Efficacy and safety of 5-grass pollen sublingual immunotherapy tablets in patients with different clinical profiles of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.
BACKGROUND
The optimal dose of grass pollen tablets for sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis patients was previously established in a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 628 adults. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily 5-grass pollen sublingual tablets of 100 IR (index of reactivity), 300 IR or 500 IR, or placebo starting 4 months before the pollen season.


OBJECTIVE
The aim of this complementary analysis was to determine whether 300 IR 5-grass pollen SLIT-tablets is effective in different subtypes of patients who are allergic to grass pollen.


METHODS
Different subgroups could be identified regarding comorbidities (with or without asthma during the grass-pollen season), sensitization (mono/polysensitization) and symptom severity. An additional exploratory analysis was performed within four subgroups based on pre-treatment assessment: Group 1=high specific IgE; Group 2=high symptom scores; Group 3=high skin sensitivity; Group 4=any of Group 1, 2 or 3.


RESULTS
Asthma and sensitization status were not significant covariates as the average Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score (RTSS) was identical for patients with and without grass-pollen asthma, as well as for mono- and polysensitized patients. Across the four subgroups, average RTSSs (+/- SD) for the optimal dosage (300 IR) were 3.91 +/- 3.16, 3.83 +/- 3.14, 2.55 +/- 2.13 and 3.61 +/- 2.97, for subgroups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. ANCOVA showed that in Group 1 average RTSS did not differ significantly with different doses of SLIT. In Groups 2, 3 and 4, doses of 300 IR and 500 IR were significantly more effective than 100 IR and placebo (P< or =0.035). All doses of SLIT administered in this study can be considered safe in the patients investigated.


CONCLUSIONS
The risk-benefit ratio validates the use of 300 IR tablets in clinical practice in all of these patient subgroups, regardless of severity profile, sensitization status and presence of asthma.
Malling
H-J
HJ
Allergy Clinic, National University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen, Denmark. hans.joergen.malling@rh.regionh.dk
Montagut
A
A
Melac
M
M
Patriarca
G
G
Panzner
P
P
Seberova
E
E
Didier
A
A
D000286:Administration, Sublingual; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D052179:Antigens, Plant / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000276:immunology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D001249:Asthma / Q000453:epidemiology; D015897:Comorbidity; D003233:Conjunctivitis, Allergic / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000628:therapy*; D003888:Desensitization, Immunologic / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005060:Europe; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006967:Hypersensitivity / Q000453:epidemiology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic; D006109:Poaceae / Q000276:immunology*; D011058:Pollen / Q000276:immunology*; D011788:Quality of Life; D006255:Rhinitis, Allergic, Seasonal / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000628:therapy*; D018570:Risk Assessment; D013607:Tablets; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
D052179:Antigens, Plant; D013607:Tablets