Comparison of the Efficacy and the Safety of Different Schedules of Administration of Sub-lingual Immunotherapy

Phase 3

Completed

• Conditions: Pollen Allergy
• Interventions: Biological: Slit One; Biological: Slit One ragweed

• Registration Number: NCT01500642
• Lead Sponsor: ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco

Brief Summary

The dose and the mode of administration of sublingual therapy remain open questions to determine the efficacy and safety of this desensitization therapy, the main purpose of this study is to evaluate if different routes of administration (oral-vestibular vs. sublingual) and a maximum dose of allergen administered are able to determine a different effect or a different incidence of side effects of the therapy in a group of patients with rhinoconjunctivitis and/or asthma due to ragweed

Detailed Description

Version 1 16/02/2011 The allergen-specific immunotherapy represents an important therapeutic option for the treatment of allergic respiratory diseases. Its clinical efficacy is well demonstrated, although the mechanism of action is still under study.

The main purpose of immunotherapy is to induce an allergen-specific tolerance so that the natural exposure to the allergen does not cause clinical symptoms.

The clinical efficacy of standard subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is known. A meta-analysis Cochrane on the clinical efficacy of SCIT in allergic rhinitis 51 double-blind studies with a total 2871 patients) demonstrated a reduction in symptoms in 73% of patients and a reduction in the use of drugs in 57%.

Other studies also show that SCIT was effective in the long term (at least 3-5 years of suspension) reduces sensitization to new allergens, prevents progression of allergic rhinitis in asthma and significantly improves the symptoms of asthma, hyper- bronchial reactivity and the use of asthma medications.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) represents an effective alternative route of administration of vaccine therapy with an allergic profile security than the SCIT.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2011-06
• Primary Completion: 2011-09
• Study Completion: 2011-09
• Study First Submitted: 2011-12-22
• Study First Submitted QC: 2011-12-27
• Study First Posted: 2011-12-28
• Status Verified: 2012-01
• Last Update Submitted: 2012-01-04
• Last Update Posted: 2012-01-05

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 45

Inclusion Criteria

• Adults aged 18-55 years
• Known allergy to ragweed pollen
• No immunotherapy or in progress prior to enrollment
• Symptoms of rhino / conjunctivitis with or without asthma

Exclusion Criteria

• Allergic to perennial allergens (moulds, mites and animal when exposed to the animal)
• Patients with chronic diseases (infectious, autoimmune cancer, heart or kidney)
• Are pregnant
• Chronic drug treatment with steroids and / or immunosuppressive
• Oral disease

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
sublingual immunotherapy	Slit One	15 patients treated with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT One, ALK Abello) administered at standard dose (200 STU / dose) from June to August 2001
vestibular immunotherapy	Slit One	15 patients treated with vestibular immunotherapy (SLIT One, ALK Abello) administered at standard dose (200 STU / dose) from June to August 2001
sublingual doubled immunotherapy	Slit One ragweed	15 patients treated with sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT One, ALK Abello) administered at doubled dose (400 STU / dose) from June to August 2001

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
To evaluate the percentage of CD14-PDL-1-IL10 + circulating allergen-specific (ragweed) in pre-seasonal SLIT vs oral-vestibular regimen and in pre-seasonal regimen of SLIT at 400 STU/dose vs 200 STU	3 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Evaluation of clinical efficacy (as assessed by symptom score and use of symptomatic drugs) among patients treated with sublingual vaccine by vestibular compared to those treated sublingually	3 months
Evaluation of clinical efficacy (as assessed by symptom score and use of symptomatic drugs) among patients treated with sublingual vaccine dose doubled compared to those treated with standard dose	3 months
Evaluation of the safety and tolerability (as assessed by data collection form of local and systemic adverse events) among patients treated with sublingual vaccine in oral/vestibular administration compared to those treated sublingually	3 months
Assessment of safety and tolerability (assessed using data forms of local and systemic adverse events) among patients treated with sublingual vaccine dose doubled compared to those treated with standard dose	3 months

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Luigi Sacco Hospital; 🇮🇹 Milano, Italy