4.6 Article

Lolium perenne peptide immunotherapy is well tolerated and elicits a protective B-cell response in seasonal allergic rhinitis patients

期刊

ALLERGY
卷 73, 期 6, 页码 1254-1262

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/all.13392

关键词

allergen; grass pollen peptides; safety; subcutaneous immunotherapy; tolerability

资金

  1. ASIT biotech s.a., Brussels, Belgium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundSystemic allergic reactions are a risk for allergen immunotherapy that utilizes intact allergen preparations. We evaluated the safety, efficacy and immune mechanisms of short-course treatment with adjuvant-free Lolium perenne peptides (LPP) following a 6-week dose-escalation protocol. MethodsIn a prospective, dose-escalation study, 61 grass pollen-allergic patients received 2 subcutaneous injections of LPP once weekly for 6weeks. Safety was assessed evaluating local reactions, systemic reactions and adverse events. The clinical effect of LPP was determined by reactivity to the conjunctival provocation test (CPT). Specific IgE, IgG(4) and blocking antibodies were measured at baseline (V1), during (V6) and after treatment (V8). ResultsNo fatality, serious adverse event or epinephrine use was reported. Mean wheal diameters after injections were <0.6cm and mean redness diameters <2.5cm, independent of dose. Transient and mostly mild adverse events were reported in 33 patients. Two patients experienced a grade I and 4 patients a grade II reaction (AWMF classification). At V8, 69.8% of patients became nonreactive to CPT. sIgG(4) levels were higher at V6 (8.1-fold, P<.001) and V8 (12.2-fold, P<.001) than at V1. The sIgE:sIgG(4) ratio decreased at V6 (-54.6%, P<.001) and V8 (-71.6%, P<.001) compared to V1. The absolute decrease in IgE-facilitated allergen binding was 18% (P<.001) at V6 and 25% (P<.001) at V8. ConclusionIncreasing doses of subcutaneous LPP appeared safe, substantially diminished reactivity to CPT and induced blocking antibodies as early as 4weeks after treatment initiation. The benefit/risk balance of LPP immunotherapy remains to be further evaluated in large studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据