4.6 Article

House dust mite sublingual tablet is effective and safe in patients with allergic rhinitis

Journal

ALLERGY
Volume 72, Issue 3, Pages 435-443

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/all.12996

Keywords

allergic rhinitis; Average Adjusted Symptom Score; clinical study; house dust mite; sublingual immunotherapy tablet

Funding

  1. Shionogi
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H04987] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: House dust mite (HDM) is the major indoor allergen for allergic diseases such as allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma. Although sublingual immunotherapy is a curative treatment for HDM-induced AR, data from large-scale studies are limited. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of HDM tablets in adolescent and adult patients (aged 12-64 years) with HDM-induced AR with or without intermittent asthma. Methods: In a double-blind trial in Japan, 968 subjects were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to 300 index of reactivity (IR), 500 IR, or placebo groups. The primary endpoint was the Average Adjusted Symptom Score (AASS) in the last eight weeks of the 52-week treatment. Secondary endpoints included individual nasal and ocular symptom scores, rescue medication use, and the Japanese Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (JRQLQ) scores. Results: The AASS in the last eight weeks of treatment significantly improved in both the 300 IR and the 500 IR groups compared to that in the placebo group (P < 0.001). In the 300 IR group, the onset of action occurred at week 8-10. All four nasal symptoms significantly improved in both active treatment groups; rescue medication use and JRQLQ outcome improved in the 300 IR group. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild, and 16 serious AEs (SAEs) were reported; however, none of them were drug-related. Conclusions: One-year treatment with 300 IR and 500 IR HDM tablets was effective without major safety concerns. The recommended therapeutic dose for AR is 300 IR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available