4.4 Article

Assessment of specific immunotherapy efficacy using a novel placebo score-based method

Journal

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 109, Issue 5, Pages 342-+

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2012.08.013

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Allergy Therapeutics (UK) Ltd, Worthing, West Sussex, UK
  2. Medical Research Council [G1000758, G1000758B] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In trials of allergen immunotherapy, allergen exposure is typically assessed by pollen counts, but these may misrepresent exposure if performed remotely from multiple study centers. Objective: To assess whether symptomatology in placebo-treated patients is a better measure of local allergen burden at individual centers in such trials. Methods: Data from a multicenter, placebo-controlled trial of preseasonal grass pollen immunotherapy were reanalyzed to identify the 4 weeks at each center in which the placebo-treated subjects had the highest combined symptom/medication scores (CSMS). The difference in CSMS between active and placebo groups was compared during the 4 peak placebo score weeks (PlSW) and the 4 peak pollen count weeks (PoCW). Results: The benefit of immunotherapy over placebo in the PlSW analysis (18.5%) was greater than in the PoCW analysis (13.6%), with increased statistical significance (P = .0001,.0038, respectively). Similar improved discrimination was observed when analyzing benefits in subgroups of patients with severe symptoms, a high disease burden, and in different geographical locations. Conclusion: This novel PlSW analysis results in better discrimination of the effects of allergen immunotherapy compared with placebo and may be widely applicable in similar studies, both prospectively and retrospectively. (C) 2012 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available