The Clinical Relevance of Pollen Versus Fungal Spores in Allergic Diseases.

Pollen and fungal spores are associated with seasonal and perennial allergies. However, most scientific literature thus far suggests that pollen allergy is more clinically relevant than fungal allergy. Several environmental and biological factors and the difficulty in producing reliable fungal extracts account for this. Biodiversity, taxonomy, and meteorology are responsible for the types and levels of pollen and fungal spores, their fragments, and the presence of free airborne allergens. Therefore, it is difficult to accurately measure both pollen and fungal allergen exposure. In addition, understanding the enzymatic nature of fungal and some pollen allergens, the presence of allergenic and nonallergenic substances that may modulate the allergic immune response, and allergen cross-reactivity are all necessary to appropriately evaluate both sensitivity and exposure. The raw materials and manufacturing processes used to prepare pollen versus fungal extracts differ, further increasing the complexity to properly determine allergic sensitivity and degrees of exposure. The pollen extracts used for diagnosis and treatment are relatively consistent, and some have been standardized. However, obtaining clinically relevant fungal extracts is more difficult. Doing so will allow for the proper selection of such extracts to more appropriately diagnose and treat both pollen- and fungal-induced allergic diseases.

Understanding differences in allergen immunotherapy products and practices in North America and Europe.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is thought to be clinically effective and safe in treating allergic rhinitis, asthma, and stinging insect allergy in Europe and North America. However, there are intercontinental differences in AIT therapeutic products in terms of their application and regulation. In North America unmodified standardized and nonstandardized aqueous aeroallergen extracts are approved and used almost exclusively for subcutaneous immunotherapy, whereas more product options are available in Europe, including adsorbed allergens, chemically modified allergens, or both. Both liquid extracts and tablets are approved for sublingual immunotherapy in Europe. Nevertheless, within the European Union, there are major differences in AIT products approved and used in individual countries. There are major differences in the clinical approach to subcutaneous immunotherapy in polysensitized patients; in the United States mixed extracts containing multiple aeroallergens are used, whereas European allergists preferably administer separate injections of single allergen sources or homologous groups deemed to be clinically relevant. Moreover, the regulatory approach differs between the European Union and United States. In contrast to the United States, where common allergen standards exist based on biologic activity, no common standards exist in Europe. In terms of development of new investigational products, the United States has followed the European example for phase II and III studies; no formal US Food and Drug Administration guidance has been issued.

Fungal raw materials used to produce allergen extracts.

OBJECTIVE: To review the topic of fungal raw materials used for the production of allergen extracts and the associated challenges and highlight candidate areas for development before standardized fungal allergen extracts can be commercially produced. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search was performed using focused keywords and combined with a review of regulatory documents and industry guidelines. Several books on mycology also were consulted. STUDY SELECTIONS: The information obtained through the literature, books, and industry was scrutinized and combined with personal experience and expertise to write this article. RESULTS: Fungi are complex ubiquitous organisms on Earth. They are beneficial and detrimental for humans. Fungi can cause hypersensitivity reactions, including types I, III, and IV. The procurement of fungal raw materials to prepare allergen extracts for diagnosis and possible allergen immunotherapy is complex owing to the intrinsic nature of fungi and their complex genome. Allergen manufacturers produce allergen extracts with variable qualitative and quantitative compositions, which can lead to unpredictable clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: The clinician should be aware of the factors responsible for the qualitative and quantitative compositions of fungal allergen extracts and the reasons that currently preclude their standardization. Scientific advances and collaboration and cooperation between allergen manufacturing companies and regulatory agencies are necessary to improve the quality and consistency of fungal extracts. Moreover, clinicians should understand the limitations of currently available fungal extracts.

Mite allergen extracts and clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians, researchers, and other interested health care professionals with information about how mite source materials and allergen extracts are manufactured, including the critical process parameters that can affect the final composition of allergenic extracts available for clinical use. DATA SOURCES: A PubMed search was performed using focused keywords combined with relevant regulatory documents and industry guidelines. STUDY SELECTIONS: The information obtained through literature and specialized books was evaluated and combined with the personal expertise and experience of the authors. RESULTS: Dermatophagoides farinae and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus are the primary species responsible for allergen sensitizations and allergy symptoms in genetically predisposed individuals. Storage mites belonging to the families Glycyphagidae, Echimyopodidae, and Acaridae can also be relevant sources of indoor mite allergens. The cultivation and purification processes used to produce mite raw materials play a critical role in the final composition of mite allergen extracts. Mite extract standardization in the United States is based on total allergenic activity with respect to a single national standard, whereas in Europe consistency is ensured by in-house standards and international references. Because of the limitation of allergen avoidance and pharmacotherapy for patients with severe allergic rhinitis and asthma, house dust mite subcutaneous immunotherapy or sublingual immunotherapy can be an invaluable treatment option for them. CONCLUSION: Differences in manufacturing processes and extract standardization approaches may lead to differences in extract quality and potency. Physicians should be aware of these potential sources of mite extract variability. Use of well-standardized house dust mite extracts would be critical for success in the diagnosis and treatment of house dust mite allergy.

Preservation of epithelial cell barrier function and muted inflammation in resistance to allergic rhinoconjunctivitis from house dust mite challenge.

BACKGROUND: An emerging paradigm holds that resistance to the development of allergic diseases, including allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, relates to an intact epithelial/epidermal barrier during early childhood. Conceivably, the immunologic and genomic footprint of this resistance is preserved in nonatopic, nonallergic adults and is unmasked during exposure to an aeroallergen. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to obtain direct support of the epithelial/epidermal barrier model for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: Twenty-three adults allergic to house dust mites (HDMs) (M+) and 15 nonsensitive, nonallergic (M-) participants completed 3-hour exposures to aerosolized HDM (Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) powder on 4 consecutive days in an allergen challenge chamber. We analyzed: (1) peripheral blood leukocyte levels and immune responses; and (2) RNA sequencing-derived expression profiles of nasal cells, before and after HDM exposure. RESULTS: On HDM challenge: (1) only M+ persons developed allergic rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms; and (2) peripheral blood leukocyte levels/responses and gene expression patterns in nasal cells were largely concordant between M+ and M- participants; gross differences in these parameters were not observed at baseline (pre-exposure). Two key differences were observed. First, peripheral blood CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell activation levels initially decreased in M- participants versus increased in M+ participants. Second, in M- compared with M+ participants, genes that promoted epidermal/epithelial barrier function (eg, filament-aggregating protein [filaggrin]) versus inflammation (eg, chemokines) and innate immunity (interferon) were upregulated versus muted, respectively. CONCLUSION: An imprint of resistance to HDM challenge in nonatopic, nonallergic adults was muted T-cell activation in the peripheral blood and inflammatory response in the nasal compartment, coupled with upregulation of genes that promote epidermal/epithelial cell barrier function.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of standardized ragweed sublingual-liquid immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

BACKGROUND: Sublingual immunotherapy with liquid extracts provides an appealing alternative to subcutaneous immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (ARC), but a lack of robust evidence has deterred its use in North America. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of standardized glycerinated short ragweed sublingual allergen immunotherapy liquid (RW-SAIL) extract in subjects with ragweed-related ARC. METHODS: This phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in North America. Subjects (age range, 18-55 years) with or without asthma were selected based on ARC symptom severity and erythema skin prick reaction to short ragweed. Subjects self-administered the maximum tolerated dose of RW-SAIL (n = 218) or placebo (n = 211) daily beginning approximately 8 to 16 weeks before and through the end of the ragweed pollen season. The primary end point was subject-assessed total combined daily rhinoconjunctivitis symptom and medication scores (TCS). RESULTS: During the entire season, there was a 43% decrease in TCS in subjects treated with RW-SAIL compared with placebo. Similar decreases were observed in TCS between the 2 groups during peak season (42%) and in daily symptom scores during the entire (42%) and peak (41%) seasons. The occurrence of adverse events was similar between the treatment groups; most were mild in severity. Treatment-related oromucosal local application site reactions occurred early and were transient and self-limited. No anaphylaxis occurred. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first successful North American confirmatory phase 3 clinical trial to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a sublingual standardized ragweed allergen immunotherapy liquid extract for the treatment of ARC.

Immunotherapy preparation guidelines, rules, and regulation.

Allergen immunotherapy has been used to treat allergic diseases for more than 100 years. In the U.S., the preparation of diagnostic and therapeutic extracts requires the cooperation of the extract manufacturer, who provides the individual allergen concentrates, and the practicing physician who formulates, dilutes, and administers the final patient-specific treatment extract. The guidelines, rules, and regulations for these activities have been established and continue to be developed as progress is made. The molecular characterization and standardization of allergenic extracts has allowed for improvements in defining the potency of these products. In turn, these advances have led to improved dosing regimens and formulation practices. This review will describe in detail some of these interactions and will identify issues that require more attention.

Intra and inter-laboratory reproducibility of a monoclonal antibody cocktail based ELISA for detection of allergen specific IgE in dogs: proficiency monitoring of macELISA in six laboratories.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of results yielded using a monoclonal antibody based ELISA for detection of allergen specific IgE when run in six separate affiliated laboratories. On two separate occasions, duplicate samples of 15 different sera pools were independently evaluated by each laboratory in a single blinded fashion. The average intra-assay variance among reactive assay calibrators in all laboratories was 6.2% (range 2.6-18.2%), while the average intra-laboratory inter-assay variance was 12.1% (range 8.0-17.1%). The overall inter-assay inter-laboratory variance was consistent among laboratories and averaged 15.6% (range 15.1-16.6%). All laboratories yielded similar profiles and magnitudes of responses for replicate unknown samples; dose-response profiles observed in each of the laboratories were indistinguishable. Considering positive/negative results, inter-assay inter-laboratory concordance of results exceeded 95%. Correlation of OD values between and among all laboratories was strong (r>0.9, p<0.001). Correlation of OD values between the two separate evaluations was also high for all allergens except olive, which was attributed to lot-to-lot differences of allergen coated wells. Collectively, the results demonstrated that the monoclonal antibody based ELISA for measuring allergen specific canine IgE is reproducible, and documents that consistency of results can be achieved not only in an individual laboratory, but between laboratories using the same monoclonal-based ELISA.

Allergen stabilities and compatibilities in mixtures of high-protease fungal and insect extracts.

BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines state that protease-rich fungal and insect extracts can be combined when preparing immunotherapy vaccines, but data supporting the stability of allergens in these mixtures have not been reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine the stabilities and compatibilities of Alternaria alternata and German cockroach allergens in mixtures with other high-protease fungal and insect (cockroach, imported fire ant) extracts at final extract concentrations consistent with injection dose targets for maintenance immunotherapy. METHODS: Mixtures containing Alternaria, German cockroach, and other fungal and insect extracts frequently included in immunotherapy vaccines were analyzed by a combination of quantitative analyses (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for multiallergen immunoglobulin E [IgE]-binding potency, major Alternaria allergen Alt a 1, and major German cockroach allergens Bla g 1 and Bla g 2) and qualitative methods (immunoblotting). Mixtures and analogous single-extract controls containing 10 to 50% glycerin were evaluated after storage for up to 12 months at 2°C to 8°C. RESULTS: Mixtures of extracts within the same phylogenetic groups (fungal-fungal, insect-insect) retained favorable Alternaria and German cockroach allergen levels and activities under most conditions examined. For several cross-taxonomic (fungal-insect) extract combinations at 10 to 25% glycerin concentrations, different immunochemical test methods measuring single (major) or multiple allergens yielded threefold to 10-fold variations in allergen recoveries. CONCLUSION: Allergen compatibilities can be compromised in some fungal-insect extract mixtures, contrary to current immunotherapy practice parameter recommendations. Separation of these products into different treatment vials may be required to produce stable mixtures for subcutaneous immunotherapy. Data from assay methodologies with distinct binding specificities provide a critical assessment of allergen activities in high-protease extract mixtures.

Allergen immunotherapy practice in the United States: guidelines, measures, and outcomes.

To discuss recent issues pertinent to allergen immunotherapy practice in the United States. Allergen extract preparation guidelines, updated allergen immunotherapy practice parameter (AIPP) guidelines, and evolving trends in how immunotherapy outcomes will be measured and assessed. Allergen extract preparation guidelines have been established by 2 entities: the US Pharmacopeia and an American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology/Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force. Minor differences exist between these guidelines, but both focus on aseptic techniques and require that compounding personnel pass a written examination and annual media fill test. The AIPP third update provides new dosing recommendations for Bermuda grass, imported fire ant, and nonstandardized extracts distinguishing between pollen (0.5 mL of a 1:100 or 1:200 vol/vol) and mold/fungi or cockroach (highest tolerated dose) extracts. Because of limited and sometimes conflicting data on high and low proteolytic-containing extract compatibility, the AIPP continues to recommend against mixing these together. Although the AIPP does not specifically recommend a specific diluent, recent evidence suggests normal saline may not be as effective a stabilizer for extract dilutions as glycerin or human serum albumin. Currently, immunotherapy efficacy is determined with subjective assessments that rely on patient reporting, but this may change as health care reform evolves. It will likely become more important for US allergy/immunology practices to demonstrate immunotherapy comparative-effectiveness and report quality measures. Recent comparative-effectiveness studies have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy compared with symptomatic drug treatment.

Allergen compatibilities in extract mixtures.

Stability studies with a few well-characterized allergen extracts have yielded useful information about the shelf-life of these products stored under various conditions. The development of validated stability-indicating tests and their clinical verification remains a fundamental challenge for extending this information to cover more products. This challenge becomes even greater for evaluations of more complex, multiextract mixtures that are used in clinical practice. Thus, the current approach for developing guidelines for extract expiration dating practices must rely on extrapolations of data obtained from a few well-controlled studies.

Novel nasal secretion collection method for the analysis of allergen specific antibodies and inflammatory biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: The analysis of immunological markers in nasal secretions provides valuable information for studying nasal mucosa diseases and monitoring immunotherapy and immunity to vaccines administered locally. However, the concentration of biomarkers is highly variable in nasal secretions because of the diversity of collection methods. A nasal secretion collection device was developed to increase detectability of the assay, standardize the sampling technique, eliminate unknown dilution factor, and minimize analyte loss during the sample processing. OBJECTIVE: To develop and demonstrate the performance characteristics of a novel nasal secretion collector and its advantages over nasal lavage techniques. METHODS: Characteristics of absorption and recovery of the liquid or proteins by different types of polyurethane foam were evaluated. The concentration of immunoglobulins, inflammatory mediators and allergen specific antibodies was comparatively measured in nasal secretions collected by the novel nasal secretion collector and nasal lavages. RESULTS: The concentrations of cytokines, eosinophil cationic protein, and tryptase in nasal secretions obtained by the nasal secretion collector were at least 8-fold higher than those tested in nasal lavages. Furthermore, the levels of immunoglobulins and the grass/weed pollen allergen specific antibodies were 6- to 290-fold increased when the nasal secretion collector was used. The nasal secretion collector was easy to use, non-invasive, and caused minimal discomfort to subjects during sampling. CONCLUSION: A novel nasal secretion collector shows a significantly higher detectability and reproducibility than nasal lavages for analyzing immunological markers in nasal secretions. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: The nasal secretion collector represented an approach for collecting nasal secretions and can be applied for routine evaluations of nasal immune responses induced by mucosal vaccinations or infections, inflammations and therapeutic interventions.

Sublingual immunotherapy in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis caused by ragweed pollen.

BACKGROUND: Specific allergen immunotherapy is most often delivered subcutaneously, but sublingual immunotherapy may confer greater benefit in terms of tolerability and safety, accessibility, and improved antigen delivery. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to identify a safe and effective maintenance dose range of sublingual standardized glycerinated short ragweed pollen extract in adults with ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: In May 2006, a total of 115 patients with ragweed-induced rhinoconjunctivitis were randomly allocated to placebo (n = 40), medium-dose extract (4.8 microg Amb a 1/d; n = 39), or high-dose extract (48 microg Amb a 1/d; n = 36). In a 1-day (rush) dose-escalation regimen, ragweed pollen extract was administered sublingually in incremental doses until maximum tolerable or scheduled dose was reached and then maintained during the ragweed pollen season. Patient diaries were used to monitor nasal and ocular symptoms and medication. The primary endpoint was symptom score. RESULTS: Both active treatment groups achieved a 15% reduction in total rhinoconjunctivitis symptom scores compared with placebo during the entire ragweed pollen season, but the difference was not statistically significant (P > .10) However, in an analysis of covariance correcting for preseasonal symptoms, both mean daily symptom scores (0.19 +/- 1.16 vs 1.00 +/- 2.30) and medication scores (0.0003 +/- 1.64 vs 0.63 +/- 1.06) for the entire pollen season were significantly reduced in the high-dose versus placebo groups, respectively (P

Stability and mixing compatibility of dog epithelia and dog dander allergens.

BACKGROUND: Little information or data are available concerning the stability and compatibility of dog epithelia and dog dander allergens. OBJECTIVE: To determine the immunochemical reactivities of commercial, nonstandardized dog epithelia and dog dander extracts after exposures to various temperatures or after mixing with high-protease fungal and cockroach extracts at concentrations recommended for maintenance immunotherapy (IT) injections. METHODS: Quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and qualitative (immunoblot) analyses were performed to compare specific compositional changes with total or individual allergen activities. Assays for dog allergens Can f 1 and Can f 3 (albumin) used specific mouse or rabbit antibodies. Multiallergen enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay inhibition and immunoblot methods were conducted using a human serum pool with high levels of IgE to dog allergens. RESULTS: Dog allergen recoveries ranged from 22% to 134% after short exposures to moderate or extreme temperatures and from 28% to 118% after mixing with fungal or insect extracts and storage for up to 15 months at 2 degrees C to 8 degrees C. Recoveries in dog dander extracts varied up to 2.5-fold with different test methods. Immunoblots revealed partial degradation of dog albumin molecules to discrete fragments that retained antibody-binding activities. In most cases, recoveries improved at elevated glycerin concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Dog allergens in epithelia and dander extracts exhibited favorable temperature stabilities. Compatibilities with fungal or insect extracts may be compromised or at risk in some combinations. These data support current IT practice parameter recommendations of separating high-protease extracts from other products if possible; they also demonstrate that dog extracts possess allergen stabilities suitable for many IT formulations.

Performance characteristics of a monoclonal antibody cocktail-based ELISA for detection of allergen-specific IgE in dogs and comparison with a high affinity IgE receptor-based ELISA.

The purpose of this study was to define the operational and performance characteristics of a commercially available monoclonal antibody based (mac) ELISA for detection of allergen-specific IgE in dogs. The average intra-assay variance over 1 year was 9.7% (range 2.5-62.7%), while the interassay variance averaged 10.8% (range 8.1-13.8%). The average positive control responses observed for grass, weed, tree and mite allergens during each month remained relatively constant; the average monthly variance was 11.6% (range 8.3-19.2%) for grass pollens, 13.3% (range 9.1-20.4%) for weed pollens, 13.3% (range 9.8-18.2%) for tree pollens and 13.6% (range 8.9-18.7%) for mite allergens. The interlaboratory concordance of results for the macELISA was approximately 91%. The interlaboratory concordance of results comparing the macELISA and a high affinity IgE receptor-based ELISA was approximately 92%. The results demonstrate that the macELISA is reproducible and the results are comparable to the high affinity IgE receptor based ELISA within and between laboratories.

Allergen source materials: state-of-the-art.

A variety of positive outcomes can be realized from validation and risk management activities (see Table 4). They are dependent on the participation of multiple functional groups including the quality unit, regulatory and legal affairs, engineering and production operations, research and development, and sales and marketing. Quality risk management is receiving increased attention in the area of public health, pharmacovigilance, and pharmaceutical manufacturing. Recent examples of its regulatory use in our industry include the assessment of the potential risks of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) agents through contaminated products], the risks of precipitates in allergenic extracts, and the revision of the potency limits for standardized dust mite and grass allergen vaccines. Its application to allergen source material process validation activities allowed for a practical strategy, especially in a complex manufacturing environment involving hundreds of products with multiple intended uses. In addition, the use of tools such as FMEA was useful in evaluating proposed changes made to manufacturing procedures and product specifications, new regulatory actions, and customer feedback or complaints. The success of such a quality assurance programs will ultimately be reflected in the elimination or reduction of product failures, improvement in the detection and prediction of potential product failures, and increased confidence in product quality.