposure to allergenic and non-allergenic airborne particles in an enclosed environment, in order to (i) characterize the pathological features of respiratory diseases and (ii) contribute to and accelerate the clinical development of pharmacological treatments and allergen immunotherapy for allergic disease of the respiratory tract (such as allergic rhinitis, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and allergic asthma). In the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency for the clinical development of products for allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the role of AECs in determining primary endpoints in dose-finding Phase II trials is emphasized. Although methodologically insulated from the variability of natural pollen exposure, chamber models remain confined to supporting secondary, rather than primary, endpoints in Phase III registration trials. The need for further validation in comparison with field exposure is clearly mandated. On this basis, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) initiated a Task Force in 2015 charged to gain a better understanding of how AECs can generate knowledge about respiratory allergies and can contribute to the clinical development of treatments. Researchers working with AECs worldwide were asked to provide technical information in eight sections: (i) dimensions and structure of the AEC, (ii) AEC staff, (iii) airflow, air processing, and operating conditions, (iv) particle dispersal, (v) pollen/particle counting, (vi) safety and non-contamination measures, (vii) procedures for symptom assessments, (viii) tested allergens/substances and validation procedures. On this basis, a minimal set of technical requirements for AECs applied to the field of allergology is proposed.

The use of nasal allergen vs allergen exposure chambers to evaluate allergen immunotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Allergen-specific immunotherapy (AIT) is the only disease-modifying treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR) patients with persistent moderate-severe AR for whom traditional pharmacotherapies are ineffective. The nasal allergen challenge (NAC) and allergen exposure chamber (AEC) are two translational models of AR that can be used to investigate the properties, safety, and efficacy of AIT.

AREAS COVERED

Peer-reviewed, human-centered articles utilizing AEC or NAC models to investigate AIT between 2010 and 2020 were curated from PubMed, EMBASE, and OVID Medline databases. AECs have been used to evaluate traditional subcutaneous and sublingual administrations of AIT, including cross-protective effects and different dosing regimens. More recently, the effectiveness of novel AIT formulations has been evaluated. NACs are another model used to study AIT, including using novel intralymphatic routes of administration. It is an especially powerful and versatile tool to determine if basic science and animal model findings are clinically translatable.

EXPERT OPINION

The AEC and NAC models both produce clinically relevant and reproducible results. AECs are more effective for studying many participants but are limited because they require a specialized facility. As more AIT therapies and new formulations are developed over time, the versatility of the NAC will be especially useful.

Clinical validation of controlled exposure to house dust mite in the environmental exposure unit (EEU)

Rationale

The Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU), a controlled allergen exposure model of allergic rhinitis (AR), has traditionally utilized seasonal allergens. We sought to clinically validate the use of house dust mite (HDM), a perennial allergen, in the HDM-EEU, a specially designed facility within the larger EEU.

Methods

Forty-four HDM-allergic and eleven non-allergic participants were screened and deemed eligible for one of two 3-h exposure sessions in the HDM-EEU. Participants were exposed to a modest or higher HDM target, with blood and nasal brushing samples collected before and after allergen exposure. Symptomatic data, including Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), Total Ocular Symptom Score (TOSS), Total Rhinoconjunctivitis Symptom Score (TRSS), and Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) were collected at baseline, every 30 min until 3 h, on an hourly basis for up to 12 h, and at 24 h following the onset of HDM exposure.

Results

The modest and higher HDM target sessions respectively featured cumulative total particle counts of 156,784 and 266,694 particles (2.5–25 µm), Der f 1 concentrations of 2.67 ng/m³ and 3.80 ng/m³, and Der p 1 concentrations of 2.07 ng/m³ and 6.66 ng/m³. Allergic participants experienced an increase in symptoms, with modest target participants plateauing at 1.5 to 2 h and achieving a mean peak TNSS of 5.74 ± 0.65, mean peak TOSS of 2.47 ± 0.56, and mean peak TRSS of 9.16 ± 1.32. High HDM-target allergics reached a mean peak TNSS of 8.17 ± 0.71, mean peak TOSS of 4.46 ± 0.62, and mean peak TRSS of 14.08 ± 1.30 at 3 h. All allergic participants’ symptoms decreased but remained higher than baseline after exiting the HDM-EEU. Sixteen participants (37.2%) were classified as Early Phase Responders (EPR), eleven (25.6%) as protracted EPR (pEPR), seven (16.3%) as Dual Phase Responders (DPR), and nine (20.9%) as Poor Responders (PR). Allergic participants experienced significant percent PNIF reductions at hours 2 and 3 compared to healthy controls. Non-allergics were asymptomatic during the study period.

Conclusions

The HDM-EEU is an appropriate model to study HDM-induced AR as it can generate clinically relevant AR symptoms amongst HDM-allergic individuals.

Allergen exposure chambers: implementation in clinical trials in allergen immunotherapy

Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) have been developed for controlled allergen challenges of allergic patients mimicking natural exposure. As such, these facilities have been utilized e.g., for proof of concept, dose finding or the demonstration of onset of action and treatment effect sizes of antiallergic medication. Moreover, clinical effects of and immunological mechanisms in allergen immunotherapy (AIT) have been investigated in AECs. In Europe AIT products have to fulfill regulatory requirements for obtaining market authorization through Phase I to III clinical trials. Multiple Phase II (dose-range-finding or proof-of-concept) trials on AIT products have been performed in AECs. However, they are not accepted by regulatory bodies for pivotal (Phase III) trials and a more thorough technical and clinical validation is requested. Recently, a Position Paper of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) has outlined unmet needs in further development of AECs. The following review aims to address some of these needs on the basis of recently published data in the first part, whereas the second part overviews published examples of most relevant Phase II trials in AIT performed in AEC facilities.

Fast effectiveness of a solubilized low-dose budesonide nasal spray in allergic rhinitis

Background

Budesonide, a poorly water‐soluble corticosteroid, is currently marketed as a suspension. Budesolv is a novel aqueous formulation containing dissolved budesonide showing increased local availability in preclinical models. Budesolv contains ~85% less corticosteroid than the marketed comparator.

Objective

The study (EudraCT:2018‐001324‐19) was designed to assess non‐inferiority of Budesolv compared to Rhinocort® Aqua 64 (RA) and early onset of action.

Methods

In a three‐way cross‐over double‐blinded randomized trial, Budesolv 10 was compared to RA and placebo in grass pollen allergic rhinoconjunctivitis volunteers (n = 83 (ITT); n = 75 (PP)). On day 1, participants entered the Vienna Challenge Chamber (VCC) for 6 hours; first treatment took place at 1:45 hours after entry. Participants treated themselves for further 6 days; on day 8, the last treatment was applied before entering the VCC. Subjective symptom scores, nasal airflow and nasal secretion were measured regularly during allergen challenge.

Results

Budesolv 10 was equally effective compared to RA with respect to TNSS and nasal airflow after eight days of treatment with a strongly reduced dose (more than 80% reduction). After first dose, only Budesolv 10 showed a significant reduction of nasal and respiratory symptoms starting 90 minutes (P < .05) and 15 minutes (P < .05) after application onwards, respectively, demonstrating an early onset of efficacy. A clinically significant 1 point reduction in nasal symptom score was reached at 195 minutes (P < .05) after application.

Conclusions and clinical relevance

The novel preservative‐free, aqueous low‐dose budesonide formulation is highly efficacious even after an initial single treatment. Thus, Budesolv 10 appears to be an effective acute treatment for allergic rhinitis as well as for AR comorbidities like mild asthma and conjunctivitis.

Clinical standardization of two controlled allergen challenge facilities: The Environmental Exposure Unit and the Biogenics Research Chamber

BACKGROUND

Controlled allergen challenge facilities (CACF), in disparate geographic regions with dissimilar engineering and base populations, have historically functioned as single, independent sites in clinical allergy trials. We aimed to demonstrate "between-unit reproducibility" to allow controlled challenge trials of participants using 2 CACFs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare and standardize 2 CACFs located in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and San Antonio, Texas, by examining participant-reported symptom severity during qualifying and treatment visits and evaluating response to treatment, while using the same allergen.

METHODS

At 2 different CACFs, participants were enrolled in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover intervention trial with cetirizine 10 mg. Different distribution devices delivered common short ragweed pollen via laminar air flow and maintained an airborne concentration of 3500 ± 700 grains/m³ in both facilities. A 1-hour "sham" run with no pollen release preceded a priming exposure of 3 hours and was followed 3 days later by a qualifying/treatment 5-hour exposure. At least 14 days later, another priming exposure was followed by the crossover exposure and treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-eight and 43 subjects completed the study at Kingston and San Antonio, respectively. Demographics were similar. Fewer than 10% exhibited symptoms with sham exposure. No significant differences were found between the 2 facilities in maximal total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score, total nasal symptom score, and total ocular symptom score, nor in areas under the curve. In both facilities, no significant effects of cetirizine 10 mg over placebo were detected.

CONCLUSION

The results were equivalent, demonstrating that the 2 CACFs can be used together in dual-center clinical trials and show the possibility of multicenter trials involving multiple CACFs.

Perspectives in allergen immunotherapy: 2017 and beyond

The Future of the Allergists and Specific Immunotherapy (FASIT) workshop provides a regular platform for global experts from academia, allergy clinics, regulatory authorities and industry to review developments in the field of allergen immunotherapy (AIT). The most recent meeting, held in February 2017, had two main themes: advances in AIT and hot topics in AIT from the regulatory point of view. The first theme covered opportunities for personalized AIT, advances in adjuvants and delivery systems, and the development of new molecules and future vaccines for AIT. Key topics in the second part of the meeting were the effects of the enactment of European Directive 2001/83 on the availability of allergens for therapy and diagnosis across the EU, the challenges of conducting Phase 3 studies in the field, the future role of allergen exposure chambers in AIT studies and specific considerations in performing AIT studies in the paediatric population. Finally, the group highlighted the forthcoming EAACI guidelines and their particular importance for the standardization of practice in the treatment of allergies. This review presents a comprehensive insight into those panel discussions and highlights unmet needs and also possible solutions to them for the future.