BACKGROUND: Cockroach allergy contributes to morbidity among urban children with asthma. Few trials address the effect of subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with cockroach allergen among these at-risk children.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether nasal allergen challenge (NAC) responses to cockroach allergen would improve following 1 year of SCIT.
METHODS: Urban children with asthma, who were cockroach-sensitized and reactive on NAC, participated in a year-long randomized double-blind placebo-controlled SCIT trial using German cockroach extract. The primary endpoint was the change in mean Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) during NAC after 12 months of SCIT. Changes in nasal transcriptomic responses during NAC, skin prick test wheal size, serum allergen-specific antibody production, and T-cell responses to cockroach allergen were assessed.
RESULTS: Changes in mean NAC TNSS did not differ between SCIT-assigned (n = 28) versus placebo-assigned (n = 29) participants (P = .63). Nasal transcriptomic responses correlated with TNSS, but a treatment effect was not observed. Cockroach serum-specific IgE decreased to a similar extent in both groups, while decreased cockroach skin prick test wheal size was greater among SCIT participants (P = .04). A 200-fold increase in cockroach serum-specific IgG4 was observed among subjects receiving SCIT (P < .001) but was unchanged in the placebo group. T-cell IL-4 responses following cockroach allergen stimulation decreased to a greater extent among SCIT versus placebo (P = .002), while no effect was observed for IL-10 or IFN-γ.
CONCLUSIONS: A year of SCIT failed to alter NAC TNSS and nasal transcriptome responses to cockroach allergen challenge despite systemic effects on allergen-specific skin tests, induction of serum-specific IgG4 serum production and down-modulation of allergen-stimulated T-cell responses.

The prevalence of cat allergen-induced AR is increasing worldwide, prompting its study using controlled methodology. Three general categories of allergen exposure models currently exist for the study of cat allergen-induced AR: natural exposure cat rooms, allergen exposure chambers (AEC), and nasal allergen challenges (NAC). We evaluated existing literature surrounding the use of these models to study cat allergen induced AR using online research databases, including OVID Medline, Embase, and Web of Science. We report that natural exposure cat rooms have been important in establishing the foundation for our understanding of cat allergen-induced AR. Major limitations, including variable allergen ranges and differing study designs highlight the need for a more standardized protocol. In comparison, AECs are an exceptional model to mimic real-world allergen exposure and study long-term implications of AR with large sample sizes. Existing AECs are limited by heterogeneous facility designs, differing methods of cat allergen distribution, and issues surrounding cost and accessibility. Conversely, NACs allow for smaller participant cohorts for easier biological sampling and are ideal for phase I, phase 2 or proof-of-concept studies. NACs generally have a standardized protocol and are less expensive compared to AECs. Nevertheless, NACs solely capture acute allergen exposure and have the further limitation of using allergen extracts rather than natural allergen. As the use of combined controlled methodologies is sparse, we recommend concurrent use of AECs and NACs to study short- and long-term effects of AR, thereby providing a more holistic representation of cat allergen-induced AR.

Topical probiotics have been suggested as a treatment option for allergic rhinitis, as they may skew the immune response towards a beneficial type-1 non-allergic profile. So far observations in man have exclusively involved oral intake. The aim of this study was to examine whether a topical/nasal administration of a probiotic assemblage (PA) affects quality of life, symptoms and signs of allergic rhinitis in a nasal allergen challenge (NAC) model.
In a placebo-controlled and crossover design, 24 patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were randomised to topical/nasal administration with a PA of Lactobacillus rhamnosus SP1, Lactobacillus paracasei 101/37 and Lactococcus lactis L1A or placebo for 3 weeks. Participants and investigators were blind to treatment allocation. The last week of each treatment period was combined with a NAC series. Efficacy variables were \"Mini-Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire\" (Mini-RQLQ), \"Total Nasal Symptom Score\" (TNSS), \"Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow\" (PNIF) and \"Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide\" (FeNO). In addition, to assess whether or not the PA produced any pro-inflammatory effect per se, soluble analytes were monitored in nasal lavage fluids. Finally, bacterial cultures, sampled using swabs from the middle nasal meatus, were assessed for the presence of the PA by MALDI-TOF analysis.
Administration of the PA did not produce any nasal symptoms (cf. placebo). An innate immune response was discerned within the PA run (cf. baseline), but no change in nasal lavage fluid levels of cytokines/mediators was observed cf. placebo except for IL-17/IL-17A (a minor increase in the PA run). Administration of the PA did neither affect Mini-RQLQ, TNSS, PNIF nor FeNO. No evidence of persistent colonization was observed.
Topical/nasal administration of a PA comprising Lactobacillus rhamnosus SP1, Lactobacillus paracasei 101/37 and Lactococcus lactis L1A, while likely evoking a minor innate immune response yet being safe, does not affect quality of life, symptoms or signs of allergic rhinitis.
not registered.

The direct-instillation nasal allergen challenge (NAC) and the environmental exposure chamber (EEC) are 2 methods of conducting controlled allergen provocations. The clinical and biological comparability of these methods has not been thoroughly investigated.
We sought to compare clinical and immunologic responses to cat allergen in NAC versus EEC.
Twenty-four participants were randomized to receive either NAC followed by a 2-day challenge in an EEC or a 2-day challenge in an EEC followed by NAC. Challenges were separated by 28-day washout periods. We measured total nasal symptom scores, peak nasal inspiratory flow, nasal (0-8 hours) and serum cytokines, serum antibodies, peripheral blood antigen-specific T lymphocytes, and gene expression in nasal scrapings. The primary outcome was the total nasal symptom score area under the curve for the first 3 hours after allergen exposure in NAC or after initiation of exposure in EEC.
Both challenges increased IL-5 and IL-13 in nasal fluids and serum and resulted in altered nasal cell expression of gene modules related to mucosal biology and transcriptional regulation. Changes in gene modules, more so than cytokine measurements, showed significant associations with total nasal symptom score and peak nasal inspiratory flow. Overall, EEC exposure generated larger responses and more early terminations compared with NAC. Although the 2 challenges did not correlate in symptom magnitude or temporality, striking correlations were observed in cytokine levels.
Although clinical outcomes of NAC and EEC were temporally different and nonequivalent in magnitude, immunologic responses were similar. Selection of a particular allergen challenge method should depend on considerations of study objectives and cost.

UNASSIGNED: The Allergic Rhinitis Clinical Investigator Collaborative (AR-CIC) is a network of experienced Allergic Rhinitis (AR) researchers developing better research tools based on the nasal allergen challenge (NAC). A key objective of such is the ability to detect efficacy in a small population. AR-CIC sought to test its NAC protocol as a secondary objective in two small mechanistic research trials of a novel form of immunotherapy [Cat Peptide Antigen Desensitisation (Cat-PAD)] for which efficacy had previously been demonstrated. The primary objective (not presented here) was to identify potential biomarkers of efficacy for peptide immunotherapy, and this provided an ideal opportunity to corroborate the NAC protocol. We aim to clinically validate the AR-CIC NAC methodology in a pooled analysis of secondary endpoints measured in two open label mechanistic studies of cat allergic participants treated with Cat-PAD.
UNASSIGNED: Cat allergic AR sufferers with ongoing cat exposure were included. Participants had to demonstrate a total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of at least 8 (max 12) and/or achieve a reduction in peak nasal inspiratory flow (PNIF) of ≥ 50% during a screening titrated NAC. Eligible participants then underwent a baseline NAC visit with the allergen dose that produced a positive challenge at screening, followed by four monthly injections of 6 nmol Cat-PAD. A follow up NAC visit documented changes in nasal response 1 month following the completion of treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Nineteen subjects completed the study protocol in the two studies combined. Four injections of Cat-PAD resulted in a significant reduction in TNSS responses generated via NAC following allergen challenge (15 min p < 0.05, 30 min p < 0.05, 1 h p < 0.01, 2 h p < 0.05). There was modest correlation between symptom scores and PNIF measurements.
UNASSIGNED: This study supports the validity of the AR-CIC\'s optimised NAC protocol for conducting research of the potential efficacy of novel therapeutics in multi-centre studies.Trial registration Both studies reported herein were registered clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01383590 and NCT01383603).

BACKGROUND: Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) stimulation in the airways may reduce responses to aeroallergens by induction of type 1 interferons (IFNs). GSK2245035 is a novel selective TLR7 agonist in pharmaceutical development.
OBJECTIVE: Assessment of safety, pharmacodynamics and nasal allergic reactivity following repeated weekly intranasal (i.n.) GSK2245035.
METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (TL7116958) was conducted over two pollen seasons (2013-2014) and follow-up study (204509) conducted 1 year later. Participants with allergic rhinitis (n=42) were randomized to receive eight weekly doses of i.n. GSK2245035 (20 ng [2014 Cohort; n=14] or 80 ng [2013 Cohort; n=14]) or placebo (n=14). Adverse events (AEs) including cytokine release syndrome AEs (CytoRS-AEs) and nasal symptoms were assessed. Nasal and serum IFN-inducible protein 10 (IP-10) were measured after doses 1 and 8, then 1 (follow-up visit [FUV] 1) and 3 (FUV2) weeks after final dose. Nasal allergen challenges (NACs) and allergic biomarker assessment (nasal, serum) were conducted at baseline, FUV1, FUV2 and at a FUV 1 year after final dose (FUV3; 2014 Cohort only). A Bayesian framework enabled probability statements for mean effect sizes.
RESULTS: GSK2245035 induced CytoRS-AEs (most commonly headache, median duration <1 day) in 93% of participants at 80 ng, while AE incidence at 20 ng was similar to placebo. There was no evidence of nasal inflammation. Dose-related increases in nasal and serum IP-10 were observed 24 hours after doses 1 and 8 (>95% certainty). Both doses showed a trend in reducing total nasal symptom score 15 minutes post-NAC at FUV1 and FUV2, but there was no reduction evident at FUV3. Nasal levels of selected allergic biomarkers demonstrated trends for reductions at FUV1, FUV2 and FUV3.
CONCLUSIONS: Weekly i.n. GSK2245035 20 ng was well tolerated and reduced allergic reactivity to nasal challenge for 3 weeks post-treatment.