Departments of Medicine and Biomedical & Molecular Science, Queen's University, Kingston, ON Canada ; Allergy Research Unit, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON Canada.
Departments of Medicine and Biomedical & Molecular Science, Queen's University, Kingston, ON Canada.
Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2015 Apr 24;11(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s13223-015-0082-0. eCollection 2015.
The Nasal Allergen Challenge (NAC) model allows the study of Allergic Rhinitis (AR) pathophysiology and the proof of concept of novel therapies. The Allergic Rhinitis - Clinical Investigator Collaborative (AR-CIC) aims to optimize the protocol, ensuring reliability and repeatability of symptoms to better evaluate the therapies under investigation.
20 AR participants were challenged, with 4-fold increments of their respective allergens every 15 minutes, to determine the qualifying allergen concentration (QAC) at which the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) of ≥10/12 OR a Peak Nasal Inspiratory Flow (PNIF) reduction of ≥50% from baseline was achieved. At the NAC visit, the QAC was used in a single challenge and TNSS and PNIF were recorded at baseline, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, and hourly up to 12 hours. 10 additional ragweed allergic participants were qualified at TNSS of ≥8/12 AND ≥50% PNIF reduction; the Cumulative Allergen Challenge (CAC) of all incremental doses was used during the NAC visit. 4 non-allergic participants were challenged with the highest allergen concentration.
In the QAC study, a group qualified by only meeting PNIF criteria achieved lower TNSS than those achieving either TNSS criteria or PNIIF+TNSS (p<0.01). During the NAC visit, participants in both studies reached their peak symptoms at 15minutes followed by a gradual decline, significantly different from non-allergic participants. The "PNIF only" group experienced significantly lower TNSS than the other groups during NAC visit. QAC and CAC participants did not reach the same peak TNSS during NAC that was achieved at screening. QAC participants qualifying based on TNSS or TNSS+PNIF managed to maintain PNIF scores.
Participants experienced reliable symptoms of AR in both studies, using both TNSS and PNIF reduction as part of the qualifying criteria proved better for qualifying participants at screening. Phenotyping based on pattern of symptoms experienced is possible and allows the study of AR pathophysiology and can be applied in evaluation of efficacy of a novel medication. The AR-CIC aims to continue to improve the model and employ it in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials.
鼻过敏原挑战 (NAC) 模型允许研究过敏性鼻炎 (AR) 的病理生理学,并证明新疗法的概念。过敏性鼻炎-临床研究者合作组织 (AR-CIC) 的目的是优化方案,确保症状的可靠性和可重复性,以更好地评估正在研究的疗法。
对 20 名 AR 参与者进行挑战,每 15 分钟递增 4 倍各自的过敏原,以确定总鼻部症状评分 (TNSS) ≥ 10/12 或峰值鼻吸气流量 (PNIF) 自基线降低≥50%的合格过敏原浓度 (QAC)。在 NAC 就诊时,使用 QAC 进行单次挑战,并在基线、15 分钟、30 分钟、1 小时和 1 小时后每小时记录 TNSS 和 PNIF,直至 12 小时。另外 10 名豚草过敏参与者符合 TNSS≥8/12 和≥50%PNIF 降低的标准;在 NAC 就诊期间使用累积过敏原挑战 (CAC) 的所有递增剂量。4 名非过敏参与者用最高过敏原浓度进行挑战。
在 QAC 研究中,仅符合 PNIF 标准的一组的 TNSS 低于同时符合 TNSS 标准或 PNIIF+TNSS 标准的组(p<0.01)。在 NAC 就诊期间,两项研究的参与者均在 15 分钟时达到症状高峰,随后逐渐下降,与非过敏参与者显著不同。在 NAC 就诊期间,“仅 PNIF”组的 TNSS 明显低于其他组。在 NAC 就诊期间,QAC 和 CAC 参与者没有达到筛查时达到的相同的 TNSS 峰值。基于 TNSS 或 TNSS+PNIF 进行资格鉴定的 QAC 参与者设法维持 PNIF 评分。
两项研究中,参与者均经历了可靠的 AR 症状,使用 TNSS 和 PNIF 降低作为资格鉴定标准的一部分,在筛查时对参与者进行资格鉴定效果更好。基于所经历症状模式进行表型分析是可能的,并且可以研究 AR 的病理生理学,并可应用于评估新型药物的疗效。AR-CIC 的目的是继续改进该模型,并将其应用于 2 期和 3 期临床试验。