Intralymphatic Immunotherapy: A 3-year Randomized, Double-blind Study in 72 Patients With Allergic Rhinitis Due to Birch and Grass

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-96348/v1

Download PDF

Research

Intralymphatic Immunotherapy: A 3-year Randomized, Double-blind Study in 72 Patients With Allergic Rhinitis Due to Birch and Grass

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-96348/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background: There is need for a fast, efficient, and safe way to induce tolerance in patients with severe allergic rhinitis.

Methods: Patients with severe birch and timothy allergy were randomized and received three doses of 0.1 ml of birch and 5-grass allergen extracts (10,000 SQ units/ml, ALK-Abelló), or birch and placebo or 5-grass and placebo by ultrasound-guided injections into inguinal lymph nodes at monthly intervals. We have no clean placebo group but the pollen seasons are mostly divided by time. Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score, Medication Score and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire were evaluated before treatment and after each birch and grass pollen season during three subsequent years. Circulating proportions of T helper subsets and allergen-induced cytokine and chemokine production were analyzed by flow cytometry and Luminex.

Results: The three groups reported fewer symptoms, lower use of medication and improved quality of life during the birch and grass pollen seasons each year after treatment at an almost similar rate independently of treatment. Mild local pain was the most common adverse event. IgE levels to birch decreased, whereas birch-induced IL-10 secretion increased in all three groups. IgG4 levels to birch and timothy and skin prick test reactivity remained mainly unchanged. Conjunctival challenge tests with timothy extract showed a higher threshold for allergen. In all three groups, regulatory T cell frequencies were increased three years after treatment.

Conclusion: Intralymphatic immunotherapy against grass and birch pollen allergy was safe, seemed to be effective, and to be associated with bystander immune modulatory responses.

Trial registration: EudraCT (2013-004726-28). Registered 14 January 2014

https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2013-004726-28

Translational Medicine

Allergy & Immune Disorders

Rhinoconjunctivitis

Luminex

Intralymphatic immunotherapy

EudraCT

Nearly 30% of the adult population of Sweden report allergic rhinitis (1). In addition, the prevalence of allergic sensitization is up to 50% in Sweden and in many other European countries (2, 3). The total cost of allergic rhinitis in Sweden, with a population of 9.5 million (in 2014), has been estimated at €1.3 billion annually (4). Treating these patients with allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is cost-effective (5). To date, AIT is the only treatment that affects the long-term development of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. It induces clinical tolerance primarily by stimulating regulatory T (Treg) cells, attenuating T helper 2 (Th2) responses and inducing blocking antibodies (6). Conventional AIT with subcutaneous injections is effective, but consumes time and resources (7, 8). Therefore, despite its advantages in allergic rhinitis, AIT has not achieved its full potential. In Sweden, only 15/10,000 receive this treatment, and figures vary worldwide (9) .

AIT improves symptom, medication and combined symptom and medication scores (MS) in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (10). A randomized placebo-controlled trial with subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) with birch pollen allergen reduced the symptom score by 40% over placebo (11). In a review article of SCIT and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) trials, SCIT was reported to reduce nasal and ocular symptoms by 32–36% compared with placebo, whereas SLIT produced a reduction of 26–36% compared with placebo (12). In an open intralymphatic immunotherapy (ILIT) study, hay-fever patients received only three monthly allergen injections directly into the inguinal lymph nodes and an accumulated dose of only 3,000 standardized quantified units (SQ-U) in contrast to approximately 3,000,000 SQ-U with SCIT. Greater efficacy and safety, and faster relief of symptoms were observed after ILIT than after SCIT in an open study (13). The study was followed by a few smaller studies of which five (14-18) confirmed the conclusion from the original trial, whereas one showed no benefit of ILIT (19). Recently we performed a small open pilot study of 10 patients treated with ILIT for birch or grass pollen allergy. We concluded that ILIT was associated with improved quality of life, reduced symptoms, and beneficial immunological changes (18). However, further studies are required to determine whether ILIT can induce clinical effects similar to those of SCIT concerning rhinitis symptoms and how ILIT affects immune responses (20).

Aim

The objective was to evaluate whether ILIT can be an alternative to SCIT and SLIT. We also aimed to determine its safety, efficacy and immune modulatory effects, including changes in spontaneous and allergen-induced cytokine and chemokine production, and proportions of circulating T helper cell subsets.

Study design

A 3-year double-blind randomized clinical trial in 72 patients with rhinoconjunctivitis due to sensitization with birch and grass pollen allergens. The patients were given active treatment with birch or grass in one inguinal lymph node and active treatment with the other allergen or placebo in an inguinal lymph node on the other side. The study was without a clean placebo group as the pollen seasons are clearly separated in Sweden.

Study population eligibility criteria

In all, 126 patients were assessed for eligibility. Forty-four did not meet the inclusion criteria, 7 withdrew consent before treatment and 1 was excluded for unknown reasons (Fig. 1). Fifty-seven patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis due to birch and timothy pollen allergens were randomized in 2014 and 17 patients 2015. The 74 patients, including 35 females, were 19–53 years old and had seasonal allergic symptoms to birch and grass (Table 1), whereof 28 were randomized and followed in the Department of Medicine, County Hospital Ryhov, Jönköping. All participants were given ILIT at Allergy Center, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden. Their skin prick test was >3 mm and displayed IgE to birch and timothy >0.35 kU/L. Exclusion criteria were pulmonary disease, < 80 % of predicted forced expiratory volume at the end of the first second (FEV1), use of more than 800 µg inhaled budesonide (or equivalent) per day, pregnancy, severe arterial hypertension, autoimmunity, cardiovascular, hepatic, renal, upper airway or metabolic disease, mental incapacity, alcohol abuse, medication interfering with immune response or beta-blockers. From earlier studies we expected 8 out of 9 patients would improve at least 40%. With 40 active treated and 20 in the placebo group, with an alpha of 0.05 the power was calculated to 92%.

Intralymphatic immunotherapy

The patients were randomized into three groups receiving three doses at four-week intervals of 0.1 ml of birch pollen allergen on aluminum hydroxide (10,000 SQ-U/ml; ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark) and/or 0.1 ml of 5-grass pollen allergen on aluminum hydroxide (10,000 SQ-U/ml; ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark. 5-grass is a mix of equal amounts of SQ-U of Alopecurus pratensis (meadow foxtale), Dactylis glomerata (cocks’s foot), Festuca pratensis (meadow fescue), Lolium perenne (English ryegrass), and Phleum pratense (timothy). Each allergen dose was 1.000 SQ-U. A diluent from ALK was used as placebo. Thus the paricipants received two injections, one in each groin on three occasions. Patients were randomized in blocks of six, facilitated by Forum Östergötland. An unblinded nurse prepared and marked each syringe with a label providing randomization number, injection number and injection site. ILIT was administered by three clinicians (LA, PR, and UN). Ultrasound-led technique was used whereby a lymph node was punctured with a 27G (0.4 x 40 mm) needle. Histamine-1 blocker desloratadine tablet 5 mg was given 15 minutes prior to the injections.

Primary outcome measures

Symptoms and drug consumption were primary outcome measures. Symptoms were validated based on the rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score (RTSS) questionnaire (21). Drug consumption was measured using an MS questionnaire (see Additional file 1). The RTSS and MS were recorded by the patients at the end of the birch pollen season (approximately June 1^st) and at the end of the grass pollen season (approximately September 1^st) before treatment and for the following three and four year’s altogether. The birch- and grass pollen seasons are quite separate in Sweden. Also, when we planned the study, no daily symptom score was recommended.

Safety assessment

Safety was assessed as the recording of adverse events from the time of the first injection to three years after the last injection. A research nurse called the patients to assess adverse events during the first 5 days after each injection. Safety laboratory parameters were assessed at screening, after the third ILIT injections and after the first pollen season following treatment (Table 2).

Secondary outcome measures

Effects on quality of life were measured using the rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) (22) recorded as RTSS and MS, see above. Skin prick test reactions (Soluprick SQ Birch and Timothy, ALK-Abelló), allergen-specific IgE and allergen-specific IgG4 levels were analyzed (ImmunoCAP ThermoFisher, Uppsala, Sweden) before ILIT and in the fall the following three years. Conjunctival allergen provocation tests (CAPT) (23) were performed with timothy (Aquagen SQ Timothy, ALK-Abelló) before treatment and after the first pollen season after treatment. Due to lack of extract from the company planned CAPT were not performed after the third pollen season (Table 2).

Immune laboratory methods

Flow cytometry was used to analyze the CD4+ Th cell population in whole blood from the patients at randomization, and one and three years after completed ILIT. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells obtained from the patients at randomization and one year after ILIT were stimulated in vitro with birch and timothy allergen. Levels of IL-5, IL-10, IL-13, IFN-g, CCL17 and CXCL10 were quantified using Luminex. For logistic reasons immune tests were only analyzed from the 45 participants from the Allergy Center, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden. For detailed methods, experimental protocols, and statistical analyses, see the Methods section in this article’s supplementary information.

Statistics

Descriptive statistics for RQLQ, RTSS and MS are presented in medians and percentiles (p25 and p75), and in the graphs with medians and 95% confidence interval. Paired comparisons over time were calculated with Friedman’s test and adjusted with the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Descriptive statistics for IgE, IgG4, SPT and CAPT are presented in mean values and standard deviation (SD). Paired comparisons over time were calculated with repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni confidence interval adjustment. The answers to the 28 questions in RQLQ were explored with an item analysis, rendering a Cronbach’s Alpha at 0.933; thus the changes within the different domains of RQLQ were consistent. All analyses above were performed in SPSS version 25 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY, USA).

All flow cytometry, cytokine and chemokine data were analyzed using GraphPad Prism, version 8.3.1 (GraphPad software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA), and non-parametric tests were used. Comparisons at the different time points within the treatment groups were calculated using paired Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Unpaired Mann Whitney U test was used to compare differences between the treatment groups at the different time points. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

Seventy-four patients were randomized to ILIT with three doses of 0.1 ml of birch- and 5-grass pollen allergen extracts, or either and placebo at monthly intervals. One patient withdrew consent after the first injections and one was lost to follow-up after two injections. Seventy-two patients received all injections (Fig. 1). One patient was lost to follow-up two years after treatment and his RQLQ and RTSS had been halved and the patient had not required or used anti-allergic medication. Another patient was lost to follow-up three years after ILIT but two years after treatment the patient showed no improvement in RTSS, MS or RQLQ. Hence, 70 patients remained for analyses three years after treatment.

Symptoms and medication.

The symptoms measured by the RTSS and MS were significantly reduced three years post ILIT regardless of active allergen during the birch and grass pollen seasons. The reduction was already evident during the first season after ILIT, and the effect was sustained throughout the following three years. When combining all three groups, RTSS was reduced from 12.2 to 7.4 (-39%) and from 11.2 to 6.5 (-42%) three years after treatment during the birch and grass pollen seasons, respectively (p<0.05, Fig. 2c-d, see Additional file 4). When combining MS data from all three treatment groups together, it was significantly reduced from 9.4 before ILIT to 4.9 (-48%) and from 8.6 to 4.4 (-49%) three years after treatment during the birch and grass pollen seasons, respectively (p<0.01, Fig. 2e-f. For levels of RTSS and MS see Additional file 4). There were no sex-related differences in improvement (data not shown). The patients receiving ILIT in 2014 and 2015 responded almost in the same way (data not shown).

Adverse events

A total of 438 injections were given, of which 285 had an active substance containing allergen extract. Mild local pain at the injection site was the most common adverse event (AE) (Table 3). However, on three occasions, patients recorded severe pain from ILIT. One patient had moderate breathing problems without any fall in peak flow 30 minutes after the second ILIT (birch and 5-grass) and received the third treatment without any AEs. One patient experienced breathing problem two hours after physical activity, four days after the first injections, and was relieved with salbutamol inhalations, antihistamine and oral corticosteroids. The remaining injections followed without breathing problems. During the follow-up after ILIT, nine patients reported severe AEs, diverticulitis, miscarriage, burn injury, disc hernia, abdominal pain, hysterectomy, concussion, chest pain, and heart failure but none was judged to be related to ILIT. One patient showed hypothyroidism with elevated levels of antithyroid peroxidase, and thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor antibodies diagnosed in 2018, possibly related to the therapy given in 2014.

Health-related quality of life

The impact on health-related quality of life as measured by RQLQ was significantly reduced during the birch and grass pollen seasons, regardless of active ILIT with birch, 5-grass or both allergens. When combining all three groups, the RQLQ score was significantly reduced from 3.15 to 1.50 (-52%) and from 2.82 to 1.25 (-56%) three years after treatment during the birch and grass pollen seasons, respectively (p<0.01, Fig. 2a-b, see Additional file 4).

Conjunctival allergen provocation tests, IgE, IgG4 and skin prick tests

CAPT with timothy were performed before ILIT and the first year post ILIT, and showed a higher tolerance threshold in patients receiving ILIT with birch and 5-grass (p<0.05) and 5-grass and placebo (p<0.05), but not significant in patients who received ILIT with birch and placebo (p=0.19, see Additional file 4). The IgE levels to birch decreased from baseline to three years post ILIT from 25.45 to 17.71 kU/L (p<0.01 in the group treated with birch and placebo; in the group treated with 5-grass and placebo levels went from 33.18 to 24.42 (p<0.01). The levels of IgE to timothy decreased after ILIT with birch and placebo from 16.60 to 11.00 kU/L (p<0.05); similar, but non-significant, differences were determined after ILIT with 5-grass and placebo. IgE levels to both birch and timothy decreased slightly after ILIT with both birch and 5-grass. There were no significant decrease in the levels of total IgE (see Additional file 4). Levels of IgG4 antibodies to birch and timothy remained unchanged in all three treatment groups, except for IgG4 levels to timothy, which increased from in mean 0.36 to 0.44 mg/L (p<0.05) after ILIT with birch and 5-grass (see Additional file 4). Skin prick test for reactivity to birch and timothy allergens remained unchanged during the study period (see Additional file 4).

Circulating T helper cell subsets

Flow cytometry data revealed that the proportion of Th1 cells, defined as CD3⁺CD4⁺CD45RA^-Tbet⁺ cells, decreased between baseline and three years after treatment in the groups receiving ILIT with birch and placebo and 5-grass and placebo (p<0.05, Fig. 3a-b). An increase was observed after one year in the group receiving birch and 5-grass treatment (p<0.05, Fig. 3c). The proportion of Th2 cells, defined as CD3⁺CD4⁺CD45RA^-GATA3⁺ cells, increased three years after treatment in the group receiving birch and placebo ILIT (Fig. 3d, p<0.01) and in the group receiving both treatments (Fig. 3f, p<0.05). No other changes were observed in the group that received 5-grass and placebo ILIT (Fig. 3e). The proportion of Th17 cells, defined as CD3⁺CD4⁺ CD45RA^- RORC⁺ cells, decreased from baseline to three years post ILIT, independent of treatment (Fig. 3g-i, p<0.05). A significant reduction in Th17 cell frequencies was also observed from one year to three years after ILIT (p<0.01). The Th17 memory population was significantly higher at baseline in the birch and placebo group than in the other treatment groups (p<0.001, see Additional file 7, a). One year after treatment, a higher proportion of Th17 memory cells was observed in patients receiving 5-grass and placebo ILIT than in the birch and placebo group (p<0.05, ee Additional file 7, b). No significant differences between the treatment groups were observed at three years (Fig. S2c in the Supplementary information). The proportion of CD4^dimCD25^hiFoxP3⁺Tregs (Fig. 4a-c) and activated Tregs, defined as CD3⁺CD4⁺CD45RA^-FoxP3⁺⁺ cells (Fig. 4d-f), significantly increased between baseline and three years, independent of treatment. In contrast, the proportion of resting Tregs, defined as CD3⁺CD4⁺CD45RA⁺FoxP3⁺ cells, was not affected by ILIT (data not shown).

Allergen-induced cytokine and chemokine production

At baseline and one year post ILIT, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were harvested and stimulated with birch and grass allergen in vitro to measure cytokine and chemokine secretion (see Additional file 5 and 6). Both birch and grass allergens induced an increase in IL-5 production after birch and placebo ILIT (p<0.05, Fig. 5a and b, while IL-5 secretion did not change in the other treatment groups. Increased birch allergen induced IL-10 secretion was also observed after birch and placebo ILIT and 5-grass and placebo ILIT, whereas no significant change occurred in the birch and 5-grass group (Fig. 5c). ILIT did not affect grass-allergen IL-10 production (Fig. 5d). The spontaneous production of the CCL17 chemokine decreased after 5-grass and placebo ILIT and birch and 5-grass ILIT, but not after birch and placebo ILIT (p<0.05 Fig. 5e).

The current study is the largest double-blind randomized clinical ILIT trial to date. Patients with hay fever due to sensitization to both grass and birch pollen allergens received 5-grass and birch ILIT, 5-grass ILIT (with birch placebo), or birch ILIT (with grass placebo), thus with “active allergen placebo” as suggested in the ARIA-GA²LEN statement 2011 (24). The study revealed statistically significant clinical efficacy of ILIT in all three treatment groups. Participants reported improvements in RTSS, RQLQ as well as reduced MS in the first pollen season following ILIT. The effects were sustained throughout the following three follow-up seasons. We expected that the clinical efficacy of ILIT would mostly be observed for the targeted allergen, i.e. that patients receiving birch ILIT would not respond well during the grass pollen season and vice versa for patients with 5-grass ILIT. Surprisingly, patients receiving birch ILIT or 5-grass ILIT reported improved clinical symptoms during pollen seasons for which they had received no treatment. The clinical data were accompanied and supported by immunological changes such as an increase in the proportion of Treg cells and birch allergen included secretion of IL-10 after the treatment, as well as decreased spontaneous production of the Th2 chemokine CCL17. In contrast, the increase in the number of Th2 cells and the increased level of allergen-specific IL-5 production after birch ILIT were unexpected. As clinical improvement was sustained throughout our study, we suggest the results are not only due to a placebo effect, although placebo effects may be very strong in AIT-clinical trials (25). The clinical effect did not seem to be mediated by allergen-specific IgG4, as these antibody levels were not clearly elevated between pre-ILIT baseline and any of the time points thereafter. AIT efficacy has, however, often been reported to correlate with increased IgG4 in SCIT and SLIT (6). Moreover, in previous grass- or birch-pollen ILIT studies, only moderate or no changes in IgG4 were determined (15-19), whereas a significant increase in allergen-specific IgG4 was determined after ILIT with cat dander allergen (26). In contrast, the beneficial clinical responses correlated with an increase in the frequency of Tregs and increased secretion of IL-10. This potentially inhibitory bystander effect of Tregs and IL-10 might explain why the improved clinical outcome was not dependent on the ILIT allergen.

The birch pollen counts in south east Sweden in 2014 and 2018 were higher than in 2015, 2016, and 2017 (see Additional file 8). As fifty-five study subjects received ILIT in 2014 and seventeen received ILIT in 2015, differences in pollen count were leveled out. Patients who received ILIT in 2015 compared well in the following seasons to patients that received ILIT in 2014. Recall bias is limited as the patients recorded their RQLQ, RTSS and MS directly after the birch and grass pollen seasons, which are quite separate in Sweden, after enrollment, before ILIT and three years after, i.e. four years in all. Of seventy-two patients receiving ILIT, only two was lost to follow up after three years.

Most of the AEs were judged as mild or moderate, generally at the allergen injection site (Table 3). These are also a normal reactions after SCIT (27, 28). However, whereas patients receiving ILIT in the current study reported between none to three AEs, the number of AEs after SCIT can be up to 40–50. In a large study that analyzed AEs in 1,700 patients who had received SCIT, systemic AEs were reported in 3.3% of the injections (28). Edema and pruritus at the injection site, flush, urticaria, wheezing, dyspnea, eye pruritus, headache, and abdominal pain are common (1-10%) or very common (>10%) with SCIT, whereas oral pruritus, oral edema, rhinitis, headache, ear pruritus, throat irritation, asthma, abdominal pain, urticaria, and fatigue are common or very common with SLIT (29). ILIT seems to give AEs similar to those with SCIT, but because ILIT only needs three injections, the AEs can be reduced by up to 90% compared with SCIT.

One limitation of this study is that it had no true placebo group because all the participants received ILIT against, at least, one pollen. This was for ethical reasons as we did not want any patient with rather severe ARC to be without immunotherapy for four years. The approach with “active allergen placebo” was suggested in an ARIA-GA²LEN statement in 2011 (24) and supported by a recent SCIT study where dual-allergic patients were randomized to receive either grass or birch SCIT. Here, targeted but not untargeted allergen rhinoconjunctivitis symptoms were reduced in contrast to our results (30).

AIT renders significant improvements in rhinoconjunctivitis and conjunctival sensitivity that persist at least seven years after termination of treatment (7). In addition, AIT can prevent development of asthma (31, 32) and new sensitizations in mono-sensitized patients (12, 33). 5582% of patients were reported to abandon the treatment before completing the recommended course of therapy (34). With only three injections over eight weeks, ILIT may overcome the disadvantages of long duration of treatment and poor compliance.

The results of this study add to the hitherto positive studies and suggest that ILIT is effective and safe as treatment for pollen allergy. We will follow the patients in this study for symptoms, health-related quality of life and adverse events in an open study until 2024 (EPN 2017/302-31).

ILIT is an opportunity to make AIT more easily accessible to patients at a lower cost and less risk. There is a need for further studies to establish the optimal dose for efficacy and side effects (20).

AE Adverse event

AIT Allergen immunotherapy

aTreg Activated T regulatory cell

CAPT Conjunctival allergen provocation test

CCL17 CC motif chemokine ligand 17

CXCL10 CXC motif chemokine ligand 10

FENO Fraction of exhaled nitric oxide

FEV1% Forced expiratory volume at the end of the first second, percent of predicted value

FoxP3 Forkhead box P3

GATA3 GATA binding protein 3

ILIT Intralymphatic immunotherapy

IL-4 Interleukin-4

MS Medication score

PEF Peak expiratory flow

RORC Retinoic-acid related orphan receptor C

RQLQ Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire

RTSS Rhinoconjunctivitis total symptom score

rTreg Resting T regulatory cell

SPT Skin prick test

SCIT Subcutaneous immunotherapy

SLIT Sublingual immunotherapy

SQ-U Standardized quantified units

Tbet T-box expressed in T cell

Th T helper

Treg T regulatory cell

U-HCG Urine human chorionic gonadotropin

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr Camilla Janefjord for outstanding support and conducting the laboratory analyses and Gun Johansson for skillful monitoring. We would also like to thank our research nurses Agneta Carlsson, Ulrica Wikner, Erika Hallberg and Kicki Helander for excellent assistance. Region Östergötland, the Allergy Center in Linköping, the Medical Research Council of Southeast Sweden (FORSS), the Th Bergh Foundation, and the Asthma and Allergy Association are acknowledged for financial support.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests

LA has received honoraria as a speaker and/or adviser from AstraZeneca, Meda, Takeda, Teva, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Sanofi, GlaxsSmithKleine and Novartis. JB has received honoraria as a speaker from ALK. PN has received honoraria as a speaker and/or adviser from AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, and Takeda.

Funding

Region Östergötland, the Medical Research Council of Southeast Sweden (FORSS), the Th Bergh Foundation, and the Asthma and Allergy Association.

Authors’ contributions

Overall design of the study: LA, LN, UN, JB, MJ

Overall procurement of funds: LA, LN, MJ

Performed ILIT: LA, PR, UN

Clinical evaluation and sample collection: LA, JB, UN, PR, TT, LN

Designed the laboratory experiments: EA, MJ

Performed the laboratory work: EA, CA, GP, LP

Statistical calculations: LA, EA, BR

Overall analysis of the data: LA, EA, JB, UN, MJ, LN, PN, PJ

Drafting of the manuscript: LA

Critical review of the manuscript: all

Eriksson J, Ekerljung L, Rönmark E, Dahlen B, Ahlstedt S, Dahlen SE, et al. Update of prevalence of self-reported allergic rhinitis and chronic nasal symptoms among adults in Sweden. The clinical respiratory journal. 2012;6(3):159-68.
Warm K, Hedman L, Lindberg A, Lötvall J, Lundback B, Rönmark E. Allergic sensitization is age-dependently associated with rhinitis, but less so with asthma. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2015;136(6):1559-65.e1-2.
Newson RB, van Ree R, Forsberg B, Janson C, Lotvall J, Dahlen SE, et al. Geographical variation in the prevalence of sensitization to common aeroallergens in adults: the GA(2) LEN survey. Allergy. 2014;69(5):643-51.
Cardell LO, Olsson P, Andersson M, Welin KO, Svensson J, Tennvall GR, et al. TOTALL: high cost of allergic rhinitis-a national Swedish population-based questionnaire study. NPJ primary care respiratory medicine. 2016;26:15082.
Di Bona D, Bilancia M, Albanesi M, Caiaffa MF, Macchia L. Cost-effectiveness of grass pollen allergen immunotherapy in adults. Allergy. 2020.
Akdis CA, Akdis M. Mechanisms of allergen-specific immunotherapy and immune tolerance to allergens. The World Allergy Organization journal. 2015;8(1):17.
Roberts G, Pfaar O, Akdis CA, Ansotegui IJ, Durham SR, Gerth van Wijk R, et al. EAACI Guidelines on Allergen Immunotherapy: Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Allergy. 2018;73(4):765-98.
Klimek L, Pfaar O, Bousquet J, Senti G, Kundig T. Allergen immunotherapy in allergic rhinitis: current use and future trends. Expert review of clinical immunology. 2017;13(9):897-906.
Hoffmann HJ, Valovirta E, Pfaar O, Moingeon P, Schmid JM, Skaarup SH, et al. Novel approaches and perspectives in allergen immunotherapy. Allergy. 2017;72(7):1022-34.
Dhami S, Nurmatov U, Arasi S, Khan T, Asaria M, Zaman H, et al. Allergen immunotherapy for allergic rhinoconjunctivitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Allergy. 2017;72(11):1597-631.
Arvidsson MB, Löwhagen O, Rak S. Effect of 2-year placebo-controlled immunotherapy on airway symptoms and medication in patients with birch pollen allergy. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2002;109(5):777-83.
Durham SR, Penagos M. Sublingual or subcutaneous immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis? Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2016;137(2):339-49.e10.
Senti G, Prinz Vavricka BM, Erdmann I, Diaz MI, Markus R, McCormack SJ, et al. Intralymphatic allergen administration renders specific immunotherapy faster and safer: a randomized controlled trial. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(46):17908-12.
Patterson AM, Bonny AE, Shiels WE, 2nd, Erwin EA. Three-injection intralymphatic immunotherapy in adolescents and young adults with grass pollen rhinoconjunctivitis. Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. 2016;116(2):168-70.
Schmid JM, Nezam H, Madsen HH, Schmitz A, Hoffmann HJ. Intralymphatic immunotherapy induces allergen specific plasmablasts and increases tolerance to skin prick testing in a pilot study. Clinical and translational allergy. 2016;6:19.
Hylander T, Larsson O, Petersson-Westin U, Eriksson M, Kumlien Georen S, Winqvist O, et al. Intralymphatic immunotherapy of pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Respir Res. 2016;17:10.
Hellkvist L, Hjalmarsson E, Kumlien Georen S, Karlsson A, Lundkvist K, Winqvist O, et al. Intralymphatic immunotherapy with 2 concomitant allergens, birch and grass: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2018;142(4):1338-41 e9.
Ahlbeck L, Ahlberg E, Nyström U, Björkander J, Jenmalm MC. Intralymphatic allergen immunotherapy against pollen allergy: A 3-year open follow-up study of 10 patients. Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. 2018;121(5):626-7.
Witten M, Malling HJ, Blom L, Poulsen BC, Poulsen LK. Is intralymphatic immunotherapy ready for clinical use in patients with grass pollen allergy? The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2013;132(5):1248-52 e5.
Senti G, Freiburghaus AU, Larenas-Linnemann D, Hoffmann HJ, Patterson AM, Klimek L, et al. Intralymphatic Immunotherapy: Update and Unmet Needs. International archives of allergy and immunology. 2019;178(2):141-9.
Devillier P, Chassany O, Vicaut E, de Beaumont O, Robin B, Dreyfus JF, et al. The minimally important difference in the Rhinoconjunctivitis Total Symptom Score in grass-pollen-induced allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Allergy. 2014;69(12):1689-95.
Juniper EF, Thompson AK, Ferrie PJ, Roberts JN. Validation of the standardized version of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 1999;104(2 Pt 1):364-9.
Fauquert J-L, Jedrzejczak-Czechowicz M, Rondon C, Calder V, Silva D, Kvenshagen BK, et al. Conjunctival allergen provocation test : guidelines for daily practice. Allergy. 2017;72(1):43-54.
Bousquet J, Schünemann HJ, Bousquet PJ, Bachert C, Canonica GW, Casale TB, et al. How to design and evaluate randomized controlled trials in immunotherapy for allergic rhinitis: an ARIA-GA(2) LEN statement. Allergy. 2011;66(6):765-74.
Pfaar O, Agache I, Bergmann K, Bindslev-Jensen C, Bousquet J, Creticos P, et al. Placebo effects in allergen immunotherapy – an EAACI Task Force Position Paper. Allergy.n/a(n/a).
Freiberger SN, Zehnder M, Gafvelin G, Grönlund H, Kündig TM, Johansen P. IgG4 but no IgG1 antibody production after intralymphatic immunotherapy with recombinant MAT-Feld1 in human. Allergy. 2016;71(9):1366-70.
Kowalski ML, Ansotegui I, Aberer W, Al-Ahmad M, Akdis M, Ballmer-Weber BK, et al. Risk and safety requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology: World Allergy Organization Statement. The World Allergy Organization journal. 2016;9(1):33.
Schiappoli M, Ridolo E, Senna G, Alesina R, Antonicelli L, Asero R, et al. A prospective Italian survey on the safety of subcutaneous immunotherapy for respiratory allergy. Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2009;39(10):1569-74.
Aasbjerg K, Dalhoff KP, Backer V. Adverse Events During Immunotherapy Against Grass Pollen-Induced Allergic Rhinitis - Differences Between Subcutaneous and Sublingual Treatment. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015;117(2):73-84.
Wagenmann M, Worm M, Akboga Y, Karjalainen M, Hohlfeld JM. Randomized immunotherapy trial in dual-allergic patients using "active allergen placebo" as control. Allergy. 2019;74(8):1480-9.
Jacobsen L, Niggemann B, Dreborg S, Ferdousi HA, Halken S, Host A, et al. Specific immunotherapy has long-term preventive effect of seasonal and perennial asthma: 10-year follow-up on the PAT study. Allergy. 2007;62(8):943-8.
Valovirta E, Petersen TH, Piotrowska T, Laursen MK, Andersen JS, Sorensen HF, et al. Results from the 5-year SQ grass sublingual immunotherapy tablet asthma prevention (GAP) trial in children with grass pollen allergy. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology. 2018;141(2):529-38.e13.
Pajno GB, Barberio G, De Luca F, Morabito L, Parmiani S. Prevention of new sensitizations in asthmatic children monosensitized to house dust mite by specific immunotherapy. A six-year follow-up study. Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2001;31(9):1392-7.
Bender BG, Oppenheimer J. The special challenge of nonadherence with sublingual immunotherapy. The journal of allergy and clinical immunology In practice. 2014;2(2):152-5.
Hedenström H, Malmberg P, Fridriksson HV. Reference values for lung function tests in men: regression equations with smoking variables. Upsala journal of medical sciences. 1986;91(3):299-310.
Hedenström H, Malmberg P, Agarwal K. Reference values for lung function tests in females. Regression equations with smoking variables. Bulletin europeen de physiopathologie respiratoire. 1985;21(6):551-7.

TABLE 1 Baseline characteristics by treatment group, presented as mean and standard deviation

	Birch + 5-grass	Birch + placebo	5-grass + placebo
n	23	25	26
Female	11 (49%)	12 (48%)	12 (46%)
Mean age at study start	38.1 ± 10.2	36.8 ± 10.0	34.8 ± 9.9
Min/max age at study start	19.3/53.3	21.0/53.4	19.5/51.4
Other sensitizations *	2.6 ± 1.1	1.8 ± 1.3	2.7 ± 0.9
FEV1%	90.5 ± 10.0	97.3 ± 9.7	91.8 ± 7.6
FENO ppb	24.5 ± 27.0	22.2 ± 17.8	22.6 ± 15.7

* SPT with mugwort, cat, dog, horse, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus, Dermatophagoides farinae, Cladosporium, Alternaria and Aspergillus extracts (Soluprick SQ Birch and Timothy, ALK-Abelló, Hørsholm, Denmark)

FEV1%: forced expiratory volume at the end of the first second, percent of predicted value (35, 36)

FENO-ppb: fraction of exhaled nitric oxide in parts per billion

TABLE 2 Scheme of schedule procedures

	Screening	Randomi-zation	Intervention			Follow-up
	Visit 1	Visit 2	Visit 3	Visit 4	Visit 5	Visit 6	Visit 7	Visit 8
Informed consent	x
Phys. examination	x	x				x	x	x
Blood pressure, pulse, PEF	x	x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Safety tests¹	x	x				x
Immunol. tests²	x	x				x		x
SPT	x	x				x	x	x
Lung function	x	x				x	x	x
U-HCG		x	x	x	x
RQLQ, RTSS, MS³	x	x				x	x	x
CAPT⁴		x				x		x
AE		x	x	x	x	x	x	x
Concom. med	x	x	x	x	x	x
Diary teaching ⁵	x				x	x	x
ILIT			x	x	x
Tel contact⁶			x	x	x

Visit 1: Pre-ILIT, pre-season. Visit 2: pre-ILIT, post-season. Visit 3; 7-35d post visit 2. Visit 4: 28-42d post visit 3. Visit 5: 28-42d post visit 4. Visit 6: Fall year 1. Visit 7: Fall year 2. Visit 8: Fall year 3.

¹Haematology: leukocytes, leukocyte differentiation (neutrophil, eosinophils, basophils, lymphocytes) haemoglobin and platelets at visits 1, 2, and 6. Coagulation blood tests at visits 1 and 2 (PK-INR and APTT).

² Total IgG and subsets (lgG1-G4), total IgE, allergen-specific IgE and IgG4, and other immunological tests.

³RTSS, RQLQ and MS were measured after the birch pollen season (approx. Jun 1st) and after the grass pollen season (approx. Aug 1st)

⁴ The conjunctival challenge tests (CAPT) with timothy were performed according to the EAACI guidelines (23). Due to lack of extract from the company planned CAPT were not performed after the third pollen season

⁵ The diary had space for description of the adverse events (AEs) since the last visit.

⁶ Two to five days after visit 35, telephone contact was made considering symptoms after the allergen injections.

All inclusion and exclusion criteria were checked at visits 15.

PEF: peak expiratory flow, SPT: skin prick test, U-HCG: urine human chorionic gonadotropin (only in females). ILIT: Intralymphatic immunotheraphy.

TABLE 3 Cumulative data for adverse events

Organ system	Frequency	Adverse events
General symptoms and/or symptoms from the injection site	Very common (>1/10; 162 of the 216 visits, whereof 94 only on one injection site)	Immediate or late local reactions, swelling, pain at the injection
Immune system	Very common (>1/10: 29 of 216 visits)	Immediate or late systemic reactions, nasal congestion, itch, ocular itch, eczema
Immune system	Rare (1/1 000 – 1/10 000; 0 of the 216 visits)	Anaphylaxis, anaphylactic chock

Including 216 visits, hence 432 injections whereof 1/3 received ILIT with two allergens and 2/3 received ILIT with one allergen and placebo.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Intralymphatic Immunotherapy: A 3-year Randomized, Double-blind Study in 72 Patients With Allergic Rhinitis Due to Birch and Grass

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

List Of Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

TABLE 2 Scheme of schedule procedures

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1